RoSPA Drinking and Driving Policy Paper 2007
RoSPA Drinking and Driving Policy Paper 2007
RoSPA Drinking and Driving Policy Paper 2007
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
DRINKING AND DRIVING<br />
POLICY PAPER<br />
UPDATED MAY <strong>2007</strong>
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents<br />
<strong>Drinking</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Driving</strong> <strong>Policy</strong> <strong>Paper</strong><br />
Updated May <strong>2007</strong><br />
1. INTRODUCTION<br />
Alcohol gives a drivers a false sense of confidence <strong>and</strong> impairs their:<br />
• reaction times<br />
• co-ordination<br />
• judgement of speed, time <strong>and</strong> distance<br />
• concentration.<br />
<strong>Drinking</strong> <strong>and</strong> driving significantly increases the likelihood of being involved in a crash.<br />
Even small amounts of alcohol, well below the legal limit, increase the chances of an<br />
accident. Nearly half (44%) of drivers questioned in a Home Office Survey, admitted<br />
to having driven after drinking some alcohol in the previous year. One in eight drivers<br />
said they had driven when they thought they were over the limit. 1<br />
One in six people killed on the roads, dies in an accident where at least one driver or<br />
rider was above the drink drive limit. Drink drive casualties account for 16% of all road<br />
accident deaths, 7% of all serious injuries <strong>and</strong> 6% of slight casualties. 2 Drink driving<br />
kills not only the drivers who have been irresponsible enough to drink <strong>and</strong> then drive<br />
but also their passengers <strong>and</strong> other innocent road users, including pedestrians,<br />
cyclists <strong>and</strong> motorcyclists.<br />
Drink-drive accidents <strong>and</strong> casualties have reduced consistently over many years.<br />
During the 1990s the number of people killed <strong>and</strong> seriously injured in drink drive<br />
accidents fell by around 40% <strong>and</strong> slight injuries by 10%. The combination of<br />
consistent publicity campaigns, stiffer penalties <strong>and</strong> more <strong>and</strong> better targeted<br />
enforcement has resulted in most people regarding drinking <strong>and</strong> driving as a<br />
dangerous, selfish <strong>and</strong> socially unacceptable activity.<br />
However, the number of people killed in drink drive accidents has been increasing in<br />
recent years. In 2005, 560 people ∗ were killed in drink drive crashes, a higher number<br />
than ten years ago. 2<br />
<strong>RoSPA</strong> is concerned that the level of drinking <strong>and</strong> driving is, at the very least, no<br />
longer falling <strong>and</strong> may be increasing. There is also evidence that drink drive accidents<br />
are no longer falling in many other countries. 3<br />
The campaign to prevent drinking <strong>and</strong> driving needs to be re-invigorated with a<br />
package of new measures in order to achieve further, long term reductions in the level<br />
of drinking <strong>and</strong> driving.<br />
∗ Provisional figure<br />
1
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents<br />
<strong>Drinking</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Driving</strong> <strong>Policy</strong> <strong>Paper</strong><br />
Updated May <strong>2007</strong><br />
2. THE LAW<br />
It is illegal to drive a motor vehicle on a public road with more than either:<br />
35 microgrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of breath (BRAC of 35ug/100ml) or<br />
80 milligrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood (BAC of 80mg/100ml = 0.80<br />
promille)<br />
Section 6 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 allows the police to test any driver who:<br />
• they have reasonable cause to suspect has been driving or attempting to drive<br />
with alcohol in his body<br />
• has committed a moving traffic offence<br />
• has been involved in an accident.<br />
A person failing to provide a breath test is guilty of an offence, unless there is a<br />
reasonable excuse.<br />
Table 1: Drink Drive Offences <strong>and</strong> Penalties<br />
Offence<br />
Penalties<br />
<strong>Driving</strong> while unfit through drink or up to 6 months imprisonment<br />
drugs or with excess alcohol; or <strong>and</strong>/or a fine of up to £5,000<br />
failing to provide a specimen for <strong>and</strong> a minimum of 12 months disqualification.<br />
analysis<br />
There is a minimum of three years<br />
disqualification for a second offence.<br />
Causing death by careless driving<br />
under the influence of drink or drugs<br />
Up to 14 years imprisonment<br />
<strong>and</strong>/or an unlimited fine<br />
<strong>and</strong> a minimum of two years disqualification.<br />
Convicted offenders are also likely to have to pay up to five times the normal motor<br />
insurance premium once they are legally allowed to drive again. They will also be<br />
unable to hire a car from most car rental firms for ten years.<br />
High Risk Offenders<br />
The High Risk Offender (HRO) scheme is targeted at drivers whose apparent<br />
dependency on alcohol presents a risk to road safety. Drivers are classed as High<br />
Risk Offenders if they :<br />
• had an alcohol level at least two <strong>and</strong> half times the legal limit, or<br />
• had been convicted of an earlier drink driving offence in the previous ten years, or<br />
• had been convicted of failing without reasonable cause to provide a specimen for<br />
analysis.<br />
2
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents<br />
<strong>Drinking</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Driving</strong> <strong>Policy</strong> <strong>Paper</strong><br />
Updated May <strong>2007</strong><br />
Under the HRO scheme, once their period of disqualification has been completed,<br />
offenders are required to satisfy the DVLA’s Medical Adviser that they do not have a<br />
drink problem <strong>and</strong> are fit to drive before their licences are returned.<br />
An evaluation of the scheme 4 indicated that it successfully identifies drivers whose<br />
subsequent behaviour shows that they pose a genuine high risk. However, changes<br />
were recommended to enable identification of multiple offenders more readily.<br />
Enforcement Levels<br />
Information from breath tests carried out at the roadside following a moving traffic<br />
offence, road accident or suspicion of alcohol use, is available for Engl<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> Wales<br />
from the Home Office.<br />
Home Office figures for Engl<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> Wales for 2003 5 show that just over 534,000<br />
roadside breath tests were conducted (6% fewer than the previous year), of which<br />
106,000 (20%) were positive or refused – 3% more than the previous year.<br />
Table 2: Roadside screening breath tests: Engl<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> Wales: 1994-2004<br />
thous<strong>and</strong>s<br />
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004<br />
No. of 679 703 781 800 815 765 715 624 570 534 578<br />
breath tests<br />
No. positive 93 94 101 104 102 94 95 100 104 106 103<br />
or refused<br />
% positive 14 13 13 13 13 12 13 16 18 20 18<br />
or refused<br />
No. of<br />
convictions<br />
90 93 96 100 93 89 86 85 90 89 96<br />
Enforcement levels are critical to detecting <strong>and</strong> deterring drink drivers. The number of<br />
breath tests carried out increased dramatically during the 1990s but has been falling<br />
since 1998, <strong>and</strong> by 2004 the number of breath tests conducted was lower than in<br />
1994. Despite the drop in the number of breath tests, more drivers are failing the<br />
tests, suggesting that the police are better at spotting drivers who are likely to be over<br />
the limit, or that more people are drinking <strong>and</strong> driving.<br />
However, Police forces vary widely in the number of tests they conduct, from just 390<br />
breath tests per 100,000 population in some force areas to almost ten times that rate<br />
of 3,390 per 100,000 population in other areas. 5<br />
This ‘postcode’ lack of consistency is worrying, especially when combined with the<br />
findings of research which found that drivers feel they would not get caught by the<br />
Police if they were over the limit. Half of drivers felt it was “unlikely” or “very unlikely”<br />
that they would get caught if they drove over the limit once a week for a year. 1 3
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents<br />
