DRINKING AND DRIVING POLICY PAPER

DRINKING AND DRIVING POLICY PAPER UPDATED MAY 2007

1. INTRODUCTION Alcohol gives a drivers a false sense of confidence and impairs their: reaction times co-ordination judgement of speed, time and distance concentration. Drinking and driving significantly increases the likelihood of being involved in a crash. Even small amounts of alcohol, well below the legal limit, increase the chances of an accident. Nearly half (44%) of drivers questioned in a Home Office Survey, admitted to having driven after drinking some alcohol in the previous year. One in eight drivers said they had driven when they thought they were over the limit. 1 One in six people killed on the roads, dies in an accident where at least one driver or rider was above the drink drive limit. Drink drive casualties account for 16% of all road accident deaths, 7% of all serious injuries and 6% of slight casualties. 2 Drink driving kills not only the drivers who have been irresponsible enough to drink and then drive but also their passengers and other innocent road users, including pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists. Drink-drive accidents and casualties have reduced consistently over many years. During the 1990s the number of people killed and seriously injured in drink drive accidents fell by around 40% and slight injuries by 10%. The combination of consistent publicity campaigns, stiffer penalties and more and better targeted enforcement has resulted in most people regarding drinking and driving as a dangerous, selfish and socially unacceptable activity. However, the number of people killed in drink drive accidents has been increasing in recent years. In 2005, 560 people were killed in drink drive crashes, a higher number than ten years ago. 2 RoSPA is concerned that the level of drinking and driving is, at the very least, no longer falling and may be increasing. There is also evidence that drink drive accidents are no longer falling in many other countries. 3 The campaign to prevent drinking and driving needs to be re-invigorated with a package of new measures in order to achieve further, long term reductions in the level of drinking and driving. Provisional figure 1

2. THE LAW It is illegal to drive a motor vehicle on a public road with more than either: 35 microgrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of breath (BRAC of 35ug/100ml) or 80 milligrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood (BAC of 80mg/100ml = 0.80 promille) Section 6 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 allows the police to test any driver who: they have reasonable cause to suspect has been driving or attempting to drive with alcohol in his body has committed a moving traffic offence has been involved in an accident. A person failing to provide a breath test is guilty of an offence, unless there is a reasonable excuse. Table 1: Drink Drive Offences and Penalties Offence Penalties Driving while unfit through drink or up to 6 months imprisonment drugs or with excess alcohol; or and/or a fine of up to 5,000 failing to provide a specimen for and a minimum of 12 months disqualification. analysis There is a minimum of three years disqualification for a second offence. Causing death by careless driving under the influence of drink or drugs Up to 14 years imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine and a minimum of two years disqualification. Convicted offenders are also likely to have to pay up to five times the normal motor insurance premium once they are legally allowed to drive again. They will also be unable to hire a car from most car rental firms for ten years. High Risk Offenders The High Risk Offender (HRO) scheme is targeted at drivers whose apparent dependency on alcohol presents a risk to road safety. Drivers are classed as High Risk Offenders if they : had an alcohol level at least two and half times the legal limit, or had been convicted of an earlier drink driving offence in the previous ten years, or had been convicted of failing without reasonable cause to provide a specimen for analysis. 2

Under the HRO scheme, once their period of disqualification has been completed, offenders are required to satisfy the DVLA s Medical Adviser that they do not have a drink problem and are fit to drive before their licences are returned. An evaluation of the scheme 4 indicated that it successfully identifies drivers whose subsequent behaviour shows that they pose a genuine high risk. However, changes were recommended to enable identification of multiple offenders more readily. Enforcement Levels Information from breath tests carried out at the roadside following a moving traffic offence, road accident or suspicion of alcohol use, is available for England and Wales from the Home Office. Home Office figures for England and Wales for 2003 5 show that just over 534,000 roadside breath tests were conducted (6% fewer than the previous year), of which 106,000 (20%) were positive or refused 3% more than the previous year. Table 2: Roadside screening breath tests: England and Wales: 1994-2004 thousands 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 No. of 679 703 781 800 815 765 715 624 570 534 578 breath tests No. positive 93 94 101 104 102 94 95 100 104 106 103 or refused % positive 14 13 13 13 13 12 13 16 18 20 18 or refused No. of convictions 90 93 96 100 93 89 86 85 90 89 96 Enforcement levels are critical to detecting and deterring drink drivers. The number of breath tests carried out increased dramatically during the 1990s but has been falling since 1998, and by 2004 the number of breath tests conducted was lower than in 1994. Despite the drop in the number of breath tests, more drivers are failing the tests, suggesting that the police are better at spotting drivers who are likely to be over the limit, or that more people are drinking and driving. However, Police forces vary widely in the number of tests they conduct, from just 390 breath tests per 100,000 population in some force areas to almost ten times that rate of 3,390 per 100,000 population in other areas. 5 This postcode lack of consistency is worrying, especially when combined with the findings of research which found that drivers feel they would not get caught by the Police if they were over the limit. Half of drivers felt it was unlikely or very unlikely that they would get caught if they drove over the limit once a week for a year. 1 3

