Fall in number of drink drivers in Hampshire (From Daily Echo)

They missed the word "caught" out.

24% released ! WHY ? Oh that will because many of them were arrested for testing NEGATIVE just under the limit and the police took a punt that they maybe had just finished a drink quick and would test positive back at the station. Until last night I did not realise the police did this! Still its a bad practice because it makes their figures look lousy.

" Fall in number of drink drivers in Hampshire"

Because they simply were not caught!!

Guly was trying to push the statistics up a bit presumably?

MGRA wrote:
24% released ! WHY ? Oh that will because many of them were arrested for testing NEGATIVE just under the limit and the police took a punt that they maybe had just finished a drink quick and would test positive back at the station. Until last night I did not realise the police did this! Still its a bad practice because it makes their figures look lousy.

Actually it will be most likely be because they blew over the drink drive limit at the road side but blew under once on the evidential machine at the station. E.g. If you blew 38 at the roadside, you will be above the legal limit (35) and will be arrested. Then at the station you could blow 34 and be released without charge.

You can still be arrested even if you blew under if the officer suspects you have been driving whilst under the influence of drink or drugs (Section 4, Road Traffic Act)

Simple solution : Don't drink ANY alcohol and drive.

The legal drink drive limit should be zero alcohol.
If caught you should face a minimum 5 year driving ban, fined and be subject to a driving re-test at the end of your ban.

No grey areas and no excuses.

Ted Rogers wrote:
The legal drink drive limit should be zero alcohol.
If caught you should face a minimum 5 year driving ban, fined and be subject to a driving re-test at the end of your ban.

No grey areas and no excuses.

Difficult really and in my view relies on the common sense of the driver. I know from past experience as a plod when the breathyliser was first introduced that I can consume 2 pints of 5% beer and still be just undfer the limit. However it is my choice that I will not drive within 24hrs of drinking any alcohol, regardless of how little. As some mouthwashes etc contain alcohol a total ban could, in my opinion, lead to some morally wrong prosecutions.

Inform Al wrote:

Ted Rogers wrote:
The legal drink drive limit should be zero alcohol.
If caught you should face a minimum 5 year driving ban, fined and be subject to a driving re-test at the end of your ban.

No grey areas and no excuses.

Difficult really and in my view relies on the common sense of the driver. I know from past experience as a plod when the breathyliser was first introduced that I can consume 2 pints of 5% beer and still be just undfer the limit. However it is my choice that I will not drive within 24hrs of drinking any alcohol, regardless of how little. As some mouthwashes etc contain alcohol a total ban could, in my opinion, lead to some morally wrong prosecutions.

Well said.
In theory there's nothing wrong with the levels, the issue is the mentality of drivers who, knowing they've been drinking, drive anyway. I suspect no-one thinks about being over/under the limit, just trust to luck they won't get caught.

Inform Al wrote:

Ted Rogers wrote: The legal drink drive limit should be zero alcohol. If caught you should face a minimum 5 year driving ban, fined and be subject to a driving re-test at the end of your ban. No grey areas and no excuses.

Difficult really and in my view relies on the common sense of the driver. I know from past experience as a plod when the breathyliser was first introduced that I can consume 2 pints of 5% beer and still be just undfer the limit. However it is my choice that I will not drive within 24hrs of drinking any alcohol, regardless of how little. As some mouthwashes etc contain alcohol a total ban could, in my opinion, lead to some morally wrong prosecutions.

'Don't drink mouthwash and drive'

Zero alcohol levels, mean just that!

sotonwinch09 wrote:

MGRA wrote:
24% released ! WHY ? Oh that will because many of them were arrested for testing NEGATIVE just under the limit and the police took a punt that they maybe had just finished a drink quick and would test positive back at the station. Until last night I did not realise the police did this! Still its a bad practice because it makes their figures look lousy.

Actually it will be most likely be because they blew over the drink drive limit at the road side but blew under once on the evidential machine at the station. E.g. If you blew 38 at the roadside, you will be above the legal limit (35) and will be arrested. Then at the station you could blow 34 and be released without charge.

You can still be arrested even if you blew under if the officer suspects you have been driving whilst under the influence of drink or drugs (Section 4, Road Traffic Act)

Simple solution : Don't drink ANY alcohol and drive.

no a better simple solution is to live by the laws of the land and if you enjoy a glass of wine with your meal then thats fair enough. More people die on the road due to accidents caused by tiredness and stupidity than they do by people who have a small amount of alcohol with a meal I suspect.....

Ted Rogers wrote:

Inform Al wrote:

Ted Rogers wrote: The legal drink drive limit should be zero alcohol. If caught you should face a minimum 5 year driving ban, fined and be subject to a driving re-test at the end of your ban. No grey areas and no excuses.

Difficult really and in my view relies on the common sense of the driver. I know from past experience as a plod when the breathyliser was first introduced that I can consume 2 pints of 5% beer and still be just undfer the limit. However it is my choice that I will not drive within 24hrs of drinking any alcohol, regardless of how little. As some mouthwashes etc contain alcohol a total ban could, in my opinion, lead to some morally wrong prosecutions.

'Don't drink mouthwash and drive'

Zero alcohol levels, mean just that!

Good job the people in charge are capable of thought, then, rather than a reliance on knee-jerk soundbites.

MGRA wrote:

sotonwinch09 wrote:

MGRA wrote:
24% released ! WHY ? Oh that will because many of them were arrested for testing NEGATIVE just under the limit and the police took a punt that they maybe had just finished a drink quick and would test positive back at the station. Until last night I did not realise the police did this! Still its a bad practice because it makes their figures look lousy.

Actually it will be most likely be because they blew over the drink drive limit at the road side but blew under once on the evidential machine at the station. E.g. If you blew 38 at the roadside, you will be above the legal limit (35) and will be arrested. Then at the station you could blow 34 and be released without charge.

You can still be arrested even if you blew under if the officer suspects you have been driving whilst under the influence of drink or drugs (Section 4, Road Traffic Act)

Simple solution : Don't drink ANY alcohol and drive.

no a better simple solution is to live by the laws of the land and if you enjoy a glass of wine with your meal then thats fair enough. More people die on the road due to accidents caused by tiredness and stupidity than they do by people who have a small amount of alcohol with a meal I suspect.....

By all means enjoy a glass of wine with your mean but don't drive. It really is that simple! Yes it's legal and you will be under the limit (depending on the individual) But always better to be safe. Get a friend to drive or if you are all drinking get a taxi / bus

The Condems have dramatically reduced policing numbers, and whilst it is unlikely that there are now 19% less RPU officers in Hampshire, the resources that are around have to be deployed in other areas to make up shortfalls.

Unfortunately targetted drink-drive patrols do not feature highly in the list of priorities when there are distraction burglaries/homicides
/public order in city centres.

Lets also not forget that due to Condem budget pressures, that Hampshire and Thames Valley RPUs have now combined leading to an overall reduction in traffic officers.

I am fully aware that traffic officers are not the only officers who can breathalyse, but they front the drink driving campaign.

These figures are totally misleading- we need statistics on the number of stops, the reasons for the stops and then the subsequent arrests as a result of providing positive samples.

Georgem wrote:

Ted Rogers wrote:

Inform Al wrote:

Ted Rogers wrote: The legal drink drive limit should be zero alcohol. If caught you should face a minimum 5 year driving ban, fined and be subject to a driving re-test at the end of your ban. No grey areas and no excuses.

Difficult really and in my view relies on the common sense of the driver. I know from past experience as a plod when the breathyliser was first introduced that I can consume 2 pints of 5% beer and still be just undfer the limit. However it is my choice that I will not drive within 24hrs of drinking any alcohol, regardless of how little. As some mouthwashes etc contain alcohol a total ban could, in my opinion, lead to some morally wrong prosecutions.

'Don't drink mouthwash and drive' Zero alcohol levels, mean just that!

Good job the people in charge are capable of thought, then, rather than a reliance on knee-jerk soundbites.

Not a knee jerk reaction at all.

Not such a great system from 'The people in charge' if there is confusion over how much alcohol a person can consume and then legally drive.

Ted Rogers wrote:

Georgem wrote:

Ted Rogers wrote:

Inform Al wrote:

Ted Rogers wrote: The legal drink drive limit should be zero alcohol. If caught you should face a minimum 5 year driving ban, fined and be subject to a driving re-test at the end of your ban. No grey areas and no excuses.

Difficult really and in my view relies on the common sense of the driver. I know from past experience as a plod when the breathyliser was first introduced that I can consume 2 pints of 5% beer and still be just undfer the limit. However it is my choice that I will not drive within 24hrs of drinking any alcohol, regardless of how little. As some mouthwashes etc contain alcohol a total ban could, in my opinion, lead to some morally wrong prosecutions.

'Don't drink mouthwash and drive' Zero alcohol levels, mean just that!

Good job the people in charge are capable of thought, then, rather than a reliance on knee-jerk soundbites.

Not a knee jerk reaction at all.

Not such a great system from 'The people in charge' if there is confusion over how much alcohol a person can consume and then legally drive.

"We can't be bothered to think about this problem, just ban everything"

OK, how about manufacturers fitting a breath alcohol ignition interlock to every car, problem solved.
Next, fix speed limiters triggered by remotes at various limits, chips that only allow the car driven once MOT'd insured, by & by we can overcome everything - apart from irresponsible & plain bad drivers.
The alcohol limit in itself is not an issue and even a zero limit will not discourage those drivers who will take the risk (add under influence of drugs too). Maybe only stiffer sentencing and punishment will but I suspect not.

Des Olated wrote:
OK, how about manufacturers fitting a breath alcohol ignition interlock to every car, problem solved.
Next, fix speed limiters triggered by remotes at various limits, chips that only allow the car driven once MOT'd insured, by & by we can overcome everything - apart from irresponsible & plain bad drivers.
The alcohol limit in itself is not an issue and even a zero limit will not discourage those drivers who will take the risk (add under influence of drugs too). Maybe only stiffer sentencing and punishment will but I suspect not.

"Excuse me, sober passer by, could you just blow into this for me so I can *hic* get my car started? Here's a fiver". Trivial system to overcome. But luckily, the police "know" that it's impossible to drive a car whilst over the limit now, so don't bother stopping the guy, even though he's totally sloshed. Problem far from solved. Problem probably made far worse, in fact. You'll probably find a whole new dark economy in people renting their breath out to drunk drivers.

Any time someone provides a one-line solution to a problem that's evaded the entire world for decades, and finishes with "problem solved", you can be pretty much guaranteed they haven't given it the slightest bit of thought.

Georgem wrote:

Ted Rogers wrote:

Georgem wrote:

Ted Rogers wrote:

Inform Al wrote:

Ted Rogers wrote: The legal drink drive limit should be zero alcohol. If caught you should face a minimum 5 year driving ban, fined and be subject to a driving re-test at the end of your ban. No grey areas and no excuses.

Difficult really and in my view relies on the common sense of the driver. I know from past experience as a plod when the breathyliser was first introduced that I can consume 2 pints of 5% beer and still be just undfer the limit. However it is my choice that I will not drive within 24hrs of drinking any alcohol, regardless of how little. As some mouthwashes etc contain alcohol a total ban could, in my opinion, lead to some morally wrong prosecutions.

'Don't drink mouthwash and drive' Zero alcohol levels, mean just that!

Good job the people in charge are capable of thought, then, rather than a reliance on knee-jerk soundbites.

