Drink-driving: the scourge that just won't go away

Britain has one of the worst records in Europe for reducing deaths from drink-driving crashes compared with progress in reducing other deaths.

That statistic - 560 people were killed in drink-drive related crashes in 2005 and 590 in 2004, the highest figure since 1992 when 660 people were killed - has led to renewed calls for the UK's drink-drive limit to be cut.

At 80 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood, the UK legal blood alcohol limit is one of the highest in the European Union - only Cyprus is higher at 90mg/100ml and Ireland, Luxembourg and Malta have similar limits.

In most other EU member countries the drinkdrive limits is 50 mg/100ml but in the Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovakia there is zero tolerance to drink-driving, according to a study by the Cambridgeshire-based Institute of Alcohol Studies. Its report coincides with an analysis by the European Transport Safety Council, which reveals that insufficient progress on reducing drink-driving deaths has slowed down overall road safety improvements in the last decade.

The ETSC report reveals that in Britain, along with Hungary, Lithuania, Finland and Spain there has been a rise in the number of drink-driving deaths when compared with fi gures in the 1990s. In Britain in both 1998 and 1999 figures dropped to a record low of 460 people killed.

Reductions

Between 1996-98 and 2005, nine countries reported reductions in deaths from drinkdriving crashes greater than deaths from other crashes, led by the Czech Republic with an 11% drop. In Britain, using the same analysis there has been a 2% rise.

Worryingly, the study also highlights that seven of the 27 EU countries were unable to provide drink-drive crash data.

The ETSC says that there is a trend for lowering drink-drive limits in European countries. But that is a route that is unlikely to be followed by the UK Government despite the new calls and the fact that 17% of road deaths take place when a driver/rider involved is over the drink-drive limit. In the 1970s - breath tests for drivers were first introduced in 1967 - 35% of road fatalities were found to involve a driver who was over the legal limit.

A Department for Transport spokesman told RoadSafe: "We have no plans to reduce the drink-drive limit, although like all Government polices it is kept under review. A consultation document on random breath-testing will be issued later this year. As part of that exercise, we will ask a question on lowering the present drink-drive limit. We believe that the present level combined with a tough penalty regime provides an appropriate deterrent and we prefer to concentrate on effective enforcement of the existing regulations."

However, the police have recently been given new powers to carry out roadside evidential breathtesting, subject to type approval of appropriate equipment and the 2006 Road Safety Act provides for increased penalties for drink-drive offences, including a requirement for all drivers disqualified for two or more years to retake their driving test.

Introduction

The Act also allows the future introduction of a breath alcohol ignition interlocks programme - so-called 'alcolocks' - as a new method to discourage re-offending. In addition, more 'fit to drive' tests are being carried out on drivers at the roadside and random breathalyzer tests are also a possibility.

The RAC Foundation says it is concerned that drivers seem to have become increasingly willing to take the risk of drinking and driving in recent years resulting in rises in the number of drink-drive offenders and a casualty toll almost a third higher in 2003 than in 1993/4.

It believes that more consistent and proactive enforcement of the present limit with traffic police officers on patrol would act as a more effective deterrent, especially to the hardcore of drivers who, says the Foundation, would be as likely to ignore a lower 50 mg limit as they do the present limit.

However, the ETSC report suggests that while Britain has one of the best overall road safety records in Europe it would be further improved if the drink-drive limit were reduced to the recommended EC level of 50 mg.

Duncan Vernon, road safety officer for RoSPA, said: "Reducing the drink-drive limit from 80 mg to 50 mg would save around 65 lives and 230 serious injuries on Britain's roads each year. Between 50 mg and 80 mg you are two to two-and-a-half times more likely to be involved in an accident and six times more likely to be in a fatal crash than with no alcohol in your system."

Post mortem data has indicated that of a sample of 774 dead drivers whose blood was tested, 22% had over 100 mg, 16% had over 150 mg (twice the limit) and 10% had over 200 mg of alcohol in their systems.

Dr Will Murray, of Interactive Driving Systems, said: "Research suggests that many drivers continue to exceed blood alcohol limits, feeling that they are still able to drive safely and that the chances of being caught are slim.

