An alternative view on drink-driving from 1985
Discussion
I doubt this will find much agreement here (other than the point that the drink-drive limit should not be reduced), but it's an interesting thing to ponder nonetheless.
It is valid to question whether we should be criminalising people not for having actually done anything to anyone, but simply for having put themselves into a group which is on average at higher risk of doing something which is in itself illegal anyway.
One could argue that criminalisation of all sorts of groupings is justified along the same lines. For example, young men driving at night cause a disproportionate number of crashes; why not put a curfew on them? If drink-driving is different then how exactly is it different? Yes, many drivers in the "young men" category will be safer than many outside that category, but presumably many who are a small amount over the drink-drive limit will be safer than many who are below it, particularly given that different people handle alcohol differently.
I'm not saying it's wrong to treat drink-driving differently, I just wondered what others thought.
(There are a few OCR errors in the text.)
It is valid to question whether we should be criminalising people not for having actually done anything to anyone, but simply for having put themselves into a group which is on average at higher risk of doing something which is in itself illegal anyway.
One could argue that criminalisation of all sorts of groupings is justified along the same lines. For example, young men driving at night cause a disproportionate number of crashes; why not put a curfew on them? If drink-driving is different then how exactly is it different? Yes, many drivers in the "young men" category will be safer than many outside that category, but presumably many who are a small amount over the drink-drive limit will be safer than many who are below it, particularly given that different people handle alcohol differently.
I'm not saying it's wrong to treat drink-driving differently, I just wondered what others thought.
(There are a few OCR errors in the text.)
Richard West in the Spectator said:
Prophylactic policing
The proposal by a bureaucrat in the Home Office to make it illegal to drive after more than one drink is all the more arrogant since it now seems to be proved that the persecution of drinkers does not result in less car accidents. A report in the Sussex Express (8 February) says that excess alcohol offences among drivers were very much down in the country last year. Chief Inspector Phil Davies told the Lewes Licensing Court that the reason for this was probably that 'extra demands had been made on the police nationally', meaning that many Sussex policemen have gone to control the miners' pickets in counties like Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire.
Chief Inspector Davies said: 'The extra demands for the police service nationally have been reflected locally by a consider- able shortfall in detected drink/driving offences, and supervisory visits by police to licensed premises, when compared to 1983.' There were 160 excess alcohol off- ences among drivers in 1984, compared to 222 the previous year. However, said Chief Inspector Davies, 'fortunately there is an indication from provisional figures for the year relating to road traffic accidents in which alcohol is a factor, that there has been no significant increase.'
If these statistics for Lewes are typical of the country at large, the harassment of motorists by means of spot-checks to test the intake of alcohol has no appreciable effect in reducing the number of traffic accidents. Sussex is one of those counties that has suffered the persecution of drink- ers largely because it is one of the counties that suffer from chief constables with a taste for publicity. In Rye, people speak well of the local police, who seem to restrict their concern about motorists to checking on licence renewals and making sure that people are parked in the right direction. But the Hastings Traffic Divi- sion is spoken of as a force comparable with the KGB or Gestapo.
The idea of arresting people because they were found; by a spot-check, to have had too much to drink came in only recently. Before, a motorist could be stop- ped only if his behaviour at the wheel of a car, or before getting into a car, gave reason for thinking he was drunk. It is onlY during the last few years that an increasing number of police forces has claimed the right to test motorists, whether or not they give any sign of intoxication. Of course 10 the past the amount of alcohol in the bloodstream weighed in assessing responsl" bility for a traffic offence; but just having taken a drink was not an offence in itself.
