It really isn't that simple at all. Many people like me would like to have A PINT (singular) with a pub lunch from time to time. Reducing the limit would put that at risk, and not reduce road deaths at all. It would also put thousands of people out of work after thousands of pub and restaurant closures. So, no, it isn't that simple.Proof that the vast majority of motorists will not be affected by a reduction in alcohol limits.
Just those selfish bastards who seem to think that alcohol limits are an personal attack on their 'right' to drink and drive.
Don't drink and drive. It's simple.
Totally agree, when this comes out you won't even be able to have one drink with a meal. It's gonna kill country pubs and restaurants.Lowering the limit to 50 mg would be idiotic. Here's my letter to my MP. I hope people with a different view to mine may read it with an open mind:
I am writing to raise a matter of serious concern and to urge you to consider with an open mind, the correct position to take on it.
The government appears set to reduce the drink-drive limit in England and Wales from 80 mg to 50 mg per 100 ml of blood. This is poor, ill-thought-through and unnecessary legislation, and - most importantly - highly damaging in its consequences. The hospitality industry is already under enormous strain, with pubs closing at an alarming rate. This proposal would be the final nail in the coffin for many of them.
If this were the price of saving large numbers of lives, it might be a price worth paying. But that is not the reality. The evidence has long shown that the vast majority of serious and fatal drink-driving incidents involve drivers who are well over the current 80 mg limit, often by a very large margin. Such drivers are not deterred by the existing limit and would not be deterred by a lower one either.
Drivers in the 50–80 mg range account for only a vanishingly small proportion of serious accidents. For England and Wales in 2023, Department for Transport table RAS2033 shows that among killed car drivers with a known blood alcohol concentration, only around 2% were in the 50–79 mg/100 ml band - approximately 5 deaths out of 284. Lowering the limit therefore does nothing to address the real problem, while reclassifying low-risk, responsible behaviour as criminal. It targets entirely the wrong demographic.
To put all of this into perspective, roughly 20x as many people (6,000+) die each year in accidents in the home as die in all alcohol-related road fatalities (<300). This is therefore unnecessary legislation that will not work, and will have serious and predictable adverse consequences. Are we really to inconvenience millions, kill off hundreds of businesses, put thousands out of work, to save perhaps 5 or 10 lives out of an annual 300 road deaths? This is utter madness - nothing more than virtue-signalling from a flailing, failing government.
Contrary to claims made by proponents of the change, Scotland’s experience does not provide compelling justification. There is no clear or sustained evidence that the lower limit has delivered meaningful improvements in road safety once wider trends are taken into account, while the negative impact on the hospitality sector - particularly rural pubs and food-led venues -is real and well documented.
Very much a secondary point, this proposal sits uneasily with the government’s pre-election commitment to “tread more lightly on people’s lives”. Lowering the drink-drive limit is not a technical adjustment; it is a significant intrusion into everyday, lawful behaviour, such as having a single drink with a meal. There is no manifesto mandate for such a change.
Enforcement effort would be far better directed at genuinely dangerous behaviour: high-BAC and repeat offenders, drug-driving, mobile phone use, and unlicensed or uninsured driving.
For these reasons, I strongly urge you to oppose any parliamentary vote to reduce the drink-drive limit to 50 mg.
Yours sincerely,
And the biggest cause of accidents is poor weather conditions. They also don’t mention poor lighting and poorly maintained roads.
It really isn't that simple at all. Many people like me would like to have A PINT (singular) with a pub lunch from time to time. Reducing the limit would put that at risk, and not reduce road deaths at all. It would also put thousands of people out of work after thousands of pub and restaurant closures. So, no, it isn't that simple.
Nope, you're just being blinkered and not considering the issue properly. That is really that simple.It really is that simple. It's a selfish choice to drink and drive... showing complete disregard for other road users.
There are plenty of alcohol-free alternatives available in every pub. If you really have to have a 'real' pint, use public transport, walk to the pub, or use a designated driver.
To be honest, if you're as desperate to have a pint as you seem to be making out, you probably need to seek help.
Nope, you're just being blinkered and not considering the issue properly. That is really that simple.
Dont get me started on ghese new LED streetlights, I really struggle to see at night with these, i can imagine there will be an increase in traffic accidents at night. Still as long as the carbon footprint reduces, thats all that seems to matter.And the biggest cause of accidents is poor weather conditions. They also don’t mention poor lighting and poorly maintained roads.
More rubbish. I am a law-abiding citizen. The law exists to ensure we can all drive safely without endangering ourselves or others.The current law exists because of people like you Chippy. Leave the car at home if you're going out drinking.
And that throw-away sentence cuts to the heart of this. The VAST majority of alcohol-related road deaths and accidents are caused by THOSE people, not by people like me who like to have A PINT with a meal.Of course you will just get selfish cunts who, like a poster above, will indulge in 5 pints and then drive. You will never get rid of people like that because they don’t care.
