| |
In What Ways Does Alcohol Affect Driving Skills?
After drinking, the brain works inefficiently, taking longer to
receive messages from the eye; processing information becomes more
difficult and instructions to the muscles are delayed. Alcohol can
slow down reaction time by 10 to 30 per cent. It also reduces ability
to perform two or more tasks at the same time. Alcohol reduces the
ability to see distant objects and night vision can be reduced by
25 per cent. Blurred and double vision can also occur. Ability to
perceive what is happening at the roadside is weakened. Loss of
peripheral vision could be crucial. Alcohol may also create a sense
of overconfidence, with the result that people are prepared to take
greater risks.
Even when sober, young drivers and riders are more accident prone
than older, more experienced drivers. Their lower tolerance to alcohol
further increases their accident risk. The vulnerability of a young
person to the effects of alcohol is shown by the lower average blood
alcohol levels of young drink driving offenders compared with older
offenders. The same pattern is found in drivers who are killed.
For young people accident risk increases after one drink; after
two it doubles and after five it can have increased ten fold.
The Legal Limit for Driving
The legal blood alcohol limit for driving is 80 milligrammes of
alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood (80mg%) equivalent to 35 microgrammes
of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath, or 107 milligrammes of
alcohol in 100 millilitres of urine. However, prosecution guidelines
followed by police services mean that in practice drivers are not
normally prosecuted until they reach 40 microgrammes of alcohol
per 100 millilitres of breath, equivalent to over 90 mg%. Before
its election and again in 1998, the UK Government announced that
it intended to reduce the legal limit to 50mg% and this proposal
was put out for consultation. The police, virtually the whole road
safety community and public opinion all favoured lowering the limit.
In March 2000, the Government announced that it had decided not
to lower the limit, giving as the reason awaiting possible moves
to harmonise drink drive limits in the European Union. In reality,
the Government simply bowed to pressure from the alcohol industry
Drink Drive Limits in the European Union
| |
|
Limit
mg% |
| Austria
|
50
|
| Belgium |
50
|
| Bulgaria |
50
|
| Cyprus |
90
|
| Czech
Republic |
0
|
| Denmark |
50
|
| Estonia |
20
|
| Finland |
50
|
| France* |
50
|
| Germany |
50
|
| Greece |
50
|
| Hungary |
0
|
| Ireland |
80
|
| Italy* |
50
|
| Latvia |
50
|
| Lithuania |
40
|
| Luxembourg |
80
|
| Malta |
80
|
| Netherlands |
50
|
| Poland |
20
|
| Portugal |
50
|
| Romania |
0
|
| Slovakia |
0
|
| Slovenia |
50
|
| Spain** |
50
|
| Sweden |
20
|
| UK |
80
|
|
|
*With
effect from 1 July 2002
*20 for drivers of buses and coaches
**From January 1999, 50 for car drivers and 30 for drivers of
heavy goods vehicles and public transport vehicles.
Alcohol
involvement in fatal crashes in a number of European countries.
 
Who
Are The Drink Drivers?
More than 9 out of 10 of those convicted are male. Under 21s account
for around 10 per cent of convictions. The peak age for becoming
a ‘high risk offender’ is 27; relatively few people become high-risk
offenders after the age of 45. Young male manual workers (or unemployed)
who drink beer in pubs have been identified as one high-risk group,
but so have older professional/managerial men.
Approximately half of convicted drink drivers have blood alcohol
levels in excess of 150mg%. Around 12 per cent of convicted drink
drivers are convicted of a second offence within ten years.7
Drink drive accidents can be caused by drivers of all ages, but
the highest rates of drink drive accidents per 100,000 licence
holders occur in young men aged up to 34, particularly the age
group 20-24.
52% of convicted drink drivers are aged under 33, but the average
age of drink drive offenders is higher than that of other serious
traffic offenders. 8 40% of convicted drink drivers have previous
convictions for other types of offences, and drink drivers are
twice as likely to have a criminal record as a member of the general
population of the same age and gender.
A 1990 roadside survey found that 0.3 per cent of 16-19 year olds
were over the legal limit compared with 0.8 per cent of 20-24
year olds. The breath test failure rate in 1996 among drivers
tested following injury accidents was 3.5 per cent for under 20s
and 5 per cent for 20- 24 year olds.
