The Scottish Data Which Prove Labour’s Drink-Driving Law Won’t Cut Road Deaths
As part of a new road safety strategy, Labour is proposing cutting the drink-drive limit from 80 to 50 mg, matching the stricter Scottish limits. But data from Scotland since 2014 show no reduction in road deaths or collisions. Druin Burch has more in the Spectator.
Today, as part of a new road safety strategy, Labour is proposing cutting the drink-drive limit from 80 to 50 milligrams per hundred millilitres of blood, matching the stricter Scottish limits.
I have not had to peel the remains of mangled children and adults from cars and pavements, as many police officers and paramedics have. But as an A&E doctor I have heard their stories and looked after those they brought in who survived, sometimes only long enough to die as I tried to keep them alive. Questioning the Government’s plans isn’t dismissing these horrors but taking them seriously. Our responses need to be effective, not performative.
There have been multiple recommendations, nationally and internationally, to cut the drink-drive limit to Scottish levels. The European Commission told member states to do so from 2001. In 2021, two authors from the Institute of Alcohol Studies – dedicated to reducing alcohol-related harms and no friend to the industry – looked at the impact of the 2014 reduction in the Scottish drink-drive limits. Because the reduction took place nowhere else in the United Kingdom, it provided a unique opportunity to measure its impact separately from other potentially confounding influences – changes in technology, culture and other road safety regulations.
“Assembling several new data sources and using careful research designs,” said the resulting research paper, “we conclude that the reform had no effect on accident rates.” There was no effect on major crashes or minor collisions. Across all subgroups, the young and the old, men and women, day or night, weekend or in the working week, there were no benefits. “Taken together, our no-effect results defy pre-reform expectations as well as most of the existing medical evidence, which is predominantly correlational.”
The reduction in Scotland made no difference. Data predicted it would, but those data were poor quality, observational, vulnerable to confounding. The Scottish experience provided a rare natural experiment, a high-quality test of whether stricter drink-drive limits reduce crashes. They don’t – yet our Government now wants to roll out the policy nationwide. This is a Government run by announcement culture, with thoughtless policies churned out to sound virtuous in a press release. …
A Government wishing to tread lightly could stop policing the marginal habits of responsible adults and start fixing the systems failing them so badly. There are many ways in which our government could help improve our lives. Instead, they keep finding ways of making it worse.
Worth reading in full.
Stop Press: Nigel Farage has said the move is a “death knell for country pubs across Britain”.
This is because we’ve got laws being designed by the Islington, North London bicycling classes. What about rural Britain? No-one cares of course, in fact many in Labour seem to hate rural Britain. The drink-drive thing is absolutely ridiculous. Wholly unnecessary. We’ve been where we’ve been since 1967, it’s worked pretty effectively. If you actually look at road casualty figures… we’re now incredibly safe on our roads. Much safer than France, way safer than Germany. We’ve actually reached a level on accidents beneath which it is almost impossible to go. Because there will always be human error of some kind.
Tory Transport Spokesman Greg Smith said:
This is supposed to be a road safety plan, but it reads like another chapter of Labour’s anti-driver playbook. Labour can’t seem to imagine a world where you can own a car without being punished for it. Road safety in rural Lincolnshire is not the same as road safety in central London. Yet Labour has produced a one-size-fits-nowhere strategy that ignores how people travel in different parts of the country.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
The purpose of ban-o-mania is not to produce good outcomes but to allow the ban-o-maniacs to present themselves as “doing useful stuff”. Which is why the flood of useless regulations never abates.
I seriously doubt it has anything to do with drink driving.
It’s yet another attack on motorists ie personal liberty to go where you want, when you want.
Add it to speed cameras, private parking fines, DVLA slow motion processing of licences …
They do it because they can. Psychopaths.
Its simple, alcohol or driving, not both, as alcohol is affected by mood or food consumed, never understood why it isnt that simple, it saves lives
It isn’t that simple.
For example, if I was drinking the prior night, am I safe to drive next day?
Cannabis hangs around in the system for longer than alcohol. How long after a spliff can someone drive?
Getting to zero alcohol in the blood stream is a tricky target.
The constant attacks on alcohol (which I enjoy) and tobacco (which I have never tried) is oddly contrasted with the attitude towards cannabis.
Cannabis is a more serious carcinogen than tobacco and more seriously debilitating than alcohol. It also has much more serious long term effects, especially paranoia and schitzophrenia which often results in someone else’s death.
“Saving lives” (if that’s what it does) comes at a cost (financial and in human freedom and happiness). Everything is a trade off. Eliminating death as an obsession, and a wider obsession with “safety” as the most important goal, lead to misery. See also “Covid”.
