New lower legal limit on the way?

There is a question mark over the government's intention to lower the drink drive limit. Despite all indications being that this would have overwhelming public support, reports state that there are divisions in the Cabinet, with the Prime Minister himself remaining unconvinced. Ministers questioning the lower limit cite the "nanny state" image and damage to country pubs as their main concerns.

This takes place against the backdrop of the consultation document, Combating Drink-Driving - Next Steps, recently issued by the Department of the Environment, Transport, and the Regions. The intention is to establish a long-term strategy to reduce road casualties and, notwithstanding the reported rifts among ministers, the Department sees tackling the problem of drink-drive accidents as central to this.

At the same time, the all-party House of Lords committee which considers proposals from the European Union has recommended that the drink-driving limit should be cut from 80 to 50 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood. The committee says that it has reached this decision "on balance". It feels that simply lowering the limit will have only marginal effect on the number of accidents and that the measure will only be effective if combined with severer penalties and determined enforcement which the committee describe as "by a long way" the best means of dealing with the drink-drive problem.

The government has identified three main problem areas:

hardened drink-drivers, in particular repeat offenders (around 12 per cent of offenders are convicted of a second offence within 10 years);
drivers who are not above the current limit, but nevertheless impaired (studies dating back to the 1960s show convincingly that impairment and the risk of a driver's involvement in a road accident begin, for most drivers, well below the current limit);
young men, particularly in their twenties, who are disproportionately involved in drink-drive accidents.

The government sees three main fronts on which these problems have to be met: improving enforcement; improving the system of offences and penalties; and education publicity and information.

Enforcement

One alternative being considered is the increasing of police breath-testing powers. At the moment the police need to establish reasonable grounds of suspicion when a driver has not been involved in an accident and does not appear to have committed a moving traffic offence, but drivers "who are skilful at concealing their impairment are therefore difficult to bring to book." The government is not minded to allow the police unfettered powers but considers that there may be a case "for allowing the police to require a breath test without prior suspicion if that power is used only for a specified period at a particular location."

As part of the drive to speed up criminal proceedings, it is hoped that the time taken in bringing drink-drive cases to court will be greatly reduced. Too often, there are long periods when an offender remains free to drive whilst awaiting trial.

50mg Limit

The document makes the point that "about 80 road users per year are killed in accidents where at least one driver had blood alcohol over 50mg but where no driver had blood alcohol over 80mg." The government thinks that at least 50 of these lives could be saved if the legal limit were reduced to 50mg "and enforced as efficiently as the current limit." The estimate is that, in addition, approximately 250 serious and 1200 slight injuries could be prevented.

Although the courts have a wide degree of discretion in imposing fines and custodial sentences, the law sets a minimum 12 month disqualification period for a drink-driving or drug-driving conviction. The government considers it a matter for debate "whether a virtually automatic 12 months disqualification can still be justified in the context of a 50mg limit, or whether there should be a shorter minimum period, or possibly penalty points only, for offences between 50mg and 80mg." Clarity, simplicity, and comprehensibility are the virtues of a single limit and a single penalty. Disqualification for a year is also a powerful deterrent. "On the other hand," the consultation document continues, "as the degree of risk is less in the 50-80mg range and the risks rise particularly sharply at around 80mg, there is some logic in a lesser penalty for offenders between 50 and 80mg." This latter course would be in line with practice in most European countries. "The Government would welcome views on whether, in the event of lowering the legal limit to 50mg: a) the current 12 months period of disqualification should be retained, or b) for offences in the 50-80mg range there should be a reduced period of disqualification, or even a lesser penalty such as a number of penalty points."

High-risk offenders are defined as those convicted with a level of 200mg or more, those in court on a second or subsequent charge, and those who refuse unreasonably to give a sample. Although the penalties are effectively tailored to these offenders at the moment (a maximum fine of £5,000 or 6 months imprisonment; an unlimited fine and 10 years, if a death is involved), the government intends to give more publicity to these sanctions in order to increase their deterrent value.

A lower legal limit for young or newly qualified drivers for a specific period after their test is being considered but, although this has been used in other countries, enforcement problems are foreseen.

Education

The government is anxious to improve the provision and dissemination of suitable educational material so that school children are made thoroughly aware of the dangers of drink-driving. At the same time, there is a commitment to find ways of making sure that drivers are better aware of the relative strength of drinks. Thanks to Health Education initiatives, and a hitherto voluntary scheme among producers, information on units of alcohol is becoming more widely available.

The government also wants to know what the public thinks about the self-testing breathalyser which is now marketed in the United Kingdom and is widely used in France. One problem with this is that drivers might be tempted to drink up to the limit rather than the point where they began to feel uneasy about using their cars.

Your views sought

The consultation paper is aimed not just at representative or special interest bodies but at members of the public. Combating Drink-Driving may be obtained from the Department at the address below:

Your views and suggestions should be sent by 8th May to:

P.H. Openshaw Road Safety Division Department of the Environment, Transport, and the Regions Zone 2/13, Great Minster House, 76 Marsham Street, London SW1P 4DR.

Email: road-safety.detr@gov.uk