2 Drink driving law
The drink drive limit
8. The Road Safety Act 1967 made it an offence to
drive a vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) in excess
of 80mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood and obliged drivers to submit
to a screening, breathalyser test at the roadside in certain circumstances.
This limit remains in place today. The North Review's most high-profile
recommendation is that the Government reduce the drink drive limit
to 50mg per 100ml of blood.
9. As with the current 80mg/100ml limit, it is very
difficult to provide an accurate estimate of how much alcohol
the average person can consume and remain within the 50mg/100ml
limit, given the range of alcoholic products available, the different
amounts and measurements in which drinks are served, and the fact
that a person's ability to absorb alcohol into the bloodstream
can be affected by so many variables such as the physical build
of the drinker, the strength of the drink and when it is consumed.
During the publicity campaign to launch his report, however, Sir
Peter emphasised that his proposal for a 50mg/100ml limit would
still mean a driver could have "a drink" without infringing
the limit.[6] Nevertheless,
we note that other witnesses alluded to the greater likely uncertainty
in the public's mind about what could constitute a 'legal drink'
within a 50mg/100ml limit.[7]
10. We examine below the main arguments for, and
against, a reduction in the legal drink-drive limit. We consider
the evidence used by the North Review and reactions to the proposal
by witnesses to our inquiry.
EVIDENCE AND OPINIONS
Medical and statistical evidence
11. North based his findings in large part on a review
of international literature conducted by the National Institute
for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), commissioned by the
Department for Transport, and other relevant studies. Two key
pieces of evidence were particularly important for his Review.
12. First, NICE found that driving impairment and
crash risk increases exponentially with increasing BAC levels.
Drivers with a BAC between 50mg/100ml and 80mg/100ml are six times
more likely to be involved in a fatal crash than drivers who have
consumed no alcohol, whilst drivers with a BAC between 20mg/100ml
and 50mg/100ml are three times more likely to be involved in such
an incident.[8] Results
from laboratory studies indicate that 94% of subjects reviewed
report impairment by the time they reach 80mg/100ml.[9]
The British Medical Association agreed that driving
performance deteriorates significantly between 50mg/100ml and
80mg/100ml.[10]
13. Second, statistical researchers estimate that
at least tens of deaths and hundreds of serious injuries could
be prevented each year by reducing the drink drive limit to 50mg/100ml.[11]
Figure 1 shows the different level of alcohol in the bloodstream
of all drivers killed in road accidents[12]
in 2007, based on coroners' data. It shows that approximately:
- 65% of all drivers killed have no alcohol
present in their bloodstream. whilst 35% have some alcohol
in their bloodstream;
- 17% of drivers killed have alcohol in their bloodstream
but are below the legal limit (over 0mg/100ml but under
80mg/100ml), with 2% having a BAC between 50mg/100ml and 80mg/100ml.[13]
- 18% of drivers killed are above the legal
limit (80mg/100ml and higher): 2% are so-called 'borderline'
drinkers with a BAC of between 80mg/100ml and 100mg/100ml, over
5% have a BAC between 100mg/100ml and 159mg/100ml, and 11% are
more than twice over the drink drive limit (160mg/100ml and above).
Figure
1: Level of alcohol in the bloodstream of drivers killed in road
accidents (2007)
Source: Coroners and procurators fiscal
14. Sheffield University researchers devised for
NICE a model to estimate reduced casualties in England and Wales
based on the experiences of other countries (primarily Australia
and 15 European countries) that reduced their limit from 80mg/100ml
to 50mg/100ml. This study estimated that 77 to 168 deathsincluding
drivers, passengers, pedestrians and other road userscould
be avoided in the first year of implementation (see Table 1).
In 2008, this would have amounted to 3% to 7% of all road fatalities.
