• 4
According to recent statistics in the UK, there has been an increase in alcohol-related automotive fatalities, causing British legislators to rethink the legally accepted level of alcohol found in the bloodstream. Currently, drivers are cited for drunk drink driving if they have 80 mg of alcohol in 100 ml of their blood. The government in Britain is considering lowering that number to 50 mg per 100 ml (about a half a pint of the finest lager, dependent on weight), bringing it closer to that of other countries in the EU.
Although several organizations are behind the proposed change, the bigger question is whether or not the current limits are enforced. In the UK, only motorists that have given police cause to pull them over are subjected to DUI testing – that means that no random checks are instituted, nor are DUI check points employed.

If and when this legislation passes, officials expect the UK's rate of drunk drink driving arrests to increase, while alcohol-related fatalities decrease.

[Source: 4Car]


I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 4 Comments
      • 7 Years Ago
      Unfortunately DUI/DWI has just become another means for the state to take your money, not make us safer. Lets face it, if they wanted to protect us the penalty would be mandatory jail time. I read a few times about a drunk driver killing someone and its their 2nd 3rd or 4th dui and they have a suspended license and only face jail time for manslaughter. A fine is not enough to deter. 1 DUI should carry a minimum of 1 year in jail, 5 years restricted license, 10 years probation and $20,000 in fines. A second DUI should carry 5 years jail time. The penalty needs to be great enough to actually deter people from getting tanked and getting behind the wheel, not a slap on the wrist that only hurts those without the money to pay the fines and fees.
        • 7 Years Ago
        Rob,
        I wonder if you would apply the same punishment to a person talking on a mobile phone, I’m guessing not…
      • 7 Years Ago
      "Although several organizations are behind the proposed change, the bigger question is whether or not the current limits are enforced. In the UK, only motorists that have given police cause to pull them over are subjected to DUI testing – that means that no random checks are instituted, nor are DUI check points employed."

      Call me crazy, but I prefer to live in a world where I am not subject to random stops or check points without probable cause. Decreasing the legal limit or imposing stiffer penalties are both more in tune with my notion of personal liberty.

      Not to get on a soapbox, but in America, the political pressure brought down on drinking while driving has resulted in a huge eroding of our personal freedoms not only in the realm of what constitutes probable cause but also in the area of unreasonable search and seizure. It is most unfortunate when bad events lead to knee jerks and then to bad laws or precedent.

      • 7 Years Ago
      The only reasonable limit is zero. If you want to drive, don't drink, period.