The case for tougher drink-drive limits
Posted on Friday 15 June, 2007
Filed Under Society
As a non-driver, I am forced to the conclusion most motorists are not just criminals but serial offenders. They regularly lapse into illegality, talking on their mobiles while driving, exceeding the speed limit with gay abandon, and generally ignoring parking restrictions.
What are you like, petrolheads? Like the law of the land doesn’t apply to you or something?
Worst of all, far too many people sit behind the wheel after having had a few drinks. And the thing is, they usually get away with it.
Yet their subsequent pedestrian roadkill end up just as dead as if their lives had willfully been taken. I have never understood why causing death by dangerous driving is not taken just as seriously as manslaughter. Because that’s basically what it is.
It now looks like the government will reduce the drink-drive limit from 80mg to 50mg per 100ml of blood, in line with European standards.
Normally I pride myself on being one of the most libertarian people on the left, and always start from the presumption that the state should not restrict the activities of grown adults when it comes to sex and drugs and rock ‘n’ roll, or booze for that matter.
Yes, I suppose it is legitimate for the government to set down – and widely publicise – guidelines for alcohol consumption, based on expert medical opinion. But it’s up to the individual whether they take a blind bit of notice or not. I, er, like a drop myself.
However, some things are justified, even if the Nanny State says they are justified. Tougher controls on drink-driving are a case in point.
<<Go back
Comments
14 Responses to “The case for tougher drink-drive limits”
-
- Yemen: an unfinished revolution
- Comment Is Free: An honours system for those who fight to make Britain a better place
- Democracy crushed; elected President arrested; World wrings its hands
- Fabians change policy on unpaid internships
- Kamal al-Fayoumi arrested as Egyptian regime retaliates to strikes
-
-
Meta
-
Can’t argue with that.
The whole law on driving offences needs to be looked at. I’m not a lawyer myself, but I believe that it is often hard to get a conviction for someone who has killed a pedestrian, because the definition of ‘dangerous’ driving is so fiddley. I read the other day that the offence of ‘causing death by motor vehicle’ is going to be introduced onto the statute book. I hope that doesn’t make me an authoritarian if I say, ‘about time too!’.
At last, someone on the Left takling road safety seriously! The right to drive a cvar is not a basic human right. So punishing those who abuse this right and by doing so seriously injuring or killing others cannot in any meaningful way be described as authoritarian.
Some simple suggestions.
First.Those who cause death or serious injury by driving have their driving licence suspended for ever. Why on earth should they be allowed to drive again?
Second. On reaching a certain level of penalty points the driver receives a mandatory 3 month suspension from driving and has to retake the driving test. Same for lesser driving offences.
Third. Zero tolerance of drink driving. You can drink or you can drive. Easy choice, one or the other but you can’t do botrh.
Fourth. 20mph speed limit on all residential roads. Cuts the number of children dying or seriously injured on the roads massively. The failure to campaign for this exposes all the hypocrisy about kids kidnapped etc, hundreds of children die needlessly every year because drivers insist on their right to speed down residential roads.
Dave
As a driver I totally agree.
I always drive within the speed limit.
And when people take the piss – which they do – I point out that it is the punk rock thing to do.
As the song says: “Give a wrong time, STOP A TRAFFIC LINE.”
There’s always a line of frustrated knuckleheads behind me!
I hate the phrase ‘Nanny state’. I don’t think the left should use it either. Why apologise for, or feel awkward about, regulation designed to save lives?
To answer Dave’s specific question:
I have never understood why causing death by dangerous driving is not taken just as seriously as manslaughter.
The law of causing death by dangerous driving was specifically introduced because juries were refusing to convict motorists of manslaughter, so dangerous motorists were literally getting away scott free after killing people.
A lower charge was introduced and subsequently the conviction rate increased. In eggregious cases the CPS could still charge with manslaughter or even murder, if they think they have sufficient chance of a successful conviction.
I would be interested to know however what the evidence behing a reduction from 80 to 50mg per 100ml of blood is. Rather than relying upon a gut feeling that a reduction must be a good thing.
Me experience for example of working in Germany, and travelling quite a bit with my work, is that social attitudes are less permissive toward drink driving in Britain than in most of Europe. So would changing the limit avctually make much difference – or would more benefit come from better enforcement of the existing limit?
