|
|
|
Drink-Driving News 2008
Note: All comments are those made at the time of the news item, and may have been superseded by later events.
October
- Britain Rejects Lower Drink-Drive Limit
August
- Drink-Drive Death Total Drops 18%
July
- No Alcohol for Young Drivers Call
June
- Minister Expresses Limit Cut Doubts
April
- Drink-Drive Offenders Could Keep Licences
January
- Fall In Christmas Drink-Driving
News Archive:
| 2007
| 2006
| 2005
| 2004
| 2003
| 2002
| 2001
| 2000
| 1999
|
Return to Home Page
- Britain Rejects Lower Drink-Drive Limit
ROAD SAFETY Minister Jim Fitzpatrick has told journalists that the government consultation document on drink-driving, to be published within weeks, will not propose a lower limit. He said: “It will not be recommending a reduction from 80 to 50. We are not convinced that dropping to 50 is the right answer. Drivers who are between 50 and 80mg are not the ones we are most worried about. It’s the ones above 100. “If you look at a comparison with other countries which have 50 rather than 80, our safety levels compare very favourably.” Mr Fitzpatrick said that the consultation would focus instead on better enforcement of the existing limit. Police could gain new powers to stop and test drivers at random rather than, as at present, needing to have suspicion that an offence is being committed.
This is excellent news for pubs and pubgoers – and indeed for road safety – and will lead to profound sighs of relief all round. I have always argued that the real danger on the roads stems from those already well above the current limit, and it is good to see the government accepting that. Given that the police and most “road safety” organisations have expressed support for lowering the limit, I do remain slightly puzzled as to what the thought processes are behind it, as I was when it was more seriously proposed ten years ago. I strongly suspect that the senior police officers are in private much more sceptical than they are in public, and recognise that in practice it would do little or nothing to reduce casualties while forfeiting much public support.
The government would also have had to grasp the nettle of whether to impose mandatory bans at 50 mg. If they did, we would have a far stricter drink-drive régime than any of our major Continental neighbours, whereas if drivers were only subjected to points and a fine between 50 and 80 mg, as is usual in the Continent, the unholy alliance of anti-drink and anti-car pressure groups would have accused them of letting drink-drivers off the hook. Either way, it would be opening a can of worms.
The combination of the financial crisis and the slump in Labour’s electoral support probably led them to conclude it just wasn’t worth pursuing at the moment. But nobody should delude themselves that the threat has entirely gone away – we will be lucky if it is kicked into the long grass for ten years, as it was before.
I also fail to understand the repeated hankering after so-called “random breath testing”, which in reality is nothing of the sort and is better described as “unfettered discretion”. I remember a senior serving traffic police officer posting on a driving forum that in all his years of service he had never encountered a situation where his current powers prevented him from carrying out a breath test that he believed was justified. Indeed, if you have no grounds for suspicion that an individual is offending, what on earth is the point of testing them? This would seem simply to give carte blanche for the unjustified targeting and harassment of particular individuals and premises, with no possibility of comeback.
- Drink-Drive Death Total Drops 18%
THE NUMBER of people killed by drinking and driving has fallen by almost a fifth, according to government statistics. The latest figures from the Department for Transport showed fatalities were down 18% - from 560 in 2006 to 460 in 2007. The number of serious injuries also fell, from 1,970 in 2006 to 1,760 last year - a fall of 11%. The number of fatalities is now lower than it has been since 1999. Very good news, and especially welcome as in recent years the figures seemed to be showing a slight trend back upwards. Hopefully this will help defuse pressure for lowering the limit, although this was inevitably demanded by the usual suspects such as BRAKE.
- No Alcohol for Young Drivers Call
THE LEGAL blood alcohol limit should be cut to zero for drivers aged 17 to 20, according to England's chief medical officer Sir Liam Donaldson. In his annual report he said that although there was a risk the move would be unpopular among young people, it would improve road safety. Such a move here would not require a major increase in policing and would represent a “sensible public health measure”. Sir Liam said: “Young people have enough difficulty when they first start driving learning the skills on the road, they don't need the complication of drink as well.”
This is an old chestnut that regularly crops up from time to time. In reality, as some people naturally metabolise a small level of alcohol, and readings can be affected by mouthwashes, a true zero limit is impractical. However, even a near-zero limit as applies to all drivers in Sweden would be seriously counter-productive. It would make enforcement much more time-consuming and problematical as the police would need to establish the age of every suspect before administering a breath test, and could end up wasting time by pointlessly taking people just over 21 back to the station. It would also send an inappropriate message to young people that once they had reached their twenty-first birthday they could legally and safely drink more alcohol before driving.
Doctors have no special expertise in road safety and at root this is essentially an anti-alcohol proposal, not a road safety one. Given that even a couple of drinks in the evening could cause a risk the following morning, it would force all drivers under 21 to be effectively teetotal. And in reality the proposal is just a stalking-horse for extending a near-zero limit to all drivers.
The vast majority of the deaths and injuries attributed to drink-driving involve people who are well over the current limit and the challenge for the authorities should be to identify and prosecute these offenders. They should also provide honest and meaningful information about how to avoid breaking the law, particularly with regard to the “morning after” issue.
- Minister Expresses Limit Cut Doubts
SPEAKING to the House of Commons Transport Committee, road safety minister Jim Fitzpatrick has stated that the Government was still not persuaded of the merits of reducing the blood alcohol limit from 80 mg to 50 mg, and the thrust of policy at the moment remained to better enforce the existing limit. Following the reports in the press a couple of months ago that suggested a limit cut was pretty much a done deal, it comes as something of a relief that the government are still undecided. Obviously such stories are often issued through the press as a means of testing reaction - let us hope that the response received was such that the government will think twice about the plan.
- Drink-Drive Offenders Could Keep Licences
DRINK DRIVERS would no longer automatically lose their licences under government plans to lower the alcohol limit for motorists to the equivalent of less than a pint of beer or glass of wine. Those caught driving over the new limit would be subject to a “two strikes and you’re out” rule under which they would receive six penalty points for the first offence and only be disqualified from driving if they reoffended within five years. Road safety groups fear that abolishing the automatic ban will send a confusing message to motorists and encourage some to risk drinking and driving because the consequences of being caught would be less serious than they are now. Obviously it is the view of this site that any reduction in the limit would be unjustified and counter-productive. However, given that many drivers with blood alcohol levels in the 50-80 mg range will in practice not be impaired at all, to disqualify them would be unreasonable and disproportionate. Indeed it is hard to see how any penalty above that applying to a standard speeding conviction would be appropriate. And the comment that “the consequences of being caught would be less serious than they are now” is utterly disingenuous as the six-point penalty would only apply to behaviour that is currently legal. Nothing will be subject to a lower penalty than at present. There is some validity in the argument that a single black-and-white standard conveys a clearer message, but that should be left where it is now.
- Fall In Christmas Drink-Driving
THE NUMBER of motorists caught drink-driving over the Christmas period fell by nearly a fifth. Although police in England and Wales carried out more breath tests, fewer motorists were found to be over the limit compared to the previous year. Figures from the Association of Chief Police Officers show 7,800 drivers tested positive, compared with 9,700 drivers caught in the 2006 crackdown. Police chiefs have described the fall as “encouraging”. Indeed, good news, particularly as the proportion of drivers failing a test showed an even steeper fall. It follows on from the positive trend already reported in 2006. It is, however, possible that the decline in the pub trade resulting from the smoking ban had a part to play. Hopefully these favourable figures will help to head off the pressure for a reduction of the limit.
Return to Home Page
|
|