That this House recognises the misery and suffering that can frequently result from the actions of drink drivers and supports information campaigns designed to further improve public attitudes towards drink driving as well as rigorous enforcement of the existing law; but is concerned that reducing the drink driving limit from 80 mg to 50 mg per 100 ml of blood could distract attention away from the most serious and dangerous transgressors who routinely drive after consuming far more than the existing legal level of alcohol; would potentially criminalise many people whose activities and social attitudes are entirely law-abiding and conscientious towards their fellow citizens; would particularly harm social activity in rural communities with very limited public transport; and would further damage small brewers and village pubs which are already struggling from the impact of cheap off-sales alcohol, the smoking ban and higher alcohol taxes and are closing on a daily basis.
It is also signed by Labour's Rudi Vis and Tories Greg Knight and Philip Davies. The reason why there are clenched buttocks in Cowley Street is that the motion directly contradicts LibDem policy, which is to support a reduction in drink driving limits. Their policy is also to support a smoking ban and higher alcohol taxes, which Browne and Williams criticise in this EDM. In normal circumstances this would have to result in resignation, but having lost three Shadow Cabinet members last month, Nick Clegg would be reluctant to lose another. What are the odds on this EDM being withdrawn soon after the LibDem whips step in?
On the substance of the issue, Browne would no doubt argue that he is adopting a classic liberal position. I would argue that any alcohol consumption impairs judgement (as Nick Clegg proves in his GQ interview) and that the limit needs to be reduced. If it is reduced it will save lives. THAT is a liberal position. It cannot be reduced to zero because of the amount of natural alcohol in people's blood, but it could certainly be reduced from 80.
Note: Links to official LibDem Policy in Scotland. And from 2003... "SAFER ROADS: A motion on Safer Roads and Streets for all, proposed by Don Foster, Shadow Transport Secretary, was clearly passed. While welcoming various improvements, including figures published in June showing a 3% fall in all road casualties, Mr Foster noted that Britain's record for child pedestrian deaths remains the worst in Western Europe. He called on the Government to take additional measures to tackle deaths and injuries on the roads by introducing a Road Safety Bill in the forthcoming session of Parliament, including lowering the maximum permitted blood alcohol level, creating a Road Accident Investigation Branch, higher penalties for speed related crashes and injuries and outlawing the retro-fitment of bull bars. The motion also encourages local authorities to introduce road user charging schemes. "
They have also called for in one of the Alternative Queen Speeches...
"Road Safety Bill - To improve safety for pedestrians, cyclists and motorists lower the blood alcohol limit to 0.5 mg, establish a Road Accident Investigation Branch to investigate major road accidents in the same way as rail crashes, create a new offence of death by negligent driving with re-education programmes for offenders, and ban the retro-fitting of bull bars on cars."
28 comments:
And you base your opinion on which facts exactly ?
In many countries that do have (eg) a 50mg limit, such as Austria, the penalty for being caught with 51mg is however not a ban, but a fine. If you are caught with 81mg, or if you do it repeatedly, then the penalty would be a ban, like it is here. In fact, in rural Austria you won't routinely be breathalysed at the roadside if stopped by the plod, nor will you routinely even be fined if over their limit. The local plod has discretion, and they use it wisely. As often as not, if you are caught marginally over the limit they will tell you to abandon your journey and go straight home, preferably not at the wheel. Someone who's on 51mg is obviously not a lethal piss artist, but someone who intended to observe the law and simply got it marginally wrong.
If you had 100mg in your bloodstream, OTOH, they'd have absolutely no sympathy for you whatsoever because you're the kind of scrote who'd ignore any limit whether 50, 80 or 180.
I'm not aware that other countries' road safety records in respect of drink driving are signifcantly worse than ours, despite our harsher regime. The fact that this proposal is being advanced on the grounds that we have a worse record of child injury rather suggests that things here are actually rather than worse than elsewhere. If more children are injured it's probaby because British children are so poorly behaved that they routinely run into roads.
As usual, it seems the government is looking for fine revenue from a class of people (motorists) that it is not only OK, but downright virtuous to hate. It's odd how leftists are completely persuaded of the deterrent effect and virtues of harsh punishment for motorists, but not for other crimes.
A small amount of alcohol can actually improve driving - the mild depressant effect of a single shot / half a pint can improve concentration without impairing ability.
It's why booze is banned from winter biathlon events - in the right quantities, alcohol steadies the hand and calms the nerves (both of which are conducive to safe driving).
However, it's almost impossible to gauge accurately what the right quantities are for a given individual at a particular time, so a blanket ban is something I'm in favour of.
If you cited authoritative evidence of the number of lives that might be saved as a result of the reduction of the limit your position could be described as liberal. Without such evidential support your position looks pretty authoritarian.
And the evidence needs to be good -if a drunk pedestrian is killed by a sober driver the Dept for Transport will include the accident in its "drink-drive" statistics
It is not practical to have a zero alcohol limit for drivers (and cyclists) but I welcome any move towards that goal.
