New calls for drink-drive limit to be cut

“We cannot understand why the government continues to oppose a reduction in the drink-drive limit when the evidence shows it would save lives”

New calls have been made for a cut in the UK drink-drive limit alongside demands for more traffic police to get drunks off the road, following an increase in the number of people who were killed in drink-drive accidents last year. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA) says it was “shocked” to learn that the number of people killed in drink-drive accidents last year was the highest since 1992 and called on the government to cut the drink-drive limit in an effort to save lives. Government figures revealed that the estimated numbers of deaths in drink-drive accidents in 2004 was 590 – 10 more than in 2003 and the highest since 1992 when 660 people were killed in drink-related road accidents.

Meanwhile, the RAC Foundation is calling for more traffic police to target drink drivers and get them off the roads. The RAC Foundation says it was concerned that the reductions in the number killed and seriously injured in drink-drive related accidents in the 1980s and early 1990s (from 9,000 to under 4,000) were no longer being made. The number killed fell to a low of 460 deaths in 1998. Motorists caught drink-driving face a possible prison sentence, a fine of up to £5,000 and a driving ban of at least 12 months. In addition, around 15% of motorists convicted are made redundant, insurance premiums can increase by up to five times the original amount after a drink-drive ban, and there is an endorsement on the licence for 11 years – even when the disqualification period is over it may be difficult to hire a car for up to 10 years.

RoSPA believes the drink-drive limit should be cut from 80mg to 50mg – a move that could save 65 lives and 230 serious injuries a year. The Society also wants to see the police given wider powers to breath-test drivers as it believes people would be less inclined to flout the law if they feared they could be tested anywhere and at any time. Kevin Clinton, RoSPA head of road safety, says: ‘We cannot understand why the government continues to oppose a reduction in the drink-drive limit when the evidence shows it would save lives. “We are shocked by yet another increase in the number of deaths, even though there has been a fall in the number of casualties in drink-drive accidents. We fear the situation will continue to get worse unless something is done. “Far too many motorists think they can drink and drive without getting caught. We believe the Road Safety Bill could be used to introduce a reduced limit.”

Edmund King, executive director of the RAC Foundation says: “We believe that more traffic police would be a deterrent to drink drivers. The lack of visible evidence of enforcement of drink driving adds to the perception that people can simply do it and get away with it. “We need to see a greater police presence on our roads rather than just cameras. “71% of drink-drive offenders in a survey say that they were aware of anti drink-drive publicity within the previous six months, but had done it anyway.

“The facts prove that we have a growing problem with drinking and driving in the UK and that there is a need to understand why, despite years of campaigning, the problem still exists to this extent. “The message is not getting through to some. It is horrifying to see that almost one fifth of drivers killed are over the legal limit. “It is vital that we find the right method to convince people not to drink and drive. The RAC Foundation is convinced that apart from policing, one of the most effective methods is telling drivers about the real costs of drinking and driving and what they have to lose.”

None for the Road – the DVD message from Northamptonshire Drink Drive Partnership

An interactive and educational DVD has been produced by the Northamptonshire Drink Drive Partnership designed to explode the myths, misconceptions and confusion surrounding alcohol and its impact on a person’s ability to drive. The £149, 60-minute None for the Road DVD, which also includes a comprehensive set of facilitator guidelines, was believed to be the first of its kind when launched earlier this year and has proved popular with companies, schools and police forces since its launch. PC John Spencer, casualty reduction officer, Northamptonshire Police, with almost 30 years’ experience, says: “There is a lot of naivety and ignorance in business around drink-driving, particularly with the ‘morning after’ syndrome. Many people are completely unaware how long alcohol stays in their body for or its impact on their ability to work. “Many people drive to work the morning after drinking the night before and they are perhaps over the drink-drive limit because alcohol is absorbed very slowly, even though they may feel OK in themselves. “For companies focusing on occupational road risk, drink-driving is a major educational issue and should be part of their health and safety regime. The DVD can help. For many people, the loss of their driving licence may mean the loss of their job.”

“There is a lot of naivety and ignorance in business around drink-driving, particularly with the ‘morning after’ syndrome”

Northamptonshire Police typically carries out about 5,000 roadside breathalyser tests a year, of which around one in four is positive. Of those 1,200 drink-drivers, around 30%, will have been involved in a road traffic accident, some of which are fatalities. In Northamptonshire, says PC Spencer, a disproportionate number of drink-drivers were aged 17-24 years old. With the government focusing on reducing road casualties, and amid calls for a reduction in the current drink-drive limit of 80 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood, PC Spencer says: “I would like the UK to follow the route taken in countries such as Sweden where the limit is 20 mg, which is effectively zero tolerance as the human body naturally produces some alcohol.” If that level was to be introduced one single unit of alcohol would put a person over the drink-drive limit and PC Spencer says: “After attending road accidents for almost 30 years I would be delighted to see such a reduction as such a level would leave drivers in no doubt that they must not have alcohol in their body. “There are a huge number of people who are ignorant about the facts of drink-driving and it is those people that we are trying to educate with the DVD.” However, there are also hardened drink-drivers who, unless they draw attention to themselves, may not be caught. Now “intelligence-led policing” is being used to target these motorists who are typically reported to the authorities by other road-users. PC Spencer says: “Once we have this information, we target these drivers and take them off the road.”

The DVD is a product of the Drink-Drive Rehabilitation Scheme which, following an initial pilot – Northamptonshire was one of the trial counties – is now operated nationally. When sentenced about 95% of drink-drive offenders in Northamptonshire are offered the option of attending the 16-hour course held over two days and two evenings over a two-week period. While not everyone takes up the £180 course, those who do and complete it obtain a 25% reduction in their driving ban. In Northamptonshire up to 18 drink-drivers attend each course with three courses held monthly by the county’s Drink-Drive Partnership, which is composed of Northamptonshire Police, Northamptonshire County Council and CAN – Council on Addiction in Northamptonshire.

Copies of the DVD and further information is available from PC John Spencer, casualty reduction officer, Northamptonshire Police.
Tel: 01604 888528.

New calls for drug-drive limit to be set

More than one in seven drivers stopped during a police campaign over the summer tested positive for drugs – over double the percentage of those found to have been drinking. Now, the RAC Foundation has called for new measures to tackle the menace and has asked the government to launch a consultation into the possibility of setting a drug-drive limit. Unlike alcohol, there is no clear level at which a suspected drug driver can be charged. Instead, police have to demonstrate that he or she is unfit to drive by a complicated series of roadside “sobriety” tests followed by evidence obtained by a police surgeon. This can cause problems as drugs such as cannabis can stay in the blood-stream for up to four weeks and therefore the presence of cannabis does not always prove that driver is unfit to drive. Drivers involved in accidents are not always capable of undergoing impairment tests and without drug/drive legal limits it can be difficult to prove that the driver was “unfit”. Edmund King, executive director of the RAC Foundation, says: “There is a growing body of evidence that drugs and driving is a significant problem especially among young people. Setting legal limits on drugs and driving would clarify and simplify the process for police officers as well as sending a message to drivers. That limit may, of course, be zero.

“Although in law, drug driving is just as serious an offence as drink driving, the law does not distinguish between legal and illegal drugs. Nor is there a stated limit, as there is with alcohol. Maybe now is the time to tackle a great taboo and start talking about whether or not we should be continuing with that situation.” Surveys have shown that 14% of 17-25 year old drivers admit to drug driving, 10% of these also consumed alcohol and 90% carried passengers.

Parliament puts Corporate Manslaughter Bill under the microscope

Government plans to introduce new corporate manslaughter regulations are on track to enter the statute book next year. As RoadSafe went to press, oral hearings into the draft Corporate Manslaughter Bill (RoadSafe: summer 2005) were being conducted by both the Home Office and Department of Work and Pensions Select Committees. The hearings are part of the pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill, which the government hopes to have on the statute book by end of the current Parliamentary session in November 2006. As the Bill is debated there continues to be “scaremongering”, particularly in some fleet publications, that fleet managers could be prosecuted in the event of a fatal accident involving an employee, according to at least one leading fleet industry lawyer. The forthcoming legislation is designed to penalise companies or other corporate entities for management failures that have led to a breakdown in the health and safety process within that organisation leading to “gross negligence manslaughter”.

The key here is that the offence will target the organisation – senior management such as the chief executive officer, managing director or company directors. It is not designed to target middle or junior managers who are not involved in the active management of the organisation itself. David Faithful, a solicitor and consultant to Lyons Davidson Solicitors and the Essential Risk Consultancy, admits to having softened his view on corporate manslaughter and the consequential reduction in the risk of a fleet manager ever being prosecuted. He says: “In my experience fleet managers are a highly professional and experienced bunch. They do not, some would say regrettably, have an influence over the direction of the organisation itself.” Nevertheless, court cases involving the unsuccessful prosecution this year of a local authority architect on corporate manslaughter charges, which highlighted obligations and potential liability under maintenance contracts, and the prosecution of managers and employers in relation to the Hatfield rail disaster, which highlighted a pecking order for personnel in respect of the offence, show risks remain.