A separate study by Professor Allsop produced more conservative
estimates based on British drink drive casualty data. Allsop estimates
that a 50mg/100ml BAC limit would prevent about 43 deaths on the
roads.[14] In 2008 this
amounted to 2% of all road fatalities.[15]
NICE said that the evidence that reducing the drink drive limit
reduces the number of accidents and fatalities was "practically
plausible and scientifically robust".[16]Table
1: Estimates of reduced casualties (per year) with a 50mg BAC
limit
15. Critics argue that a reduction in the drink drive
limit to 50mg/100ml would do little to change the behaviour of
those people who drink and drive well in excess of 80mg/100ml.
As shown in Figure 1, drivers with a BAC over 100mg/100ml represent
about 16% of all drivers killed and almost half of drivers killed
with at least some alcohol in their bloodstream. The Sheffield
University and Allsop studies make different assumptions about
the effect of lowering the limit on the behaviour of drivers who
drink well in excess of the limit, which partly explains their
different estimates. Allsop assumes that reducing the limit to
50mg/100ml would not, in itself, substantially change the behaviour
of drivers with a BAC over 110mg/100ml; and thus does not include
this group of drivers in his model. NICE, on the other hand, argue
that the evidence is "sufficiently strong" that lowering
the drink drive limit changes the behaviour of drivers at all
BAC levels.[17]
16. There is broad agreement that lowering the limit
from 80mg/100ml to 50mg/100ml would change the behaviour of (i)
drivers who drink alcohol but stay within the current 80mg/100ml
limit or (ii) "borderline" drink-drivers just over the
limit. Figure 1 shows that these two groups account for 19% of
all drivers killed and about 34% of drivers killed with a BAC
over 10mg/100ml. North argues that the potential to influence
about a third of the number of these driver fatalities is "very
persuasive", particularly when associated deaths and serious
injuries of passengers, pedestrians and other road users are taken
into account.[18]
International comparison
17. Great Britain is one of only two countries in
Europe with a BAC limit above 50mg/100ml, the other being Malta.
The NICE review found that there was a clear trend, especially
in Europe, towards introducing a 50mg/100ml limit. North says
that Britain's 80mg/100ml limit is "now inconsistent with
the more recently implemented trend worldwide towards a lower
limit". In addition, he says there are obvious benefits in
reducing the difference between Great Britain and its European
neighbours, both for British drivers travelling abroad and for
incoming drivers.[19]
18. North recognises, however, that is unhelpful
to draw direct comparisons between Great Britain and other European
nations because the penalty regime in Britain is considerably
tougher than the regimes of many other countries with a lower
limit. For example, Great Britain, the Netherlands and Sweden
have the lowest number of road traffic fatalities per head of
population, yet the BAC limits, enforcement, penalty regimes and
cultural and ethical attitudes regarding drink driving vary considerably
between these countries.
Public opinion
19. Surveys show there is considerable public support
for strong drink drive legislation. The 2009 British Social Attitudes
Survey found that 83% of respondents agreed with the statement
that "If someone has drunk any alcohol they should not drive",
with 58% agreeing strongly.[20]
A 2008 AA poll of its members (17,481 response) found that 66%
were in favour of a lower blood alcohol limit.[21]
20. Opponents of a lower limit, such as the British
Beer and Pub Association and the Association of British Drivers,
argued that lowering the limit to 50mg/100ml could result in the
loss of public respect for the law.[22]
Resource implications of a lower limit
21. Opponents of a reduced drink drive limit argued
that enforcement of a lower limit would place additional pressure
on limited police resources that should instead be targeted on
those drivers well in excess of the limit.[23]
Some witnesses in favour of a lower limit also identified police
resources as a practical obstacle. The AA supported a 50mg/100ml
limit but warned that there may be fewer resources for the police
in the future: "if this is the case there may be little scope
for changing the existing law while maintaining pressure on the
most high risk group".[24]
22. The response of police representatives to these
arguments was clear. The Association of Chief Police Officers
said that, operationally, a 50mg/100ml BAC limit would not in
itself change police procedures because officers would continue
to stop and breathalyse people suspected of being impaired or
involved in a collision. Whilst ACPO accepted that the number
of drink driving arrests may increasethus resulting in
more police officers taken off the streets to escort suspects
to the stationit said that this could be counter-balanced
