Skip to content

Sir Peter North: it\’s worse than we thought

The Daily Telegraph has learned that Coalition ministers are studying proposals to cut the drink-drive limit for the first time in a generation.

Under the plans, the limit would fall from 80mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood to 50mg. Anyone caught above the new limit would face an automatic 12-month driving ban, even if they were only marginally over the threshold.

In essence, Sir Peter has simply laboured to procide a justification for what the EU is trying to insist that we do anyway. As I pointed out here, we actually have the safest roads in Europe anyway.

And part of the reason is that while we have a comparatively high drink drive limit we have severe penalties for those who go over it. Rather than the lower limits but milder punishments elsewhere.

Further, we\’ve spent a very hard 40 years getting the basic acceptance of almost all of society that the current limit is \”reasonable\”. Move to a lower limit but with the still harsh punishments and I\’ve no doubt that it will be regarded as unreasonable.

But then what does that matter? As I\’m sure Richard will be pointing out again this has all been planned from Brussels anyway. Sir Peter is simply a fig leaf for a decision that is being imposed.

10 thoughts on “Sir Peter North: it\’s worse than we thought”

  1. Another Brussels initiative that will get gold plated legislation and I thought this new government was against that kind of thing. Nothing changes with politicians enter politics whiter than white leave filthy dirty and filthy rich.

  2. I still have hope that commonsense will prevail. The domestic mayhem, lost jobs, bankruptcy, divorces etc. which will erupt if a 50mg limit is introduced without consideration of the consequencies is frightening.

  3. we actually have the safest roads in Europe anyway.

    And since when does that have any bearing on the issue? Britain is betraying the collective by having a “different” set of rules. Worse, her lack of team spirit is embarassing the other members – such individualism cannot be tolerated and must be stamped out.

  4. Sir Peter is a twat.

    There’s not been any research done that shows any significant performance difference between 50mg and 80mg. All that lowering the limit to 50mg will do is potentially to criminalise large numbers of perfectly safe drivers.

    BTW – “Martin” – a zero limit is even more ludicrous.

  5. No it’s not. Just jail every stupid bastard who gets behind the wheel having taken drink or drugs. My right to use the road safely supercedes anyone else’s right to think they should be free to consume behaviour altering substances before they attempt to control a ton of metal moving at high speed. Anyone who drinks and drives is sociopathically selfish.

  6. Martin… So, no more prescription or proprietory medicines for drivers then? Many of them use alcohol as a base solvent. Many people also create small amounts of alcohol in their guts, so if you’re one of them – lifetime ban. Add to that experiments that have shown quite conclusively that many drivers are actually better and safer having consumed a small amount (1 unit) of alcohol.

    Forget the emotion – just look at the science.

  7. I hope Martin who would “Just jail every stupid bastard who gets behind the wheel having taken drink” is not then such a loathsome hypocrite as ever to unnecesarily use his “right to use the road safely”. For instance: if I drive to a cinema six miles away, instead of a restaurant 2 miles away my selfish action is more likely to kill someone – even if I had half a bottle in the restaurant. I have chosen the less responsible alternative. You are never “using the road safely”. Perhaps the penalty for driving with a small drink in you should be 2 or 3 times the penalty for driving drink-free. The fact that that is nonsense but logical illustrates my point.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *