<% ballot="45390" ' Check nothing is broken broken = 0 if ballot = "" then broken = 1 end if set vt = Server.Createobject("mps.Vote") openresult = vt.Open("Vote", "sa", "") ' Created object? if IsObject(vt) = TRUE then ' Opened db? if openresult = True AND broken = 0 then ballotresult = vt.SetBallotName(ballot) ' read the vote votetotal=(vt.GetVoteCount(ballot, "yes")+vt.GetVoteCount(ballot, "no")) if votetotal <> 0 then ' there are votes in the database numberyes = vt.GetVoteCount(ballot, "yes") numberno = vt.GetVoteCount(ballot, "no") percentyes = Int((numberyes/votetotal)*100) percentno = 100 - percentyes ' fix graph so funny graph heights dont appear 'if percentyes = 0 then ' percentyes = 1 'end if 'if percentno = 0 then ' percentno = 1 'end if else ' summut went wrong frig it numberyes = 0 numberno = 0 percentyes = 50 percentno = 50 end if end if end if %> Votes so far:

100% 0%			>		>
			Yes: <% =percentyes %>%		No: <% =percentno %>%

Total ban on alcohol when driving is the way it should be. That way there are no 'grey areas' or loop holes.
Dave Brunton, Stockport, UK

I believe that the current limit is satisfactory. I do not think that drinking and driving should be banned completely as this would pose a problem for the morning after. Such a ban would effectively mean that one would not be able to drive to work possibly until lunchtime on the following day. The public transport situation, especially in rural areas, is not good enough at the moment to allow such a trend.
Stephen Morgan, Wales

You can never totally ban alcohol in the blood stream as that is impossible. I think the limit should be lower and inforce punishments (eg fines) for drivers under the limit but with alcohol in their blood.
Rachel Baldridge, Canada

I have seen what drinking and driving has done to america. Please dont let it happen to your country - so many lives ruined.
Debbie Ferris, USA

At the moment most of the drivers have to rely on their unreliable intuition and very vague guidelines. If during my business lunch I had three glasses of red wine, can I drive home after 2 hours, 4 hours, 5 hours or do I have to use public transport and not touch my car until the next morning? Questions like this can be asked endlessly and a stricter law will not help much with answering them. The only proper solution is to allow the drivers to test themselves and to let them know more on how they react to alcohol.
A Tarczynski, United Kingdom

The current law has wide spread support and it is socially unacceptable for people to drink and drive above the current limit. This may be put at risk by an arbitrary lowering of the limit. A lower limit would effectively mean that no one could safely drive a vehicle within 12 hours of having any amount of alcohol. The present limit is clearly understood, has public support and works well, with the UK having some of the fewest drink related accidents in the world.
T. Pearson, United Kingdom

I believe that the alcohol limit in the UK should be lowered to 50 mg. I would propose a two tier Yellow Card / Red Card system i.e. one minor offence = 1 year ban, two minor offences or one major offence = life ban. These bans should be mandatory. A minor offence should be between 50 mg and 120 mg, a major offence should be over 120 mg.
Justin Thead, England

Lowering the limit just enables more people to be prosecuted "IF" they are caught or after a tragedy has already happened. Why not introduce random breath tests and a mandatory short spell in prison for first time offenders, as often a ban is just a joke to someone who has little regard for anyone else. Steve Ramsay, England

Lowering the limit from 80 to 50 milligrams of alcohol per 100 ml of blood is very good. In our country the limit is 50 promille, and it does have an effect. In our country there are also people who go to secondary schools and inform the students about the dangers of drink-driving with a shock-therapy, showing them awful pictures of accidents.
Steven Van Praet, Belgium

Here in Belgium there are the same limits for drinking and driving and they are valid for all drivers. The Christmas Campaign against drink-driving was very successful and it has reduced the drink-drive accidents.
Karolien Verbeiren, Belgium

In Melbourne, Australia, it is illegal to have ANY alcohol in the blood if you are a "P plater" (had your license for less than 3 years). It works. Most of the people I know are aware that they can't have even one drink, so they arrange a designated driver when they go out who will not drink any alcohol. Some places even give a designated driver free soft drink. A no-alcohol rule is easier to rule on. As they say over here, if you drink then drive, you're a bloody idiot.
Kersti, Australia

I firmly believe that there should be a complete ban on drinking alcohol if you wish to drive. Even by just lowering the limit you are still allowing people to drive with alcohol in their system. The amount of alcohol has different effects on various people.
I am sure that with 79 mg of alcohol in my blood, I would be incapable of driving safely and yet NOT be over the current legal limit. You must go forward with NIL alcohol limit if anyone wishes to drive, its the only way. In addition to this you must press for a much stricter penalty on breaking the drink driving laws.
Colin Gilbert, England

I think motorcyclists should be exempt from the drink-drive laws altogether. If I want to ride my bike drunk out of my head, then that's my business ! The last time I was seriosly sloshed I fell off and hurt myself, but I learned an important lesson that day (just be more careful !). Car drivers should stick to the current limits, and under-25 year old car drivers should be set a much lower limit. It's about time we removed the government and started taking control of our own lives.
Nick Andrew, England

In an ideal world there would be a zero limit, however, it would be immensely difficult to enforce. What needs to go first though is the attitude displayed by a handful of respondents. The man who fell of his Motorbike clearly suffered a large amount of brain damage, because surely no one can be as selfish as him. The Law is there to protect the innocent people YOU KILL. If you feel that the right to drink is yours, perhaps it is too much to ask you to consider my right to live. Idiots who drive over the limit should be banned for five years then life for a second offence.
Kevin Foster, United Kingdom

The ban should be total. If people want to drink they should not drive. If Nick Andrews wants to ride his bike drunk out of his head that is his business. However, if he actually does it then it is the business of everyone. What is the point of a law that allows us to drink just enough to probably not care if we go over the limit?
Bill O'Sullivan, United Kingdom

Banning drinking and driving would be unenforceable. At the moment, it's probably the only offence that you can commit without knowing, and to expect people to be able to accurately judge whether or not by the morning whether last night's drinks are still in the system is unreasonable.
Dave Calow, England

A total ban doesn't take long to get used to as anyone who stays for a time in Sweden soon discovers. Surprisingly it is not an infringement of ones civil liberty, you just adjust your transport and times accordingly.
You wonder why you ever even risked it in the past. The permitted alcohol level allowed in Sweden is so low that you are not even willing to risk a half - so you don't. But this is a country with excellent public transport.
O.Turner, Sweden

Banning is a bit too much, but it should be made very clear by the actions of the courts that drunk driving will result in immediate jail time and loss of licence to drive.
John Coover, U.S.A.

Anyone who has experience of racing or driving cars on a track will realise the effects even a slight lack of sleep can have to their performance - drinking is considerably worse. I leave at least 24 hours between drinking and driving and don't find it limits my social life at all.
Steve Davies, UK

Alertness testers are currently available which assess a person's response time by shining a bright light onto their retina and time the delay before their pupil contracts.
These devices, unlike other currently available, alcohol level, detectors, do not require regular calibration or replacement and may, for example, be installed in a car so that the driver is warned, or even prohibited from starting the car, if his/her response time is too long.
The result would be a reduction in not just alcohol related accidents, but also in accidents caused by drivers who are unfit to drive through many, currently untested, driving impairments such as drug abuse, tiredness and flu.
Jared Stokes, Wales, UK

If w ban drink driving, it's just one more thing we aren't allowed to decide for ourselves. Isn't it better to make the decision for ourselves, rather than have it forced upon us by the government?
David Goodchild, UK