Drink Drive Limits and Penalties in Other Countries 6 Table 3: Drink Drive Limits and Penalties in the European Union Country Limit Disqualification (Max) Imprisonment (Max) Austria 50mg/100ml 1 month 3 months/3 yrs (if fatal) Belgium 50mg/100ml 8 days - 5 years 15 days - 3 months Denmark 50mg/100ml 24-30 months Nil Germany 50mg/100ml 6 months - 5 years 5 years (if fatal) Greece 50mg/100ml 3-6 months 1-12 months Finland 50mg/100ml 3 months - 2 years up to 3 months France 50mg/100ml 1 month - 1 year 2 months - 2 years Ireland 80mg/100ml 1 year 6 months Italy 80mg/100ml 15 days - 1 year 1-6 months Luxembourg 80mg/100ml 3 months - 15 years 1 day - 3 years Netherlands 50mg/100ml 6 months - 10 years 3 months - 3 years Portugal 50mg/100ml 15 days - 1 year Nil Spain* 50mg/100ml 3 months - 5 years 1-6 months Sweden 20mg/100ml 3 months - 3 years 1 month - 2 years UK 80mg/100ml Obligatory 12 months but longer periods for some offences 6 months 10 years(if fatal) *Since January 1999, 30 for drivers of HGVs and public transport vehicles. USA Many US States have reduced their limits from 100mg/100ml to 80mg/100ml. Many also have lower limits for novice drivers, as part of Graduated Licence Schemes. The Constitution of the USA prevents law enforcement officers from using Random Breath Testing. Requiring a blood or breath sample is considered to be a search and is only reasonable if the officer has probable cause to make an arrest. The police can therefore mount checkpoints but must have an articulable suspicion of an illegal alcohol level in the driver to stop the vehicle. Some States impose a mandatory licence suspension or revocation for a first drink drive offence, the period varies from seven days to six months. Breath Alcohol Ignition Interlock Devices are used in a majority of States. Also many State statutes permit or mandate vehicle impoundment or immobilisation for serious and/or repeated drink driving offenders. Canada Canada has two limits: 80mg/100ml is a criminal offence and 50mg/ml is an administrative offence which carries with it an immediate 12- or 24-hour administrative license suspension. Some provinces, impose further sanctions when an individual accumulates two or three such suspensions over a set period of time. Alcohol levels of 80mg or above are a criminal offence which attract longer disqualifications. 4

Australia All Australian States have a limit of 50mg/100ml. In New South Wales and Western Australia the limit is 20mg/100ml for learner and novice drivers, drivers of heavy vehicles, public passenger vehicles and dangerous goods vehicles. Random Breath Testing operates in Australia although the level and method of operation varies between States. Mobile RBT has been introduced in some States. Also targeted RBT operates in some states when police target roads leading from specific hotels or pubs, or all major exits from a specific town/city at a specific time. South Australia deals with offences within the 50-80mg/100ml range by means of Traffic Infringement Notices and a fine. Disqualification only becomes a penalty where blood alcohol levels are over 80mg/100ml when the minimum period is 6 months. In New South Wales the penalties include fines of up to $2,200 and disqualification of up to one year. The penalties increase for higher blood alcohol levels and for repeat offenders. If the BAC reading exceeds 150mg/100ml, or the individual refuses to submit to a breath analysis, their licence is confiscated and suspended immediately. Australia also imposes Breath Alcohol Ignition Interlock Devices, preventing a car from being started if the driver is over the limit. New Zealand New Zealand s limit is still 80mg/100ml but they are considering reducing it in line with Australia s. For drivers under 20 years it is 30mg/100ml. New Zealand operates Compulsory Breath Testing of all drivers who are stopped, and the legal system allows the impoundment, confiscation and forfeiture of vehicles of offenders. Penalties include a maximum term of imprisonment of three months or a maximum fine of $4,500 or both, together with disqualification for six months or more. Persistent drink drivers face tougher penalties for third and subsequent offences, and face losing their licence for a minimum of one year instead of six months. 5

3. DRINK DRIVE ACCIDENTS AND CASULTIES 2 Drink drive casualties account for 16% of all road accident deaths, 7% of all serious injuries and 6% of slight casualties. In 2005, there were 10,080 accidents involving illegal alcohol levels, compared with 9,900 in 1994. 560 people were killed in those crashes, 2,100 were seriously injured and 12,740 slightly injured. Total drink drive casualties in 2005 were 15,400 compared with 15,160 in 1994. Table 4: Drink Drive Accidents and Casualties, 1994, 2004 and 2004 1994 2004 2005* Drink Drive Incidents 9,900 11,210 10,080 Deaths 540 580 560 Serious Casualties 2,840 2,340 2,100 Slight Casualties 11,780 14,060 12,740 *provisional data In the past ten years, the proportion of drivers killed in road accidents who were over the legal blood alcohol limit has fallen considerably. In the early 1980 s, around a third of drivers killed were over the limit. It has now fallen to just under one in five (20%). The proportion fell as low as 15% in 1998, but has risen since then. The proportion varies with age, with driver fatalities aged under forty were more likely to be over the limit than drivers aged over 40. In 2005, 11% of drivers aged 40 years and over who died in road crashes were over the legal drink drive limit, but this proportion more than doubled to 30% for drivers aged 20 29 years. A higher proportion of drivers aged 30 39 years were also over the limit. Around 2% of drivers and riders involved in accidents fail breath tests. Drinking and driving is a year round problem, although the pattern varies year on year, the winter months generally have lower numbers of drink-drive accidents and casualties than other months of the year. Table 5: Drink Drive Accidents and Casualties by Month. 2004 Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Accidents 800 890 890 910 1,060 920 950 960 890 1,100 940 900 Casualtie s 1,230 1,370 1,360 1,360 1,620 1,440 1,400 1,400 1,310 1,650 1,410 1,320 6

Despite the fact that there are fewer road accidents on Saturday and Sunday than on weekdays, more people fail breath tests at the weekend than during the week. Table 6: Accidents and breath tests by day of week. 2003 Mon Tues Wed Thurs Fri Sat Sun Motor vehicles in accidents 49,217 51,334 53,53 9 52,46 3 57,84 2 46,42 5 37,95 3 Drivers or riders breath tested 25,497 26,570 27,46 3 27,38 5 30,44 1 24,91 5 20,76 8 No Failed 704 659 665 754 1,108 1,632 1,593 % Failed 2.8 2.5 2.4 2.7 3.6 6.5 7.6 Not surprisingly, more people fail breath tests during the night time hours than the daytime. Around half of the drivers killed between 10pm and 4am are over the limit. Table 7: Breath tests failed by hour of day, GB, 2005 Hour beginning No. of Failed Breath Tests Midnight 608 1:00 490 2:00 501 3:00 334 4:00 163 5:00 113 6:00 91 7:00 122 8:00 141 9:00 97 10:00 97 11:00 93 12:00 109 13:00 102 14:00 138 15:00 210 16:00 287 17:00 344 18:00 401 19:00 452 20:00 436 21:00 478 22:00 538 23:00 770 7

Age of Drink Drivers Young male drivers under 30 years involved in injury accidents have the highest incidence of failing a breath test. The proportion of drivers tested who are over the limit falls as age increases. Table 8: Percentage of Car Drivers Test Who Failed by Age, 2005 Age % Failed Under 17 21.6 17 19 5.4 20-24 6.7 25-29 5.8 30-34 4.4 35-39 4.1 40-49 3.4 50-59 2.4 60-69 1.6 70 and 1.1 over All Ages 4.3 The proportion of fatally injured drivers who were over the legal blood alcohol limit also varies by age, with drivers aged over 40 years who die on the road being less likely to have been over the legal limit. Table 9: Percentage of Fatally Injured Drivers over the legal blood alcohol limit Year 16-19 20-29 30-39 Age 40+ 1990 13 22 33 10 1991 11 29 24 13 1992 13 26 18 10 1993 20 28 26 10 1994 16 31 30 11 1995 18 28 26 13 1996 24 38 32 9 1997 25 23 26 12 1998 17 25 24 9 1999 22 31 31 7 2000 20 32 34 12 2001 18 35 25 14 2002 18 31 37 14 2003 18 33 28 12 2004 26 31 32 16 2005* 18 30 34 22 *Provisional data 8

However, 17-24 year old drivers have the highest number of drink drive accidents per licence holder. Making allowance for the fact that youngest drivers (17-19 years) drive fewer miles each year, then their risk is the highest. Table 10: Car Driver Accidents per Licence Holder and per mile Driven: GB 2004 Age Group Car driver drink-drive Accidents Drink-drive accidents per 100 thousand licence holders Drink-drive accidents per 100 million miles driven Under 70 - - 17 17 19 1,050 79 41 20 24 2,280 87 18 25 29 1,520 49 8 30 34 1,320 35 5 35 39 1,050 25 3 40 49 1,500 21 3 50-59 680 11 1 60 + 320 4 1 All Ages 10,01 28 4 These statistics match the findings of surveys which show that men aged 16 to 29 years are the most likely to drive when they think they are over the limit; 26% of such men admitted to having done so in the previous year. 1 Older drivers may be less likely to drink and drive, but those who do are more likely to be significantly over the limit. For example, in the 40-49 age range only 18% of drivers whose blood alcohol concentration was known were over the legal limit but of those, 78% had a blood alcohol content of 200mg/100ml. This perhaps demonstrates that the hardened drinker is likely to be older and more likely to be a high risk offender. Gender of Drink Drivers The drink-driver is predominantly male. In 2005, 1.2% of women drivers who were breath tested following a crash failed the test, whereas 3.1 of male drivers so tested, failed. This gender difference is also found in Home Office surveys in which 17% of men admitted to having driven when they thought they were over the limit, compared with 10% of women. 1 However, nearly a third of the casualties in drink drive accidents are women. Other Road User Casualties Around 960 car passengers (including about 70 children) are killed or seriously injured, and a further 5,600 are slightly injured, in accidents in which at least one driver or rider was over the legal limit. It is estimated that over 200 pedestrians and 30 pedal cyclists are killed or seriously injured by drink drivers every year. In total, almost 900 children are killed or injured by drink drivers annually. 9

