Getting tougher with drinking drivers

Press, 3 July 1978, Page 12

Getting tougher with drinking drivers

Comment from the Capital

By

CEDRIC MENTIPLAY

Wellington, Thursday

Legislation making it easier for law-enforcement officers to obtain convictions for driving under the influence of alcohol, and also stiffening the penalties against erring drivers, is expected to be introduced into Parliament within a month. Members of Parliament have been alerted to the fact that the campaign against drunken driving is not just a game in which the traffic officers are handicapped by rules of sportsmanship and “giving a fair go.” The change in members’ views was evident in the interim report of the select committee on road safety, presented to Parliament by the committee’s chairman, Mr M. J. Minogue (National, Hamilton West). It is often said that Parliament suffers because of an absence of common ground between the parties. This is by no means so of the work of the select committee. When the committee presented its report, the former Minister of Transport, Sir Basil Arthur (Labour, Timaru) spoke in glowing terms of how Mr

Minogue had discharged his duties.

“He was determined to make progress, and kept the committee working,” Sir Basil told Parliament. “Witnesses who appeared before the committee were kept to the point — particularly expert witnesses who, when appearing before committees, tend to lead on to technicalities in the area of their expertise. They were kept to the point, and snoke in laymen’s terms so that the committee could understand fully the points they were making.”

The report was outspoken on the drinking driver and on casualties among young people; but it covered the whole range of the problem, which exacts its price in death, injury, and destruction of property and entails annual costs put at SI76M. Not long ago many members of Parliament seemed content to ignore the situation. There was even strong business, professional and local body reaction when Sir Basil Arthur, as Minister of Transport, first dropped the permissible maximum speed on highways to 50 miles an hour, then stubbornly refused

to increase it. This and the enforcement of the law requiring the fitting and use of seat-belts brought about a remarkable decrease in road casualties. But the charmed period passed, and the road carnage is increasing week by week. Perhaps the greatest shock to members of Parliament, and to the public, came from the 22 deaths recorded over last Queen’s Birthday week-end. This was three times the number at the same time last year.

The rising toll has been carefully recorded, the causes noted, and recommendations made. These have included demands for random breath-tests; for a simplification of the testing system; even for mandatory checks on drivers leaving hotels and motel car-parks. Many people have responded along the lines of, “It isn’t sporting,” or “It’s not a fair go.” Views have changed. Members of Parliament, moving about their constituencies in election year, are noting a mood of

anger, sometimes against a Government which seems slow to react to the obvious.

When the new legislation comes out, it is predicted that it will have no effect at the polls. Perhaps this is the only subject on which National and Labour are of one mind. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Rowling) was among the first to suggest a change of mind towards the drinking driver. He urged that the drinking driver be known as a “drunken slob’ rather than by the historic label of “a bit of a character.” The new laws will cut the permissible blood-alcohol level of 100 milligrams of alcohol to 100 millilitres of blood by 20 per cent. Penalties for driving while under the influence of liquor will rise from $4OO to $lOOO.

The revised penalty list, now in the hands of the Minister of Transport (Mr McLachlan) will make the taking of breath tests easier, and will facilitate their acceptance by the courts. One present provision, which has been largely ig-

nored, requires hospitals to take blood-samples from drivers injured in accidents.

It is understood that most hospital staffs claim that their duties lie in the preservation of life rather than in the fixing of responsibilities. On a recent check, only Waikato and Christchurch hospitals have continued to make this test. Under the new law it may be abandoned, except in special instances. The new laws are likely to make it harder for drivers to succeed in pleas to retain their licences.

Though the Prime Minister (Mr Muldoon) has expressed his aversion to the compulsory random breath-test, it may still be adopted. Mr Muldoon has talked several times of the spectacle of traffic officers accosting lone women drivers on lonely roads. Traffic authorities dismiss this as an unlikely and extreme example, the case for the random test has gained much ground over the last three months.

Mr McLachlan has already

announced that evidential breath testing will be introduced to replace blood testing (though the option will remain). Only one test will be required, instead of the two which are mandatory now. The grounds for ordering a breath test are likely to be extended so that an officer may require a test when he suspects substantial consumption of alcohol; when there has been an accident; or when a culpable driving offence is suspected. Several breath-testing devices are in New Zealand now. These have been tested by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, and the Minister may be given special powers to approve those which have passed the tests. The situation has been complicated by the possibility of the presence of drugs, medicinal and otherwise. Special powers will be retained in such cases to make blood, urine, and saliva tests.

Several investigating committees have commented on the time which is now required for an officer to secure a conviction. There is likely to be an emphasis on moves to keep the officers on the road rather than in court.