by a reduction in drink drive casualties and fatalities as a whole,
which were a significant strain on police resources.[25]
23. When pressed further, ACPO accepted that a lower
limit would present financial challenges for the police but stressed
that the priority should be to set the law correctly. Police forces
would then target and prioritise resources accordingly: "we
will enforce the change in the law if the law changes". ACPO's
view was that the drink drive limit should be reduced to 50mg/100ml.[26]
The "morning-after" effect
24. Critics argued that a lower limit would increase
the number of "morning-after" convictions, whereby people
driving the morning after an evening drinking alcohol are found
to be over the limit. The Association of British Drivers suggested
that people were less impaired when blood alcohol levels were
falling rather than risingthe "Mellanby effect"so
somebody driving the next morning after a drinking session with
the same amount of alcohol in their bloodstream as during the
previous evening was less impaired. This risked creating public
resentment and bringing the law into disrepute.[27]
25. Medical expert witnesses were not persuaded by
this argument. The British Medical Association said the degree
of impairment was "the same, whether [the blood alcohol limit]
is going up or coming down", although one's state of impairment
obviously improved over time as blood alcohol levels fell.[28]
Dr Brutus, Medical Advisor to the North Review, argued that evidence
on this issue was "inconclusive" because there was so
much variation between individuals.[29]
Sir Peter North was "utterly unsympathetic" to the "morning-after"
argument because somebody that was driving impaired the morning
after an evening of drinking still presented a major risk.[30]
Impact on pub, restaurant and hospitality industries
26. Representatives of the pub, restaurant and hospitality
industries (including individual landlords) warned that a 50mg/100ml
BAC limit could have serious consequences for their businesses,
particularly in rural and semi-rural locations. The British Beer
and Pub Association (BBPA) estimated that 1.5 million people drive
to the pub in a vehicle each week, amounting to 10% of all pub
visitors.[31] When
including accompanying passengers, this increases to 2.5 million
people, or 17% of all pub visitors. The BBPA argued that a lower
50mg/100ml limit could lead to the closure of 1,500 pubs and the
loss of 9,000 jobs.[32]
27. North was not persuaded by these arguments. A
50mg/100ml limit, he said, would still allow the responsible driver
who wishes to enjoy a drink to accompany their pub meal or have
a glass of wine or a pint of beer to do so without being in danger
of breaking the lawalthough he questioned the wisdom of
doing so, given the evidence of impairment at even low levels
of blood alcohol. North was not convinced that reducing the blood
alcohol limit to 50mg/100ml would, in itself, have a "widespread
detrimental impact" on the sector, although he accepted some
individual businesses might be affected.[33]
28. A criticism made of the North Review is that
it did not include an impact assessment of the effects on the
pub, restaurant and hospitality sectors. Indeed, the Department
for Transport's written evidence said that North's terms of reference
required an examination of the impacts of any change in the blood
alcohol limit on "health outcomes, businesses and on the
economy more widely" but his report only had "limited
coverage" of these questions and did "not include an
impact assessment, or consideration of the public sector resource
and enforcement implications of his proposals". The Department
said it was conducting "further work" to this end, to
inform the Government's decision.[34]
The case for a 20mg/100ml BAC limit
29. A minority of witnesses, including the road safety
group Brake and the pedestrian charity Living Streets, supported
a 20mg/100ml BAC limit, effectively a "zero tolerance"
level that allows for residual and naturally occurring alcohol
in the body,[35] as operates
in Sweden and Poland. BRAKE argued that a 20mg/100ml limit would
be consistent with the longstanding Department for Transport advice
on drink driving: "Don't drink and drive". A 50mg/100ml
limit, on the other hand, would send mixed messages to the public.[36]
30. The North Review rejected lowering the alcohol
limit to 20mg/100ml for three main reasons: (i) there was a lack
of evidence that drivers with a BAC of between 20mg/100ml and
50mg/100ml were a problem group in terms of casualties; (ii) it
would risk alienating public support for drink drive legislation,
and (iii) milder penalties than the current minimum 12 month mandatory
disqualification would have to be in place at this level, which
could "dilute the effectiveness of the current regime".[37]
31. When questioned in person, however, Sir Peter
stated that "in a wholly hypothetical ideal world" he
would support a 20mg/100ml limit but he had "no confidence
that this is deliverable in the real world for a decade or more".