"Most people think that they understand the drink-drive laws, and that they will be OK after a couple of beers or a glass of wine, but it's not that simple. People typically under-estimate the amount of alcohol they have consumed, and over-estimate their ability to drive.

"Research based on 6,000 drivers involved in a crash revealed that after approximately a pint of beer, the risk of collision doubled. After approximately a pint of strong larger or cider, the risk is five fold.

"The UK drink-drive limit is simply a minimum legal standard. Alcohol affects a person's ability to drive. Above the limit, drivers are also liable to prosecution by the police and disciplinary action by employers."

'Reduction in limit will cut offender numbers too'

That's the view of Roger Singer, head of Avoidd Training & Education, which advises numerous corporations on drink and drugs policies and also runs Department for Transport-approved drink drive rehabilitation courses.

Mr Singer says he meets about 50% of all drink-drive offenders on the 16-hour courses and says the majority were convicted not because they were hardcore drink-drivers but because of a lack of knowledge that drink would impair their driving ability.

"On the courses we meet the compliant offenders. The courses focus on helping them to consider their alcohol use in relation to driving and during discussions it is clear they didn't understand the impact drink would have, they thought a certain level was 'OK' and they didn't realise they would be banned from the road," he said.

Despite the pros and cons associated with tightening the drink-drive limit Mr Singer said: "We would like to see the limit reduced because primarily it will stimulate debate. It would be a positive move in the long term but we must be prepared for a short-term rise in the number of drink-drive convictions.

"The convicted drivers that we meet would prefer a zero tolerance because they would then know where they stand. Currently, the Government is giving drivers a mixed message by saying 'it is OK to drink a bit'. We would prefer a zero tolerance for clarity."

Within companies the biggest single issue facing at-work drivers is the 'morning after syndrome'.

Figures suggest 15% of convicted drink-drivers are made redundant. Even if a person doesn't need to drive for their job but has a company car then they will almost certainly lose it.

Mr Singer said: "The morning after the night before continues to be a big issue within the corporate community. The syndrome is not well understood. These people do not drink and drive at night as they typically make other travel arrangements. However, the next morning they believe they are OK to drive.

"A major campaign targeted at the 'morning after' people would bring the drink-drive figures down. There is a despondency that the drink-drive accident figures are not reducing and their needs to be a renewed impetus."

Corporate education through at-work driving alcohol policies, the closure of bars on company premises and a major campaign around the issues associated with driving the morning after a drinking binge could all be part of a programme to cut drink-drive deaths.

However, with the Government unlikely to reduce the drink-drive penalty because of pressure from the drinks industry, Mr Singer believes impairment education is crucial to cutting the crash toll.

"67% of the population is impaired below the current drink-drive limit. If we approach drink-driving around impairment education we will start to reduce the number of drink-drivers without a change in the law."

What do you think? Email the editor at ashley.martin32@btopenworld.com

Zero tolerance pays off for Czechs

In the Czech Republic there has been a zero tolerance to drink-driving since 1953 and deaths from drink-driving crashes have dropped 11% faster over the last nine years than other deaths.

As a result, the drop in drink-driving related deaths has contributed substantially to the overall progress in reducing road deaths, according to Dr Josef Mikulik, director of the Czech Transport Research Centre. Today, drinking and driving is socially unacceptable in the Czech Republic, and the 0.0 g/l has been decisive in this," he wrote in the ETSC study.

"The message sent by this limit is very clear: 'never drive after drinking'. Other legal limits can be interpreted in different ways."

In 2005, the latest year for which official data is available, there were 71 road deaths related to drink-driving in the Czech Republic out of total road traffic deaths of 1,286 (5.5%).

Although, the drink-drive ban has been in place for more than half-a-century, Dr Mikulik points to a strengthening of police enforcement in 2004 and an anti-drinkdriving campaign focusing on young drivers as key to an estimated drop of 17% in drink-driving related crashes last year.

Source: European Transport Safety Council

<< Back to contents page

• < previous article
• |
• next article >