I'm not much of a social drinker, but I wouldn't support a limit of zero. Some people will probably register a positive amount all the time for other reasons than drinking. One or two units seems a reasonable compromise between hazard and the nanny state.

The thing is, to still be over the limit the morning after, you've got to have had an absolute skinful the night before.

Scotland reduced the DD limit considerably a few years ago (just checked, 2014). I've not seen any figures as to DD convictions or accident rates since then, however, so no idea if it had any effect - and that's the real test.

If the Scottish limit was shown to reduce DD-related accidents and fatalities, then I'd be perfectly happy for it to be brought in for the rest of the UK too.

However, I suspect the reason that people aren't crowing about the new, reduced accident rate north of the wall is that it doesn't exist. Because if it did, then you can bet that 'interest groups' would be making the most of it.

The "morning after" is a problem - other than using a breathalyser, no-one can assess how much alcohol is left in their system. Changing the UK (not Scotland) limit would make no difference to this because it would still be impossible to assess - even if the limit was zero.

With an 8 hour gap, say midnight to 8am,even consuming 12 units the night before would put the average person over the limit in the morning - that's about 5 pints of regular beer/lager, not exactly a skinful.

Does Scotland have enough evidence yet to make a firm conclusion about the reduction in their limit ?

Edited by RT on 17/10/2017 at 11:35

Its all very well saying that a limit of zero will reduce deaths. It could well do, but so could a blanket 20 mph speed limit on all roads including motorways. Or forcing people to retake their driving test every year. Or banning people over 70 from driving. Or people under 30 years. Or any one of a number of measures that could be applied.

So ... its all about balancing risk and liberties. And your attitude may be different if you live in the city to if you live in the country.

The contributory factors are here: www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/ras50-...s for anyone who wants to take a look. I haven't seen any data for how many lives might be saved by reducing the limit.

There is a lot of evidence that the seriously risky drink-drivers will take no notice of the limits, whatever they are. I believe that high-risk offenders are deemed to be those who have a blood-alcohol level of 2½ times the current legal limit. The latest figures I've seen suggest there were more than 40,000 such offenders in the UK each year.

This report is interesting: www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attac...f

From the Long term trends section: "Detailed reporting on drink drive accidents and casualties started in 1979. At that time there were around 19,470 drink drive accidents, accounting for nearly 8% of all personal injury accidents in Great Britain. By 1993 the number of drink drive accidents recorded each year had halved to less than 10,000 and this number has continued to fall in the past twenty years.

Drink drive accidents have had larger falls; down 71 per cent since 1979.

It is therefore likely that some drink drive initiatives have been effective in reducing the number of drink drive accidents. As well as observing a decline in the number of drink drive accidents there has also been a reduction in the severity of drink drive accidents. In 1979 the proportion of drink drive accidents that resulted in at least one fatality was 7 per cent; by 2015 this has fallen to 3 per cent."

So on balance ... I don't see a huge need to reduce the limit. The idiots that drive when over the limit are just as likely to ignore a lower limit as they are to ignore the current one.

There are other ways of reducing deaths which might be more effective. Mandatory top-up training every few years, perhaps? I think it is crazy that I can pass a drivign test at 17 and never have to have another hour of training, ever.

Lowering the limit attacks the wrong target - the serial drink-drivers who break thr law now and will continue to. It attacks those of us who drive after drinking one unit.

I don't know whether lowering the limit in Scotland has reduced accidents, but I'm told it has made life hard for pubs and restaurants who have seen a downturn in business (this was in Aberdeenshire but is presumably typical).

Not sure of other people's experiences, but despite numerous, and it seems, very successful government campaigns to reduce drink-driving, there remians a few hardcore offenders, who frankly get away with it because Plod only bothers to carry out roadside checks at Christmas to New Year and once or twice the rest of the year. Whether this is due to budgets or poor management (see Wiltshire Police vs Ted Heath) is another story altogether.

I doubt if lowering the limits will catch that many extra people - I suppose it dependes upon whether studies into what level of alcohol in the blood (presumably percentage wise) have given us a definitive answer as to what is a 'safe level', given that some over the counter medicines have a small level of the stuff in them, but there hasn't been some national outcry (including by medical professionals) about their use in conjunction with driving a vehicle. Isn't the limit in Scotland lower than in the rest of UK - how is that panning out?

I think the Police have higher priorities on our roads than nicking a few more people who probably aren't doing much wrong, such as careless, reckless and dangerous driving (not caused by alcohol). I still think it would help to do something similar to in Australia, byt limiting the cars newly-qualified drivers (up to say 3 years and with a clean licence, otherwise its reset) to lower power-to-weight ratios.

In my view, inexperienced (mostly young and male) drivers showing off to friends on a Saturday night out (not alcohol-fuelled) in a car they cannot skillfully control and speeding is far more dangerous than someone 5% over a lowered alcohol limit.

I think whatever limit is introduced the hardcore drink drivers will carry on as before. Just as worrying is the problem of drug users driving, even if you ban some peolple they just carry on regardsless.

No, unless the problem is people just under the existing limit, which seems unlikely. Are there any data?