 |
Time for a
culture change |
|
|
| Britain has a strong anti drink-driving culture.
But the ‘RAC Report on Motoring 2003’ highlights
the increasing dangers of “morning-after motoring”
and the steady growth of drug-driving. Ashley Martin reports |
 |
| “The hardcore minority of
drink-drivers should, the RAC says, be targeted with tougher
sentences when caught over the drink-drive limit” |
|
A total of 3,000 people are killed or injured each year in drink-drive
accidents and more than one-in-five road deaths continue to involve
drivers who are over the drinkdrive limit, according to Department
of Transport figures. Such statistics come despite widespread acknowledgement
that the UK has a strong anti drink-drive culture as a consequence
of around 30 years of government campaigns.
Only 1% of motorists admitted to driving when over the 80mg of alcohol
per 100ml of blood limit in the past 12 months, but that still equates
to about 200,000 drivers who have drink-driven in the last year. The
problem of hardcore drink-driving continues to be associated with
male motorists aged 17-34 and company car drivers.
It is this hardcore minority of drivers that, the RAC says, should
be targeted with tougher sentences when caught over the drink-drive
limit.
The motoring organisation argues that such a move would do more to
further reduce drink-drive deaths and injuries than lowering the drink-drive
limit – one option which also faces the Government in its long-running
drink-drive crackdown. The drink-drive limit in most EU countries
is 50mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood. The report says: “With
one in five of all road deaths involving drivers who are over the
legal limit, deterring those that continue to drink and drive is critical
to reducing deaths and injuries on the road.”
Drink-drivers currently face a minimum 12-month driving ban, a £5,000
fine and six months in prison. Earlier this year, the Government announced
proposals to increase sentences for causing death by dangerous driving
from 10 years to 14 years. This would include causing death when driving
under the influence of drink or drugs.
Meanwhile, the Government is investigating the possibility of introducing
random breath tests – a move that, according to the RAC report,
has significant public support.
As well as the enormous personal distress that arises from accidents,
the Department of Transport estimates that the direct economic and
social cost of accidents involving death or injuries is £3bn
a year. A sizeable proportion of that cost is accounted for by accidents
due to drink and drugs. In 2001, for example, 4% or 6,000 of the motorists
breathalysed following an accident which resulted in injury, failed
the test.
In terms of the seriousness of drink-driving, 91% of people say it
is more lethal than snatching an old lady’s handbag, shoplifting,
burglary or breaking into a car.
Reflecting the seriousness with which drink-driving is viewed and
the relatively high numbers of company car drivers who admit to drink-driving,
the majority of employers have introduced their own measures to deter
and discipline employees. Only 6% of fleets would not do anything
if a company car driver were convicted of drink-driving, while the
majority have some form of disciplinary policy in place.
Almost a third of companies say that they would sack a member of staff
caught drink-driving.
The morning after
Despite the anti drink-driving crusades of the past three decades,
driving after drinking the night before – so-called “morning
after motoring” is becoming a growing concern.
The RAC says young drivers and company car drivers are more likely
to be driving a car when they knew they had been drinking heavily
the night before. It calculates that 1.6 million motorists have been
in a car in the last year when they knew the driver had been drinking
heavily the night before. The problem, says the RAC, is linked to
stronger alcohol now being available, including “premium”
lagers, wine usually being 11-13% abv and confusion about the amount
of alcohol contained in ready-mixed drinks such as alcopops.
Focusing specifically on businesses, the motoring organisation says:
“Companies must ensure that their employees are not forced into
situations when they are highly likely to be under the influence the
following day; for example after corporate conferences when heavy
drinking may be encouraged as part of a company’s culture.”
But, alarmingly, the relative frequency of “morning-after motoring”
compared to “same day” drink-driving shows that any cultural
change with regard to drink-driving has yet to have the same impact
on driving after drinking heavily the night before. Amid the seemingly
laissez faire attitude to morning-after motoring – 72% of motorists
say that driving after drinking heavily the night before is extremely
or very dangerous, compared with 93% for driving over the legal limit
on the same day – the RAC says more needs to be done to tackle
the issue.
Drug-driving
In the past 15 years there has been a six-fold increase in the number
of people killed in road accidents who had traces of illegal drugs
in their body. Despite the threats to safety from drug-driving, 98%
of companies do not conduct random drug tests on employees. Meanwhile,
90% of motorists support the introduction of machines to test for
the presence of illicit drugs at the roadside.
But the problem of drug-driving is not just confined to illicit drugs
such as cannabis and marijuana or harder drugs such as ecstasy, cocaine
and heroin. Prescription and over-the-counter drugs also pose a threat
to safety, but drivers don’t take heed of the warning that some
drugs can impact on driving ability and 40% of firms do not require
their employees to inform them if they are taking medicines which
could affect driving ability.
As a result, there are calls for clearer warnings about the effects
certain medicines can have on driving ability, including improvements
to the labelling of prescribed drugs and demands for companies to
urge their staff to inform line managers if they are taking medicines
that are likely to affect their ability to drive.
