To wonder why they haven't banned alcohol for drivers?

[HonestyBox]

Probably loads of threads on this but can't see one.

Having just heard the news that the government has today decided not to lower the alcohol limit for drivers I'm left scratching my head.

I have heard anecdotal evidence that people's estimations of how much they can drink when driving vary wildly. A glass of wine is often one third of a bottle and lager/beer has a huge range of alcohol contents. I just think it would send a clear message to drivers about the dangers of alcohol if it was banned altogether when driving. It would send a much clearer message, as the cigarette ban did - no smoking inside at all.

I'm not sure what the reason for this decision is but I'll hazard a guess that it is to do with damage to businesses and loss of tax revenue. I don't find this an acceptable reason and, personally I'd like to live in a world where our roads were safer than they are now.

What do you think aibu?

Btw, I'm not anti alcohol, enjoy a glass of wine .

Britain has one of the best compliances with drink/driving laws by the public i.e. a very low % of people are caught breaking this law.

In many countries that totally ban drink driving, the % of people caught drink driving who would breach our limits, is much higher.

I have read evidenced arguments that therefore say, we will have a lower rate of drink driving if we keep the current limit - as opposed to banning drink driving. Much of this debate has been going on amongst people responsible for road safety.

So I really don't think it is anything to do with businesses.

That is the problem isn't it - that very few people are caught. The news report said that money should go into efforts to catch more people, and that not many people were being caught - not that there is already good compliance.

Agree with you, HonestyBox, the level should be absolutely zero, that way there are no mistakes with people guessing that they're ok to drive.

I'm not anti-alcohol either, just anti-alcohol for drivers at any time.

The fact that countries with zero alcohol for drivers have higher rate of capture is to do with the stopping and checking of drivers, nothing to do with the compliance of drivers or otherwise.

I'd be all in favour of that. Agree with OP

Actually I am going to go against the flow here. I absolutely do not condone drink driving in any way shape or form but I do think that adults should be trusted to make judgements and am all for clear info to be posted on strengths/no of units etc. Its not that difficult to know how big a glass of wine is or how strong the beer is - it does say on the pump. There are very few reported cases where a person is caught just over the limit and thought they were fine - they are usually many times over the limit - ie they were never intending to avoid driving drunk. There are many occasions when it is nice to have one or a half a one - a wedding for instance. What about desserts with alcohol in them like Tiramisu? A bigger problem I think is the morning after issue when people can still be over the limit and not realise - there needs to be more info on this.

It's unworkable, you could still have trace amounts from a couple of glasses the night before or from cough medicine, mouthwash or liquer puddings like tiramisu.

So it's a stupid idea. And it's about impairment, in tests your judgement is not impaired till after at least a couple if units (actually it was 4) but they err on the side of caution.

We should be far more concerned about dope, extremely common and impairs reactions quicker than alcohol.

The legal limit for alcohol in this country is 35 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath.

The point where you begin to be impaired is 13 microgrammes. Therefore emergency service drivers must be below 13.

In most police forces although the legal limit is 35 if you have anything up to 39 you will generally not be charged. From 40 up to 49 you will have blood taken to confirm you are over and from 50 up you will automiatically be charged. There is a lot of leeway in this country. I dont know about lowering the limit but I think if the limit is 35 microgrammes then that is the point people should be prosecuted rather than letting it go higher.

I think people get very confused as they think having a limit means they can drink, they just dont know how much so end up going over the limit. The better option especially with modern, high strength drinks is not to drink at all, so a zero limit might press that home but equally the actual limit should be publicised a lot more.

Drug drivers are a big danger and unfortunately the law as it stands requires that the police prove that the driver is 'impaired'. Someone could be high as a kite but unless it can be proved their driving is impaired there is nothing that can be done whereas the mere presence of too much alcohol is an offence. They might look more at changing the drug driving laws to make it an absolute offence to drive with certain concentrations of certain drugs rather than anything else.

Not being funny but the main drivers who drink too much and drive will probably continue to do so even if it was banned as they really don't care, or don't think anything bad will happen to them or that they will be caught. Why should I be penalised for having a single glass of wine with a meal if I am out, my partner doesn't drive and there is no public transport except extortionate taxis to get us home as we live in the country.

This is as bad as lets double the price of alcohol to stop alcoholics drinking too much, when what will really happen is they will live on even less food to fund their drink habit. Why should everyone be penalised because other people have no self control?