Drink and drug driving law - Transport Committee Contents


Written evidence from Brake (DDD 17)

ABOUT BRAKE

  Brake is an independent road safety charity, dedicated to stopping death and injury on UK roads and caring for people bereaved and seriously injured in road crashes.

  Brake carries out research into road users' attitudes on a range of road safety issues, including driver attitudes and behaviour; aspects of learning to drive; training and testing; traffic law and its enforcement; and charges and penalties for traffic offences.

  Through trained volunteers, Brake delivers road safety education to thousands of people in their local communities each year. This allows the organisation to collate additional information on the attitudes and self-reported behaviour of drivers.

  Brake also provides a range of services for road safety and fleet safety professionals. These include news bulletins and information sheets, workshops and conferences that disseminate international research and information on effective policies and best practice initiatives.

SUMMARY OF BRAKE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR GOVERNMENT ACTION

  Brake recommends that the Government take the following steps to work towards stamping out casualties caused by drink and drug driving:

    — The drink-drive limit to be cut to 20mg/100ml blood.

    — A new law making it an offence to drive on illegal drugs without having to prove impairment.

    — Random, targeted, and "blanket" testing for drink and drug driving, with more resources for traffic policing, ensuring we have sufficient numbers of officers to carry out a significantly higher number of tests.

    — Approval of a roadside drug testing device, such as those already used by the police in Germany, Australia and Finland.

    — Mandatory alcolocks for repeat drink-drive offenders, which requires them to pass a breath test before they can start their engine.

    — Life-long driving bans for drink and drug drivers who have killed or maimed.

    — Compulsory road safety education, delivered in schools, to 11-16 year olds outlining the horrific consequences of drink and drug driving.

Should the permitted blood alcohol limit be reduced as proposed?

  Lowering the drink-drive limit would be a vital step in eliminating the unnecessary deaths and injuries caused each year by drink-drivers, and therefore in reducing the huge social and economic burden of road casualties.

  Drink drivers (those who are over the current limit) still account for one in six road deaths in the UK. In 2009 there were 380 deaths and 1,480 serious injuries resulting from drink drive crashes.[15]

  Brake believes that the blood alcohol limit should be reduced to 20mg alcohol per 100ml blood—a zero tolerance approach that allows for residual and naturally occurring alcohol in the body. This is in line with research showing that even small amounts of alcohol in the blood lengthen reaction times, impair judgment, and make you more susceptible to sleepiness. One recent academic study showed a significant deterioration in driving skills when drivers had 40mg alcohol per 100ml of blood.[16] A NICE review concluded that those with 20-50mg alcohol per 100ml of blood are at least three times more likely to die in a crash than those with no alcohol in their blood.[17]

  Brake believes that a lower limit of 20mg would help to eliminate confusion among drivers about how much alcohol they can consume legally and safely if they are driving. The Government's own advice states that you should not drink any alcohol if you are driving, but our current limit is interpreted by many as meaning that one or two drinks before driving is safe and legal. Brake's 2010 survey of 800 drivers showed that many drivers don't understand that their driving will be affected after a very small amount of alcohol: 31% thought their driving wouldn't be affected unless they drank two units of alcohol, while 14% thought their driving wouldn't be affected unless they drank three or four units.[18] Brake is concerned that this confusion would prevail if the limit was lowered to 50mg rather than 20mg.

  Brake's 2010 survey of drivers on drink and drug driving also indicated that not only do the majority of drivers (71%) support a lower drink-drive limit, the majority of those would prefer a 20mg limit: of the 800 drivers we surveyed, 55% supported a 20mg limit, while 16% supported a 50mg limit.[19]

  Research carried out by Sheffield University, which examined casualty trends in England and Wales against the success of lowering the limit in other European Countries and Australia, estimated that lowering the limit to 50mg would save in the region of 77-168 deaths each year in England and Wales alone.[20] Brake believes that lowering the limit to 20mg is likely prevent even more deaths, given the academic evidence showing the detrimental effects on driving of consuming less than 50mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood, and given the impact in other countries of lowering their drink-drive limits to 20mg. When Sweden lowered its drink-drive limit from 50mg to 20mg per 100ml of blood, drink-drive deaths fell by 10%.[21]

  Evidence from other countries also suggests that lowering the drink drive limit is effective in reducing drink driving among those who exceed the limit by a larger margin, as well as those would otherwise be under the limit had it not been reduced. This found to be the case in the Australian Capital Territory when it reduced its limit from 80mg to 50mg per 100ml of blood in 1991.[22]

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

  Brake believes that we should retain the mandatory driving ban for all drink drive offenders if a lower limit is imposed, and that this should be of at least one year for all offenders. This reflects the level of danger posed by those who drive after drinking even a small amount of alcohol, and sends a clear message to drivers that no level of drink driving will be tolerated. It is also in line with public opinion—64% of AA members surveyed earlier this year favoured a 12 month ban or more for all offenders if the drink drive limit is lowered to 50mg.[23]

  Brake additionally recommends that this penalty (along with the other common consequences of drink driving, such as death and life-changing injury) should be publicised at the same time as bringing in a lower drink drive limit, to act as an effective deterrent.

