The Government wants to reduce the number of drink related accidents, and rightly so.
But I fail to see how reducing the drink-drive limit can achieve this.
Drink-drive accidents, by definition are those where the driver concerned fails the breathalyser/blood test.
If the driver passes the test, then the accident is not drink related.
Reducing the limit would actually increase the drink related accidents, as those drivers, who may have one or two drinks would then fail the breathalyser.
This would do nothing to discourage those who would get behind the wheel after a skinfull, not to mention sounding the death knell for many of our more remote pubs and restaurants.
Surely, the Government’s time and effort would be better spent increasing the sentences for drink-drivers? Or have I got this totally wrong?