The North Review of Drink and Drug Driving Laws - RoSPA

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents The North Review of Drink and Drug Driving Law February 2010 7.2 Particular attention should be focused on the ‘Morning After’ effect. It is very difficult to know exactly how much alcohol has been consumed, and how long it will take the liver to remove it from the bloodstream (which varies from person to person). Some drivers who do not drive when drinking at night, find themselves unknowingly still over the limit the following morning. This happens now with a limit of 80mg, and will happen more often with a lower limit. Care should be taken to avoid a perception that such people are being unfairly criminalised, especially when the penalties are so severe. 7.3 If a limit of 20 mg were set, we believe it would be necessary to consider less stringent penalties for those caught with a blood alcohol level between 20 mg and 50 mg. 8 Do you think that different prescribed limit (or limits) should be imposed on different classes of drivers and riders (eg novice drivers, drivers of Public Service Vehicles (eg buses and coaches), HGVs and those driving for hire or reward)? 8.1 RoSPA does not believe that a lower limit for young or new drivers should be introduced. Enforcement would require the police to be able to check a driver’s age or licence status and there is a risk that once such drivers became subject to the standard limit they may mistakenly think they can drink more and drive. 8.2 There are good reasons to introduce a separate, lower limit for professional passenger carrying and goods vehicle drivers, although road casualty data on its own does not justify such a move. In 2008, 0.4% of bus/coach drivers who were breath tested after an accident failed the test, as did 0.6% of HGV drivers. The failure rate for car drivers was 3.7%. 2 8.3 However, a lower limit for bus and coach drivers might be justified because they are carrying fare paying passengers who have a right to expect greater safety from the company they have paid to transport them. Logically, this should include taxi and private hire vehicle drivers, and chauffeurs. For large goods vehicle drivers, the justification would be that the severity of crashes involving these vehicles is higher due to their size and mass. 8.4 An analysis of the proportion of crashes involving professional drivers who had been drinking alcohol should be conducted before a decision is taken to introduce a separate limit for them. 9 Do you think that there is a case for immediate suspension of a person’s driving licence where that person fails a breath test? 9.1 RoSPA believes that immediate suspension of a person’s driving licence when they fail an evidential breath test should be introduced. 6
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents The North Review of Drink and Drug Driving Law February 2010 10 Do you think that the right (under s8(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1988) to have a breath specimen replaced with a specimen of blood or urine where the lower of the two breath specimens is less than 50mcg/100ml is justified in light of modern testing equipment? 10.1 RoSPA thinks that the right to a replacement blood or urine test should be withdrawn, except where a driver is unable to provide a breath sample. Evidential breath tests are accurate and reliable, and the time delay in finding a doctor can mean a driver is below the limit by the time they take the alternative test, even though they were above the limit when they were first tested. 11 What do you consider the impacts of any lowering of the blood-alcohol limit may be on casualties, other health outcomes, businesses and on the economy more widely? 11.1 Between 50mg and 80 mg drivers are 2 – 2.5 times more likely to be involved in an accident than drivers with no alcohol, and up to 6 times more likely to be involved in a fatal crash. 8 11.2 In 2000, the Government’s Road Safety Strategy 9 estimated that reducing the limit to 50mg could save 50 lives, and prevent 250 serious injuries and 1,200 slight injuries each year. A more recent examination of the figures suggests that reducing the legal limit could save 65 lives each year and prevent 230 serious injuries. 10 11.2 Given an average cost of over £1.6m per fatality, the economic benefits would be very significant. 11.4 Changes to drink driving laws, and the public attention that is likely to accompany such changes, may contribute to the wider public health debate about sensible drinking. 12 Do you think that the drink drive laws in other countries provide examples of practice that could be adopted in the UK? 12.1 An International review 11 of the impact of introducing or lowering limits found: In Australia, reducing the limit from 80 to 50 mg significantly reduced 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 driver who had been drinking. 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. 12.2 The effects were often 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. 7
Page 1 and 2: The Royal Society for the Preventio
Page 3 and 4: The Royal Society for the Preventio
Page 5: The Royal Society for the Preventio

The North Review of Drink and Drug Driving Laws - RoSPA

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?