Licences should be harder to get; breath test rules should be harsher

Press, 23 June 1978, Page 13

Licences should be harder to get; breath test rules should be harsher

DR J. S. ROXBURGH, Medical Officer of Health at Nelson, has been studying alcohol-related accidents for many years, and is convinced that severe measures are needed to make the roads safer.

On several occasions in the last 25 years, I thought that public opinion was beginning to consolidate fairly, strongly against the drunken driver. Social attitudes showed signs of changing from sympathy for him being “caught” (“there but for the grace of God go I”) to the rather more sensible one of sympathy for his victims, (or a desire to make the roads Sa recent months, I began to feel quite optimistic over various items of news of what people in high places and in Parliamentary Select Committees were saying. It really looks as if at least some of th- various important measures to cut down the dreadful road toll are about to be taken, however unpopular they might be with a section of society. We can only hope that this time, things will really happen. The Ke. Coates’ article on June 13, however, was an excellent commentary o the prevailing social attitudes over the last 25 years; we can only hope that they no longer prevail. As one who has taken a special interest in roa* 3 accidents as a public nealth problem, and done research into the causes of a large number of serious accidents resulting in death or hospitalisation, I would like to make the following comments on the four cases described: Case 1 — The 26-year-

old driver should really know be' er. Of course he “felt completely capable of driving.” Virtually all drunken drivers do, even when barely capable of standing when removed from the ca.. He merely swerved violently to avoid driving go together “withThis is reminiscent of so many cases where defence lawyers demand from traffic officers what just reason they had to suspect the driver had been drinking, talking to them as if they were the guilty parties. If he really thinks that drinking irresponsibly (to the extent of reaching 219 mg per cent, which requires an enormous amount of alcohol) and driving go together “eiout question,” he could not have had much experience in casualty or orthopaedic work, or is completely lacking in common sense and a sense of priorities. He should not be feeling aggrieved about getting a “harsh penalty”; he should show some remorse or guilt. Instead of this he indicates that he will just, go on repeating the offence, saying that he is against random testing outside taverns, etc because “I’d probably get caught just as often as anyone.” It is depressing to hear of a doctor (working in orthopaedics or anywhere else) with these attitudes. I would recommend that this doctor be assessed for alcoholism. A very high percentage of those with

over 200 mg per cent are alcoholics. Case 2— The 51-year-old professional man sounds arrogant and pompous. To use an expression common in alcoholism circles, he needs “deflation ai depth.” To be stopped for a breath test was a “shattering affront.” Like the doctor, he did not consider he had done anything wrong — just “bent down for a packet of cigarettes and let the car meander over the white line.” He could have meandered head-on into someone coming the other way. My nearest escape in a car recently was when I was about to go through a green light and was almost struck by a car which meandered (at about 45 m.p.h.) through red lights while the driver — possibly someone like this pompous prig — bent down over the wheel lighting a cigarette. I just do not believe his reason for refusing a blood test — that a friend “had lost the use of a hand for two weeks after giving a blood -ample.” I would say, in answer to his comment that “Traffic Officers should take cognisance of what sort of fellow you are” that they were probably doing exactly that; and an over-bearing, arrogant, blustering man who, having failed a breathalyser test, refused to give a blood sample, deserved all that came to him. Of course a man of that type will be against ran-

dom testing and call it “Gestapo tactics.” What nonsense to thus describe a procedure which will result in the average citizen having to go to the inconvenience of possibly having to give up two or three minutes to puff into a bag once in five years. Case 3 — like the others, has no guilt feelings and thinks it was “unfair,” he was just the victim of bad luck, that he was not a menace to others on the road. By an extraordinary piece of rationalisation, he says that if he had knocked someone over “that person could also have been a drinking driver at some time”.

His most sensible comment by far was in favouring breath tests. These must, of course, be introduced for legal purposes, not just as a roadside screening check. Case 4 — also has no sense of guilt, but at least feels the punishment was just. As with Case 1, however, 1t would be wise to have a check or assessment for alcoholism with a level over 200 mg per cent.

