1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168 
Under the influence
Page 24
Page 25
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
As deaths due to drink driving continue to rise, an independent review is set to make recommendations to the new transport secretary.
Words: Adam Hill Two years ago 2,538 road users were killed in this country, and 26,034 seriously injured, according to the Department for Transport (DfT). These figures were 14% and 6% down respectively on 2007 proving that the outgoing government's measures to reduce the overall number of casualties had proved effective. Against the grain, however, estimated deaths due to drink driving rose from 410 in 2007 to 430 in 2008, an increase of 5%.
An earlier consultation on road safety compliance from the DfT had already floated the idea of lowering the blood-alcohol limit — along with some other much-trumpeted nuggets, such as introducing a six-point penalty for going 20mph over the speed limit, making careless driving a fixed penalty offence (£60 with three points) and ordering drivers who have had their HGV licences removed by the Traffic Commissioner to undergo retraining courses.
But despite that consultation closing a year ago, responses from companies to it have not been made public, and the DiT can still offer no timescale for when those proposals may see the light of day. However, Lowering blood alcohol is a possibility, with legal expert Sir Peter North expected to present his report to new transport secretary Philip Hammond shortly.
There are interests on both sides, but Sir Peter is used to complicated situations: he chaired a review in Northern Ireland in the 1990s, which led to the Parades Commission being established. He has a pretty free rein on thinking about drink-driving law, and for road safety pressure group Brake there is no doubt what he should conclude.
Brake deputy chief executive Cathy Keeler says: "A lower limit is vital to ensure that the government's 'Don't drink and drive' campaign message is not undermined.
Her contention is this: many drivers assume that as long as they are under the legal limit (80mg of alcohol per 100m1 of blood) they are safe to drive — but Keeler says people driving at the current limit are 10 times more likely to crash than if they had no alcohol in their blood.
This is why Brake wants the limit slashed to 20mg.
'Someone doesn't need to he obviously 'drunk' for their co-ordination and judgement of complex situations to be impaired by alcohol," Keeler continues "It's a disgrace that Britain, which prides itself on being a road safety leader, should have the highest drink-drive limit in Europe.
There may be resistance to lowering it, however, thinks Tim Riclyarcl, partner at law firm Barker Clotelee: "It could mean a complete sea-change where people would he worried about having just half a pint before driving.
He adds: "The Df argument in the consultation was that in the band from SOmg in the blood down to 50mg — which is I he norm in some European countries — the incidence of accidents is negligible. A greater concentration of alcohol-related accidents takes place above the current 80mg limit, so why change the law? There probably isn't the appetite.
Any drop in the blood-alcohol limit would mean that operators need lobe vigilant in ensuring drivers know that a pint or two after hours could have catastrophic professional consequences
The North review may also throw up PENALTIES the possibility of the police setting up random roadside stops to take breath specimens, but Ridyard is not convinced. "I don't know to what extent there will be random roadside testing," he says "Currently police can target theirresources in certain ways although it is not actually called 'random testing: It may be a distinction without a difference."
Drug-driving
When it comes to drugs, a new offence of driving when drugs are in your body is proposed. unlike the current "driving whilst unfit through drink or drugs?
This means the authorities would have to determine exactly how much of a substance is present. "You'd have to establish the presence of drugs in the body," explains Ridyard."You would simply have an offence where the person driving was found with drugs x or y in his body, in the same way that the mere presence of alcohol above the limit today is an offence."
This begs the question of how practical it is to identify "impairing substances" in a legally robust way, not least because of the availability of testing equipment.
"There is currently something of a gap in the law and it is recognised that a large number of drivers drive when controlled or indeed non-controlled drugs arc in the body." says Ridyard."It's plugging a current gap in the law. At present someone may pass a breathalyser test, but is not lit to drive through drugs."
"Most of the organisations we work with take drugs and alcohol very seriously," says Dr Will Murray, research director of Interactive Driving Systems, which works closely with the transport sector on managing safety issues. "Typically they start with a policy, on drugs and alcohol, being covered in driver handbooks, then implement for cause' testing after a collision, followed by random testing with a very small group, say 1%-5% of people each year."
The North team has been looking at whether a new offence is needed and at how any new offence should be framed — for example, whether it should be based on an absolute ban. or as with alcohol and driving, a certain level of drugs within the driver's system.
There would then be questions over which drugs should be covered, including prescribed medications perhaps The procedure at the moment is for the suspected drug driver to be physically examined to determine their state, and even asked to take part in time-honoured tests such as walking in a straight line.
This seems like an engagingly Heath Robinson approach, hut in an increasingly safetyconscious culture, you would not bet against both a new offence and new ways to determine it becoming law in the not-toowww.dft.gov.uk distant future. is www.brake.org.uk