|
|
|
Drink-Driving News 2003
Note: All comments are those made at the time of the news item, and may have been superseded by later events.
December
- Survey Suggests Drink-Driving “Rife”
October
- Shock Rise in Drink-Walk Deaths
- Drink-Drive Deaths Reach New High
September
- Lib-Dems Urge Lower Drink-Drive Limit
- Irish Pubs Under Threat
August
- Drivers in Doubt on Drink Limits
- Lunchtime Pint Driving Danger
February
- Sleeping Drinker 'was not driver'
January
- £500 Bounty puts Brakes on Drink-Drivers
- Fall in Christmas Drink-Driving
Return to Home Page
- Survey Suggests Drink-Driving “Rife”
HALF OF BRITAIN’S drivers and motorcyclists admit to drinking before driving, a survey by road safety pressure group BRAKE has suggested. One in three said they had driven after drinking two units of alcohol, and 10% had driven after drinking three. One in 10 motorists admitted to drink-driving once a month or more often. Given that even three units would leave the vast majority of people well below the UK drink-driving limit, these results would be better regarded as a tribute to the moderation and sense of responsibility of motorists. The way this survey has been presented is misleading and mischievous, as the headline spin suggested lawbreaking was widespread, while the detail showed precisely the opposite. When the real danger on the roads comes from those driving when well over the current limit, branding responsible people who have consumed no more than a couple of small and legal drinks as “drink-drivers” is unhelpful and counter-productive.
- Shock Rise in Drink-Walk Deaths
NEW FIGURES from the Transport Research Laboratory reveal that more than 70% of young adult pedestrians (aged between 16 -34) killed on the UK’s roads and included in the study had been drinking. For all adults the figure was a similarly startling 60%. The levels of alcohol in the victims’ blood has increased dramatically too in the last 15 years. Since 1979 there has been a 50 per cent increase in the number of pedestrians killed who had a BAC above 2.5 times the drink drive limit (80mgs/100ml). In 2002, 808 pedestrians were killed and almost 39,000 injured on UK roads. A classic, and predictable, example of the law of unintended consequences. The constant exhortations not to drink and drive not surprisingly encourage people to drink and walk, and often consume far more than they would have done before. Indeed it could be argued that Britain’s current toxic culture of excessive drinking has much to do with the assault on moderate drinking associated with the dishonest “one drink is dangerous” message given to drivers.
- Drink-Drive Deaths Reach New High
MORE PEOPLE are dying in drink-drive accidents than at any time in the past decade, according to recently released Department for Transport figures. The number rose 6% to 560 last year alone - despite an overall 1% drop in deaths on Britain's roads. Andrew Howard, the AA Motoring Trust's head of road safety, said some drink-drivers “assume they can break the law because they are unlikely to be caught. The public perception of road safety enforcement at the moment is that it is done by camera and concentrates on speeding motorists and not other criminal motoring behaviour.” This is undoubtedly regrettable news, and Andrew Howard makes an important point that the increasing reliance on automated policing makes it less likely that offenders will be caught, something which they are obviously realising. The biggest deterrent of all is knowing someone else who has been convicted. The government’s irresponsible refusal to explain how drivers can stay below the legal limit must also have a part to play, especially at a time when many alcoholic drinks are stronger than they used to be and served in larger measures.
The authorities may also be clinging to an antiquated view the potential offenders are likely to be middle-aged men visiting country pubs, when the statistics show that the biggest rise is amongst under-30s, often in urban environments. Yet in most major cities, urban traffic enforcement is conspicuous by its absence. Not surprisingly, this news led to calls from the usual quarters to reduce the drink-drive limit, but if people do not believe they are likely to be caught, what difference is this likely to make?
- Lib-Dems Urge Lower Drink-Drive Limit
The LIBERAL DEMOCRATS have voted in favour of plans to lower the drink-drive limit. Delegates at their Brighton conference backed calls to reduce the maximum permitted blood alcohol level from 80 to 50 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood. Don Foster, the party’s transport spokesman, asked: “Surely we should be doing what the rest of Europe has already done and lower the drink-drive limits? Where it’s been done and effectively enforced, many lives have been saved.” More evidence, if it were needed, that the Liberal Democrats are a fundamentally illiberal, nannying party who delight in telling others what’s good for them. In most of the European countries with a 50 mg limit, it is not at all strictly enforced, and the penalties are far lower than in the UK, even at levels over 80 mg, with the result that drink-related road casualties are substantially higher.
- Irish Pubs Under Threat
MANY RURAL PUBS in Ireland could be forced to close if a lower drink drive limit is imposed. Transport minister Seamus Brennan is reported to be looking into reducing the blood alcohol limit from 80 mg to 50 mg. The news has been criticised by Joe Browne, the president of the Vintners’ Federation of Ireland. He said: “The majority of my members have pubs in villages. This move will kill those types of pubs. Drink is not the cause of high road accident rate, it’s speed and young drivers.” Much more so than the UK, Ireland is a rural country of small towns and villages. An 80mg limit allows drivers to legally consume a modest amount of alcohol, which will normally leave them well below the legal limit, and cause no additional accident risk. But 50mg is likely to deter them entirely, and would undoubtedly lead to the closure of thousands of pubs. In recent months, the Irish government seem to have decided to do their best to kill off their pubs, enforcing mandatory closing at 11.30 pm, and planning to impose a total smoking ban to take effect in 2004. But, knowing the Irish character, all of these restrictions are likely to be enthusiastically ignored.
