Madam, - Please allow me to respond to the question raised by Dr Declan Bedford (November 1st) on the Government's hesitation in further reducing alcohol limits.
I think many politicians have picked up on a widespread concern that further reductions would lead to bad law.
Few accept that those having, genuinely, a couple of pints after a game of golf, or a few glasses of wine over a leisurely meal, are the real culprits where death on the roads are concerned.
Yet if the limit is reduced as Dr Bedford suggests, then a person having perhaps one drink after a hard day's work will be criminalised with the same severity as the drunken lunatics, in the early hours, who are doing most of the killing.
This would not be justice.
Such studies as Dr Bedford quotes do not garner huge respect.
For example, there are other studies from the US which show that serious accidents are rarely attributed to moderate drinking, ie those close to the limit.
And if someone with one drink is to be criminalised, then how should we approach those who are tired, distracted, angry, emotionally upset, using everyday remedies, or just showing their age in their driving habits?
I accept that Dr Bedford's heart is in the right place.
But may I respectfully suggest that the only effective and fair way to significantly reduce road deaths is to rigorously enforce fair law.
We have a reasonable limit now. All accept it. Those flouting it get zero sympathy from their peers.
It just needs enforcing.
If resources are the issue (and I suspect they are) then no reasonable tippler would object to an "enforcement" levy on the price of drink - if this is what it takes to ensure compliance. - Yours, etc,
JOHN GRIFFIN, Bloomsbury, Kells, Co Meath.