Drinking and Driving Policy Statements - May 2005
RoSPA supports a range of measures against drink-driving.
Although the incidence of drinking and driving has dropped dramatically over the last two decades, this appears to have slowed down or stopped, and may be increasing again. The issue needs to be kept in the public arena so that people do not become complacent. Young, male drivers particularly need a constant reminder about the dangers of drinking and driving, as they are over-represented in drink drive accidents.
RoSPA believes that much of the considerable success in reducing drink-drive accidents and casualties has resulted from a change in public attitudes. However, further measures and a new approach are now needed if more reductions are to be achieved. A package of measures is required to maintain and enhance the progress made against drink-driving. Legislation, enforcement, education or publicity are unlikely to achieve significant results on their own, but as a package they have considerable potential to generate further casualty savings.
Read RoSPA's "Drinking and Driving Policy Paper"
Lower Drink Drive Limit
The maximum blood alcohol limit in the UK should be lowered from 80mg/100ml to 50mg/100ml.
The European Commission has recommended that the UK introduce a lower limit. Driver performance is impaired at a blood alcohol level of 50mg and the Government’s own research shows that a lower limit would save the lives of 50 people each year. Reducing the limit may, in fact, save 65 lives a year.
The penalties for exceeding the current drink drive limit of 80mg should be applied to the lower limit of 50mg (if it was introduced). Setting less stringent penalties for exceeding a lower limit would suggest that it is a less serious offence.
Enforcement
Effective enforcement of the drink drive laws is essential, and should be high profile and highly visible in order to enhance its deterrent affect. Drivers should perceive that if they choose to drink and drive there is a strong chance that they will be detected and prosecuted and that the penalties will be severe.
Wider Police Powers Breath Test without Prior Suspicion
The Police can stop any driver for any reason, but they cannot require a breath test without a suspicion that the driver has consumed alcohol, or unless the driver has committed a traffic offence or been involved in an accident.
RoSPA believes that the Police should have the power to require a breath test without needing any other reason; this would increase drivers’ perception of the risk of being caught without necessarily placing additional demands upon police resources. It would allow the police to target their resources at areas and times where they would be most effective, for instance at locations where it is reasonable to assume drinking may have taken place. In its Road Safety Strategy, the Government states that it wants the police to have wider powers to breath test people.
This measure may be opposed on the grounds that it erodes civil liberties, but drink drivers also erode the civil liberties of everyone else. Drink driving is such a serious offence that it justifies giving the Police wider powers.
Random Breath Testing (RBT)
Giving the Police powers to require breath tests without prior suspicion that a driver has been drinking would also provide the power to conduct Random Breath Testing. This has been widely adopted in Australia and helped to reduce drink driving, although it tends to be resource intensive. However, coupled with the power to implement intelligence-led breath testing, Random Breath Tests would be a powerful deterrent tool.
Evidential Roadside Breath Testing
Currently drivers who fail a roadside breath test have to be taken to a police station for a second test because roadside breath test results are not admissible evidence in court. Now that the Police have been given the powers to use roadside evidential breath testing devices, they should begin to do so as soon as possible. This will allow the police to test more suspected drink drivers with the same level of resources.
Penalties for Offenders
Sentencing policy for convicted road traffic offenders should complement and support other road safety measures, such as education and training to produce better, safer drivers who are less likely to re-offend. For road safety purposes, the aim of sentencing should be to change the attitudes and behaviour of the individuals being sentenced and also of the wider driving public. Wider use should be made of sanctions designed to change offenders’ behaviour, such as re-training, rehabilitation courses, and re-testing.
Although, each case must be judged on its individual circumstances, it seems likely that greater consistency in sentences for similar offences would enhance their deterrent effect, and help to address the public disquiet that is often expressed when offenders receive (seemingly) inappropriately light sentences.