4. REDUCING DRINK-DRIVING The significant reductions in the number of people drinking and driving that were achieved throughout the 1980s and most of the 1990s appear to have slowed down or stopped, and may be reversing. Therefore, a new package of measures to reduce drinking and driving is needed. This should include a range of education and enforcement measures and legal sanctions to discourage and prevent people from drinking and driving. Lower the Legal Limit to 50mg/100ml The original maximum blood alcohol limit of 80mg/100ml was based on research 7 which showed that virtually all drivers would be impaired at and above that level. However, there was evidence that many drivers were impaired at much lower levels of alcohol, but in 1967 the limit in Britain was set at 80mg/100ml for pragmatic reasons taking into consideration public attitudes at the time. 8 Since the original limit was set, a considerable amount of national and international research has been conducted, and there can be little doubt that most drivers are impaired at a blood alcohol level of 50mg. At levels between 50mg and 80 mg drivers are 2 2.5 times more likely to be involved in a fatal accident than drivers with no alcohol, and young drivers are up to 5 times more likely to be involved in a crash. 8 About 80 road users per year are killed in accidents where at least one driver or motorcyclist had a blood alcohol level between 50 and 80mg. The Government s Road Safety Strategy 9 estimated that reducing the limit to 50mg would save 50 lives, and prevent 250 serious injuries and 1,200 slight injuries each year. A more recent examination of the figures by PACTS suggests that reducing the legal limit would save 65 lives each year and prevent 230 serious injuries. 10 In the Road Safety Strategy 9, the Government stated that it was waiting for a European Directive on a harmonised limit in Europe. The European Commission in January 2001 advised Britain to reduce the maximum limit to 50mg/100ml in line with most member states. 11 Despite this, the Government decided in April 2002 not to lower the limit. A lower limit would not just affect drivers who are between 50mg and 80 mg. Reviews 12, of the effect of lowering the limit in other countries have shown that it can be accompanied by a reduction in drinking and driving at much higher levels of alcohol. A lower limit would send out a general education message and set the tone for no drinking and driving. However, a lower limit should not be introduced in isolation, but as part of a wider package of drinking drive measures, including education and enforcement initiatives. The call for a lower limit is supported by the Association of Chief Police Officers. 10

The Effect of Lowering the Limit in Other Countries An International review 12 of the impact of introducing or lowering limits found that in most (but not all) cases, the level of drinking and driving, and of drink drive casualties was reduced. The effects were not restricted to drivers at blood alcohol concentrations (BAC) specifically affected by the legal change, but included drivers at higher alcohol levels, possibly due to general deterrence. In Australia, reducing the limit from 80 to 50 mg has significantly reduced the level of drink driving, and the levels of alcohol in drivers involved in drink drive accidents. In France, reducing the limit from 80 to 50 mg reduced the number of fatalities involving a drinking driver. In Austria, reducing the limit from 80 to 50 mg, resulted in a decline in the proportion of accidents that involved alcohol. In Sweden, reducing the limit from 50 to 20 mg, was followed by a reduction in fatal and injury crashes. Reducing the higher limit from 150 100 mg, resulted in a significant reduction in fatal crashes. In various American states, reducing the limit from 100 to 80 mg, produced differing results, sometimes showing significant reductions in fatal collisions. It is difficult to directly apply the results from other countries to the UK for a number of reasons: Publicity about the change in the limit varies Public understanding of the laws varies Enforcement levels differ Penalties differ. But it does seem clear, that a lower limit should not be introduced in isolation. For a lower limit to be effective, several conditions are necessary: 1. Public awareness of the new limit 2. Public understanding of how the new limit affects their behaviour 3. High profile enforcement of the new limit 11

Wider Police Powers to Require Breath Tests In its Road Safety Strategy, the Government states We are currently looking at rationalising the law because current practice is too restrictive. We want the police to have powers to breath test people driving at locations where it is reasonable to assume an amount of drinking may have taken place. This would allow the police to target their resources at areas and times where data or intelligence indicated they would be most effective. The Police can already stop any driver for any reason, but they cannot require a breath test without a suspicion that the driver has consumed alcohol, or unless the driver has committed a traffic offence or been involved in an accident. Allowing the Police administer a breath test without needing any other reason would increase drivers perception of the risk of being caught without necessarily placing additional demands upon police resources. It would allow the police to target their resources at areas and times where intelligence indicated they would be most effective, for instance at locations where it is reasonable to assume drinking may have taken place. This measure would be a strong and effective deterrent. In advance of the introduction of this measure it should be accorded considerable publicity. It may be opposed on the grounds that it erodes civil liberties, but drink drivers also erode the civil liberties of everyone else. Drink driving is such a serious offence that it justifies giving the Police wider powers. Random Breath Testing (RBT) Accompanied by massive publicity, Random Breath Testing has been widely adopted in Australia and helped to reduce drink driving, but its implementation had significant resource implications. In the State of Victoria, the proportion of fatally injured drivers over the legal alcohol limit fell from 49% in 1977 to 21% in 1992. 13 Surveys have indicated that once stopped, drivers believe it is unlikely that they will be stopped again, which can have a negative effect on their behaviour. There is also the problem of drivers becoming familiar with the location of RBT sites and avoiding them. However, coupled with the power to implement intelligence-led breath testing, Random Breath Tests would be a powerful deterrent tool. Sobriety Checkpoints A tactic common in America is the use of Sobriety Checkpoints, where a small team of 3 or 4 Police Officers stop and breath test drivers. They act as a highly visible deterrent and change drivers perceptions of the chances of being caught if they drink and drive. One study found that in areas where weekly checkpoints were conducted, there were 70% fewer drivers over the limit than in neighbouring areas without checkpoints. At some Checkpoints alcohol sensors are used by the Police to detect the presence of alcohol. 13 12

