Written evidence from The Automobile Association
(AA) (DDD 29)
SUMMARY
The AA is delighted that the Transport Committee
has decided to look at this important area of road safety law
and practice. We welcomed the North review and would support the
introduction of the vast majority of its recommendations.
The AA would support a cut in the drink drive
limit from the current 80mg/100 millilitres of blood to 50 mg/100
millilitres of blood. We would also welcome wider powers to conduct
breath tests.
Retention of the existing minimum penalty of
one year's disqualification is supported by AA members and would
be supported by the AA. Consequential changes should be made to
the "sliding scale" of penalties that exists above this
minimum.
Drugs and driving are a major concern, even
though the scale of the problem is not well understood. Steps
need to be taken to improve this understanding. At the same time
there is no doubt that drug driving is costing lives, and that
the difficulty and complexity of enforcement is hindering adequate
deterrence.
There is scope for using modern technology to
assist enforcement of drug driving law. The ideal road safety
law is based on proven impairment of driving and the AA would
favour a system that was based on impairment. However dealing
with the issue may mean that a less desirable system based on
the presence of drugs is necessary to save lives on the road.
The AA has long been concerned at the low level
of traffic enforcement. Being seen to realistically tackle drug
driving must require more resources, and the reduction of the
legal alcohol limit will also require this. If enforcement concentrates
on enforcing the law on those between 50 and 80, and the drug
driving law, it could make high level offenders less likely to
be caught and reduce deterrence among this, the most dangerous
group. At the moment there are some indications that the future
will see less, rather than more police activity and if this is
the case there may be little scope for changing the existing law
while maintaining pressure on the most high risk group
Should the permitted blood alcohol limit be reduced
as proposed?
The AA supports a reduction.
66 % of respondents to an AA Populus poll thought
this should be the case. The sample size for that poll (in April/May
2008) was 17,481. Expert opinion is also convinced that this would
lead to a significant reduction in drink drive deaths—the
North Review suggesting between 43 and 168 in the first year after
a change, rising to over 300 by year six.
However, we continue to be concerned that there
is a major problem with those that totally disregard and drive
way above the current limit. This "hard-core" are disproportionately
represented in drink drive casualties and therefore should be
targeted as a priority. We also support the wider use of drink
drive re-habilitation courses and medical interventions to target
those with drink problems.
There has to be a concern about the level of
resources available to the police to enforce any new legal limit
and to create an atmosphere where drivers exceeding the new limit
feel at risk of apprehension. This must be done at the same time
as continuing to catch and deter the hard core drink drivers responsible
for so much of the current problem. It can be argued that hand
held mobile phone use continues because drivers do not feel at
risk of apprehension, and it is vital that changing the drink
drive law does not lead to drivers thinking the same way. If it
does there is again the risk that higher risk drivers will also
feel a reduction in the risk of being caught.
It does not seem that, in the current economic
circumstances, police will be able to increase drink drive enforcement
resources—in fact there is a risk that they may be reduced.
If this is the case careful consideration will have to be given
to the timing of a reduction in the limit to ensure that over-the-new-limit
drivers do feel at risk of apprehension and that this perception
is not gained at the expense of enforcement against high risk
drink drivers
The AA does not favour further reductions in
the legal limit for specific groups of drivers (young, vocational)
in the short term. If the overall limit is to be cut the accompanying
publicity needs to be clear and introducing different limits would
confuse this. Lower limits for vocational drivers and novice drivers
should be considered in the longer term, but vocational driving
limits should only apply when they are using vehicles that need
vocational licences, not their private cars.
The main message to drivers about the 50 limit
would have to be about driving after drinking. Lower limits would
need the message to major on how long would have to elapse after
drinking before driving. It would be hard to communicate both
messages together.
If so, is the mandatory one year driving ban appropriate
for less severe offenders, at the new (lower) level?
Knowing that differential penalties are used
abroad, and to some extent in the UK the AA has considered this
carefully. Members opinions were sought at the time of the 1998
consultation on reducing the legal limit, and these suggested
that the minimum penalty should remain the same.
At the request of the North Review, the February
2010 AA/Populus study included the question:
The current blood-alcohol limit for drivers
is 80 milligrammes in 100 millilitres of blood. Those caught driving
with alcohol levels above this limit are banned from driving for
12 months.
If the limit was reduced to 50 milligrammes
in 100 millilitres of blood, should there be…?
The headline results are in the table below:
| | |
| A lower disqualification period of six months
| 3,550 | 17 |
| The same disqualification period of 12 months
| 9,916 | 49 |
| A higher disqualification period of more than 12 months
| 3,062 | 15 |
| No disqualification, but penalty points instead
| 2,641 | 13 |
| I don't know | 1,206 | 6
|
| | |
| There were 20,129 respondents. |
| |
| |
|
This confirms the AA's view that breaking the drink drive
law should result in disqualification with only 13% voting for
a lesser penalty. With 64% voting for disqualification for at
least as long under the new law as under the old, the AA would
support the retention of the minimum one year disqualification
for this offence. We would also accept a corresponding increase
in the length of disqualifications on the magistrates' sliding
scale to reflect higher alcohol levels.
Generally public opinion supports tougher penalties against
drink drivers. Whether this is because of the public's abhorrence
of drink driving, or because the vast majority of those that take
part in surveys cannot see themselves drinking and driving, is
open to debate.
How severe is the problem of drug driving and what should be
done to address it?
The true magnitude of the drug driving problem is hard to
establish and there is a great need for it to be better quantified.