<strong>Drinking</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Driving</strong> <strong>Policy</strong> <strong>Paper</strong><br />
Updated May <strong>2007</strong><br />
Drink Drive Limits <strong>and</strong> Penalties in Other Countries 6<br />
Table 3: Drink Drive Limits <strong>and</strong> Penalties in the European Union<br />
Country Limit Disqualification (Max) Imprisonment (Max)<br />
Austria 50mg/100ml 1 month 3 months/3 yrs (if fatal)<br />
Belgium 50mg/100ml 8 days - 5 years 15 days - 3 months<br />
Denmark 50mg/100ml 24 - 30 months Nil<br />
Germany 50mg/100ml 6 months - 5 years 5 years (if fatal)<br />
Greece 50mg/100ml 3 - 6 months 1 - 12 months<br />
Finl<strong>and</strong> 50mg/100ml 3 months - 2 years up to 3 months<br />
France 50mg/100ml 1 month - 1 year 2 months - 2 years<br />
Irel<strong>and</strong> 80mg/100ml 1 year 6 months<br />
Italy 80mg/100ml 15 days - 1 year 1 - 6 months<br />
Luxembourg 80mg/100ml 3 months - 15 years 1 day - 3 years<br />
Netherl<strong>and</strong>s 50mg/100ml 6 months - 10 years 3 months - 3 years<br />
Portugal 50mg/100ml 15 days - 1 year Nil<br />
Spain* 50mg/100ml 3 months - 5 years 1 - 6 months<br />
Sweden 20mg/100ml 3 months - 3 years 1 month - 2 years<br />
UK 80mg/100ml Obligatory 12 months 6 months – 10 years(if fatal)<br />
but longer periods for<br />
some offences<br />
*Since January 1999, 30 for drivers of HGVs <strong>and</strong> public transport vehicles.<br />
USA<br />
Many US States have reduced their limits from 100mg/100ml to 80mg/100ml. Many<br />
also have lower limits for novice drivers, as part of Graduated Licence Schemes. The<br />
Constitution of the USA prevents law enforcement officers from using R<strong>and</strong>om Breath<br />
Testing. Requiring a blood or breath sample is considered to be a search <strong>and</strong> is only<br />
reasonable if the officer has probable cause to make an arrest. The police can<br />
therefore mount checkpoints but must have an ‘articulable suspicion’ of an illegal<br />
alcohol level in the driver to stop the vehicle.<br />
Some States impose a m<strong>and</strong>atory licence suspension or revocation for a first drink<br />
drive offence, the period varies from seven days to six months. Breath Alcohol Ignition<br />
Interlock Devices are used in a majority of States. Also many State statutes permit or<br />
m<strong>and</strong>ate vehicle impoundment or immobilisation for serious <strong>and</strong>/or repeated drink<br />
driving offenders.<br />
Canada<br />
Canada has two limits: 80mg/100ml is a criminal offence <strong>and</strong> 50mg/ml is an<br />
administrative offence which carries with it an immediate 12- or 24-hour administrative<br />
license suspension. Some provinces, impose further sanctions when an individual<br />
accumulates two or three such suspensions over a set period of time. Alcohol levels<br />
of 80mg or above are a criminal offence which attract longer disqualifications.<br />
4
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents<br />
<strong>Drinking</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Driving</strong> <strong>Policy</strong> <strong>Paper</strong><br />
Updated May <strong>2007</strong><br />
Australia<br />
All Australian States have a limit of 50mg/100ml. In New South Wales <strong>and</strong> Western<br />
Australia the limit is 20mg/100ml for learner <strong>and</strong> novice drivers, drivers of heavy<br />
vehicles, public passenger vehicles <strong>and</strong> dangerous goods vehicles. R<strong>and</strong>om Breath<br />
Testing operates in Australia although the level <strong>and</strong> method of operation varies<br />
between States. Mobile RBT has been introduced in some States. Also ‘targeted’<br />
RBT operates in some states when police target roads leading from specific hotels or<br />
pubs, or all major exits from a specific town/city at a specific time.<br />
South Australia deals with offences within the 50-80mg/100ml range by means of<br />
Traffic Infringement Notices <strong>and</strong> a fine. Disqualification only becomes a penalty<br />
where blood alcohol levels are over 80mg/100ml when the minimum period is 6<br />
months. In New South Wales the penalties include fines of up to $2,200 <strong>and</strong><br />
disqualification of up to one year. The penalties increase for higher blood alcohol<br />
levels <strong>and</strong> for repeat offenders. If the BAC reading exceeds 150mg/100ml, or the<br />
individual refuses to submit to a breath analysis, their licence is confiscated <strong>and</strong><br />
suspended immediately. Australia also imposes Breath Alcohol Ignition Interlock<br />
Devices, preventing a car from being started if the driver is over the limit.<br />
New Zeal<strong>and</strong><br />
New Zeal<strong>and</strong>’s limit is still 80mg/100ml but they are considering reducing it in line with<br />
Australia’s. For drivers under 20 years it is 30mg/100ml. New Zeal<strong>and</strong> operates<br />
Compulsory Breath Testing of all drivers who are stopped, <strong>and</strong> the legal system<br />
allows the impoundment, confiscation <strong>and</strong> forfeiture of vehicles of offenders. Penalties<br />
include a maximum term of imprisonment of three months or a maximum fine of<br />
$4,500 or both, together with disqualification for six months or more. Persistent drink<br />
drivers face tougher penalties for third <strong>and</strong> subsequent offences, <strong>and</strong> face losing their<br />
licence for a minimum of one year instead of six months.<br />
5
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents<br />
<strong>Drinking</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Driving</strong> <strong>Policy</strong> <strong>Paper</strong><br />
Updated May <strong>2007</strong><br />
3. DRINK DRIVE ACCIDENTS AND CASULTIES 2<br />
Drink drive casualties account for 16% of all road accident deaths, 7% of all serious<br />
injuries <strong>and</strong> 6% of slight casualties.<br />
In 2005, there were 10,080 accidents involving illegal alcohol levels, compared with<br />
9,900 in 1994. 560 people were killed in those crashes, 2,100 were seriously injured<br />
<strong>and</strong> 12,740 slightly injured. Total drink drive casualties in 2005 were 15,400 compared<br />
with 15,160 in 1994.<br />
Table 4: Drink Drive Accidents <strong>and</strong> Casualties, 1994, 2004 <strong>and</strong> 2004<br />
1994 2004 2005*<br />
Drink Drive Incidents 9,900 11,210 10,080<br />
Deaths 540 580 560<br />
Serious Casualties 2,840 2,340 2,100<br />
Slight Casualties 11,780 14,060 12,740<br />
*provisional data<br />
In the past ten years, the proportion of drivers killed in road accidents who were over<br />
the legal blood alcohol limit has fallen considerably. In the early 1980’s, around a third<br />
of drivers killed were over the limit. It has now fallen to just under one in five (20%).<br />
The proportion fell as low as 15% in 1998, but has risen since then. The proportion<br />
varies with age, with driver fatalities aged under forty were more likely to be over the<br />
limit than drivers aged over 40.<br />
In 2005, 11% of drivers aged 40 years <strong>and</strong> over who died in road crashes were over<br />
the legal drink drive limit, but this proportion more than doubled to 30% for drivers<br />
aged 20 – 29 years. A higher proportion of drivers aged 30 – 39 years were also over<br />
the limit.<br />
Around 2% of drivers <strong>and</strong> riders involved in accidents fail breath tests.<br />
<strong>Drinking</strong> <strong>and</strong> driving is a year round problem, although the pattern varies year on year,<br />
the winter months generally have lower numbers of drink-drive accidents <strong>and</strong><br />
casualties than other months of the year.<br />
Table 5: Drink Drive Accidents <strong>and</strong> Casualties by Month. 2004<br />
Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec<br />
Accidents 800 890 890 910 1,060 920 950 960 890 1,100 940 900<br />
Casualtie<br />
s<br />
1,230 1,370 1,360 1,360 1,620 1,440 1,400 1,400 1,310 1,650 1,410 1,320<br />
6
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents<br />
<strong>Drinking</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Driving</strong> <strong>Policy</strong> <strong>Paper</strong><br />
Updated May <strong>2007</strong><br />
Despite the fact that there are fewer road accidents on Saturday <strong>and</strong> Sunday than on<br />
weekdays, more people fail breath tests at the weekend than during the week.<br />
Table 6: Accidents <strong>and</strong> breath tests by day of week. 2003<br />
Mon Tues Wed Thurs Fri Sat Sun<br />
Motor vehicles<br />
in accidents<br />
