Written evidence from the Association
of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) (DDD 11)
1. Should the permitted blood alcohol limit
be reduced as proposed?
1.1 Each year, around 450 people die in
a road collision involving a drink driver. It is a contributory
factor that is largely impervious to intervention and proving
difficult to tackle. ACPO believes that in order to reduce the
unacceptable toll of death and serious injuries on our roads,
the Government must send a clear and unequivocal message to the
public that drinking and driving is both socially and morally
unacceptable. Even one drink can impair a person's ability to
drive safely and the message that must be delivered consistently
is that when people are drinking, they should leave the car behind.
1.2 The current alcohol limit of 80 mg per
100ml of blood is not consistent with that message. It creates
the impression that there is an acceptable "quota" of
alcohol consumption which some drivers then attempt to maximise
through interpretations based on their own perceptions of what
is an appropriate amount. This often leads to excess consumption
or consumption at levels, which although not unlawful are unsafe
for some drivers. ACPO supports the idea of a reduction in the
drink drive limit to a level which is both safe and supports the
message that drinking and driving do not mix. In an ideal world,
the limit would be zero. However, we accept that this is not realistic
given the presence in the body of naturally occurring alcohol
and the residual effects of previous drinking.
1.3 We also accept that this would be unenforceable
and have significant social implications that may not be acceptable
to society as a whole. At this stage, we are not clear what constitutes
an appropriate level. We are conscious that the majority of European
countries now have a limit of 50mg per 100ml level or lower although
this limit is usually associated with an administrative penalty
not involving lengthy disqualification. Only at 80mg and above
do penalties mirror our own. Drivers cross national borders on
a regular basis and there is some merit in standardising limits
for the sake of simplicity and clarity. There is some evidence
to show that a reduction in the limit to 50mg per 100ml would
save 64 lives a year. However, it is not clear what the impact
of a reduction to 30mg or 40mg would be and whether this might
produce proportionally greater benefits in terms of casualty reduction.
1.4 The recent introduction of roadside
breath devices with a memory and data recording facility now provides
a unique opportunity to gather the evidence that is necessary
to enable an objective decision to be made. Initial figures gathered
by the police indicate that 2% of drivers breath tested following
a collision produce a result in the 50 to 80 range. A reduction
in the limit will alter the behaviour of many drink drivers and
will reduce drink drive casualties.
1.5 From now on data will be gathered which
will enable a detailed analysis to be made of the impact of various
levels of alcohol consumption on road casualties. This in turn
will enable an objective assessment to be made to identify what
is an appropriate limit. ACPO will offer the Government whatever
support is necessary to facilitate this evaluation.
2. If so, is the mandatory one year driving
ban appropriate for less severe offenders, at the new (lower)
level?
2.1 If a lower limit is ultimately introduced,
ACPO would urge the Government to resist any pressure to introduce
non-disqualification penalties for lower levels of offending.
We believe that this would cause unnecessary complications and
result in confusing and counter productive messages for the public.
There may be a case for a shorter period of disqualification for
low-end offenders of six months between 50 and 80.
3. How severe is the problem of drug driving
and what should be done to address it?
3.1 There is no hard evidence relating to
the scale of the problem of drug driving. Various surveys tend
to suggest that a significant number of people have admitted to
driving having taken drugs but the number of drug tests conducted
on drivers does not give a significant result.
3.2 There are two reasons for this lack
of evidence:
— A blood specimen is not routinely taken
following a collision and only in majority of cases resulting
in a fatality and then only from the deceased.
— The current legislation requires an officer
to gather sufficient evidence to prove impairment and then a doctors
confirmation of a condition due to a drug before a blood sample
may be taken. This is a complex and time-consuming process, which
may only be carried out by specially trained officers.
3.3 In terms of what should be done to address
it: Currently the law requires proof of impairment to drive and
proof that the impairment is due to either alcohol or a drug.
The effect of this is that it is not an offence to drive with
either alcohol or drugs in the body unless the substances are
the cause of clear and explainable impairment to drive. This situation
creates uncertainty, the user being unsure whether the effects
will be sufficient to be determined as impairment to drive or
not with many being prepared to take a chance. On the alcohol
side, this has largely been addressed by the introduction of a
statutory limit in 1967. Other drugs are by nature quite different
with statutory limits being impossible to determine with the effect
that the 1930 offence of impairment through drugs remains the
only control in place. The offence is adequate in addressing the
road safety issue but ineffective due to the Act's procedural
process.