He confirmed his Review's "pragmatic" findings that
a 50mg/100ml limit was the most politically acceptable measure;
the public might be ready for a 20mg/100ml limit, he said, in
"10 or 20 years time".[38]
32. The majority of witnesses shared this view. Most
felt that a reduction to 20mg/100ml would be too great a change
for the public to accept.[39]
Medical experts also said that the impairing effects of alcohol
between 20mg/100ml and 50mg/100ml were much less substantial than
between 50mg/100ml and 80mg/100ml.[40]
Penalties
33. The UK has more stringent penalties for drink
driving than most other countries, with a minimum 12-month mandatory
disqualification for anyone caught over the limit. Most witnesses
(including some critics of a lower drink drive limit) agreed with
North that the current penalty should be retained in the event
of a new 50mg/100ml limiteven though this would be the
most severe penalty in Europe at that level. It was argued that
this would avoid unnecessary complications and sending mixed messages
to the public. An AA survey found that the largest group of respondents
(49%) preferred the same disqualification period of 12 months
for a lower drink drive limit with only 13% in favour of a lesser
penalty.[41]
34. Some witnesses argued that a 12-month mandatory
ban was too severe at 50mg/100ml BAC. The Magistrates' Association
supported a 50mg/100ml limit but argued that it was a general
principle that punishment "should be proportionate to the
severity of the offence": mandatory disqualification, it
argued, should be for a lower level such as six months.[42]
Some witnesses, including the Association of Chief Police Officers,
RoadPeace and Professor Allsop, ideally preferred to retain a
12-month disqualification penalty but would support a more lenient
penalty for somebody with a BAC of between 50 mg/100ml and 80mg/100ml
if the former option proved politically or publicly too difficult
to introduce.[43]
CONCLUSIONS
35. We have considered the evidence for and against
a reduction in the drink drive limit from the current 80mg per
100ml of blood. We note the medical and statistical evidence that
the risk of accident, or death, increases substantially when blood
alcohol levels exceed 20mg/100ml of blood. Such evidence makes
a strong case for reducing the legal blood alcohol limit.
36. However, we also accept that there are valid
criticisms against such an immediate and unilateral reduction,
which warrant further examination. The first relates to the potential
resource implications for the police. In the current economic
climate police forces are under increased pressure to use their
limited resources in the most effective and appropriate way possible,
and it is reasonable to explore whether such a legal change might
place unmanageable pressures on their resources. We recommend
that individual police forces should be consulted to assess the
respective cost-benefit implications of more effectively enforcing
the current drink drive limit against any proposed reduction.
We further note that this is an area of policy which may fall
within the remit of the Government's proposed directly-elected
Police Commissioners.
37. The second concern relates to public awareness
and acceptance of the legal alcohol limit. We note the evidence
that suggests a lack of public understanding about the current
BAC limit and what it means in terms of drinks that may be "legally"
consumed before driving. The introduction of a 50mg/100ml limit
is likely to increase such public confusion, given that the amounts
and measurements in which drinks are served and consumed are not
easily converted by the average drinker into units of alcohol,
let alone into microgrammes of alcohol in blood. It is also complicated
by the fact that a person's ability to absorb alcohol into the
bloodstream can be affected by many different variables such as
the physical build of the drinker, the strength of the drink and
when it is consumed. We agree with the Government's official advice
that a driver should not drink at all and are concerned that a
reduction to 50mg/100ml risks sending out a mixed message.