Ed: Why apologise for, or feel awkward about, regulation designed to save lives?
Becasue the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
It is not sufficient that a law is designed to save lives, it must also fulfill to other criteria:
i) it is not the intention to save lives that counts, but whether the propsed measures will actually save lives, has it been fully thought through (so much labour legislation is hurried to just satisfy newspaper reaction)
ii) Is the degree of restriction required in people’s behaviour proportionate to the benefit. We do not live in a risk free society, nor should we necessarily aspire to do so.
Blimey, I must have read Living marxism once too often.
Andy.
Simple questions.
Should somebody who has killed or seriously injured by reckless driving be allowed to drive again, and if so why?
Why shouldn’t those who persistently flout driving laws be forced to re-take their driving test?
Does alcohol make you a better driver? If it doesn’t why shouldn’t any consumption of drink be banned if driving. There are such things as buses, trains, taxis.
“Becasue the road to hell is paved with good intentions”
Well that’s the usual objection to socialism, too, isn’t it.
In my opinion drunk drivers and dangerous drivers should be shot – although, of course, I would be careful to ensure that the degree of restriction required in people’s behaviour in undertaking such punishment was proportionate to the benefit.
I am not saying I am opposed to making the law more stringent, but I believe that any restriction in individual liberty should be based upon evidence and not hunch, and asking what the evidence is. Is that so unreasonable? Or should we be governed by moral panic?
Personally, I don’t even have a car! So I am hardly arguing a vested interest,
With regard to Mark’s point – should someone who has killed by reckless driving be allowed to drive again. yes they should, becasue it would be a totally disproportionate punishment other wise.
Almost everyone has driven recklessly at some time, especialy when between 17 and 25 years old drivers are far more likely to have an accident. If they are unlucky and the accident kills someone, in addition to having the guilt and a driving ban and possible even prison, you think they should be banned for life!
My nephew went to prison for knife crime when he was a young un, and did a three. Would you think he should be punished for that for the rest of his life as well?
And the argument that beacue alcohol doesn’t make you a better driver means it should be banned altogther is utterly unscientific, as well as a non-sequiter. If people have a reaosnably low consupmtion such that their judgement is not significnatly impaired, then why should it be outlawed, surely the onus of proof is on those seeking to restrict behaviour?
Your point abouty eople flouting laws with retaking their test is also designed to do what? Pople breaking the law is becasue they disrepsect the law, not becaue they don’t know what it is. How will a test help with that?
And Ed. The biggest contributor to road deaths is not drink but excessive speed. A proportionate public interest response would be to reduce speed limits, and require new cars to be geared differently to support slower driving.
Why is drink driving and not fast driving in the frame? Becasue New labour are more concerned about social conformity than the road safety.
There would be more adverse reaction to redusing the speed limits, which effects every driver.
Ed
Would the shooters be allowed union recognition?
Absolutely spot on Dave
“I have never understood why causing death by dangerous driving is not taken just as seriously as manslaughter.”
Politics, pure and simple.
People who commit manslaughter are the ‘other’.
People who drink drive, or kill by dangerous driving are ‘people like us’ (in the sense that most people can identify with them).
It’s only the ‘other’ who deserves harsh penalties. Therefore, dangerous driving is treated leniently.
It would be simple (but not easy) to cut road deaths down to almost nothing. EG:
* Speed limits down to about 40 km/h (about 25 mph in the old money).
* Compulsory speed limiters on cars, with random checks to see if they had been tampered with.
* Alco-locks on all cars.
* Massive traffic calming/slowing works.
* Speed cameras that take photos of licence plates every 250 metres on every road.
Of course, any government that seriously tried this would be thrown out within a week.
People in general have, I think, just decided that the cost in road death is less bad than the inconvenience of a genuinely safe road system.
People who commit manslaughter are the ‘other’.
People who drink drive, or kill by dangerous driving are ‘people like us’ (in the sense that most people can identify with them).
It’s only the ‘other’ who deserves harsh penalties. Therefore, dangerous driving is treated leniently.
Exactly right. That process of “othering” underpins so much of the law and order debate, both in terms of who we want to hang and who we want to let off. The precise identity of “we” being what determines our stance on the appropriate sentence, of course.