Drink-Driving News 2007

Note: All comments are those made at the time of the news item, and may have been superseded by later events.

December

Government to Consult on Drink Limit Cut

September

‘One in Five’ Teens Drinks and Drives

July

Drink-Drivers ‘Too Selfish’ to be Influenced by Adverts

June

Drivers Face Lower Limit to Cut Road Deaths
Road Safety Officer Banned for Drink-Driving

February

Random Breath Tests to Hit Drink-Drivers

January

Festive Drink-Drive Numbers Drop

Return to Home Page

December 2007

Government to Consult on Drink Limit Cut
Drivers could find themselves over the legal alcohol threshold after a single drink under plans being drawn up by the Government to lower the drink drive limit. Police could also be given powers to stop and breathalyse drivers at random, even if their driving gives no cause for concern. A Department for Transport consultation to be launched in the New Year is set to propose reducing the legal blood-alcohol limit for driving by almost half. It is thought that the limit could be cut from 80mg of alcohol in 100ml of blood to 50mg. The 80mg limit allows a man of average height and weight to drink as many as four units of alcohol, or two pints of normal-strength beer, and still remain within the law. Women can drink three units, the equivalent of a large glass of average strength wine.As said earlier this year, this news will come as a sickening blow to huge numbers of licensees and pubgoers. Such a measure would close thousands of pubs, blight the social lives of millions and make no meaningful difference to road safety. But will Gordon Brown want his political legacy to be forever known as “the man who killed the British pub”? And I have to wonder whether they took those figures about what the law permits from this website.

September 2007

‘One in Five’ Teens Drinks and Drives
One in five teenagers has driven while under the influence of alcohol while one in 14 has driven after taking drugs, a survey suggests. And nearly a third of the 3,118 17 to 18-year-olds asked had been in a car when the driver was drunk or on drugs. Road safety charity BRAKE, which carried out the research with Co-operative Insurance (CIS), said ministers needed to act. It also wants to see lower drink drive limit for all drivers, from the current 80mg per 100ml of blood to 50mg per 100ml of blood - in line with EU recommendations - or even to 20mg per 100ml of blood, with a zero alcohol limit for novice drivers. Yet another misleading and disingenuous survey. If the question was “have you ever driven after drinking any alcohol at all?” it is identifying a behaviour that may well be entirely legal. And if that is the case, it is scarcely credible that under one in five teenage drivers has ever done it. And is there any definition of “after”? It is entirely possible for someone to be over the legal limit twelve or more hours after their last alcoholic drink, and for them to genuinely believe that they “never drink and drive”. Surveys such as this merely add to hysteria and do nothing to advance the debate.

July 2007

Drink-Drivers ‘Too Selfish’ to be Influenced by Adverts
YOUNG MEN are too selfish to be influenced by advertisements showing the horrifying consequences of drink-driving, a study has found. They will change only if they are shown how the minimum penalty of a one-year driving ban could damage their own lives. The Department for Transport has begun an advertising campaign focused on young men, who are more than ten times as likely to have a drink-drive crash than men aged over 30. The department has abandoned using advertisements intended to shock audiences with images of death and serious injury from drink-driving. The new TV campaign shows a young man asking a barman for another pint. The barman turns into a policeman, then a lawyer, then the man’s employer — and finally his girlfriend. The young man who fails a breath test loses his licence for a year and pays a hefty fine; then loses a job that depends on being able to drive; and possibly also loses his girlfriend. This seems surprisingly sensible, and is in line with what I suggested in Who are the High Risk Offenders? It is clear that, if you don’t think it will happen to you, shock campaigns will pass you by, and an appeal to self-interest is likely to be much more effective. The traditional shock tactics have done much more to increase disapproval of drink-driving amongst the general public than to deter potential offenders themselves. It is also a breath of fresh air that the concept of “another pint” (as opposed to “any drink at all”) has been introduced into a national publicity campaign.