3.4 The Act requires that before an evidential
specimen of blood or urine can be required from a suspect a medical
practitioner has to confirm the presence of a condition due to
a drug. The reason for this requirement is a mystery and the effect
is serious. In some instances, doctors set the bar for deciding
whether there is a condition far too high and fail to find one,
many are confused and try proving impairment while in other areas
securing the attendance of a doctor at a police station is difficult.
This has the effect that during the wait the signs that would
indicate the presence of a drug often disappear and a driver is
released, as there is no condition found and therefore no futher
authority for police to obtain a specimen.
3.5 For these reasons, officer confidence
in the usability of the process is often very low with the effect
that enforcement is considerably lower than it should be. Officers
also frequently lack confidence in their ability to satisfy a
court that a person was impaired to drive. Such opinions and decisions
are very subjective, often fiercely contested and sometimes lost
at court. To combat this officers are trained to carry out field
impairment testing (FIT) (previously voluntary but now under section
6 of the Act which involves conducting a series of physical and
mental assessments to help to identify and support impairment.
3.6 It is probably fair to say that officers
can become disillusioned with what they perceive as barriers that
are constantly placed in their way in their efforts to enforce
the existing legislation and consequently shift their focus to
other, more practically enforceable offences.
3.7 ACPO considers tackling drug driving
to be a major issue in improving road safety. We believe that
a significant improvement to the current system could be achieved
simply by removing the requirement for the FME to confirm a condition
due to a drug before the requirement for an evidential blood or
urine specimen, especially as this would then mirror the law as
it applies to impairment through alcohol. In the short term this
can be facilitated in the worse cases by the introduction of drug
screening technology (Home Office needs to provide a device specification
for type approval of equipment) but as devices are still unreliable
at the lower levels and very drug specific this could only help
and will not solve the issue.
3.8 Therefore, we believe that firstly,
the current legislation is in need of amendment due to the difficulties
outlined above and secondly, consideration should also be given
to the creation of new offence specifically targeting those drugs
that are both illegal and which research has proved cause impairment
to such an extent as to impact upon driving. These substances
should be listed in a schedule where a person found driving etc
whilst under the influence of such a drug would be guilty of an
absolute offence—specifically without the additional need
to also prove impairment. (This is a very long term solution and
there will need to be much research and expert advice but, if
we don't at least alter legislation and start the process we will
never achieve the goal).
4. What wider costs and benefits are likely
to result from changes to drink and drug driving law?
4.1 This will be clearly dependant on which
changes are adopted.
4.2 Reducing the drink drive limit:
The benefits will be many and varied. With some 64 lives a year
to be saved, along with many serious injuries, there will be a
significant reduction in the misery and hurt that comes with bereavement
and life-changing injury. There is also the financial cost; the
Government's own figures estimate £1.9 million per fatal
collision and £188 thousand per serious collision. A reduction
in collisions will obviously mean the police will have to spend
less time dealing with them and congestion due to collisions will
also be reduced.
4.3 Removal of the statutory option:
ACPO strongly supports the removal of the statutory right to a
blood or urine test as an alternative to the evidential breath
test. Current technology has proven to be highly accurate and
effective in its use. It has the confidence of the public and
the criminal justice system and can now be relied on without the
need for independent corroboration.
4.4 The continued retention of the statutory
option simply allows drink drivers the opportunity to forestall
the evidential test. This can often result in a reduced reading
and in some marginal cases result in drivers avoiding prosecution
even though a perfectly valid breath reading was obtained within
minutes of a driver being brought to the police station. In addition,
police officer time is unnecessarily wasted whilst waiting for
doctors or nurses to attend and the process is medically invasive.
4.5 It is also worth considering that the
removal of the statutory option for blood or urine would facilitate
the introduction of roadside evidential testing which when used
in conjunction with targeted checkpoint testing would be a significant
enhancement in the options available to the police to tackle drink
driving.
4.6 Evidential roadside breath testing:
Once the technology is approved, we will fully support the introduction
of evidential roadside breath testing. The current system of screening
tests followed by an evidential test at the police station introduces
a second tier of testing that would be unnecessary if roadside
evidential testing was introduced. This would be doubly effective
if the statutory option was removed. At present, following a screening
test at the roadside, the driver is arrested and taken to a police
station. If the custody suite is busy, it may be an hour or more
before the prisoner is booked in and provides an evidential breath
specimen. Should that come in at 50mg and the driver elect a statutory
option, a doctor is called to take a blood sample, which may take
another two hours, by which time the driver is below the legal
limit, although he or she may have been significantly over the
limit at the time they were driving.
4.7 This move will reduce the amount of
time it takes an officer to process an offender, as it will remove
from the system those who are over at the roadside but subsequently
provide a negative evidential test. It will also prevent people
who are over the limit at the time they are driving escaping justice
when a much later evidential test shows them to be under the limit.
