Drink-Driving News 2002

Drink Driving Statistics ‘Meaningless’
DRINK DRIVING figures in Scotland over the festive period have been dismissed as meaningless because they do not reveal whether the crime is on the increase or declining. Critics including the AA argue it is impossible to make year-on-year comparisons because the full scale of the problem is not disclosed. Only the number of positive breath tests at road accidents are being released, while figures from random roadside checks remain secret. The problem with this is that figures from roadside checks can vary dramatically from year to year because of differences in enforcement tactics. In 1998, Scottish police were widely criticised for carrying out 160,000 breath tests, of which only 0.28% tested positive. Assuming they adopted a more targeted approach in subsequent years, the figures would not be remotely comparable. So the attitude of the police is not entirely unreasonable - but accurate year-on-year comparisons are sorely needed.
'Morning After' Drivers Targeted
DEVON AND CORNWALL Police have been cracking down on people who are still over the limit "the morning after" as part of the Christmas drink-drive campaign. The number of arrests for drink-driving offences in Cornwall and Devon has gone up slightly in the past year. Chief Inspector Ian Aspinall said drivers are often not aware of just how long it takes alcohol to clear from the blood. He said: "Alcohol is still in people's system the morning after, but people who are seasoned drinkers do not realise they are over the limit." He said that he expected an increase in arrests as a result of the clampdown. "It's down to each individual to know when they are clear of alcohol. "If they have any doubts they should refrain from driving." In reality, such a clampdown is extremely unlikely, as the police know very well it will erode support for the law. This is just public relations hot air. And how exactly, in the absence of trustworthy official information, is each individual supposed to know when they are clear of alcohol?
Shop a Friend for Ł500
PEOPLE who “shop a friend” they suspect of drinking and driving over Christmas could receive a reward of up to Ł500. The aim is to stem an increase in drink-driving. The money is being put up by Crimestoppers, the national charity set up to persuade people to shop criminals via telephone tip-offs. No rewards will be paid until drivers have been convicted. This scheme was started last year, and as I said then, is perhaps less alarming than it sounds, as it only really applies to acquaintances and relatives of habitual offenders. In practice, it is far from easy to reliably identify over-the-limit drivers in licensed premises, and inform the police in time to apprehend them. But it still leaves a sour taste in the mouth - surely people in a position to claim a reward should be doing their utmost to prevent their friends and relatives from committing the offence in the first place.

October 2002

Comatose Drivers Face Blood Test
DOCTORS have been given permission for the first time to take blood from unconscious or incapacitated drivers after road accidents without their consent. The aim is to prevent suspected drink drivers or drug-takers escaping prosecution because of lack of medical evidence. The new regulation, part of the Police Reform Act 2002, means doctors cannot be charged with assault for taking a blood sample, for forensic purposes, if asked to do so by the police. Police will be able to call for a blood sample to be taken from a driver who is unconscious or unable to understand fully a request to take blood perhaps because of pain and injury. This is a serious erosion of the right of patients not to be subject to invasive treatment except for medical reasons. Perhaps there are a handful of cases each year in which it can be justified by the death or serious injury caused. But is there any guarantee that the power will not be used to test drivers or motorcyclists involved in single-vehicle accidents where nobody else was involved? Surely people in that situation have suffered enough already.

August 2002

Breathalyser Pioneer Dies
ROBERT BORKENSTEIN, inventor of the breathalyser and author of the seminal research on the risks of drinking and driving, has died in Bloomington, Indiana, at the age of 89. After many years as head of the state police laboratory, Borkenstein enrolled at Indiana University in the 1950s, graduating with a degree in forensic sciencies. He held the post of Professor of Forensic Studies at the university from 1958 to 1983. Although many drink-drive offenders may have cursed Borkenstein, his research clearly showed that while alcohol was a serious risk factor at high concentrations, a modest amount did not impair driving ability, a point he often emphasised in his own lectures and writings. Sadly this sensible message is increasingly ignored by the "one drink is dangerous" zealots.

