Public back drink-drive action

Peter Woodman

October 17, 2008

| Submit Comments | Comments (8) | Previous | Next

TRAGEDY: Phil and Amanda Peak with their sons

MORE than three-quarters of people would support a lowering of the legal drink-drive limit.

The findings were revealed in a survey ahead of a government consultation expected to come out against reducing the blood-alcohol limit from 80mg - roughly two pints of beer - to 50mg.

The poll for ITV's Tonight programme, involving 2,903 people, showed that 77 per cent would support a reduction to 50mg.

Seventeen per cent of those surveyed admitted driving home after a night out knowing they were probably over the limit.

And 20 per cent said they had got behind the wheel the morning after thinking their blood-alcohol levels were over the limit.

The programme features Amanda and Phil Peak, from Partington, near Sale, whose sons Arron, 10, and Ben, eight, died in a drink-drive crash.

The driver of the other vehicle, former Plymouth Argyle goalkeeper Luke McCormick, 25, was jailed for seven years and four months after admitting causing the deaths of the boys and driving with excess alcohol.

In the programme, Mrs Peak says: "There shouldn't be a limit - it should be zero alcohol. Nobody knows where they stand with the drink driving.

"One person can drink one and still be under the limit, another person can drink exactly the same and be over the limit."

She continues: "If you're going to drive, you shouldn't drink at all and if you are caught with drink driving then the penalties should be a hell of a lot more than what it is."

The Tonight programme Under the Influence is broadcast today (Friday) at 8 pm on ITV1.

| Submit Comments | Comments (8) | Previous | Next

Showing comments 1 to 8 and replies | View All

Ron Ipstone, Conway, The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (17/10/2008 at 08:04)

We in this country have some of the safest drivers in the world, or at least the published statistics indicate this. We also have a blood alcohol limit of 80mg of alcohol per 100mls of blood. Other countries have lower limits, yet have more accidents on their roads. I fail to see how criminalising those who have between 50mg and 80mgs per 100mls will make Britain's roads any safer.

Where accidents are caused by drink driving, the driver is usually well over the limit, as in the Luke McCormick case, and lowering the limit would only have the effect of making him more over the limit. It would not have stopped him from driving.

PW, Manchester (17/10/2008 at 08:39)

I can't think of any justifiable excuse for drink-driving. It's simple that if you are going to drink away from home then you plan your transport beforehand.

Laura Norder, Didsbury (17/10/2008 at 10:43)

Drink or drive?

It's not too difficult a choice for responsible people.

Blip, Manchester (17/10/2008 at 12:36)

My heart goes out to this family, but there's a bit of a difference between what Luke McCormick did and somebody who's had two pints of beer. What about drug-driving, tired driving, texting-driving, using mobiles whilst driving, and applying make-up whilst driving. Not to mention those lunatics otherwise known as 'White Van Man'. I've still not made up my mind about smoking and driving - surely it's to the detriment of safe driving. Many drivers are irresponsible in a number of ways. It's time to clamp down on all of them, because our roads are crowded and dangerous.

Mad Welsh Scotsman, Cadishead (17/10/2008 at 13:03)

It's been said before but anyone knowingly driving whilst drunk should be classed as a murderer if they kill another person and punished appropriately

Octavius Tinsworth Ace (17/10/2008 at 16:16)

Mad Welsh Scotsman, I think you mean a manslaughterer rather than a murderer, since I dare say drink drivers don't deliberately kill.

It's all very well (and right) targeting drink drivers, but the penalty for people who use their mobiles while driving is barely a slap on the wrist, and seems to be treated as such judging by the number of people that still do it.

Also, some people think it's their right to speed without being pulled up for it, given the number of people willing to vent their rage at speed cameras.

Drink-driving is reckless and irresponsible but so are speeding and talking on mobiles while driving. I would like to see penalties increased for the latter two offences.

big g, sale (17/10/2008 at 16:39)

I agree with the comments of Blip and Ron, how does reducing the legal limit stop the idiots who are well over?

Mad Welsh Scotsman, Cadishead (20/10/2008 at 17:00)

Octavius: I totally understand what you are saying and I agree with evry comment but the point I'm amking is manslaughter is not enough when someone knows he could cause a death by his / her actions. Maybe the american way should be the way we deal with this i.e. different degrees of murder before manslaughter is resorted to. At the moment "Murder" and "manslaughter" are in separate boxes but do have an overlap and this is where the judicial problem lies, people get away with the more serious charge for the lesser one simply because of the definition

()

Report

News