Independent readers are divided over Britain’s new road safety strategy, sparking debate over whether lowering the drink-drive limit will genuinely save lives.
In a recent poll of our community, 60 per cent of readers said they opposed a zero-alcohol limit for drivers, while 40 per cent supported it.
Many argued that while reducing the limit could help, the government should focus on the bigger risks, such as speeding, distracted driving, fatigue, and poor road conditions.
Some noted that the current 35-microgram limit already marks the point at which impairment begins, and that lowering it further may criminalise responsible adults rather than prevent serious accidents.
Several readers highlighted enforcement as a major issue, pointing out that irresponsible drivers often escape consequences due to a lack of police presence on the roads.
Others welcomed aligning England and Wales with Scotland’s lower limit, arguing it would not harm rural pubs or social life and represents a reasonable public safety measure.
Here’s what you had to say:
Road safety is more than drink-driving
If the authorities are really serious about road safety, there are other measures of equal importance, namely maintenance of roads, potholes, not removing cats’ eyes, and controlling excessive headlight brightness, etc.
Another deficit is the lack of police presence on our highways, which, if you have ever lived in another country, is a marked issue that seems to uniquely affect the UK.
Yes, drink-driving may be an issue, but as usual, the whole picture is ignored in favour of some newsworthy attempt at extolling good governance, where it simply does not exist.
This doesn’t magically make roads safer
I get the idea behind cutting drink‑drive limits, but it feels like the government is focusing on the wrong thing. Around 270 people die each year because of drink‑driving, which is tragic – but it’s a tiny fraction compared to deaths caused by speeding, distraction, fatigue, or poor road conditions. If the goal is to save lives, why not prioritise the biggest risks first?
Scientifically, the current limit (35 micrograms) is already set at a point where reaction time and coordination start to show measurable impairment. Dropping it even lower doesn’t magically make roads safer – it just means people who’ve had one drink with dinner, and aren’t actually impaired, suddenly become criminals. Studies consistently show that the real danger comes from drivers with high blood alcohol concentrations, not people who are just over the limit.
So instead of tightening rules on responsible adults who don’t even feel drunk, maybe the government should focus on the major causes of road deaths that actually move the needle.
The big gains have already been made
I don’t have any problems with these measures, but the idea that they could cut serious injuries by 65 per cent is absurd. They will make a very marginal difference.
The big gains have already been made. There is probably little we can do now by merely changing laws. Also, there are probably no further huge gains as far as crash protection is concerned or improved braking.
The most likely route to big safety gains is driverless cars or using such technology to act as a guardrail for human drivers.
Nanny state
If nobody drank above the current limit, how many drink‑driving deaths would there be? I have never driven above the current limit and immensely resent this change, whereby law‑abiding, responsible adults are suffocated by the nanny state, and irresponsible idiots continue to largely get away with appalling behaviour due to lack of enforcement.
Libertarians losing the plot
The opposition to this is bizarre. Drivers shouldn’t be behind the wheel if they have had a drink (or taken drugs, for that matter). This brings England into line with Scotland, where a lower limit has been in place for quite some time, and the sky hasn’t fallen in. People still get around, and rural pubs are still in existence.
Libertarians lose the plot every time there is even the slightest restriction on drivers – whether on drinking limits, speed limits, eye tests, or (back in the day) seat belts – but these are basic safety issues which affect the wider public, not just the individual driver.
Regular enforcement is key
Enforcing the current law would be a better place to start. The police have a “High Profile” campaign every Christmas, and then nothing for the rest of the year. I drive almost every day but haven’t done a roadside breath test in over 30 years. It should be a common sight, and there should be an expectation of regular tests.
Think about the people you might hurt
Ultimately, the fault lies with the drunk drivers – and there are no excuses, even if you do like to have a few beers with your friends. Surely chatting with your friends should be the focus, not the ABV per cent of your drink?
Drivers need to be thinking about the people they might hurt, not about the supposed curbing of their rights to drink alcohol and then drive afterwards.
Someone else commented that we are overly entitled in this country, and I would have to agree.
The chances of being stopped are virtually zero
The chances of being stopped are virtually zero unless you have an accident or get spotted driving recklessly and reported.
Here in Scotland, after an initial positive response by pubgoers, it has, in my opinion, gone back to the old habits – pub carparks are just as packed as before. As an old bloke who enjoys a pub and a few beers with my buddies, I can confirm that the drivers aren’t on Guinness “0” or Diet Coke.
There just isn’t the police capacity to make an impact.
Twenty years ago, the cops here had annual “drink- driving” campaigns that were very effective, and they would regularly publicise the ‘score’ in numbers prosecuted. Folk took it seriously, but where we live we never see a cop anymore, so nobody seems to give the low Scots limit a second thought.
Same will happen south of Hadrian’s Wall. Waste of time. Might win a few votes for a struggling government, maybe that’s all it’s for?
Complete ban
I support this, and in actual fact, driving with any alcohol in your system should be banned completely.
A pint of lager averages between two and three units of alcohol, and if you haven’t eaten all day, it’ll hit your brain faster and reduce your reaction times.
Around 6,800 people are killed or seriously injured in drink-drive-related incidents.
For every victim, there is a family behind it, and for every drunk driver, their liberties are cut.
Is it really worth a period of incarceration when you can just get a taxi to the pub instead?
We live in a selfish age
My local police force recently did its usual thing at this time of year and published the number of drivers arrested over the Christmas period. What struck me was that there were over twice as many arrests for drug-driving as drink-driving, which makes me wonder how much of this is down to the perception that the chances of being caught are so low that people believe they can get away with it.
Given how lax speeding enforcement is in the UK, which is responsible for a far greater proportion of serious accidents, it’s perhaps no surprise.
We live in a very selfish age, where, like spoiled children, many people put their freedom to behave how they like ahead of their responsibilities.
That the law sometimes treats us like children should therefore be no surprise.
Some of the comments have been edited for this article for brevity and clarity.
Want to share your views? Simply register your details below. Once registered, you can comment on the day’s top stories for a chance to be featured. Alternatively, click ‘log in’ or ‘register’ in the top right corner to sign in or sign up
Make sure you adhere to our community guidelines, which can be found here. For a full guide on how to comment, click here
‘Ban empty calories’: Readers on diet, exercise and the UK’s weight loss problem
‘Treated like cattle’: Readers push back against calls for smarter airport dress
New 2026 laws from ‘red stripe’ on licenses to ‘America First’ plates on roads
Expert tips to maximise your electric vehicle’s range this winter
Toyota makes good on 4-year-old promise as it opens ‘pivotal’ new hub in US
