Drink and Drug Driving
New Government to lower drink drive limit?...

The Baroness Hayman, the Minister for Roads, has left the new Government's options open in regard to lowering the legal drink drive limit. The Minister said that lowering the limit was one of the options the Government was considering and that it would listen carefully to the experts. However, aspirations had to be tempered with realism especially in regard to public attitudes and perceptions.

Speaking at a Portman Group conference to launch the publication of a new report on drink driving, 'Which Way Forward?', the Baroness said that while reducing the limit to 50mg% could have benefits, there were also some potential drawbacks.

There was the question of the extra police resources that might be required to enforce a lower limit; the danger of prosecuting relatively minor cases at the expense of dealing with the `hard core' of drink drivers who ignore the existing limit, and also the question of how the public would react to drivers facing severe penalties for offences at lower alcohol levels. It might be necessary to introduce less severe penalties for offences between 50 and 80mg%.

The Baroness also noted that the great reduction in alcohol-related casualties over the last 10 to 15 years had occurred without any reduction in the legal limit. However, she confirmed that in recent years the improvement had stalled. Drink-related casualties had risen in 1995, and while the 1996 figures (not yet published) showed a small improvement, the casualties were still higher than in 1993 and 1994.

Also speaking at the conference, Assistant Commissioner Paul Manning, Secretary of the Traffic Committee of the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), confirmed that the police wish to see a lower (50mg%) legal limit and increased police breath testing powers. By refusing to introduce these measures, Mr. Manning said, the previous (Conservative) Government had simply got it wrong.

The Report `Which Way Forward?', a review of drink driving countermeasures in selected countries, was written for the Portman Group by Dr. Andrew Clayton, Executive Director of the British Institute of Traffic Education Research. The report, and the Portman Group's response to it, suggests that at least some sections of the alcohol industry have softened their opposition to further legal measures against drinking and driving.

At the conference, Portman Group officials stated that the Group is no longer opposed to a 50mg% limit for driving. Rather its position now appears to reflect the conclusion of the Clayton report that reducing the limit to 50mg% would have only limited beneficial effect unless accompanied by other measures. These are specified as more police powers to identify and apprehend suspected drink drivers; tougher sentences such as immediate licence suspension and confiscation of cars belonging to convicted drink drivers; expansion of rehabilitation programmes for offenders and the use of breath alcohol ignition interlock devices.

However, it is understood that one of the Portman Group's member companies criticised the Group for not positively supporting demands for a lower legal limit on the grounds that as a lower limit is probably going to be introduced anyway, it would be better for the industry to be seen to be in willing rather than reluctant support or opposition.

...drivers to face drug tests...

Drivers may be asked to take roadside drug tests, possibly at the same time as alcohol breath tests under proposals being drawn up by the police and the transport department. The plan comes in response to government research which confirms a dramatic rise in the number of fatal road accident victims who test positive for illicit drugs. The illicit drug found most frequently is cannabis.

Preliminary results of the research into drug taking by road accident victims, including drivers, passengers, riders and pedestrians, indicate that compared with 10 years ago illicit drug

taking has increased four-fold and that an increasing number of victims are taking more than one kind of illicit drug. The presence of medicinal drugs in fatal accident victims is more or less the same, and the presence of alcohol has fallen substantially in the last 10 years. Nonetheless, alcohol remains the bigger problem.

Overall, the preliminary results show that a quarter of car drivers killed in road traffic accidents are found to have traces of illicit or medicinal drugs in their bodies. However, the figures do not show how many of the fatalities were caused by drug-taking. Cannabis remains in the bloodstream for up to 4 weeks after it has been taken by regular users, whereas its effect on driving is probably limited to at most 24 hours after it is taken. So far, no case has been found involving the use of cocaine or LSD, and there is little evidence of use of amphetamines including ecstasy. In contrast, opiates and methadone, which were hardly in evidence 10 years ago, do now appear to be a problem.

Commenting on the results, Roads Minister Baroness Hayman said that while the figures were only preliminary they were worrying. She continued: "The Government has announced its intention to appoint a `drugs czar' to lead the fight against drugs. These emerging findings are among the issues the appointee will address. We are co-operating with the police in developing a roadside screening device for drugs (and we) have discussed with police how best to enhance their ability to detect drug use by drivers."

The RAC welcomed the prospect of drug screening: "Drug-taking among young motorists, especially those going to raves, has reached epidemic proportions. It is a much bigger problem than people realise. The message is as important as the enforcement. A high-profile pilot campaign will help send the message."

The RAC's own research indicates that 85% of young motorists consider drug-driving to be common among their age group, and 96% of motorists want it to be made illegal.

The British Medical Association has also called for drug testing of, for example, drivers involved in accidents, although the BMA noted the problem that it is currently impossible to correlate blood or urine levels of some drugs with impairment of driving ability, as can be done with alcohol. The BMA also noted the problem of prescribed as well as illicit drugs.

Reportedly, one possibility is that Transport Department officials will recommend that Britain follows Germany in testing a skin wipe that can detect four classes of drugs: opiates, cocaine, amphetamines and cannabis. The present plan is that the wipe, which is cigar-sized and costs about £10, would be administered at the roadside if a driver appeared to be impaired but tested negative for alcohol. The device, manufactured by Securetec of Munich, is already on trial in Britain with customs officers. As with the breath test, a positive result would be followed up by the taking of a blood or urine sample at a police station.

...Great Britain road deaths and serious injuries fall to new low...

There were 3,598 deaths in personal injury road accidents in Great Britain during 1996, the lowest annual figure since records began in 1926. This compares with 3,621 deaths recorded in 1995. There were 44,473 serious injuries and 272,231 slight injuries, down 2 per cent and up 4 per cent respectively on 1995 levels. Road traffic rose by 3 per cent and the overall casualty rate by distance travelled rose 1 per cent.

Fatalities are now 36 per cent below the 1981-85 baseline average. Serious injuries are 40 per cent below, whilst slight injuries are 13 per cent above. All casualties, 320,302, are now 1 per cent below the baseline average and total traffic has increased by 50 per cent during this period.

...Zero limit for young drivers a success...

Some jurisdictions have introduced a differential lower, or zero, drink drive limit for newly qualified drivers. The idea has been opposed by some, on the basis that a lower limit, and especially, a zero limit may be interpreted by youngsters as giving the message that it is acceptable to drink (more) and drive later on in their driving career. However, the evidence suggests that this objection may be misplaced.

An evaluation of the `graduated' licensing system introduced in Ontario, Canada in 1994, suggests that it has cut the proportion of young male drink drivers by over 20%. The new system imposes a zero alcohol limit on new drivers for the first two years after qualification; avoiding major motorways, drive only during the day and be accompanied by a fully qualified and experienced driver.

Before the system was introduced, 23.2% of young male drivers reported driving after drinking: two years after the new system came into operation, the figure was down to 17.9%. There was no significant drop in relation to young women drivers.

Addiction Research Foundation researcher Bob Mann believes the figures show the graduated licensing system is having a general deterrent effect, and that many young men are changing their behaviour to conform to the new requirements. It appears it is not just drinking behaviour which has changed. Following the introduction of the new system there seems to be fewer new drivers. The implication being that some youngsters have delayed obtaining a driving licence

In New Zealand, the first country to introduce graduated licensing, deaths among 15-17 year old drivers and their passengers fell by around 25% during the first two years of the programme. The Canadians are hoping for a similar impact.