Reducing the Drink Driving Limit in Scotland Analysis of Consultation Responses

3 Evidence

Evidence for main consequences of the proposals

3.1 The consultation went on to ask respondents whether they had any evidence for what would be the main consequences of the Scottish Government proposals and 55 respondents commented.

Question 2: Do you have any evidence for what would be the main consequences of the Scottish Government proposals?

Reference to published reports

3.2 Twenty-one respondents, mainly organisations working within alcohol / drugs, safety / road safety and health as well as two local authorities, referred to a number of reports providing evidence to back up the Scottish Government's proposals.

3.3 Perhaps not surprisingly, 12 respondents referred to the North Report (five alcohol / drugs organisations, four safety organisations, two local authorities and one individual expert).

3.4 Four respondents also referred to a NICE report⁶ which claimed that a driver with a BAC of between 50mg / 100ml and 80mg / 100 ml is at least six times more likely to die in a collision with a driver who has not consumed any alcohol.

3.5 Other reports referenced by respondents included:

• BMA (2008)⁷ which showed the relative accident risk of drivers with a BAC of 50mg / 100ml is double that for a person with zero BAC.
• PACTS (Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety) research conducted by Professor Richard Allsop⁸ which showed that reducing BAC to 50gm / 100ml would prevent 65 deaths and 230 serious injuries per year across the UK.
• Work conducted by the Institute of Alcohol Studies, 2010⁹.
• Work conducted by researchers at Sheffield University.
• Evidence provided by Alcohol Focus Scotland and SHAAP (Scottish Health Action on Alcohol Problems) of a reduction in the number of accidents that would be allied to a reduction in the BAC.
• Reference to figures provided by the European Commission¹⁰.

3.6 There were also references to unspecified studies linking a lower BAC with reductions in the number of road casualties and road deaths.

3.7 Three respondents noted that the proposed changes would bring Scotland into line with other European countries.

Main consequences

3.8 A number of potential consequences were identified by 28 respondents. The key consequence, cited by 24 of these respondents was that there would be fewer road accidents, fewer casualties or the reduced risk of road accidents. Two of these referred directly to less pain and suffering caused by road casualties. A respondent in the alcohol / drug group noted,

"The proposed reduction is therefore likely to reduce the risk of road accidents and subsequent injuries, mortality rates and the devastating consequences for families and communities directly affected."

3.9 Two of these respondents (one from the alcohol / drug group and one from the safety / road safety group) noted that this would lead to increased public awareness on the impact of alcohol on society or that it provides a central message to drivers not to drink and drive. A transport organisation also noted that this would deter drink driving. The safety / road safety organisation noted,

"Changes to drink driving laws, and the public attention that will accompany such changes also has the potential to raise public awareness of the broader impact alcohol has on society, in terms of public health and crime prevention and could support the cross department strategic direction in terms of tackling the effects of alcohol."

3.10 Some of these respondents quoted road accident figures from other countries such as Switzerland, Austria, France, the USA or Australia where a lowering of the BAC has led to a reduced number of accidents and casualties.

3.11 There was a small number of comments that this would lead to more convictions for drink driving, with more 'morning after' detections; although there were also some comments that the current penalties are too onerous or that this would lead to undeserved criminal convictions.

3.12 There was also a small number of queries as to whether those over the limit in the early morning are responsible for causing a significant number of accidents.

3.13 A few respondents referred to the impact a lowering of the limit would have on resources that are already overstretched; with comments on a higher number of offenders for the police, courts and procurators fiscal to deal with.

3.14 A small number noted that the proposed changes would help to increase public awareness of the impact of alcohol on society or that this would provide a key message to drivers not to drink and drive.

3.15 Thirteen respondents commented on a number of consequences in relation to business that could ensue if these proposals are instigated.

3.16 Another key comment was in relation to a likely loss of business for local pubs, restaurants and hotels or a loss of tourism business to Scotland, with a couple of comments that the proposed changes would penalise social drinkers who like to have one or two glasses of wine. One individual noted:

"Currently the Tourist, Drinks, Entertainment Industry and local social clubs are struggling to attract visitors. Bringing the limit down would prevent or discourage persons using these industries having even one drink and this could result in significant numbers of businesses closing."

3.17 There were also comments from two of these respondents about the lack of public transport in rural areas and how vehicle seizures could penalise those working in rural areas.

The need for statistics

3.18 Six respondents (a transport organisation, a local authority, a legal organisation and three individuals) commented that there are no statistics available for casualties who have been drinking but who are within the current drink drive limit of 80mg / 100ml. They felt figures were needed for individuals who are breathalysed at levels between 50mg / 100ml and 80mg / 100ml in order to ascertain whether a reduction in drink driving limits will have a significant impact in reducing drink driving.

3.19 Another individual requested information on the incidence of personal injury accidents in which drink driving was contributory factor.

3.20 Additionally, two other respondents (a local authority and an individual) commented that there will be a need for statistics to build upon the evidence base in measuring the effectiveness of the reduced drink drive limits if they are introduced in Scotland.

Evidence for financial impact of the proposals

3.21 The consultation also asked respondents whether they had any evidence for what would be the financial impact of the Scottish Government proposals and 44 respondents commented.

Question 3: Do you have any evidence for what would be the financial impact of the Scottish Government proposals?

Short term versus long term

3.22 While there were concerns over the initial costs of implementation of these proposals from a small number of respondents, a greater number felt that in the longer-term savings made would increasingly outweigh any (initial) additional costs. Three respondents also noted that the initial costs would be relatively low or minimal. As noted by a respondent from the safety group:

"Whilst it is possible that a lower legal blood alcohol level would result in more prosecutions and increased criminal justice costs, these costs would more than likely be outweighed by the benefits. With a cost of £1,643,754 per fatality and £184,712 per serious (reported Road Casualties Scotland 2011) and with 30 people being killed on Scottish roads every year as a result of drink and 150 seriously injured, the potential financial savings in reducing these incidents will far outweigh any additional enforcement costs."

Possible benefits

3.23 Most respondents did not provide definitive or estimated data as to the likely financial impacts of these proposals.

3.24 A small number of respondents (9) did attempt to provide estimated figures for the likely reduction in costs if there is an associated reduction in road accidents through the implementation of these proposals.

3.25 These included three respondents who quoted the figures provided in the Reported Road Casualties Report 2010 referred to in the consultation document. As an alcohol and drugs organisation noted:

"The physical process of dealing with KSI's has been addressed in the Statistical Bulletin, Transport Series, TRN/2011/1 entitled Key Reported Road Casualties Scotland 2011. Using 2009 prices, the cost of dealing with a fatal road accident averages £1,855,013 and a serious injury costs £205,303. Applying these sums to the extrapolated figures calculated using the Australian study referred to previously, there would be a saving in dealing with fatal road accidents of £20,034,140. The savings on serious injury accidents total £4,988,862. Together, these equate to an estimated total saving of £25,023,002 in the first year alone and this saving should increase as the number of offenders reduce due to changes in social pressure."

3.26 Other comments included:

• An alcohol / drugs organisation referred to a study published in the Journal of Public Health 2011 which estimated the costs to the NHS in the UK of alcohol attributable motor vehicle accidents to be at £238m in 2006-07. They noted that "a reduction in the number of drink driving related casualties and fatalities as a result of the proposed legislation would reduce the significant financial burden on health and social care services and lost productivity in workplaces".
• An organisation in the safety / road safety sub-group referred to a report produced by ESTC¹¹.
• One respondent suggested there would be annual costs of around £7.5 million per annum if five lives are saved.
• An alcohol / drugs organisation cited Department for Transport figures showing savings in Scotland of between £5-£27 million per year.
• Another respondent who calculated savings of around £3.5 billion.
• Another respondent who calculated savings of around £5.5 million (based on three lives saved at an average cost of £1.85 million).

3.27 Some respondents, while unable to provide details of likely cost savings noted a number of benefits to the economy, and these included:

• a reduction in costs to the NHS and emergency services;
• a reduction in costs to health and social care services; and
• benefits to businesses through fewer workplace accidents and less absenteeism. An organisation operating within the Legal sector commented:

"If the reduction in the limit reduces the number of injuries on the road as a result of accidents then this will have a positive financial impact on many public services of the country including, the Police, Fire & Rescue Services, Scottish Ambulance Service and NHS Scotland as well as businesses and commerce."

Likely additional costs

3.28 A number of respondents (24) found it difficult to provide specific figures for the financial impact of the proposals and instead focused on areas that would incur additional costs or where there would be a negative impact if the proposals are implemented. A key concern noted by many of these respondents (two alcohol / drugs organisations, one transport, one legal, one safety and ten individuals) was the loss of business to the licensed trade including public houses, restaurants and social clubs, and tourism in general. Some of these focused on businesses in rural areas where there is a lack of available public transport as an alternative to driving. Other concerns included the cost of:

• Re-calibrating roadside and evidential breathalysers, together with associated administrative costs of changes to IT.
• An advertising campaign to increase awareness of changes to the law on drink driving and to encourage public support for these changes.
• Increases in the cost of enforcement.
• An increase in prosecutions of individuals found to be over the drink drive limit the morning after.
• An increase in workloads for the police and court services, or for training for police officers.
• Increased vehicle seizures or driving bans and the possible ensuing job loss for an individual, which in turn could create more reliance on the benefits system.
• Other financial impacts on individuals such as the loss of their vehicles or increased car insurance premiums.

3.29 Twelve respondents noted concerns over a lack of quantifiable evidence with which to assess any likely savings. For example, an organisation in the transport sector noted that there is no information on the numbers of individuals involved in accidents who fall between the current alcohol levels and the proposed levels so it is not possible to extrapolate any figures in relation to the likely cost savings.

3.30 An individual suggested that, if the proposals are introduced, there will be a need to gather statistics to validate these proposals.