Evidential Roadside Breath Testing Currently drivers who fail a roadside breath test have to be taken to a police station for a second test; roadside breath test results are not admissible evidence in court. However, powers to enable the police to use evidential roadside breath tests were included in the Serious Organised Crime and Policing Act 2005, which means they will no longer have to take a person who fails a breath test to a police station for a second test, but can use the roadside test as evidence in court. This means that Police Officers can spend more time on patrol and test more suspected drink drivers with the same level of resources. Penalties for Drink Drive Offenders There are stringent penalties for drink drive offenders. The maximum term of imprisonment for Causing Death by Careless Driving Whilst Under the Influence of Alcohol or Drugs was increased from 10 years to 14 years by the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The government intends to extend the penalties, and in particular to require repeat drink drivers to re-take the driving test (after their period of disqualification) before they can drive again. They also intend to expand the use of rehabilitation schemes for offenders because those who attend such schemes are between 2 3 times less likely to re-offend than those who do not attend. 14 Sentencing policy for convicted road traffic offenders makes an important contribution to improving road safety and to achieving the casualty reduction targets set in the Road Safety Strategy. Sentencing policy should complement and support other road safety measures, such as education and training to produce better, safer drivers who are less likely to offend, and high profile enforcement, so drivers know there is a strong chance of getting caught if they behave dangerously. From a road safety point of view, the most important aim of sentencing should be to change the attitudes and behaviour of the individuals being sentenced and also of the wider driving public. Sentencing policy can help to: change the attitudes, skills and behaviour of convicted offenders remove convicted offenders from the road for their period of disqualification or imprisonment influence the behaviour of other drivers and riders who hear/read about the sentences imposed for particular offences. It is essential that wider use is made of sanctions designed to change offenders behaviour, such as re-training, rehabilitation courses, and re-testing. Greater consideration should be given to their compulsory, rather than discretionary, use. Consistency in Sentencing Policy Consistency in the use of sentences is also important. Although, each case must be judged on its individual circumstances, it seems likely that greater consistency in sentences for similar offences would enhance their deterrent effect, and help to address the public disquiet that is often expressed when offenders receive (seemingly) inappropriately light sentences. 13

Rehabilitation Schemes The Road Traffic Act 1991 allowed Courts to reduce the disqualification period of offenders if they completed a Rehabilitation Course. A driver, who has been convicted of a drink-drive offence and disqualified for at least one year, can be offered the opportunity to attend a course. Those who successfully complete the course are eligible for a reduction of up to 25% in their period of disqualification. Generally, courses are targeted at first-time offenders. The courses are run by organisations such as Probation Services, Road Safety Departments, hospitals, charities and private companies, and seek to promote sensible drinking by educating drivers in the need to separate drinking and driving They generally run for 8-10 weeks and include: Information about alcohol and its effects on the body The effect of alcohol on performance, particularly driving ability and behaviour Analysis of drink/driving offences Alternatives to drinking and driving Sources of advice. Evaluations of the effect of attending a drink drive rehabilitation courses on the likelihood of re-offending show that drivers who attend a course are less likely to reoffend. After 6 years, 18% of convicted drink drivers who did not attend a course had re-offended compared with only 7.6% of those who had attended a course. Offenders are most likely to avoid re-offending while they are still disqualified, but even once the dis-qualification period has ended and they can legally drive again, course attenders are still less likely to re-offend. 15 Schemes in Other Countries In Europe, young drivers are not generally over-represented in alcohol related accidents except on weekend nights. In the USA young people are over-represented in driving accidents involving alcohol. In some states it is illegal to drink in licensed premises under the age of 21 and about 35 states restrict drivers aged 21 and under to 40mg/100ml or lower. Young drivers (16-24) make up 14% of the US driving population but were involved in 28% of all alcohol-related driving accidents. Australia Evaluation of drink/driver rehabilitation schemes in other countries, most notably in the USA and Australia, have found that recidivism is reduced in those who have attended courses when compared with offenders who have not. A study 16 in Australia examined both licence sanctions and rehabilitation programmes and concluded: Programmes can have a 7-9% reduction in recidivism in addition to the benefits shown by licence sanctions Programmes can reduce alcohol-related crashes and drink driving recidivism, but unlike licence sanctions, do not reduce non alcohol-related crashes. But, their benefits appeared to be longer lasting than those shown by licence suspensions. Drink/driver programmes can impact on knowledge and attitudes toward drink driving, lifestyle characteristics and psychosocial functioning Multi-model programmes, which included counselling, education, probation, licence suspension or a combination of these, are more likely to result in a positive outcome than single interventions. 14

