Dear Ruth Kelly,
Looks like you’ve hit another stumbling block and this time it cost hundreds of lives every year. In my humble opinion, the debate over lowering the drink-drive alcohol limit raised again in today’s papers has got to be one of the simplest debates to solve in modern politics, and yet Labour just keeps pandering to anyone who complains instead of doing what’s right.
The current limit of 80mg per 100ml of blood is inadequate and costs lives. With years worth of research, how can the government not reduce the limit to 50mg, if not lower? Even though the latest research suggests that moving to 50mg could save over 100 lives a year and could save over £100 million for our economy, you’re worried about drink-drivers losing their licenses and possibly losing their jobs. All I have to say to that is ’boo hoo’ - driving under the influence kills over 500 people every year on our roads and you have sympathy for them?! What?! Evidently, the thought of someone losing their job after drink-driving is far more worrying that a drink-driver mowing down an innocent person or causing a pile-up with fatal consequences.
We have the highest blood-alcohol limit of any major European nation and the lowest level of breath-testing in Europe but all you’re worried about it is people losing their licenses and damn those who get killed by these selfish idiots behind the wheel. Well done Ruth, another superb decision.
Yours sincerely,
A.Tory
9 responses so far ↓
Blue Eyes // April 21, 2008 at 1:40 pm
We may have the highest blood-alcohol limit in Europe but we also have the lowest incidence of drunk-driving. Lowering the limit does not corrolate with safer roads. The lower limit is a red-herring and better enforcement and a renewal of the social stigma is what is needed not headline grabbing “initiatives”.
Letters From A Tory // April 21, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Surely we have the lowest incidence of drunk driving precisely because of the high limits?!?!
According to the research today, lowering the limit would lead to safer roads as the current limit allows people to consume enough alcohol for it to affect their judgement. Physically smaller people in particular can be seriously affected by relatively small amounts of alcohol, so I strongly disagree with your assertion. More enforcement would certainly be welcome, but the limit is too high and puts people’s lives at risk.
Blue Eyes // April 21, 2008 at 3:32 pm
I agree, less driving under the influence is A Good Thing. Let’s have some road safety stats to compare: let’s say compare France with the UK: similar populations. I suspect that there are two groups of drivers in the UK: those who would never drive after a drink and those who couldn’t give a monkey’s what the law says who drive around half-cut regularly. I don’t think there is an in-between with people saying “ooh, the limit is 0.8 so I can’t have that final quarter of a pint”.
I didn’t say “lowest incidence of drivers over the legal limit” did I? I said “drunk-driving”.
Letters From A Tory // April 21, 2008 at 4:14 pm
Cultural attitudes towards alcohol are always going to be important in any country which tries to address this, but I still stand by my view that having an alcohol limit of 80mg, even when there is clear scientific evidence of a dangerous effect on some people, is shockingly irresponsible.
John East // April 21, 2008 at 7:27 pm
Be practical. The last thing our amoral socialist politicians are interested in is saving lives. If they were concerned several tens of thousand of lives could be saved by simply cleaning up our hospitals.
Our government is only interested in revenue. Smoking, binge drinking, drink driving etc. will only be incrementally leant upon to ensure a steady, or preferably growing revenue. Heaven forbid all those at 1mg to 50mg should be taken off the roads immediately. They are needed for their motoring taxes and speeding fines.
Letters From A Tory // April 21, 2008 at 8:05 pm
I find it hard to disagree entirely with your cynicism. However, if money is the only issue then we could follow France’s example and fine those caught in between 50-80mg (preferably very heavily).
I’d still prefer to see them off the roads, though.
Candid // April 22, 2008 at 2:16 pm
‘well you can have one glass of wine’ etc. sends very confusing messages as glasses are very different sizes (a similar confusion is brought about when using an American baking recipe and its unfathomable ‘cup measurements’). I think it’s time for a total ban (also for cup measurments, unless its lingerie!)
Ian // April 22, 2008 at 6:45 pm
As an Old Labour man, I actually agree with a lot you say - but please, it’s “licence” with a “c”. Hope you can get a refund on the private education!
Letters From A Tory // April 22, 2008 at 9:00 pm
*hang head in shame*
Leave a Comment