DRINK ANDDRIVING—III Social Climate Clouding Evidence Of Blood Tests

Press, Volume CIV, Issue 30827, 12 August 1965, Page 18

DRINK ANDDRIVING—III Social Climate Clouding Evidence Of Blood Tests

(Specially written for “The Press’* by the Rev PHILLIP D. RAMSAY.) “I only had a couple of beers” is standard defence when a motorist is facing courtroom charges for some driving offence usually after an accident. Magistrate, prosecutor, and jury are on duty, doing their best to be objective and fair. They are still human, however. Each in all probability drives a car and, it may be, drinks alcohol in moderation. Add to this situation an easy-going public attitude to social implications of beverage alcohol, an astute and persuasive defence counsel, and you have a climate distinctly favourable to the accused. Most of our people may say this is as it should be, since innocence is assumed until guilt is proved. To secure conviction seems difficult so far as alcohol is concerned, except for the most serious cases of gross intoxication. Grim Toll With alcohol as the named cause for 2072 of the 5800 drivers disqualified

last year and a probable contributor in the 915 dangerous driving and 2813 sundry other reasons for licence cancellation. the courts of our land have a growing responsibility. Especially is this so in consideration of the mounting road toll.

Last year 428 people were killed and another 16,268 injured on our roads. So far this year the death rate is increased 36 per cent on last year. To predict 600 fatalities this year makes a gritn picture. Therefore alcohol, with all other accident factors, must come under stricter scrutiny. Curiously, this is something the public generally—and the Government and courts in particular—are willing to do. To act with severity and courage would reduce the accident rate, though at the risk of stirring up protest upon infringement of personal liberty. No-one deliberately seeks upopularity, not least a Government facing an election year. Not to act, however, is tantamount to saying that human life is cheap. Magistrates face this dilemma daily as surely as politicians and leaders of Government departments and safety agencies. Main Factor “There is every reason to believe that in at least half the cases alcoholic intoxication is the main factor” said Mr L. N. Ritchie, S.M. in Gisborne recently speaking of road accidents. He said there was no decline in the number of cases in which motorists were charged, with driving under the influence of drink or drug. “Have I got to increase the penalties still further?,” he asked.

A fellow stipendiary magistrate in Dunedin, Mr J. D. Willis, was criticised recently by Mr Justice Henry who held that Mr Willis’s approach to an intoxicated driving case was contrary to the statute. Mr Willis was trying to answer Mr Ritchie’s question by stricter handling of a serious situation. The outcome is his retirement four years earlier than the normal retiring age.

Another disappointed man is Dr. P. B. Maling, a Christchurch police surgeon. Writing in a recent issue of the “New Zealand Medical Journal,” Dr. Maling examined 235 persons accused of driving in the years 196064 and considered only nine of them fit to drive. Many of these though having a dangerously high alcohol content, escaped conviction. Many drivers with more than 200 mg. of alcohol per 100 ml. of their urine were discharged without conviction.

The police give a good service, silent and uncomplaining. Off the record they will tell of the difficulties they experience, in putting an alcohol-impaired case before the court, their fear of defence tactics that make their efforts so often fruitless, the sobriety test difficulties, pressure of other work, and inelasticity of regulations. After a while they adopt a hardboiled approach to their job.

