Drink and drug driving law - Transport Committee Contents


Memorandum from Addapt (Association of Approved Providers of Drink Drive Rehabilitation Courses) (DDD 27)

 (A)   Should the permitted blood alcohol limit be reduced as proposed

  Yes for the following reasons:

    1. It would help harmonise GB with the rest of Europe (Northern Ireland have also signalled their intention to reduce their limit to 50 mcg—so would also keep UK the same).

    2. The argument that the UK is better at enforcement is not borne out by statistics—other countries breathalyse much higher numbers than GB.

    3. Despite calls from the alcohol industry that the public do not want a reduction considerable public support exists for a ban. Claims that such a reduction would "kill off the country pub" are exactly the same as the claims made in 1967 prior to the introduction of the current law and proved groundless.

    4. It is irresponsible to persist with the notion that it is okay to drink up to 80 when significant evidence of impairment occurs well below that limit.

    5. Overwhelming evidence from people convicted that the current laws are ambiguous ie don't drink and drive but a "legal" level which permits males to drink up to two and a half pints of beer and women to drink 175 ml glass of wine. As an organisation we have educated hundreds of thousands of convicted drink drivers who are in favour of the reduced limit.

    6. The existing limit does leave an estimated extra 50 people liable to die on our roads each year and many more seriously injured. Apart from not wishing to put a value on a human life the cost is estimated at in excess of £1.6 million per fatality and obviously the combined costs of the many seriously injured would be much more.

    7. It is erroneous to claim that there is no public appetite for a reduction in the limit—and one perpetuated by the drinks industry. In reality the message should be irrespective of the limit "do not drink and drive" so that the actual limit is irrelevant. Visitors to country pubs should not be making a choice of having one drink at the new limit or two at the old.

    8. Any decision to change the limit must be accompanied by an effective public education campaign—this is not just about drink driving but about the general problems we have with health and alcohol in this country. The joining up of health and transport issues is to be welcomed. The move to increased opening hours has undoubtedly marred the lives of many people in towns and villages across Great Britain and the general acceptance of alcohol misuse is already creating massive costs to the health service.

 (B)   If so, is the mandatory one year driving ban appropriate for less severe offenders, at the new ( lower) level

    — Yes, but if the limit were to be lowered, then it may have more credibility with the public if a reading of between 50 and 80 had a disqualification of say 6 months providing a drink drive education course was undertaken.

 (C)   How severe is the problem of drug driving and what should be done to address it

    — The objective of this legislation is to make the roads safer. If a driver's ability is impaired by drugs, it matters not whether the drugs are illegal, prescribed or over the counter, (evidence suggests there is for example significant problems with tranquilisers). In the same way we do not differentiate between spirits, wines or beer etc if a driver is impaired by alcohol. The important factor is the impairment and drug driving is no different.

    — The aim is to remove impaired drivers from the roads, and we strongly feel the new offence should include all drugs, illegal, prescribed and over the counter.

    — It should be unnecessary to identify drugs by name. They are illegal, prescribed or over the counter. Any other definition will create unnecessary complications when cases come to court and potentially provide openings for unnecessary arguments and appeals. The matter to be brought before the court is an allegation of driving whilst impaired through drugs and/or alcohol. The question of whether the drug was old, new, illegal, prescribed or over the counter is mostly irrelevant, except the deliberate act of driving having taken an illegal substance, may carry a heavier penalty than if the drug was prescribed.

    — We believe this is long overdue. There are many examples of Police forces around the world conducting successful drug driving campaigns. We do not have to reinvent the wheel, only endeavour to improve what already exists and works elsewhere.

    — Implementation procedures for identifying illegal drug driving should replicate those used for addressing drink driving. This should include use of evidential road side testing.

 (D)   What wider costs and benefits are likely to result from changes to drink and drug driving law?

    — Firstly much greater clarity than the current very mixed message- which drivers say is very confusing reducing the limit would give the proper message that any alcohol is likely to result in a prosecution. Any efforts which reduce this countries problems with alcohol, including issues of health and safety—e.g on our roads, within families at work etc is to be welcomed.

 (E)   What would be the implications for enforcement

    — ACPO had already we understand their support for a reduction in the limit. A public information campaign should accompany any change in legislation.

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