Memorandum from Mike Rawson (DDD 06)
1. The Committee might consider the following
points when making its recommendation to Government as to whether
the current permitted blood alcohol limit be lowered.
2. Sir Peter North's report highlights the
dramatic decrease in road traffic fatalities between 1979 and
2009. A reduction from 1,640 to 410 is welcome but the drink/drive
laws are only part of the reason. A high compliance with the seat
belt legislation and huge improvements in vehicle design, with
the accent on safety and survivability, are of equal importance.
3. When looking at statistics relating to
deaths resulting from motor vehicle usage it is important to examine
the blood/alcohol level of drivers involved. How many had a reading
between 50mg and 80mg in 100ml of blood? If the numbers are low
then justification for lowering the limit to 50mg is questionable.
4. One major consequence of lowering the
limit relates to enforcement. During the last decade there has
been a serious decline in the number of traffic patrol officers
and, therefore, a reduction in enforcement of the drink/drive
legislation by officers dedicated to reducing accidents and enforcing
the traffic laws. The proposed reduction in police numbers throughout
the country, in line with government cost cutting measures, will
reduce enforcement even further and, laws not enforced, are soon
brought into disrepute.
5. Lowering the limit will result in those
few officers, actually enforcing the drink/drive laws, being in
custody suites with motorists who have consumed less than a pint
of beer or a small glass of wine (and who are almost certainly
not impaired) whilst those seriously above the limit and, a real
danger to other road users, are not detected and arrested.
6. Legislation is important but, for the
vast majority of people, the fear of getting caught is what stops
them from breaking the law.A high profile police presence is a
far better deterent than simply lowering the drink/drive limit.
August 2010
| 
