Yes, it’s true, we once did have a Prime Minister who spoke the truth. Disraeli’s "lies, damned lies and statistics" might have been the last true thing said by any politician from our Isles.

As earlier, there’s a move to further reduce the drink drive limit because we are falling woefully behind our European confreres in reducing the death rate from such things.

However, and it’s a fairly big however, we’re not actually measuring the same thing as everyone else:

This ranking uses as a starting point developments over time in deaths resulting from drink driving crashes. There are however large differences in the way in which countries define and record a ‘crash related to drink driving’. In Great Britain, these are crashes in which at least one driver or rider involved tested positive in a breath or blood test or refused to give a breath test specimen when requested to do so by the police. In Switzerland, drink driving crashes are those for which police reports show that drink
driving was involved, based on breath test results. In Hungary, the driver responsible for the
crash must have tested positive. In France, Great Britain and the Netherlands numbers of drink
driving crashes and victims are estimated using different methods of calculation.

I’ve asked the people responsible for these statistics exactly what they mean by "rider". Does this mean bike rider? Or passenger? Even with that, the differences in data collection, in the definition of what is a drink driving related crash, mean that the sort of cross country comparisons being made here are not in fact valid.

Not that this is going to stop anyone of course:

At the core of the measures there is the legal blood alcohol limit for drivers. The European Commission has recommended a European-wide blood alcohol limit not exceeding 0.5g/l for all drivers and 0.2g/l for novice and truck drivers.

How lovely. More bansturbation based upon inaccurate statistics.