Memorandum from Draeger Safety UK Ltd
(DDD 35)
What follows is the response of Draeger Safety
UK to the inquiry into changes in the UK's drink and drug driving
laws.
Before commenting on the areas highlighted in
the Inquiry, I would like to inform you of Draeger Safety's experience
in the field of detection of drink and drug drivers, and a brief
overview of the company.
Draeger has its head quarters in Lubeck Germany
and employ over 8,000 people worldwide, with daughter companies
in most major countries. Our portfolio includes medical ventilators,
respiratory protection, gas detection, as well as alcohol and
drug detection. We first produced the "blow in the bag"
breathalyser tubes in 1953 in Germany and a derivative of this
the Alcotest-80 was the first UK Home Office Approved breathalyser
in 1967. In the 1980's we introduced to the UK the first electronic
breathalyser the Draeger Alert and currently have breath alcohol
equipment in service with 20 Police Forces within the UK. Worldwide
we currently have over 100,000 breath alcohol devices in service
and saliva based drug testing equipment in service with a number
of national and regional police forces.
Should the permitted blood alcohol limit be reduced
as proposed?
NO.
Comment
The current law is well understood and should
be more rigorously enforced by random stops and road blocks before
we look at the limit, however, the data enabled screeners now
in use by Police Forces in England and Wales may give insight
to the of drivers involved in accidents in the 50 to 80 mg/100mL
range. The average drink driver is almost twice the current legal
limit and is unlikely to be deterred by a low limit without more
rigorous enforcement.
If so, is the mandatory one year driving ban appropriate
for less severe offenders, at the new (lower) level
NO.
Comment
In most European countries where a lower limit
is in place the penalty is less severe than a one year ban.
How severe is the problem of drug driving and
what should be done to address it?
In many studies, carried out in different countries,
the numbers of individuals found with substance of abuse other
than alcohol is generally the same order of magnitude as the number
of drivers with alcohol above the local drink drive limit. In
Queensland official figure have shown that the number of people
convicted for drug driving was one in fifty, the number convicted
for drink driving is 1 in 80.
We would suggest the issuing of drug testing
devices to Police Officers should be expedited, and consideration
given to roadblocks, like they have in many countries worldwide
to increase the chances of being tested and caught and increase
the deterrence factor.
What are the wider costs and benefits are likely
to result from changes to drink and drug driving law?
No comment.
What would be the implications of such changes
for enforcement?
No comment.
August 2010
| 
