Drink and drug driving law - Transport Committee Contents


Memorandum from Jack Brownhill (DDD 26)

DRINK AND DRUG DRIVING LAW—NORTH REPORT

  1.  I have read with much interest Sir Peter North's report in this connection.

  2.  I have a few observations regarding the report and Sir Peter's recommendations—many of which I totally agree with.

  3.  It is clear that enforcement has a pivotal role to play in the fight against drink or drug driving. The actions of many impaired drivers are likely to be heavily influenced by the driver's perception of how likely it is that they will be able to complete their journey without detection and, indeed, how frequently they can undertake identical or similar journeys without detection.

  4.  Although I have no evidence common sense would suggest that many of these impaired journeys are relatively short and most often are undertaken on roads known to the driver. This may give added confidence to many drivers that the likelihood of detection is relatively low, confidence that may grow with each occasion they successfully drive undetected. This added confidence may also lead to drivers increasing their alcohol intake.

  5.  The breath test data in Annex L to the report clearly suggest that where checks are undertaken the detection rate is exceptionally high. This appears to suggest that current targeting of drivers is highly effective.

  6.  However, the "checks per driver" (in Annex L) is exceptionally low when compared with all the other countries in the table which may suggest that we are not committing enough resources to the detection of impaired drivers and that an increase in resources (suitably targeted, of course) would not only increase the detection rate but would also act as an increased deterrent to drivers tempted to drive whilst impaired.

  7.  I agree 100% with Drink Driving Recommendation (4) although I think that society's perception of how committed the drinks trade is to helping here is tinged with a high degree of scepticism. When one sees how intoxicated many people are when leaving licensed premises it is hard to grasp how firmly over the bar requests for drinks by people who have clearly already had too much to drink are resisted. However, it may also point to difficulties that licensed premises have in "policing" this when people are drinking in groups and this is, I believe, something the drinks trade needs to revisit.

  8.  In a similar vein I believe that car parks adjacent to licensed premises should be required to display highly visible signs carrying drink/drugs messages which could also remind drivers of the (drink drive) limit and what this limit represents from an alcohol intake perspective.

  9.  In relation to Drink Driving Recommendation (5) the professional drivers' organisations make a strong and possibly valid case for not introducing a lower limit for "at work" vocational drivers. However, this appears to be partly based on the "aggravating factor" in the current Magistrates' Court Sentencing Guidelines referred to in Drink Driving Recommendation (6).

  10.  However, there appears to be no available evidence to identify the extent to which this "aggravating factor" should be taken in to account and the impact it has had on sentencing in relevant cases. As the intention of the drink/drug driving laws is surely to deter drivers there must be reason to believe that a lower limit for vocational drivers would act as an important deterrent and send out a clear message to the relevant sectors of society. A lower limit may also give a clearer message as to how much these drivers can and cannot drink whilst at work (or prior to starting work).

  11.  I wholeheartedly agree with Drink Driving Recommendation (7) although I am a little unclear as to exactly which sectors are being targeted in the reference to "the transport industry". One would naturally expect this to embrace haulage, delivery, public transport and taxi (public and private hire) bodies but I hope it also embraces the wider fleet operator community and, perhaps, even the car rental companies recognising that both fleet operators and rental companies have the ability to impose additional penalties on drivers who are caught driving one of their vehicles whilst impaired particularly where this has resulted in an at-fault accident (for example, an employer or car rental company could apply an increased insurance excess, and an employer could also apply this increased excess or a financial contribution to the insurance cost for a certain future period).

  12.   Drink Driving Recommendation (8) calls for the new proposed lower limit to be applied to all drivers regardless of their age and/or experience. The driving performance of youngsters (particularly males) is, of course, well documented and it is my understanding that the driving test (and the pre-test learning process) is currently under review. That review should also be looking at the post-test scenario given the adverse impact that younger (particularly new) drivers have on the annual road casualty figures.

  13.  The younger driver "problem" is not, of course, unique to the UK and many countries have looked at ways of trying to improve the position. Tuition and testing can only achieve so much and we clearly need a way of helping these younger drivers stay safer whilst improving their on the road experience and general roadcraft. Graduated licences have been introduced in many countries although I accept that this introduction is often on the back of a legal requirement to carry one's driving licence whilst driving.

  14.  If it was felt that introducing a graduated licence scheme in to the UK to help tackle the young driver situation would be a significant step forward it would be deeply disappointing if such a scheme was discounted because there is no current requirement to carry a licence.

  15.  I believe it is true to say that the vast majority of "on the road" police officers have ready access to DVLA driver information via the Police National Computer (PNC) and although this may present some difficulties when dealing with drivers who may attempt to hide their true identity or holders of non-UK licences (neither of which should be insurmountable) the inability to produce a hard copy driving licence at the roadside should not pose any major stumbling block to determining the age of a driver at the time of an incident.

  16.  I strongly believe that the introduction of a lower limit for young drivers and provisional drivers should be considered as part of this review and, if possible, drivers of all ages who have held a full licence for less than a certain period of time should also be considered as part of this exercise although I recognise this may be more difficult when one takes in to account holders of non-UK licences.

  17.  I hope you find my observations helpful and constructive.

  18.  Although these observations are given in a personal capacity it may be helpful if you are aware that I have been employed in the European motor insurance arena for in excess of 45 years and have been actively involved with the both the UK Association of British Insurers and the parallel Brussels based CEA—the European Insurance and Reinsurance on a wide range of insurance and road safety issues.

August 2010





 
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