As a publican, business owner and member of a rural community, I want our roads to be as safe as possible. Those who drive while impaired by alcohol or drugs put lives at risk and deserve serious consequences.
Join our new WhatsApp channel: The Morning Round-Up
Get the biggest pub trade stories straight to your phone. Listen to our one-minute daily news briefing and receive breaking news, exclusives and sector updates throughout the day. Remember to turn notifications on in the top right corner!
Join the channel here.
But supporting road safety does not mean supporting every proposed change to road safety legislation.
The Government is considering reducing the legal drink-drive limit in England and Wales from 80mg to 50mg.
On the surface, that may seem a straightforward way to improve safety. Yet, the evidence suggests it may do little to tackle the real causes of drink-driving casualties while creating unintended consequences for rural pubs and communities.
Here in Cumbria, pubs are far more than places to eat and drink. They are employers, community hubs and often one of the few remaining social spaces in rural villages. They support tourism, champion local producers and provide an important route to market for independent breweries.
Rural reliance on cars
Unlike urban areas, rural communities often have few public transport options, especially in the evenings. Many customers rely on their cars to access hospitality venues responsibly. That makes any change to drink-driving policy particularly significant for rural businesses.
What concerns many of us is that Scotland’s experience does not demonstrate the road safety benefits that supporters of a lower limit promised. Analysis of the reduction in the drink-driving limit in Scotland found no significant fall in road traffic accidents attributable to the change. At the same time, many pubs reported a significant loss of trade, with rural venues among those hit hardest.
It is also worth recognising how much progress has already been made under the existing system.
When drink-driving laws were introduced in 1967, around 1,640 people died in drink-drive-related incidents each year, accounting for a quarter of all road deaths. By 2023, that figure had fallen to 260 fatalities, or 16% of road deaths. That improvement was achieved through enforcement, penalties and a sustained change in public attitudes towards drink-driving.
The evidence suggests the most serious drink-driving incidents are typically caused by motorists who are already well above the current legal limit. These are not people carefully deciding whether they can have a pint with a meal before driving home. They are individuals who knowingly break the law. Lowering the limit is unlikely to change their behaviour. Increasing the likelihood of detection and strengthening sanctions might.
That is why policymakers should focus on measures that directly target offenders. Random roadside testing for alcohol and drugs would increase the chances of detection and create a stronger deterrent. Concerns about drug-driving are also growing, yet enforcement remains inconsistent.
Repeat offenders
Equally, tougher sanctions for repeat offenders deserve serious consideration. Drivers convicted multiple times of drink or drug offences have demonstrated a clear disregard for public safety. Lifetime disqualifications for persistent offenders, alongside wider use of alcohol interlock devices, could make a meaningful difference where it matters most.
There is also a wider issue of rural proofing. Before introducing any policy that could disproportionately affect countryside businesses and communities, ministers should carefully assess its economic and social impact.
Rural pubs are not simply businesses. They help combat isolation, support local employment and provide a vital service in communities that often have few alternatives.
The pub trade is not asking for special treatment. It is asking for evidence-based policymaking.
We all want safer roads. The question is whether this proposal will genuinely make our roads safer. The evidence suggests the answer is far from clear. What is clear is that Britain’s success in reducing drink-driving deaths has come through enforcement, deterrence and changing behaviour – not from repeatedly lowering legal limits.
Instead of pursuing a policy that risks harming rural pubs while producing little measurable benefit, ministers should focus on the small minority who repeatedly flout the law. More effective enforcement, tougher sanctions for repeat offenders and stronger action against drug driving would target those who pose the greatest danger to other road users.
That is where lives can be saved. Rural pubs should not become collateral damage in the pursuit of a policy that may fail to address the real problem. Supporting safer roads and supporting rural communities are not competing objectives. With the right approach, Britain can – and should – achieve both.