June 2007

Drivers Face Lower Limit to Cut Road Deaths
MOTORISTS could find themselves over the alcohol limit after just one drink under a proposal to bring Britain’s drink-drive law into line with the rest of Europe. The Government is considering lowering the limit from 80mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood to 50mg and later this year will publish a consultation paper to gauge opinion. With a 50mg limit, most people would be able to consume only one 175ml glass of standard-strength wine or half a pint of strong beer and remain legally fit to drive. The Department for Transport has rejected calls by the British Medical Association and the Association of Chief Police Officers for a lower limit. It wanted police to focus on those well over the existing limit, who were most likely to cause a crash. But ministers have been embarrassed by a series of studies showing that Britain is lagging behind the rest of Europe in tackling drink-driving. All the other main European countries have lowered their limits either to 50mg or 20mg. The Irish Republic and Luxembourg are still on 80mg but have indicated that they will move to 50mg. The number of people killed in drink-drive crashes in Britain has risen by more than a fifth in the past seven years, from 460 in 1999 to 560 in 2005. Over the same period, Germany and the Netherlands have reduced drink-drive deaths by more than 50 per cent.
Many licensees and pubgoers must feel it an absolutely sickening blow that this issue has now been revived after having been buried five years ago. The case against is summed up here, a page which was the original basis of this website. Cutting the limit would not save a single life, would close thousands of pubs and bring the law into disrepute. Indeed the indefatigable Paul Smith of the Safe Speed road safety campaign has suggested that the announcement is a fig-leaf of gesture politics to cover up the failure of the speed camera programme, which has recently led to the UK losing its status as the European country with the safest roads. The campaign against starts now! And, as often stated here before, most of the countries with 50 mg limits do not impose driving bans until at least 80 mg, often much more.
Road Safety Officer Banned for Drink-Driving
A POLICE OFFICER who runs road safety campaigns for Humberside Police has been banned from driving. PC Andy Walker, 51, was almost twice the legal alcohol limit when he was breathalysed near his home in Beverley, East Yorkshire. He admitted driving over the prescribed alcohol limit and was banned from driving for 16 months. The officer now faces internal misconduct proceedings. The court heard Walker had driven home in his Jaguar car from a family party at a hotel in Hull when he was spotted having difficulty parking. He was breathalysed by a police officer and found to have 61 micrograms of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath. The legal limit is 35 micrograms. As Walker had in the past branded drink-drivers as "killers", it is good to see a hypocrite hoist with his own petard. But this only serves to underline the gulf between official propaganda and real-world behaviour.

February 2007

Random Breath Tests to Hit Drink-Drivers
MOTORISTS face random breath testing under government plans to reduce the toll of deaths and serious injuries from drink driving. Ministers believe that giving the police the power to stop any driver, regardless of how they are driving, would be a powerful deterrent. At present, the police can stop only those drivers who have committed a moving traffic offence or those who they suspect have exceeded the limit. The government will propose a series of measures in a consultation paper later this year, including random breath testing. It will also consider placing a greater obligation on pub landlords, restaurant owners and service station operators not to allow their customers to drink and drive.
It should first be pointed out that what is being proposed is unfettered discretion, not proper random breath testing, which is something entirely different. The key constraint on the number of breath tests is police resources, not powers, so it is hard to see how this will make any difference. The police interpret their existing powers very broadly and in practice can already test anyone they want to. What is the point of testing someone when you have no grounds to suspect they may be offending? What it will do is further erode the basic principle of a free society that the police should not treat anyone as a suspect without due cause. There is also the concern that it will remove any constraints on the unreasonable targeting of specific individuals or establishments. And it is hard to see how the law can deter licensees from serving too much alcohol to driving customers when they have no means of telling how much they have consumed, let alone how they have travelled there.

January 2007

Festive Drink-Drive Numbers Drop
THE NUMBER of people caught drink-driving in England and Wales dropped in the recent festive period, according to police chiefs. In December, 145,867 drivers were tested and 9,658 - 6.6% - were over the limit, down from 6.9% in December 2005. The Association of Chief Police Officers said a widely-publicised Christmas crackdown led to the drop. Meredydd Hughes, ACPO’s lead on road policing and chief constable of South Yorkshire Police, said the number of breath tests carried out had increased by almost 10% during “the most productive drink-drive campaign to date”. Obviously it is good to see a decline, although the 0.3% fall recorded is hardly statistically significant. Changes in police tactics can easily lead to swings in the proportion of positive tests. And, assuming that the police are adopting a fairly targeted approach, 6.6% positive tests is not a particularly high figure and indicates a good level of compliance with the law.