The elites do not seem keen on eliminating death when it comes to other policies, including:
abortion
assisted suicide
results from early release of dangerous prisoners
importation and retention of dangerous foreign criminals
These policies they relish.
Indeed. Also: killing old people with the cold by hiking up heating costs, funding foreign wars, giving aid to corrupt governments
I was brought up in a country pub – one of Nigel’s old favourites as it happens, though lockdowns finished it off. I remember Barbara Castle’s breathalyser and the reaction to it. “Take a drink, take a drive” was a pop lyric up there with “young girl”. My attitude has changed over time. Coping with fast-moving motorways isn’t exactly a pootle through country lanes, and now considering how much anaesthetic one should be allowed to consume before driving over a ton of machinery seems quite mad. No alcohol is simple and if you can’t manage that, maybe ask yourself why.
Human agency. Random breath tests, police sitting in wait: drivers avoid main roads and find quiet, country lanes where police check-points were unlikely. Accidents are more likely along narrow country lanes with increased traffic.
Speed cameras do the same thing.
Front seat belts when introduced, resulted in a reduction of head and facial injuries and deaths in front seat passengers, but an increase in injuries to the cervical spine (whiplash) and paralysis, and in increase in head, facial injuries and deaths of back seat passengers, cannoning into the heads of front seat passengers whipping back at them.
It’s is not eliminating a risk, just moving it somewhere else and making it worse.
But… making those who just must make is live according to their diktats feel all warm and cosy.
Travelling is certainly a dangerous business and it was ever thus. I ask this, how do we feel about our surgeon or airline pilot working under the influence of alcohol or drugs? If it’s not OK that can only be because their performance is impaired and killing or injuring anyone because pleasure was more important is not something I would want on my conscience.
Simplistic cant.
Lack of food or over-indulgence affects driving just as much as alcohol.
You cannot eliminate human error and that’s a fact. The problem with alcohol is the man takes a drink, then the drink takes a drink, then the drink takes the man, in far too many cases. Can we have a discussion about the impairment of judgement of our lawmakers by having taxpayer subsidised alcohol available at all times in both Houses of Parliament? Presumably you are in favour of that?
Was the article beyond you as it clearly states that the reduction in Scotland made no difference, so clearly a zero level will fail as well but actually be worse as it is hard to have no trace in the body.
It will save lives but data from Scotland show that lowering the limit further isn’t saving any lives. So why do that? If it ain’t broke don’t fix it. But silly socialists cannot help themselves. They see it as their remit to interfere in every aspect of our lives.
So scientific evidence counts for nothing?
The question I’d like to see answered is this: How many deaths were caused by drivers within the 50-80mg bracket? If it’s a significant number, then it may be worth pursuing a reduction in the permitted level. If the alcohol-related road traffic deaths were caused by drivers above the existing level, then there’s no point in changing it.
It’s like the cases where someone crashes off the road at a bend while going at 90, so the response is to reduce the speed limit at the bend from 60 to 50.
Alcohol-related is not alcohol-caused.
This information from the Scottish change appears to show no difference in death rates due to the reduction. Seems completely clear that it should not be extended.
Seems like the key question and you know what? I bet you’ll never get an answer.
This has nothing to do with saving lives, English RTA deaths are lower than everywhere despite having a slightly higher limit, and why?
Because englishmen are amazing drivers, but joking apart actually the standard of driving in England is I think higher than on the continent.
The list of 80mg is still really low, so low that the risk of accident is much more correlated to the weather, the time of day, the type of road and of course the distance, plus also different people are affected differently by small quantities of booze.
This seems to me a classic spiteful labour policy motivated by stupidity and the will achieve favourable headlines from tame journos rather than good sense or serious research.
Starmer is bent on the destruction of the England I grew up in and it’s driving me nuts.
No surprise here! I’ve just read about the proposed change on the ITV website, they mentioned that Scotland moved to the lower limit in 2014 but made no mention of Scotland’s experience since. I immediately thought if they don’t quote data then obviously the data isn’t being “helpful”.
Two points to make here. First, if the powers that be want to do something then they don’t care what the figures say. Second, never trust the MSM.
Reform and the Tories are against it, yet I haven’t seen them saying they will reverse it!
Load of rubbish this. It has always infuriated me that there’s such a focus on speed and drink driving. These two factors together are responsible for a very small proportion of serious accidents. The vast majority are simply driver error or unpredictable external factors such as weather conditions, lighting etc.