The recidivism rate over nine years of 504 male drivers who took a Driver Improvement course in Melbourne was 27.5% compared with a rate of 21.6% for an age matched control group of 671 drivers who were eligible but did not attend. The usefulness of the course was advocated, particularly for males under 25 years prior to their re-licensing application. However, a 1988 study 17 in Melbourne concluded that no differences were found in reconviction rates between treated and non-treated groups and felt that such programmes had little effect on traffic safety measures. In the same year the Social Development Committee of Parliament in Victoria concluded in their inquiry into the management of drink drivers that drink driving education programmes have an important role to play in reinforcing the deterrent effect of the penalty system and complementing broader health promotional activities aimed at reducing the incidence of alcohol related problems in the community. 18 United States Studies undertaken in the USA generally support the effectiveness of drink driver rehabilitation programmes, although one study suggested that licence suspension is generally more effective than rehabilitation courses in reducing the accident risk of drink drive offenders. The results of that study did suggest that using both sanctions simultaneously would be superior to either measure used alone. 19 Education and Publicity The Government, supported by Local Authorities, Police Forces and organisations such as RoSPA, have conducted education and publicity campaigns about drink driving for many years. The level of public awareness about the dangers and consequences of drinking and driving have an affect on the level of drinking and driving. When breath tests were introduced in 1967 the proportion of road fatalities involving alcohol fell from 25% to 15%. However, the level of advertising that preceded breath testing was not sustained, and by 1975 the proportion of fatalities involving an over the limit driver rose to 35%. The Government decided in 1976 to conduct a high profile drink drive publicity campaign to educate the public, and the campaign has run each year since then. Since 1979, fatal crashes involving a driver over the legal limit have fallen from 1,380 to 400 in 1999. Unfortunately, they have since risen to (a provisional figure of) 560 in 2003. Annual surveys show significant changes in drinking and driving behaviour since the drink drive publicity campaigns began. The research was carried out amongst men who drive and also drink outside the home. In 1979, 51% had driven after drinking on at least one occasion in the previous week; by 1997 this had dropped to 23%. Over the same period the proportion drinking 6+ units and then driving on at least one occasion in the previous week fell from 15% to 3%. (A unit is defined as 1/2 pint of ordinary strength beer, 25 ml of spirits or 100 ml wine). 15

The proportion claiming to "leave the car at home" when going drinking has increased from 54% to 79%, and the proportion claiming to avoid the risk by "arranging for someone else to drive" has increased from 48% to 67%. There has also been a marked reduction in the belief that it is difficult to avoid drinking and driving (from 61% down to 19% in 1997) and that knowing you will have to drive spoils the evening (from 64% to 46%). The percentage of male drivers at risk who disagreed strongly that "Having one or two drinks does not really make me more likely to have an accident", increased by 7 percentage points among drivers in December 1998 and remained level in January 1999. In November 1998, 29% of male drivers strongly agreed that even one drink made them a worse driver and at the start of the campaign in December this had increased by seven percentage points to 36%. However, there is still much to do to increase public knowledge and awareness. A survey in January 2001 found that only 13% of drivers could correctly state the legal alcohol limit, a quarter of motorists thought it was half the correct figure and 48% simply did not know. The survey also found that 56% of drivers admitted to driving after a drink or two but remaining below the limit, 3% of drivers agreed that they did so frequently. Publicity and advertising should continue to encourage a climate that drinking and driving is socially unacceptable and be aimed at encouraging friends and relatives to influence the behaviour of potential or existing offenders. Although the incidence of drinking and driving has dropped dramatically over the years the issue needs to be kept in the public arena so that people don't become complacent. Young, male drivers particularly need a constant reminder about the dangers of drinking and driving, as they are over-represented in drink drive accidents. There can be little doubt that the national publicity campaigns run by the Government over the last two decades are one of the reasons that public attitudes to drink driving have improved. It is essential that they are continued and are evaluated to enable future campaigns to be appropriately designed and targeted. The ultimate message behind any publicity should be do not drink and drive there is no safe limit. The advertising strategy should include the tragic consequences of drink drive crashes, have a high emotional impact and confront the potential drink driver. More information to learner drivers on the consequences of drink driving would be helpful along with increased editorial for road deaths in general. More messages could be incorporated on TV via soaps, and pubs could be encouraged to display lively materials. Free time should be given to campaigns by the BBC. It is important to provide more education on alcohol and drinking and driving for young people and learner drivers in particular. Initial input should be to school children and expanded during driver training. Materials should be used within the national curriculum or as leaflets to parents. Efforts should be made to encourage first time, low level offenders to attend alcohol education programmes to help solve any drinking problems they may have. More contact should be made with health professionals, for example, by linking the HRO scheme to hospitals and offering rehabilitation where necessary. 16