38. In the long term, the Government should aim
for an "effectively zero" limit of 20mg/100ml but we
acknowledge that this is too great a step at this stage. There
is little evidence to suggest the public would support such a
drastic, immediate, change in the law.
39. We believe that any reduction in the legal
drink drive limit should only occur after an extensive Government
education campaign, run in conjunction with the pub, restaurant
and hospitality industries, about drink strengths and their effect
on the body. In doing so, the Government should look to learn
from experiences in other countries which have successfully implemented
a reduction in the drink drive limit to either 50mg/100ml or 20mg/100ml.
40. We also considered concerns expressed by pub,
restaurant and hospitality representatives, who argued that the
effects of a 50mg/100ml BAC limit would put hundreds of outlets
out of business. Whilst we accept that some individual businesses
might be affected, we are not convinced that there would be widespread
closures of the kind feared by the pub and hospitality sector.
Drink drive legislation had its most significant impact on the
industry with the introduction of the legal blood alcohol limit
in 1967 and the industry has diversified since then. A reduction
to 50mg/100ml BAC would not, in our view, have a significant economic
effect on the sector.
41. The weight of the evidence supports retaining
the current minimum penalty of 12-month mandatory disqualification
for somebody driving with a BAC level in excess of 80mg/100ml.
The success of Great Britain's drink driving policy has been
largely attributable to the deterrent effect of the current 12-month
mandatory disqualification penalty and we believe that it should
remain even after a reduction in the legal BAC limit.
Police enforcement of drink drive
law
42. The police have a general power under section
163 of the Traffic Act to stop any vehicle at any time. There
is no similar general power to require a person to cooperate with
a preliminary test for the presence of alcohol (or drugs). Police
may only request a preliminary alcohol breath-test when they reasonably
suspect that the driver has either:
- alcohol in their body;
- been involved in an accident, or
- committed a traffic offence.
43. North recommends that the Road Traffic Act 1988
should be amended to give police a general and unrestricted power
to stop and breath-test drivers: in effect, to allow "random"
breath testing. This, he says, would "contribute greatly
to improving enforcement and awareness of the law".[44]
EVIDENCE AND OPINIONS
44. NICE's evidence review found "sufficiently
strong evidence" from other countries that visible, rapid
enforcement was necessary if drink driving legislation was to
be effective.[45] The
impact of the reduction in the legal limit from 80mg/100ml to
50mg/100ml in Austria (where alcohol-related crashes reduced by
9%) and the Netherlands (where the proportion of drivers with
an illegal BAC level reduced from 15% to 5%) was attributed in
part to enforcement measures.[46]
A 2003 European review of enforcement measures found that the
countries with the lowest drink drive figures were those with
long traditions in drink driving enforcement, relatively high
risk of detection (as measured by proportion of drivers tested)
and a mass media supporting enforcement.[47]
45. The North Review found that there may be benefits
in Great Britain from the police performing a greater number of
roadside breath tests, similar to the positive benefits witnessed
in other countries such as Australia.[48]
The number of breath tests conducted by police in Great Britain
is low compared to other European countries. A 2004 study showed
that only 3% of drivers[49]
had been stopped and tested for alcohol in the previous three
years, in contrast to the European average of 16%.[50]
Table 2 shows that the UK carries out the lowest number
of breath tests per driver in Western Europe, apart from Italy,
with fewer than 2% of drivers being tested in 2006 compared to
57% in Norway and 30% in France. Drivers in the UK are twice as
likely as drivers where testing is common to think they will never
be checked.[51]Table
2: Proportion of drivers who have been breath tested for alcohol
by country over a one year period (during 2005-2007)
Sources: EU Directorate-General for Energy and
Transport, European Transport Safety Council, European Road Safety
Observatory, European Traffic Police Network
46. One explanation for these differences is that
approximately half of EU countriesand other countries globallyhave
introduced random breath testing to improve apprehension rates
and strengthen the deterrent impact of their driving laws. Studies
have shown that sobriety checkpoints (i.e. random and selective
breath testing without the need for the police to have grounds
for suspecting drink driving) can help reduce road traffic injuries
and deaths.[52] In addition,
random breath testing had an immediate, substantial and permanent
impact on accidents in three out of the four states studies in
an Australian study.[53]
Several studies suggest that random breath testing is one of the
most cost effective road safety measures: a 2004 World Health
