With the upcoming Road Safety Strategy set to include plans to lower the drink-drive limit, in this opinion piece, Hunter Abbott, managing director of AlcoSense Laboratories, says there is no excuse for laws that allow impaired drivers on UK roads.
Campaigners have warned for years that the drink-drive limit in England and Wales is dangerously out of step with modern science and international best practice.
At long last, the government has announced plans to act. Labour’s proposal to lower the limit from 80µg of alcohol per 100ml of blood (0.80‰ BAC) to 50µg (0.50‰ BAC) is a simple, evidence-led step that will save lives.
This is not radical. To put it in perspective we’re looking at matching the highest limit in the rest of Europe. In fact, some of our neighbours operate at 20 µg or even lower. For someone like me, who has campaigned on this issue since 2005, the announcement is both overdue and very welcome.
The 80µg limit still in force in England, Wales and Northern Ireland dates back to the 1960s, based on extremely limited data about what constitutes safe drinking and driving.
We’re in a different position now with decades of empirical data on the relative risk of driving under various levels of intoxication. A driver at the current legal limit is around 13 times more likely to be involved in a fatal crash than a sober driver. Yet because they are under the threshold, they are considered legal. These are the ‘legal but lethal’ drivers we share our roads with every day. That this law has survived unchallenged for so long is remarkable. Sadly, even at the proposed new limit of 50 µg, you’re still 5 times more likely to be involved in a fatal crash.
Across Europe, lower limits have become the norm. Scotland reduced its threshold to 50µg in 2014. Spain is going further, set to introduce a limit of 20µg this year. That will bring it in line with Sweden, Norway and Poland. A blood alcohol level of 20 µg is the point where measurable effects occur, affecting coordination and decision making.
The picture is stark. England and Wales remain an outlier, clinging to the joint highest limit in the developed world.
Some argue that reducing the limit has little effect. They point to Scotland and claim the 2014 change made no measurable difference to casualty figures. But new research shows that argument doesn’t stand up. In December 2024, a survey by AlcoSense marked the tenth anniversary of Scotland’s lower limit. The findings were clear: 79% of Scots believe the law has made roads safer and 77% think England and Wales should follow suit. Four in ten Scots say they now avoid alcohol completely if they expect to drive later the same day or the following morning and a further 29% reported reducing consumption before driving. Interestingly 40% now drink less alcohol overall because of the change in law.
Headline casualty data does not always capture behavioural change, but this evidence does. It shows the law reshapes habits, nudging millions of drivers away from risky decisions. The legal but lethal drivers between 50 and 80 µg were not measured previously, therefore the data isn’t there to compare.
The government’s own statistics underline why change is needed. In 2023, 260 people were killed in drink-drive crashes and there were 6,310 casualties in total. These numbers may be lower than the grim toll of 1,640 deaths recorded in 1979, but progress has stalled. Fatalities dropped to around 200 by 2015 but have stubbornly remained above that figure ever since.
As far as I’m concerned, 260 deaths is 260 too many. Each number represents a human life cut short, families devastated, futures stolen. If lowering the limit helps prevent even a fraction of these tragedies, it is a step worth taking.
Lowering the limit is vital, but it must not be the only reform. To achieve lasting reductions in deaths and injuries, we need to go further. More post-crash testing is essential. Today, just 37% of drivers involved in a collision are tested for alcohol, down from 51% a decade ago. This leaves a worrying blind spot.
Testing should be routine, not optional. Random breath testing must be introduced. Every EU country except Germany has powers to conduct random roadside checks. In the UK, police can only test if they suspect a driver has been drinking, or if there has been an offence or crash. This makes enforcement weaker and undermines deterrence.
Education and awareness are also crucial. We must continue to reinforce the social unacceptability of drink-driving. The THINK! campaigns have made progress, but cultural change is a long game.
At AlcoSense, we see our role as part of that culture shift. Our personal breathalysers are designed for the ‘morning after’ — helping people understand when they are truly clear of alcohol. 93% of our customers use them the day after drinking, not on the night itself, to tell when they are clear of alcohol – not just below the limit. The goal is not to help people drink up to a limit, but to prevent potentially fatal guesswork.
I fully support the government’s plan to reduce the limit to 50µg. But looking at data, and the European direction of travel, I believe we should be aiming lower still – to 20µg.
A 20µg limit strikes the right balance. It is below the generally accepted ‘point of intoxication’ where measurable effects occur. It allows for a very small amount of trace alcohol but prevents impairment. It also builds in a buffer against rare technical false positives in testing. Crucially, it aligns with international best practice. If Spain, Sweden, Poland and Norway can adopt this approach, why can’t England and Wales?
Critics raise three familiar objections to lowering the limit. None are convincing. Some argue there’s no point reducing the limit without more officers. But the law itself changes behaviour. We’re generally a nation of law abiders, it sets a standard, and most people adjust accordingly. Enforcement is important, but not a reason to stand still.
Others raise concerns about rural pubs. Research shows little effect on most businesses. In any case, you cannot trade the life of a road user for two alcoholic drinks in a pub instead of one. And finally, there’s the ‘no effect’ claim in Scotland. The latest survey data proves otherwise. Behaviour has changed significantly. Fewer people drink and drive, you remove a large section of the legal but lethal drivers, and many consume less alcohol overall. That is success.
The UK was once a pioneer in road safety. In 1967, we led the world by introducing the first roadside breath test, but we are now lagging behind.
We know the risks. We know the solutions. The question is whether we have the will to act. In 2025, there is no excuse for laws that allow impaired drivers on our roads. Reducing the limit will save lives – and that, surely, is reason enough.
Hunter Abbott is Managing Director of AlcoSense Laboratories and a member of the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety (PACTS).
The author appears to be comparing apples with pears. There is a considerable difference between the rigorous research which concluded that the change in the limit made no difference to Scottish casualty numbers and what appears to be an opinion poll.
Andrew Fraser, STIRLING
+3