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
|
