Should the police have more powers over drink drivers?

The number of Christmas drink-drivers has sharply increased over five years with people under thirty said to be the worst offenders.

Figures issued by the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) reveal that out of more than 15,000 drivers breath-tested after accidents 8% were over the limit - an increase of almost 1% on the last festive season.

Ministers are already considering giving police extra powers to deal with the hard core of persistent drink-drivers.

These would include being able to stop drivers without a reason if they suspect they have been drinking.

Do you feel that anything can be done to reduce the number of drink-drivers, especially around the festive season? Would giving the police additional powers help to solve the problem?

This debate is now closed. Read a selection of your comments below.

---

Your reaction

The police should be enabled to take whatever action they feel necessary

Kay Harris, England

The police should have the power to immediately arrest anyone who tests positive in a breath test. Anyone found over the limit should be banned from driving and OWNING a car for 10 years for a first offence and for life for a second. The police should be enabled to take whatever action they feel necessary to save the public from any potential murderer getting behind the wheel of a car whilst drunk or banned from driving.
Kay Harris, England

The real reason that the government wants to target drivers who have been drinking is the same reason they want to target drivers who are driving over the speed limit - an easy way of raising funds coupled with a good way of giving the public the perception that they are "doing something". The reality is that the vast majority of accidents, injuries and deaths on the road are not caused by speeding or by being under the influence of alcohol; they are caused by bad driving! However, having a crackdown on "bad driving" lacks the emotive tones of "SPEEDING" or "DRUNKENNESS" so it's a less attractive proposition. There's your facts. Deal with it.
Simon Moore, UK

I really can't believe that anyone here still has any sympathy for the drink-driver

Nick, The Netherlands

I'm sure that if the drunks who choose to drive risked losing their cars and licences they would think twice before getting behind the wheel. If the police forces had the option of selling these confiscated vehicles to raise funds then it could be self-financing operation. I really can't believe that anyone here still has any sympathy for the drink-driver.
Nick, The Netherlands

I don't think the police need more power, I think they need more people!
Frances, UK

It strikes me that a lot of people say they want the police to be tough on crime, until it comes to their own crimes (drink-driving, speeding etc). Then suddenly they believe in civil liberties and fear a police state. Double standards?
Ben Drake, York, UK

Make those who are part of the problem realise that there are no second chances

Mike Littleton, USA

Giving the police additional powers is not the answer. Those who are out celebrating need to take control of and be responsible for their actions. If they have an accident and innocent person(s)die then those responsible should be tried and sentenced as a murderer as that is precisely what they are. There are no mistakes or poor judgements when it comes to taking the life of an innocent person, there are only penalties one must pay. The police have the power to stop those who appear to be intoxicated already. If they see someone they think may have been drinking they will find a reason to pull them over and take control. Giving them more power will most likely add to other problems such as harassment. Make those who are part of the problem realise that there are no second chances and maybe this will get them to think twice before over-indulging.
Mike Littleton, USA

The police already effectively have the power to perform random breath tests. They can set up a road block and stop everyone, and then demand a breath test if they suspect the person they have stopped has been drinking. No more powers are required. Some countries have lower limits, but many of these have lower penalties. For example Belgium has a lower limit, but to receive something equivalent to the UK penalty you need to be at almost double the UK limit. It is also worth noting that drink related means either driver involved was over the limit, irrespective of the cause of the accident. It is less of a problem than Government spin would have us believe.
Keith, UK

A colleague went out to the pub spent the night there and left the car overnight making his way home by taxi. He was being responsible not drinking and driving. He went back the next day to pick up the car at 3 o'clock in the afternoon only to be stopped by police as soon as he left the pub car park. He was breathalysed and found to be slightly over the limit. Technically he was drunk in charge of vehicle was he a danger? I doubt it.
John, Wales

I understand people find Rachael's comments controversial, but we might as well accept that people DO want to drink and get home. I recently spent a weekend in Sweden, where we went out to a club and were able to get a bus home at 3 am. In this country, outside London? Think again. Sort out public transport and then the ones that are left really WILL be the hardcore drink-drivers.
Clare, UK

I would be very happy for police to have more powers over drink drivers if I felt that the CPS would back them up with proper sentences

Matthew Wood, Scotland

I would be very happy for police to have more powers over drink drivers if I felt that the CPS would back them up with proper sentences. Additionally, I feel strongly about the emphasis on speed when in some areas a quarter of accidents involve drunk drivers. How are these people going to be caught when some constabularies are scrapping their traffic divisions altogether?
Matthew Wood, Scotland

The British police are handed ever more powers, but crime is still going up. In the old days, they have fewer powers, and crime was low. There is a pattern here, few laws well-applied are more effective than many laws poorly-applied. Bear this in mind when considering handing the police more power.
Guy Hammond, England

I still cannot believe the opposition in the UK to random breath testing, if you are not doing anything wrong why are you so worried. In Australia random checks have been in operation for well over 10 years, and are generally accepted by the public as a means of controlling the more selfish and idiotic members of society. It is not uncommon for police to set up roadblocks and pull over every car for testing, especially at Christmas. If you want to control drink driving this is the only way to do it, scare people into leaving the car at home.
Steve, Ex-Pat, Australia

We should recognize that "increased powers to stop drink drivers" actually means "increased powers to randomly stop and detain anyone with limited proof" It's really an issue of free society, some will choose to be irresponsible, but the alternative is a police state. If only 10% of accidents are caused by drink driving or speeding then certainly some of the other causes should be examined. How many of the 'Drink Driving' statistics would have happened anyway without drink due simply to carelessness or some other factor.
Jo, British in Canada

What people seem to forget is that we are now having drinks that are higher in alchohol and so even two pints can send you over the limit. My view is that the present limit is set too high, it should be at least half of what it is now or even less. The penalties also need to be increased. Drink Drivers should be put on a kind of driving probation when they get their licence back and have to display a notice on their vehicles during the probation period. Is it not everyones responsibility to report drink drivers, next time it could be your child killed or your property damaged.
Ray Rawlinson, UK

I would rather see the Government and police tackle the issues of the yob drinking culture that pervades our towns and cities. Arresting someone barely over the limit who hasn't harmed anyone is a lot less important than catching the perpetrators of meaningless drunken assaults every Saturday night. By all means go after the hard core drunk drivers - I have witnessed people killed in a DD accident - but I am far more afraid of being assaulted on a Saturday night in England for no reason.
Al, Germany

Take drink drivers licences away for a minimum of ten years, and fine them £5000. that would soon get the message across. There shouldn't be a permissible level of alcohol for this criminal offence. Quite simply if there was a nil permissible level, everybody would know exactly where they stood, and there could be no excuses. Lori USA you have it spot on. Why should drunks ruin other families' lives. What worries ME more these days is the number of people who are undoubtedly driving around under the influence of all sorts of drugs, and it's high time this was tackled with equal vigour.
Keith Simpson, UK

The police should be allowed to do random breath tests

Russell, UK

The police are far too busy trying to catch speeding motorists, rather than deal with drink-drivers. Drink driving is a real menace on our roads and is only really highlighted during the last few weeks of December - what about the rest of the year? The police should be allowed to do random breath tests and visit pubs at tipping out time in order to catch these people before they get behind the wheel.
Russell, UK

I note the increase in detected drink driving offences with some concern. The observed rise in offences committed by under-30s really bothers me. Clearly the Government's campaign has failed. However, I can't help but wonder if the rise isn't due in some part to two special factors:

Firstly, the abysmal state of public transport over the festive period; Secondly, the extra crashes caused by the failure of many local authorities to treat icy roads.

Nothing excuses drink driving, but aren't we foolish to allow our elected leaders to spend money discouraging it on the one hand but on the other hand allow them to carry forward policy decisions that not only encourage people to take the risk but also increase the chances of having a serious accident?
Rodger Edwards, UK

Drink-driving is wrong but so is driving defective vehicles, having uncorrected poor eyesight, driving under the influence of drugs, tailgating, poor observation, not using indicators, etc.. Drink-driving and speeding, which between them cause no more than ten percent of accidents, get ninety percent of police resources thrown at them simply because they are easy to identify. The other ninety percent of potential accidents, which would require more effort on behalf of the authorities, are ignored.
Brian W, UK

Is it any wonder that drink-drive numbers are up this Christmas? Londoners who would normally rely on South-West Trains to get home from a drinking session had no choice but to drive. I also failed to notice any hard-hitting adverts on TV this Christmas.
Rachael, UK

I still cannot believe that people can try and justify drink driving by blaming the public transport and lack of adverts. They do not force you to have a drink, that is your choice. If you go out you should either not drink or make sure you have an alternative way home beforehand. We can all check timetables and information boards. People are constantly complaining that the police are concentrating on speeding motorists, when it is they and the drink-drivers that are blatantly breaking the law and consuming police time, which could be better spent on more time-consuming crimes.
Alex, England

How about linking the breathalyser test machine to the ignition system of cars?

Daren, UK

Maybe some technology could help here. How about linking the breathalyser test machine to the ignition system of cars? Or something like that. Whatever powers you give the police, it won't stop drunk drivers getting into cars.
Daren, UK

Police should have more powers to stop and breathalyse; there is no point in talking of reducing alcohol levels if the current levels are not being enforced. To habitual offenders the limit is not relevant - they will exceed the limit anyway, anticipating they will not get caught.
Andy Mosson, UK

I agree with Brian W. I cover 30000 miles a year and nearly all the accidents I see are caused by aggressive, inconsiderate drivers leaving no margin for error. I can't remember the last time I saw an obviously drunk driver. The resources thrown at catching drink drivers far outweighs the problem. Also, I believe that there should be a scaling of blood alchohol levels where the punishment starts with the police taking your keys off you, and ends with you being locked up, because I can't believe that crossing some arbitrary threshold somehow transforms you from a model driver to a drunken psychopath.
Steve, UK

The hardcore groups of drink drivers will not be perturbed by tougher sentences

John Hutchence, UK

Certainly there will be a small, hardcore section of society that continues to flout the law, as with any crime. But as usual, it is the public that are suffering, and being blamed. The hardcore groups of drink drivers will not be perturbed by tougher sentences or increased police powers, and the law-abiding public are faced with the choice of taking the most expensive taxis in Europe, or using the much lamented public transport system. Whilst drink driving remains a dangerous and irresponsible crime, you cannot expect people to stay in at Christmas and the New Year, and neither can you expect them to use or have any confidence in public transport. If you do not offer people alternatives, they will not change easily.
John Hutchence, UK

To Rachael, UK: Of course they had another choice DON'T DRINK! It's not mandatory, even at Christmas. I enjoy a drink as much as the next person, but if you're driving, safety (of yourself and others) is more important.
Peter D, UK

While drink driving is a terrible thing, I think we should actually get it into perspective - only about two per cent of deaths each year are attributed to drink driving. Why doesn't the government act to decrease the price of soft drinks? Why would youngsters prefer to sit drinking coke all night when it costs just as much as alcohol? I live in a rural area and cannot get anywhere without driving - buses stop at a ridiculous hour - if they turn up at all. Oh look, back to the state of public transport!
Sandra, UK

Saudi Arabia does not have a drink-drive problem because of its blanket ban on the sale of alcohol

Felicity McNae, Chester, England

Saudi Arabia does not have a drink-drive problem because of its blanket ban on the sale of alcohol. Although this may be an extreme solution, it would serve to do so much good for our country in eradicating many other vices which are fuelled by alcohol: violence, wife battering, domestic unrest...the list is endless. Think what a Utopia we would then live in.
Felicity McNae, Chester, England

I'd rather police stopped pursuing motorists and put more effort into maintaining law and order on our streets and catching violent criminals.
Tom, UK

If the police properly exercise the powers that they already have, then they should be able to adequately deal with drunk drivers and the numerous other problem drivers on our roads. Giving them more powers does not necessarily mean that they will be more efficient.
Robin Chakraborty, England

Rachael UK, where exactly were you watching TV this Christmas? The moon? There have been numerous adverts this Christmas and during the rest of the year re: the hazards of drink driving. There is no such thing as 'had no choice but to drive' as we all have choices. Have you ever heard of taxis or buses?

It's irresponsible to expect to go on a drinking session and then drive home, and we all know this and shouldn't need adverts to tell us this, would you expect to be operated on by a surgeon who had been drinking, who then defends himself by saying that he had no choice but to do this? Alcohol is a drug and we are all responsible for our own actions whilst under the influence of this.
Vicky, UK

Banning somebody from driving in a court isn't going to stop them

Chris B, England

The police will never win this argument. The police in this country have too many powers where they're not wanted and to few where they're needed. Drink Driving is an example of the latter. Banning somebody from driving in a court isn't going to stop them. The car will drive just as well whether the operator has a licence or not. Anybody who has been done for drinking and driving when the law is so clearly advertised and reinforced evidently did so in a premeditated fashion - they can't claim ignorance of the law, so they acted in defiance of it.

The police have the necessary powers to apprehend anybody who drives whilst disqualified; however, identifying somebody who is doing so would be almost impossible unless the rest of us law-abiding citizens accept being stopped at every inconvenient moment for a spot check as a matter of routine. It is the public back lash against such " police state " tactics which will make any suitable and additionally sanctioned powers for the police worthless in practice. They can't win, can they?
Chris B, England

I must disagree with your comments Rachael. The trains may be unavailable due to industrial action but this does not excuse jumping into the car after a boozing session. If you can afford a heavy night out in London then surely you could afford a taxi home or hotel room for the night? Also, some of the trendier pubs are now selling soft drinks.
John M., UK

There's an awful lot of hype around drink driving. Don't get me wrong, I cannot condone driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol, but only before Christmas I read about an 80 year old man who drove the wrong way up a motorway - in the fast lane - for 15 miles, causing four accidents on the way.

The average 18-30 year old could drive with two or three pints, and still have better reactions than the average 80 year old - yet one is free to drive the wrong way on motorways and be "released without charge", while the other is made to be a public menace whilst losing licence, livelihood, home, and family.

I also agree that there is too much emphasis on speeding - and the police need to stop relying on speed cameras as a catch-all solution - unless, that is, they have invented a special camera that detects drink-drivers, dangerous drivers, diesel spillers and so on.
Graham Kerr, UK

Most 'accidents' are caused by stupidity, indifference, or ignorance

Martin, UK

Most 'accidents' are caused by stupidity, indifference, or ignorance (i.e. they are not accidents but people deliberately taking risks with other peoples lives and property). Start prosecuting these people as criminals, and drink driving will be part of that overall law - in essence, driving without regard for others and the risk you pose. Then make the punishment fit the crime - not some soft judges' or politicians' vision of what THEY deem is right and force their will on the rest of us.
Martin, UK

If drink driving is such a major concern why don't the police target the pub car parks and stop the drivers before they get on the main roads.
Stuart Beattie, England

I don't condone drink driving but, let's face it, it's impossible to know precisely when the legal limit has been reached. It is different for each of us. Part of the reason for the increase in drink driving may be the perceived lack of police resources. There are not enough police on the streets. People will think that the chance of being stopped is very low and they will try to get away with it rather than attempt to use the dreadful and shambolic public transport we suffer in this country. We need more policemen.
Martin, UK

One of the main problems could be - Are people actually aware what the alcohol limit is today? I don't know how the exact limit is calculated, but I didn't know until recently that it was 40mg per...., which is a lot lower than a few years ago. This could lead to some people having one pint of strong lager and being over this limit. I completely condone drink driving, but the publics lack of awareness of what the alcohol limit is, especially the under 30s, could explain the upsurge in people prosecuted.
Mick Jones, UK

We do not live in a police state

Andy G.M. Wood, UK

In much the same way as it is deemed inappropriate for the police to be able to enter someone's home and search for evidence without a warrant, it should not be possible for them to stop a car without 'reasonable suspicion' of some wrong doing! We do not live in a police state, and we don't want it to become one. Police time could be much more sensibly used elsewhere (phone theft). It's also true that there are more drink driving offences in the summer than at Christmas anyway!
Andy G.M. Wood, UK

Of course the police should have more powers! If people are caught drink driving, they should lose their car, licence and never be allowed out on the roads again.
Leon, UK

Drink Driving - Zero Tolerance.
Lee, England

The British attitude to drink-driving is nothing short of hysterical. It never ceases to amaze me how most of us will tolerate ever rising levels of serious deliberate crimes in our midst without saying a word, but the ordinary guy who drives after a few drinks is vilified as a social pariah. Having lived in both Britain and the USA I can say that their attitude to drink-driving is much more level-headed and balanced. They are much more tolerant of this great 'evil' than the Brits and yet I would say the average American is far more considerate and has a far greater social conscience than the average Brit!
B Roberts, UK

To Sandra UK, try telling that to the relatives of the "only two per cent of deaths" who were killed.
Rob White, UK

In Taiwan, the police are allowed to do random breath tests to drivers

James Wang, Taiwan

Everyone knows alcohol's great influence on a driver. In Taiwan, the police are allowed to do random breath tests to drivers in the depth of night. It works effectively to decrease the rate of causing trouble. It's a matter of course that "life" is the most important thing to everyone.
James Wang, Taiwan

During the last month I have reported to my local police (more than once) a case of a driver who has a tendency to leave a certain pub in the early hours of the morning (this pub is still serving when he leaves) and that he has a habit of going through a red light which is near the pub and speeding.

This person may not have been drinking but his total disrespect for the rules of the road indicate that he has. The local police force has yet to do anything about this driver or the public house which is allowing this driver to drink until all hours.

As much as I feel sorry for the police it is surely the duty of them to enforce the law. What will they do when someone is killed and it comes out that both this driver and the pub has been reported and no action has been taken.
Bill, UK

Yes, the police should have more powers. I was made to feel like an alien over the festive period because, being a Muslim, I am not allowed to drink. But reading about the gentleman who lost his arm because of a drink driver, maybe people should not mock those like me who don't drink.
Nadeem Azam, UK

With freedom comes responsibility

Peter, UK

My wife came out of hospital the week before Christmas having been put there on October 22 by a drunk driver who came round a bend on the wrong side of the road. In his statement to police he admitted that all he could remember was coming out of the pub. I don't know this man and have never met him. However, many of my acquaintances do and they tell me that he is well-known for drinking and driving, and it was only a matter of time before he had or caused an accident.

I count myself lucky that at least I have my wife, albeit with multiple fractures and without the use of one eye. She 'lost' eight weeks of her life in hospital, but at least we didn't lose her. The cause of her pain was seen in a pub two weeks after the accident, his leg in plaster with two pints in his hands, with his mates who were presumably only too willing to give him a lift home. If they were such good mates, why didn't they offer him that lift in October?

It seems his experience has not given him any reason to stop & reflect on his lifestyle or habits. Unless there is a change in attitude and an acceptance of individual responsibility for our actions, then I fear my wife's suffering and the anguish and anxiety endured by myself and our two sons will all have been for nothing.

I sincerely hope it will not take seeing their wife or other loved one unconscious in an intensive care unit for some of your correspondents to amend their views on whether people should be excused from taking responsibility for their actions. I certainly would not advocate any move to a more repressive state. However, people who have the privilege of exercising freedom of choice should also realise that with such freedom comes responsibility.
Peter, UK

Having read the article about the genetleman that lost his arm, would Rachael still have the same opinion if that had been her father/husband brother ?
Peter G, UK

So often it is not the person that drinks and drives that dies, but some innocent person. That is just as if you held a gun to someone's head.
Peter, UK

My mother has been banned for drink driving

Emma C, UK

I think I must be the only person in the UK who didn't get drunk at Christmas, not because I don't drink, but because there are enough idiots on the roads without me adding to it. Also my mother has been banned for drink driving. I'm not ashamed, I'm happy the courts have done it.

She has a drink problem, she doesn't think she does. She drinks too much and doesn't think she has a problem. I wouldn't get in a car with her. I've been told she would stop about two feet from a junction because her ability to drive was so impared. There is now a helpline where you can inform on people who are drink drivers, I wish it was around a lot sooner because I would have informed them my mother is a habitual drink driver.
Emma C, UK

Let me get non-PC here. Many people drink and drive and get away with it - rightly so - because they do not exhibit any of the behaviour attributed to "drunk" driving. From about 25 years' experience I can assert that on most occasions when I drink/drive I drive as well as ever, maybe even better, since I am being extra-careful. (Yes, there have been exceptions).

Random police checks, aside from being a gross violation of individual freedom, would result in the punishment of large numbers of people who were actually posing no more danger than a stone cold sober driver with problems on his mind or perhaps some kind of everyday medication. (Yes, they would be breaking the law, but I am coming to that).

A single standard blood alcohol level which defines who is "drunk" and who isn't is unfair considering the enormous variety of physiques and metabolisms in the people to whom it is applied. My point is that erratic or dangerous driving should be the prime target of the police, and if the perpetrator shows signs of impairment by alcohol (e.g. video evidence of lack of co-ordination, slurred speech), then blood alcohol level is reinforcing evidence allowing punishment to be more severe than in a simple case of reckless driving. But this is beginning to sound too much like justice and not enough like political expediency. I await the torrent of recriminations.
Tim, UK

Tougher sentencing. Much, much tougher. I don't understand why drink-drivers are not being jailed for 10 years or more if they cause loss of life. I doubt the public would complain much if the penalties for drink driving quadrupled or more.
Alan, UK

Its sickening that someone's good time could lead to another¿s death. One person decides to become a slobbering drunk to celebrate Christmas and another is driving home from relatives or with their family and they have their life taken away by a self-pleasing nincompoop!
Lori, USA