#1 You're absolutely right, we should be proud that we have the highest acceptable drink driving limit in Europe.

How dare MacAskill dare to suggest we want it lowered, when we're quite content with the level of road deaths in our wee country, thank goodness we have the big brains in London to tell us what to do.

This is a no-brainer!!! Just DON'T DRINK AND DRIVE!! And if you do, you'll get banged up and banned from driving FOR LIFE!!!

ZERO TOLERANCE ... it's the ONLY way to ensure road safety without alcohol!!!

This says it all really. Crime statistics show that most people who commit crime are under the influence of alcohol. We have massive problems with binge drinking particularly with youths. Hundreds of deaths could be prevented by a lower or a zero limit on drink driving.Our hospitals are over run by drunks and alcoholics. It seriously damages our health.
Yet what do we really do about it---- nothing absolutely NOTHING.
Could the governments of this country either get their fingers out and do something or PLEASE shut up. As usual you all talk a good game but DO NOTHING.
Common sense says our kids shouldn't have access to alcohol and that we should not have people drinking and driving under any circumstances.
Alcohol is an addiction just like DRUGS. Yet we prosecute everyone for Drugs offences yet do little for alcoholics.....................

If alcohol was a new product, it wouldn't be allowed on the market.

How many people ask themselves am I over the limit or am I safe?

Zero tolerance is the only way you can remove this uncertainty.

It would seem the only way to keep drivers from driving over their own ability to have good sense is to NOT drink all together. When people start drinking their senses immediately become impared to some point. We have way too much drinking going on in this country anyway. Our young people are killing themselves with drink and yet our big supermarkets still insist on putting the booze right up front in the way of people entering the store so it can't be missed. What are we doing??? We're certainly not a responsible country when it comes to drinking.

Number 5 Tonto43 is absolutely right!!!

I completely disagree with lowering the limit to 50mls. This is only window dressing.

If we're serious about drink driving, we should reduce the level to zero. That way, there are no grey areas. No 'have I gone over the limit.' If you drink and drive, you're guilty.

Fair enough - make the limit zero but the public needs to be educated as to what they can do safely. For example, if you have been socialising the night before, the chances are you will still have a small amount of alcohol in your blood the following morning, so when is it safe to drive? Most reasonable people would probably be able to determine this, but some people will need guidance on this, I'm sure.

I don't drink any alcohol when driving. I might legally be allowed to have a couple before getting to a blood alcohol level of 80mg, but I prefer to err on the side of caution when my own life and vehicle (and those of others) are potentially on the line.

This is a step backwards. What are they thinking? IF the legislation passess get ready for more gruesome carnage on the roads as drivers drink more and their limits are lowered.

How STUPID can they get?

At last stupid labour have made the correct decision about something. Our drink-driving laws work. The limit is set at the correct level. The other countries have it wrong. We have it right.

Reducing the limit would not have any effect whatsoever on those who choose to drive when out of their heads. They know they are breaking the law in any case, so the principle of them breaking it a bit more is not going to faze them. And THEY are the ones that cause the crashes.

The only effect that a lower limit would have is to criminalise millions (yes, millions) of perfectly safe drivers. The 80mg/100ml figure has been arrived at by careful study and represents the a level at which driving performance is not significantly affected. Go above that and the effects start to show.

All of those of you who advocate a zero limit need to stop being so sanctimonious and wake yourselves up to the real world. As with all bad things, it is an EXCESS that causes problems, not the mere presence.

And another thing...

"Research has found cutting the limit to 50mg – effectively saying you cannot have one drink before getting behind the wheel – would prevent 65 deaths and 230 injuries a year."

What research? Who did it? How? And who funded them?

The vast majority of crashes are down to causes other than drink. Maybe if they started addressing those before they continue with their insane nanny state crackdowns, we may see in improvement in road safety. They caould start by scrapping speed cameras and making the driving test far harder to pass.

"Zero tolerance is the only way you can remove this uncertainty."

No it isn't. Buying a home breathalyser and using it in accordance with the instructions is the best way.

It is quite ridiculous that the the drink driving limit isn't zero . No One HAS to have a drink (except an alcoholic and they shouldn't be driving).

After having little to eat recently I had one glass wine at a friends house and felt drunk luckily i was at my neighbours . Legally I would be able to drive but realistically It would have been madness

Isolating alcohol in the debate on impaired driving distracts from other equally serious issues.
Driving while using prescription drugs. Where is the bar to be set and how will it apply across all potentially problematic medications?
Driving with impaired vision due to the wrong prescription. Many people suffer from extremely poor night vision but how many still drive after dark?
Driving with dementia. Even slight confusion on the busy roads of today can be catastrophic.
Driving while having unresolved anger issues. A ton of car is a fearsome weapon.
Driving while invincible or to put it another way, young. That few minutes sitting beside some guy in a high-viz vest does little if anything to ensure proper behaviour and control.
We have to trust that the present limit was not plucked from the air and was arrived at after discussion and analysis of data.
I seem to find myself almost siding with Petrolhead, please help.