Dear All
Drink driving provokes strong emotions in people, especially among victims and their families.
My view is that the limit should be zero.
The Westminster Labour Government had a Whitehall-commissioned report which called for the introduction of a lower limit.
This begs the question, why simply copy other people on this issue, why not trail blaze and set the limit to zero.
Copying others is safe, it requires little thought or work it is the easy option but not the right option.
Sir Peter North was asked to examine drink-and-drug driving legislation; his solution is introduction of random breath tests and possible permanent driving bans for persistent offenders.
As it stands the current alcohol limit of 80mg per 100ml of blood, but North proposes that this is reduced to 50mg per 100ml.
How many lives would be saved if it was zero?
Also was zero ever considered and if not why not?
Piecemeal legislation benefits no one as people will continue to be caught.
The effect of alcohol on a person varies; height, weight, strength, volume and even if a person has eaten food plays a part in whether a person will put themselves over the limit.
Advocating zero is nothing new, that idea has been kicked about for years but it is another example of lack of political will.
Airlines regulations go even farther than the North report, 20mg of 100ml of blood.
What do they know that we don’t?
People want to have their cake and eat it; the only problem with this particular cake is that too much means death, ruined lives and shattered families.
Yours sincerely
George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University
Drink driving provokes strong emotions in people, especially among victims and their families.
My view is that the limit should be zero.
The Westminster Labour Government had a Whitehall-commissioned report which called for the introduction of a lower limit.
This begs the question, why simply copy other people on this issue, why not trail blaze and set the limit to zero.
Copying others is safe, it requires little thought or work it is the easy option but not the right option.
Sir Peter North was asked to examine drink-and-drug driving legislation; his solution is introduction of random breath tests and possible permanent driving bans for persistent offenders.
As it stands the current alcohol limit of 80mg per 100ml of blood, but North proposes that this is reduced to 50mg per 100ml.
How many lives would be saved if it was zero?
Also was zero ever considered and if not why not?
Piecemeal legislation benefits no one as people will continue to be caught.
The effect of alcohol on a person varies; height, weight, strength, volume and even if a person has eaten food plays a part in whether a person will put themselves over the limit.
Advocating zero is nothing new, that idea has been kicked about for years but it is another example of lack of political will.
Airlines regulations go even farther than the North report, 20mg of 100ml of blood.
What do they know that we don’t?
People want to have their cake and eat it; the only problem with this particular cake is that too much means death, ruined lives and shattered families.
Yours sincerely
George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University
Agree zero is easy to verify and everybody is aware not to drink and drive...
ReplyDeleteDear Mxyztlk
ReplyDeleteI think it would be the best policy.
I would also introduce that anyone caught drink driving also gets their car taken off them.
Life bans for repeat offenders.
Yours sincerely
George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University