Looking at the whole aspect of motoring deaths

IT’S a great shame that the article by Julie Townsend of Brake (Yorkshire Post, August 8) was so full of emotional twaddle, that the message was lost. I am sure that many people, like me, lose interest in the message when it is so heavily biased towards one aspect of a very large and complex problem.

She tells us that 250 people didn’t come home to their families, well in fact 1,850 didn’t come home, so does she think this other 1,600 were less devastated because they were killed by a sober driver.

I do not in any way advocate drinking and driving, but in reality it is obviously not the biggest problem. Reducing the limit from 80mg to 20mg will have zero effect on the drivers who have a drink problem and drive with three to four times the legal limit, and whatever is done it will never totally eliminate the problem.

Julie seems to connect lower drink drive limits in other countries with lower casualties, but without looking at their other driving rules this gives, at best, an incomplete picture.

I think it is generally accepted that most incidents are caused by the relevant parties not seeing each other. Many countries now make it compulsory to drive on dipped headlights or DRLs as they call them in the US. Sweden did this about 40 years ago, it needs no policing as a simple wiring change, or probably a software change in modern cars, does it for you. The other significant factor is speed. How often do we read “they were going too fast”?

I am sure Brake comprises of many dedicated and thoughtful people, with a desire to ensure other people do not go through the devastation and distress to which they have been subjected, however I think they would be much more effective if they looked at the whole problem in a logical manner, rather than constantly relying on one emotional and topical aspect.