Drink and drug driving law - Transport Committee Contents


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 deaths—including drivers, passengers, pedestrians and other road users—could 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 increase—thus resulting in more police officers taken off the streets to escort suspects to the station—it 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 rising—the "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 law—although 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 limit—even 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 countries—and other countries globally—have 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 wanted—so 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


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2010
Prepared 2 December 2010