Seen a lot of talk about this today . People are welcoming the decision with open arms . It raises a question or two .

If you are stopped and found to be just under the limit in England you are ok , but drive north and get stopped again ten mins later you could be just over their limit and you are going to get a ban . If you are below the English limit , but over the Scot one , will you be banned from driving in England ?

The biggest point they keep making is that ONE out of every SEVEN deaths on Scottish roads is caused by drunk drivers . That means you are SEVEN times more likely to die on a road in Scotland in an accident involving a sober driver . Wouldn't they be better off targeting the other six drivers instead of the one that has had a beer or three
Just asking .

Ive always said that in the 1970s when every driver on the road after 10pm was rat-faced then if perchance you were driving sober then YOU were the dangerous one.



Back to now - I rarely have a drink at all these days (allergic to alcohol) so it doesn't bother me, in fact over the last 20 years of almost abstinence I've driven at night with a yearning to be stopped by the police and asked the question "When did you last have a drink sir ?" to which my pre-prepared reply is "1996 officer, how good is your breathalyser ?"

It seems a bit over the top to me. IIRC the current drink drive limit in England is basically about 2 pints (I know it depends on a lot of factors but I think it's around that level).
I know there is no limit (other than zero) at which there is no effect on concentration/ability etc but I think you can have a pint and be no worse off than if you're a bit tired, a bit poorly, talking to other passengers, listening to music etc.
Personally I just get the feeling that because drink driving is easily detectable/evidence easily gathered and there's a hard & fast limit, then the police find it easier to go after this than other factors, and I'm often suspicious of statistics that show so many accidents were caused by drink driving.

That's not to excuse it, especially those who are well over the limit and simply don't care about the consequences. I'm perfectly happy for the system to very harshly punish these people. But then I think excessive speeding is just as dangerous yet someone found to be doing over 100mph is rarely punished as harshly as someone found to be just over the drink drive limit.

It's 2015 next month, cars these days should really have a 'I'm frunk' switch where you set the sat nav, wee yourself and fall asleep.

Of course you will.



And how do you propose they do that?

Zero tolerance for driving under the influence and if caught a lifetime driving ban.

The technology exists to prevent banned drivers ever getting to drive again but of course it costs and that is what preventing such an introduction.

Lets face it the "driving test" is a joke, look at how many incompetent drivers get through but couldn't pass a GCSE and are only just articulate, yet they are "capable" of using one of the most lethal weapons on the planet.

It will have no effect on Jimme', who thinks nothing of driving after 8 pints of Tenants super strength.

These people are generally the problem, not the bloke who has a couple of pints of weak bitter after work before driving home.

Scotland is a country with huge social problems that stem from the excessive consumption of alcohol. Lowering the drink drive limit is not going to solve them.

Anyway...if Sturgeon has her way that place will be nigh-on a socialist state by 2020. And the drink-drive limit will be the least of their problems.

I would be interested to know the % of people within the 80 limit that are involved in accidents?

The driving test isn't a joke, as driving is very little to do with intelligence and has nothing whatsoever to do with how articulate someone is. The driving test is exactly what it says it is. It's a one-off test of a persons ability to control a car.
It doesn't claim to be a guarantee that everyone who passes it will always drive in that manner for ever.

As for a lifetime ban, why for being slightly over the limit but not for, say, driving at 100mph?

A couple of points...

As "one of the most lethal weapons on the planet" a car doesn't even come close.

If you wish for zero tolerance then be prepared to pay more tax, a lot more tax, as every town and city in the country demands more and better public transport, we simply don't have the sort of passenger carrying capability anywhere outside of London that will cope with the sort of numbers that will still need to get to work every day, including weekends, but will not use their own car because they had a drink or two the night before, or that are taking medications that may affect a breath test, or that want to stay out after 10pm, or for gods sake after 8pm on Christmas Eve in the city that I live in - no buses after 8pm on Christmas Eve, what sort of public transport system is that ?

So yes, zero tolerance, but hike up the basic tax rate to 30% from a zero starting point to pay for it.

I've always gone by the rule that if I'm driving I don't have an alcoholic drink at all. Simple logic and it seems to work.

You understand what factors are causing these deaths - if its speed then increase the penalties for speeding, its not rocket science

Zero tolerance is unenforceable - so that is not an option.

The current driving test is the toughest it has ever been - to say it is joke is simple ludicrous. What the problem is you cannot legislate for testoeroned young men lacking experience. Even if you put the age up how do the new drivers get the essential experience without the driving on the road.

One thing you could do is put a curfew and restrictions on drivers for a period of time after passing their test, as they do in other countries

How do they get the experience if you restrict when they can drive - is their evidence to suggest more accidents happen at night time for this group of drivers