Fixing A Liquor Limit

Press, Volume CV, Issue 31004, 9 March 1966, Page 12

Fixing A Liquor Limit

A Dunedin magistrate, Mr T. A. Ross, seems to have misunderstood the British Govemn ent’s White Paper on road safety legislation, which deals at length with the effect of alcohol on drvers. “Breathalyser” tests are a rough-and-ready guide to the intake of alcohol by the Mood, and they produce no permanent evidence which can be subjected to independent tests. In Brita ’ they may be used as preliminary roadside checks on drivers to establish whether more exact tests should be made. They do not give reliable information on whether a person is in a condition to drive a vehicle safely. The New Zealand Automobile Association has decided to support a move to introduce blood tests for drivers and to make it an offence to drive with an alcohol level above 100 milligrams in 100 millilitres of blood. Just the argument over speed limits can be ended only by setting an arbitrary, if sensible, figure, so the argument about a “ safe ” alcohol level must end by setting a figure that is reasonable for the “ average ” person: it cannot take account of the varying individual reactions to alcohol. An arbitrary level must be set if tests are to become a deterrent to drinking drivers. The danger is that the level may be mistaken for a “ safe ” limit. Of course, the present laws against driving under the influence of drink or drugs would still apply. Observance of a speed limit does not preclude a charge of dangerous driving: drinking within an alcohol limit would not preclude a charge of driving under the influence of drink if a driver’s capabilities were impaired by an alcohol level below the legal limit. Drivers might be induced to suppose that a level of, say, 80 milligrams was safe. For many persons, especially, those unaccustomed to alcohol, it would not be safe at all. Some drivers are seriously affected by an alcohol level as low as 50 milligrams. The British Government, guided by recommendations from the British Medical Association, has concluded that the ability of virtually all drivers is impaired—usually seriously impaired—by a level of 80 milligrams. This represents consumption of six single whiskies on an empty stomach, or nine to 12 whiskies after eating. The accident risk is regarded as nearly twice that for a person who has had nothing to drink. The level of 100 milligrams suggested by the Automobile Association increases the risk six times, and a level of 160 milligrams multiplies the risk 20 times, accord ing to the White Paper. If the suggested law is to be a greater deterrent to excessive drinking than the risk of an accident, spot checks on drivers, as proposed in Britain, would have to be frequent. The Automobile Association, Canterbury, recently adopted a supporting recommendation—that a person declining to produce a blood or urine specimen to the police would be liable to the same penalties as if he had been found to have an alcohol level exceeding the prescribed limit. Without some such provision the scheme woull be unenforceable. Compulsory blood tests, prefaced perhaps by breath tests, would have to be accepted by motorists under the proposed law. Although innocent drivers should have nothing to fear if blood samples are competently handled, this would be a drastic innovation. It may be argued that it is less open to doubt than the subjective tests now conducted by the police for the present driving offences involving liquor. Public conscience on he hazards created by drinking has been aroused in recent months; and there should be no need in this country for the kind of intensive educational campaign designed to change the social attitude to drinking before driving which was considered a necessary preliminary to any drastic change in the law in Britain.