Alcohol Unit Labelling EC Regulations now require the labelling of the alcoholic strength of products on their containers, although it remains difficult for an individual to determine the amount they have consumed. A clearer method of labelling is perhaps required with standard units, a more traditional health warning such as on cigarette packets, or quite simply a message stating: Don t Drink and Drive. Publicity and information concerning units of alcohol should stress the fact that it is not possible to accurately gauge how it will affect individuals and the only safe limit is zero. The drinks industry could give clearer advice on alcohol content on labels and at point of sale in pubs. Research is needed on the best way to convey the message on alcohol content. Alternatives to Drinking and Driving Greater efforts are also needed to help people choose not to drink and drive by providing alternative options. The price of soft drinks and No or Low Alcohol Drinks in pubs and restaurants should be lower. The lack of good public transport in rural areas is often cited as a particular difficulty because it means that people must use their cars to go to the pub. RoSPA would welcome a more enthusiastic marketing approach aiming at a positive image and introducing a price advantage to the consumption of low or no alcohol drinks. The Portman Group, an organisation set up by the drinks manufacturing industry to help prevent misuse of alcohol and promote sensible drinking, initiated a designated driver campaign in 1999. The I ll be Des scheme was then revamped in October 2000, aimed at 18 to 40 year olds, although applicable to all, it encourages people to designate a driver for the evening when socialising. A Lower Legal Limit for Young Drivers Studies have shown that for young drivers their accident risk increases substantially at blood alcohol levels of 20mg. Lower drink drive limits for novice drivers have been introduced in some countries (as part of their wider Graduated Driver Licence Systems) with evaluation studies showing that this results in fewer alcohol related fatalities in this age group. 20 The proportion of fatally injured 16 19 year old drivers who were over the legal blood alcohol limit rose from 13% to 18% between 1990 and 2002. (The provisional figures for 2003 show a further rise to 20%). However, the proportion of this age group who are over the limit is lower than for 20 29 year old and 30 39 year old drivers. 17

Table 11: Percentage of Fatally Injured Drivers over the legal blood alcohol limit 2 Year 16-19 20-29 30-39 Age 40+ 1990 13 22 33 10 1991 11 29 24 13 1992 13 26 18 10 1993 20 28 26 10 1994 16 31 30 11 1995 18 28 26 13 1996 24 38 32 9 1997 25 23 26 12 1998 17 25 24 9 1999 22 31 31 7 2000 20 32 34 12 2001 18 35 25 14 2002 18 31 37 14 2003 18 33 28 12 2004 26 31 32 16 2005* 18 30 34 22 *Provisional data However, 17-24 year old drivers have the highest number of drink drive accidents per licence holder. Making allowance for the fact that youngest drivers (17-19) drive fewer miles each year, then their risk is the highest and because they are more likely to have accidents, the proportion of these which are drink related will be lower. Enforcing a separate limit for a specific group of drivers would require the Police to be able to check a driver s age (or licence status). Breath alcohol ignition interlock devices (BAIIDs) Breath alcohol Ignition interlock devices are designed to prevent a car engine from starting if the person who breaths into the device has been drinking alcohol. They are used in at least 37 states in America, in one state in Canada and have been trialled in Australia. They are generally applied to repeat offenders, either as an alternative to disqualification or to follow a period of disqualification, as a type of probation period. Experience in the USA suggests that they are effective while the order is in force, with low rates of circumvention, but that re-offending occurs rapidly once the restriction is removed. Restrictions for one year seem to have no effect on subsequent behaviour; those for two or more years had a small effect. In Alberta in Canada where the programme is more closely supervised and supplemented by counselling, more longterm improvements have been experienced. 21 A review 22 of experience with such devices in various countries found that they reduced recidivism by between 285 to 65% while they are installed. However, once they are removed from the drivers cars, the rate of re-offending increases. In Britain, a pilot scheme is currently underway with drink drivers who have volunteered to participate to assess whether the use of alcohol ignition locks (alcolocks) are effective in discouraging re-offending. The government is giving courts the power to require drink drive offenders to only drive a vehicle with an alcohol ignition lock (alcolock) so that if the pilot scheme proves effective, the use of alcolocks can be quickly introduced as a sentencing option. 23 18

05 CONCLUSION AND POLICY STATEMENTS Although the incidence of drinking and driving has dropped dramatically over the last two decades, this appears to have slowed down or stopped, and may even be increasing again. The issue needs to be kept in the public arena so that people do not become complacent. Young, male drivers particularly need a constant reminder about the dangers of drinking and driving, as they are over-represented in drink drive accidents. RoSPA believes that much of the considerable success in reducing drink-drive accidents and casualties has resulted from a change in public attitudes. However, further measures and a new approach are now needed if more reductions are to be achieved. A package of measures is required to maintain and enhance the progress made against drink-driving. Legislation, enforcement, education or publicity are unlikely to achieve significant results on their own, but as a package they have considerable potential to generate further casualty savings. Lower Drink Drive Limit The maximum blood alcohol limit in the UK should be lowered from 80mg/100ml to 50mg/100ml. The European Commission has recommended that the UK introduce a lower limit. Driver performance is impaired at a blood alcohol level of 50mg and the Government s own research shows that a lower limit would save the lives of 50 people each year. Reducing the limit may, in fact, save 65 lives a year. The penalties for exceeding the current drink drive limit of 80mg should be applied to the lower limit of 50mg (if it was introduced). Setting less stringent penalties for exceeding a lower limit would suggest that it is a less serious offence. Enforcement Effective enforcement of the drink drive laws is essential, and should be high profile and highly visible in order to enhance its deterrent affect. Drivers should perceive that if they choose to drink and drive there is a strong chance that they will be detected and prosecuted and that the penalties will be severe. Wider Police Powers Breath Test without Prior Suspicion The Police can stop any driver for any reason, but they cannot require a breath test without a suspicion that the driver has consumed alcohol, or unless the driver has committed a traffic offence or been involved in an accident. RoSPA believes that the Police should have the power to require a breath test without needing any other reason; this would increase drivers perception of the risk of being caught without necessarily placing additional demands upon police resources. It would allow the police to target their resources at areas and times where they would be most effective, for instance at locations where it is reasonable to assume drinking may have taken place. In its Road Safety Strategy, the Government states that it wants the police to have wider powers to breath test people. This measure may be opposed on the grounds that it erodes civil liberties, but drink drivers also erode the civil liberties of everyone else. Drink driving is such a serious offence that it justifies giving the Police wider powers. 19