4.8 Unrestricted power to test any person
driving a motor vehicle: ACPO wholeheartedly supports the
introduction of a power to randomly check any driver. Putting
conditions on when a breath test can be required simply supports
the view that you can drink, drive and avoid prosecution by playing
within the "rules", police have unrestricted powers
to stop vehicles to check tyres, condition and the documents of
a driver but are restricted when they can check for drink or drugs.
A random power would support targeted checkpoint testing of drink
drivers carried out now is some areas but requiring an element
of consent. Random powers are supported, not necessarily because
we believe that the existing powers are inadequate; rather, we
believe that this simple measure, widely publicised, would increase
the perception in the minds of drivers that if they do drink and
drive they are likely to be caught and brought to justice at any
time, anywhere.
4.9 We know, from practical experience,
that there is a mindset amongst some drivers that if they avoid
drawing attention to themselves (eg by causing an accident or
committing a moving traffic offence) the police have no power
to stop them. In truth, the reality is somewhat different. Under
current legislation, a police officer can stop any vehicle without
reason (using the road traffic act power not those under drink
and drug driving) and having subsequently formed an opinion that
the driver has been drinking (eg because the officer can smell
drink) they can then require a breath test. However, many people
do not believe that to be the case. In our view, this misconception
perpetuates the attitude amongst a resilient hardcore of drink
drivers that the risk is one that is worth taking. The message
should be clear, don't drink and drive and if driving you can
be tested anywhere, anytime.
4.10 Allowing nurses also to take on
the role currently fulfilled by the forensic physician in determining
whether the drug driving suspect has "a condition which might
be due to a drug": This will have several benefits. In
terms of financial savings, there will be a significant saving
in not having to call out a Force Medical Examiner (FME) every
time a suspect needs assessing. The availability and in many cases
the presence of the nurse in the custody suite will mean that
officer time is not wasted awaiting the arrival of the FME. Furthermore,
the suspect will not evade justice as the impairing effect of
the drug wears off prior to the arrival of the FME.
4.11 Steps should be taken for the earliest
practicable type approval and supply to police stations of preliminary
drug screening devices: if this proposal leads to the removal
of any type of examination prior to the taking of a blood specimen
then there may be benefits in terms of saving officer time and
speeding up the administration of justice. Devices are currently
somewhat inaccurate at the lower level but over time they will
improve and eliminate many of those cases where the doctors attendance
is necessary
4.12 Setting a prescribed limit for drugs:
If the level can be scientifically linked to impairment, as is
the case with alcohol it would be fair but would not result in
any savings in terms of finance or officer time.
4.13 Once preliminary drug screening
devices have been type approved for use in police stations, the
Government should continue to work on type approval of preliminary
drug screening devices which are capable of being used at the
roadside, drawing from overseas experience: This will be extremely
useful if it is intended to replace the current law that requires
the evidence of unfitness to drive (impairment). The FIT assessment
takes a minimum of 20 minutes to complete, whether it be positive
or negative. It must be clear that as long as the need to prove
impairment at the roadside remains, a device such as this would
have no value.
4.14 Should it prove beyond scientific
reach to set specific levels of deemed impairment, the Government
should consider whether a "zero tolerance" offence should
be introduced in relation to a schedule of drugs known to have
an impairing effect: An absolute offence of driving with a
drug known to have an impairing effect would simplify the application
of the law at street level. It would remove the need for time-consuming
impairment testing and the testing would not have to be carried
out by specially trained officers. The time and cost savings due
to this would be significant.
5. What would be the implications of such
changes for enforcement?
5.1 Whilst it may be argued that a reduction
in the drink drive limit may lead to more arrests and prosecutions
for drink driving, we anticipate that this would be offset by
the reduction in the time spent dealing with collisions caused
by drink drivers.
5.2 The full benefit of the legislative
changes will only be achieved if the full basket of drink driving
proposals is adopted. Removing the statutory option will speed
up the process and prevent offenders evading justice. Roadside
evidential testing will have a similar effect. Both measures will
result in a significant saving in officer time. The introduction
of random testing will raise the public perception that they are
likely to be detected and will facilitate more effective, targeted
testing regimes which should lower the number of drivers prepared
to risk capture and prosecution by driving after drinking or taking
of drugs.
5.3 In terms of drug driving, the implications
are equally positive. Simplification of the application of the
law will result in a significant rise in testing by the police
as no specialist training would be necessary and the current,
unwieldy processes at the police station would be condensed greatly.
As such they would be broadly welcomed.
August 2010
| 