Between 1986 and 1995 the average percentage of drivers killed
in accidents who were over the legal limit was 14.9 per cent among
16-19 year olds and 28.6 per cent among 20-24 year olds.
These findings suggest that the drink drive problem is greater
among those in their early to mid-twenties than among the youngest
drivers. However, when the mileage driven is also taken into account
it is found that drivers aged 17-19 have 24 drink drive injury
accidents per 100 million miles driven, whereas for 20-24 year
olds the rate is 16 per 100 million miles. The higher rate among
17-19 year olds presumably reflects the fact that this age group
has a higher involvement in accidents of all kinds.
Persons
convicted of drinking and driving in England, Wales and Scotland
Car
drivers in road injury accidents:
Accidents per licence holder and per mile driven: GB 2004
Prevalence of Drink Driving
1. Tracking Surveys
Surveys tracking the effect of the Government anti-drink drive
campaign have found: In 1979, 51 per cent admitted to drinking
and driving on at least one occasion during the previous week.
By 1997 this had dropped to 23 per cent. Over the same period,
among those who reported six or more drinks on at least one occasion
in the previous week, the proportion who admitted to driving afterwards
fell from 15 per cent to 4 per cent.
2. Roadside Surveys
Roadside surveys conducted in two areas of England in 1988 during
the traditional drinking hours of 10pm-3am found alcohol present
in 17.3 per cent of drivers, around 5 per cent of them being above
50 mg%, 1.7 per cent being over 80 mg% and 0.2 per cent being
more than 160 mg%.
Subsequently in 1990, further roadside surveys were carried out
between 7pm and 2am at weekends in 10 areas of England and Wales.
In total, around 13,500 drivers were breath tested, 3.2 per cent
were found to be over half the legal limit and 1 per cent were
over the legal limit.
3. England and Wales:
A survey carried out in England and Wales for the Home Office
in 200211, found:
• Nearly half (44%) of all drivers in the Omnibus Survey had driven
after drinking some amount of alcohol in the previous year. One
in eight drivers (12%) had driven after drinking what they believed
was an ‘over the limit’ amount of alcohol in the previous year.
• Young men were the most likely to believe they had driven whilst
‘over the limit’. Over one quarter of 16- to 29-year-olds admitted
to driving whilst ‘over the limit’ in the previous year. Frequent
drinkers were also more likely to have driven whilst ‘over the
limit’.
• One in eight (13%) of all respondents (drivers and non-drivers)
had been a passenger when they thought the driver was ‘over the
limit’ in the previous year.
4. Driving and Other Drugs
There is a growing problem of drivers and other road users being
under the influence of drugs other than alcohol, both medicinal
and illicit.
A study of fatally injured drivers, riders, passengers and pedestrians
detected at least one medicinal or illicit drug in 24% of the
sample. Alcohol was present in 31.5% of the sample, 21.5% being
over the present legal limit for driving. Whereas the incidence
of alcohol in road accident fatalities had reduced from 35% ten
years earlier, the incidence of drugs had increased threefold.
11.7% of the fatal casualties tested positive for a single drug,
6.3% for multiple drug presence.
In males, the majority of drug use was in those aged under 40,
in women in those aged 40 and over. This reflected a difference
in the type of drug consumed – a higher incidence of illicit drugs
being found in males, and medicinal drugs in females. Drug use
was highest (38.5%) among fatalities reported as being unemployed,
this group having a particularly high incidence of cannabis and
multiple drug use
Alcohol and Drug Use in Fatal Casualties
Illicit and Medicinal Drugs Only 17.2%
Drugs and Alcohol (over the legal limit)
4.1%
Drugs and Alcohol (under the legal limit)
2.7%
Alcohol Only (over the legal limit)
17.4%
Alcohol Only (under the legal limit) 7.3%
Alcohol Only (under the legal limit)
51.2%
Deaths below the current (80mg%) limit
The Department of Transport stated in 1998 that drinking by drivers
with blood alcohol levels of between 50mg% and 80mg% was a significant
but largely hidden cause of accidents. The Department estimated
that around 80 road deaths a year were attributable to blood alcohol
levels between 50mg% and 80mg%.14
On average, there are 200 - 300 road deaths each year associated
with blood alcohol levels between 10 - 80mg%.(2) An estimate does
not appear to have been provided of the number of injuries associated
with blood alcohol levels below the present limit.
