I am trying not to be contentious (Drink and Drive?!)

Member Name: sidneygee

Product:	Drink and Drive?!
Date:	11/10/02 (2278 review reads)
Rating:

Advantages: None

Disadvantages: It can be lethal !

There are a number of contentious facets to this review, which has been 'in preparation' for some months. If Crowns were a possibility (which they aren't in this category), then perhaps I would have polished it a little more, but hell, I haven't posted for a long while, so allow me this indulgence!

I also held back completing the review because of indications that the UK Government was 'reviewing' the provisions of the drink-driving legislation which, hopefully, would have lead to a reduction of the current limit. For clarification, the current limit in the UK is expressed in 3 ways:

The 'Limits'
Current legal limits for alcohol levels of drivers are as follows:

-35 micrograms of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath
-80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood
-107 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of urine


Most often, the blood limit is used for comparisons. The breath levels allow quick assessments at Police Stations, using 'accurately-calibrated' equipment.

In the European Community, some member states also have an 80-milligram limit. France, Holland, Belgium, Greece and Finland have limits of 50-milligram, Portugal 40-milligram. Sweden and countries such as Australia have a 20-milligram limit. Japan and Russia operate a 'zero limit', so theoretically any trace of alcohol in the blood is 'illegal'.

The UK Government Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions made a statement several months' ago which is as follows :

".... although in most respects the current system works quite well, it takes too little account of driver impairment at levels below 80 mg, even though there is much evidence internationally that impairment begins well below that for the average driver".

Revise The Law?
Well, seems to be usual with this current Government, after many months, they have &
#39;abandoned' thoughts of a reduction in the limit, but indicated that they are going to 'tinker' with the current legal provisions. The extent of this is indicated below, but I wonder if the booze industry has got at the Ministers?

To my mind, there is no doubt that this is a missed opportunity and will result in more deaths that could have been avoided. But, before we get carried away with paranoia, a more cool examination of the 'facts' is needed and I hope that in this Review, somewhere, will be at least some aspect that the reader is either unaware of, or has not thought about.

The DooYoo 'Blab' (Lies/Damned Lies & Statistics)
The pre-amble to this Review Sector states that, "on average, there are 200 - 300 road deaths each year associated with blood alcohol levels between 10 - 80mg%! That means every year many people die or are seriously injured because of drunk drivers! ".

Have any of you wondered where this DooYoo category 'blab' has come from ?

Do you think that the whole statement is an objective statement that has been thought out carefully and can thus be stated as "fact" - that levels of blood alcohol above 10 milligrams CAUSE road deaths, so that there are a number of drivers getting away with a charge of drunk driving because their blood level is below 80 mg% ?

Because it ain't necessarily so, and in this case, I propose that it MOST CERTAINLY isn't so. Indeed, one of the Sector headings was actually 'penned' by me, having been the first person to suggest the category to the op-meister, so therefore these category statements are often 'suspect' to me, of being written by someone with 'an axe to grind' rather than someone who views the subject objectively.

What exactly does this statement mean ? In almost all road traffic offences and road accidents, a breathalyser reading is taken and in the case of
accidents involving death or injury, a full assessment is taken using either the breath analyser at the police station or a blood analysis (if the subject is unable to provide a breath sample). A proposed change in the law (part of the 'tinkering') is for such blood sample to be taken without 'consent' - and that I would agree with.

Thus, I will assume that these statistics are reliable and that between about 6% and 9% of all road deaths are "associated with" blood alcohol levels between 10 and 80mg/100mLs of blood. However, this does NOT mean that alcohol can be proven to have played any role in the cause of the accident that gave rise to the death.

Indeed, for goodness sake - I don't really believe it that some eminent DooYooers have taken this statement at face value! They must also believe in Father Xmas, the tooth fairy and Heaven/Hell...

There are SO many other factors than alcohol that cause road accidents .............

Now I know that this will not rest easily on many of you who have written their opinions or comments which show that you are so worked up about the subject that even the very smell of a ginger beer shandy on the breath of a driver involved in such a road accident death would have you 'uncoiling the rope' and looking for the nearest lamp post.

Statistics can be manipulated to distort the truth and even will even 'tell' Lies, if manipulated carefully. It is so easy to fall into a statistical trap that is best illustrated in a book that was very popular in the late 1930's.