Not a knee jerk reaction at all. Not such a great system from 'The people in charge' if there is confusion over how much alcohol a person can consume and then legally drive.

"We can't be bothered to think about this problem, just ban everything"

'We can't be bothered to really implement a solution for this particular issue, so let's do nothing'

Ted Rogers wrote:

Georgem wrote:

Ted Rogers wrote:

Georgem wrote:

Ted Rogers wrote:

Inform Al wrote:

Ted Rogers wrote: The legal drink drive limit should be zero alcohol. If caught you should face a minimum 5 year driving ban, fined and be subject to a driving re-test at the end of your ban. No grey areas and no excuses.

Difficult really and in my view relies on the common sense of the driver. I know from past experience as a plod when the breathyliser was first introduced that I can consume 2 pints of 5% beer and still be just undfer the limit. However it is my choice that I will not drive within 24hrs of drinking any alcohol, regardless of how little. As some mouthwashes etc contain alcohol a total ban could, in my opinion, lead to some morally wrong prosecutions.

'Don't drink mouthwash and drive' Zero alcohol levels, mean just that!

Good job the people in charge are capable of thought, then, rather than a reliance on knee-jerk soundbites.

Not a knee jerk reaction at all. Not such a great system from 'The people in charge' if there is confusion over how much alcohol a person can consume and then legally drive.

"We can't be bothered to think about this problem, just ban everything"

'We can't be bothered to really implement a solution for this particular issue, so let's do nothing'

Who's proposing that? I can point to a post here that proposes that blanket bans will solve the problem. Where's the one proposing to do nothing?

Georgem wrote:

Ted Rogers wrote:

Georgem wrote:

Ted Rogers wrote:

Georgem wrote:

Ted Rogers wrote:

Inform Al wrote:

Ted Rogers wrote: The legal drink drive limit should be zero alcohol. If caught you should face a minimum 5 year driving ban, fined and be subject to a driving re-test at the end of your ban. No grey areas and no excuses.

Difficult really and in my view relies on the common sense of the driver. I know from past experience as a plod when the breathyliser was first introduced that I can consume 2 pints of 5% beer and still be just undfer the limit. However it is my choice that I will not drive within 24hrs of drinking any alcohol, regardless of how little. As some mouthwashes etc contain alcohol a total ban could, in my opinion, lead to some morally wrong prosecutions.

'Don't drink mouthwash and drive' Zero alcohol levels, mean just that!

Good job the people in charge are capable of thought, then, rather than a reliance on knee-jerk soundbites.

Not a knee jerk reaction at all. Not such a great system from 'The people in charge' if there is confusion over how much alcohol a person can consume and then legally drive.

"We can't be bothered to think about this problem, just ban everything"

'We can't be bothered to really implement a solution for this particular issue, so let's do nothing'

Who's proposing that? I can point to a post here that proposes that blanket bans will solve the problem. Where's the one proposing to do nothing?

Who says that a blanket ban is the result of not thinking about the issue?

A zero alcohol level for a drink drive limit absolutely removes any confusion as to how many drinks you can consume before getting into your car to drive.

Then you will completely eradicate the whole 'Well I only had 2 pints of medium strength lager' rationality.

Then it's all about the enforcement of stiff penalties for those that choose to ignore a simple rule. (As people will)

Ted, how workable do you think this system of yours would be? What stiff penalties would you suggest for those rotten souls who test positive because they ate a trifle for dessert?

Facewagon wrote:
Ted, how workable do you think this system of yours would be? What stiff penalties would you suggest for those rotten souls who test positive because they ate a trifle for dessert?

Hanging. And a five year driving ban, and an infinity billion pound fine. And points on the licences of all their family.

Georgem wrote:

Facewagon wrote:
Ted, how workable do you think this system of yours would be? What stiff penalties would you suggest for those rotten souls who test positive because they ate a trifle for dessert?

