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
| 