I have already written a comment in support of the freedom to drive after drinking in moderation. Here is a rather more radical suggestion: a license to drink and drive. The point is that driving standards vary enormously, and an excellent driver after 1 to 2 pints will still be able to drive much better than a poor driver after none at all.
So, the system would be that for a suitable fee, a person who wishes to attain a license to drink and drive undergoes a severe test of driving accuracy and reaction time after drinking and taking a blood test to ascertain alcohol concentration.
The license could then allow that up to a certain alcohol concentration the person posed a negligible extra risk to the public. And I agree with the concept of random breath tests (+blood test if requested) to help police enforce the law.
Now that idea is probably too radical, innovative, and sensible for any government to take it up.
R J Booth, England

If the level is set to zero every one knows what the limit is. No body would be able to justify/excuse their drink driving on the basis of "I only had one drink"
Paul Starling, England

The diversion of police resources into catching those who drink sensibly will mean that drivers who flout the existing limit will be more, not less, likely to continue to remain undetected.
F. Micklewright, UK

A 20mg limit, such as that in force in Sweden, should be imposed. This effectively means that only one drink will take you over the limit. One of the major causes of drivers exceeding the current limit is the uncertainty over how many drinks they can have and still drive legally. The only safe level is no drinks at all, this effectively removes the uncertainty. The police need to be given powers for random breath tests, and punishments need to be severe, with automatic loss of license for all offenders and a graduated scale of fines and prison sentences according to the level of alcohol in the blood. Manslaughter charges should be brought against those causing death through drinking and driving.
Peter Green, UK

I do not believe that a total ban would work, but I am certainlyin favour having a much lower limit. This works in Sweden and it seems to be accepted by most people. One problem that needs addressing in the UK is the fact that in pubs soft drinks cost as much or even more than beer. This is despite the fact that tax is much lower on soft drinks. This hardly promotes sensible drink-driving behaviour.
Matt Evans, UK

As a surgeon a lot of my time is spent dealing with people injured because of drink driving. many do not even make it to the hospital doors. Unfortunately it is often innocent victims who suffer and not the drunk louts. On the other hand social drinking should not be banned because of the few who abuse. I think that the legal level should be decreased to 50 and there should be random testing in car parks and close to pubs and restaurants.
I once read about a breathalyser in a car that disabled the car when the driver is over the limit - this sounds like a good idea to me!
Gordon Caruana-Dingli, Malta

There is a moral question to be answered here. It is very easy to apportion blame for an accident on a person with alcohol in their blood stream. The consequences of this are often social ostracisation which in many cases is a justifiable and fitting punishment. We have to ask, at what point does the level of alcohol in your blood stream actually impair your judgement sufficiently to apportion blame for an accident. Unfortunately it's not a quantative subject, since anylevel of alcohol present will be preventing messages from crossing the gap between the synapses - the phenomena which impairs our judgement. It is a contentious issue and this view is meant to highlight our own obsession for apportioning blame which some times borders on facism.
Greg Turner, United Kingdom

My cousin was killed by a drunk driver a few years ago, she was only 20yrs old the other people in her car were also badly hurt but the drunk person got away with only cuts and bruises. I think that if your going to drive what is the point in even having one. I hate it when people say "I can handle my drink so a few won't matter" or "well I've had five pints before and drove because it just doesn't effect me". If you want to kill yourself go ahead and do it but don't risk other peoples lives just because you want that one extra drink. Its just not worth it.
Tracey Bone, United Kingdom

Clearly the answer must be "Yes". There are certain crimes in the world which must be given a zero tolerance - drink-driving, rape, drug pushing etc. The blood alcohol level should be set to zero and random breath tests should be introduce to stop further deaths and accidents. There is no justifiable reason to drink and drive - there are no excuses and one day that drink drive death statistic could be a member of your family.
Andrew Pritchard, United Kingdom

As it is the current drink-driving laws are far too lenient. They should be made tougher with a new emphasis on drug-driving related incidents. There should be no need for anyone to have to drink and drive, so proper precautions should be taken, such as booking a taxi in advance, there is absolutely no excuse.
Mr. James Lawford, England

There is no point lowering the current limit as most drunk driving accidents involve people several times the current limit. More emphasis should be put on catching people well over the current limit. We should only consider lowering the limit when we can be sure that no-one drives over the 80mg limit and there are still drunk driving accidents.
Andy Hardy, England

It is my belief that driving while under the influence of alcohol or any other narcotic substance should be treated as attempted manslaughter or murder. The driver is knowingly putting the lives and well-being of others at risk When he, or she, drives while under the influence. Punishment should therefore be in line with those for murder. A driving ban is insufficient for some and is very difficult to enforce. The only way to enforce a driving ban is to keep the convicted behind bars. After all the law must protect the public.
Marcus Waller, England

I don't drink and drive and I don't defend it. BUT... it seems to me that far too many problems are approached these days in a spirit of moral superiority, and it's assumed that finding some sort of formula, then applying it rigorously to 'them', will cure all our evils. Imagination is what's needed. If we need more rules, why not simply make pub car parks illegal, including non-residents parking in the vicinity of a pub? Or is interfering with the profits of the drinks industry a no-go area?
John Luby, Scotland

I feel that there should be a "personal" limit of alcohol, determined at a driving course at the driver's expense. This should be endorsed on a person's licence, and anyone without an endorsement, should not be allowed to drive with any alcohol in their blood. I am not advocating that people be endorsed at silly levels and I realise that seriously drunk people have caused many deaths on the road. I also think that removal of your endorsed limit would be an excellent punishment for those who infringe traffic regulations while having any quantity of alcohol in the blood.
Richard Dyason, Australia

For sensible people drinking and driving are already effectively banned. Anyinconvenience caused to the few who insist on doing both by applying a total legal ban would be far outweighed by the saving of lives and the costs of dealing with injuries, insurance claims and vehicle repairs. Penalties for defying a total ban should be severe, with a several year driving ban being automatic and the minimum.
R E Hardy, Wales

I don't know how effective drinking laws in other free countries has been but I think it is as good as it will get here. Growing up ( I' m 23 ), I had peers that died due to alcohol and the best solution that any parents ever came up with was buy food, give blankets. You could have an outright prohibition and people will still drink and drive.
Rodney Bruemmer, USA

As a person who "enjoys" a drink then I, as I'm sure most people do, find restricting myself to one or two drinks is hard and the temptation to have "just one more, " I'll be OK" is great. Personally I find it's better and safer for your fellow human beings to abstain totally from alcohol when driving.
Matthew Drewry, England

Only last week on Highway 1, a major roadway in Louisiana, I narrowly escaped a head-on crash with a driver who drove his light truck into my lane of traffic. Any substance which renders one unable to drive safely and responsibly should most definitely be banned. I and my passenger could well have been statistics added to the long list of those injured or killed by drunk drivers. To allow this to continue is uncivilized.
Jackie Tucker, USA

As a injured victim of a drink driver and as someone who has many friends who still drink and drive, I think it should be banned. However, there must be alternatives and in the UK taxis can be expensive as a means of getting home. That has to be addressed.
Eddie Mulligan, Indonesia

I'm in total agreement that drinking and driving should be banned. It is a privilege to drive a car and certain responsibilities go along with the privilege.
J Buitenga, Canada

As a young physician performing A&E duty, I remember stitching a minor head wound on a man who had no knowledge of killing 3 people. He was so drunk he could barely stand let alone drive a car. It is a memory that will stay with me forever.
In Sweden the limit is 20 mg/100mls. Effectively, most regard this as no alcohol intake and they manage parties by arranging for a non-drinking driver (taking it in turns!) or use taxis or public transport. This is regarded as the only reasonable way to behave, and of course it is.
It does mean that, for young people at least, public transport must be a realistic option, or that they must be prepared to walk or cycle, or be able to stay over. However, this implies that they should not be incapably or disgustingly drunk, except possibly for the last option. Then they have to face their friends or relatives the next day!
The Swedish way seems such obvious, sensible behaviour and it makes me wonder why there is a debate in the UK. Individual freedom is to be preserved, but only when it does not endanger others.
Ralph Edwards, Sweden

Total prohibition policies seldom work. If a policy is not enforceable it becomes a nonsense. A system of de-merit points used in combination with a system of fines is effective because habitual offenders will soon reach the limit which automatically results in the cancellation of their licence for a period of time.
The shame and inconvenience of not being licenced to drive is a powerful punishment. In some Australian States the names of drink driving offenders are printed in the daily Newspaper and this is also a powerful deterent to the would be offender. Most Clubs and Pubs have a breathalyser machine near their main exit so that their clients can double-check that their blood alcohol level is within the legal limits.
Maurene Grundy, Australia

What I have seen is nothing unique in police circles. Yet I am still amazed at the arrogance of those who insist on drinking & driving. It is those aged 40 - 60 who are the worst offenders. They seem oblivious to the dangers they cause. They are selfish and self centered, and care not to what they might do to others. An outright ban will affect many, especially those who drive the next day after an evening out. However we expect strict temperence for pilots, the same should be expected from car drivers.
Yes I do like a pint of beer, but I'll leave the car at home.
James Parfree, UK

The major problem is that you *can* get away with drunken driving in the UK. Random tests and checkpoints are required so that people feel that they will eventually get caught if they continue to drink and drive. Lowering the limit will not make any difference to those already breaking the law - it will only make those who already heed the limit, drink a little less.
Trevor Masters, UK

You can kill more people with a car than with a shotgun. Nobody with any sense would suggest giving guns to drunks.
Alan Young, UK

One pint will make no difference to most peoples' driving, so why make them social outcasts who have to drink orange juice at the pub. I know you can still enjoy yourself when you're not drinking alcohol, but not being able to have any drink at all will totally alter the experience. The police should be given more powers, or perhaps the limit should be lowered, but definately not banned.
Richard Eyres, Bristol, UK

I think people should be allowed to drink a pint or pint and a half (equivalent) and still be allowed to drive. I think the police and some interested groups are trying to misuse meaningless statistics in order to hoodwink the general population into supporting a total ban on drinking and driving.
I think that current police powers, especially random checks, are sufficient and shouldn't be extended.
S.Williams, UK

As a person who can't drive for medical reasons, I have to rely on other people. I am, therefore, putting my life at the mercy of others. I would feel safer if I knew that drinking and driving was banned. My husband is very good, he does not drink at all if he is driving. Why can't others do the same?
Elizabeth Longshaw, UK

A ban would give a strong message to all drink drive offenders, even those who choose to drink 'just a couple', however there are a couple of rather sticky situations that could arise if the level of alcohol allowed in the blood is reduced dramatically. Alcohol in food could prove to be a problem with many people not aware they have taken any alcohol. Secondly, small amounts of alcohol in the blood from drinking the night before, people who go out of their way not to drive if they drink at night, may still be in trouble the morning after. There should be a concerted effort by the government and taxi companies to reduce the cost of taxi's. This would surely encourage people to taxi rather than drive.
Simon Richards, United Kingdom

It is not just the youngsters that drink and drive, but the older people who always say "it does not affect me". They are totally irresponsible and the limit for drink driving ought to be far far stricter, as should the penalties. If someone is killed by drink driving, it should be treated the same as if it was murder.
Jason Johns, United Kingdom

I think a lot of senseless deaths could be avoided. I agree with USA in their law prohibiting under 21's to drink in public places. I think this should be world wide.
Fran Taylor, South Africa

As an emergency ambulance technician I am in favour of an all out ban but would be interested in knowing how it would be policed . Alcohol stays in the system for many hours.
A .J MacRae, UK