Hanging. And a five year driving ban, and an infinity billion pound fine. And points on the licences of all their family.

I'd advocate the same treatment for those who ate the dessert as I would for someone who had the Irish coffee instead of the trifle and tested positively.

Take responsibility. No George, not hanging but a minimum 5 year driving ban and suitable fine/community order.

Was the blanket ban on not wearing a seatbelt unsuccessful?

Keep it simple.

I can see the sense in blanket bans of things that are clearly harmful. I'm not convinced that drivers having consumed trifle, tiramisu or a spot of mouthwash present any more of a hazard than those who stay clear of these horrible vices. Perhaps we should just ban cars, by your logic that would eradicate all this confusion over allowed drinking limits and deal with speeding, aggressive driving etc. Everyone's a winner.

Facewagon wrote:
I can see the sense in blanket bans of things that are clearly harmful. I'm not convinced that drivers having consumed trifle, tiramisu or a spot of mouthwash present any more of a hazard than those who stay clear of these horrible vices. Perhaps we should just ban cars, by your logic that would eradicate all this confusion over allowed drinking limits and deal with speeding, aggressive driving etc. Everyone's a winner.

So it's ok to be over the limit and drive if you consume the alcohol in a different form?

No one is advocating banning cars, just make it plain that there is no safe amount of alcohol to consume and then legally drive.

Although, if you feel it strengthens your case on the alcohol limit continue to bring other issues into the debate.

Georgem wrote:

Des Olated wrote:
OK, how about manufacturers fitting a breath alcohol ignition interlock to every car, problem solved.
Next, fix speed limiters triggered by remotes at various limits, chips that only allow the car driven once MOT'd insured, by & by we can overcome everything - apart from irresponsible & plain bad drivers.
The alcohol limit in itself is not an issue and even a zero limit will not discourage those drivers who will take the risk (add under influence of drugs too). Maybe only stiffer sentencing and punishment will but I suspect not.

"Excuse me, sober passer by, could you just blow into this for me so I can *hic* get my car started? Here's a fiver". Trivial system to overcome. But luckily, the police "know" that it's impossible to drive a car whilst over the limit now, so don't bother stopping the guy, even though he's totally sloshed. Problem far from solved. Problem probably made far worse, in fact. You'll probably find a whole new dark economy in people renting their breath out to drunk drivers.

Any time someone provides a one-line solution to a problem that's evaded the entire world for decades, and finishes with "problem solved", you can be pretty much guaranteed they haven't given it the slightest bit of thought.

Absolutely Georgem
Point I was trying to make is that no matter what system or laws are in place it's unlikely to have any effect on the behaviour of those who are prepared to break the law, be it drink driving or anything else.

And zero alcohol simply punishes those able to enjoy a glass and stop, along with those who enjoy a beer legally at home of an evening but will still likely have some trace in the blood next day.
Completely unreasonable, at least while alcohol itself remains freely available and legal.

Des Olated wrote:
And zero alcohol simply punishes those able to enjoy a glass and stop, along with those who enjoy a beer legally at home of an evening but will still likely have some trace in the blood next day.
Completely unreasonable, at least while alcohol itself remains freely available and legal.

A zero alcohol limit doesn't punish anyone.
It's simple, be responsible for your alcohol intake if you are planning to drive.

Ted Rogers wrote:

Des Olated wrote:
And zero alcohol simply punishes those able to enjoy a glass and stop, along with those who enjoy a beer legally at home of an evening but will still likely have some trace in the blood next day.
Completely unreasonable, at least while alcohol itself remains freely available and legal.

A zero alcohol limit doesn't punish anyone.
It's simple, be responsible for your alcohol intake if you are planning to drive.

