Madam, - Tom Cooney (Opinion & Analysis, February 14th) makes an eloquent case against breath-testing motorists on an utterly random, or "dragnet" basis, both in terms of civil liberties and of low catchment rates in other jurisdictions (e..one per 144,000 in Tennessee).
But he is disingenuous. Random should not mean - as he suggests - lying in wait for motoring mothers during the school run. Such an approach would obviously be pointless, and an indefensible infringement of civil liberties.
If random breath-testing is to deter motorists from drink-driving, it must be targeted. That means testing everyone leaving the pub and nightclub when they close. Until habits change, the catch rate will be a lot higher than one per 144,000; after they change a dramatic reduction in alcohol-related road deaths will follow. Whether pub- and club-related TDs would allow such targeting, and the damage it would do the trade, is another issue. - Yours, etc,
TONY ALLWRIGHT, Killiney, Co Dublin.