I worry about the Road Accident Investigation Branch. Roads are already closed for excessively long periods for accident investigations, often with a long wait for the arrival of the police investigation unit (this is apparently because Brunstom decided that road accidents should be treated as "crime scenes"). I can see even longer delays if they then have to wait for the arrival of the Road Accident Investigation Branch unless this takes over completely from police investigation units which could reduce delays possibly. Here in the Highlands there are long delays after a serious accident partly because of the delay in arrival of the unit covering the whole of the North of Scotland. Time could perhaps be saved if a Road Accident Investigation Branch team could be sent from elsewhere in Scotland.
That is of course if the Road Accident Investigation Branch covers the whole of the UK and not just England and Wales.
I can't believe there is anyone out there who is incapable of driving after two pints of beer.
This is just part of the political classes plan to exert their "moral compass" argument to raise more taxes.
Perhaps it will dawn on someone that if you have a drink in town at lunchtime, then by the time to get into your car at the station car park you will sill be over the limit. The sight of Plod camped at Tunbridge Wells station routinely breathalysing commuters would be really interesting.
Of course Dale, as a teetotaller, doesn't really have a balanced view on this.
I would argue that any alcohol consumption impairs judgement (as Nick Clegg proves in his GQ interview) and that the limit needs to be reduced. If it is reduced it will save lives. THAT is a liberal position
Talking on the hands free mobile impairs judgement as does talking at all. You did not take the same view about that.
Of the 20,000 deaths and serious injuries per annum the majority are young men in various states of heightened consciousness far beyond one drink. Nonetheless I tend to agree with you on the drink driving limit, not because one drink impairs judgment significantly, but because it impairs your judgement about having another.
Wallenstein said...
"A small amount of alcohol can actually improve driving - the mild depressant effect of a single shot / half a pint can improve concentration without impairing ability."
It has been shown by the Transport Research Laboratory that even a small amount of alcohol will impair a driver's judgement. Unfortunately it also makes a driver feel more confident. That is a potentially lethal combination.
BAD NEWS FOR LIB DEMS - -
THOUGHT THEY MIGHT WANT TO REDUCE TO 30 mg :-)
In any other party this could be resignations -- perhaps tehy will realise the fellows that had to resign must now make a return.
After all if they can forgive Browne they can forgive the other 3
Reducing the alcohol limit would be a liberal policy if it saved lives.
However, there is precious little evidence that it would (see here, for example.
It is also beyond dispute that it would put even more pubs out of business and criminalise people like me, who routinely have a pint of weak beer socially but never any more when I'm driving.
I never cease to be amazed at the number of people who argue for things like this without knowing of any evidence. I blame the schools and even universities that churn out people without the ability to think for themselves.
In fact, Dale's argument is a classic authoritarian one. Would you support x if it produced good result, y? Nobody can reasonably answer no to this and fact that the causal relationship between x and y is unestablished is conveniently ignored. For example, would you support detention without trial for 100 days if it saved thousands of lives?
By this rhetorical trick, the authoritarian garners popular support for every increasing denials of freedom, whilst posing as a liberal.
Ah yes Mr. Scary by process of the "saving lives" logic it would be possible to bann us back to the middle ages where , astonishingly , we would not enjoy the great benfits of long life and health that the many dangers we have removed seem to bestow.
You will notice that Mr. Dale does not want to ban mobile phone use whilst driving ( he talks a lot on the mobile phone ) but does wish to ban alcohol..( he does not drink). What a peculiar coincidence....
..And yet they will say something must be done. I always quote
William Pitt
` Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of Tyrants; it is the creed of slave`
Newmania, Don't be such a prat. I would not reverse the ban - although it has to be said, if you;re being consistent you;d also ban people from smoking while driving. Or indeed, holding anything in their hand apart from the steering wheel.
Stephen Williams constituency Bristol West is one of the boundary change constituencies and was one of the 2005 University ones with above average swings to the LD's at the last election.
He is unlikely to retain the seat at the next election - likely Labour gain.
IT IS NOT AND WILL NOT BECOME A " rural communities with very limited public transport; ....with ... small brewers and village pubs which are already struggling from the impact of cheap off-sales alcohol, the smoking ban and higher alcohol taxes and are closing on a daily basis".
Clifton and surrounds which is in & remains part of his constituency has a large number of licensed premises frequented by zillions of students in term time.
In any case, isn't the policy on 50mg imposed by the EU ?
I seem to remember reading somewhere that the UK has no real choice in the matter anyway.
monoi said...
"In any case, isn't the policy on 50mg imposed by the EU ?"
No. The EU has only defined RECOMMENDED limits.
Wallenstein said...
A small amount of alcohol can actually improve driving - the mild depressant effect of a single shot / half a pint can improve concentration without impairing ability.