Blood alcohol concentration information is only available for
two-thirds of cases in which a driver was killed.
When Does It Occur?
During the hours of 10pm to 4am, about half of drivers and riders
killed are above the legal limit. During Friday and Saturday nights
this proportion rises to 60 percent. The number of drink drive
accidents is highest in July and August, followed by over the
Christmas and New Year period. At weekends during these periods,
the proportion is 60 per cent.
Counter Measures
• Anti Drink-Drive Publicity Campaigns
The first Government anti-drink drive campaign was launched in
1967 and was an attempt to promote the introduction of breath-testing.
Campaigns then ended until 1975 because of lack of funding.
Department of Transport officials believe that recent advertising
campaigns have been effective in reducing casualties. They point
to a large drop in 1987 when the slant of the slogans and advertising
shifted from warnings about getting caught to an emphasis on the
fact that drivers who drink endanger lives - the “Drinking and
Driving Wrecks Lives” slogan. Since then there have been variations
on the same theme, including in 1992 a television advert that
could only be broadcast after the 9pm watershed, showing a girl
lying on the pavement covered with blood.
The campaigns are targeted primarily at young men in their late
twenties who are overrepresented in accidents, particularly at
Christmas.
The publicity campaign is believed to have been effective. However,
it is difficult to isolate the effect of publicity from the other
measures introduced over the same period such as tougher laws
and higher levels of enforcement.
• Breath Tests
The number of breath teats has increased greatly during the 1980s
but dropped again from 1999/2000. As amended by the Transport
Act 1981, Section 7 of the Road Traffic Act 1972 empowers a Constable
in uniform who has reasonable cause to suspect that a person driving
a motor vehicle on a road,
• has alcohol in his body
• has committed a moving traffic offence, or
• has been involved in an accident
to require that person to provide a specimen of breath for testing.
The police (Association of Chief Police Officers) have asked for
a general power to require drivers to undertake a breath test.
• Penalties
The penalties for driving with excess alcohol are a fine, and
a statutory minimum period of disqualification of 12 months. The
size of the fines and the maximum length of period of disqualification
depend on the seriousness of the offence, mainly the amount by
which the driver is over the legal limit. The normal fine for
a basic drink drive offence is between £400 and £450.
The Road Traffic Act 1991 introduced a new offence of causing
death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or
drugs with a maximum of 5 years imprisonment, later increased
to 10 years, and then to 14 years in 2004. The Road Safety Act
2006 contains provision for serious, including repeat, drink-drive
offenders to be made to retake the driving test at the end of
their period of disqualification. It also makes provision for
the courts, when imposing disqualification as a penalty, to order
a reduced period of disqualification if it also makes an order
requiring the offender to comply with the conditions of an alcohol
ignition interlock programme.
• Disqualifications
In 1994, 60 per cent of disqualifications for driving were against
people who had consumed alcohol or taken drugs. The proportion
disqualified for more than one year for this offence has increased
from 45 per cent in 1984 to 59 per cent in 1995.
• Non-Legal Penalties
Many insurance companies are reviewing their treatment of policy
holders who are convicted for drink driving. One company will
not insure anybody who has had a drink drive conviction within
the last five years if they were previously with another insurance
company. They also operate a stepped loading system that depends
on the amount the motorist is over the limit - for most people,
the equivalent of being one drink over the limit means that fifty
per cent will be added onto premiums. One insurance company recently
decided to stop insuring motorists with any drink drive convictions
in the last seven years. Another will reinsure anyone insured
with them prior to the conviction, but also operates the same
two-tier system as above. This could mean a premium increase of
between 80 and 150 per cent after conviction.
High Risk Offenders
Also introduced in 1991 was the ‘High Risk Offender’ (HRO) scheme.
This is intended to manage convicted drink-drivers who may have
a drinking problem. After their period of disqualification, high
risk offenders’ licences are returned only if they can convince
the court that they do not have or have overcome a drink problem.
High Risk Offenders are drivers who:
• Have been found to be over 2 1/2 times the legal limit
• Have two convictions for drink driving at any blood alcohol
level within a ten year period
• Have refused to provide a sample
Each year, between 30,000 - 40,000 offenders are classed as
HROs.