Organisation study, for example, reported that each dollar spent
on random testing results in a cost saving of $19.[54]
47. The majority of contributors to our inquiry supported
the introduction of a formal power to allow the police in Great
Britain to conduct random breath tests.[55]
Many respondents believed that with such a low expectation of
being tested in Great Britain many drivers feel able to take a
chance to drink and drive. Respondents shared Sir Peter North's
view that the most appealing aspect was the deterrent effect:
the "clear public message" it sent to drivers that they
could be stopped and tested at any time.[56]
79% of AA members responding to a Populus Poll in 2010 were in
favour of the police being able to breathalyse a driver at any
time.[57] A survey conducted
by the RAC Foundation also found that 71% of the public support
random breath testing.[58]
48. A minority of organisations, such as the Association
of British Drivers, did not support the proposal. They argued
that random breath testing would waste police resources that should
instead be targeted at those showing clear signs of impairment.[59]
The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), however, stressed
that the police would breathalyse drivers in an intelligence-led
targeted way, for example focussing on areas where there had been
a high incidence of drink driving, similar to operations in other
countries.[60] Sir Peter
North stressed this point also; he commented that the term "random"
may be misleading.[61]
49. A second criticism was that the police already
possessed sufficient powers to stop and administer a breath test
to whomsoever they wantedso new powers were unnecessary.[62]
This was also the point made by the Secretary of State, when he
gave evidence to us in July 2010. He argued that there was a public
misunderstanding about the police's powers in relation to breath
testing, and that the police already had powers "where there
is evidence of a localised problem" to target an area in
a way which "many members of the public would call "random"
breath testing".[63]
Police representatives indicated that
the current law allowed police to administer a breath test in
the majority of cases because the driver had committed a traffic
offence or the police were alerted to the manner of a person's
driving.[64] The Association
of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) also said that some police forces
already carried out targeted testing at checkpoints for drink
driving. However, these still required "an element of consent"
because, whilst the police had the power randomly or arbitrarily
to stop vehicles, officers did not have the power to administer
breath tests unless there were grounds for suspicion.[65]
Roadside checkpoints for drink driving, in which all drivers were
required to provide a breath specimen, were said to be
unlawful under current powers.[66]
According to ACPO, the strongest argument for North's proposal
was the public message it sent to drivers because the perception
amongst the general public remained that they were unlikely to
be stopped and tested.[67]
CONCLUSIONS
50. Some of the most striking reductions in drink
driving figures in other countries that reduced their limit from
80mg/100ml to 50mg/100ml have occurred when the lower limit was
accompanied by effective enforcement measures. Effective police
enforcement is equally as important to deter drink driving as
the level of the legal blood alcohol limit. Enforcement of drink
drive law in Great Britain must be much more visible, frequent,
sustained and well-publicised.
51. The police already possess powers to stop and
breathalyse people in a wide range of defined situations. The
North Review recommends that these powers are widened to provide
police with a "general and unrestricted power" to require
anyone who is driving a motor vehicle to cooperate with a preliminary
breath test. This would, in effect, legally allow "random"
breath testing, although the North Review expects that such a
power would be used in a targeted and intelligence-led way rather
than in a purely random manner.
52. We agree with North that there is a good case
to widen the police's powers in respect of breath testing. Doing
so would be likely to increase the number of breath tests currently
carried out by the police. It is a matter of concern that the
UK conducts the second lowest number of alcohol breath tests in
western Europe, with the vast majority of drivers in our population
never likely to be tested, and consequently not expecting ever
to be tested. But the main objective of extending the police's
powers, in our view, must be to allow the police to conduct intelligence-led
or targeted drink drive enforcement operations, following senior
sign-off, where vehicles are stopped, randomly or otherwise, in
particular locations or at selected venues and drivers are then
required to be breathalysed. As already discussed, such
operations are not currently legal. Although the current legislation
enables police to conduct targeted drink drive enforcement operations
whereby any vehicle could be stopped, officers can not breathalyse
without suspicion or an element of consent.