  Repeat offenders and drink-drivers who exceed the limit by a large margin are shown by research to be less responsive to a fine and driving ban alone.[24] Therefore Brake believes these offenders should also be given a driving ban of at least one year, but they should return to driving only following appropriate rehab courses and with alcohol locks fitted to their vehicle. This is a better long-term solution for these offenders as they are supported in altering their attitudes and behaviour at the same time as being prevented from driving if over the limit.

  Research has shown that rehabilitation courses can be effective in reducing drink drive crashes, and that they are most likely to be effective with large margin offenders. Several studies have also shown that using alcolocks results in 65-90% less repeat offences than using a driving ban alone.[25] Following a review of research into what is most effective in tackling drink driving among these "high risk" offenders, the European Transport Safety Council recommended a combination of rehabilitation courses with use of alcolocks.

  Brake also recommends life-long driving bans for drink or drug drivers who have killed or maimed. For many victims of drink and drug drivers, this is the only meaningful justice for offenders who have taken the decision to drive drunk or drugged and have caused such destruction.

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

Prevalence of drug driving, and effects of drug taking on driving:

  Drugged driving is a widespread and often hidden menace in the UK. While not many drivers admit to it in surveys (for obvious reasons), research by TRL has found 17.7% of UK drivers who die in crashes have traces of illegal drugs in their system, a six fold increase from levels in the 1980s.[26]

  A 2005 study carried out in the UK, Norway and the Netherlands estimated that 10.8% of drivers stopped at the roadside for testing were drug users.[27]

  A number of studies have demonstrated the effects of drugs on driving, including:

    — The Universite Claude Bernard in France found that taking cannabis almost doubles the risk of being involved in a fatal car crash. The researchers studied the details of 10,748 fatal car crashes between 2001 and 2003 and concluded that even after accounting for other factors, 2.5% of the crashes were directly attributed to cannabis use.[28]

    — Ultrecht University in the Netherlands concluded in a recent study that most "drugs of abuse" have a negative effect on driving performance, and that a substantial number of drug users are not aware that their driving is impaired. The study highlighted that drivers on cocaine, ecstasy and amphetamine often overestimate their driving skills, and that this combined with impaired decision making increases risk taking during driving.[29]

Brake's calls for Government action on drug driving:

  Brake is calling for the law to be changed so drivers registering any level of illegal drugs in their blood stream can be found guilty of an offence of driving under the influence of drugs, whether or not it can be proven their driving was impaired.

  More than nine out of 10 drivers (92%) surveyed by Brake and motor insurer Direct Line in 2009 stated that they would support the introduction of a new anti drug drive law to enable prosecution of anyone driving on illegal drugs, without the need to prove impairment.[30]

  We also need urgent approval of roadside testing for drugs that can be used to carry out random and targeted checks on drivers at the roadside, and for procedures to be put in place to ensure evidential testing is carried out promptly following initial screening.

  Brake is also calling for traffic policing to be made a national policing priority, and for greater investment in traffic policing so there are sufficient numbers of traffic police available to carry out appropriate numbers of roadside tests for both drink and drugs—so drivers understand that there is a significant chance of being caught if they do drive on drugs (see section below on implications for enforcement).

  Finally, Brake would like to see greater investment in publicity campaigns on both drink and drug driving, particularly targeting young males. We are also calling for the Government to make road safety a compulsory part of the national curriculum, so all young people are given an understanding of the risks of driving on drink and drugs, information to help them make safe choices (such as the effects of different drugs on driving, and how long they stay in the body), and the opportunity to develop strategies for keeping safe in different scenarios where they may be tempted to drive on drink or drugs or get a lift with someone who has.

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

  Road casualties are a huge social and economic burden. Each death on the road is estimated to cost society in the region of £1.7 million, due to costs to emergency and health services and other factors such as loss of earnings. The total annual cost of road deaths and injuries in Great Britain is estimated at £17.9 billion by the Department for Transport.[31] Using these figures, the annual cost of drink-drive deaths (caused by drivers over the current limit) alone is just under £640 million. Therefore any reduction in casualties not only reduces the trauma caused to those families directly affected, but also has a positive economic impact, which may be long-term as long as the lower casualty levels are maintained.