In 2000, research by the Transport Research Laboratory found that
illicit drugs were present in 18% of drivers involved in road accident
fatalities. Although there is no evidence to directly link the presence
of drugs to the cause of these accidents, since 1988 there has been
a six-fold increase in the number of people killed in road accidents
who had traces of illegal drugs in their body. Dr Rob Tunbridge, the
TRL’s head of impairment studies, said in the RAC report: “Driving
under the influence of illicit drugs presents several key risks to
motorists’ safety.
Drugs can have an effect on the co-ordination of the motorists as
well as making the motorist believe they are driving safely when they
are actually not.” Reflecting the general growth in illicit
drug use, a staggering 800,000 motorists admit getting into a car
when they knew the driver was under the influence of cannabis or marijuana
in the past 12 months, and 200,000 motorists personally admit to driving
under the influence of cannabis or marijuana, according to the report.
|
| “With one in five of all
road deaths involving drivers who are over the legal limit,
deterring those that continue to drink and drive is critical
to reducing deaths and injuries on the road” |
|
In addition, 200,000 motorists admit to getting into a car in the
past 12 months when they knew the driver was under the influence of
harder drugs. The law does not discriminate between motorists caught
driving under the influence of illegal drugs and those caught driving
under the influence of prescribed drugs – disqualification for
at least a year, a fine of up to £5,000 and up to six months
imprisonment.
However, the Department for Transport said in May this year that there
were more than 100 over-the-counter medicines with the potential to
cause drowsiness. About 60% of motorists – 17 million people
– admit to driving when they have been taking medication, most
commonly painkillers. Other medicines that could impair driving ability
include tranquillisers, sleeping tablets used the night before, anti-depressants,
local anaesthetics, hayfever drugs, cough medicines, painkillers,
drugs for long term conditions and antibiotics.
The RAC Foundation says: “There is considerable evidence that
older generation anti-depressant drugs and tranquillisers have an
adverse effect on driving and can increase the risk of accidents.”
|
| “In terms of the seriousness
of drink-driving, 91% of people say it is more lethal
than snatching an old lady’s handbag, shoplifting,
burglary or breaking into a car” |
|
The DfT was critical of motorists for not reading and taking account
of warnings that the prescribed medicines impacted on their driving
ability, but it also called for manufacturers to improve labels and
said a standard symbol, warning of drowsiness, should be considered
in the UK.
The RAC Foundation has previously called for a “traffic light”
warning system to be introduced with red, amber or green markings
to highlight whether it is safe to drive after taking medicine.
A quarter of motorists admit that they would always or sometimes drive
even if they knew that the medicines they were taking may impair their
driving ability. That equates to around six million drivers who could
be putting their own and others’ safety at risk – 30 times
the level of drink-driving.
Despite the dangers, 40% of fleet managers told the RAC survey that
their company car drivers did not have to inform them if they were
taking medicines that could affect driving ability. However, 60% of
companies ask their staff to inform them if they are taking medicines
that could affect their driving ability.
Of the firms that have a policy in place, only 3% would not do anything
if an employee told them that they were taking a medicine liable to
affect their driving ability. A fifth would take their company car
away. However, most commonly, a quarter would seek advice from doctors,
the health and safety department and insurers before making a decision.
The RAC Report on Motoring 2003: Drink, Drugs and
Driving is available from RAC Motoring Services, RAC House, 1 Forest
Road, Feltham, Middlesex, TW13 7RR : Tel 020 8917 2500
Fleets ignore medicine
driving danger
Most of Britain’s fleets are running the safety
gauntlet by not having policies in place that safeguard against
the danger of employees driving while taking over-the-counter
medicines.
Independent total vehicle risk management company Risk Answers,
a member of the Fleetsafe Group, says that while conducting
around 300 safety audits on company fleets, it has found that
virtually every organisation has ignored the danger. Meanwhile,
the Chartered Management Institute says that 50% of employers
don’t have a Drug and Alcohol Workplace Policy. When they
do, only 10% of managers can put their hand on a copy, and when
they can, half of the policies need to be updated.
Risk Answers director Jeremy Hay says: “Some companies
have in place policies with regard to employee drink-driving
and driving while under the influence of banned substances,
but they ignore the use of over-the-counter medicines or prescription
drugs.
“There is a responsibility on every employer
and employee equally in this area. The effect of the medicines
on reaction times can be the same as alcohol and this needs
to be taken more seriously.
“All companies should
rewrite their fleet policies to include rules and advice relating
to medicines. Such changes may also require contracts of employment
to be rewritten to ensure a sacked employee does not take their
former employer to an industrial tribunal.”
The Department for Transport estimates that fatigue may be responsible
for up to one in 10 accidents on motorways and up to one in
20 on other roads, and questions how many of those are caused
by drowsiness induced by medicines Peter Mason, Risk Answers’
general manager, says: “Employees must not drive a vehicle
while under the influence of alcohol or certain drugs. Typically,
fleets only relate the word drugs to banned substances. However,
companies and staff must be aware that legal drugs and medicines
can have a devastating impact on a person’s ability to
drive.
“Employees should not drive if they are
taking any substance that may affect their ability to do so
safely. It is their responsibility to inform their doctor or
chemist that they drive as part of their employment and to heed
the resulting advice.
“If an employee is prescribed
a drug by their doctor or buys medicine from a chemist and there
is a chance that it will affect their ability to drive safely
they should inform management immediately.
“This
puts the onus on the employee and, therefore, may require contracts
of employment to be rewritten. It is virtually impossible for
management to know whether or not an employee is taking medicine.
“However, management can only lay down rules, provide
information and create an appropriate safety culture.”
Risk Answers can be contacted at
enquiries@riskanswers.com,
or tel: 01344 467893. |
Companies must take action
Companies must introduce guidelines outlining their attitude
towards drink and drug use by occupational drivers to safeguard
themselves in the event of investigation by the police and Health
and Safety Executive (HSE). The warning comes from David Faithful,
a non-executive director of total vehicle risk management company
Risk Answers, a member of the Fleetsafe Group, and a solicitor
and partner in national insurance solicitors Amery-Parkes.
Meanwhile, sister company DriveTech, also a member of The Fleetsafe
Group, has added drink/drug-drive awareness and avoidance courses
to its product portfolio. Mr Faithful says that company bosses
and fleet managers could be “leaving themselves wide open
to criminal or civil proceedings” in the event of no action
being taken by them to educate occupational drivers on the risks
associated with alcohol or substance use.
He says guidelines or policies should be issued to staff so
that employees are aware of the company’s attitude to
alcohol consumption and drug use. Guidelines should also cover
“morning-after” driving and driving when taking
prescribed drugs or over-the-counter medicines. Mr Faithful
says: “Generally a company can have little influence on
a driver’s alcohol consumption or substance use, unless
it is in the course of their employment. That would include
business lunches, socialising with clients and after-work functions
such as Christmas parties.
“Employment tribunals readily accept that after-work activities
with a work theme are ‘within employment’ for the
purposes of employment protection. Many cases are pursued for
sexual harassment arising from the unwanted advances of a drunk
work colleague. Employers have a legal duty to protect the innocent
employee.
|
| “If an employee is
prescribed a drug by their doctor or buys medicine
from a chemist and there is a chance that it will
affect their ability to drive safely, they should
inform management immeditately” |
|
“I don’t believe there is any difference in relation
to the abuse of drink and drugs by occupational drivers. Contracts
of employment should be altered to make abuse of drink and drugs
a disciplinary offence.” If, following an office function,
a drink or drug-related accident occurs, the police –
probably supported by the HSE – will investigate and will
ask the company to produce an audit trail in relation to driver
and vehicle risk management and health and safety procedures
Mr Faithful says: “How will the company address the issue
of what guidelines were given to drivers? If such an accident
results, rightly, in a criminal prosecution, the company, including
the fleet manager or human resources director, may well have
left themselves open to prosecution for aiding and abetting
the offence if no policy or guidelines exist.”
The lack of knowledge surrounding drink-driving was highlighted
when more than 350 fleet decisionmakers attending this year’s
Company Car In Action event were asked to guess the time the
following day when they would be alcohol-free and therefore
okay to drive after an evening spent consuming a pint of lager,
three glasses of red wine and a whisky.
The options given of 3am, 6am, 11am and 3pm were all correct,
as there are many variables that impact differently on individuals.
It depends on both the strength of the alcohol consumed and
the size of the wine and whisky measures.
DriveTech founder Chris Howell says: “Employees are increasingly
turning to drink and drugs as a way of relieving at-work stress.
However, neither they nor their employers have any idea of the
impact. There is clear evidence of a lack of awareness on the
morning after effect of drink and drug use. “If motorists
are stopped and found to be over the legal limit and they are
driving on the company’s behalf, even in their own vehicle,
the problem also becomes the company’s.”
As a result, DriveTech has teamed up with Reading-based Avoidd
Training & Education, which, with more than 20 years experience
in alcohol and drug education offers “the complete drug
and alcohol workplace policy service” through a range
of drink and drug awareness courses for managers and staff.
Help ranges from compiling or reviewing a Drug and Alcohol Workplace
Policy that can be done by e-mail in three-four hours to bespoke
half-day or oneday drug and alcohol awareness and avoidance
courses for drivers, managers and occupational drivers.
Roger Singer, of Avoidd, which operates in association with
Drink Driver Education, a Department for Transport approved
course organiser, said: “Our policies and courses ensure
all companies have met their health and safety requirements.
Good management means employees should be drug and alcohol free.
By following our advice companies will be protecting themselves,
their staff – their most valuable asset – reducing
their costs and vehicle downtime.”
DriveTech (UK) can be contacted at
enquiries@drivetech.co.uk
or
telephone: 01344 773144.
|
|
|
|