Aluminium - a Danger to Health ?
It was during the 1920's and 1930's that the use of aluminium cooking utensils rose dramatically. Also during the same period, the incidents of stomach cancers reported also grew ... There was thus a book entitled "Aluminium - A Menace to Health", which blamed this increase in stomach cancer on the increasing use
of aluminium cooking utensils. Now this does not at first sight seem so incredible. For example, very cheap, thin-walled aluminium saucepans will corrode badly if salt water is boiled in them. Indeed, as a young student, a cheap aluminium pan that I bought from Woolworths corroded right though, exactly where the salt crystals had settled on the base of the pan (as I heated a pan of water for boiling rice to go with one of my famous curries).

The main argument put forward was the publication of two graphs showing respectively the increase in the sale of aluminium cooking utensils and the increase of stomach cancers over the same period. There was indeed a common trend in each graph. They didna fit EXACTLY, but hell, we were dealing with natural phenomena, and some variation is to be expected.

I only read this book because it had been referred to in a symposium about 'Errors - Scientists Beware' in 1964 that I attended. This symposium, the deliberations of which were published, had a particular paper entitled "The Manipulation of Statistics". One of the compelling examples that the presenter used was this very book on aluminium's 'toxicology'. It reproduced both graphs, and then produced another covering the same period, which fitted the stomach cancer deaths so much better. It was 'official statistics showing the increasing number of radio licences, over exactly the same period.

Thus it is not 'good science' to imply that the 200 - 300 deaths quoted had anything to do with the smaller amounts of alcohol found in the blood stream of the drivers involved.

Zero Tolerance or Zero Limit ?
I have now read most of the opinions current in this category and some make harrowing reading. So let us get several points of agreement out of the way and state quite categorically that I believe very strongly in the following :

1. Any person who drives or controls any car/motorbik
e whilst in excess of the limit for alcohol in their blood/breath/urine, as defined by law is just plain stupid and deserves whatever penalty the law defines for him/her/it.

Indeed I would go further :

Similar penalties MUST be imposed on those who can be shown to be 'under the influence' of drugs. By that I do not mean only 'recreational drugs', but also 'medicinal products'. And in this category, I include prescription medicines. Indeed, I believe that far too little work and attention has been paid to the effects of prescription drugs on the ability of people to drive to operate machinery. Even 'hay fever' remedies can impair driving ability.

2 It is not only motorists and motorcycle riders who should be considered. Pedal cyclists, horse riders and even pedestrians must be included in this requirement.

I'm not certain about horses themselves, but I understand that 'hay' can ferment and produce alcohol. So the possibility of introducing a similar limit for horses and make it an offence to ride a horse that is intoxicated perhaps should not be ruled out. Don't laugh - think about it !!

Back in 1972, a cyclist collided with my car in Alfreton in Derbyshire. He was, well and truly, still 'under the influence' at 6.30 am - I could smell it on his breath for goodness sake !!!.

The Derbyshire Constabulary, having ascertained that I had not been drinking, seemed quite content to allow the cyclist to 'learn from his experience' (of a bent bike/damaged trousers/bloody knee). Fortunately my own vehicle only suffered a minor scratch to the wing and a cracked indicator repeater, so that I was not inclined to sue the idjit.

Thus, if a constable should see a person on foot wavering unsteadily across the road and thus presenting a potential hazard to other road users, then that constable should be able to apprehend the individual and ta
ke whatever steps are necessary to ensure that he/she is in a fit state to be allowed on that road. It may be arguable that the penalties for pedestrians should be on a lower scale than for drivers of motor vehicles, but they should nevertheless be significant. As things stand at present, the arrest of a drunk pedestrian seem to require an element of 'disorderliness'.

3 The penalties available to the courts are most definitely not high enough, and examples of such are given frequent publicity. In the treatment of any offence the maximum sentence that a court can impose must be so high that it will be used for, say only the worst 5% of cases. Thus, I would have no qualms in considering that 'life imprisonment' and a lifetime driving ban should be imposed for the most heinous of such crimes.

4 If you suspect that some one has been drinking, whether it is friends, family, acquaintances or business colleagues, PLEASE suggest that they should leave the car behind and take a taxi or public transport. And if you have to THREATEN them with telling the police, then so be it. How would you feel if you had not spoken up and the person WAS involved in an accident ? Or even it was a (liked) relative or friend if they were then breathalysed and found to be over the limit and as a consequence lost their licence ?

No, the correct message to give is to be loud and clear IF YOU ARE AFFECTED BY DRINK OR DRUGS THEN DON'T EVEN CONSIDER GOING NEAR YOUR MOTOR VEHICLE.



At the present time there is an automatic twelve month ban for drinking and driving, which is usually accompanied by a fine of anything up £5000 and in rare occasions a prison sentence of up to six months. For causing death by drinking and driving the penalty is increased to up to ten years imprisonment.