Some steps to do this would be relatively simple. Random roadside
research to establish the prevalence of drug driving could be
carried out, as it was for alcohol in the 80s and 90s. Coroners
should be asked to test all people killed on the roads for drugs.
Once the magnitude of the problem had been established it
would be much easier to discuss whether there is a need to change
the law or even the principles of road safety law because of the
need to take swift action against drug drivers. Certainly there
is public support for allowing the police to stop drivers to test
for drugs and drink at any time and the AA would support such
a change. But it seems a more drastic change is needed.
Procedurally the present system is difficult and tends to
discourage use. A "legal limit" approach would be ideal,
but may not be feasible, especially not in the short—to
medium—term. In the interim there seem good arguments that
failing a field impairment test, and testing positive for drugs
should amount to proof of an offence. It should be possible for
saliva testing machines to be used to test for the presence of
drugs. If any type of medical practitioner (doctor, nurse) is
involved in the testing perhaps their view on impairment could
be used to corroborate that of the officer conducting the field
impairment test. More thought also needs to be given to people
who look impaired but pass breath tests—this could be a
sign that both drugs and drink have been taken.
Also in the short term, more training of more police officers
in the field impairment test is necessary. Confidence in the field
impairment test among the police is vital, and more training develops
this confidence. Police officers who are not confident with the
test are less likely to use it.
In the long term there is a necessity for a "legal limit"
approach, as used with drink, to be adopted. It would make enforcement
more effective by streamlining the procedure by which drivers
could be convicted. There would be many difficulties, not least
in setting the different levels for different drugs, and measuring
when it was exceeded. One of the questions is whether the limit
should be one where impairment can be proved (as with drink) or
a zero limit, making it an offence to drive with any illegal substance
in the body regardless of impairment. The second option is acceptable
to 75% of members (although 100% favour a rule that includes impairment)
but becomes problematic when it is accepted that there are drugs
that leave traces in the body days or even weeks after its impairing
effects have worn off.
At the moment the basic principle of motoring law is that
it tackles behaviour that has been shown to make a collision more
likely to happen. Moving to a zero limit for drugs would not do
this, and the AA feels that this would be a major change that
should not be taken lightly.
While the AA believes that road safety measures should be
applied in proportion to the problem, there is an argument that
drug driving, although unquantified, needs more enforcement effort
than there is at the moment. Some of this is due to there not
being enough police officers to enforce the law properly. But
much is down to the difficulty of enforcing the law.
As is the case with drink driving there will be a need for
the existing "impairment" law to remain even if a legal
limit approach is used. It will be needed to deal with medicinal
drugs.
What wider costs and benefits are likely to result from changes
to drink and drug driving law?
The AA can really only ask questions about health effects
and those on wider aspects of life. Among these are:
— Could it lead to a cut in alcohol consumption and
benefits to health? Could it deter more people from use of drugs?
— Could it push people who currently use cannabis (which
can remain in the body for a long time) into using "harder"
drugs (which remain in the body for a shorter period)?
— Will more social drinkers walk or get lifts and drink
more, increasing the alcohol problem?
— Many pubs are rural and do rely on people driving
to them. Many village dwellers may be keen to see tougher rules
on drinking drivers, but they may be more concerned about the
risk of their village pub closing.
— Are more people who live in urban areas concerned
about personal safety and antisocial behaviour near home and may
therefore not walk, again damaging the pub industry?
— Will more people drink more at home?
What would be the implications of such changes for enforcement?
Recent years appear to have confirmed the view that there
is a relationship between increased enforcement effort and reduced
drink drive deaths.
As has already been stated, the AA believes that there will
be problems if a lower drink driving limit is not introduced in
conjunction with a major enforcement initiative which convinces
people that those breaking the new law will be caught. At the
same time any such campaign must not diminish the pressure on
those who break the current law. While lack of enforcement seems
to have allowed substantial numbers of drivers to ignore the mobile
phone law, this cannot be allowed to be the case for the drink
driving law, where there is a risk that non compliance with the
lower limit could spread to non compliance with the law as a whole.
Similarly, a new drug driving law will need high profile
enforcement. A tougher law will be no use if drug drivers do not
believe they will be caught. Again the police will need to devote
more resources to road policing during the early stages of the
law and again the penalty for not doing so may be the existence
of a law that is not respected.
Currently it looks doubtful whether road policing will be
maintained at present levels in coming years, and there seems
little hope of more resources becoming available. This poses a
major obstacle to creating a tougher framework for the laws surrounding
impaired driving.
ADDITIONAL POINTS
Disqualification is the main penalty for both forms of impaired
driving. At the moment annual findings of guilt for driving while
disqualified currently run at about one quarter of the number
of drivers disqualified. Drivers should not be able to dodge their
punishment and severe penalties are needed for those who try.
An AA Populus poll showed that 66% of respondents found acceptable
the immediate disqualification of drivers who failed an evidential
breath test, even before they appeared in court. The AA would
therefore be happy with a similar change.
The AA would also be happy with the removal of the option
to take a blood test. However care must be taken to ensure that
changes to the way breath testing is conducted can be carried
out without compromising public confidence, especially as powers
already exist for the introduction of evidential testing at the
roadside. Some back up system is necessary at times of change
to retain public confidence.
Increased enforcement of the drug driving laws will require
the development of a parallel scheme to the high risk offenders
scheme used for drink drivers, especially for repeat offenders.
It would not be right if repeat drug offenders did not have to
follow a similar procedure to repeat drink offenders.
August 2010
| 