We already know this won’t make a jot of difference to road casualties. Those who were already prepared to drink enough (or smoke enough pot!) to make themselves a genuine danger on the roads, as opposed to consuming what they sensibly know they can drive home on depending on location, known roads, time of day, food consumed etc, will continue to do that. Uninsured drivers or those piloting un-roadworthy vehicles will continue to do that.
Nanny state crap by a desperate Government. Please God let there be some appalling skeleton in the cupboard to bring them down soon, I cannot wait till 2029!
Road deaths + alcohol… top priority.
Rape and torture is White female children + Pakistani Muslims… shut up!
“I have not had to peel the remains of mangled children and adults from cars and pavements…”
Nor scrape bankrupted pub landlords off the pavement having jumped out of an upstairs window, console families who have been evicted and whose father has lost his occupation and now on welfare.
The problem with fanatics is they do not understand “diminishing returns” or “logarithmic” that is additional effort put into something has less effect than the previous effort to the point it makes difference.
They also do not understand trade-offs and do not balance cost -who pays – and benefit, they only see the supposed benefit – shrouded in emotional garbage usually.
Then we have fake statistics – the infamous deaths “linked” to, because no evidence exists to support “caused” by.
Yes alcohol affects a persons driving, so does a row with partner, work colleague, having a Cold, not enough sleep last night, worried about the finances, etc.
Correct. But the missing link is that it is possible to measure the alleged cause in a way that will stand up in court. No need to prove the cause of something with that offence. Automatic guilt if the number is exceeded. There are, as you say, loads of other risk factors that are not on a sliding scale.
Here’s an idea. Get intoxicated where you can’t harm others; in a pub, at a party, at home, anywhere but behind the wheel.
You’ve made your point, (not terribly well) thank you and good night.
Visiting a pub is not all about “getting intoxicated”. Its perfectly possible to have a great time and still be fit to drive home. Many of our loveliest old pubs are in rural locations. This will be the death blow to them
Does being pissed off about what the bastards are doing to the UK – Net Zero, Covid Clown World, Ukraine, We stand with er, etc.
Makes you a bit upset and maybe a more aggressive/dangerous driver?
Tip. Track days helps get it out of your system.
The Far Lefty Islington lycra bicyclists are wedded to Vision Zero which is a nonsense that I think came from Sweden – land of muslim murder gangs – aiming to have nobody die on our roads at all. People with common sense will see that only a complete nanny state and 20mph everywhere can get anywhere close to achieving it.
A friend who is a magistrate stated that all the drivers he sees in court on drink driving charges are well over the limit and were stopped because of erratic driving. This law change is just fiddling round the edges and will not change anything except the decimation of pubs
“The European Commission told member states to do so from 2001.”
That’s what it’s about. Two-Tier is just implementing the EU’s Orders.
Background info, from the RAC: The number of people who were killed or injured on roads across Great Britain has continued its long-term decline in 2024, according to new data released by the Department for Transport (DfT).Figures show that modest year-over-year improvements in several key road safety metrics have also remained relatively constant – something that has been a common trend since data was measured in 1979.Although progress has slowed in recent years, the DfT have claimed that road safety campaigns have continued to yield results – even as traffic volumes have returned to pre-pandemic levels.In 2024, a total of 1,602 people were killed in reported road collisions – a 1% decrease from the previous 12 months.The total number of people killed or seriously injured (KSI) also declined by around 1% to 29,467.Casualties of all severities hit 128,272 – a more substantial drop of 4%.DfT data showed that there were 4.7 road deaths per billion road miles travelled in 2024. This is a 3% reduction compared to the previous year.When comparing to statistics from other nations around the world, Great Britian remains one of the lowest casualty nations when it comes to road-based statistics.Based on data of 36 nations, Great… Read more »
The evidence that the reduction of limits in poor old Scotland has achieved precisely nothing will certainly not result in the Scottish government repealing the change.
if governments can achieve nothing important, like growth, they start to do things like this. Pettifogging interference in peoples lives.
I detest this Labour government and its constant virtue signalling and never ending pointless, performative legislation but I am also rabidly anti drink driving.
i like a beer like everyone else but I won’t take so much as a mouthful if I’m driving.
I was a fireman for 25 years and I’ve seen first hand the devastation caused by road traffic accidents (collisions as they are more correctly termed these days). I have now also been a truck driver for the past 10 years and I’ve seen some truly appalling driving.
Driving is not a right, it is a privilege that carries with it heavy responsibilities. Everybody should do all they can to be as good behind the wheel as they possibly can be so they can avoid collisions with those whose abilities are not as good as they might be. The most basic step on that road is not to take anything that might impair one’s ability and that means zero alcohol or drugs. No ifs, buts or maybes.