Impound their cars — Mr Quin

Press, 13 June 1978, Page 17

Impound their cars — Mr Quin

Thirty-six years in the police force, during which he attended many accidents, has made a former Auckland assistant commissioner of police, Mr A. G. QUIN, realise the great part alcohol played in them. •‘lt has left me with strong views on the apparent inability of our laws and lawmakers to contain the problem.'’ He outlines his views in this article.

Drinking drivers are still with us. Indeed, at the present time they are with us in greater numbers than ever before.

It is quite plain that after more than 50 years of threats, admonitions, and appeals by dedicated Ministers of Transport; of arrests, prosecutions, and convictions of offenders; and of consequent punishments by way of fines, cancellation of licences, periodic detention, and occasional terms of imprisonment; the law and its administration has been of very little effect in curbing'their activities. Obviously something is very wrong or inadequate in measures so far taken to impress on offenders that they must not drink when

about to drive or while driving.

There has lately been welcome evidence that some people in positions of authority are becoming very disturbed by the increasing incidence of intoxicated driving and by the human and material havoc it causes.

This is a very gratifying development because all through the years of carnage and destruction on our roads the public has been, and undoubtedly still is, quite apathetic. Apart from the publicised views of police and traffic officers, and of members of the medical and nursing professions, there has been little sign of indignation or concern about the slaugh-

ter and maiming on our roads.

Somewhere in our present laws, or in the application of them, there is shocking futility; the deterrent effect seems to be almost nil. Far too much consideration is given the drinking driver who (almost all are males) does not give a hoot for the menace he is to other people. The present procedure of detection is too complicated, the evidence required for conviction is excessive, and the penalties imposed seem to be of little effect. The Minister of Transport (Mr McLachlan) is apparently doing something about the detection and evidentiary requirements. He suggests that two breathalyser tests with modern apparatus should be sufficient to establish the guilt or otherwise of a suspect; apparently, he sees no need for a blood-alcohol test in addition: and indeed, that any such test would seem to be superfluous.

It is hardly conceivable that a driver who has failed or refused to take two

breath tests is in fit condition to drive a motor vehicle, yet there is a proposal that such a person should be allowed a blood test if he asks for one.

Why? Why should he, while patently under the influence of drink, be allowed to command the valuable time and skills of a doctor and analysts to no purpose? This proposed concession has all the appearance of a sop to those who have an exaggerated regard for the rights of offenders and little or none for those of their victims.

We need a briefly worded and effective law to provide simply that every person commits an offence who drives or is in charge of any motor vehicle on any public road while in such a condition owing to the consumption of liquor as to be unable to pass an approved breathalyser test. No “provided thats” or “neverthelesses” or “notwithstanding”; just a flat prohibition. Penalties imposed on convicted offenders, in

accordance with the law, have been either fines, cancellation or suspension of licences, periodic detention or, in a few cases, imprisonment; they have been of little effect. Fines of even $3OO are hardly crippling in these days of high salaries and wages.

Another factor which operates against effectiveness in application of the present law is the length of time sometimes between apprehension of an alleged offender and the hearing of the charge against him. The delays in hearings are due to the pressure of business on the courts. Mr Allan Nixon, in a paper presented to a recent law conference, stated that the courts were becoming overloaded by the numbers of cases of all kinds. This is undoubtedly true. Mr Nixon questioned whether it was necessary to have all breakers of laws dealt with by courts, and he suggested that other procedures, advantageous to individual offenders as well as to the public, might

properly be adopted in some cases.

The idea might well be extended — and implemented —■ by removing a whole class of .offenders from the jurisdiction of the courts. This would enable cases of intoxicated driving, where there are no complications such as death or injury, to be dealt with expeditiously and

with salutary effect. An “authorised procedure” could be set, either by statute or by regulation, to provide that: 1. Any police or traffic officer having cause to suspect that the driver of any motor vehicle on a public road has been unduly affected by liquor may forthwith stop the vehicle and require the driver to take an approved breath test.

2. If the driver fails it or refuses to take it, the officer may then take him in custody before two Justices of the Peace at a police station. 3. The justices may require the driver to undergo a breath test in their pres-

sence, and if he fails it or refuses to take it, they may certify to that effect. 4. On the issue of any such certificate the police or traffic officer concerned may, if the driver owned or was otherwise in lawful possession of the vehicle he had been driving, impound the vehicle. It is suggested that impounding of vehicles would have much more deterrent effect than penalties so far imposed; and in view of the increasing numbers of offenders, deterrence is surely what is needed. The impounding could be for a period of three months (12 months for a second offence).

The vehicle being driven by the inebriated driver should be impounded whether it is his own property, or lent to him by a friend, or made available to him by his employer. (Reference has already been made to the apathy of the public to drinking driver offences.) A provision for automa tic impounding of any vehicle lawfully in possession of a drinking driver would make citizens think before entrusting their property to someone who could prove irresponsible. It would also deter at least some drivers from misusing vehicles for which they would be accountable to others.