Competing narratives and public support for drink-drive policy reform: a framing experiment in England and Wales

Lowering legal blood‑alcohol concentration limits for driving is an evidence‑based policy to prevent harms. In England and Wales, proposals to reduce the drink-drive limit from 80 mg to 50 mg alcohol per 100 ml of blood have generated competing narratives, including alcohol-industry claims about harm to rural pubs and public-health arguments emphasising road safety. We conducted a pre‑registered online experiment with adults in England and Wales (N = 495) to test how these narratives shape policy support. Participants read one of three news‑style articles framing the proposed reduction as alcohol-industry aligned, public-health aligned, or neutral. The prespecified primary outcome measure was support for lowering the drink-drive limit. Secondary outcome measures assessed perceived policy consequences including road-safety benefits and harm to rural pubs. Mediators included measures of identity and perceptions of others who sometimes drink and drive. Bayesian analyses showed decisive evidence that framing influenced support for lowering the drink‑drive limit (BF₁₀ = 1.38 × 10⁶), with support highest under public‑health framing and lowest under industry framing. Public health framing increased perceived road‑safety benefits (BF₁₀ = 115.70), while industry framing increased perceived economic harm to rural pubs (BF₁₀ = 50,667.00). There was evidence against framing effects on responsible‑driver identity (BF₁₀ = 0.05). Exploratory mediation analyses suggested limited indirect effects via descriptive norms and drink-driver prototype similarity under industry framing only. These findings show that public support for drink-drive policy reform is shaped by competing narratives about harms and benefits. Public-health messaging may therefore need to highlight road-safety benefits while directly addressing economic harm narratives that could undermine support for policy change.