This change in our common law repre- sents a victory for the huge and expanding anti-alcohol industry, whose plethora 01 jobs in well-paid quangoes is advertised each week in journals of the loony class such as New Society Ind the Guardian. The arch-loony, Bishop Montefiore of Birming- ham, has said that alcoholism is now the most terrible problem facing the world, presumably worse than 'racism', `sexual harassment at work' or even cruise mis- siles. Trendy chief constables, who know' how to please the loonies of the Home Office and local authorities, join in the persecution of drinkers. This has been quite ineffective. Blame not the aggressive lout at the wheel of the car, but the publican who sold him a whisky. As an inveterate pedestrian, I have . observed that drunken drivers are 0' nearly such a menace as those pighearla who race, even early in the morning, over pedestrian crossings. There is never a spot-check nor radar control over motor- ists who charge down on these crossing' Incidentally, in Rye the motorists are meticulous about coming to a complete halt at the one zebra. This prophylactic policing, the attempt to remove the cause of crime or sin, Os, taken to the extreme by the very much publicised Chief Constable of Nottingham; shire, Charles 'Campaign Charlie McLachlan. He was pioneer of the spot- check breathalysing of motorists, to fine or send them to prison not because they had had an accident but because they had drunk more than was thought acceptable by the anti-alcohol lobby. He also em- ployed policewomen as agentes pr°; vocateuses to catch 'kerb-crawlers; one °` the first men arrested by one of those women turned out to be a detective from Derbyshire. The silliness of prophylactic policing Was shown up by the coal strike, when hordes of bullying louts from Yorkshire invaded Nottinghamshire to stone and beat miners who wanted to work. Instead of throwing the book at these criminals for forming illegal pickets, for riot, or for grevil bodily harm, 'Campaign Charlie' preferred to try to stop them coming into the county by car. This was prophylactic policing. It did not work. I doubt if it was even legal' You cannot stop people driving from one county into another just because you than'. they intend a crime. The time to arrest them is when they start throwing stones or intimidating miners, just as the time t0 arrest a drunken motorist is when he starts . to drive dangerously. Then, if there is alcohol in his blood-stream, he should get a much stiffer sentence.
The proposal by a bureaucrat in the Home Office to make it illegal to drive after more than one drink is all the more arrogant since it now seems to be proved that the persecution of drinkers does not result in less car accidents. A report in the Sussex Express (8 February) says that excess alcohol offences among drivers were very much down in the country last year. Chief Inspector Phil Davies told the Lewes Licensing Court that the reason for this was probably that 'extra demands had been made on the police nationally', meaning that many Sussex policemen have gone to control the miners' pickets in counties like Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire.
Chief Inspector Davies said: 'The extra demands for the police service nationally have been reflected locally by a consider- able shortfall in detected drink/driving offences, and supervisory visits by police to licensed premises, when compared to 1983.' There were 160 excess alcohol off- ences among drivers in 1984, compared to 222 the previous year. However, said Chief Inspector Davies, 'fortunately there is an indication from provisional figures for the year relating to road traffic accidents in which alcohol is a factor, that there has been no significant increase.'
If these statistics for Lewes are typical of the country at large, the harassment of motorists by means of spot-checks to test the intake of alcohol has no appreciable effect in reducing the number of traffic accidents. Sussex is one of those counties that has suffered the persecution of drink- ers largely because it is one of the counties that suffer from chief constables with a taste for publicity. In Rye, people speak well of the local police, who seem to restrict their concern about motorists to checking on licence renewals and making sure that people are parked in the right direction. But the Hastings Traffic Divi- sion is spoken of as a force comparable with the KGB or Gestapo.
The idea of arresting people because they were found; by a spot-check, to have had too much to drink came in only recently. Before, a motorist could be stop- ped only if his behaviour at the wheel of a car, or before getting into a car, gave reason for thinking he was drunk. It is onlY during the last few years that an increasing number of police forces has claimed the right to test motorists, whether or not they give any sign of intoxication. Of course 10 the past the amount of alcohol in the bloodstream weighed in assessing responsl" bility for a traffic offence; but just having taken a drink was not an offence in itself.
