Testing Of Drivers Who Drink

Press, Volume CII, Issue 30279, 4 November 1963, Page 12

Testing Of Drivers Who Drink

Chemical tests of suspected; drunken drivers may soon] be necessary. The evidence is overwhelming that i drunken driving is a heavy] contributor to the shocking* toll on the roads. The worst] single hourly period for] accidents is between 6 p.m. and 7 p.m. on Saturdays] (when traffic volume is relatively light) and the Trans-! port Department, in its; annual report, agrees that drinking before driving is a ] “ material factor ” in the; high accident rate on Satur-i days. More than 700 drivers; were convicted of driving under the influence of drink; or drugs last year and many escaped conviction largely because of the unsatisfactory and indecisive clinical tests doctors at present use. Ten years ago, the New Zealand branch of the British Medical Association found that the technical and administrative problems made chemical tests impracticable; but now the branch has advocated a test of suspected drivers to determine the level of alcohol in the body fluids by chemical means. It has not attempted to set a level over which a driver would be considered incapable, which is the practice in some countries, but has suggested instead a change in the definition of unfitness to drive based on impairment of ability by alcohol. This is a suggestion the Road Safety Council.; which has approved the proposals in principle, should study carefully The setting of an arbitrary figure for a * permissible ” concentration of alcohol in the blood presents difficulties. It is known that, generally, driving ability is dangerously impaired if the blood alcohol level rises above 08 per cent and some countries have set a level as low as 0.5' per cent, beyond which a conviction is mandatory. But experienced drinkers might not be dangerously affected at this level, though there is general agreement that at .1 to .15 per cent no person is fit to drive. If the level is set too low, it might be unjust; if it is too high. some, perhaps many, drivers will escape conviction. But a clinical test complemented by a blood test would certainly give the courts a surer guide in determinin,? drunkenness, or the degree of impairment of abilitv to drive

No greater accuracy in assessing the f..<ilt —or innocence—of a person susoected of driving while under the influence of alcohol will be achieved until the value of evidence of the level of alcohol in the blood is accepted by the courts. A

major problem in gathering this evidence is the present absolute right of an accused person to refuse to submit to the taking of a blood specimen.

The B.M.A. has suggested legislation to suspend the driving licences of persons who refuse consent to a test. Possibly the best course would be for accused drivers to retain the right to refuse what is, after all, a technical assault. “ Bor- “ decline ” cases might welcome sure evidence of the degree of their fitness to be in charge of a car: and the ; courts would place some weight on evidence of refusal to undergo a test. However this problem is overcome—and there is some reason for making the test mandatory since lit protects the innocent ; —the B.M.A. proposals will Ibe widely debated. It should be remembered that their object is not so much to secure more convictions as to ensure that drinking drivers give more careful consideration to their fitness to drive before taking their | cars on the roads. New . Zealand roads will be much | safer if that stage is reached.