July 2002

Portugal Reverses Drink-Drive Limit Cut
PORTUGAL has reversed its decision to cut its drink-drive limit because of a lack of evidence that a lower limit helps to cut road accidents. The country had cut its limit from 50mg to 20mg per 100ml of blood in October last year, causing outrage among bar and restaurant operators, many of whom reported that sales had halved. The Portuguese government said it intended to address other causes of road accidents, including speeding and driving standards. After the previous report that the cut had been suspended following a review, it is excellent news that the decision has been made permanent. Any limit cut below 50 mg is wholly irrelevant to road safety, as virtually no drivers are impaired at such levels, and must be seen more as a deliberate attack on alcohol consumption per se. Now the Portuguese authorities need to look at addressing the real causes of road accidents.
Drinking and Driving Costs More Than Lives
THE FINANCIAL COSTS of drink-driving form the basis of a new advertising campaign launched by the Department for Transport. The Ł280,000 campaign uses humorous but thought-provoking radio adverts to highlight the practical implications that drink-drive convictions cause. The three ads highlight the high level of fines - up to Ł5000; increased motor insurance premiums - up to 3 times the cost; and job uncertainty for people whose work is reliant on holding a licence. The radio ads are being supported by the distribution of 2 million beer mats to pubs across the country. Branded with the Think! road safety logo, the mats tie in with the adverts by picking out the individual humour strand in each. Excellent - this is exactly what is needed. As I have repeatedly stated (see Shock Ads Fail to Stop Drivers Drinking below), an appeal to offenders' self-interest is likely to be much more effective than generalised publicity about the consequences of drink-related accidents. But it should be backed up by honest information about how to avoid breaking the law.
Portman Group Denies Corrupting Government
THE PORTMAN GROUP, the drinks industry-funded body that aims to promote responsible drinking, has dismissed accusations that it corrupted the Government by convincing officials not to lower the drink-drive limit. A House of Lords committee has argued that ministers ignored the advice of police and road safety groups and accepted the arguments of the alcohol industry when deciding not to cut the limit from 80mg to 50mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood in March 2002. But a Portman Group spokesman denied that it had been underhand. "We responded to the government's consultation in the same way as everyone else," he said. "Of course we didn't corrupt the Government. It made up its own mind," he added. "We strongly believe the best way to cut drink-driving is to target the hardcore offenders. At least 50 per cent of offenders are more than twice over the limit." Cutting the limit would not deter these offenders, he said. The suggestion that the government would be swayed by an industry lobby group on such a serious issue is laughable. They did not cut the limit because, having considered all the evidence, they concluded that it would ineffective in improving road safety.

June 2002

Outrage as Killer Driver's Sentence Cut
RELATIVES of six people killed by a drink-driver who had downed 13 pints and two alcopops have expressed outrage after his sentence was cut by the Court of Appeal. Peter Noble's 15-year sentence for causing the deaths by dangerous driving was reduced to 10 years. Appeal judge Lord Justice Keene described it as a "horrendous" case and said Noble's "arrogance" when he claimed he was capable of driving after drinking 13 pints of lager was "breathtaking". Noble's lawyers argued during the appeal that 15 years was so out of proportion and scale for sentences imposed for that type of serious offence as to be "wrong in principle". Three appeal court judges accepted their argument that Noble should not have been sentenced consecutively and ordered his sentences to run concurrently. Lord Justice Keene said the highest total sentence the court could find which had previously been imposed in a case involving multiple deaths was one of eight years. An attempt by Noble to challenge his lifelong driving ban was rejected by the judges to "protect the public". As I have stated previously, this was an almost uniquely shocking case where no mitigating factor could be imagined. Given this, it is unfortunate that the sentence has been reduced on what is little more than a legal technicality. Surely in this of all cases the authorities could have gone for a manslaughter charge, which carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.

April 2002

Shock Ads Fail to Stop Drivers Drinking
DRINK-DRIVING campaigns that rely on 'blood and guts' adverts to shock drivers are failing to tackle soaring increases in the number of people breaking the law. One of the Government's leading road safety advisers has told the Department of Transport that, unless there is a significant change of tone in future campaigns, a hard core of young drink-drivers will continue to flout the rules. Edmund King, executive director of the RAC Foundation, said that advertising campaigns should instead target the selfish nature of drivers. He argued that campaigns highlighting how much insurance premiums rose, or how long driving bans were once a driver had been caught over the limit, would have much more effect. Absolutely right! The hard-core offenders have long ago discounted shock ads, and are much more likely to be affected by a message about the likelihood of conviction, and the seriousness of the potential consequences.
Portugal Backs Down on Drink-Driving
PORTUGUESE wine-producers have forced the government to suspend a tough drink-driving law, which had reduced the limit to 0.2 grams per litre of blood, from the previous maximum of 0.5. Wine producers launched an impassioned campaign against the law, taking to the streets to press their case. The president, Jorge Sampaio, has now signed into law a decision by parliament to suspend the lower limit - which had been intended to cut Portugal's heavy toll of drink-related deaths - while a commission studies the effect of the lower alcohol limit on driving skills. Wine producers said it had created a 30% drop in sales - in a country thought to have the fourth-highest level of wine consumption in the world. It's good to hear of an outbreak of common sense. As virtually no drivers are impaired below 50 mg, it is hard to see what difference this law could have made beyond deterring people from consuming a single glass of wine. Enforcing the previous law more effectively would make a much greater contribution to improving road safety.

