Memorandum from Living Streets (DDD 24)
SUMMARY
— As set out in a letter sent to the Secretary
of State by the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety
on the 14th of July, to which Living Streets was a signatory,
we strongly support the recommendation made in the North Review
Report to reduce the permitted blood alcohol concentration (BAC)
when driving from 80mg/100ml to 50 mg/100ml on the grounds of
the estimated reduction in road casualties which would ensue.
— Living Streets would emphasise the importance
of public awareness campaigns calling for no alcohol consumption
before driving.
— Living Streets would further support
a reduction of the permitted blood alcohol concentration to an
"effective zero" of 20 mg/100ml on the grounds of consistency
and because drivers with a BAC of between 20 and 50 mg/100ml are
at a higher risk of causing, or suffering, road death than those
who have consumed no alcohol.
— In line with this emphasis on a consistent
approach, Living Streets considers that the mandatory one year
driving ban for drink-driving is appropriate even if the permitted
blood alcohol concentration is reduced to either level.
— Living Streets supports the recommended
approach to drug driving outlined in the North Review Report of
improving the evidence, streamlining the current procedures and
strengthening legal regulation of drug driving.
— Placing these reforms in their wider
context, the civil liability framework in the UK must be reformed
such that the burden of proof falls upon the driver to prove that
s/he was not at fault in the event of a collision with a vulnerable
road user, as is the case in most other European countries.
1. ABOUT LIVING
STREETS
1.1 Living Streets is the national charity
that stands up for pedestrians. With our supporters we work to
create safe, attractive and enjoyable streets, where people want
to walk. We work with professionals and politicians to make sure
every community can enjoy vibrant streets and public spaces.
1.2 The history of Living Streets demonstrates
the strength of our agenda. We were formed in 1929, as the Pedestrians
Association, and have grown to include a network of 100 branches
and affiliated groups, 28 local authority members and a growing
number of corporate supporters. As well as working to influence
policy on a national and local level, we also carry out a range
of practical work to train professionals in good street design,
and enable local communities to improve their own neighbourhoods.
We run high profile campaigns such as Walk to School and Walking
Works, to encourage people to increase their walking levels and
realise a vision of vibrant, living streets across the UK.
1.3 Living Streets' response focuses on
the need to ensure that the safeguarding of pedestrians, as the
most vulnerable highway users, is paramount when establishing
policy on drink and drug driving. The response draws on our 80
year experience of standing up for pedestrians. Our arguments
and evidence led to such road safety milestones as the introduction
of speed limits and the driving test in the 1930s, the green cross
code in the 1970s, and 20 mph zones in the 1990s.
2. RESPONDING TO
THE CONSULTATION
Blood alcohol concentration
2.1 Living Streets warmly welcomes the North
Review's recommendation to lower the permitted BAC for drivers
to 50 mg/100 ml on the grounds that this "would undoubtedly
save a significant number of lives" (p 6) with the associated
costs that such a reduction in serious road traffic incidents
would entail. This would also represent a worthwhile alignment
with other EU countries, the vast majority of which have a BAC
limit of 50 mg/100 ml or less.
2.2 Living Streets also notes the evidence
quoted by the Report that "drivers with a BAC of between
20 mg/100 ml and 50 mg/100 ml have at least a three times greater
risk of dying in a vehicle crash than those drivers who have no
alcohol in their blood. This risk increases to at least six times
with a BAC between 50 mg/100 ml and 80 mg/100 ml, and to 11 times
with a BAC between 80 mg/100 ml and 100 mg/100 ml" (p 6).
This clearly suggests, as mentioned in the Frequently Asked Questions
for the North Review, that "Alcohol at any level impairs
driving. So don't-drink-and-drive is the right message."1
2.3 We note that this "right message",
which has been put across with a large degree of success by campaigns
over the years, is set against widespread public ignorance, consistently
set out in research over several years by the RAC, Brake and others,
over the relationship between units of alcohol, typical measures
served and drink-drive limits. A reduction to 50 mg/100ml will
be beneficial, but to cement these benefits, it should be accompanied
by substantial efforts to ensure improved comprehension of how
alcohol is measured and the amount of alcohol that can legally
be consumed before driving.
