Drink Drive Deaths at new high. Cameras to blame?
Discussion
BBC News said: said:
Drink-drive deaths reach new high
Drivers are said to consider themselves above the law
More people are dying in drink-drive accidents than at any time in the past decade, according to Department for Transport figures released on Thursday.
The number rose 6% to 560 deaths last year alone - despite an overall 1% drop in deaths on Britain's roads.
Total drink-drive casualties rose 7% to more than 20,000 - the highest level since 1990, the figures indicate.
Road safety charity Brake says the drink-drive limit encourages drivers to risk having one or two drinks, and is calling on the government to take "urgent action".
Chief executive Mary Williams said: "We need more high profile anti-drink and anti-drug advertising all year round to combat a rise in young drivers impaired behind the wheel.
Our penalties are among the toughest in Europe
Road safety minister David Jamieson
"Meanwhile, the police have one hand tied behind their back because they cannot randomly breath-test high-risk drivers late at night near nightclubs."
'Tough penalties'
A Department for Transport spokeswoman told BBC News Online that lowering the drink-drive limit would "dilute" the message the government was trying to convey - "Don't drink and drive at all".
The government has already poured millions into advertising campaigns.
But a group of drivers in their twenties and early thirties are said to consider themselves above the law.
Road safety minister David Jamieson said a hardcore of reckless drivers were presenting "a danger to themselves and everyone else on the road".
But he warned: "They should remember our penalties are among the toughest in Europe.
The public perception of road safety enforcement at the moment is that it is done by camera and concentrates on speeding motorists and not other criminal motoring behaviour
AA Motoring Trust head of road safety Andrew Howard
"Drink-drivers face an automatic 12-month ban, hefty fine and possible prison sentence.
"Hard-hitting publicity campaigns have helped establish an anti-drink-drive culture.
"But these statistics show education and enforcement must continue to be a priority.
"Motorists must be responsible for their actions."
But the AA Motoring Trust's head of road safety Andrew Howard said some drink-drivers "assume they can break the law because they are unlikely to be caught".
"The public perception of road safety enforcement at the moment is that it is done by camera and concentrates on speeding motorists and not other criminal motoring behaviour."
>>> Edited by Don on Thursday 2nd October 14:49
From the BBC web site today. A senior AA spokesman is saying that one reason drink drivers believe they can get away with it is because enforcement is done by cameras which cannot spot a drunk driver...
Do you think there's a grain of truth in that? Are GATSOs tackling one issue (which we discuss the value of a lot on here - lets not discuss that on this thread) but making people think that they can get away with anything simply by driving below the limit?
Do any of our contributing Trafpol have any anecdotes which confirm or debunk the idea?
Do you think there's a grain of truth in that? Are GATSOs tackling one issue (which we discuss the value of a lot on here - lets not discuss that on this thread) but making people think that they can get away with anything simply by driving below the limit?
Do any of our contributing Trafpol have any anecdotes which confirm or debunk the idea?
don said:
Road safety minister David Jamieson
"Meanwhile, the police have one hand tied behind their back because they cannot randomly breath-test high-risk drivers late at night near nightclubs."
EH???
Since when are the cops NOT allowed to give breath tests to drivers???
>> Edited by Hedders on Thursday 2nd October 14:55
Don said:
From the BBC web site today. A senior AA spokesman is saying that one reason drink drivers believe they can get away with it is because enforcement is done by cameras which cannot spot a drunk driver...
Do you think there's a grain of truth in that? Are GATSOs tackling one issue (which we discuss the value of a lot on here - lets not discuss that on this thread) but making people think that they can get away with anything simply by driving below the limit?
Do any of our contributing Trafpol have any anecdotes which confirm or debunk the idea?
You have to ask?! it's bloody obvious, driving standards are appalling and getting worse. I don't meant to offend but as a petrolhead and one who drives daily I can't remember the last cop car/bike I saw on the road.
Don said:
Hedders said:
Since when are the cops NOT allowed to give breath tests to drivers???
That seems damn strange to me as well. Is it harassment or discrimination to breathalyse people at club closing time or something?
Is it cos I is... etc etc?
I thought they could not do it unless they had reasonably suspicion that an offence is being committed.
>> Edited by the Wiz on Thursday 2nd October 15:36
Hedders said:
I though they could not do it unless they had reasonably suspicion that an offence is being committed.
I thought they could pull over any car they want, where ever and whenever they want...especially if they suspect drunk driving!
You can stop anyone that you want......speak to the driver re a moving traffic offence or re the car they are driving or to see driving docs etc etc and then in the course of talking to them you suspect alcohol.......this covers any eventuality.
Hedders said:
I though they could not do it unless they had reasonably suspicion that an offence is being committed.
I thought they could pull over any car they want, where ever and whenever they want...especially if they suspect drunk driving!
From www.pacts.org.uk/randombreath.htm
At present a police officer may stop any person driving a motor vehicle on the road, but the breath-testing powers are more specific. A police officer can require a breath test only if they have reasonable cause to suspect that the person has alcohol in their body, or has committed a moving traffic offence, or has been involved in an accident. Case law has established that it is lawful for a police officer to stop a vehicle at random and form a suspicion of drinking on the basis of the subsequent interview with the driver, (Chief Constable of Gwent v Dash, 1986).
The current powers do not permit random or blanket enforcement. In most EU countries the police are entitled to use random breath testing, the only exceptions being Denmark, UK and Ireland. A Swiss study in 1998 found that random breath testing was one of the most cost effective safety measures that can be implemented (Eckhardt 1998).
OK, so the laws have not been changed recently reagrding this, so it does not explain why drink driving is on the rise.
The only explanation i can come up with is that people have figured out they are much more likely to get away with it these days...cos we all know that 35 mph is the killer, not drink!
The only explanation i can come up with is that people have figured out they are much more likely to get away with it these days...cos we all know that 35 mph is the killer, not drink!
We all know that the police can effectively stop people at random in circumstances that might suggest they had been drinking.
For example if you drive out of a pub or club car park, everyone will make at least a minor motoring transgression (remember doesn't have to be illegal, just enough to give rise to suspicion of drink/drugs). There is no need to introduce random-breath testing - we already have a form of it.
What makes me angry is the blinkered view taken by people like the woman from Brake who claims the problem is to do with education and lack of random testing. She just bleats these out as a smokescreen against the real reason which the guy from the AA suggests spot on.
For example if you drive out of a pub or club car park, everyone will make at least a minor motoring transgression (remember doesn't have to be illegal, just enough to give rise to suspicion of drink/drugs). There is no need to introduce random-breath testing - we already have a form of it.
What makes me angry is the blinkered view taken by people like the woman from Brake who claims the problem is to do with education and lack of random testing. She just bleats these out as a smokescreen against the real reason which the guy from the AA suggests spot on.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff