A review by the car insurance comparison website, MoneySupermarket has found that Hereford is the drink and drug drive capital of the UK, with 2.30 convictions for every 1,000 drivers.
Overall, the drink or drug driving rates are on the decline – almost a third down from 2017, but there are exceptions.
Data analysis
Traditionally, December always sees a spike in drink and drug driving offences; figures released for 2017 shows that 179 motorists were caught for the offence each day in December, but across the last twelve months, convictions have fallen from 1.47 per 1,000 drivers to just 1.05.
The figure for Hereford sits at 2.30 per 1,000 drivers, well over double the average.
MoneySupermarket has analysed the data from over 6 million insurance quotes for the last twelve months, along with the country’s highest area, it also shows the most at risk profession – plumbers rate at 17.26 per 1,000 and the lowest drink and drug drive area – London (between 0.45 & 0.67).
The data analysis also shows that the 17-24-year-old age group who drink or drug drive has increased by around 10% and that men are five times more likely to risk drink or drug driving than women.
While these statistics paint a colourful picture as to just how prevalent drink or drug driving is, there’s no evidence regarding the reasoning; it’s thought that London has the lowest rate purely due to the better public transport infrastructure.
Identifying the limit
A further study by Swinton Insurance may hold some of the answers; their study shows that nine out of ten drivers couldn’t identify the legal driving limit for alcohol, even when given a list of options. And with Scotland having a further reduced limit than the rest of the UK, it can be quite confusing.
| Unit of measurement | England, Wales & Northern Ireland | Scotland |
|---|---|---|
| Microgrammes per 100 millilitres of breath | 35 | 22 |
| Milligrammes per 100 millilitres of blood | 80 | 50 |
| Milligrammes per 100 millilitres of urine | 107 | 67 |
Rebecca Ashton, head of driving behaviour at IAM RoadSmart states: “The problem with these limits is that no one can translate them into how many drinks or units they can have, and still be legal to drive. It varies substantially from person to person, depending on things such as age, weight and metabolism”.
With that said, alcohol is one of the most predictable reactions when it comes to leaving the body – an almost exact rate of .016 Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) per hour, which is roughly one unit; three pints of strong beer, 3 large glasses of wine will take around 11 hours to completely leave your system.
The penalties
Alcohol can severely impact your driving ability – even just one glass or one pint can dull your reaction times, lower your ability to process information and slow your hand-eye coordination, so penalties are harsh. You could face imprisonment, a ban and an unlimited fine, depending on the severity of your offence.
Being in charge of a vehicle while above the legal limit or unfit through drink:
3 months’ imprisonment
Up to £2,500 fine
Possible driving ban
Driving or attempting to drive while above the legal limit or unfit through drink:
6 months’ imprisonment
Unlimited fine
Driving ban for at least 1 year (3 years if convicted twice in ten years)
Refusing to provide a specimen of breath, blood or urine for analysis:
6 months’ imprisonment
Unlimited fine
Driving ban for at least 1 year
Along with the legal repercussions, a driving ban for drink or drugs will affect your insurance – most insurance companies will want to know for ten years and could weight your insurance premium by as much as 121%, while some companies will refuse to insure you.
It’s worth noting that drug driving carries similarly harsh penalties, and it isn’t just contained to illegal drugs, some medicinal drugs can also see you being prosecuted for the offence, these include: Clonazepam, Diazepam, Flunitrazepam, Lorazepam, Methadone, Morphine, Oxazepam, Temazepam and Amphetamine, although the limit for these prescription drugs is set higher than a regularly prescribed dosage, if there’s any doubt, you should take advice from your pharmacist or doctor.
Drink or drug driving is illegal for good reason, the general advice is that if you’re going to be drinking, no matter how small an amount, you should leave the car at home and not risk it. Be aware that the offence of ‘Being in charge of a vehicle’ doesn’t necessarily mean that you have to be driving it.
What do you think of drink drivers? Should they face tougher penalties? Have you ever been convicted of the offence? Is it fair that prescription drug users face prosecution? Let us know in the comments.
The penalty for drink driving should be 5 years ban for first offence followed by a lifetime ban for subsequence offence. Get them off the road permanently.
These idiots would only carry on driving with a licence or not they have no thought or respect for anyone else but themselves (Scum)
Then the third strike should be life imprisonment.
Confiscation of their vehicle and crushing it would be a great deterent!
Confiscating the vehicle and crushing the driver is a sure way of ensuring they don’t re-offend!
Yes and make them stand and watch!!
Absolutely 👍
AGREED-ANYONE WHO HAS A FAMILY MEMBER WHO HAS BEEN KILLED OR CRIPPLED BY A DRUNK DRIVER WILL BE WITH YOU ON THIS. WELL SAID
We need to recognise that the danger comes from “Dutch courage” causing reckless driving – not,, as we are invariably told, by slowed reactions.
How far can being in charge a vehicle be taken? If one is walking back from the pub with car keys on house keys be considered for prosecution?
Your intention to drive would need to be proven for drunk in charge
Decide to kip in your car parked on the road outside the pub and you will get done, but do the same in the pub car park and you won’t.
The simple reason for the decline is that in general, the Police no longer have enough time to pro-actively stop & breathalyze drivers on a random basis, or stop vehicles for minor traffic infringements, and then establishing drink or drug driving offences. The much fewer numbers that are still on patrol are too busy being diverted from one incident to another.
Yeah investigating random tweets and other social media twattery!
I don’t think the police have ever been able to stop drivers on a random basis in order to breathalize them.
They can in Scotland over the festive season,they routinely random stop drivers, with any excuse, then request a sample…I’ve been breathalysed 3 or 4 times over the last few Christmas periods, funny seeing the policeman’s face when he asked the last time i consumed alcohol…oooh circa 1999 officer. 😀
I personally feel they should be allowed to randomly stop all year round, but with just cause, we are in supposed control of 500kg-2 ton+ metal weapons, capable of multiple deaths.
I’ll raise your “1999” to a “1986” – a couple of weeks after Frank Skinner.
This morning for breakfast.
I don’t understand stopping randomly with just cause. Surely it can be only one or the other; If you have just cause then you have a reason to stop, if you are stopping randomly, then by implication, there is no reason for stopping that particular motorist, it is a random selection.
They could at first. Then a golf club complained that it was unfair as they were all obviously going to be drunk after playing golf – and the learned Judge agreed!
They have I’m sure as it happened to me in my youth. The reason was simply driving at unusual times and not for noise/speed/lights out. They also couldn’t have smelled alcohol from my breath given I usually did not drink anything when I was the nominated driver.
It never used to stop them trying many years ago I was driving up the A1 near peterborough I cut through stilton as a short cut to avoid the ques at the then norman cross roundabout and the policestopped and breathalised everycar that was doing the same . There answer we have reason to beleive you may have been drinking based on the fact it was christmas eve! I do not condone drink driving but niether to I appreciate heavy handed policing tactics
Plus they can’t afford a breath testing kit in every vehicle. They have to reply on one being delivered to them therefore it takes at least two and often three or more cars to give one driver a breathalyser.
Let’s all say “yes” to Tory police cuts.
In France it is mandatory to carry a breathalyser unit in your car, do the same here and supply is no longer an issue. If they did this there would need to be named breathalyser models.
Hereford lol
Naw Glasgow for sure!
My son was 16 when he was killed by a drunk driver Christmas eve 2003. A man who had been picked up just 6 weeks earlier for the same and was waiting to go to court and that wasn’t his first time. Drunk drivers never think they have had too much, the only way to stop this is zero tolerance. If in charge of the car just don’t drive. Easy. Take in turns if out with friends or take taxis to get home. We need to get tougher with penalties. Higher ban for the first offence as has been suggested by others and yes a lifetime ban if caught twice. If you want to drink then keep yourself and others safe by leaving the car at home.
A zero limit of that’s what you mean by zero tolerance is unworkable unless you want people banned for brushing their teeth or using mouthwat. Certain medication can make you fail and some people naturally produce a small level of alcohol without drinking. As these would be measurable it would present as s fail. If you mean zero tolerance as banning everyone we catch and convict, we already have that.
If someone had a genuine medical condition it would be presented in Court.
As alcohol is absorbed faster though the inside of your mouth that than when it is in your stomach, drivers should use an alcohol free mouthwash.
Well said … although i think far too many politicians would be very much against that – regardless of things like common sense and even saving lives.
The figures actually show that the level of police enforcement in Hereford is much higher than average. Conversely, the level of enforcement in London is much lower, as the city is overwhelmed with murders and street assaults.
Spot on Andrew
So, you can comply with the eleventh Commandment where the Metropolitan Police Farce (the largest in the country) holds sway but don’t try it in responsibly-policed rural areas.
using a hand held mobile phone is just as bad ,
using a handheld mobile phone is just as bad ,
Amen to that.
Yes, but if they booked all the mini-cab drivers using mobile phones when they are driving we’d have no mini-cabs.
I WAS A MINI CAB DRIVER FOR SOME 35 YEARS AND WHEN THE LEGISLATION CAME IN IT WAS A SIMPLE MATTER TO GO HANDS FREE-IN FACT I OPERATED HANDS FREE YEARS BEFORE TH LAW WAS BROUGHT IN.
Hereford rules! Yeah!
I am amazed at the IAM lady’s comment. The only sensible option is only drive when you have had NOTHING to drink! Cars of drivers found guilty should be crushed without exception – that would also take some dangerous cars off the road.
Would the driver be allowed to exit the car first?
only if its their first or second offence, otherwise no 😛
A no drink , drug limit is the only way forward with a 3 year ban for 1st time & a retest included on non insured/ taxed cars second time caught a life ban
You cannot have zero alcohol in your body because a small amount occurs naturally.
Hereford is covered by West Mercia Police. Guess what their Chief Constables main priority is with regards road safety – Yup, Speeding. Using “safety” camera vans that have no way of detecting drink/drug driving. Makes me wonder why £££££££
TIREDNESS through working too long hours to pay the bills on poverty pay. Falling asleep.
Penalties for many nasty offences is very lenient so it is highly unlikely that motoring ones will be made harsher. Lack of general policing on the roads has encouraged much of the poor driving habits of late. A few years ago you would be pulled up for not indicating and the police would sniff your breath at teh least suspicion. This is what deters drivers not adverts on TV they do not watch as they are in the pub. Also there are a fair number of non-insured,non-licensed guys out there who do not give a monkey’s . You will never deter those without the car having its own breathalyzer fitted as I, I believe, taxis do in Scandinavia.That is teh way forward surely?
The war should be against poor driving standards not just alcohol or drug limits. The law enforcement agencies love them because they are a simple measure that is almost impossible to defend in court. There are people out there who are far more dangerous on the road totally sober than some of the low level drink offenders.
Smoking weed whilst driving seems to be a regular past time with many drivers, that stuff STINKS.
They aint driving by then?
Isnt it, Dont drink n drive, smoke weed and fly? boom boom!
All police forces now have roadside testing strips for most narcs, mary j included, again same with drink driving, its either suspect the erratic driving then smell it after pullover, or randomly come across a driver in a car park rolling a fatty it seems.
And ian, how do you know its weed they are smoking eh….;o) while its still wrong, it could be a lot worse, it could be that horror story called Spice, only in the UK could there be a market for synthetic mary j…….
Driving or attempting to drive whilst under the influence is one thing but ‘Being in charge of a vehicle’ is quite another. Yes the penalties are less harsh for just being in charge of a vehilce but 3 month in prison when you aren’t even attempting to drive does not seem very reasonable.
Definitely my ex brother in laws sister was killed by a drunk driver, which left 4 children motherless, he only got a 15 month suspended sentence . Where’s the justice in that?
Lets cut the out the c**p and ignore the mindless zealots, we have enough of them in the “Scottish Parliament” the current set limit in “England” is more than adequate in addressing this issue allowing a reasonable tolerance e.g. a glass of wine or a pint of beer with a meal out, and it is rubbish to suggest that judgment is impaired to the degrees expressed by the obsessive objectors albeit that they are always in the minority and the most mouthy, “JUST LIKE BREXIT”.
There are many other far more serious and frequent infringements taking place continually i.e. dangerous driving by those not under the influence, dangerous parking by school runners, mobile phone use and parents not paying proper attention to driving when they have their kids in the car, women doing their makeup or not at their best usually on a monthly basis etc., etc, etc,.
None of the aforementioned get anything like the comment that this issue gets, most likely because the objectors in this instance are the main offenders and would not be happy if the Police concentrated more on these.
Furthermore there is no proven evidence that the construed effects of alcohol at the prescribed limits is any more dangerous than the normally prescribed cold, headache etc. remedies. Policing would be far more effective if it were applied as it should across, the board and not concentrated by the whim’s of individuals and dictate without justification has always proven ineffective.
The figure for declining drink driving is based upon convictions, not on the actual number of drivers doing it. We all know that traffic cops are as rare as hens teeth these days, so to equate those caught with actual numbers offending is spurious at best. Besides it has been admitted that the numbers of drug driving convictions are well up which is probably the tip of a very nasty iceberg indeed. It is not law that we lack but proper enforcement. Parliament can put new laws on the statute book until the cows come home but without enforcement it’s a waste of time and money. Take smoking in a vehicle with a child on board- not one prosecution across the whole country. A Farce.
Instant ban for life
No excuse. You drink you don’t drive
You drive you don’t drink
Easy to police
It’s no more easy or difficult to police as it is now!
The only difference is you have lowered the limit from 35mg/80ml (excl. Scotland), to zero, (which would mean many drivers will read positive, without consuming alcohol).
The process of detecting someone over the limit would be the same and as previously commented on, is largely down to resources.
I think it should be if. You drink you don’t drink if your found to have any alcohol from drink in your bloodstream 3 year ban,
Prescription drugs you should be warned by your doctor if over the limit, and if caught driving you should be tested for awareness/fitnesses to drive as medicine can affect people differently
Unfortunately a car still isn’t considered a dangerous weapon.
There are too many people on the road who shouldn’t be.
Drink/drug drivers and mobile phone users are just the tip of the iceberg.
No deterant is my biggest concern. Start crushing their cars, £10,000 fine (not up to, actually £10k) and imprisonment for any body over the limit or using a hand held phone, then they might think twice.
Is it possible to do a survey to determine how many drivers do not drink nor use drugs?
I think it should be zero tolerance. There is no excuse.
I think intention should be part of the sentencing process. Being slightly over in the morning should attract, say, £100 and 3 points whereas someone who’s been on a bender until 5.00am and is twice the limit going to work at 8.00 am should get, say, 3 years ban and £1000 fine. Maybe they could also link the amount over the limit to bans – twice over = 2 years; 3 times = 6 years, 4 times+ = 10 years with fines to match. I did like a copper’s attitude when, as a youngster, I’d been on the pop and had slept in my car (funnily enough it was in a car park for the local magistrates court). He spotted the car and checked it out finding me with the keys in it at about 6.00am. When I told him I’d slept in the car to because I’d been drinking and I didn’t want to drive over the limit, he told me he was going off shift and the next shift wouldn’t be out for about 20 mins – wink, wink!
Are the numbers going down or is this merely a reflection of the fact that there are fewer Police Officers on the road to catch these people?
If you drive while ‘drunk’, then you have an ALCOHOL problem, rather than a driving problem. Surely, you should be able to go out for an evening, and NOT have an alcoholic drink?? Are people such slaves to alcohol, that they cannot enjoy a night out without alcohol? Enforced AlAnon course, too, just like speed awareness course for exceeding speed limit.
When was the last time a speed camera caught a drink driver!
We know the reason why speed cameras are around … to make money!!!
Drive to the road conditions, rather than watching the speedo (and that’s NOT your ‘budgie smugglers’!!!), where your eyes are off the road for too long.
And ban the middle-lane huggers, too!! FFS, what is that ALL about? Get in the ‘slow’ lane at ALL times, if possible!! Unless you are on the M25, where the ‘slow’ lane is the worst lane on any/the road!!! Have you heard the road noise going clockwise from the South near Cobham services, and beyond??
One problem with banning someone for life is they may as well drive without a licence , they can’t lose it twice, then there’s the insurance , the fines a cheaper alternative to having any and bankrupting themselves sorts out any compensation awarded .
Ban all drink and drug drivers for life when caught then some fools might learn but not all as there are many foolish fools
The law should be changed so that ANY level of alcohol in your blood should result in a driving ban of at least 12 months. This would avoid the injustices of people “getting off” on a technicality when stopped by the police.
Ensure you don’t eat chocolate then as it produces in some people enough alcohol to fail the blood test!
If you drive no drink at all is only save way
My opion if you are caught drinking and driving banned for life no exception what so ever, this is what they do in Norway , end of story that will stop it and zero tolerance on it
O hell just put them in prison for 3 months with a life time ban that will sort them out its the only way and a huge fine to boot , same for junkes
To teach these A holes a lesson £5000 fine and 5 years in prison for 1st offence drink driving, Trebled for 2nd offence, Death by drink driving stripped of assets and death penalty, Sorted.
What is the percentage of drivers who for example have a drink with their pub meal, a glass of wine for instance and an hour or two later drive home. They are subsequently randomly stopped and breathalysed and found to have alcohol in their system but are under the 35mg/80ml limit.
Also, should they instead of being free to drive home as they are under the current drink/drive limit and there was no issue with their driving, just a random stop. Or be fined £10,000, banned for 3yrs or more and imprisoned for 6 months?
Of those drivers who have a drink but are under the current limit, what is the percentage of them that are involved in an accident, compared to all other road accidents. For example are there more involving the elderly? In which case should licenses be retracted at 70, no exceptions, anyone driving over 70 be imprisoned if caught. The same for young drivers under 25 who seem to be involved in the most severe road collisions, no licenses issued until 25 years plus, again bang them up if caught driving under 25 years. ONLY, of course if the accident rate is currently, significantly worse for those demographics, rather than the motorists that do imbibe a small amount of alcohol and remain under the limit but are involved in an accident.
I ask for the numbers involved, as these will be the only individuals affected by reducing the current limit to zero.
The reckless, selfish idiots that currently ignore the current law are, in my opinion, very unlikely to adhere to a newer, more stringent one.
Could it be that the apparent high rate of offending in Hereford is at least partly due to the local force being better at detecting? Hereford is hardly an area you would expect to be a crime hotspot.
Could it be that Hereford police have been more effective at detecting and prosecuting offenders? Hardly an area you’d think was a crime hotspot. That’s statistics for you!
Apols. Couldn’t see that my earlier post had been accepted!
A fella once said to me
“No one would drink and drive when they are sober”
Think about it.
It’s about time the UK introduced the same law as the USA. No drinking alcohol until the age of 21.
Drug driving seems to be much more common nowadays, probably due to the increased availability of skunk cannabis and cocaine, and ought to be punished severely, but the users seem to think they can get away with it. Really not on, but the way forward is to have much more policing, and not just at Christmas. They can also keep a lookout for the idiots who use their mobile phones whilst driving as well
If you drink or have taken non prescription drugs then drive and cause injury or death you should be charged as the appropriate crime with the car being classified as a weapon. Therefore if you kill somebody under those circumstances you should get a life sentence.