Not so. Many years ago when I was a very fit and active teenager, with the usual lightning fast reactions, a group of us went to the Isle of Wight. At lunchtime we stopped at a local pub for a pint and a ploughman's. On the wall just inside the door was "test your reaction time" machine. One put a sixpenny bit in the slot and the coin appeared in a window and was held by a small arm above a calibrated tube measuring about 6-8 inches which was marked off in fractions of a second. At the machine's discretion a bell rang, the arm holding the coin was released and the coin began to drop. The player had a button to push which stopped the coin on its way down. Above a certain point you got your money back, below that point you lost it. We all tried this several times before we had a drink and every one of us successfully stopped the coin above the line. However, when we tried it again after just a half pint of lager, we all lost our coins, despite trying a few times to beat the machine.
Thst impressed me very much as it showed me very clearly that reaction time is slowed by such small amount of alcohol, and such a tiny difference could be that between life and death in a sudden emergency. It is a lesson I have never forgotten even after (now getting on for) 50 years and although I admit to having a drink or two now and then and then driving home, I have never ever been anything like incapable behind the wheel.
I regularly drive to my local country pub to meet friends and family and have a pint and a half and drive home (I never drink and drive).
I am wife, child, mortgage and pay my taxes and bills on time. I go outside to have the odd cigarette in the freezing cold. My road tax and petrol bills have gone through the roof. And my mortgage payments are heading only one way.
I drive a lot for work and it feels like I spend more time looking for speed cameras than I do on watching the road ahead.
I am not unusual. There is a large rump of 'middle England' that is feeling really put upon by the state - and this is not merely party politics, but could become so if a party were to champion us.
I have a real problem with this. I'm a Lib Dem and support the policy of reducing the limit. But what is the government REALLY doing to discourage drinking and driving. On the outskirts of my Town, an enormous new estate of 1350 houses is being built and planning permission has been given. But NO PUB and no pub within a good 20 - 30 minute walk.
Surely lax planning regulations are simply encouraging drinking and driving? The builders are required to build primary schools, playgrounds, etc, but not reserve a space for a pub!
Anonymous said...
"I regularly drive to my local country pub to meet friends and family and have a pint and a half and drive home (I never drink and drive)."
Sounds like you do drink and drive.
Switzerland reduced the limit from 80 to 50 a couple of years ago. There was a brief drop in alcohol-related accidents.
Unfortunately, this was then followed by an increase to significantly above the original level - where it has stayed.
Setting a limit too low leads to near-universal lack of obedience. Also, research has shown virtually no discernible difference in "driving performance" between those with 50mg in their blood and 80. Lowering the limit would merely criminalise a large number of pertfectly safe drivers without contributing anything to road safety.
"I would argue that any alcohol consumption impairs judgement (as Nick Clegg proves in his GQ interview) and that the limit needs to be reduced. If it is reduced it will save lives. THAT is a liberal position."
Balls. Road deaths in this country are at minimal levels and only a small fraction of them are attributable to people with an amount of alcohol in their bloodstream between whatever the natural average is and the current legal limit. And only a small fraction of those accidents are actually the result of the associated impaired judgement.
Raising the standard of driving capability by making the driving test more realistic would make a much greater contribution towards road safety.
Surely a genuinely liberal policy is one that does not ban anything unless there is very strong evidence that such a ban would overall be beneficial, and its benefits would not be outweighed by other adverse effects.
All the evidence indicates that there is no impairment in driving ability at or just over 50 mg, and very little in the overall scheme of things at 80 mg.
Cutting the limit is not an evidence-based policy - it is based on an irrational gut feeling about the negative effects of alcohol.
Sorry, but how many LibDem MPs are not "frontbenchers"? Admittedly, a small number temporarily have no brief thanks to the Clegg's EU referendum cock-up, but they will back soon. A "LibDem frontbencher" is a tautology.
And why is Rudi "waste of space" Vis signing that EDM? As MP for Finchley and Golders Green there isn't a single rural pub in his constituency.
Maybe he's just looking to avoid the award for "most singularly nondescript and inactive MP".
Curmudgeon said...
"All the evidence indicates that there is no impairment in driving ability at or just over 50 mg, and very little in the overall scheme of things at 80 mg."
Nonsense. There is plenty of evidence of impairment such as described by Nomad at 5.10 pm.
Anonymous said...
"And the evidence needs to be good -if a drunk pedestrian is killed by a sober driver the Dept for Transport will include the accident in its "drink-drive" statistics"
Exactly, and that's the real point here.
The entire drink-drive shock horror industry is really a scam to reduce people's mobility and make them ever more dependent on the Marxist State.
Anon 1 said... ""And the evidence needs to be good -if a drunk pedestrian is killed by a sober driver the Dept for Transport will include the accident in its "drink-drive" statistics"
Anon 2 said ... "Exactly, and that's the real point here."
Not much of a point. It is just something you have to bear in mind when interpreting road accident statistics. A similar case is where someone falls and injures themselves when getting off a bus. That is counted as a road accident.
"Mr Foster noted that Britain's record for child pedestrian deaths remains the worst in Western Europe."
That is more a reflection of the fact that children in Britain are more likely to be allowed to play in the street unsupervised.
Post a Comment