“It would now be a brave prosecutor to take on a fleet manager”

Mr Faithful explains: “It would now be a brave prosecutor to take on a fleet manager. On the other hand if it could be shown that the organisation was lax in its management of work-related road safety and there were obvious management failures then it would be the senior company officer facing the police questioning and the possible prosecutions. The common theme is that the company would face prosecution for breaches of the health and safety legislation at least.” But, he warns: “I often ask fleet managers what would be the outcome if the police paid a surprise visit to the organisation, armed with their Investigation of Road Death manual, how would the managing director react to intensive questioning about the fleet’s health and safety policy? The consensus of opinion is ‘not very well’. “It is this sort of lack of management failure which will warrant further investigation by the police whether a fleet manager is seen to be managing the risk or not. “I can say with a degree of confidence that fleet managers are not likely to be the future target. However, this assumes that they are actually doing something positive in terms of managing the fleet risk. “Failure to do so could have a significant financial impact upon the company as even without the new corporate manslaughter law, breaches of health and safety legislation can well lead to fines totalling millions of pounds rather than thousands.”

Government launches new measures to crackdown on careless and uninsured driving

Tough new offences to deal with drivers who cause death on the roads – such as while on a mobile phone – have been announced by Criminal Justice Minister Fiona Mactaggart.

The measures, which are being included within the Road Safety Bill currently being debated in Parliament, will:

• Create a new offence of causing death by careless driving, with a penalty of up to five years’ imprisonment.
• Create a new offence of causing death when driving while unlicensed, disqualified or uninsured, with a penalty of up to two years’ imprisonment.

“All too often, families who have lost loved ones because of a careless driver have seen the offender get no more than a fine”

Other measures include defining careless driving in statute and putting beyond doubt that the courts can find defendants guilty of a statutory bad driving offence as an alternative to manslaughter. This would mean those found not guilty of manslaughter do not escape justice altogether if they cause death through bad driving. The new offences have been introduced in response to long-term concerns from road safety groups and the public over the disparity between the maximum offence for careless driving – a fine of £2,500 – and death by dangerous driving, which carries a maximum 14-year jail term. Prosecutors have found it particularly difficult to prove the latter offence.

The wide-ranging Road Safety Bill (RoadSafe: summer 2005), which was re-introduced to Parliament following May’s general election, is expected to become law during the first six months of 2006, according to a Department for Transport spokesman. Announcing the measures Ms Mactaggart says: “All too often, families who have lost loved ones because of a careless driver have seen the offender getting no more than a fine. That does not reflect the serious impact of the driving on their lives. “That’s why the government is proposing these new offences with tough penalties to deal with bad driving. I believe they strike the right balance between the level of criminal fault on the part of the bad driver and the devastation that their actions can cause. “We’re responding to the concerns of families, victims, road safety groups and the police who responded to our consultation by calling for measures to deal with careless driving that reflect the impact it can have. “That’s why we’re creating a tougher legal framework to deal with bad driving.”

Minister calls on drivers to switch off their phones

Around 450,000 drivers a week continue to flout the ban on using hand-held mobile phones while driving, endangering themselves and other road users, according to figures released by Road Safety Minister Dr Stephen Ladyman. Research for the Department for Transport has shown that, in the most recent survey, 1.5% of car drivers (about 375,000) and 2.4% of lorry and van drivers (about 72,000) were spotted using hand-held phones. Dr Ladyman says: “Using a mobile phone while you’re driving makes you four times more likely to have an accident, and it’s a shame that a small minority of drivers are still using their hand-held phones.

Missing a call won’t kill you, but a road accident might. I urge people to switch off their phones while they’re driving to make the roads safer for us all. The police are on the road looking out for drivers using phones and they do prosecute those they catch. The Road Safety Bill currently going through Parliament will mean that in future people using a hand-held phone will get a £60 fine and three points on their licence. But I don’t want people to be caught and risk losing their licences, I want them to stop using their phones while they drive.” It became an offence to use a hand-held mobile phone, or similar device, from 1 December 2003. At present offenders are liable for a £30 fixed penalty fine or a maximum fine of £1,000 on conviction in court (maximum of £2,500 for drivers of goods vehicles or buses/coaches). The Road Safety Bill is currently before Parliament. It is expected to become law later on next year. An informal survey of police forces by the Department for Transport indicates that over 50,000 fixed penalty notices were issued for the offence of using a hand-held mobile phone while driving in England and Wales during 2004.

Charles Davis, RoSPA’s head of driver and fleet solutions, says: “The Department’s figures may only show a small percentage, but it still means that thousands of drivers are flouting the law and risking killing someone every day. “With 2.5 million people driving as part of their job, there is a good chance that many of those breaking the law are at work at the time. This is a timely reminder that companies need to have policies in place banning the use of mobiles while driving for work and checking that those policies are being followed by all employees. “If employers provide a phone, they have a responsibility in law to ensure that it is used safely. Research shows that using a mobile, whether hand-held or hands-free, makes you four times more likely to have an accident because of the distraction of the telephone conversation. ‘No mobile while mobile!’ is the message employers need to be promoting.

“Employers have a moral responsibility to protect their employees and those on the road around them. Mobile phones need to be dealt with as part of an overall policy for managing occupational road risk.” RoSPA has produced a free leaflet for employers needing help with mobile phone policies (see www.rospa.com/roadsafety/info/workmobiles.pdf ).

European Commission to support “smart” headlight systems

New cars will soon be equipped with “clever” headlights that can adapt their beam patterns according to road and traffic conditions. The so-called adaptive front-lighting systems (AFS) improve illumination while reducing the risk of glare, thereby bringing about improvements to driver comfort and safety. While directional headlights have recently been installed on cars, lights which have the ability to vary their level of brightness would be a major breakthrough. Until now, such headlights have been banned in the European Union, but the European Commission has now proposed to allow manufacturers to install AFS in cars by acceding to United Nations legislation.

Subject to assent from the European Parliament and the Council, the Commission intends to adopt a new United Nations regulation that allows for approval of AFS systems for use in EU member states and many other contracting parties such as Japan and Russia. Commenting on the proposal, Commission vice-president Günter Verheugen, responsible for enterprise and industry policy, says: “Advances in headlamp technology can offer drivers benefits in terms of comfort and safety. We want to do all we can to encourage their wider use.” AFS are “smart” headlamp systems which can adapt themselves to particular road or traffic environments. They can help achieve optimum lighting for the driver in a variety of conditions. For example, using advanced sensing systems, the beam pattern of the headlamp will change automatically depending on whether the vehicle is being used on town roads, country roads or on motorways. Also within the AFS category are “bend lighting” systems which help illuminate the road ahead on bending country roads. Systems which adapt themselves to adverse weather conditions are also possible.

The only way that manufacturers are currently allowed to use these “clever” lights is by going through a complex procedure which is designed to allow new technologies not covered by existing regulations. When the EU adopts the new United Nations Economic Commission for Europe regulation, manufacturers can equip new cars with advanced headlamps as easily as they can for conventional headlamps.

Government plans to cut child road deaths and injuries with changes to restraints and seatbelt use

“Seatbelts are designed for adults and making sure our children are boosted to the right height will make them safer in the event of an accident”

Plans to spare more than 2,000 deaths and injuries to children each year through the increased wearing of seatbelts and more appropriate use of child seats have been outlined by Road Safety Minister Dr Stephen Ladyman.

The plans were outlined in a consultation document seeking views on proposed changes to regulations on the compulsory use of child restraints and seatbelts in cars and good vehicles. The results of the consultation exercise are now being considered by ministers and civil servants. Dr Ladyman says: “We are determined to make our roads as safe as possible for all road users and the correct use of seatbelts and child seats is an important part of this. “Over 2,000 deaths or injuries a year to children could be prevented with these new changes. “Making sure that children keep using booster seats until they are about 4ft 5in tall will bring real improvements to their safety. Seatbelts are designed for adults and making sure our children are boosted to the right height will make them safer in the event of an accident.”

The move is the government’s response to a European Commission directive, most of which must be in force by May next year, and which says:

• All children under three years old must use an appropriate child restraint when travelling in a car or goods vehicle (except in a taxi if a child seat is not available).
• Children aged three or more years old and up to 135 cms (approx 4ft 5in) in height must use an appropriate child restraint when travelling in cars or goods vehicles fitted with seatbelts (few exceptions are permitted).
• Rear-facing baby seats must not be used in seats with active frontal air-bag.
• All child restraints must conform to modern safety standards (to apply from May 2008).
• Where seatbelts are provided, the number of people carried in the rear of vehicles may not exceed the number of seats available fitted with seatbelts or child restraints (to apply from May 2009).

Seatbelt wearing has been compulsory in cars and light vans from 1983 in the front and in the rear since 1989 for children and 1991 for adults. In other vehicles it has been compulsory in the front seats since 1993.