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
|
