Written evidence from the Association
of British Drivers (ABD) (DDD 19)
SUMMARY
— The ABD supports the advice that drivers
should not drink at all if they are planning to drive. Nevertheless,
it would not support a reduction in the legal blood alcohol level,
since there is little credible evidence that drivers with blood
alcohol concentrations in the 50-80 mg range pose a significant
risk. The greatest risk comes from drivers exceeding the current
limit by a substantial margin, so better enforcement of the existing
law would produce much greater safety dividends than reducing
the limit.
— A reduced limit would also result in
an increase in morning-after convictions, when drivers might be
slightly over the limit but show little sign of impairment. There
is evidence that impairment is less for a given blood alcohol
concentration when the level is falling than when it is rising.
Punishing otherwise responsible individuals for slightly exceeding
a lower limit in these circumstances could create resentment and
undermine the current support for drink driving legislation.
— If the legal limit were reduced, retaining
the mandatory disqualification for drivers with a blood alcohol
concentration between the new and old limits would be a disproportionate
punishment. A flexible system of penalties would need to be introduced,
as is the case in several other countries.
— The ABD recognises the difficulty of
tackling drug driving, when there are so many substances involved
and it may be hard to establish levels at which a driver becomes
unfit to drive. Nevertheless, fair enforcement has to be based
on impairment and the ABD would not support the creation of an
absolute offence of driving with any trace of an illegal drug
in the body, regardless of whether it affected a driver's ability.
Efforts should be concentrated on producing more effective tests
of impairment.
— A lower drink-drive limit could have
social and economic consequences for rural communities, with the
accelerating closure of public houses. More people could decide
to drink cheap alcohol at home, increasing alcohol consumption
overall.
— A reversal of the decline in police traffic
patrols is needed in order to deter those who are tempted to drive
while unfit through drink or drugs. There is no need for random
testing, as this would waste police resources that should be targeted
at those showing clear signs of impairment.
INTRODUCTION
1. The Association of British Drivers (ABD)
was formed in 1992 to campaign for a better deal for Britain's
motorists. The ABD believes that laws affecting drivers should
be reasonable and enforcement of them should be fair and proportionate.
2. The ABD is a voluntary organisation funded
by subscriptions and donations from its members and supporters.
It receives no funds from public bodies or large corporate donors,
so is truly independent. The ABD is a member of the Parliamentary
Advisory Council for Transport Safety and the National Council
of Voluntary Organisations.
3. Many of the ABD's active members are
from professional or managerial backgrounds. Malcolm Heymer, who
is submitting this evidence on behalf of the ABD, holds a master's
degree in Transportation Engineering and has over 30 years' local
government experience in the fields of transportation modelling,
highway engineering, transport planning and traffic engineering.
Mr Heymer is willing to give oral evidence to the Committee if
requested.
4. The following sections of this submission
address the questions raised in the call for evidence as a result
of Sir Peter North's report.
PERMITTED BLOOD-ALCOHOL
LIMIT FOR
DRIVING
5. The ABD believes that the current limit
of 80 mg of alcohol per 100 ml of blood is the best compromise
between deterring irresponsible behaviour and unnecessarily penalising
drivers who present a very low risk. The ABD does not condone
drinking and driving, and supports the advice that ideally drivers
should not drink at all if they plan to drive. The ABD opposes
a reduction in the legal limit, however, partly because it would
cause more responsible drivers to fall into the morning-after
trap. The current limit also has widespread support, with little
sympathy for those caught in excess of it. This could change if
the limit were reduced.
6. In November 2008 the Department for Transport
published a consultation on road safety compliance, which included
a section on drink driving. Table 3.2 of the consultation paper
(reproduced below) showed that just 1% of drivers and riders killed
in road accidents had a blood-alcohol concentration (BAC) in the
range 50-80 mg. The figure was 2% in the range 80-100 mg and rose
substantially at higher levels. The fact that a driver had some
alcohol in their system does not necessarily mean that this was
the cause of their accident, since they could have been the innocent
victim of another road user's error or bad driving. There is always
more than one contributory factor in any accident.