There exists technology which is in the earlystages of development that may effectively go far toward the lessening of the danger associated with driving while intoxicated. Sensors in individual automobile starter relays are under development which will disable the signal to start the car when a built-in breath analyzer reads too high an alcohol content.
There are other more sophisticated if more expensive checking devices possible with current levels of user security technology; however, there may be no need for these secure limiting devices in the reasonably near future.
Drive by wire technology is also in it's embryonic stages. When it reaches its full capability, humans will be afforded the ability to drive or should we say transport themselves while experiencing any number of impairments, including drunkenness.
Rod Dankers, USA

It would difficult to enforce an outright ban. However if as in the US the penalties far outweigh the 'pleasure' gained then the thought of something like a mandatory education program and or a retest at the offenders expense.
Assuming for the latter the 'new driver' can get insurance at a cost. In the worst cases of course there is no alternative but to impose a custodial sentence, not in an open institution but somewhere which would be an unforgettable sobering experience.
You will always get those who will and those who think twice if the price is too high and not worth it, which it isn't. Whilst working in the US it certainly makes me think about it to the degree that zero is the best policy if driving.
Paul Banham, UK

Consumption of alcohol is not a right to be protected at the cost of innocent lives lost and bodies maimed. There should be a zero level of tolerance for alcohol and driving, and those found with alcohol in the blood should not only lose their license, but have their vehicles confiscated permanently.
Too often one hears of repeat offenders causing further "accidents" while driving without a license. (I put "accidents" in quotes, because since the decision to drink and drive is taken deliberately and with foreknowlege of the potential consequences, I believe there is no such thing as a true "accident" caused by a drinking driver.)
Alan Kerr, USA

Drinking and driving should be banned outright. For several reasons - not least of all because there is no valid reason to allow it. Certain safeguards have to be in place, though, since any test for blood alcohol has an in-built error factor. This will in a single step remove the "one for the road" mentality, and people will know exactly where they stand on this issue.
Paul Harper, UK

What is needed is a far more severe attitude to drink driving convictions. How about a minimal 10 year ban, mandatory retest and a huge fine. Plus the likelihood of a murder charge if anyone dies as a result - after all, drinking and driving is premeditated, and everyone knows the consequences.
Simon Bradley, UK

I was caught drinking and driving last year (Aug 1996). Up to that point I always told myself I would never drink and drive, But I did. It is just not worth it.
I was lucky I never injured anyone. Now I realise a car is just as good as a loaded gun, and mixed with drink it can be even more evil.
James Smith, UK

Alcohol is not a prerequisite to a social life, but even for those events where a drink will be part of proceedings, a bit of forward planning makes driving unnecessary: surely anyone would rather pay a bus or taxi fare than live with the consequences of an accident that occurs after a drink/drive incident. It's a mistake to see the effects of alcohol on driving as black and white where one drink is totally safe and two or more represents a danger. Even half a glass of wine could have a marginal slowing effect on ones reflexes, and that tiny margin can often be the difference between keeping and losing control of the vehicle when the unexpected happens...
Mark O'Leary, UK

I think it is simpler and safer to ban drinking and driving altogether. It has been shown that even small amounts of alcohol can affect coordination and judgement, so why take the risk ? Surely only very naive or selfish people would make somebody feel a social outcast for making the decision not to drink and drive.
As the ad campaign implies, it is difficult to know exactly how many milligrams of alcohol will be in your blood stream after a drink or two so a total ban would clarify matters, and give people who are susceptible to peer pressure a valid reason for not having that drink.
Elaine Woobey, Scotland, UK

I would love to see drinking and driving banned in my lifetime. I live in San Francisco, and as of January 1st smoking is now banned in ALL public places, inclusing bars and restaurants, offices and shops.
The reasoning is the health problems related to second hand smoke - people shouldn't be able to smoke in public places and cause others to have health problems.
What about drinking and driving - why is that any more acceptable - people are able to drink and drive and so many people are killed or injured because of it. If smoking can be BANNED, then drinking and driving should be as well.
Karoline Robbins, USA

Back to top | BBC News Home | BBC Homepage	©