Repeat offenders should certainly face much stiffer penalties.

For a change a good example is given here by the USA. There you fa
ce a maximum of ten years for reckless driving. You may even face 20 years or more for death by dangerous driving or even face the death penalty (depending on which state you are in).

The bottom line is that, if someone deliberately drives a car under the influence of alcohol or drugs, and they kill someone, then surely they are guilty of manslaughter, at least?

A car is a dangerous weapon in the hands of a drunk/druggie and the punishment should fit the crime. In my mind it is the fact that making the decision to drink or take drugs knowing that one will later be driving could (arguably) even make this a crime of murder and not manslaughter.

Random breath testing should surely be allowed. I really don't see why this is seen by some as an infringement of civil liberties. If someone is breath-tested and they are breaking the law then they should be punished, before they have a chance to damage someone else. If they are not breaking the law, where's the problem? As many will know, I have the same views about speeding.

Zero-Limit or Zero Tolerance?
What is the difference, you may argue? Well; there is a difference, because if we worked to the zero limit for alcohol, then many innocent people would be brutalised by the law.

Let me explain. In 1967, when the breathalyser law was brought in, I worked for the Public Analysts Laboratory in Derbyshire. That Laboratory decided that it wanted to become involved in blood alcohol determinations (as a revenue raiser). We had the equipment and the expertise, and I was a young, ?fresh? Senior Analytical Chemist, so I was given the job or working the test method up for Laboratory application. I thus took samples of my own (and others) urine and blood. I also read all the publications, and soon discovered that it was possible for the body to produce its own alcohol by self-fermentation.

I tested myself. I went without alcohol for a whole week (agony!!!)
. Then I did not eat anything for almost two days (water only). Then I 'gorged' on mashed potato (anything starchy would have done the same).

My blood alcohol level reached 12 milligrams/100millilitres of blood. Thus, 15% of the limit. Apparently, there are better fermentors than I who produce up to 20 milligram/100 millilitres of blood. Indeed, I reckon that this is where Sweden and Australia conjured up their 20-milligram limit from.

Thus a zero limit would not really be fair, would it? But Zero Tolerance - most definitely an option.

When are you fit to drive?
This is an area that causes so much confusion. How much can you drink before you would fail the breath test? If you do go above the limit, how long before you are fit again to drive? There is no official guidance, but a general reckoning of 'four units' - say two pints of beer. But this is dangerous, because of the variability of alcohol content, and the presence of any base-level alcohol in the body - or remaioning from drinking the day before.

I am an Expert Witness on the correct operation of the Breath Analysers that are used in Scottish police Stations, and so have had access to the details of a number of court cases and have given evidence in Scottish Courts. It is quite shocking how many drivers are caught out by the 'morning after' effect.

In a case about 4 years' ago, where the police had not operated the machine correctly, the miscreant said he had consumed 8 pints of beer (4.2% ABV) between 11 pm and 2.30 am, and was driving at 9.30 am. Needless to say he was over twice the limit when stopped at 9.30 am (breath alcohol level assessed at 74 micrograms/100 mL of breath).

Unfortunately, the breath test machine was not operating correctly (and the police were aware of this). They should therefore have called in a doctor and had a blood sample taken. Because they did not do this, the case was dism
issed after my evidence against the action of the police when dealing with a defective piece of equipment.

By my calculations (carried out in case I was questioned about it in the witness box), very roughly, that intake of beer would equate to about 320 milligrams per 100 mL of blood. Assuming he drank steadily, then the alcohol is eliminated at between 15 and 18 milligram per hour, so that he really should not be considering driving until late afternoon the following day, if he wanted to be below the limit.

Now that elimination figure really does depend on a load of other factors, such as body weight and metabolic rate, and the time at which you stop drinking, but the message is still there. If you start drinking at 11pm and stop at, say 2.30 am, then to drive at 9 am, you should not drink anymore than would take you to a maximum blood alcohol level of 230 milligrams/100mL. That is approximately the equivalent to less than 6 pints of average beer.

So those idjits who consume 6 pints or more in a night and are thinking of driving the next day should take note !!!

Conclusions
I reckon that if the legal limit in the UK was 50 milligram/100mL in blood - and enforced as effectively as the current limit - a few of the people who would be dying on our roads would not die. In part this would be because it would be an easier limit to understand.

That level of 50mg is roughly equivalent to people having no more than 1 pint of beer or two glasses of wine in order to remain below the limit. A much easier concept to consider than the present confused state. But I have no doubt that the booze industry would disagree.


© Sidneygee 2002

Summary: