Reducing the Drink Driving Limit in Scotland Analysis of Consultation Responses

5 Other Measures

5.1 In the final question of the consultation, respondents were asked whether they wished to suggest any other measures that that should be considered in order to tackle drink driving in Scotland.

Question 5: Are there any other measures that should be considered in order to tackle drink driving?

5.2 Various key themes were noted at this question; these same themes were also noted at other questions and in free-flowing responses. All similar comments were collated and analysed together and the findings are presented in this chapter.

5.3 Comments on other measures were noted in 127 responses.

Comments on limits

5.4 A variety of comments and suggestions in relation to the drink drive limit was noted in responses.

Zero limit

5.5 Twenty respondents said that they would favour a zero limit (some said as close to zero as possible); this included six organisations from the health and alcohol / drugs groups and 14 individuals.

5.6 Reasons for this support included that a zero limit would be more easily understood or that having a limit of 50mgs would give the message that it is all right to drink and drive.

5.7 A respondent from the alcohol / drugs group commented:

"There is a compelling body of evidence, as highlighted in the consultation, providing justification for further reducing the limit and we hope the Scottish Government will in future have the opportunity to consider adopting a zero tolerance stance to drink driving. Encouraging the public to adopt a zero tolerance attitude towards driving should help save more lives by reducing the likelihood that people will try and rely on their own estimations of how much alcohol is in their system and fitness to drive".

5.8 Three respondents (two organisations and an individual) said that they did not support a zero limit. A respondent from the alcohol / drugs group said that their reason for not supporting a zero limit was "to avoid the inevitable cases where people have alcohol in their blood through not drinking".

20mg limit

5.9 Twelve respondents (eight organisations, particularly local authorities and safety / road safety organisations, and four individuals) favoured a 20mg limit; there were comments that this would be in line with recommendations from the European Commission. An organisation from the alcohol / drugs group commented on a move to a 20mg limit:

"Introducing an 'effectively zero' limit of 20mg / 100ml over the longer term would reduce the KSIs even further than the 50mg / 100ml limit. However, reducing the limit too dramatically would alienate a huge proportion of the public. The limit needs to be reduced on a gradual basis so that it is a more acceptable process".

5.10 Nine individuals, however, commented that the consultation had not provided evidence that a lower limit would lead to fewer accidents.

Different limits

5.11 Respondents (mainly organisations from the alcohol / drugs or safety / road safety groups) suggested various categories of drivers that, they felt, should be subject to lower or zero limits and these included:

• Young / new drivers (17 respondents): "have the Scottish Government considered lowering the Blood Alcohol level for novice drivers to a level which is even lower than what is being proposed in the current consultations. The current evidence from the consultation (Keall et al 2004) would suggest that younger drivers are more at risk from the effects of lower doses of alcohol" (alcohol / drugs).
• Commercial or professional drivers (nine respondents): "The SG may like to consider a lower limit for professional drivers in the future, to reflect their significant responsibility for the safety of other road users whether they be the driver of a passenger vehicle or a large vehicle. This limit would be in line with other transport professionals such as train drivers, airline pilots and air traffic controllers" (safety / road safety).
• Motorbike riders (two respondents).

5.12 However, six respondents (five organisations and an individual) did not want to see different limits; there were comments that this would send out a mixed message or cause problems when changing to an upper limit due to age or experience.

5.13 As one safety / road safety respondent noted: "… road safety experts are concerned that once drivers who are subject to a 20mg / 100ml limit become subject to the 50mg / 100ml limit, they may mistakenly think it is safe to drink more and drive".

5.14 Two respondents wanted to see a Europe-wide limit.

Random breath testing / Other additional powers

5.15 Another main theme to emerge was the need for random breath testing. Comments in support of random breath testing were noted in 39 responses, mainly from those who supported a reduction in drink drive limits in Scotland. Twenty-four of these respondents were organisations.

5.16 Comments included the following examples:

• "The UK has particularly low levels of breath testing, with the SARTRE 3 study in 2004 showing that only 3% of drivers in the UK had been stopped and tested in the previous 3 years. This is well below the European average of 16%" (alcohol / drugs).
• "[The respondent] accepts the public anxiety about random testing, with the potential for abuse and the challenge of 'morning after' low levels of blood alcohol but random testing has been shown to be effective in seasonal campaigns and merits further consideration" (health).
• "[The respondent] believes that increased police powers to carry out random, blanket and targeted testing would also be beneficial to achieving wider testing. International evidence shows that an increase in breath testing, and introduction of random testing, both result in fewer drink drive casualties" (safety / road safety).

5.17 There were also some comments that roadside tests should be allowed in court.

5.18 While there was acknowledgement that this would require a transfer of power from Westminster, some respondents assumed that random testing already takes place, for example in the Christmas period.

5.19 Conversely, two individuals voiced their opposition to random testing.

5.20 Four respondents commented on the need for other additional powers, such as the ability to alter penalties, and suggested that the Scottish Government should continue to lobby for additional powers.

Enforcement

5.21 The issue of enforcement appeared in 34 responses, from organisations and individuals, and both from those supportive and opposed to a limit reduction.

5.22 Those opposed to a reduction commented on the need for better enforcement of current limits including better use of all penalties available. Many of those in support of a reduction commented that a new limit would need to be enforced. For example:

"The courts must use their full powers in sentencing drunk / drugged drivers. All the legislation in the world will be ineffective if they do not." (safety / road safety)

5.23 The main area addressed by respondents was that of the need for more visible policing. Respondents acknowledged that this would require more resources but saw visible policing as an important method of discouraging drink driving. In relation to this issue, three organisations commented on the need to consider any negative effects on traffic policing following the introduction of the new single police force. A safety / road safety organisation commented:

"[The respondent is] concerned that the upheaval caused by the transition to a single Scottish police force combined with tighter spending controls may impact on future numbers of traffic police available to enforce this new law. It is essential that the key role of a highly visible on-road traffic police deterrent is recognised and fully resourced. The majority of drink drive convictions are secured through the vigilance of trained police officers out on the roads and this must continue if drink driving is to be further reduced".

5.24 Other specific areas of enforcement that respondents wanted to see used or strengthened included the need for consistency in policing and in the courts.

5.25 An expert individual suggested:

"Police forces should continue to make every effort within the resources available to them to increase drivers' perception of the likelihood of apprehension when driving over the limit, and the justice system to use vigorously the available penalties, whilst also encouraging offenders to accept the option to attend drink driver rehabilitation courses".

5.26 Two organisations and an individual felt that all drivers involved in accidents should be breathalysed, for example "Paragraph 2.31 indicates that only 59% of motorists involved in injury accidents were asked for a breath test. Would there be merit in mandating breath testing in all cases of accident or in all cases where injury has occurred?" (health)

Penalties

5.27 Comments on the need for more severe penalties were noted in responses from 22 respondents, many of whom were individuals.

5.28 More specifically, support for vehicle forfeiture was noted in 14 responses, mainly from individuals. An expert individual said that they "commend the ACPOS measures relating to the seizure of vehicles".

5.29 However, a local authority response contained the following comment: "The mandatory use of vehicle alcohol interlock would appear to be a more effective casualty reduction tool than the forfeiture scheme. While forfeiture will undoubtedly have some deterrent effect, there is still a low risk of being caught".

5.30 Immediate action following a road-side positive test, including licence suspension or vehicle forfeiture, was supported by four organisations and five individuals.

5.31 There was also some support for graduated penalties, depending on the amount over-limit, from eight respondents (organisations and individuals).

5.32 One safety / road safety respondent commented on the value of restorative justice to both offenders and victims while a health organisation supported community pay-back orders.

5.33 An individual wanted to see drivers re-sit their test following a ban.

5.34 Looking at the wider context, one organisation from the 'other' group suggested that "the civil liability framework should be reformed so that the burden of proof falls upon the driver to prove that they were not at fault in the event of a collision with a vulnerable road user, as is the case in most other European countries".

Education

5.35 The need for education was noted in 32 responses, mainly from organisations and, again, mainly from respondents who supported a limit reduction.

5.36 Various objectives, mainly preventative measures, were put forward including the need to ensure people are aware of the drink drive limits, and that they understand what this means in terms of the number of different types of drinks. Raising awareness of the effects of alcohol was also seen as very important as was the importance of educating people about lingering effects of alcohol the next morning.

"It is very difficult to know exactly how much alcohol has been consumed, and how long for it to be removed from the bloodstream (which varies from person to person). Therefore, the new lower limit should be accompanied by sustained publicity and education to raise awareness of the much greater likelihood of exceeding the new lower limit" (safety / road safety)

5.37 Concerns over, or the need to increase awareness of, morning after issues were noted in 13 responses; five organisations and eight individuals commented on this issue. For example: "There is likely to be confusion about the amount of alcohol that people consume the evening before and their ability to drive within the legal limit the next day. There will need to be a clear message about this" (health).

5.38 The need for education for repeat offenders was noted in responses as were calls for more or better use of rehabilitation orders, support or treatment; 11 responses contained comments on these issues. For example, one safety / road safety organisation suggested that the Scottish Government should monitor the success of measures proposed in Northern Ireland:

"Northern Ireland proposes to automatically refer convicted drivers to a drink drive rehabilitation course, unless a District Judge thinks it inappropriate to do so, because research shows that drivers who have completed such a course are less likely to commit a second drink drive offence".

