Drink-drive crackdown should last all year
W ITH the enthusiasm that comes from a public servant matching volume with performance, the policeman in charge of co-ordinating this year's festive drink-drive crackdown in England and Wales promises that officers will stop more motorists than ever before. Good. As can be seen elsewhere in today's paper, drink-driving causes death, injury and misery. And if such publicity and effort reduces the number of potential killers on the road, through deterrent or arrest, it is all worthwhile. Presumably, to stop more than last year's figure of 183,397 drivers in four weeks will require a concerted effort by police, more so than usual. But what about the other 11 months of the year? There is a rather tacit admission in the comments of North Yorkshire deputy chief constable Adam Briggs, though we are sure he would deny it, that the effort in December against drink drivers far exceeds those of other months.
T he latest figures, for 2007, show that 480 deaths were drink-drive related: 16 per cent of all road traffic deaths that year. That is still a huge figure that demands action. Yet most motorists know that, if they wished to break the law by drinking excessively or taking drugs, the chances of being caught from January to November are minimal, particularly in rural areas, unless they're involved in an accident. Speed cameras don't catch drink-drivers, traffic officers do, but how often do you see cars patrolling the roads of Staffordshire and Cheshire, unless you're on the M6? If police are serious about reducing the drink-drive menace, they ought to display the same level of enforcement 12 months a year, rather than make an seasonal gesture.
4 Comments
by Warren, Meir
Tuesday, December 01 2009, 4:14PM
“Come on Anon, it makes sence, you get pulled over and youv'e had a drink, it don't matter how little, you sould be banned, for live, there is no need for it at all. It's not some old 70's joke thing now, we have moved on, drink drivers need telling its not on, zero tolarance would prove this. Yes, we would still have the odd idiot chancer, but most would not drink and drive, just to be on the save side. The ruddy poison is haldly a stapel of life.”
by anon, Stoke
Tuesday, December 01 2009, 3:38PM
“There must be an echo.
Everytime there is an article like this the same things are said. Yes it's so sensible to treat drink drivers like murderers, be realistic.
Also zero tolerance is harder to monitor than what we have at the moment. Do you really think it would stop people doing it? No. You would just catch more people & a lot of these would be what we would class if we met them as sober. Say you have a beer with your lunch on Sunday, can you drive again at 3pm? No? 6 pm? ... don't know? What about the next day? Say you have your lovely Christmas cake with alcohol in it.... does that mean there is alcohol in your system ?
As for seasonal checks, I know it isn't just at Christmas they check, they just check more now. Potentially more drunks on the road equals more checks. Pretty simple really isn't it.”
by Warren, Meir
Tuesday, December 01 2009, 2:46PM
“If you have had a drink, you sould not drive. Zero tolerance is the way to go, and yes, you sould be banned for life. There sould not be a clamp down at this time of year, it sould be all year round.”
by JJ, Stoke
Tuesday, December 01 2009, 1:45PM
“If you drink drive you should get banned for life, no excuses, if you kill some one while drunk driving this should be murder with a life sentence, and yes the Police should clamp down all year not just over the Christmas period.”