Table 3.2
PERCENTAGE EXCEEDING VARIOUS BLOOD ALCOHOL
LEVELS; AND PROPORTION OF FATALITIES EXCEEDING 80 ML/100ML BY
TIME OF DAY
| Percentage blood alcohol levels (mg/100ml) in each band
| | | |
| | | Percentage over 80mg/100ml at time shown
|
| 200+ | 150-
200
| 100-
150 | 80-
100
| 50-
80 | Sample
size
| 22:00-
03:59 | 04:00-
21:59
|
Motorcycle riders | 4
| 5 | 2 | 1 |
1 | 447 | 40 | 9
|
| Cumulative | 4 | 9
| 11 | 13 | 14 |
| | |
| Other vehicle drivers | 11 |
8 | 6 | 2 | 1
| 848 | 53 | 17
|
| Cumulative | 11 | 19
| 25 | 26 | 28 |
| | |
| |
| | | |
| | |
7. In February 1998 the former Department of the Environment,
Transport and the Regions (DETR) published a consultation document
on combating drink driving. In Annex 1 to that consultation, reference
was made to roadside surveys conducted at various sites around
Britain between 1988 and 1990. These showed that 2.3% of drivers
tested (ie a sample of all drivers, not just those suspected of
drinking) had a BAC in the 40-80 mg range. Reference was also
made to a study of road accident victims attending the John Radcliffe
Hospital, Oxford, during the same period. This showed that 2.1%
of drivers treated had a BAC in the 50-80 mg range. These figures
suggest that the proportion of drivers involved in accidents with
a BAC level between 50 and 80 mg is much the same as that of the
driving population as a whole, indicating that there is no perceptible
increase in risk at this BAC level.
8. Since Table 3.2 shows rapidly growing percentages
of drivers killed as BAC levels exceed 100 mg, there can be little
doubt that alcohol is more likely to be the main contributory
factor as BAC levels rise. The figures given in the earlier DETR
consultation suggest there would be a negligible impact on accidents
if the limit were reduced to 50 mg. The main problem is clearly
caused by those who exceed the current limit by a substantial
margin, so this is where action should be targeted.
9. The North Report (paragraphs 3.29 to 3.32) claims
very high increases in the risk of being involved in a fatal accident
at BAC levels well below the current legal limit: three times
greater for a BAC in the 20-50 mg range compared with a driver
with no alcohol and six times greater in the 50-80 mg range. These
figures are derived from a 1991 study by the Transport Research
Laboratory (TRL 232). As recognised in the North Report, this
study had its limitations and was much smaller than the "Grand
Rapids" 1964 study on which the current legal limit of 80
mg per 100 ml of blood was based. The latter showed a risk increase
of no more than 1.5 times at the 80 mg level.
10. The very high risk factors quoted in the North Report
are at odds with reported BAC levels in fatal accidents and are
intuitively not credible, otherwise moderate drinkers would be
more heavily represented in the accident figures. In practice,
most responsible drivers do not attempt to drink up to the BAC
limit, as they have no way of measuring their BAC and there are
so many unknowns that affect the way an individual absorbs and
processes alcohol. Consequently they leave a wide margin for error.
11. A lower limit would make responsible drivers more
vulnerable to the morning-after trap, when they have avoided driving
while drinking the night before but could still be over the limit
the following day. There is evidence that, for a given BAC, a
driver is more impaired when the level is rising than when it
is falling. The following comes from Loosening the Grip: A
handbook of alcohol information by Kinney and Leaton (ISBN
0-8016-2769-9, page 42 in the 1991 edition):
"The neurophysiological basis for intoxication is not
fully understood, but the intensity of the effect is directly
related to the concentration of alcohol in the blood, and hence
the brain. The degree of intoxication is also dependent on whether
the blood alcohol level is rising, falling, or constant. It is
known that the central nervous system and behavioural effects
of a given blood alcohol concentration (BAC) are greater when
it is rising. This is called the Mellanby effect. It is
as if there were a small `practice effect' or short-term adaptation
by the nervous system to alcohol's presence. Thus for a given
blood alcohol level, there is more impairment if the blood level
is rising than is found with the same BAC when the level of alcohol
in the blood is falling."