This change in our common law repre- sents a victory for the huge and expanding anti-alcohol industry, whose plethora 01 jobs in well-paid quangoes is advertised each week in journals of the loony class such as New Society Ind the Guardian. The arch-loony, Bishop Montefiore of Birming- ham, has said that alcoholism is now the most terrible problem facing the world, presumably worse than 'racism', `sexual harassment at work' or even cruise mis- siles. Trendy chief constables, who know' how to please the loonies of the Home Office and local authorities, join in the persecution of drinkers. This has been quite ineffective. Blame not the aggressive lout at the wheel of the car, but the publican who sold him a whisky. As an inveterate pedestrian, I have . observed that drunken drivers are 0' nearly such a menace as those pighearla who race, even early in the morning, over pedestrian crossings. There is never a spot-check nor radar control over motor- ists who charge down on these crossing' Incidentally, in Rye the motorists are meticulous about coming to a complete halt at the one zebra. This prophylactic policing, the attempt to remove the cause of crime or sin, Os, taken to the extreme by the very much publicised Chief Constable of Nottingham; shire, Charles 'Campaign Charlie McLachlan. He was pioneer of the spot- check breathalysing of motorists, to fine or send them to prison not because they had had an accident but because they had drunk more than was thought acceptable by the anti-alcohol lobby. He also em- ployed policewomen as agentes pr°; vocateuses to catch 'kerb-crawlers; one °` the first men arrested by one of those women turned out to be a detective from Derbyshire. The silliness of prophylactic policing Was shown up by the coal strike, when hordes of bullying louts from Yorkshire invaded Nottinghamshire to stone and beat miners who wanted to work. Instead of throwing the book at these criminals for forming illegal pickets, for riot, or for grevil bodily harm, 'Campaign Charlie' preferred to try to stop them coming into the county by car. This was prophylactic policing. It did not work. I doubt if it was even legal' You cannot stop people driving from one county into another just because you than'. they intend a crime. The time to arrest them is when they start throwing stones or intimidating miners, just as the time t0 arrest a drunken motorist is when he starts . to drive dangerously. Then, if there is alcohol in his blood-stream, he should get a much stiffer sentence.
1985 - 5,165 road deaths in the UK. 315.8bn vehicle km travelled. 1040 fatalities drink-related (20.1%).
312,000 total road casualties, 27,220 drink-related (8.7%).
2012 - 1,754 road deaths in the UK. 492.1bn vehicle km travelled. 230 fatalities drink-related (13.1%).
194,000 total road casualties, 9,930 drink-related (5.1%).
Obviously, attitudes to drink-driving aren't the only thing that's changed in the overall figure, but that's a big reduction in the proportion, too... If the proportion had stayed the same, that's a hundred lives and 5,000 casualties saved. I'll bet if we added 1960s or 1970s figures in, they'd be even worse.
Look also at the US, where DUI isn't really that serious. A bit over 30% of all road deaths (a FAR higher total than ours) are drink-related.
http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/docum...
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...
312,000 total road casualties, 27,220 drink-related (8.7%).
2012 - 1,754 road deaths in the UK. 492.1bn vehicle km travelled. 230 fatalities drink-related (13.1%).
194,000 total road casualties, 9,930 drink-related (5.1%).
Obviously, attitudes to drink-driving aren't the only thing that's changed in the overall figure, but that's a big reduction in the proportion, too... If the proportion had stayed the same, that's a hundred lives and 5,000 casualties saved. I'll bet if we added 1960s or 1970s figures in, they'd be even worse.
Look also at the US, where DUI isn't really that serious. A bit over 30% of all road deaths (a FAR higher total than ours) are drink-related.
http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/docum...
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...
Edited by TooMany2cvs on Wednesday 21st October 21:40
I remember those days fondly, I was young and immortal then.
You look back and it all seems so uncomplicated.
You were almost classed as unlucky if you got caught drink driving, and as for speeding, speed limits were sort of guidance .... ish, if you felt like it.
And the roads were full of Patrolling Police Constables, in their metro panda cars and Marina TC & Rover SD1 "Zulu" cars (jam sandwiches to the rest of us).