- Drivers in Doubt on Drink Limits
ROAD SAFETY groups have urged the Government to lower the drink-drive limit after an RAC survey revealed confusion about how much alcohol motorists can legally consume. Almost 80 per cent of drivers did not know what constituted one unit of alcohol, and many drank double the units they believed themselves to be drinking. Some pubs added to the confusion by serving doubles as standard, and failing to distinguish between small and standard glasses of wine. However, the RAC admitted that even if people knew exactly how many units they were drinking this would not help them because there is no fixed rule for how many units take a driver over the limit of 80mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood. The Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety (PACTS) said that confusion could be reduced with a 50mg limit, making one pint of beer unsafe. It is certainly true that many standard drinks have increased in strength in recent years, and there is a good case for unit labelling of all alcoholic drinks. But it would make a significant contribution to road safety if the authorities revived the message of “ideally, don’t drink anything, but if you do, drink no more than three units”, which they used to impart, and which would put few drivers anywhere near the current legal limit. Refusing to give any meaningful information is downright irresponsible.
The PACTS statement falls down on two counts – a 50 mg limit would still allow most people to legally consume one pint of standard strength beer before driving, and where the limit is set makes no difference to whether or not this behaviour is “safe”.
- Lunchtime Pint Driving Danger
EVEN DRINKING small amounts of alcohol at lunchtime could turn you into a hazard on the roads in the afternoon, according to research from the Sleep Research Centre at Loughborough University. Volunteers were well under the UK drink-drive limit - but the combination of afternoon tiredness and alcohol led to serious mistakes in a driving simulator. Because of the natural afternoon 'dip' in alertness, even after a normal night's sleep, a modest alcohol intake at lunchtime presents a potential danger to driving at this time. Ever since research started, there has been a clear divergence between results from simulations and real-world accident statistics. This is just another example. An experiment with a sample size of only twelve, and no control group who had consumed a heavy but non-alcoholic lunch can hardly be regarded as scientifically rigorous. It must also be remembered that the legal blood-alcohol limit is a means of prosecuting impaired drivers, not a definition of a safe level of consumption.
- Sleeping Drinker 'was not driver'
A MAN found over the drink-drive limit at the wheel of his parked van has won a High Court ruling that his subsequent conviction was in breach of his human rights. Essex man Peter Sheldrake, who was found by police asleep in his van with the doors locked, won a test ruling that he could not be found “in charge” while over the limit because there was no evidence that he intended to drive. The judges ruled by two to one that laws that led to his conviction were “disproportionate” and “violated the presumption of innocence” to which he was entitled under Article 6 (2) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The ruling affects an estimated 2,500 motorists a year who are convicted of being “in charge”. This charge, which carries a maximum of ten penalty points, has always seemed iniquitous unless the prosecution can prove that there was a clear likelihood the accused was likely to drive while still impaired. Therefore this is an eminently sensible and long overdue judgment. Surely it is infinitely better for someone who has had too much to drink to sleep it off in their car rather than endanger themselves and others by attempting to drive home. And it is likely that most of the 2,500 cases each year represent unfair treatment of people who in reality were not going to drive for many hours.
- £500 Bounty puts Brakes on Drink-Drivers
THE LURE of a £500 reward for shopping a friend suspected of drink-driving over Christmas has proved irresistible for more than 1,700 people. Crimestoppers, the national charity set up to persuade people to inform on criminals, had a 240 per cent increase in calls about drink-drivers compared with the previous year. The calls led to 51 people being banned from driving and Crimestoppers said that it was now planning to offer the reward throughout the year. In one call that led to a conviction, a woman said: “I’ve told my husband about this time and time again. He will have to take the consequences now before he kills someone or himself. But, please don’t tell him it was me who called.” Behind the eye-catching headline, the actual figures show a rather low response. “Limited Success of Drink-Drive Bounty” would have been more appropriate. While drink-driving is alleged to be endemic across the country’s pubs, there was only one call for every thirty-five pubs, and a mere 51 convictions. As I have said before, the only people convicted under this scheme will be habitual offenders shopped by friends or relatives, the anecdote quoted being a good example.
- Fall in Christmas Drink-Driving
OVER 15 DAYS of the Christmas holiday, 1,080 drivers were arested for driving over the alcohol limit, from a total of 12,402 involved in collisions, compared with 1,247 last year, according to the Association of Chief Police Officers. Motoring groups have called for a special focus on the hard core of drivers who ignore warnings. Edmund King of the RAC Foundation said: “We need to see better targeting of these people and, if they are repeat offenders, get them off the road.” Good to see a fall in the headline numbers, although there remains a question mark as to whether the figures are strictly comparable from year to year. Edmund King’s comments underline that this is more than ever before becoming a problem associated with an unregenerate hard core. To tackle this, the police must abandon mass random testing and adopt a much more focused, intelligence-led approach.
Next News
Latest News
Return to Home Page
|
|