12. Consequently, a driver might feel, and be, safe to
drive the next morning while still having an illegal level of
alcohol in their blood. Drivers prosecuted for having a BAC in
the 50-80 mg range in these circumstances might feel they have
been treated unjustly, and this could weaken support for the drink-driving
laws. While no fixed limit for BAC can ever exactly match the
level at which significant impairment begins in different individuals,
the current limit has the virtue of being based on a large-scale
study in the 1960s and is generally accepted as reasonable. This
is important and the current limit should not be reduced unless
strong evidence emerges that a lower limit would prevent a significant
number of accidents. No credible evidence to that effect appears
to exist at present.
PUNISHMENT OF
DRIVERS WITH
LOW BLOOD-ALCOHOL
LEVELS
13. If the blood alcohol limit were reduced, which the
ABD hopes will not happen, it would certainly be necessary to
impose a lower penalty for drivers in the 50-80 mg range. Removal
of the mandatory driving ban would be essential to avoid unduly
harsh penalties for those representing very little risk. If the
current mandatory one-year ban were retained for drivers with
a BAC in this range, it would be disproportionate and at odds
with the practice in most other European countries. The law could
quickly fall into disrepute.
14. Some other countries operate a sliding scale of penalties
according to the degree to which a driver exceeds the legal alcohol
limit. This more flexible approach would be beneficial in the
UK, especially if the blood alcohol limit were lowered. It is
right that extreme offenders should be treated severely, but those
posing little risk should face lower penalties.
THE PROBLEM
OF DRUG
DRIVING
15. The ABD accepts that drug driving is a more difficult
problem to tackle than drink driving, since many substances, both
legal and illegal, may be involved and taken singly or in combination.
The existing law may be difficult to enforce, therefore, on the
basis of subjective tests of impairment.
16. It would not be acceptable, however, in the interests
of securing easy convictions, to introduce a law that made it
an absolute offence to drive with any trace whatsoever of an illegal
drug, if there was no evidence of actual or likely impairment
at the measured blood level. Traces of some drugs, notably cannabis,
can be detected long after any impairment effects have disappeared.
While the use of illegal drugs should be discouraged, this worthy
aim must not be pursued by punishing drivers who are not causing
actual danger.
17. Given the speed with which new "designer"
drugs can be developed, a list of proscribed drugs will quickly
become out of date. Efforts should be concentrated, therefore,
on developing better ways of assessing impairment at the roadside
or in a police station to enable those who present a real danger
to be dealt with effectively.
COSTS AND
BENEFITS OF
CHANGES TO
DRINK AND
DRUG DRIVING
LAW
18. As explained above, the ABD considers there would
be very little benefit from a reduction in the legal blood-alcohol
level for driving, since it would be unlikely to have a significant
effect on casualties. It would, however, be likely to lead to
more convictions of responsible individuals caught in the morning-after
trap, which would cause resentment and bring the law into disrepute.
19. The wider implications would most probably include
an accelerated rate of closure of public houses in rural areas,
with detrimental economic and social consequences for those communities.
Paradoxically, rather than reduce drinking overall, a lower limit
could cause more people to stay at home and drink cheap alcohol
from supermarkets rather than drink responsibly in the more controlled
environment of public houses.
20. The development of better impairment tests for drivers
suspected of drug-driving could help address this apparently growing
problem, especially among the young. The creation of new, absolute
offences, however, could lead to needless and unfair prosecutions,
undermining respect for the law.
IMPLICATIONS FOR
ENFORCEMENT
21. Whether drink and drug laws are changed or not, there
needs to be a sufficient police presence on the roads to act as
a deterrent, which is more important than detecting offences once
they are committed. The ABD believes the police have adequate
powers to stop anyone they suspect of drink or drug driving, so
there is no need for a specific power to carry out random testing.
Indeed, if random testing were allowed, it is likely that police
resources would be wasted in carrying out tests on innocent drivers
when they should be targeting those showing clear signs of impairment.
22. Police patrols have been reduced in many parts of
the country in recent years, as the number of speed cameras has
increased. Cameras cannot, of course, detect drink or drug driving
(or many other driving offences), so there is an increased perception
by those tempted to flout the law that they are unlikely to be
apprehended. With the current constraints on public spending,
it is increasingly important that available resources are targeted
to greatest effect. There are welcome signs that many local authorities
are reducing their expenditure on camera enforcement, which has
mainly detected technical offences, so it is to be hoped that
the tide is turning in favour of a greater police presence to
tackle behaviour that is actually dangerous.
August 2010
| 
