RoSPA Drinking and Driving Policy Paper 2007

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents Drinking and Driving Policy Paper Updated May 2007 The Effect of Lowering the Limit in Other Countries An International review 12 of the impact of introducing or lowering limits found that in most (but not all) cases, the level of drinking and driving, and of drink drive casualties was reduced. The effects were not restricted to drivers at blood alcohol concentrations (BAC) specifically affected by the legal change, but included drivers at higher alcohol levels, possibly due to general deterrence. • In Australia, reducing the limit from 80 to 50 mg has significantly reduced the level of drink driving, and the levels of alcohol in drivers involved in drink drive accidents. • In France, reducing the limit from 80 to 50 mg reduced the number of fatalities involving a drinking driver. • In Austria, reducing the limit from 80 to 50 mg, resulted in a decline in the proportion of accidents that involved alcohol. • In Sweden, reducing the limit from 50 to 20 mg, was followed by a reduction in fatal and injury crashes. Reducing the higher limit from 150 – 100 mg, resulted in a significant reduction in fatal crashes. • In various American states, reducing the limit from 100 to 80 mg, produced differing results, sometimes showing significant reductions in fatal collisions. It is difficult to directly apply the results from other countries to the UK for a number of reasons: • Publicity about the change in the limit varies • Public understanding of the laws varies • Enforcement levels differ • Penalties differ. But it does seem clear, that a lower limit should not be introduced in isolation. For a lower limit to be effective, several conditions are necessary: 1. Public awareness of the new limit 2. Public understanding of how the new limit affects their behaviour 3. High profile enforcement of the new limit 11
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents Drinking and Driving Policy Paper Updated May 2007 Wider Police Powers to Require Breath Tests In its Road Safety Strategy, the Government states “We are currently looking at rationalising the law because current practice is too restrictive. We want the police to have powers to breath test people driving at locations where it is reasonable to assume an amount of drinking may have taken place”. This would allow the police to target their resources at areas and times where data or intelligence indicated they would be most effective. The Police can already 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. Allowing the Police administer a breath test without needing any other reason 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 intelligence indicated they would be most effective, for instance at locations where it is reasonable to assume drinking may have taken place. This measure would be a strong and effective deterrent. In advance of the introduction of this measure it should be accorded considerable publicity. It 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) Accompanied by massive publicity, Random Breath Testing has been widely adopted in Australia and helped to reduce drink driving, but its implementation had significant resource implications. In the State of Victoria, the proportion of fatally injured drivers over the legal alcohol limit fell from 49% in 1977 to 21% in 1992. 13 Surveys have indicated that once stopped, drivers believe it is unlikely that they will be stopped again, which can have a negative effect on their behaviour. There is also the problem of drivers becoming familiar with the location of RBT sites and avoiding them. However, coupled with the power to implement intelligence-led breath testing, Random Breath Tests would be a powerful deterrent tool. Sobriety Checkpoints A tactic common in America is the use of Sobriety Checkpoints, where a small team of 3 or 4 Police Officers stop and breath test drivers. They act as a highly visible deterrent and change drivers’ perceptions of the chances of being caught if they drink and drive. One study found that in areas where weekly checkpoints were conducted, there were 70% fewer drivers over the limit than in neighbouring areas without checkpoints. At some Checkpoints alcohol sensors are used by the Police to detect the presence of alcohol. 13 12
Page 1 and 2: DRINKING AND DRIVING POLICY PAPER U
Page 3 and 4: The Royal Society for the Preventio
Page 11: The Royal Society for the Preventio

RoSPA Drinking and Driving Policy Paper 2007

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?