Random Breath Testing (RBT) Giving the Police powers to require breath tests without prior suspicion that a driver has been drinking would also provide the power to conduct Random Breath Testing. This has been widely adopted in Australia and helped to reduce drink driving, although it tends to be resource intensive. However, coupled with the power to implement intelligence-led breath testing, Random Breath Tests would be a powerful deterrent tool. Evidential roadside breath testing Currently drivers who fail a roadside breath test have to be taken to a police station for a second test because roadside breath test results are not admissible evidence in court. Now that the Police have been given the powers to use roadside evidential breath testing devices, they should begin to do so as soon as possible. This will allow the police to test more suspected drink drivers with the same level of resources. Penalties for Offenders Sentencing policy for convicted road traffic offenders should complement and support other road safety measures, such as education and training to produce better, safer drivers who are less likely to re-offend. For road safety purposes, the aim of sentencing should be to change the attitudes and behaviour of the individuals being sentenced and also of the wider driving public. Wider use should be made of sanctions designed to change offenders behaviour, such as re-training, rehabilitation courses, and re-testing. Although, each case must be judged on its individual circumstances, it seems likely that greater consistency in sentences for similar offences would enhance their deterrent effect, and help to address the public disquiet that is often expressed when offenders receive (seemingly) inappropriately light sentences. Disqualification Periods RoSPA would support the courts having the power to impose a driving ban as part of bail conditions where the court thought that the defendant might commit a further drink-drive offence whilst on bail. In some cases, it may not be appropriate to return a convicted drink drive offender s driving licence at the end of their period of disqualification because they are likely to re-offend. Measures to assess whether the return of a driving licence is appropriate should be considered. Immediate Licence Confiscation The immediate confiscation of the driving licence of drivers who have failed an evidential breath test and who are high risk offenders would be another way of reducing the likelihood that such people would drive while waiting for their case to come to court. However, since drivers do not have to carry a licence in this country, it is difficult to see how this could be enforced. High Risk Offenders Scheme RoSPA supports the High Risk Offenders Scheme and would like to see it publicised more widely. 20

Drink Drive Rehabilitation Courses RoSPA supports the use of rehabilitation courses. Some drink drivers have an overall alcohol problem, which is not effectively addressed through enforcement and sentences. Offenders who have completed a Rehabilitation course are less likely to re-offend than those who have not. Breath Alcohol Ignition Interlock Devices (BAIIDs) Some countries require Breath Alcohol Ignition Interlock devices to be fitted to convicted offenders vehicles. They are designed to prevent a car engine from starting if the person who breaths into the device has been drinking alcohol. There is some evidence that they are effective in discouraging re-offending while the order is in force, but that re-offending occurs once the restriction is removed. A decision on their use in the UK should await the results of the pilot scheme currently underway. Education and Publicity There is no doubt that the publicity and education campaigns conducted since the late 1970s have changed public knowledge and attitudes about drinking and driving. Long-term publicity is essential, supported by education programmes for school children and drivers and trainees. A lower limit would be even more effective in saving lives and preventing injuries if it was supported by substantial, sustained publicity to ensure that the public are aware of the new limit and what it means in terms of their own behaviour. A law can only act as a deterrent if people are aware of its existence and meaning. Alcohol Unit Labelling EC Regulations require the alcoholic strength of products to be stated on their containers. However, it is difficult for an individual to determine the amount they have consumed. Publicity and information concerning units of alcohol should stress the fact that it is not possible to accurately gauge how it will affect individuals and the only safe limit is zero. The drinks industry could give clearer advice on alcohol content on labels and at point of sale in pubs. Research is needed on the best way to convey the message on alcohol content. Alternatives to Drinking and Driving Greater efforts are also needed to help people choose not to drink and drive by providing alternative options. The price of soft drinks and No or Low Alcohol Drinks in pubs and restaurants should be lower. The lack of good public transport in rural areas is often cited as a particular difficulty because it means that people must use their cars to go to the pub. The Drinks industry should adopt a more enthusiastic marketing approach to promote a positive image for low or no alcohol drinks and introduce a price advantage for these drinks. 21

A Lower Legal Limit for Young Drivers The accident risk of young drivers increases substantially at blood alcohol levels of 20mg. Lower drink drive limits for novice drivers have been introduced in some countries (as part of their wider Graduated Driver Licensing Systems) with evaluation studies showing that this results in fewer alcohol related fatalities in this age group. However, they are not the age group with the highest rates of drink driving. Enforcing a separate limit for a specific group of drivers would require the Police to be able to check a driver s age (or licence status). Self-Test Breathalysers RoSPA opposes the promotion and use of self-test breathalysers. The Society is concerned that such devices will not always be accurate or reliable and that, in any case, they will largely be used by drivers trying to drink up to the limit. It is important that people plan ahead, and if they are intending to drink alcohol to make arrangements (taxis, designated drivers, etc.) so that they do not need to drive. Promoting self-test breathalysers would discourage such forward planning. 22