March 2002

Government Drops EU Plan to Cut Drink-Drive Limit
THE DTLR has performed a U-turn over drink-driving laws by rejecting a Europe-wide move to lower the permitted alcohol limit for drivers. The move to cut the drink-driving level from 80mg to 50mg per 100ml of blood - effectively cutting it to about one pint of beer - was proposed by Brussels two years ago. At the time ministers said they were “minded” to go along with it. But after a detailed study of the plan, transport ministers have decided to bolster enforcement of the present rules rather than take the politically unpopular decision of cutting the limit. David Jamieson, the junior transport minister, said Britain's penalties for drink-drive offences, including the mandatory one-year driving ban, were among Europe's toughest. He believed the way to reduce accidents lay in enforcement and publicity rather than a reduced limit.
This really is excellent news, as while the proposal was shelved in the Road Safety Review two years ago, there was still concern it would be revived following the EU review. This has now been rejected, suggesting that it is unlikely to become a live issue again for some years. The licensed trade and pubgoers will breathe a profound sigh of relief. And it is also good news for road safety, as drivers who drink small quantities of alcohol but ensure they are below the legal limit pose little or no additional accident risk, and the report referred to below suggests that efforts to target offenders in the 50-80 mg range would make the apprehension of 80+ drivers less likely. The point about penalties is also worth re-emphasising, as few of Britain's immediate neighbours impose driving bans for alcohol levels some way over 80mg, even though they nominally have lower limits. Some do not even impose the equivalent of penalty points for offences in the 50-80 range.
The text of the government announcement can be read here.

February 2002

Limit Cut Would Not Deter Offenders
ROADS MINISTER David Jamieson has met with experts from Canada to discuss a new report which shows a limit cut would have no effect on drink-driving levels in the UK, and could even hinder efforts to stop offenders. The new research was conducted by the Traffic Injury Research Foundation (TIRF) in Canada, where a limit cut has also been proposed. It found that repeat offenders would not be deterred by a lower limit and that police resources would be over-stretched trying to enforce it - allowing some of the hardcore drink-drivers to escape the law. Herb Simpson, president of TIRF, said: “The arguments in favour of a limit cut tend to be very emotional ones and campaigners usually say ‘it can’t hurt and it might help so why not?’. “But there is no compelling scientific evidence that the measure will have any effect on drink-driving accidents and fatalities - it could even have a negative impact.” Very sensible advice, which fortunately seems to have prompted the government to make a final decision to reject a limit cut. The legal limit cannot be considered in isolation and needs to be viewed in conjunction with penalty and enforcement levels.

January 2002

DTLR to Rethink Ads after Drink-Driving Rise
THE ANNUAL GOVERNMENT drink-driving campaign is to receive an overhaul after a shock rise in figures last Christmas. The DTLR chose to run the same campaign as the previous year, albeit with different music. Of the 15,000 drivers breath-tested after accidents over the Christmas period, eight per cent were over the limit, an increase of nearly one per cent on last year. The DTLR has only just begun its review of the campaign, but it is likely that there will be a recognition within the department that a new approach needs to be taken to change the habits of persistent offenders who are seeing the ads, but are apparently unaffected by them. The ad campaigns over the last few years have been much more effective in increasing disapproval of drink-driving amongst the general population than in actually changing the habits of potential offenders, who are likely to dismiss the ads by saying "it won't happen to me". Surely what is needed is more of an appeal to self-interest, by concentrating on the consequences of conviction, combined with a more adult and honest approach to what the law represents, rather than the inaccurate and patronising insistence that even one drink is dangerous.
Manchester Sees Massive Fall in Drink-Driving
THE NUMBER of drink-drivers in Greater Manchester fell by 20% over Christmas 2001, even though more motorists were breath-tested than the previous year. Out of 1,069 people tested, 62 were over the limit, compared to 1,037 tests and 78 arrests in 2000. In Cheshire, 23 people were arrested for drink-driving, one down on last year's figure. Very good news from my local area - and since the figures use a similar base in both years they are broadly comparable to each other, which is not always the case. Unfortunately this trend has not been replicated across the country, but hopefully it indicates that the apparent increase in casualties in the past two years will prove to be no more than a blip in the downward trend.

Next News