• Experimental Educational Programmes
In 1993, an experimental scheme was set up by the Department of
Transport to provide education/ rehabilitation courses for drink
drive offenders in 22 areas of Great Britain. The courses, aimed
primarily at first-time offenders, are voluntary and offenders
have to pay the cost themselves, the maximum cost being set at
£200. Offenders who complete the course are entitled to a 25 per
cent reduction in their period of disqualification. This feature
of the experimental courses was criticised by some road safety
groups, motoring organisations and others for, in effect, allowing
offenders in some parts of the country to buy a reduction in their
sentence.
Independently of this experimental scheme, educational courses
for drink drive offenders have been running for some years in
various parts of Britain, often provided by Probation Departments
and as a condition of a probation order.
Further Measures To Reduce Casualties
A General Power to Breathalyse –
The Police have asked for restrictions on their powers to breath
test drivers to be removed. This would help them to use their
powers more effectively both as a deterrent and also to target
drinking drivers who remain undeterred. There is ample evidence
that high profile police breath testing of drivers cuts casualty
rates.
The White Paper on road safety
published in March 2000 suggests that the Government may be prepared
to increase police breath testing powers.19 The Government’s latest
review of its road safety strategy again raises the possibility
of introducing what it calls ‘random breath testing’.20 There
is a clear inverse relationship between the number of breath tests
carried out and the number of drink drive casualties.
A Lower Legal Limit
An argument frequently employed by the alcohol industry against
lowering the limit is that such a step would not affect casualties
as road deaths tend to be caused primarily by drivers with very
high blood alcohol levels who would ignore a lower limit just
as they ignore the present one. In fact, about the same number
of people die in accidents associated with alcohol levels below
the present limit as with very high levels.
The Department of Transport estimates that reducing the legal
limit to 50mg% could save 50 lives and prevent up to 1500 injuries
each year. However, this is a conservative estimate as it is calculated
purely on the basis of the proportions of the injuries and fatalities
caused by blood alcohol levels of between 50mg% and 80mg%. It
therefore makes no allowance for the possibility that reducing
the limit would also reduce the numbers of drivers at all blood
alcohol levels including those with very high levels. This appears
to have been the experience of the United States.
In Europe, reducing the limit to 50mg% in France (in 1995) is
reported to have reduced fatalities by 4 per cent. In Belgium,
where the limit was reduced to 50mg% in 1994, there was a 10 per
cent decrease in fatalities in 1995 and a further reduction of
11 percent in 1996.
The experiences of Sweden and Japan suggest that lowering the
limit still has beneficial consequences even where the limit is
low to begin with.21 The White Paper on road safety indicated
that the Government had reneged on its promise to lower the limit.14
This was confirmed by a statement on 20 March 2002 by Transport
Minister, David Jamieson. The Second Review of the Government’s
Road Safety Strategy, published in 200720, stated:
“During this review, many stakeholders have advocated reducing
the UK’s blood alcohol limit from 80mg to 50mg. But the limit
cannot be considered in isolation. The UK has stringent penalties
for drink driving, and has better enforcement than many countries
that have lower limits. We will keep under review the case for
a reduction in the blood alcohol limit. But our first priority
is to improve the enforcement of the current limit, building on
the recent achievements of the police. We are confident that this
has the potential to deliver a substantial further reduction in
deaths and serious injuries, so continuing the good progress of
recent years. And it is right that we should first ensure effective
enforcement of the existing limit, so as to tackle those who are
the most seriously impaired.”
However, in June 2007, Road Safety Minister Steven Ladyman said
that the government was in favour of moving to a 50mg limit, but
that it first wanted to see evidence that it would be properly
enforced by the Police. Speaking at a seminar in London, Mr Ladyman
said that later in 2007 the government would publish a consultation
paper to gauge public opinion.
Mr Ladyman said that, based on the evidence available, the government
believed there was a case for reducing the permitted blood alcohol
concentration from 0.8g/l to zero (or 0.2g/l, which in practice
is effectively zero) for novice drivers. 22 If the Department
introduced a lower permitted blood alcohol concentration for novice
drivers it would be assiduous in countering any impression that
it was acceptable for more experienced drivers to drive under
the influence of alcohol.
Institute of Alcohol Studies
24 July 2007
|