IMO those are the selfish twats, not people who like to responsibly have a small drink with a meal every now and again.This will kill off lots of rural establishments - not that these urbanite fuckers give a toss.
Its been 50 in Scotland since 2014. From what I have understood reading a number of articles, the reduction had a very limited impact on injuries and deaths but an impact on the hospitality industry immediately after its introduction. Those businesses in tourist and rural communities were especially impacted. However, over time, its a bit more nuanced with many of these establishments attracting customers back through pushing food services more or customers choosing no/low alcohol drinks of which there is now a far wider choice.Lowering the limit to 50 mg would be idiotic. Here's my letter to my MP. I hope people with a different view to mine may read it with an open mind:
I am writing to raise a matter of serious concern and to urge you to consider with an open mind, the correct position to take on it.
The government appears set to reduce the drink-drive limit in England and Wales from 80 mg to 50 mg per 100 ml of blood. This is poor, ill-thought-through and unnecessary legislation, and - most importantly - highly damaging in its consequences. The hospitality industry is already under enormous strain, with pubs closing at an alarming rate. This proposal would be the final nail in the coffin for many of them.
If this were the price of saving large numbers of lives, it might be a price worth paying. But that is not the reality. The evidence has long shown that the vast majority of serious and fatal drink-driving incidents involve drivers who are well over the current 80 mg limit, often by a very large margin. Such drivers are not deterred by the existing limit and would not be deterred by a lower one either.
Drivers in the 50–80 mg range account for only a vanishingly small proportion of serious accidents. For England and Wales in 2023, Department for Transport table RAS2033 shows that among killed car drivers with a known blood alcohol concentration, only around 2% were in the 50–79 mg/100 ml band - approximately 5 deaths out of 284. Lowering the limit therefore does nothing to address the real problem, while reclassifying low-risk, responsible behaviour as criminal. It targets entirely the wrong demographic.
To put all of this into perspective, roughly 20x as many people (6,000+) die each year in accidents in the home as die in all alcohol-related road fatalities (<300). This is therefore unnecessary legislation that will not work, and will have serious and predictable adverse consequences. Are we really to inconvenience millions, kill off hundreds of businesses, put thousands out of work, to save perhaps 5 or 10 lives out of an annual 300 road deaths? This is utter madness - nothing more than virtue-signalling from a flailing, failing government.
Contrary to claims made by proponents of the change, Scotland’s experience does not provide compelling justification. There is no clear or sustained evidence that the lower limit has delivered meaningful improvements in road safety once wider trends are taken into account, while the negative impact on the hospitality sector - particularly rural pubs and food-led venues -is real and well documented.
Very much a secondary point, this proposal sits uneasily with the government’s pre-election commitment to “tread more lightly on people’s lives”. Lowering the drink-drive limit is not a technical adjustment; it is a significant intrusion into everyday, lawful behaviour, such as having a single drink with a meal. There is no manifesto mandate for such a change.
Enforcement effort would be far better directed at genuinely dangerous behaviour: high-BAC and repeat offenders, drug-driving, mobile phone use, and unlicensed or uninsured driving.
For these reasons, I strongly urge you to oppose any parliamentary vote to reduce the drink-drive limit to 50 mg.
Yours sincerely,
Agreed, and the numbers of accidents and deaths will largely remain the same since it is that group that causes them. The change would have little or no positive impact and very definitely a negative one. It's just poor, virtue-signalling legislation that is not needed.For the small minority of drivers who habitually drink and drive I don't honestly believe the reduction is effective. They will continue anyway.
What? Just get a couple of Cokes instead. Same price.It really isn't that simple at all. Many people like me would like to have A PINT (singular) with a pub lunch from time to time. Reducing the limit would put that at risk, and not reduce road deaths at all. It would also put thousands of people out of work after thousands of pub and restaurant closures. So, no, it isn't that simple.
I'm seriously struggling with the logic of that one mate tbh :-)The problem with the just have one pint and a meal argument is that it is open then to sneaking in another, possibly another after that as well. If the latest ideas are true, that wipes out the opportunity.
Of course you will just get selfish cunts who, like a poster above, will indulge in 5 pints and then drive. You will never get rid of people like that because they don’t care.
If you want to drink, don’t drive. If you have to drive, don’t drink.
I don't want a coke with my lemon sole fillet thanks. Are you American??? A glass of white wine would be preferable.What? Just get a couple of Cokes instead. Same price.
Yep. Only proposed by those who don't wish to engage their brains. Or who are hard of thinking. 80 is better than 100, 50 better than 80, 30 better than 50 and zero better than 30.Im listening to the news and you get the numpties saying it should zero, laughable shit.