Disqualification Periods
RoSPA would support the courts’ having the power to impose a driving ban as part of bail conditions where the court thought that the defendant might commit a further drink-drive offence whilst on bail. In some cases, it may not be appropriate to return a convicted drink drive offender’s driving licence at the end of their period of disqualification because they are likely to re-offend. Measures to assess whether the return of a driving licence is appropriate should be considered.
Immediate Licence Confiscation
The immediate confiscation of the driving licence of drivers who have failed an evidential breath test and who are high risk offenders would be another way of reducing the likelihood that such people would drive while waiting for their case to come to court. However, since drivers do not have to carry a licence in this country, it is difficult to see how this could be enforced.
High Risk Offenders Scheme
RoSPA supports the High Risk Offenders Scheme and would like to see it publicised more widely.
Drink Drive Rehabilitation Courses
RoSPA supports the use of rehabilitation courses. Some drink drivers have an overall alcohol problem, which is not effectively addressed through enforcement and sentences. Offenders who have completed a Rehabilitation course are less likely to re-offend than those who have not.
Breath Alcohol Ignition Interlock Devices (BAIIDs)
Some countries require Breath Alcohol Ignition Interlock devices to be fitted to convicted offenders vehicles. They are designed to prevent a car engine from starting if the person who breaths into the device has been drinking alcohol. There is some evidence that they are effective in discouraging re-offending while the order is in force, but that re-offending occurs once the restriction is removed.
A decision on their use in the UK should await the results of the pilot scheme currently underway.
Education and Publicity
There is no doubt that the publicity and education campaigns conducted since the late 1970s have changed public knowledge and attitudes about drinking and driving.
Long-term publicity is essential, supported by education programmes for school children and drivers and trainees.
A lower limit would be even more effective in saving lives and preventing injuries if it was supported by substantial, sustained publicity to ensure that the public are aware of the new limit and what it means in terms of their own behaviour. A law can only act as a deterrent if people are aware of its existence and meaning.
Alcohol Unit Labelling
EC Regulations require the alcoholic strength of products to be stated on their containers. However, it is difficult for an individual to determine the amount they have consumed. Publicity and information concerning units of alcohol should stress the fact that it is not possible to accurately gauge how it will affect individuals and the only safe limit is zero.
The drinks industry could give clearer advice on alcohol content on labels and at point of sale in pubs. Research is needed on the best way to convey the message on alcohol content.
Alternatives to Drinking and Driving
Greater efforts are also needed to help people choose not to drink and drive by providing alternative options. The price of soft drinks and No or Low Alcohol Drinks in pubs and restaurants should be lower. The lack of good public transport in rural areas is often cited as a particular difficulty because it means that people must use their cars to go to the pub.
The Drinks industry should adopt a more enthusiastic marketing approach to promote a positive image for low or no alcohol drinks and introduce a price advantage for these drinks.
A Lower Legal Limit for Young Drivers
The accident risk of young drivers increases substantially at blood alcohol levels of 20mg. Lower drink drive limits for novice drivers have been introduced in some countries (as part of their wider Graduated Driver Licensing Systems) with evaluation studies showing that this results in fewer alcohol related fatalities in this age group. However, they are not the age group with the highest rates of drink driving. Enforcing a separate limit for a specific group of drivers would require the Police to be able to check a driver’s age (or licence status).
Self-Test Breathalysers
RoSPA opposes the promotion and use of self-test breathalysers. The Society is concerned that such devices will not always be accurate or reliable and that, in any case, they will largely be used by drivers trying to drink up to the limit. It is important that people plan ahead, and if they are intending to drink alcohol to make arrangements (taxis, designated drivers, etc.) so that they do not need to drive. Promoting self-test breathalysers would discourage such forward planning.
|
RoSPA is a registered charity: Registered Charity No: 207823 Patron: Her Majesty the Queen RoSPA Head Office: Edgbaston Park, 353 Bristol Road, Edgbaston, Birmingham B5 7ST, UK |
 |