New Drunken Driving Laws

Press, Volume CVII, Issue 31385, 2 June 1967, Page 7

New Drunken Driving Laws

TN the next few months the 1 British Government will mount a large-scale national publicity campaign to point the moral of the new drink-and-driving laws which will come into force later this year, writes Adam Raphael in the “Guardian,” Manchester.

The Ministry of Transport, which is preparing the campaign, has a difficult task, for not only is the subject bedevilled by medical fallacies, but the social consequences of the new law are much harsher than many drivers now realise.

The Road Safety Bill makes it an offence for a person having more than 80 milligrammes of alcohol In 100 millilitres of blood to drive a vehicle. The penalties are severe: on summary jurisdiction the court can fine up to £lOO and imprison for four months, while disqualification for at least 12 months is automatic. On indictment (where the driver chooses trial by jury) the fine is unlimited and the prison sentence can be up to two years. Most, if not all, the 8000 drivers who were convicted for drunken driving last year in Britain, and almost certainly many of those who were acquitted, had a good deal more than the proposed linilt in their bloodstream. The average alcohol-blood content, for example, in a survey of 546 drivers convicted in the north-east was 215 mg./ 100 ml, while some of the

drivers who were acquitted had levels as high as 180 mg. If nothing else, these findings reveal the absurdity of the previous law on driving under the influence no less than the unpredictability of juries in these cases. The Home Office in 1965 estimated that 78 per cent of the drivers charged with drunken driving were convicted by Magistrates’ courts compared to 58 per cent by higher courts. Not surprisingly in view of the past uncertainties of the law, many drivers faced with a charge of driving under the influence preferred to entrust their fate to a jury.

The 80mg./100ml. limit has now changed all this and the number of convictions (though not necessarily the number of cases) for drunken driving in the next few years is likely to rise sharply. How much can a motorist drink before he is in danger of exceeding the statutory limit? Through various estimates of five single whiskies or two-and-a-half pints of beer have been given as the equivalent, there are, in fact, so many variables that no safe answer can be given. It depends as much on your age, sex, and weight as on your drinking habits, the strength of your drink, and what you have eaten. A 17-year-old schoolgirl, for example, who drank five whiskies straight off could well be incapable of standing, let alone driving, though her

alcohol-blood content might be below 80 mg./lOOml. A 17-etone blacksmith, on the other hand, could probably drink twice that amount and be able to drive tolerably well though above the 80mg. level. This type of comparison raises the objection that at the lowest end of the scale the alchohol-blood level does not always correspond to the state of intoxication. Belgium and Germany have set their maximum level as high as 150 mg. but their example is contrasted by the tough antidrinking legislation in Sweden and Norway where it Is only 50mg. This is the amount favoured by the “British Medical Journal,” which argued last month that Britain’s proposed limit was too high. It represented 9-12 single whiskies, a level which few social drinkers could achieve without nausea. The ability of most drivers would be impaired, the journal claimed, at a level of 50mg. The proposed limit, however, of 80mg. is seen by many experts as a reasonable compromise between a medical ideal and what is practicable legislation. For drivers the only certain way of keeping within the law is to buy one of the simple breath meters which are now being sold for between 3s 6d and £1 ... or else become a teetotaller. Drivers who are suspected of being under the influence or who have committed a moving traffic offence can be stopped by the police and given a breathalyser test. This at best can only be a rough check and it can be wildly wrong if the driver belches or has had a drink within the last 15 minutes. If the test

proves positive, however, the driver Is requested to go to the police station. . He is there first asked for a blood specimen, normally taken by a prick on a finger by a police doctor, but if he refuses he will be asked to give two urine specimens within an hour. Both methods give comparable results though there is an interesting distinction. Blood will register the higher figure immediately after drinking but urine will later exceed it. Two separate specimens will be taken, one being given to the driver for an independent analysis if he wishes and the other’is sent to a police forensic laboratory. At the laboratory each blood sample is diluted with distilled water to which a test chemical has been added. It is then injected into a gas chromatography machine which automatically records a graph of the level of both the alcohol and the test chemical. A computer traces the two peaks of the graph and the percentage of alcohol is finally calculated by a laboratory technician using a desk calculator. However reliable the method used, and gas chromatography is claimed to be exceptionally precise, mistakes can be made, and so the sample retained by the driver is an important safeguard. The Home Office has ordered that the clerical work on all drink analysis in laboratories should be double checked. The procedure is complex and tiresome, both to the police and the motorist, but if it saves 32,000 casualties a year—the estimate given—it will surely have proved its worth.