2.4 Further to this emphasis on public understanding,
Living Streets would put forward the argument that setting a limit
at an "effective zero" of 20 mg/100 ml would cement
the "don't drink and drive" message set out by government
and local authority campaigns, which largely form the public face
of the relevant legislation. We do not feel that a 20 mg/100 ml
BAC limit would, as the Report argues, entail "risking the
loss of public support for strengthening our drink drive legislation"
(p 6) and believe that public support and understanding of the
aims of drink drive legislation would in fact be well-served by
addressing the discrepancy between public awareness campaigns
and legislation in this area.
2.5 Similarly, Living Streets does not support
a graduated approach for drivers of different ages or levels of
experience, as the potential benefits are in our view outweighed
by the additional complexity this would introduce to the public
dissemination of the simple, effective "don't drink and drive"
message.
Drug driving
2.6 Living Streets supports the idea that
drug driving should be taken as seriously as drink driving and
that this should be reflected both in legislation and in accompanying
awareness campaigns.
2.7 We agree with the inclusion of prescription
drugs within the scope of drug driving legislation and would suggest
that this review process is an opportunity to ensure that awareness
campaigns send a clear message that people should not drive while
under the influence of any drug—whether illegal, prescription
or a legal recreational drug such as alcohol—rather than
risking a complacent response by implying that alcohol is not
a drug and therefore somehow "safe".
Enforcement
2.8 Living Streets supports the emphasis
placed on awareness and enforcement by a 2010 National Institute
for Clinical Excellence report, which notes that "the effect
of lowering the BAC limit (in terms of scale and sustainability)
is likely to be dependent on increasing the public's awareness
and understanding of BAC limits and rigour of enforcement strategies.
Currently, the actual—and perceived—risk of being
detected and sanctioned for drink-driving (in the context of the
BAC 0.08 limit) is low, and therefore does not act as a sufficiently
strong deterrent".2
2.9 In line with the approach of setting
a clear, consistent and well-enforced norm of not consuming alcohol
before driving, Living Streets considers that the mandatory one
year driving ban for drink-driving is appropriate even if the
permitted blood alcohol concentration were to be reduced from
the current 80 mg/100ml to 50 or 20 mg/100 ml.
2.10 Living Streets notes the evidence presented
in the North Report on the positive safety impact of random and
selective breath testing, and would broadly support the availability
of random testing for drink and drug driving as an enforcement
and monitoring measure, provided that this was conducted with
sufficient and transparent regard to civil liberties, due process
and the viability of businesses.
2.11 Given the nature of the legislative
and political processes, the current process is likely to be the
only chance to make these reforms for several years. Living Streets
advocates taking this opportunity to establish an effective, consistent
stance which goes furthest towards reducing road casualties and
ensures that drivers are clear on their best course of action.
Broader context
2.12 Living Streets recognises the notable
success that the UK has had in containing and reducing drink driving
and advocates a broader shift towards more responsible road behaviour;
for example, moving towards a new social norm whereby travelling
above the speed limit is considered as anti-social as drink driving.
2.13 A major practical issue in achieving
a positive behavioural shift is the UK's civil liability framework,
which is currently such that it discriminates against vulnerable
road users and must be reformed. As it stands, motor vehicle drivers
are presumed not liable for damages in the event of a collision
with a pedestrian or cyclist. This is in contrast to most of the
countries in the rest of the EU, where the burden of proof falls
upon the driver to demonstrate that they were not at fault in
such collisions. In this way, by establishing an element of fairness
in civil liability, we can move towards a culture wherein motor
vehicle drivers take their responsibilities as "kings of
the road" more seriously than at present.
2.14 Living Streets would be delighted to
provide further evidence and information to the Select Committee
or to discuss these issues more informally.
August 2010
REFERENCES1 North
Review (2010). Frequently Asked Questions. http://northreview.independent.gov.uk/faq,
accessed on 17 August 2010.
2 National Institute for Clinical Excellence
(2010). Review of effectiveness of laws limiting blood alcohol
concentration levels to reduce alcohol-related road injuries and
deaths. Available at http://www.nice.org.uk/media/3FE/1A/BloodAlcoholContentEffectivenessReview.pdf,
accessed on 17 August 2010.
| 