49,217 51,334 53,53<br />
9<br />
52,46<br />
3<br />
57,84<br />
2<br />
46,42<br />
5<br />
37,95<br />
3<br />
Drivers or riders<br />
breath tested<br />
25,497 26,570 27,46<br />
3<br />
27,38<br />
5<br />
30,44<br />
1<br />
24,91<br />
5<br />
20,76<br />
8<br />
No Failed 704 659 665 754 1,108 1,632 1,593<br />
% Failed 2.8 2.5 2.4 2.7 3.6 6.5 7.6<br />
Not surprisingly, more people fail breath tests during the night time hours than the<br />
daytime. Around half of the drivers killed between 10pm <strong>and</strong> 4am are over the limit.<br />
Table 7: Breath tests failed by hour of day, GB, 2005<br />
Hour beginning No. of Failed<br />
Breath<br />
Tests<br />
Midnight 608<br />
1:00 490<br />
2:00 501<br />
3:00 334<br />
4:00 163<br />
5:00 113<br />
6:00 91<br />
7:00 122<br />
8:00 141<br />
9:00 97<br />
10:00 97<br />
11:00 93<br />
12:00 109<br />
13:00 102<br />
14:00 138<br />
15:00 210<br />
16:00 287<br />
17:00 344<br />
18:00 401<br />
19:00 452<br />
20:00 436<br />
21:00 478<br />
22:00 538<br />
23:00 770<br />
7
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents<br />
<strong>Drinking</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Driving</strong> <strong>Policy</strong> <strong>Paper</strong><br />
Updated May <strong>2007</strong><br />
Age of Drink Drivers<br />
Young male drivers under 30 years involved in injury accidents have the highest<br />
incidence of failing a breath test. The proportion of drivers tested who are over the<br />
limit falls as age increases.<br />
Table 8: Percentage of Car Drivers Test Who Failed by Age, 2005<br />
Age %<br />
Failed<br />
Under 17 21.6<br />
17 – 19 5.4<br />
20 - 24 6.7<br />
25 - 29 5.8<br />
30 - 34 4.4<br />
35 - 39 4.1<br />
40 - 49 3.4<br />
50 - 59 2.4<br />
60 - 69 1.6<br />
70 <strong>and</strong> 1.1<br />
over<br />
All Ages 4.3<br />
The proportion of fatally injured drivers who were over the legal blood alcohol limit<br />
also varies by age, with drivers aged over 40 years who die on the road being less<br />
likely to have been over the legal limit.<br />
Table 9: Percentage of Fatally Injured Drivers over the legal blood alcohol limit<br />
Year 16-19 20-29 30-39 Age 40+<br />
1990 13 22 33 10<br />
1991 11 29 24 13<br />
1992 13 26 18 10<br />
1993 20 28 26 10<br />
1994 16 31 30 11<br />
1995 18 28 26 13<br />
1996 24 38 32 9<br />
1997 25 23 26 12<br />
1998 17 25 24 9<br />
1999 22 31 31 7<br />
2000 20 32 34 12<br />
2001 18 35 25 14<br />
2002 18 31 37 14<br />
2003 18 33 28 12<br />
2004 26 31 32 16<br />
2005* 18 30 34 22<br />
*Provisional data<br />
8
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents<br />
<strong>Drinking</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Driving</strong> <strong>Policy</strong> <strong>Paper</strong><br />
Updated May <strong>2007</strong><br />
However, 17-24 year old drivers have the highest number of drink drive accidents per<br />
licence holder. Making allowance for the fact that youngest drivers (17-19 years)<br />
drive fewer miles each year, then their risk is the highest.<br />
Table 10: Car Driver Accidents per Licence Holder <strong>and</strong> per mile Driven: GB 2004<br />
Age<br />
Group<br />
Car driver<br />
drink-drive<br />
Accidents<br />
Drink-drive<br />
accidents per<br />
100 thous<strong>and</strong><br />
licence holders<br />
Drink-drive<br />
accidents per<br />
100 million miles<br />
driven<br />
Under<br />
70 - -<br />
17<br />
17 – 19 1,050 79 41<br />
20 – 24 2,280 87 18<br />
25 – 29 1,520 49 8<br />
30 – 34 1,320 35 5<br />
35 – 39 1,050 25 3<br />
40 – 49 1,500 21 3<br />
50 - 59 680 11 1<br />
60 + 320 4 1<br />
All Ages 10,01 28 4<br />
These statistics match the findings of surveys which show that men aged 16 to 29<br />
years are the most likely to drive when they think they are over the limit; 26% of such<br />
men admitted to having done so in the previous year. 1<br />
Older drivers may be less likely to drink <strong>and</strong> drive, but those who do are more likely to<br />
be significantly over the limit. For example, in the 40-49 age range only 18% of drivers<br />
whose blood alcohol concentration was known were over the legal limit but of those,<br />
78% had a blood alcohol content of 200mg/100ml. This perhaps demonstrates that<br />
the ‘hardened drinker’ is likely to be older <strong>and</strong> more likely to be a high risk offender.<br />
Gender of Drink Drivers<br />
The drink-driver is predominantly male. In 2005, 1.2% of women drivers who were<br />
breath tested following a crash failed the test, whereas 3.1 of male drivers so tested,<br />
failed. This gender difference is also found in Home Office surveys in which 17% of<br />
men admitted to having driven when they thought they were over the limit, compared<br />
with 10% of women. 1<br />
However, nearly a third of the casualties in drink drive accidents are women.<br />
Other Road User Casualties<br />
Around 960 car passengers (including about 70 children) are killed or seriously<br />
injured, <strong>and</strong> a further 5,600 are slightly injured, in accidents in which at least one<br />
driver or rider was over the legal limit. It is estimated that over 200 pedestrians <strong>and</strong> 30<br />
pedal cyclists are killed or seriously injured by drink drivers every year. In total, almost<br />
900 children are killed or injured by drink drivers annually.<br />
9
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents<br />
<strong>Drinking</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Driving</strong> <strong>Policy</strong> <strong>Paper</strong><br />
Updated May <strong>2007</strong><br />
4. REDUCING DRINK-DRIVING<br />
The significant reductions in the number of people drinking <strong>and</strong> driving that were<br />
achieved throughout the 1980s <strong>and</strong> most of the 1990s appear to have slowed down or<br />
stopped, <strong>and</strong> may be reversing.<br />
Therefore, a new package of measures to reduce drinking <strong>and</strong> driving is needed. This<br />
should include a range of education <strong>and</strong> enforcement measures <strong>and</strong> legal sanctions<br />
to discourage <strong>and</strong> prevent people from drinking <strong>and</strong> driving.<br />
Lower the Legal Limit to 50mg/100ml<br />
The original maximum blood alcohol limit of 80mg/100ml was based on research 7<br />
which showed that virtually all drivers would be impaired at <strong>and</strong> above that level.<br />
However, there was evidence that many drivers were impaired at much lower levels of<br />
alcohol, but in 1967 the limit in Britain was set at 80mg/100ml for pragmatic reasons<br />
taking into consideration public attitudes at the time. 8 Since the original limit was set, a<br />
considerable amount of national <strong>and</strong> international research has been conducted, <strong>and</strong><br />
there can be little doubt that most drivers are impaired at a blood alcohol level of<br />
50mg. At levels between 50mg <strong>and</strong> 80 mg drivers are 2 – 2.5 times more likely to be<br />
involved in a fatal accident than drivers with no alcohol, <strong>and</strong> young drivers are up to 5<br />
times more likely to be involved in a crash. 8<br />
About 80 road users per year are killed in accidents where at least one driver or<br />
motorcyclist had a blood alcohol level between 50 <strong>and</strong> 80mg. The Government’s<br />
Road Safety Strategy 9 estimated that reducing the limit to 50mg would save 50 lives,<br />
<strong>and</strong> prevent 250 serious injuries <strong>and</strong> 1,200 slight injuries each year. A more recent<br />
examination of the figures by PACTS suggests that reducing the legal limit would<br />
save 65 lives each year <strong>and</strong> prevent 230 serious injuries. 10<br />
In the Road Safety Strategy 9 , the Government stated that it was waiting for a<br />
European Directive on a harmonised limit in Europe. The European Commission in<br />
January 2001 advised Britain to reduce the maximum limit to 50mg/100ml in line with<br />
most member states. 11 Despite this, the Government decided in April 2002 not to<br />
lower the limit.<br />
A lower limit would not just affect drivers who are between 50mg <strong>and</strong> 80 mg.<br />
Reviews 12, of the effect of lowering the limit in other countries have shown that it can<br />
be accompanied by a reduction in drinking <strong>and</strong> driving at much higher levels of<br />
alcohol. A lower limit would send out a general education message <strong>and</strong> set the tone<br />
for no drinking <strong>and</strong> driving. However, a lower limit should not be introduced in<br />
