I think that as a former magistrate who merrily presided over many a drink driver losing his licence, I am well qualified to comment on the roadside breath test and the feared Intoxiliser. I am more than happy that this reckless crime carries a mandatory driving ban. Breathalysers have done a superb job in reducing both deaths and alcohol misuse since their introduction, as the one good thing done by the appalling Barbara Castle, back in 1967.The proposed reduction of the levels where a ban would kick in is however, an absurdity. All this would achieve would be to criminalise a great many people and all to no good purpose; people whose alcohol levels in the blood are little more than negligible.
Surely, it is not those drinking UNDER two pints who should be the target as a man of average build who drank this amount over an hour and a half is likely to be on or around the borderline.This means that wise drivers are already drinking less than this and people who take a minor risk can get caught out. Fine. An excellent scenario.
What IS required is that the drivers who really abuse drink and are well over these reasonable limits should receive a much greater penalty.
Part of the problem is that disqualifications are so frequently flouted - little wonder when former Home Secretary Blunkett stopped magistrates from jailing disqualified drivers unless "cases were very serious."
This is the root of the problem. The law has been watered down at the 'guidelines level' and Mr B signally failed to grasp that ALL breaches of court orders are extremely serious and should invariably result in custody if the law is not to become an even greater laughing stock.
LINK: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=501075&in_page_id=1770
