Driven to distraction

Related tags Limit The police

A recent drink-drive report from Canada suggests that lowering the limit will not cut deaths or deter the persistent offender. Trade leaders have...

A recent drink-drive report from Canada suggests that lowering the limit will not cut deaths or deter the persistent offender.

Trade leaders have been arguing for years that a cut in the drink-drive limit would not actually stop the hardcore offenders - and now, at last, it seems there is proof they were right.

The UK Government has seriously toyed with the idea of a limit cut, taking the legal limit down from 80mg to 50mg of alcohol in 100ml of blood, for over five years.

Many within the pub trade see it as an axe hanging over their heads and fear any cut would further encourage the booming take-home market, with people staying at home to drink rather than popping down the local for a couple of pints.

Under the proposed 50mg limit, as little as a pint of strong lager could push a pub-goer into breaking the law - so why risk driving at all?

The effect this could have on the pub trade is clear - especially in light of the savaging that rural pubs, often destination outlets, have already had at the hands of foot-and-mouth, flooding and a drop in tourism.

But the trade is not just thinking of itself and its profit margins.

Statistics have consistently shown that the repeat offenders, those that will drink and then drive regularly, do so when they are well over the current 80mg limit.

So it is logical to assume that if the 80mg limit does not put them off, a lower limit would not deter them. And we need to remember that these are the drivers the Government needs to target because these, statistically, are the ones who cause the accidents, a number of which are fatal.

Now a new report from Canada, where the government has suggested a similar limit cut, has revealed that the move could actually hamper efforts to improve road safety.

The Traffic Injury Research Foundation (TIRF) looked at research and reports from all over the world to analyse how effective different solutions to the drink-drive problem would be.

The foundation concluded that a lower limit could end up making a mockery of the law and wasting valuable police resources.

Herb Simpson, president of TIRF, told thePublican.com that the small amount of alcohol needed to push a person over the 50mg limit would make it extremely difficult to enforce.

Breath-testing equipment in police cars is not highly sensitive so the chances are that a good number of people might be over the breath limit but, once a blood sample was taken back at the police station, might turn out to be below 50mg again. This would leave the police in the difficult position of having to release the person without charge - something that would lead the public to lose respect for the law as well as taking up time for already over-stretched police forces.

And all this to catch the small number of extra people who would fall between the 50mg and 80mg mark - people who according to research don't cause the accidents or road deaths.

Mr Simpson said: "The hardcore who drive when they are well over the 80mg limit constitute a small proportion of the total number of drink-drivers but are responsible for most, if not all, of the alcohol-related crashes and fatalities."

He said he would expect the recent rise in drink-drive offences - a rise of one per cent in the number caught over the Christmas period this year - to level out again and described it as a "temporary blip".

He added that the consistent fall in drink-drive figures over the 1980s and 1990s reflected the message reaching the socially responsible within society.

Figures levelled out over the last few years and this, according to TIRF, reflects the fact that there is now a consistent hardcore of offenders.

Road safety campaigners have always argued that a lower limit "can't hurt and it might help so why not?" - but Mr Simpson said the TIRF report had shown that a cut could end up distracting police from the business of catching the serious offenders.

The other argument often mooted is that we are one of only three countries in Europe that don't already have the 50mg limit and that in the interests of harmonisation we should fall into line.

But Mr Simpson found that when he looked more closely at the situation in countries that already have the lower limit it turns out the UK has already cut drink-driving more effectively than they have.

This is mainly because the punishment for those caught over the 80mg limit in the UK is comparatively harsh - a large fine and disqualification are the norm, while a serious accident with loss of life can result in a substantial prison term.

While other countries in Europe may have a lower limit, they also have more lenient punishments - in most cases a driver caught driving between the 50mg and 80mg limits would face a fairly moderate on-the-spot fine in a similar way to parking offences in the UK. Even those over the 80mg limit may not be required to attend court.

In light of these findings, TIRF has been looking into alternative solutions to the problem for both Canada and the UK.

Mr Simpson said possibilities mainly revolved around weeding out the persistent, and statistically most dangerous, offenders.

TIRF has been looking at the introduction of breath-test equipment attached to car ignitions so repeat offenders cannot start their cars if they are over the legal limit. Other options include a "three strikes and you're out" policy on licences so that the third offence means an automatic lifetime ban on driving.

The TIRF research was presented to the UK Government's Department of Transport last month.

Insiders claim minister for roads David Jamieson was impressed by the report and expressed an interest in looking further at the arguments.

Mr Simpson also addressed the All-party Parliamentary Beer Group of MPs during his recent visit to the UK.

MP Doug Henderson, who chaired the meeting, said he felt all the MPs present were interested to hear his findings.

He said: "The research was very interesting - it suggested that were the limit to be changed, it wouldn't have much of an impact on fatalities but would make the police's job more difficult."

Mark Hastings, spokesman for the British Beer and Pub Association, which is preparing its own report on hardcore drink-drive offenders, said: "This research opens up informed debate on the issue so that we can look at what are the best solutions."

Drink-drive: the story so far

  • 1998/9​ - ministers threaten to cut the limit as one of a package of measures to tackle drink-driving and The Publican Newspaper gathers a total of over 7,000 signatures on a petition from licensees and their customers opposing the move
  • January 2000​ - trade campaigners celebrate as the Government confirms it has shelved plans to cut the drink-drive limit
  • March 2000​ - trade leaders warn licensees to keep the pressure up after EU officials say they are considering how to harmonise the drink-drive limit over all member states
  • January 2001​ - A European report recommends cutting the drink-drive limit by half for young drivers
  • March 2001​ - European MEPs back the report for a lower limit, putting pressure on the UK Government to act
  • December 2001​ - trade is urged to join in efforts to cut drink-driving over the festive period
  • January 2002​ - a rise in drink-driving over Christmas sparks renewed calls for a cut in the limit
  • January 2002​ - the Association of Chief Police Officers backs calls for a limit cut
  • February 2002​ - a new report shows a limit cut would not help deter drink-drivers and could hinder efforts to catch the worst offenders

Related topics Legislation

Property of the week

Follow us

Pub Trade Guides

View more