isolation, but as part of a wider package of drinking drive measures, including<br />
education <strong>and</strong> enforcement initiatives.<br />
The call for a lower limit is supported by the Association of Chief Police Officers.<br />
10
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents<br />
<strong>Drinking</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Driving</strong> <strong>Policy</strong> <strong>Paper</strong><br />
Updated May <strong>2007</strong><br />
The Effect of Lowering the Limit in Other Countries<br />
An International review 12 of the impact of introducing or lowering limits found that in<br />
most (but not all) cases, the level of drinking <strong>and</strong> driving, <strong>and</strong> of drink drive casualties<br />
was reduced. The effects were not restricted to drivers at blood alcohol<br />
concentrations (BAC) specifically affected by the legal change, but included drivers at<br />
higher alcohol levels, possibly due to general deterrence.<br />
• In Australia, reducing the limit from 80 to 50 mg has significantly reduced the level<br />
of drink driving, <strong>and</strong> the levels of alcohol in drivers involved in drink drive<br />
accidents.<br />
• In France, reducing the limit from 80 to 50 mg reduced the number of fatalities<br />
involving a drinking driver.<br />
• In Austria, reducing the limit from 80 to 50 mg, resulted in a decline in the<br />
proportion of accidents that involved alcohol.<br />
• In Sweden, reducing the limit from 50 to 20 mg, was followed by a reduction in<br />
fatal <strong>and</strong> injury crashes. Reducing the higher limit from 150 – 100 mg, resulted in<br />
a significant reduction in fatal crashes.<br />
• In various American states, reducing the limit from 100 to 80 mg, produced<br />
differing results, sometimes showing significant reductions in fatal collisions.<br />
It is difficult to directly apply the results from other countries to the UK for a number of<br />
reasons:<br />
• Publicity about the change in the limit varies<br />
• Public underst<strong>and</strong>ing of the laws varies<br />
• Enforcement levels differ<br />
• Penalties differ.<br />
But it does seem clear, that a lower limit should not be introduced in isolation. For a<br />
lower limit to be effective, several conditions are necessary:<br />
1. Public awareness of the new limit<br />
2. Public underst<strong>and</strong>ing of how the new limit affects their behaviour<br />
3. High profile enforcement of the new limit<br />
11
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents<br />
<strong>Drinking</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Driving</strong> <strong>Policy</strong> <strong>Paper</strong><br />
Updated May <strong>2007</strong><br />
Wider Police Powers to Require Breath Tests<br />
In its Road Safety Strategy, the Government states “We are currently looking at<br />
rationalising the law because current practice is too restrictive. We want the police to<br />
have powers to breath test people driving at locations where it is reasonable to<br />
assume an amount of drinking may have taken place”. This would allow the police to<br />
target their resources at areas <strong>and</strong> times where data or intelligence indicated they<br />
would be most effective.<br />
The Police can already stop any driver for any reason, but they cannot require a<br />
breath test without a suspicion that the driver has consumed alcohol, or unless the<br />
driver has committed a traffic offence or been involved in an accident. Allowing the<br />
Police administer a breath test without needing any other reason would increase<br />
drivers’ perception of the risk of being caught without necessarily placing additional<br />
dem<strong>and</strong>s upon police resources. It would allow the police to target their resources at<br />
areas <strong>and</strong> times where intelligence indicated they would be most effective, for<br />
instance at locations where it is reasonable to assume drinking may have taken place.<br />
This measure would be a strong <strong>and</strong> effective deterrent. In advance of the<br />
introduction of this measure it should be accorded considerable publicity. It may be<br />
opposed on the grounds that it erodes civil liberties, but drink drivers also erode the<br />
civil liberties of everyone else. Drink driving is such a serious offence that it justifies<br />
giving the Police wider powers.<br />
R<strong>and</strong>om Breath Testing (RBT)<br />
Accompanied by massive publicity, R<strong>and</strong>om Breath Testing has been widely adopted<br />
in Australia <strong>and</strong> helped to reduce drink driving, but its implementation had significant<br />
resource implications. In the State of Victoria, the proportion of fatally injured drivers<br />
over the legal alcohol limit fell from 49% in 1977 to 21% in 1992. 13 Surveys have<br />
indicated that once stopped, drivers believe it is unlikely that they will be stopped<br />
again, which can have a negative effect on their behaviour. There is also the problem<br />
of drivers becoming familiar with the location of RBT sites <strong>and</strong> avoiding them.<br />
However, coupled with the power to implement intelligence-led breath testing,<br />
R<strong>and</strong>om Breath Tests would be a powerful deterrent tool.<br />
Sobriety Checkpoints<br />
A tactic common in America is the use of Sobriety Checkpoints, where a small team of<br />
3 or 4 Police Officers stop <strong>and</strong> breath test drivers. They act as a highly visible<br />
deterrent <strong>and</strong> change drivers’ perceptions of the chances of being caught if they drink<br />
<strong>and</strong> drive. One study found that in areas where weekly checkpoints were conducted,<br />
there were 70% fewer drivers over the limit than in neighbouring areas without<br />
checkpoints. At some Checkpoints alcohol sensors are used by the Police to detect<br />
the presence of alcohol. 13 12
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents<br />
<strong>Drinking</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Driving</strong> <strong>Policy</strong> <strong>Paper</strong><br />
Updated May <strong>2007</strong><br />
Evidential Roadside Breath Testing<br />
Currently drivers who fail a roadside breath test have to be taken to a police station<br />
for a second test; roadside breath test results are not admissible evidence in court.<br />
However, powers to enable the police to use evidential roadside breath tests were<br />
included in the Serious Organised Crime <strong>and</strong> Policing Act 2005, which means they<br />
will no longer have to take a person who fails a breath test to a police station for a<br />
second test, but can use the roadside test as evidence in court. This means that<br />
Police Officers can spend more time on patrol <strong>and</strong> test more suspected drink drivers<br />
with the same level of resources.<br />
Penalties for Drink Drive Offenders<br />
There are stringent penalties for drink drive offenders. The maximum term of<br />
imprisonment for ‘Causing Death by Careless <strong>Driving</strong> Whilst Under the Influence of<br />
Alcohol or Drugs’ was increased from 10 years to 14 years by the Criminal Justice Act<br />
2003. The government intends to extend the penalties, <strong>and</strong> in particular to require<br />
repeat drink drivers to re-take the driving test (after their period of disqualification)<br />
before they can drive again. They also intend to exp<strong>and</strong> the use of rehabilitation<br />
schemes for offenders because those who attend such schemes are between 2 – 3<br />
times less likely to re-offend than those who do not attend. 14<br />
Sentencing policy for convicted road traffic offenders makes an important contribution<br />
to improving road safety <strong>and</strong> to achieving the casualty reduction targets set in the<br />
Road Safety Strategy. Sentencing policy should complement <strong>and</strong> support other road<br />
safety measures, such as education <strong>and</strong> training to produce better, safer drivers who<br />
are less likely to offend, <strong>and</strong> high profile enforcement, so drivers know there is a<br />
strong chance of getting caught if they behave dangerously.<br />
From a road safety point of view, the most important aim of sentencing should be to<br />
change the attitudes <strong>and</strong> behaviour of the individuals being sentenced <strong>and</strong> also of the<br />
wider driving public. Sentencing policy can help to:<br />
• change the attitudes, skills <strong>and</strong> behaviour of convicted offenders<br />