  Evidence suggests that lowering the drink-drive limit to 50mg would prevent an estimated 77 to 168 deaths per year in England and Wales alone.[32] Taking the higher end figure, this would generate a financial saving of nearly £283 million per year, without taking into account the value of preventing injuries. Lowering the limit to 20mg is likely to prevent even more deaths (see arguments made above).

  Other research has been carried out internationally into the cost-benefit ratio of implementing some of the specific measures recommended by Brake. The World Health Organisation has highlighted that for every $1 spent on random breath testing, cost savings of $19 are generated.[33]

  Case studies from other countries offer evidence that the measures recommended by Brake would be effective in reducing road deaths and injuries:

    — Drink-drive deaths fell in Austria, Belgium and France after lowering drink-drive limits. When Sweden lowered its drink-drive limit from 50mg to 20mg per 100ml of blood, drink-drive deaths fell by 10%.[34]

    — In the Netherlands, the number of screening tests nearly doubled between 2000 and 2005. This increase was coupled with a publicity campaign and an increase in drink driving penalties. There was a marked drop in the number of drivers over the limit during weekend nights from 4.2% in 1999 to 2.8% in 2005.

    — In 1982, police in New South Wales, Australia, introduced a programme of random breath testing. Highly visible checkpoints were established on main routes and vehicles were chosen at random and breath tested. Approximately one million tests were administered each year, to a driving population of about three million; to achieve this, police were taken off general patrol duties. By the fifth year of the system being in place, more than 50% of drivers in Sydney had been tested at least once and more than 80% had seen the system in operation. Extensive publicity was given to the programme from the start. The introduction of random breath testing saw a 22% drop in the total number of fatal crashes and a decline of about 36% in alcohol-related fatal crashes, based on the figures from the previous three years.[35] In 2005, 3.4 million breath tests were carried out across the state.[36]

    — In New Zealand, police carry out about 1.5 million compulsory breath tests each year (where they stop every vehicle on a particular road), plus an additional 800,000 tests by mobile officers on drivers stopped as a result of poor driving. This represents about half of the country's population. Since the introduction of compulsory breath testing in the mid-1980s drink and drug drive deaths have fallen by 62%, from an average of 310 deaths per year in 1985-97, to an average of 118 deaths per year in 2005-07.[37]

    — Police in North Rhine-Westfalia, Germany began using roadside sweat and saliva swabs to check for drug-impaired drivers in 2003. The roadside saliva swabs, coupled with new laws on drug-driving, have helped German police officers identify and catch drug drivers more quickly and easily. In 2007, 49,000 drivers were prosecuted for drug driving offences in Germany.[38]

What would be the implications of such changes for enforcement?

  International evidence shows that when drivers know they are unlikely to "get away with it", they are much less likely to risk drink or drug driving.[39]

  During 2008, there were 711,658 screening breath tests carried out in England and Wales. Breath test numbers fell dramatically during 1998-2002, and although they increased between 2003-08, they have not yet returned to the levels of the late 1990s. There is also a huge amount of variation between police force areas in numbers of breath tests carried out per 100,000 of the population, from 231 in West Midlands to 4,420 in North Wales.[40] A 2004 study concluded that only 3% of British drivers had been breath-tested in the previous three years—far below the European average.[41]

  Brake believes that to effectively tackle drink and drug driving, we need far more enforcement checks to be carried out at the roadside—making it clear that drink and drug driving will not be tolerated, and there is a significant chance of being caught if you do break the law in this way. Brake wants traffic policing to be made a national policing priority, and for Government to work with police to ensure that sufficient resources are allocated to enable a significant increase in roadside enforcement checks.

  National casualty statistics, and evidence from other countries, suggest that increasing the numbers of breath tests tends to result in a decrease in the number of drink drive casualties. Research in Queensland indicated that for every increase of 1,000 in daily breath tests, there was a 6% drop in serious crashes and a 19% drop in single vehicle night time crashes.[42]

  Research and experience also indicate that to effectively deter and detect drink and drug driving, a combination of targeted breath testing and high-profile random or blanket testing should be carried out. Police therefore need to have sufficient powers to pull over drivers and breath test them without necessarily having reason to suspect that a driver has been drinking or committed another offence. Random testing is allowed in most EU countries, the only exceptions being the UK and Denmark.[43] In Australia and New Zealand, police frequently run enforcement campaigns where they pull over every driver (or one in every so many drivers) on a particular road for breath testing. Brake wants UK police to be given the resources and the powers to do the same in the UK. In 2004 the European Commission recommended that member states introduce random breath testing to complement enforcement based on suspicion, and ensure that random testing is regularly carried out in locations where and at times when drink driving is known to be common.

