If the progressive lowering of the blood-alcohol level for drivers stopped road deaths; then surely by now there would be no road deaths due to people driving while drunk.
If fining people for doing three kilometres over the limit prevented accidents; then there would be no accidents - that is reality.
Misinterpreting reality is claiming such actions prevent deaths.
If a blood-alcohol level of 80 milligrams to 50 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood caused people to have accidents then let's think back to when we were real champions at boozing and there were no actual limits.
Hundreds of thousands of people actually drove home while drunk after the six o'clock swill and there were very few accidents in those days.
What we need to do is stop the three kilometres over the speed limit; and see it clearly as a money raising exercise which is all it is.
I bet nobody has been killed at 53 km, due to that speed.
I further bet nobody has been killed by someone driving at 103 km, where that speed was the total cause of the crash.
It is the idiots that drive at 140 km and other death-defying speeds that cause the mayhem on our roads.
As for drinking, what we have to do is come up with some way stopping of people getting behind the wheel when they are over the limit - be it 50 or 1000 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood.
That alone will stop or lower deaths on the road due to alcohol consumption.
It is not those with such low alcohol levels that cause the carnage on our roads, as in speeding, it those who are four to 10 times over the limit that case the carnage.
An answer may be an identifying mark on a glass, so a barman can refuse to fill a patron's glass a third time within one hour, and if he does he is charged.
Worse of course tis the level of marijuana and methamphetamine (also known as P), and other drugs in the blood that are smoked or ingested before driving.
What are we going to do about that?
Alastair Bourne, Bethlehem.