Written evidence from the RAC Foundation
(DDD 12)
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 The RAC Foundation is a charity which
explores the economic, mobility, safety and environmental issues
relating to roads and responsible road users. Independent and
authoritative research, carried out for the public benefit, is
central to the Foundation's activities.
1.2 The Foundation welcomes the Committee's
inquiry into drink and drug driving, which is timely given the
recent publication of the North Review. We broadly support lowering
the permitted alcohol limit to 0.5mg/100ml blood and the development
of a specific drug driving offence which focuses on drug consumption
levels and measurable impairment. Increased traffic police enforcement
is needed to achieve compliance with current and future drink
and drug driving regulations.
2. REDUCING THE
PERMITTED BLOOD
ALCOHOL LIMIT
2.1 The RAC Foundation broadly supports
reducing the permitted blood alcohol limit to 0.5mg/100ml, providing
it is accompanied with increased enforcement. Reducing the limit
to this level will lower the level of death and injury on the
road and bring Great Britain in line with much of mainland Europe.
2.2 Calculations for Great Britain suggests
that reducing the legal limit to 50mg per 100ml blood would save
65 lives per year and 230 people would be saved from serious injury
(Allsop, 2005). More recent work looking at 2008 data has revised
this figure to 43 deaths and 280 serious injuries (PACTS, 2010).
Drivers with between 0.5-0.7mg/ml of alcohol in their blood have
been found to be four to ten times more likely to be involved
in a fatal crash than a driver with a zero blood alcohol content
(BAC) (Fell and Voas, 2006).
2.3 The RAC Foundation is however cautious
about the introduction of a new limit, as we remain unconvinced
that the reduction will encourage a behavioural change amongst
the 1% of excessive drinkers who account for 73% of all drink
drive deaths (Allsop, 2005). In fact research indicates that a
change in the BAC level may only affect the behaviour of roughly
2% of the driving population (Allsop, 2005). This is because 97%
of the population already has a BAC lower than 50mg per 100ml
when driving and 1% are so significantly above the current 80mg
limit that any change in law is not expected to have an impact.
2.4 Finding a way to tackle the irresponsible
minority, as recognised by the previous Government in both "A
Safer Way…" and the "Road Safety Compliance consultation"
should be given priority. Regardless of the BAC drink drive limit,
more visible enforcement will be an important part of the solution.
2.5 Despite these reservations, the RAC
Foundation broadly supports a reduction in the BAC to 0.5mg/100ml
for the role it will play in creating a "social norm"
and culture against drink driving. Some education campaigns have
a limited effect on public attitudes, but there is emerging evidence
that education programmes have over many years helped to legitimise
drink driving legislation and change attitudes (Box and McKenna,
forthcoming). The future role of education in both drink and drug
driving needs to be better understood and supported.
2.6 The RAC Motoring services also support
a lowering of the limit to 0.5mg as they believe the level is
easier to communicate to the public—in the main equating
to one drink.
2.7 The public can be described as somewhat
supportive of a change in the drink drive limit. The 2009 RAC
Report on Motoring found that 15% would like to see the limit
lowered to EU levels and 35% saying that a zero limit should be
introduced. 43% would like to see the current limit maintained
(See: Figure 1).
Figure 1
PUBLIC ATTITUDES TO THE DRINK DRIVE LIMIT
Source: RAC Report on
Motoring 2009, p.40
2.8 The RAC Foundation is pleased that the
North Review has not recommended imposing a lower limit of 0.2mg/100ml
for different classes of drivers and riders. Although novice drivers
and professional drivers are at a greater risk on the road the
Foundation does not believe that this warrants a different limit
for this group. The limit, whatever it is, should be simple, easy
to understand and communicate. Setting a lower limit for novice
drivers, only to raise it at a later point sends the wrong message
and if a lower limit is revised in five years time as suggested
by the North Review, research on the impact of the change would
need to be conducted.
2.9 When asked about other approaches to
reducing drink driving public support is highest for educational
campaigns and longer sentences for drink driving. There is also
a reasonably high level of support for random breath testing (71%)
(See: RAC Report on Motoring 2009).