  In addition to ensuring sufficient numbers of random and targeted tests are carried out at the roadside, it is also crucial that evidential testing is carried out promptly following a driver being stopped. Brake therefore believes the Government should introduce portable evidential testing devices as soon as possible, so that drink and drug drivers do not have time to sober up before evidential testing is carried out.

August 2010






15   Reported Road Casualties in Great Britain: 2009 estimates for accidents involving illegal alcohol levels, Department for Transport, 2010 Back

16   Alcohol Consumption Impairs Detection of Performance Errors in Mediofrontal Cortex, The University of Leiden, 2002 Back

17   NICE Review of effectiveness of laws limiting blood alcohol concentration levels to reduce alcohol-related road injuries and deaths, 2010 Back

18   Fit to drive? Brake and Direct Line Report on Safe Driving Part Two, Brake, 2010 Back

19   Fit to drive? Brake and Direct Line Report on Safe Driving Part Two, Brake, 2010 Back

20   R Rafia, A Brennan, Modelling methods to estimate the potential impact of lowering the blood alcohol concentration limit from 80 mg/100 ml to 50 mg/100 ml in England and Wales, Report to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, 2010 Back

21   The Globe 2003 issue 2, Institute of Alcohol Studies, 2003 Back

22   Brooks C, Zaal D, Effects of a reduced alcohol limit for driving, Australia: Federal Office of Road Safety , 1993 Back

23   Populus survey of 20,417 AA members, February 2010 Back

24   Vehicle interlock programs: Protecting the community against the drunk driver, Marques, P R, Voas, R B, & Hodgins, D, Journal of Prevention and Intervention in the Community, 1998 Back

25   Drink Driving Recidivism Factsheet, European Transport Safety Council, December 2008 Back

26   Tunbridge, R J; Keigan, M; James, F J, The incidence of drugs and alcohol in road accident fatalities, TRL report 495, 2001 Back

27   Assum T, Mathijssen M P M, Houwing S, Buttress S C, Sexton B, Tunbridge R J and Oliver J, The prevalence of drug driving and relative risk estimations-a study conducted in The Netherlands, Norway and United Kingdom, IMMORTAL EU research project, 2005 Back

28   Cannabis Doubles the Risk of Fatal Crashes, New Scientist, 2 December 2005 Back

29   Drugs of abuse, driving and traffic safety, Utrecht University, Netherlands, March 2010 Back

30   Fit to drive? Brake and Direct Line Report on Safe Driving Part Two, Brake, 2010 Back

31   Road Casualties Great Britain 2008, Department for Transport 2009 Back

32   R Rafia, A Brennan, Modelling methods to estimate the potential impact of lowering the blood alcohol concentration limit from 80 mg/100 ml to 50 mg/100 ml in England and Wales, Report to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, 2010 Back

33   Peden M, World Report on Road Traffic Injury Prevention, World Health Organization, 2004 Back

34   The Globe 2003 issue 2, Institute of Alcohol Studies, 2003 Back

35   Random Breath Testing in New South Wales, published in The Promise of Crime Prevention: Leading Crime Prevention Programmes, Grabosky, P & James M, 1995 Back

36   RTA New South Wales, www.rta.nsw.gov.au Back

37   Motor Vehicle Crashes in New Zealand 2007 (NZ Ministry of Transport, 2008) Back

38   Roadside Testing Devices: an objective approach to enforcing drug-drive laws', Chief Superintendent Georg Bartel, Ministry of the Interior, North Rhine-Westfalia, Germany. Member of TISPOL's Working Group on Alcohol and Drugs. Brake international conference on Drink and Drug Driving, 2009 Back

39   World Report on Road Traffic Injury Prevention, World Health Organization, 2004 Back

40   Police Powers and Procedures, England and Wales 2008-09, Home Office, 2009 Back

41   SARTRE European drivers and road risk, Part 1. Report on principal report and analyses, INRETS, Arcueil, 2004. Back

42   J Henstridge, R Homel & P Mackay, The Long-Term Effects of Random Breath Testing in Four Australian States: A Time Series Analysis, Canberra: Federal Office of Road Safety, 1997 Back

43   Random Breath Testing Amendment to the Railways and Transport Safety Bill, PACTS, 2003 Back


 
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