Public Health: UK proposes to slash drink-driving limit

New research commissioned from the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) suggests that as many as 168 lives - approximately 7% of current road deaths in Great Britain - could be saved in the first year of a reduced limit, rising to as many as 303 lives saved by the 6th year following any change in the law.

In the first major review of drink and drug driving law since 1976, Sir Peter North recommends that the drink drive limit is reduced from 80mg/100ml to 50mg/100ml and that there should be a step-by-step assault on drug-driving.

Sir Peter makes 51 recommendations to the Secretary of State for Transport in a bid to reduce drink and drug driving casualties. The most recent statistics showed 430 drink drive deaths and 60 reported drug drive deaths in 2008, but the report stresses that many others are dying as a result of crashes involving drivers impaired by alcohol but below the current limit.

While the Review has identified that many people don't know how much they could actually drink and stay within the legal limit - old or new - differences in people's response to alcohol makes setting drink 'quotas' a difficult, and possibly, risky strategy.

Sir Peter said "Research conclusively shows the much higher risk posed by drink driving. With a blood alcohol level between my proposed new limit of 50mg/100ml and the current 80mg/100ml limit, a driver has a 6 times greater risk of road death than a non-drinking driver."

Sir Peter also recommends that police be given greater powers to check for drink drivers and that drink drive procedures are streamlined, to increase police time on the roads. However, he decides against specifically targeting young people or professional drivers.

In the short term, Sir Peter recommends that police procedures enforcing current drug driving laws are improved, making it more straightforward for police to identify and prosecute drug drivers by allowing nurses, as well as doctors, to authorise blood tests of suspects.

Medium-term, he recommends early approval of saliva testing of drug driving suspects in police stations, which will largely overcome the environmental problems in roadside use that had previously slowed technological development of so-called 'drugalysers'.

On the question of a new law setting banned drug levels, Sir Peter said "The focus should be on public safety. Any new offence should therefore focus on establishing levels of drugs in the blood at which significant impairment - and therefore, risk to public safety - can be reasonably assumed, as is the case now for drink-driving".

An AA/Populus Panel survey in 2008 of more than 17,000 AA members found 66% in favour of lowering the drink drive limit, with only one-fifth (20%) opposed. A survey by Brake and Direct Line of 800 drivers also found 71% supporting the reduction of the current limit. 55% of those in the Brake/Direct Line survey supported a zero limit.

The AA Populus Panel (2010) found 64% of more than 20,000 AA members in favour of a 12 month ban or longer for breaking a 50 mg/100ml limit. The British Social Attitudes Survey of 2009 cites 71% of people polled favouring a period of 5 years disqualification for drink-drive offences.

But there are voices that, while opposing drink-driving, also caution of some consequences.

Peter Jameson, whose job includes health-related emergency call out said the following, slightly tongue in cheek:

"When I lived in Australia, they used to have a thing called the Booze Bus and it parked on a different road leaving and entering town each day as it randomly stopped and breathalysed people in every say, 6th car. If you nick the guys who are over the limit in the day, you'll find you'venicked them before they do it big time at night.

"As if life wasn't miserable enough, now the remaining 3 country pubs in England have to face this approximately 854th cut of their death of a thousand cuts and I can't even have a pint with my work colleagues on the way home.

"Things have massively changed for the better here in the last ten years in respect of drink driving. No-one but no-one (except the brainless macho people who will drive whatever, whenever no matter what) drives at all after more than maybe a couple of weak pints.

"Whatever they say, you can't really even have one drink and drive at these levels, but at least if the limit is .5 instead of zero you might not get nicked on the way into work after having a hot toddy to settle for bed, and if you have a boozy chocolate or a small sherry trifle you'll still be legal.

"If they genuinely want to limit the social effects of booze, they should govern the price at the point of consumer retail and tax it ruthlessly like they are beginning to do with fags. And having made it generally more expensive, they should ensure that it costs more to take it home or onto the streets (where the damage is done to property and the individual's liver and cerebral cortex and the wife and kids take the alcohol induced beatings) than it does to drink it in on properly andresponsibly regulated licensed premises.

"And that's the opinion of someone who enjoys but barely drinks any alcohol nowadays and when he parks his car at home every evening, has to walk thirstily past the door of an excellent pub on the way to his own front door and a barely compensatory cup of decaff coffee."