• remove convicted offenders from the road for their period of disqualification or<br />
imprisonment<br />
• influence the behaviour of other drivers <strong>and</strong> riders who hear/read about the<br />
sentences imposed for particular offences.<br />
It is essential that wider use is made of sanctions designed to change offenders’<br />
behaviour, such as re-training, rehabilitation courses, <strong>and</strong> re-testing. Greater<br />
consideration should be given to their compulsory, rather than discretionary, use.<br />
Consistency in Sentencing <strong>Policy</strong><br />
Consistency in the use of sentences is also important. Although, each case must be<br />
judged on its individual circumstances, it seems likely that greater consistency in<br />
sentences for similar offences would enhance their deterrent effect, <strong>and</strong> help to<br />
address the public disquiet that is often expressed when offenders receive<br />
(seemingly) inappropriately light sentences.<br />
13
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents<br />
<strong>Drinking</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Driving</strong> <strong>Policy</strong> <strong>Paper</strong><br />
Updated May <strong>2007</strong><br />
Rehabilitation Schemes<br />
The Road Traffic Act 1991 allowed Courts to reduce the disqualification period of<br />
offenders if they completed a Rehabilitation Course. A driver, who has been convicted<br />
of a drink-drive offence <strong>and</strong> disqualified for at least one year, can be offered the<br />
opportunity to attend a course. Those who successfully complete the course are<br />
eligible for a reduction of up to 25% in their period of disqualification. Generally,<br />
courses are targeted at first-time offenders.<br />
The courses are run by organisations such as Probation Services, Road Safety<br />
Departments, hospitals, charities <strong>and</strong> private companies, <strong>and</strong> seek to promote<br />
sensible drinking by educating drivers in the need to separate drinking <strong>and</strong> driving<br />
They generally run for 8-10 weeks <strong>and</strong> include:<br />
• Information about alcohol <strong>and</strong> its effects on the body<br />
• The effect of alcohol on performance, particularly driving ability <strong>and</strong> behaviour<br />
• Analysis of drink/driving offences<br />
• Alternatives to drinking <strong>and</strong> driving<br />
• Sources of advice.<br />
Evaluations of the effect of attending a drink drive rehabilitation courses on the<br />
likelihood of re-offending show that drivers who attend a course are less likely to reoffend.<br />
After 6 years, 18% of convicted drink drivers who did not attend a course had<br />
re-offended compared with only 7.6% of those who had attended a course. Offenders<br />
are most likely to avoid re-offending while they are still disqualified, but even once the<br />
dis-qualification period has ended <strong>and</strong> they can legally drive again, course attenders<br />
are still less likely to re-offend. 15<br />
Schemes in Other Countries<br />
In Europe, young drivers are not generally over-represented in alcohol related<br />
accidents except on weekend nights. In the USA young people are over-represented<br />
in driving accidents involving alcohol. In some states it is illegal to drink in licensed<br />
premises under the age of 21 <strong>and</strong> about 35 states restrict drivers aged 21 <strong>and</strong> under<br />
to 40mg/100ml or lower. Young drivers (16-24) make up 14% of the US driving<br />
population but were involved in 28% of all alcohol-related driving accidents.<br />
Australia<br />
Evaluation of drink/driver rehabilitation schemes in other countries, most notably in<br />
the USA <strong>and</strong> Australia, have found that recidivism is reduced in those who have<br />
attended courses when compared with offenders who have not. A study 16 in Australia<br />
examined both licence sanctions <strong>and</strong> rehabilitation programmes <strong>and</strong> concluded:<br />
• Programmes can have a 7-9% reduction in recidivism in addition to the benefits<br />
shown by licence sanctions<br />
• Programmes can reduce alcohol-related crashes <strong>and</strong> drink driving recidivism, but<br />
unlike licence sanctions, do not reduce non alcohol-related crashes. But, their<br />
benefits appeared to be longer lasting than those shown by licence suspensions.<br />
• Drink/driver programmes can impact on knowledge <strong>and</strong> attitudes toward drink<br />
driving, lifestyle characteristics <strong>and</strong> psychosocial functioning<br />
• Multi-model programmes, which included counselling, education, probation,<br />
licence suspension or a combination of these, are more likely to result in a positive<br />
outcome than single interventions.<br />
14
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents<br />
<strong>Drinking</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Driving</strong> <strong>Policy</strong> <strong>Paper</strong><br />
Updated May <strong>2007</strong><br />
The recidivism rate over nine years of 504 male drivers who took a Driver<br />
Improvement course in Melbourne was 27.5% compared with a rate of 21.6% for an<br />
age matched control group of 671 drivers who were eligible but did not attend. The<br />
usefulness of the course was advocated, particularly for males under 25 years prior to<br />
their re-licensing application.<br />
However, a 1988 study 17 in Melbourne concluded that no differences were found in<br />
reconviction rates between treated <strong>and</strong> non-treated groups <strong>and</strong> felt that such<br />
programmes had little effect on traffic safety measures. In the same year the Social<br />
Development Committee of Parliament in Victoria concluded in their inquiry into the<br />
management of drink drivers that drink driving education programmes have an<br />
important role to play in reinforcing the deterrent effect of the penalty system <strong>and</strong><br />
complementing broader health promotional activities aimed at reducing the incidence<br />
of alcohol related problems in the community. 18<br />
United States<br />
Studies undertaken in the USA generally support the effectiveness of drink driver<br />
rehabilitation programmes, although one study suggested that licence suspension is<br />
generally more effective than rehabilitation courses in reducing the accident risk of<br />
drink drive offenders. The results of that study did suggest that using both sanctions<br />
simultaneously would be superior to either measure used alone. 19<br />
Education <strong>and</strong> Publicity<br />
The Government, supported by Local Authorities, Police Forces <strong>and</strong> organisations<br />
such as <strong>RoSPA</strong>, have conducted education <strong>and</strong> publicity campaigns about drink<br />
driving for many years. The level of public awareness about the dangers <strong>and</strong><br />
consequences of drinking <strong>and</strong> driving have an affect on the level of drinking <strong>and</strong><br />
driving. When breath tests were introduced in 1967 the proportion of road fatalities<br />
involving alcohol fell from 25% to 15%.<br />
However, the level of advertising that preceded breath testing was not sustained, <strong>and</strong><br />
by 1975 the proportion of fatalities involving an over the limit driver rose to 35%. The<br />
Government decided in 1976 to conduct a high profile drink drive publicity campaign<br />
to educate the public, <strong>and</strong> the campaign has run each year since then. Since 1979,<br />
fatal crashes involving a driver over the legal limit have fallen from 1,380 to 400 in<br />
1999. Unfortunately, they have since risen to (a provisional figure of) 560 in 2003.<br />
Annual surveys show significant changes in drinking <strong>and</strong> driving behaviour since the<br />
drink drive publicity campaigns began. The research was carried out amongst men<br />
who drive <strong>and</strong> also drink outside the home. In 1979, 51% had driven after drinking on<br />
at least one occasion in the previous week; by 1997 this had dropped to 23%. Over<br />
the same period the proportion drinking 6+ units <strong>and</strong> then driving on at least one<br />
occasion in the previous week fell from 15% to 3%. (A unit is defined as 1/2 pint of<br />
ordinary strength beer, 25 ml of spirits or 100 ml wine).<br />
15
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents<br />
<strong>Drinking</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Driving</strong> <strong>Policy</strong> <strong>Paper</strong><br />
Updated May <strong>2007</strong><br />