53. We are concerned that the North Review proposal
for a "general and unrestricted power" is too wide and
arbitrary for this specific purpose. Although North hopes that
the police use of such a power would be targeted and intelligence-led,
there is no guarantee it would be so. We have concerns about the
public acceptability of such a power. There is a real risk it
could invite concern and criticism regarding the proportionality
of its use and real, or perceived, issues of abuse or unfairness.
We are also not convinced that the introduction of this power
is necessary to send a strong message to the public. In our view,
a more specific power that enabled the police to carry out designated
drink drive enforcement operations, as part of which any driver
was required to provide a breath test, would also have a significant
public impact, if properly publicised, and serve as an effective
deterrent.
54. For these reasons, we believe the North Review
recommendation to provide the police with a general and unrestricted
power to require anyone driving a vehicle to cooperate with a
preliminary breath test is excessive. In our view, any change
in the legislation must clearly reflect the intended outcome.
The Government should amend the Road Traffic Act 1988 to give
police an additional power to enable preliminary breath tests
to be required and administered in the course of a designated
drink drive enforcement operation.
6 "Time to give the public what they want: North
proposes crack down on drink and drug driving", North Review
press release, 16 June 2010. Back
7
For example, the British Beer and Pub Association (Q 165). Back
8
Ev 91 [NICE] Back
9
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, Review
of effectiveness of laws limiting blood alcohol concentration
levels to reduce alcohol-related road injuries and deaths,
March 2010, p 45 Back
10
Q 118; Ev 80 Back
11
Research undertaken by the University of Sheffield and Professor
Allsop. See paragraphs 14-15. Back
12
Not including others killed by drivers. This is because coroners
provide information about the BAC of (most, but not all) drivers
killed. In the case of a driver who survives an accident in which
somebody else is killed, the driver's precise BAC level may not
be tested or recorded, particularly if he or she is under the
limit or clearly not impaired. Back
13
Department for Transport, Reported Road Casualties Great Britain:
2008, 2009; Ev 99 Back
14
Again, including drivers, passengers, pedestrians and other road
users. Back
15
Both the Sheffield University and Professor Allsop's study assume
that the distribution of deaths in road accidents (i.e. including
other road users) with respect to the BACs of involved drivers
is estimated by the distribution with respect to the BAC of killed
drivers. See Ev 46 [Professor Allsop]. Back
16
Q 162 Back
17
Ev 91 Back
18
Sir Peter North CBE QC, Report of the Review of Drink and Drug
Driving Law, June 2010, p 94 [see revised version of the report
on the North Review website]. Back
19
Sir Peter North CBE QC, Report of the Review of Drink and Drug
Driving Law, June 2010, p 93 Back
20
British Social Attitudes survey, 2009 Back
21
Ev 77 [AA] Back
22
Ev 59; Ev 71. Back
23
For example, the British Beer and Pub Association Ev 59. Mike
Rawson, a retired policeman, makes a similar point [Ev w3]. [Note:
references to 'Ev wXX' are references to written evidence published
in the volume of additional written evidence published on the
Committee's website.] Back
24
Ev 77 Back
25
Qq 79-80 Back
26
Q 91 Back
27
Ev 71 Back
28
Q 143 Back
29
Q 27 Back
30
Q 26 Back
31
The BBPA estimates that approximately 15 million people visit
the pub each week (Ev 59). Back
32
Ev 59 Back
33
Sir Peter North CBE QC, Report of the Review of Drink and Drug
Driving Law, June 2010, pp 7, 96 Back
34
Ev 99 Back
35
When taking into account alcohol in common substances such as
syrups and mouthwashes and natural alcohol production in the body. Back
36
Ev 67, Q 109 Back
37
Sir Peter North CBE QC, Report of the Review of Drink and Drug
Driving Law, June 2010, p 92 Back
38
Qq 33, 36 Back
39
For example, the Association of Chief Police Officers [Q 111]. Back
40
British Medical Association [Q 140] Back
41
Ev 77. 20,129 respondents. Back
42
Ev W25 Back
43
Ev 54, Ev W14, Ev 46 Back
44
Sir Peter North CBE QC, Report of the Review of Drink and Drug
Driving Law, June 2010, p 116 Back
45
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, Review
of effectiveness of laws limiting blood alcohol concentration
levels to reduce alcohol-related road injuries and deaths,
March 2010, p 164 Back
46
G Bartl and R Esperger, Effects of lowering the legal limit
in Austria, 2000, Proceedings of 15th Conference
on Alcohol Drugs and Traffic Safety Stockholm, International Council
on Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety; Mathijssen, MP, "Drink
driving policy and road safety in the Netherlands: a retrospective
analysis", Logistics and Transportation Review, 2005,
41(5), pp 395-408. Back
47
T Makinen, DM Zaidel, Traffic enforcement in Europe: effects,
measures, needs and future, 2003, Final report of the ESCAPE
consortium. Back
48
In Queensland it was estimated that every increase of 1,000 in
the number of daily breath tests corresponded to a decline of
6% in all serious crashes, and of 19% in single-vehicle night-time
crashes. J Henstridge, R Homel & P Mackay. The Long-Term
Effects of Random Breath Testing in Four Australian States: A
Time Series Analysis. Canberra: Federal Office of Road Safety,
1997. Sir Peter North CBE QC, Report of the Review of Drink
and Drug Driving Law, June 2010, p 62. Back
49
In the United Kingdom. Back
50
SARTRE, European drivers and road risk, 2004, SARTRE 3
reports, Part 1 Back
51
46% compared to 22%. National Institute for Health and Clinical
Excellence, Review of effectiveness of laws limiting blood
alcohol concentration levels to reduce alcohol-related road injuries
and deaths, March 2010, p 140. Back
52
C Peek-Asa, "The effect of random alcohol screening in reducing
motor vehicle crash injuries", American Journal of Preventive
Medicine, 1999, vol 16, pp 57-67; RA Schults, RW Elder, DA
Sleet et al., "Reviews of evidence regarding interventions
to reduce alcohol-impaired driving", American Journal
of Preventive Medicine, 2001, vol. 21, pp 66-88. Back
53
J Henstridge, R Homel, P Mackay, "The long-term effects of
random breath testing in Adelaide", in CN Kloeden and AJ
McLean (editors), Proceedings of the 13th international
conference on alcohol, drugs and traffic safety, 1995, Adelaide,
Australia: International Council on Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic
Safety. Back
54
M Peden, World Report on Road Traffic Injury Prevention,
2004. See Sir Peter North CBE QC, Report of the Review of Drink
and Drug Driving Law, June 2010, p 71 for other relevant studies. Back
55
Such as the Beer Pub and Beer Association [Ev 59, Gin and Vodka
Association [Ev W8], BRAKE [Ev 67] and the Magistrates Association
[Ev W25]. Back
56
Q 14 Back
57
Populus interviewed 20,417 AA members online. Back
58
Ev 57 Back
59
Ev 46 Back
60
Q 78 Back
61
Q 14 Back
62
Association of British Drivers [Ev71] Back
63
Oral evidence taken on 26 July 2010, HC (2010-11) 359, Q 89 Back
64
Evidence to the North Review. Sir Peter North CBE QC, Report
of the Review of Drink and Drug Driving Law, June 2010, p
115. Back
65
Ev 54; Q 87 Back
66
Evidence to the North Review. Sir Peter North CBE QC, Report
of the Review of Drink and Drug Driving Law, June 2010, p
87 Back
67
Ev 54; Q 88 Back
|