It is illegal to drive any kind of vehicle with a alcohol blood level of over 80 milligrammes of alcohol per 100 milliletres of blood. Anyone who drives with a blood alcohol level above that limit, is commiting a criminal offense.

Should that driver have an "accident" while over that legal limit, the penalty is generally less than that of a sober person, or a drunk "pedestrian" who has committed a similar offense.

I suggest that all drunk drivers who have "allegedly" committed motoring offenses be tried as would a "normal" offender and, if convicted, receive a penalty/sentence commensurate with the offense.

Why is this idea important?

It has been said that the proposals to reduce the alcohol blood level from 80 to 50 milligrammes would have little effect on the drinking habits of the majority of drivers except that more drivers would have criminal record if conficted.

However, if we consider an extreme scenario in which the drink driver was involved in "an accident" in which a person died or was crippled, they should be charged, and tried wth the vehicle being considered as a weapon.

Would this prove to be a deterrant against drink driving? Possibly.

By charging a drink driver with an offence commensurate with the alleged offence and considering the vehicle to be a weapon, may be another way to convince drivers who have had one or more drinks to leave the keys behind.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.