2.10 The motorists who risk drink driving
often do so because they do not think they will get caught. Increasing
traffic police is essential, not only to reduce drink driving,
but also to deter other serious crimes.
2.11 To be effective drink driving limits
need to be accompanied by appropriate deterrents. For this reason
the RAC Foundation agrees with the conclusions of the North Review
that "the threat of a substantial period of mandatory
disqualification has proved to be a potent weapon in combating
drink driving" and "It would be a retrograde
step to diminish the force of that weapon". If the 12
month driving ban is retained for the new lower level this will
leave Great Britain with the toughest penalty regime of any EU
country with a 50mg/100ml limit. Despite this the Foundation believes
it is important that this penalty is retained to reinforce the
anti-drink drive message.
3. SEVERITY OF
DRUG DRIVING
AND POSSIBLE
CHANGES TO
THE LAW
3.1 The true extent of the drug driving
problem is unknown. For this reason the Foundation supports the
call for greater investigation of the presence of drugs in road
fatalities and the wider driving community. Data collected from
Field Impairment Tests (FIT) tests and other relevant sources
should be collated and added to the published evidence base to
improve understanding.
3.2 Current law on drug driving is found
in the Road Traffic Act 1988 sections 4(1) and (2) which says
that a person who, when driving or attempting to drive, or in
charge of a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or other
public place, is unfit to drive through drink or drugs is guilty
of an offence.
3.3 The law as it currently stands causes
problems for enforcing drug driving as there is a need to prove
that the driver has not only taken drugs but their driving is
impaired as a result. There is no objective test for impairment,
no legal definition of impairment in the Road Traffic Act, and
no offence of driving in breach of a prescribed limit, as is the
case for drink-driving. FITs used to assess drug impairment, which
are effective overall, are only used by a limited number of trained
officers.
3.4 The Foundation would support many of
the suggestions made in the North Review on this subject. There
is however a wider question to be answered about how drug driving
and broader illegal drug laws are enforced. If, as it has been
suggested, these issues remain separate the reasons for this decision
need to be fully explained to the law abiding public.
3.5 The Foundation agrees with the North
Report that a number of station test processes for drug driving
could be sped up to improve the chances of conviction, such as
allowing staff other than the Forensic Medical Examiner to take
evidence samples at the station. Type approval of drug testing
equipment for both at station and on road use should also be a
priority and the Foundation supports the Government's commitment
to have screening devices for a range of substances installed
in every police station by 2012.
4. IMPLICATIONS
OF CHANGES
TO DRINK
AND DRUG
DRIVING LAW
4.1 Changes to drink and drug driving law
as outlined above will have the benefit of reduced casualties,
but implementing these changes will have resource implications
for the police, courts and medical profession amongst others.
The RAC Foundation does not have data on the extent of these resource
implications.
4.2 Whether the drink and drug laws are
changed or not, more visible enforcement is needed. More targeted
breath testing for drink drivers would act as a strong deterrent
to those who do not believe that they will get caught. This is
particularly important as for some drivers the fear of being caught
by the Police is more influential than the risk of injuring themselves
or other road users.
4.3 A lack of funding and staff resources
within the police force, alongside targets for other areas of
enforcement acts as the main procedural barriers to deterring
drink driving. Finances are understandably tight across all public
services, but if Government wants to make this area a priority
the subsequent funding needs to be available to support the activity.
REFERENCES:
— Allsop, R (2005) PACTS Research Briefing:
Reducing the BAC Limit to 50mg: What can we expect to gain?
— Fell, J C and Voas, R B (2006) The effectiveness
of reducing illegal blood alcohol concentration (BAC) limits for
driving: Evidence for lowering the limit to .05 BAC. Journal
of Safety Research Volume 37, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 233-243.
— McKenna, F and Box, E (Forthcoming) Education
in Road Safety: Are we getting it right? A report for the RAC
Foundation.
— PACTS (2010) PACTS Policy Briefing—Combating
drinking and driving.
— RAC Motoring Services (2009) RAC Report
on Motoring.
August 2010
| 
