THE PRESS FRIDAY, MARCH 27, 1981. The odds of getting caught

Press, 27 March 1981, Page 10

THE PRESS FRIDAY, MARCH 27, 1981. The odds of getting caught

When a thousand people break a law for Jyery one Who is detected, the law is not ikeiy .to be held in very high regard, indeed, the community might be justified n arguing that the law should be abolished Jr that its enforcement should be drastically improved. Recent surveys of Irinklng and driving habits in New Zealand mggest that for every detected offence, in Vhich a driver’s level of blood alcohol !xceeds the permissible limit of 80 nilligfams per 100 millilitres of blood, a ;housand offences go undetected. More than 10,000 people are convicted ?ach year for drinking and driving jffences. On that figure, something like ten milion offences escape detection. Professor R. D. Batt, head of the Medical Research Council’s alcohol research group iuggested early this year that’ the law night be broken even more often than Ministry of Transport and Department of Scientific and Industrial Research figures suggest. Professor Batt reckons tjiat as nany as 40 million drinking and driving Jffences go undetected in New Zealand in me year.

The Ministry of Transport has reported ifter its “blitzes” against drinking drivers ;hat, even though behaviour on the roads mproves while the campaigns are on, the lumber of offenders detected does not appear to decrease. Detection of the people vho drive t after consuming an excess of ilcohol is limited by the Ministry’s manpower, not by a want of offenders.

These figures' are surely of critical importance to the Cabiiiet’s Transport Committee which is considering a proposal io lower further the permissible blood alcohol level. A lower level would not necessarily assist in the detection or conviction of offenders. It would certainly increase significantly the enormous number of offences that go undetected. The law, hardly observed now by a significant proportion of the community, might be treated with even more contempt unless the proportion of convictions was Even if the present estimate of undetected offences is greatly astray, the chances of getting Sway with drinking and driving are too high to discourage determined or irresponsible t offenders. -Lowering the alcohol lifnit would increase the odds in favour of the drivers who pass undetected; this could only encourage people to take their chance with the law.

The lower the permissible level of alcohol in a driver’s blood, the harder it is likely to be to detect offenders. Traffic officers still have to have good reason to suspect that the law is being broken before a driver can be stopped and tested. In practice, .this means drivers have to draw attention to themselves in some way.

Below the present legal limit of alcohol in the blood, many drivers might be sufficiently affected by liquor to drive dangerously when tested by some emergency or to be careless of some road rules. Norinally, however, a great number of drivers would not betray their condition until some mishap occurred. Enforcing a lower limit would almost certainly require random testing, a measure which some still resist and which would be further resisted if a lower blood alcohol limit were introduced. A strong case can be made for random testing, but it is more likely to be acceptable if the law acknowledge? that a little alcohol has relatively little harmful effect on most drivers.

Statistics demonstrate convincingly that drivers impaired by alcohol are most likely to be on the road between 6 p.m. and 6 a.m. These drivers are most likely to be males between the ages of about 16 and 25, and they are likely to have been drinking in a hotel, tavern or club. Indeed, one recent survey suggested that a hard core of, perhaps, 30,000 young male drivers were the only real danger on New Zealand roads. Hospital admissions, deaths, and court convictions tend to support these figures. About 30 per cent of offenders are found to have previous convictions for a similar offence.

The findings suggest that enforcement of the law should be concentrated against a particular group of drivers, at particular times of the day. Random testing would help enforcement, for the likelihood of detection and punishment surely remains the most effective deterrent to drinking and driving offences. Experience suggests that rather than create even more undetected offenders by changing the law, efforts should be concentrated on educating those who drive after drinking excessively to mend their ways.

Proposals have been made to make the education of offenders part of the penalty imposed by the courts. Such a measure would be welcome. Even at the present low rate of detection of offenders there would be no. shortage of candidates for such courses.

■ The object of the drinking-driving laws must surely be to enable the greater detection of drivers whose behaviour is a danger to themselves and to others, and to persuade or force them to change their habits. More traffic officers, random breath testing, compulsory courses for offenders, and stiffer penalties would all do more to improve safety on the roads than another change in the level of alcohol in the blood at which a driver is deemed to be fit to drive.