5.39 A safety / road safety organisation commented:

"In addition to legal deterrents some form of compulsory educational rehabilitation imposed by the courts should be considered. Courses covering alcohol education, the law and sentencing, responsible driving and the implications both personal and for victims of drunk driving may change attitudes and behaviours of convicted offenders and make a valuable contribution towards reducing the number of people killed or seriously injured on our roads".

5.40 Targeted education specifically for young or new drivers, or for pre-drivers, perhaps as part of the national curriculum, was mentioned by eight organisations and two individuals.

5.41 An organisation from the 'other' group said that they wanted to see 'Pass Plus' or a similar scheme introduced

"as a compulsory element of learning to drive in return for equality in the cost of car insurance for younger drivers. We see no reason why education on drink driving, including the effects on driving the day after drinking, could not be included as a key part of this learning, contributing to a reduction in young drivers' premiums".

5.42 Also in relation to young or new drivers, six respondents (four organisations and two individuals) wanted to see Graduated Driver Licencing. An individual suggested P plates should be used while an organisation from the 'other organisations' group wanted to see young drivers undertake advanced driver training.

5.43 Allied to education, three respondents wanted to see a longer period of driver training and / or a stricter driving test.

Publicity

5.44 Twenty-eight respondents (predominantly organisations and all of whom supported a reduction) stressed the need for publicity to accompany any changes. A transport organisation commented:

"A change in legislation must be backed up by information campaigns, marketing and education to gain the public's support and ensure a full understanding of the changes and their impact".

5.45 An advertising campaign to raise awareness of changes was seen as essential and there were suggestions that this should include information on how many units of alcohol make up the limit (including, again, what this amount would include in terms of measures and types of drinks).

5.46 There was a number of comments on the need to avoid any confusion over a new limit; and respondents noted confusion over what the current limit actually equates to.

"The reduction in the legal alcohol limit must be supported by national publicity campaign demonstrating how the new limit translates to actual measures." (local authority)

5.47 There were also suggestions that any campaign should include information on the effects of alcohol. A small number called for hard-hitting campaigns along the lines of the current anti-knife campaign or the old seatbelt campaign; the need to promote designated drivers was also mentioned.

"Re-introduce the media campaign against drink driving employing shock tactics to bring to bear the real importance of zero tolerance for drink driving, The campaign many years ago for the compulsory use of seatbelts showing graphic images of penetrating facial and eye wounds proved successful. The campaign in those days involved public transport hoardings, as well as radio and TV with the phrase 'Clunk-Click every trip'". (health)

5.48 Fifteen respondents (again, predominantly organisations) stressed the need to promote the 'Don't drink and drive' message, regardless of the limit set.

"[The respondent] strongly supports the 'don't drink and drive' message to drivers as we know that any level of alcohol impairs driving." (safety / road safety)

Persistent offenders

5.49 The issue of persistent offenders was raised in 23 responses (five organisations and 18 individuals); this was the main theme to emerge from respondents opposed to a reduction in the drink drive limit.

"What could be termed 'criminal' or 'excessive' drink driving is not mentioned in the consultation report. What proportion of drivers involved in accidents would not be affected by the proposed lowering of the legal drink drive limit? It is interesting that the proportion of positive / refused tests where requested after a reportable accident has not really changed much in 20 years … supporting the assentation that there is a continuing problem in Scotland. It is accepted that 2/3rds of drink drivers involved in accidents are actually tested and estimates reflect this. With this in mind, it is difficult to see how the accident reduction claims attributed to simply lowering the limit would exceed those gained by more effective measures against the group that currently offends." (local authority)

5.50 Many of these respondents stressed that most drivers do not drink and drive; there were comments that it has become socially unacceptable. Respondents felt that those who currently drink and drive will not be deterred by a lower limit but rather by targeted enforcement and harsher penalties.

Prevention

5.51 A number of responses contained suggestions for preventative measures and these included:

• Alco-locks¹² (11 respondents).
• Breathalysers in cars; as are used in France (10).
• Strong company policies in relation to alcohol for professional / commercial drivers (5).
• Information or breathalysers available in licensed premises (3).
• Support for minimum alcohol pricing (2).
• Multi-agency approach (2).

Other offences

5.52 A number of respondents commented on the need to address the problems of other driving offences.

• Eight respondents (mainly organisations) wanted to see action against drug driving.
• Nine respondents (mainly individuals) wanted to see more action taken against those who use mobiles while driving or who speed.

Cross-border issues

5.53 Eleven respondents (seven organisations and four individuals) commented on cross border issues. Concerns included:

• The need to record in which country the penalty occurred; including the need for this to be noted on licenses.
• The need to ensure drivers know exactly when they have crossed the border into Scotland (not all crossings are clearly defined).
• The need for publicity / information for drivers in other parts of the UK.
• Queries as to how insurance companies, employers and others will approach drink drive convictions with two sets of limits.
• The need to amend the driving test and Highway Code.
• That changes to the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Road Transport Act 1988 will be required.