Government set to reject official report's calls to reduce drink-drive limit

I am on the other hand convinced that lowering the alc limit and strict enforcement of the law saves lives. Alcohol selling lobby apparently disagree. There are many bad drivers' habits in the UK, not using head lights, indicators, calling and texting while driving among the worst but dink and drive the most dangerous one. Where is the common sense?

Nothing to do with lives, but with business, which is what the tories always stood for. When Labour wanted to put a stop to happy hours and raise the price of alcohol, guess who opposed?

I agree with the first post here. They all change their minds when one of their families is affected by their policies.

Jova - yep, the existing laws are good enough it's just that they aren't sufficiently enforced. Your texting bus driver is a serious risk to other road users. The laws on texting or using phones while driving are there but they aren't enforced sufficiently. One of the problems regarding road safety was that the previous government put its faith in speed cameras rather than traffic cops. Levels of policing of roads by traffic cops were reduced. And as 'any fule no' speed cameras do not pick out people using cellphones, veering from lane to lane, driving too close to other vehicles, driving under the inflence or in unsafe vehicles.

Proper enforcement of the existing rules should be the issue. There is a diehard group of motorists who continue to break the law. They should be targeted. The reason the change was thrown out was because the statistics suggested few additional lives would be saved by tightening the law on how much alcohol is allowed. Instead there should be tougher enforcement of rules on using cellphones or texting while driving and also on people using unsafe vehicles. That would yield far higher benefits to safety that making the rules on drink driving stricter.

The problem is that when it comes to our cars and road traffic in general, common sense goes out the window with there apparently being no perceived criminality attached to road traffic laws. If reducing the drink drive limit would save a large number of lives then how can you argue against it? We're talking about letting someone impair their own judgement through ingestion of toxic substances and then get behind the controls of a potentially lethal weapon. That may be over egging it a little but it's something like that. I'm not blameless myself - I'll happily have a pint with a meal and then drive my kids home in the car, something I should really think twice about but rarely do (especially as my wife doesn't drink and is invariably with us). I also speed on a regular basis, not because I'm in a hurry but because I'm clearly not bothered enough by the thought of being caught - again I should be concentrating on how much I'd think about it if one of my kids was hit because a driver was doing 40 in a 30, and would have stopped at 30.

Come to think of it, how many accidents have there been at stretches of road monitored by average speed cameras? How many would there be if the road networks were all monitored and the upper speed limit reduced to 60mph? How much money would be saved in the increased fuel efficiency figures? How much would 'ghosting' of cars and the use of unregistered vehicles increase as people tried to avoid paying fines!

The problem is that if you are going to drink and drive then you will do so no matter what figure is put on the allowable limit.

Those of us with a concience and sense of responsibility probably dont drive when any alcohol has been consumed but those that stagger to their car and drive home threatening the lives of those around will continue to do so even if there the law was no alcohol at all.

Philip Hammond would change his mind if he was hit by a drunk driver no doubt.