Despite the figures posted I don't recall zillions of people being killed, either I was too young to care, reporting wasn't as good, or perhaps both.
You look back and it all seems so uncomplicated.
You were almost classed as unlucky if you got caught drink driving, and as for speeding, speed limits were sort of guidance .... ish, if you felt like it.
And the roads were full of Patrolling Police Constables, in their metro panda cars and Marina TC & Rover SD1 "Zulu" cars (jam sandwiches to the rest of us).
Despite the figures posted I don't recall zillions of people being killed, either I was too young to care, reporting wasn't as good, or perhaps both.
With regard to road death data, is this ever broken down into groups such as drunk pedestrians who get run over v drunk drivers who run a pedestrian over?
It would be interesting to see which groups had benefitted the most in the fall in road deaths over the last few decades. For example, are there now fewer properly drunk people driving home at midnight or are cars so much safer they aren't dying or killing as much. Or are there fewer pedestrians out and about these days at the times that the drinkers are on the move, or are the pedestrians more street wise and wearing reflective clothing etc?
The problem I've always found with the overall data is that it gets bandied about by every political lobby group to support their activity but someone must have done a proper analysis of what comprises a road death, what the groups are and how deaths within these groups breakdown.
For all I know, we could be having the same type and number of accidents as we always have but fewer people are dying because of better service from the NHS, nothing at all to do with motoring, etc.
We've clearly made excellent progress but I'd love to strip back the politics and marketing and see an honest analysis of the data to understand what the real drivers have been.
It would be interesting to see which groups had benefitted the most in the fall in road deaths over the last few decades. For example, are there now fewer properly drunk people driving home at midnight or are cars so much safer they aren't dying or killing as much. Or are there fewer pedestrians out and about these days at the times that the drinkers are on the move, or are the pedestrians more street wise and wearing reflective clothing etc?
The problem I've always found with the overall data is that it gets bandied about by every political lobby group to support their activity but someone must have done a proper analysis of what comprises a road death, what the groups are and how deaths within these groups breakdown.
For all I know, we could be having the same type and number of accidents as we always have but fewer people are dying because of better service from the NHS, nothing at all to do with motoring, etc.
We've clearly made excellent progress but I'd love to strip back the politics and marketing and see an honest analysis of the data to understand what the real drivers have been.
Edited by DonkeyApple on Thursday 22 October 07:35
It's certainly a valid question, and quite a dangerous principle IMO (that of penalising people for being at a higher risk of doing something bad, without them actually doing it).
That said there are few cases where I can be convinced that it's acceptable; drink / drug driving (or indeed flying or similar) being one.
Speeding of course is another example of this type of law.
That said there are few cases where I can be convinced that it's acceptable; drink / drug driving (or indeed flying or similar) being one.
Speeding of course is another example of this type of law.
DonkeyApple said:
With regard to road death data, is this ever broken down into groups such as drunk pedestrians who get run over v drunk drivers who run a pedestrian over?
I haven't seen the drink-related figures broken down like that, but the main figures are. For 2012, 542 car drivers were killed, 420 pedestrians, 316 bikes, 259 car passengers, 118 cyclists and on down...Of course, even if it was broken down by drink-related, you'd still need a further break-down of who was at fault. Was a pissed pedestrian death caused by a drunk driver, a sober driver who lost control whilst being a t
t, or did they stagger into traffic?TooMany2cvs said:
DonkeyApple said:
With regard to road death data, is this ever broken down into groups such as drunk pedestrians who get run over v drunk drivers who run a pedestrian over?
I haven't seen the drink-related figures broken down like that, but the main figures are. For 2012, 542 car drivers were killed, 420 pedestrians, 316 bikes, 259 car passengers, 118 cyclists and on down...Of course, even if it was broken down by drink-related, you'd still need a further break-down of who was at fault. Was a pissed pedestrian death caused by a drunk driver, a sober driver who lost control whilst being a t
t, or did they stagger into traffic?Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff