posted 4 years ago

Number Of Women Convicted Of Drink-Driving Doubles

Survey Reveals Alarming Attitude Towards Drink-Driving

The number of women convicted of drink-driving has virtually doubled in recent years, the Guardian has reported. As such, female motorists accounted for nine percent of convictions in 1998 but seventeen percent in 2012. These facts come courtesy of a survey from Direct Line and the Rees Jeffreys Road Fund. Furthermore, seventeen percent of the respondents “thought they had driven” while over the legal limit in the last twelve months. The most common excuse was that a perpetrator felt physically fit to drive (fifty-nine percent). In reality, however, nobody can be certain. Seventeen percent, in contrast, claimed to have no alternative – typically due to a family emergency - and fourteen percent took the risk as they thought there was little risk of being caught. 

Road Safety Minister Discusses Drink-Driving

Road Safety Minister, Robert Goodwill, said: "In 2013, eight hundred and three women failed a breathalyser test after an accident and that is eight hundred and three too many.” He added: “That is why we are cracking down on the minority who drink and drive by introducing a new offence of causing serious injury by dangerous driving and closing loopholes in the law to make it easier for police to prosecute drink-drivers, as well as tackling the menace of those who drive under the influence of illegal drugs. Later this year we'll launch the next phase of the THINK! campaign on drink-driving”, he concluded.

The Penalties Of Drink-Driving

The penalties of drink-driving can be significant. A perpetrator who drives/attempts to drive could, therefore, be imprisoned for six months. This might be in addition to a £5,000 fine and a one year ban. Such penalties can lead to unemployment, a criminal record, financial hardship, embarrassment and increased insurance premiums (once the motorist is allowed back on the road). More serious is if the offender kills (say) a driver or pedestrian. The penalty could then rise to fourteen years imprisonment, an unlimited fine and two year ban. There is also the physiological stress of coping with such a tragic situation. This is felt by family and friends too. Furthermore, it is an offence not to provide a breath, blood or urine sample for analysis if requested by the police. An offender might otherwise use this technique to escape the repercussions of his/her actions. The penalty could be six months imprisonment, a £5,000 fine and a one year ban.


Drink driving is not a motoring offence, it is a criminal offence! In some ways it is a good Law and in some ways it is a bad Law. Like any other Law there are a number of defences against it. There are people whose bodies produce alcohol naturally and they can be over the limit without them ever taking a drink. There have been people who escaped conviction because they had been victims of a spiked drink. If the Law and its administration was as fair as it should be the police should have to prove an intent to break the Law in order to make the most serious charge. There should be a range of other charges and possible penalties for those who had no intent or who had a "reasonable excuse". It is feasible an emergency will provide a reasonable excuse to break this Law as there is for all other Laws and the police should have to investigate in order to discover the truth; not just in drink-drive offences but all offences. As it is the police aren't truth-seekers but culprit-seekers and those who have a reasonable excuse are left to prove the fact or be assumed guilty. This is a long way from the romantic notion of "innocent until proved guilty" and the police being the first stage in a system of justice. They are rather the first stage in a system of justifying their own existence by the number of prosecutions. We all know the effects drugs and alcohol has on a person; these substances temporarily remove the inhibitions and affect rational thinking as well as reaction times. The Law really is an ass as it expects a very drunk person to choose not to drive. A very drunk person doesn't consciously choose to do anything and has little or no conscious intent. That the Law does not recognise this and offer alternative charges with possibly equal or greater penalties makes it illogical and stupid. It is a complete farce it isn't against any Law to get so drunk a person is incapable of choosing not to drive or realising he or she is incapable but then after the Law has allowed and even encouraged that incapable drunken state will prosecute that person because some of the actions of that State-sanctioned person are illegal. While the intent of the Drink-Driving Law is good it is poorly conceived, badly made and inherently unfair in parts and just plain silly in others. I think it reflects our governments and police perfectly...

Any woman or man convicted of drink driving should have their driving licence taken away,there is no excuse.t

Well, the statistics quoted do not demonstrate anything of the sort. It could be so, but also it could reflect fewer men being convicted! Remember, doubling one is a 100% increase! I dont believe these 'so-called' statistics unless the real figures are quoted - too many dim journalists out there, for a start! Let's have the numbers quoted, please.