A single glass of wine (widely acknowledged authorities as considerably below any alcohol limit) with a meal and then driving is hardly irresponsible, neither is a couple of drams safely at home with a good night's sleep after - nonetheless both will likely show trace alcohol in a blood test.
A zero alcohol limit will not stop those who wish to drink & drive whilst over the limit, as demonstrated in countries with tighter rules than the UK's

The reason the figures are so low is that there are less officers out there breath testing drivers. This is due to budget cuts , the fact that PCSOs don't have the power to conduct breath tests and that Roads Policing is a the bottom of the priorities for policing the two counties and Chad Valley

Ted Rogers wrote:

Georgem wrote:

Ted Rogers wrote:

Georgem wrote:

Ted Rogers wrote:

Georgem wrote:

Ted Rogers wrote:

Inform Al wrote:

Ted Rogers wrote: The legal drink drive limit should be zero alcohol. If caught you should face a minimum 5 year driving ban, fined and be subject to a driving re-test at the end of your ban. No grey areas and no excuses.

Difficult really and in my view relies on the common sense of the driver. I know from past experience as a plod when the breathyliser was first introduced that I can consume 2 pints of 5% beer and still be just undfer the limit. However it is my choice that I will not drive within 24hrs of drinking any alcohol, regardless of how little. As some mouthwashes etc contain alcohol a total ban could, in my opinion, lead to some morally wrong prosecutions.

'Don't drink mouthwash and drive' Zero alcohol levels, mean just that!

Good job the people in charge are capable of thought, then, rather than a reliance on knee-jerk soundbites.

Not a knee jerk reaction at all. Not such a great system from 'The people in charge' if there is confusion over how much alcohol a person can consume and then legally drive.

"We can't be bothered to think about this problem, just ban everything"

'We can't be bothered to really implement a solution for this particular issue, so let's do nothing'

Who's proposing that? I can point to a post here that proposes that blanket bans will solve the problem. Where's the one proposing to do nothing?

Who says that a blanket ban is the result of not thinking about the issue?

A zero alcohol level for a drink drive limit absolutely removes any confusion as to how many drinks you can consume before getting into your car to drive.

Then you will completely eradicate the whole 'Well I only had 2 pints of medium strength lager' rationality.

Then it's all about the enforcement of stiff penalties for those that choose to ignore a simple rule. (As people will)

Problem with a zero rule is, as I said earlier, that some poor hygeinic person using a mouthwash before he goes to work could fail a breathyliser on the way to work without actually having consumed any alcohol.I have no problem with a reduction that would almost make it impossible to pass a test after just one drink. However whilst I am aware that my metabolism will clear 2 pints overnight, many of us are not so lucky. In order then to stay within the realms of sanity and fairness there must be some leeway in the test. I also have no obection thereafter if those that fail the current levels are dealt with very heavily.

Inform Al wrote:

Ted Rogers wrote:

Georgem wrote:

Ted Rogers wrote:

Georgem wrote:

Ted Rogers wrote:

Georgem wrote:

Ted Rogers wrote:

Inform Al wrote:

Ted Rogers wrote: The legal drink drive limit should be zero alcohol. If caught you should face a minimum 5 year driving ban, fined and be subject to a driving re-test at the end of your ban. No grey areas and no excuses.

Difficult really and in my view relies on the common sense of the driver. I know from past experience as a plod when the breathyliser was first introduced that I can consume 2 pints of 5% beer and still be just undfer the limit. However it is my choice that I will not drive within 24hrs of drinking any alcohol, regardless of how little. As some mouthwashes etc contain alcohol a total ban could, in my opinion, lead to some morally wrong prosecutions.

'Don't drink mouthwash and drive' Zero alcohol levels, mean just that!

Good job the people in charge are capable of thought, then, rather than a reliance on knee-jerk soundbites.

Not a knee jerk reaction at all. Not such a great system from 'The people in charge' if there is confusion over how much alcohol a person can consume and then legally drive.

"We can't be bothered to think about this problem, just ban everything"

'We can't be bothered to really implement a solution for this particular issue, so let's do nothing'

Who's proposing that? I can point to a post here that proposes that blanket bans will solve the problem. Where's the one proposing to do nothing?

Who says that a blanket ban is the result of not thinking about the issue?

A zero alcohol level for a drink drive limit absolutely removes any confusion as to how many drinks you can consume before getting into your car to drive.

Then you will completely eradicate the whole 'Well I only had 2 pints of medium strength lager' rationality.

Then it's all about the enforcement of stiff penalties for those that choose to ignore a simple rule. (As people will)

Problem with a zero rule is, as I said earlier, that some poor hygeinic person using a mouthwash before he goes to work could fail a breathyliser on the way to work without actually having consumed any alcohol.I have no problem with a reduction that would almost make it impossible to pass a test after just one drink. However whilst I am aware that my metabolism will clear 2 pints overnight, many of us are not so lucky. In order then to stay within the realms of sanity and fairness there must be some leeway in the test. I also have no obection thereafter if those that fail the current levels are dealt with very heavily.

Your metabolism will no doubt clear 2 or more pints overnight and you'd be totally safe to be on the road. It may however still leave a low level trace in your blood that would mean you failing a blood test (not a breathalyser)
THAT is the real problem with an absolute zero limit..

Des Olated wrote:

Inform Al wrote:

Ted Rogers wrote:

Georgem wrote:

Ted Rogers wrote:

Georgem wrote:

Ted Rogers wrote:

Georgem wrote:

Ted Rogers wrote:

Inform Al wrote:

Ted Rogers wrote: The legal drink drive limit should be zero alcohol. If caught you should face a minimum 5 year driving ban, fined and be subject to a driving re-test at the end of your ban. No grey areas and no excuses.

Difficult really and in my view relies on the common sense of the driver. I know from past experience as a plod when the breathyliser was first introduced that I can consume 2 pints of 5% beer and still be just undfer the limit. However it is my choice that I will not drive within 24hrs of drinking any alcohol, regardless of how little. As some mouthwashes etc contain alcohol a total ban could, in my opinion, lead to some morally wrong prosecutions.

'Don't drink mouthwash and drive' Zero alcohol levels, mean just that!

Good job the people in charge are capable of thought, then, rather than a reliance on knee-jerk soundbites.

Not a knee jerk reaction at all. Not such a great system from 'The people in charge' if there is confusion over how much alcohol a person can consume and then legally drive.

"We can't be bothered to think about this problem, just ban everything"

'We can't be bothered to really implement a solution for this particular issue, so let's do nothing'

Who's proposing that? I can point to a post here that proposes that blanket bans will solve the problem. Where's the one proposing to do nothing?

Who says that a blanket ban is the result of not thinking about the issue?

A zero alcohol level for a drink drive limit absolutely removes any confusion as to how many drinks you can consume before getting into your car to drive.

Then you will completely eradicate the whole 'Well I only had 2 pints of medium strength lager' rationality.

Then it's all about the enforcement of stiff penalties for those that choose to ignore a simple rule. (As people will)

Problem with a zero rule is, as I said earlier, that some poor hygeinic person using a mouthwash before he goes to work could fail a breathyliser on the way to work without actually having consumed any alcohol.I have no problem with a reduction that would almost make it impossible to pass a test after just one drink. However whilst I am aware that my metabolism will clear 2 pints overnight, many of us are not so lucky. In order then to stay within the realms of sanity and fairness there must be some leeway in the test. I also have no obection thereafter if those that fail the current levels are dealt with very heavily.

Your metabolism will no doubt clear 2 or more pints overnight and you'd be totally safe to be on the road. It may however still leave a low level trace in your blood that would mean you failing a blood test (not a breathalyser)
THAT is the real problem with an absolute zero limit..

Exactly, thankfully as I do not use mouth wash and never drive less than 24 hours after a drink I would be OK even with a zero rate. It is other inncent victims of a zero rate that I would be concerned for.