The case for not lowering the drink-driving limit
In England and Wales today an average man is legally permitted to have around two pints of low-strength beer before driving, which will be cut down to just under one pint if Labour's proposal is made law. The government believes the proposed policy would increase road safety and help avert the 300 deaths caused by drunk driving annually, or about 17 per cent of all road traffic fatalities. The obvious reply is to say that lowering the speed limit to zero would eliminate all road traffic accidents, so, why not do that? It's the classic example used to show runaway train arguments have problems. In response, we are told the main reason speed limits cannot be zero is that the cost of this would outweigh the benefits.
Now remember that a human life is not of infinite value, indeed the Health and Safety Executive puts it at £2.1 million. Using this figure, Labour's proposed policy doesn't stand up to a cost-benefit analysis. The three academic studies into whether Scotland's lower alcohol limit compared to England's helped found there to be 'no impact on either traffic accident or fatality rates'. One set of authors even found there to be no difference in accidents on those nights you'd most expect to see a change such as Fridays and Saturdays, and, even no difference among young males too. Lowering the drink driving limit is all costs and no benefits.
Even if the number of fatalities did go up though, the cost of death would have to be weighed against the foregone surpluses of drinking more beer. Could additional pints win out? I must confess I wince at writing that because I am not a utilitarian. If putting on a motor race by a right of way had a 60 per cent chance of fatally knocking over a person, I'd take that to be a sufficient reason not to have the motor race, even if all of the benefits of it outweighed the cost of the person's death. As Robert Nozick once wrote in Anarchy, State and Utopia: 'No moral balancing act can take place among us; there is no moral outweighing of one of our lives by others'.
Yet it could be argued that it is acceptable to expose people to risk provided said people also benefit enough. Getting absolutely smashed and driving then would not be allowed, as there would be a high chance of a car crash and a small benefit to driving while being that drunk. Many drinkers might accept a three-pint limit, if the benefits of being able to drive were balanced by the small chance of being hit by a young man three pints down. What about teetotal city dwelling pedestrians though, who get no benefit from any drink driving? Should the drink-driving limit be zero to accommodate them?
Against this we could argue that teetotal city dwelling pedestrians are happy to purchase goods delivered by trucks, which also cause traffic accidents. If drivers who drink a relatively small amount are just as risky as normal truck drivers, then teetotal pedestrians should accept this risk.
Drawing the exact line on the question of permissible risk imposition concerning drinking and driving is very difficult. Nevertheless, if you believe Scotland's drink driving law is fine, then you should also think England and Wales's current law is fine too – because the evidence overwhelmingly shows its fatality rate is the same as in Scotland. In sum, motorists should remain free to enjoy their two pints and a drive home from the country pub.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
2 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Labour has failed to convince the public, Streeting admits
Labour has not done enough to persuade voters that its plans will change Britain for the better, Wes Streeting has admitted. The Health Secretary said that the party had not put forward a 'coherent enough story' about how it wants to improve the country. His remarks follow a turbulent first 13 months in power which have seen Sir Keir Starmer's approval rating sink to a record low. Sir Keir is said to be planning a major reset in the autumn in an attempt to fight back against claims Britain is 'broken' under his watch. Mr Streeting said that Labour had scored 'a whole number of achievements' over its first year which it needed to pitch more effectively to voters. He said they included a fall in NHS waiting lists and an expansion of free school meals which will lift 100,000 children out of poverty. However ministers have also been accused of serious failings, most notably on the small boats crisis, with the number of asylum seekers in hotels rising. But faced with his party's dire poll ratings, he admitted: 'It's not wrapped up in a coherent enough story about the change that we're bringing.' The Health Secretary made the remarks in an interview with George Osborne, the former Tory chancellor, about his first year in office. He said that Labour must use its position in power to 'set the agenda' more as it faces a major challenge from Nigel Farage's Reform UK. Mr Farage has challenged the Prime Minister over his record on illegal migration and crime, recently launching a campaign against 'lawless Britain' under Labour. 'We mustn't fall into the trap of letting Farage set the terms of the debate for us,' Mr Streeting said. 'Our most successful moments in the last 12 months have been where we have set the agenda, where we've gone out and made arguments as a government and shown to be delivering as well, because that's what people want. 'People want to feel change. They want to feel like the Government is driving the country forward in the right direction.' Mr Streeting insisted that the Prime Minister was a 'bold' leader but suggested that fact had not been communicated well enough to the public. Labour has begun to heavily target Reform in recent weeks, including on Mr Farage's opposition to online safety laws and reforms to workers' rights. Mr Streeting said that Reform's rise represented 'a major party realignment on the Right' and that the Tories now 'feel less and less relevant' as an opposition. 'If I think back to all of the conversations I've had with Keir in the last 12 months, there hasn't been a single one where he said 'whoa, slow down a minute, I'm not sure about that'. 'It's always been 'go harder, go faster, be bolder.' And I think that side of his leadership we – and I mean his team – we need to show more of that.' He said it had been Sir Keir who had pushed him to take the most radical course on abolishing NHS England, the world's biggest quango. Mr Streeting, who is currently locked in a pay battle with resident doctors who walked out for five days in July, also suggested other ministers had a 'responsibility' to stand up to public sector pay demands. He has ruled out handing them a 30 per cent pay rise, saying they have 'squandered the considerable goodwill' they had with the government by going on strike. Asked whether Cabinet members understood the financial constraints that Rachel Reeves is facing, the Health Secretary replied: 'I think so. 'You look at the range of pressures we're facing domestically, internationally, economically, public services, the expectations of the country, the pain that families are feeling in their pockets and I'm always conscious that over and above everyone else Keir and Rachel are carrying all of those pressures together. 'And so I think it is our responsibility to say to our own departments, or own audiences, or the people we're responsible for and the services that we're responsible for, 'you need to understand that we can't do everything for everyone, everywhere, all at once'.' Mr Streeting's remarks came as it emerged that No 10 is planning a major reset of Sir Keir's premiership next month in an attempt to take the fight to Reform. Downing Street officials are said to be drawing up a new strategy to confront Mr Farage's claims that Britain has become a 'broken' country under Labour. According to the Huffington Post, it will include defending the tax rises in the budget by pointing out the extra money for the NHS has helped cut waiting lists. It will not be the first time that Sir Keir has attempted to relaunch his struggling premiership. His first effort to do so was widely criticised after he launched six new 'milestones', to add to Labour's existing five 'missions' in a move that was branded confusing.
STV News
41 minutes ago
- STV News
Almost 30 councils considering options over asylum hotels after Epping ruling
The government has promised to end the use of hotels to house asylum seekers by the end of this parliament, – despite figures rising under Labour's watch, ITV News Political Correspondent Shehab Khan and North of England reporter Amy Welch explain. Almost 30 councils are considering whether to take legal action or monitoring developments over asylum hotels after the Epping High Court ruling, ITV News understands. Included in the 28 local authorities considering next steps are eight Labour-run councils – placing further pressure on Sir Keir Starmer's government. The High Court ruled on Tuesday that asylum seekers should be removed from the Bell Hotel in Epping, Essex, after a challenge from the local Conservative council, following a wave of anti-migrant protests. While Reform UK says that all 12 of the councils it controls are considering legal action around asylum hotels, three of those councils do not currently have any hotels being used to accommodate asylum seekers. A number of Conservative councils are also considering legal action over hotels, but leader Kemi Badenoch has called for more to follow Epping Forest. In a letter to Tory councils, Badenoch said she was 'encouraging' other local authorities to 'take the same steps' as Epping Council, 'if your legal advice supports it.' Labour dismissed her letter as 'desperate and hypocritical nonsense,' but several of its own local councils have already suggested they could mount legal action of their own against asylum hotels in their areas. Kemi Badenoch met with parents in Epping earlier this month to discuss their concerns over migrant hotels. / Credit: PA In her letter, Badenoch praised Epping Council's legal challenge and told Tory councils she would 'back you to take similar action to protect your community.' While she added the situation would 'depend on individual circumstances of the case,' she went on to suggest Tory councils could pursue 'other planning enforcement options.' She also accused Labour of 'trying to ram through such asylum hotels without consultation and proper process,' saying the government had reopened the Bell Hotel as asylum accommodation after the Conservatives had closed it. Immigration data released on Thursday also showed the number of asylum seekers living in UK hotels has risen by 8% under Labour compared to the same point last year, despite falling slightly since March this year. The latest Home Office data, published on Thursday as part of the usual quarterly immigration statistics, covers Labour's first year in office. They show there were 32,059 asylum seekers in UK hotels by the end of June. This was up from 29,585 at the same point a year earlier, when the Conservatives were still in power, but down slightly on the 32,345 figure at the end of March. The government has promised to end the use of hotels to house asylum seekers by the end of this parliament. The latest number is still below the peak of 56,042 asylum seekers in hotels at the end of September 2023 under the Tories. A total of 43,000 people came to the UK by small boat in the last year, an increase of 38% on the previous year, but slightly lower than the peak in arrivals at 46,000 in 2022. The Bell Hotel in Epping had previously been used as asylum accommodation briefly in 2020 and then between 2022 and 2024 under the previous Conservative government. Epping secured a temporary injunction from the High Court on Tuesday, blocking the use of the Essex town's Bell Hotel as accommodation for asylum seekers on planning grounds. The decision has prompted councils controlled by Labour, the Conservatives and Reform UK to investigate whether they could pursue a similar course of action. These include Labour-run Tamworth and Wirral councils, Tory-run Broxbourne and East Lindsey councils and Reform's Staffordshire and West Northamptonshire councils. There were several protests outside the Bell Hotel in Epping before the injunction was issued by the High Court. / Credit: PA But Labour's Newcastle City Council and Brighton and Hove City Council have both ruled out legal action. Tuesday's High Court decision has also caused difficulty for the Home Office, which has a legal duty to house destitute asylum seekers while their claims are being dealt with. If planning laws prevent the government from using hotels, ministers will face a scramble to find alternative accommodation, potentially in the private rented sector. A Labour spokesperson said Mrs Badenoch's letter was a 'pathetic stunt' and 'desperate and hypocritical nonsense from the architects of the broken asylum system,' saying there were now '20,000 fewer asylum seekers in hotels than at their peak under the Tories.' Get all the latest news from around the country Follow STV News Scan the QR code on your mobile device for all the latest news from around the country
Rhyl Journal
an hour ago
- Rhyl Journal
Diane Abbott advised Jeremy Corbyn against founding new party, event told
Ms Abbott, who served as Mr Corbyn's shadow home secretary when he was Labour leader, said she had spoken to him before its launch, and said it was not a good idea. Speaking at an event at the Edinburgh Book Festival, the current longest-serving female MP said: 'There were people around Jeremy encouraging him to set up a new party, and I told him not to. 'It's very difficult under first-past-the-post system for a new party to absolutely win. If it wasn't first-past-the-post, then you can see how a new party could come through, but I understand why he did it.' Ms Abbott said she thought the party, formed by her long-time friend Independent MP Mr Corbyn (Islington North) alongside Independent MP Zarah Sultana (Coventry South), would outperform people's expectations. It was launched last month, but is still without a formal name. She said she believed it would take advantage of a broader discontent with politics in Britain. She paid tribute to Mr Corbyn and Ms Sultana but said: 'At this point in time, it's difficult to see how a brand new party wins. 'However, I think Jeremy's party is going to do a lot better than people think because a lot of people who are not necessarily terribly left-wing people, are a tiny bit disappointed about the way we've gone in the past year.' The MP for Hackney North and Stoke Newington indicated her disappointment with the Labour Government. She had the whip withdrawn for the second time in two years in July, after she expressed a lack of regret about comments to the Observer in 2023 that suggested that Jewish, Irish and Traveller people experience prejudice, but not racism. However, she implied she would not join Mr Corbyn's party. Ms Abbott said: 'It's a tricky state of play. I wouldn't have thought that you'd have a Labour Government and they'd be cutting winter fuel allowance for the elderly and benefits for the disabled.' She was also critical of the Government's proscription of Palestine Action and labelled the decision 'a complete disgrace'. 'What they are seeking to do is proscribe protest as such,' she said. 'I mean, we all saw the pictures of the people in Trafalgar Square – 500 people? Half of them over 60. Come on, these are terrorists? I think this is an attempt to bear down on (protest).' She added her more than 40 years in Labour meant it was too late to leave it. She was elected to Parliament in 1987, and was the only black female MP in the Commons for a decade until Labour's landslide under Tony Blair. In response to a question about whether she thought she would ever be accepted 'at the heart' of the Labour Party, she replied: 'I think I am at the heart of the Labour Party, it's other people who aren't.' Ms Abbott, whose book A Woman Like Me, was the subject of the interview in the Scottish capital by campaigner Talat Yaqoob, also told the audience of her anger at not being called by Commons speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle in the aftermath of racist comments by Conservative Party donor Frank Hester in 2024. She said she had stood during a Prime Minister's Question session more than 40 times to be called to speak, after Sir Keir Starmer, Rishi Sunak and Sir Ed Davey had all spoken about the incident. Mr Hester was reported to have said Ms Abbott made him want to 'hate all black women' and that she 'should be shot'. The remarks brought widespread condemnation, including from Sir Keir, but she told the event her office was used to receiving racist abuse. 'I've been an MP for 38 years, and custom practice in the chamber is if you're being talked about, you get called. It's just a courtesy. I was so shocked that I wasn't called. 'But I heard later from someone who had reason to know, that what happened was that Rishi didn't want me called, because (Hester) was a Tory donor and it would look bad for them, and I'm afraid Keir Starmer didn't want me called because he wanted to milk the issue (for) political advantage, without mentioning me.' She said Sir Keir had approached her after the questions session and asked what he could do to help. 'I said, 'Yes, you can restore the whip'. And as if he hadn't heard, he said, 'Is there anything I can do for you?' It was like he was deaf. And I said, 'Yes, you can restore the whip', and he realised I wasn't going to play that game and he went off.'