The proportion claiming to "leave the car at home" when going drinking has increased<br />
from 54% to 79%, <strong>and</strong> the proportion claiming to avoid the risk by "arranging for<br />
someone else to drive" has increased from 48% to 67%. There has also been a<br />
marked reduction in the belief that it is difficult to avoid drinking <strong>and</strong> driving (from 61%<br />
down to 19% in 1997) <strong>and</strong> that knowing you will have to drive spoils the evening (from<br />
64% to 46%).<br />
The percentage of male drivers at risk who disagreed strongly that "Having one or two<br />
drinks does not really make me more likely to have an accident", increased by 7<br />
percentage points among drivers in December 1998 <strong>and</strong> remained level in January<br />
1999.<br />
In November 1998, 29% of male drivers strongly agreed that even one drink made<br />
them a worse driver <strong>and</strong> at the start of the campaign in December this had increased<br />
by seven percentage points to 36%.<br />
However, there is still much to do to increase public knowledge <strong>and</strong> awareness. A<br />
survey in January 2001 found that only 13% of drivers could correctly state the legal<br />
alcohol limit, a quarter of motorists thought it was half the correct figure <strong>and</strong> 48%<br />
simply did not know. The survey also found that 56% of drivers admitted to driving<br />
‘after a drink or two’ but remaining below the limit, 3% of drivers agreed that they did<br />
so frequently.<br />
Publicity <strong>and</strong> advertising should continue to encourage a climate that drinking <strong>and</strong><br />
driving is socially unacceptable <strong>and</strong> be aimed at encouraging friends <strong>and</strong> relatives to<br />
influence the behaviour of potential or existing offenders. Although the incidence of<br />
drinking <strong>and</strong> driving has dropped dramatically over the years the issue needs to be<br />
kept in the public arena so that people don't become complacent. Young, male drivers<br />
particularly need a constant reminder about the dangers of drinking <strong>and</strong> driving, as<br />
they are over-represented in drink drive accidents.<br />
There can be little doubt that the national publicity campaigns run by the Government<br />
over the last two decades are one of the reasons that public attitudes to drink driving<br />
have improved. It is essential that they are continued <strong>and</strong> are evaluated to enable<br />
future campaigns to be appropriately designed <strong>and</strong> targeted. The ultimate message<br />
behind any publicity should be ‘do not drink <strong>and</strong> drive – there is no safe limit’.<br />
The advertising strategy should include the tragic consequences of drink drive<br />
crashes, have a high emotional impact <strong>and</strong> confront the potential drink driver. More<br />
information to learner drivers on the consequences of drink driving would be helpful<br />
along with increased editorial for road deaths in general. More messages could be<br />
incorporated on TV via soaps, <strong>and</strong> pubs could be encouraged to display lively<br />
materials. Free time should be given to campaigns by the BBC.<br />
It is important to provide more education on alcohol <strong>and</strong> drinking <strong>and</strong> driving for young<br />
people <strong>and</strong> learner drivers in particular. Initial input should be to school children <strong>and</strong><br />
exp<strong>and</strong>ed during driver training. Materials should be used within the national<br />
curriculum or as leaflets to parents. Efforts should be made to encourage first time,<br />
low level offenders to attend alcohol education programmes to help solve any drinking<br />
problems they may have. More contact should be made with health professionals, for<br />
example, by linking the HRO scheme to hospitals <strong>and</strong> offering rehabilitation where<br />
necessary.<br />
16
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents<br />
<strong>Drinking</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Driving</strong> <strong>Policy</strong> <strong>Paper</strong><br />
Updated May <strong>2007</strong><br />
Alcohol Unit Labelling<br />
EC Regulations now require the labelling of the alcoholic strength of products on their<br />
containers, although it remains difficult for an individual to determine the amount they<br />
have consumed. A clearer method of labelling is perhaps required with st<strong>and</strong>ard<br />
units, a more traditional health warning such as on cigarette packets, or quite simply a<br />
message stating: ‘Don’t Drink <strong>and</strong> Drive’. Publicity <strong>and</strong> information concerning units<br />
of alcohol should stress the fact that it is not possible to accurately gauge how it will<br />
affect individuals <strong>and</strong> the only safe limit is zero.<br />
The drinks industry could give clearer advice on alcohol content on labels <strong>and</strong> at point<br />
of sale in pubs. Research is needed on the best way to convey the message on<br />
alcohol content.<br />
Alternatives to <strong>Drinking</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Driving</strong><br />
Greater efforts are also needed to help people choose not to drink <strong>and</strong> drive by<br />
providing alternative options. The price of soft drinks <strong>and</strong> No or Low Alcohol Drinks in<br />
pubs <strong>and</strong> restaurants should be lower. The lack of good public transport in rural<br />
areas is often cited as a particular difficulty because it means that people must use<br />
their cars to go to the pub. <strong>RoSPA</strong> would welcome a more enthusiastic marketing<br />
approach aiming at a positive image <strong>and</strong> introducing a price advantage to the<br />
consumption of low or no alcohol drinks.<br />
The Portman Group, an organisation set up by the drinks manufacturing industry to<br />
help prevent misuse of alcohol <strong>and</strong> promote sensible drinking, initiated a designated<br />
driver campaign in 1999. The ‘I’ll be Des’ scheme was then revamped in October<br />
2000, aimed at 18 to 40 year olds, although applicable to all, it encourages people to<br />
designate a driver for the evening when socialising.<br />
A Lower Legal Limit for Young Drivers<br />
Studies have shown that for young drivers their accident risk increases substantially<br />
at blood alcohol levels of 20mg. Lower drink drive limits for novice drivers have been<br />
introduced in some countries (as part of their wider Graduated Driver Licence<br />
Systems) with evaluation studies showing that this results in fewer alcohol related<br />
fatalities in this age group. 20<br />
The proportion of fatally injured 16 – 19 year old drivers who were over the legal blood<br />
alcohol limit rose from 13% to 18% between 1990 <strong>and</strong> 2002. (The provisional figures<br />
for 2003 show a further rise to 20%). However, the proportion of this age group who<br />
are over the limit is lower than for 20 – 29 year old <strong>and</strong> 30 – 39 year old drivers.<br />
17
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents<br />
<strong>Drinking</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Driving</strong> <strong>Policy</strong> <strong>Paper</strong><br />
Updated May <strong>2007</strong><br />
Table 11: Percentage of Fatally Injured Drivers over the legal blood alcohol limit 2<br />
Year 16-19 20-29 30-39 Age 40+<br />
1990 13 22 33 10<br />
1991 11 29 24 13<br />
1992 13 26 18 10<br />
1993 20 28 26 10<br />
1994 16 31 30 11<br />
1995 18 28 26 13<br />
1996 24 38 32 9<br />
1997 25 23 26 12<br />
1998 17 25 24 9<br />
1999 22 31 31 7<br />
2000 20 32 34 12<br />
2001 18 35 25 14<br />
2002 18 31 37 14<br />
2003 18 33 28 12<br />
2004 26 31 32 16<br />
2005* 18 30 34 22<br />
*Provisional data<br />
However, 17-24 year old drivers have the highest number of drink drive accidents per<br />
licence holder. Making allowance for the fact that youngest drivers (17-19) drive<br />
fewer miles each year, then their risk is the highest <strong>and</strong> because they are more likely<br />
to have accidents, the proportion of these which are drink related will be lower.<br />
Enforcing a separate limit for a specific group of drivers would require the Police to be<br />
able to check a driver’s age (or licence status).<br />
Breath alcohol ignition interlock devices (BAIIDs)<br />
Breath alcohol Ignition interlock devices are designed to prevent a car engine from<br />
starting if the person who breaths into the device has been drinking alcohol. They are<br />