I Can they be blamed for a cynicism that develops with the years? Or that drunk driver cases are avoided if at all. possible? A similar check with the ambuj lance officer or the | hospital casualty ward will reveal the high proportion of accident victims who have been drinking to some degree. But theirs is a job to do and they do it well. It is not their business to volunteer opinions or launch a temperance crusade. Then whose is it? ; Greater Dr. P. P. Lynch, the noted pathologist, said at the North Island Motor Union's annual conference and the 1963 School of Alcoholic Studies that “the influence of alcohol in road traffic accidents is very much greater than any of us had hitherto suspected. Over the past 25 years 1 have made a large number of observations relating to motor vehicle accidents and the impression has developed and grown in my mind that alcohol plays a vitally important part in the causation of road accidents. “Indeed, it is my belief that if one looks for causes of what are otherwise inexplicable fatal road accidents one will find in the majority of cases. 1 believe, that alcohol has been the determining factor." Dr. W. M. Porteous, publicity officer for the Waikato division of the British Medical Association, said recently. “There is every reason to believe that in at least half the cases (of road accidents) alcoholic intoxication is the main factor." Swing To Kight The Medical Research Council investigations show that an; early effect of alcohol on al driver is the tendency to tol-l erate swings to the right, to 1 avoid approaching the lefthand kerb too closely, and to I drive near the crown of the | road. This weaving phenon-) enon occurs at quite low blood J alcohol levels and long before i slurred speech or staggering gait. Skill is affected at 0.03 per cent or three parts of alcohol to every 10,000 parts of blood (30mg/100ml). By the time the concentration is 80 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood driving skill has diminished by 12 per cent. In view of the life and death issues involved, it is a strange commentary on our culture that stringent testing of machinery is accepted whilst a warrant of fitness for the driver is seldom called in question. Yet it is the driver’s judgment—or lack of it —that causes most accidents. We have always known that “one for the road” is a dangerous form of celebration. But until the comparatively recent tests in the laboratory, with motor simulators, and driving under actual road conditions, we did not realise the serious impairment of skill by a few drinks.

Allowing for the varying effects upon individuals it is reasonably safe to say that four whiskies will produce a blood alcohol level above which it is unwise to drive.

The figure would vary be tween 0.05 per cent and 0.10

; per cent. The Third International Conference on Alcohol and Road Traffic, held in London in September, 1962. reported a rapid and dangerous impairment of driving ability as blood alcohol levels rose above 0.08 per cent. Our New Zealand Road Safety Council sets 0.10 per cent as the maximum alcoholic content for motorists who wish to drive with safety. That is six to nine beers in a relatively short period. The British Medical Association New Zealand branch, in conceding variations of alcohol tolerance in individuals, says in its 1963 report on assessment of intoxication of persons in charge of motor vehicles that a blood alcohol level in excess of 150 mg per 100 ml cannot be accepted in any circumstances as consistent with fitness to drive.

A British medical officer. Dr. E. Rentoul. considers that the visual motor co-ordina-tion so necessary for efficient car driving was impaired to such an extent when the urine alcohol level reached 80mg per Iml that it should be made a crime to drive with a level above that figure. In Christchurch tests the police surgeon. Dr. P. B. Maling. records not only that many drivers tested had more than 200 mg per Iml but also that they escaped conviction. The average alcohol content of urine from 53 allegedly drunken drivers from whom he had taken samples was 292 mg per Iml. “Magistrates seem loath to attach due im portance to this finding,” is Dr. Maling’s comment. Dr. John S. Birrell. police surgeon in Victoria, told Australia’s Institute of Scientific Studies in 1962 that the average suspect driver tested by him had a blood alcohol level of .215 per cent which indicated consumption of extraordinary amounts of liquor.

Disregarded

He also records that Vic- . toria police, because of their I experience of the operation of [ the law, tend to disregard , blood alcohol levels below 2 per cent as not worth charg- ) ing with the offence, in spite , of evidence of shocking driv- ’ ing. Most suspect drivers refuse the test, although a level I under .05 per cent is prima i facie evidence of innocence. • Dr. Birrell reports that even ; where the test is taken, and ' the results admitted as evidence, both lower and higher courts seem loath to allow the ; test as evidence. The more technical and complex our living, and the faster and denser our traffic, the more demand we make on our higher powers. Less margin for error means greater physical fitness. We must legislate for road safety. I hope that Dr. W. H. Blinman Bull speaks for all when he says, "I think we are all convinced of the necessity j for an examination of blood, ' and the only point is to agree ion the figtire.” That done, | and with courts to enforce it, i the drinking driver will be | discouraged from going his I merry and destructive wav.