1 agree wholeheartedly with the former assistant police commissioner, Mr A. C. Quin, that “far too much consideration is given the drinking driver . . . who doesn’t give a hoot for the menace he is to other people.” Most, like the four cases quoted, refuse even to believe that they are a menace. I also agree that “we need a briefly worded and effective law,” stripped of all the loopholes, (now up to 153.) by which the guilty who employ a lawyer to defend them, so offen get off. What are some of the other measures we could easily introduce to cut the road toll? Here are a few: T All drivers with levels exceeding 180 mg per cent should be properly asessed for alcoholism. A high proportion of them are either alcoholics or pre-al-coholic, and if this is the case, they should be banned from driving indefinitely until they do something about their drinking problem. It is tragic that we are missing out on the opportunity of helping literally thousands of alcoholics each year by merely fining them and banning them from driving for a period. By and large, the alcoholism treatment facilities around the country could hardly cope with the flood of referrals which would result; but A.A. groups could. In some parts of the United States, magistrates include as part of the sentence, that alcoholics and problem drinkers must attend a number of A.A. meetings (up to 25, 30 and even 50), getting a card signed each time as proof of attendance and orderly behaviour. 2 Driving licences should be made more difficult to

obtain. Rather than the ‘•driver re-education courses” being established in various parts of the country’ for those who are convicted for drinking driving offences, and voluntary defensive driving courses (usually attended by those least needing them), ALL drivers should be made to attend a 4-ses-sion series of films, talks, and discussions combining what is taught at both these courses, sitting a proper examination at the end of it.

I have been unable to find out what proportion of drivers pass their driving tests first time in New Zealand, but it is a majority. In one or two European countries even where the age is 17 or 18 rather than our ridiculously low 14, up to 90 per cent fail. In other words, they make certain hat those who get legal sanction to drive on public roads at least have the basic knowledge required, and attempts are made to inculcate the basic sense of responsibility. We must educate our young people especially that driving is a privilege, not a right. 3 We should raise the driving age to 17, if the young do not very promptly show that they are willing to be more responsible. At present, they have a disproportionately high percentage of accidents and convictions for dangerous or reckless driving. It ould be no hardship for any (in fact it would do them good) to have to use bicycles, public transport or lifts from others for another two years. Perhaps the strongest argument against this change is that some might not be able to get jobs involving driving; but with unemployment running the way it is, it might be the opportunity to employ older people anyhow. There are insurance statistics which tend to show that young teenagers are beginning to be more careful, probably as a result of “loaded” premiums. But they have a long way to go. It would undoubtedly save many lives and crippling injuries each year if the driving age were raised. This is a strong argument for this measure, and, after all, we have the lowest driving age in the world. 4 Instead of (3) or in addition, we could introduce provisional or probationary type licences for adolescents up U 21 still liable to display the “peacock syndrome,” with show-off offences of speeding, reckless or inconsiderate driving. They should lose their licences automatically for a minimum of three months on each such conviction. If they reach three convictions, automatic cancellation until 25. Most of these will come into the

category of those who just do not deserve the privilege of driving. 5 Impounding of cars and motor-cycles along the ” tes mentioned b; Mr Quin should be considered. We might need large nounds for a short time but it woul< undoubtedly have a salutary effect. V Most important, we must introduce legislation which 'oes away with the blood alcohol requirements, a,.. all the steps and procedures involved. Breathalysers have been develop d quite accurately enough for legal purposes, and their use will result in a great increase in the chances of detection for drinking drivers. This is by far the most important deterrent of all. In Britain when the breathalyser and blood test legislation was introduced a decade ago, t »rc was a drop of over 500 deaths in the first six months. Then the accident rate crept up again soon after, to former levels. Study of why the initial big drop had occurred, showed that drivers had thought the chances of detection would be much greater. When they realised they were very small, for exactly the same reasons as here, the majority just decided thev’d take the small isks involved. The procedures involved to satisfy the present law are so time-consuming that traffic officers are kept off the road for extended periods for each one. No wonder their annua. average is so low. The new law suggested would enable them to "catch” as many, quite easily, in a week. T Another step which would help reduce accidents would be requiring photographs on driving licences. Why? Because, illogical as it may seem, the most dangerous drivers on the roads are those who should not be there — the banned drivers, many of whom carry a licence of a friend or neighbour in case they are stopped. It is estimated that about 80 per cent of those who “lose” their licences just carry on driving. One would expect them to take more care, but they do not, being the kind of people they are. Photographs on licences have been objected to on at least two grounds: (a) the cost, which at about $1 a decade is negligible compared to the cost of the tyre tread legislation, introduced with hardly a murmur of protest from motorists (apart from me.) a few years ago; and (b) an infringement of rights — which I think is too ridiculous an objection to even consider. It would, in fact, make the driving licence a much more useful form of identification.