Careful with those drinks; tougher standard for drivers may be on way

[Nihil]

62. Agreed ...

> The current problem with drunk driving deaths are boozers who are not worrying about the law.
> Changing the law won't change that.

My standard response to anyone suggesting reducing the limit from its current value (0.08)
is to demand that the police enforce the existing laws properly FIRST.

We have a traditional Christmas crack-down on drunk drivers but I think the roads would be
far safer if this annual increase in activity was repeated throughout the year - not continuously
(as it would become a waste of police time & money) but frequently.

I have no problem with submitting to a random breath-test under those circumstances
as it reinforces the reason that I don't drive home from a "good night out" - walk, taxi, share
lifts or whatever, just don't drive if I'm having more than a single decent beer.

Hell, just require random testing immediately outside the car parks of establishments that
sell alcohol (pubs, clubs, restaurants, whatever) and enforce the results. That will make more
of a difference to road safety in one simple straightforward action than the current quibbling
about reducing the legal limit without damn well enforcing it ...

If anyone in the "zero tolerance" camp cares to comment, I'd appreciate some supporting
evidence to show what proportion of the deaths/injuries caused by "drunk driving" was done
by people with a BAC within 10% of the current limit (i.e., rather than several times over it)
and who had no other incapacitating drug/condition involved (e.g., one glass of wine before
having a heart attack behind the wheel doesn't cut it ...).

Anecdotal evidence (from local & national media as well as police acquaintances) suggests
that DD fatal accidents are primarily due to people who were completely hammered rather
than just having traces of alcohol in their blood.