used in at least 37 states in America, in one state in Canada <strong>and</strong> have been trialled in<br />
Australia. They are generally applied to repeat offenders, either as an alternative to<br />
disqualification or to follow a period of disqualification, as a type of probation period.<br />
Experience in the USA suggests that they are effective while the order is in force, with<br />
low rates of circumvention, but that re-offending occurs rapidly once the restriction is<br />
removed. Restrictions for one year seem to have no effect on subsequent behaviour;<br />
those for two or more years had a small effect. In Alberta in Canada where the<br />
programme is more closely supervised <strong>and</strong> supplemented by counselling, more longterm<br />
improvements have been experienced. 21<br />
A review 22 of experience with such devices in various countries found that they<br />
reduced recidivism by between 285 to 65% while they are installed. However, once<br />
they are removed from the drivers’ cars, the rate of re-offending increases.<br />
In Britain, a pilot scheme is currently underway with drink drivers who have<br />
volunteered to participate to assess whether the use of alcohol ignition locks<br />
(alcolocks) are effective in discouraging re-offending. The government is giving courts<br />
the power to require drink drive offenders to only drive a vehicle with an alcohol<br />
ignition lock (alcolock) so that if the pilot scheme proves effective, the use of alcolocks<br />
can be quickly introduced as a sentencing option. 23 18
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents<br />
<strong>Drinking</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Driving</strong> <strong>Policy</strong> <strong>Paper</strong><br />
Updated May <strong>2007</strong><br />
05 CONCLUSION AND POLICY STATEMENTS<br />
Although the incidence of drinking <strong>and</strong> driving has dropped dramatically over the last<br />
two decades, this appears to have slowed down or stopped, <strong>and</strong> may even be<br />
increasing again. The issue needs to be kept in the public arena so that people do not<br />
become complacent. Young, male drivers particularly need a constant reminder<br />
about the dangers of drinking <strong>and</strong> driving, as they are over-represented in drink drive<br />
accidents.<br />
<strong>RoSPA</strong> believes that much of the considerable success in reducing drink-drive<br />
accidents <strong>and</strong> casualties has resulted from a change in public attitudes. However,<br />
further measures <strong>and</strong> a new approach are now needed if more reductions are to be<br />
achieved. A package of measures is required to maintain <strong>and</strong> enhance the progress<br />
made against drink-driving. Legislation, enforcement, education or publicity are<br />
unlikely to achieve significant results on their own, but as a package they have<br />
considerable potential to generate further casualty savings.<br />
Lower Drink Drive Limit<br />
The maximum blood alcohol limit in the UK should be lowered from 80mg/100ml to<br />
50mg/100ml.<br />
The European Commission has recommended that the UK introduce a lower limit.<br />
Driver performance is impaired at a blood alcohol level of 50mg <strong>and</strong> the Government’s<br />
own research shows that a lower limit would save the lives of 50 people each year.<br />
Reducing the limit may, in fact, save 65 lives a year.<br />
The penalties for exceeding the current drink drive limit of 80mg should be applied to<br />
the lower limit of 50mg (if it was introduced). Setting less stringent penalties for<br />
exceeding a lower limit would suggest that it is a less serious offence.<br />
Enforcement<br />
Effective enforcement of the drink drive laws is essential, <strong>and</strong> should be high profile<br />
<strong>and</strong> highly visible in order to enhance its deterrent affect. Drivers should perceive that<br />
if they choose to drink <strong>and</strong> drive there is a strong chance that they will be detected<br />
<strong>and</strong> prosecuted <strong>and</strong> that the penalties will be severe.<br />
Wider Police Powers Breath Test without Prior Suspicion<br />
The Police can stop any driver for any reason, but they cannot require a breath test<br />
without a suspicion that the driver has consumed alcohol, or unless the driver has<br />
committed a traffic offence or been involved in an accident.<br />
<strong>RoSPA</strong> believes that the Police should have the power to require a breath test without<br />
needing any other reason; this would increase drivers’ perception of the risk of being<br />
caught without necessarily placing additional dem<strong>and</strong>s upon police resources. It<br />
would allow the police to target their resources at areas <strong>and</strong> times where they would<br />
be most effective, for instance at locations where it is reasonable to assume drinking<br />
may have taken place. In its Road Safety Strategy, the Government states that it<br />
wants the police to have wider powers to breath test people.<br />
This measure may be opposed on the grounds that it erodes civil liberties, but drink<br />
drivers also erode the civil liberties of everyone else. Drink driving is such a serious<br />
offence that it justifies giving the Police wider powers.<br />
19
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents<br />
<strong>Drinking</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Driving</strong> <strong>Policy</strong> <strong>Paper</strong><br />
Updated May <strong>2007</strong><br />
R<strong>and</strong>om Breath Testing (RBT)<br />
Giving the Police powers to require breath tests without prior suspicion that a driver<br />
has been drinking would also provide the power to conduct R<strong>and</strong>om Breath Testing.<br />
This has been widely adopted in Australia <strong>and</strong> helped to reduce drink driving,<br />
although it tends to be resource intensive. However, coupled with the power to<br />
implement intelligence-led breath testing, R<strong>and</strong>om Breath Tests would be a powerful<br />
deterrent tool.<br />
Evidential roadside breath testing<br />
Currently drivers who fail a roadside breath test have to be taken to a police station<br />
for a second test because roadside breath test results are not admissible evidence in<br />
court. Now that the Police have been given the powers to use roadside evidential<br />
breath testing devices, they should begin to do so as soon as possible. This will allow<br />
the police to test more suspected drink drivers with the same level of resources.<br />
Penalties for Offenders<br />
Sentencing policy for convicted road traffic offenders should complement <strong>and</strong> support<br />
other road safety measures, such as education <strong>and</strong> training to produce better, safer<br />
drivers who are less likely to re-offend. For road safety purposes, the aim of<br />
sentencing should be to change the attitudes <strong>and</strong> behaviour of the individuals being<br />
sentenced <strong>and</strong> also of the wider driving public. Wider use should be made of<br />
sanctions designed to change offenders’ behaviour, such as re-training, rehabilitation<br />
courses, <strong>and</strong> re-testing.<br />
Although, each case must be judged on its individual circumstances, it seems likely<br />
that greater consistency in sentences for similar offences would enhance their<br />
deterrent effect, <strong>and</strong> help to address the public disquiet that is often expressed when<br />
offenders receive (seemingly) inappropriately light sentences.<br />
Disqualification Periods<br />
<strong>RoSPA</strong> would support the courts’ having the power to impose a driving ban as part of<br />
bail conditions where the court thought that the defendant might commit a further<br />
drink-drive offence whilst on bail. In some cases, it may not be appropriate to return a<br />
convicted drink drive offender’s driving licence at the end of their period of<br />
disqualification because they are likely to re-offend. Measures to assess whether the<br />
return of a driving licence is appropriate should be considered.<br />
Immediate Licence Confiscation<br />
The immediate confiscation of the driving licence of drivers who have failed an<br />
evidential breath test <strong>and</strong> who are high risk offenders would be another way of<br />
reducing the likelihood that such people would drive while waiting for their case to<br />
come to court. However, since drivers do not have to carry a licence in this country, it<br />
is difficult to see how this could be enforced.<br />
High Risk Offenders Scheme<br />
<strong>RoSPA</strong> supports the High Risk Offenders Scheme <strong>and</strong> would like to see it publicised<br />
more widely.<br />
20
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents<br />
<strong>Drinking</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Driving</strong> <strong>Policy</strong> <strong>Paper</strong><br />
Updated May <strong>2007</strong><br />
Drink Drive Rehabilitation Courses<br />
<strong>RoSPA</strong> supports the use of rehabilitation courses. Some drink drivers have an overall<br />
alcohol problem, which is not effectively addressed through enforcement <strong>and</strong><br />
sentences. Offenders who have completed a Rehabilitation course are less likely to<br />
re-offend than those who have not.<br />
Breath Alcohol Ignition Interlock Devices (BAIIDs)<br />
Some countries require Breath Alcohol Ignition Interlock devices to be fitted to<br />
convicted offenders vehicles. They are designed to prevent a car engine from starting<br />
if the person who breaths into the device has been drinking alcohol. There is some<br />
evidence that they are effective in discouraging re-offending while the order is in<br />
force, but that re-offending occurs once the restriction is removed.<br />
A decision on their use in the UK should await the results of the pilot scheme currently<br />
underway.<br />
Education <strong>and</strong> Publicity<br />
There is no doubt that the publicity <strong>and</strong> education campaigns conducted since the late<br />
1970s have changed public knowledge <strong>and</strong> attitudes about drinking <strong>and</strong> driving.<br />
Long-term publicity is essential, supported by education programmes for school<br />
children <strong>and</strong> drivers <strong>and</strong> trainees.<br />
A lower limit would be even more effective in saving lives <strong>and</strong> preventing injuries if it<br />
was supported by substantial, sustained publicity to ensure that the public are aware<br />
of the new limit <strong>and</strong> what it means in terms of their own behaviour. A law can only act<br />
as a deterrent if people are aware of its existence <strong>and</strong> meaning.<br />
Alcohol Unit Labelling<br />
EC Regulations require the alcoholic strength of products to be stated on their<br />
containers. However, it is difficult for an individual to determine the amount they have<br />
consumed. Publicity <strong>and</strong> information concerning units of alcohol should stress the<br />
fact that it is not possible to accurately gauge how it will affect individuals <strong>and</strong> the only<br />
safe limit is zero.<br />
The drinks industry could give clearer advice on alcohol content on labels <strong>and</strong> at point<br />
of sale in pubs. Research is needed on the best way to convey the message on<br />
alcohol content.<br />
Alternatives to <strong>Drinking</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Driving</strong><br />
Greater efforts are also needed to help people choose not to drink <strong>and</strong> drive by<br />
providing alternative options. The price of soft drinks <strong>and</strong> No or Low Alcohol Drinks in<br />
pubs <strong>and</strong> restaurants should be lower. The lack of good public transport in rural<br />
areas is often cited as a particular difficulty because it means that people must use<br />
their cars to go to the pub.<br />
The Drinks industry should adopt a more enthusiastic marketing approach to promote<br />
a positive image for low or no alcohol drinks <strong>and</strong> introduce a price advantage for<br />
these drinks.<br />
21
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents<br />
<strong>Drinking</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Driving</strong> <strong>Policy</strong> <strong>Paper</strong><br />
Updated May <strong>2007</strong><br />
A Lower Legal Limit for Young Drivers<br />
The accident risk of young drivers increases substantially at blood alcohol levels of<br />
20mg. Lower drink drive limits for novice drivers have been introduced in some<br />
countries (as part of their wider Graduated Driver Licensing Systems) with evaluation<br />
studies showing that this results in fewer alcohol related fatalities in this age group.<br />
However, they are not the age group with the highest rates of drink driving. Enforcing<br />
a separate limit for a specific group of drivers would require the Police to be able to<br />
check a driver’s age (or licence status).<br />
Self-Test Breathalysers<br />
<strong>RoSPA</strong> opposes the promotion <strong>and</strong> use of self-test breathalysers. The Society is<br />
concerned that such devices will not always be accurate or reliable <strong>and</strong> that, in any<br />
case, they will largely be used by drivers trying to drink up to the limit. It is important<br />
that people plan ahead, <strong>and</strong> if they are intending to drink alcohol to make<br />
arrangements (taxis, designated drivers, etc.) so that they do not need to drive.<br />
Promoting self-test breathalysers would discourage such forward planning.<br />
22
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents<br />
<strong>Drinking</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Driving</strong> <strong>Policy</strong> <strong>Paper</strong><br />
Updated May <strong>2007</strong><br />
6 REFERENCES<br />
1 Drink-<strong>Driving</strong>: Prevalence <strong>and</strong> Attitudes in Engl<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> Wales 2002, Home Office Research Findings 258, 2004<br />
2 Road Casualties Great Britain, 2005, DfT 2005<br />
3 Worldwide Trends in Alcohol <strong>and</strong> Drug Impaired <strong>Driving</strong>, B M Sweedler et al, Traffic Injury Prevention, 2004<br />
4 The High Risk Offender Scheme for Drink Drivers, Davies et al, TRL Report 394, TRL Ltd<br />
5 Motoring Offences <strong>and</strong> Breath Test Statistics 0605, Engl<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> Wales 2003, Home Office<br />
6 Which Way Forward? A Review of Drink <strong>Driving</strong> Countermeasures in Selected Countries Worldwide, A Clayton,<br />
British Institute of Traffic Education Research, 1997<br />
7 The Role of the <strong>Drinking</strong> Driver in Traffic Accidents, Bloomington, Indiana University, 1964, revised 1974.<br />
8 Combating Drink <strong>Driving</strong>: Next Steps: A Consultation <strong>Paper</strong>, DETR, 1998<br />
9 Tomorrow’s Roads: Safer for Everyone”, DETR, 2000<br />
10 Reducing the BAC level to 50 mg – What Can We Expect to Gain, R Allsopp, PACTS Research Briefing, 2005<br />
11 European Commission recommendation of 17 January 2001 on the maximum permitted blood alcohol content<br />
(BAC) for drivers of motorised vehicles” Official Journal C 048 , 14/02/2001 P. 0002 – 0010<br />
12 The Effects of Introducing or Lowering Legal per se Blood Alcohol Limits for <strong>Driving</strong>: An International Review,<br />
Mann et al, Accident Analysis & Prevention 2001; 33(5).<br />
13 Alcohol Impaired <strong>Driving</strong>, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Status Report Vol. 40 (4), 2005<br />
14 Drink/driver Rehabilitation Courses in Engl<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> Wales, Davies et al, TRL Report 426, 1999<br />
15 Reconviction Rates of Drink/Drive Course Attenders: A Six Year follow Up, Davies <strong>and</strong> Smith, TRL Report 574,<br />
2003<br />
16 Evaluation of the St Vincent’s Hospital Drink Driver Education Program: Autumn School of Studies on Alcohol<br />
<strong>and</strong> Drugs, A Gijsbers et al, 1996<br />
17 Report on the Evaluation of the Pleasant View Drink Drive Program, G Didsbury, Victoria Health Dept, 1988<br />
18 Second <strong>and</strong> Final Report Upon the Inquiry Into The Management of Drink Drivers Apprehended With High<br />
Blood Alcohol Levels: Drink Driver Education <strong>and</strong> Treatment, 1988/08. XXV<br />
19 An Evaluation of the California Drunk <strong>Driving</strong> Countermeasure System – an Overview of Study Findings <strong>and</strong><br />
<strong>Policy</strong> Implications, Peck:, California Dept of Motor Vehicles 1987<br />
20 Car Driver Training <strong>and</strong> Licensing Systems in Europe, Lynam & Twist, TRL Report 147, 1995<br />
21 Evaluation of the Alberta Ignition Interlock Program. Proceedings of the 14 th International Conference on<br />
Alcohol, Drugs <strong>and</strong> Traffic Safety, 1997<br />
22 The Effects of Breath Alcohol Ignition Interlocks Devices in Cars”, I M Bernhoft, SWOV, 2001<br />
23 The Road Safety Bill, Parliament, 2004<br />
23