Drink and drug driving –
a one day conference for road safety professionals
Organised by Brake, the UK road safety charity with support from TTC and KeyMed
Date of event: Thursday 12 May, 2005
Conference summary
Copies of power point presentations are available for £10 by calling Brake on 01484 559909.
The below minutes represent a summary only of each speech, with the exception of the speech by Richard
Allsop which is a full transcript (see session five).
The summary is written in the order speeches were made, and are divided into the following sessions:
Session one: the science of impairment
Session two: Education
Session three: Advertising
Session four: Fleet management
Session five: Enforcement
Disclaimer: Brake is not responsible for errors in speeches as transcribed and advises readers to check the
validity of any services, ideas or facts contained within speeches with the authors before acting upon their
contents.
All queries about future Brake conferences contact us on UK 1484 559909 or at brake@brake.org.uk
Keynote speech:
Mary Williams OBE, chief executive, Brake, the road safety charity
 ‘Not a drop’ was the theme of Road Safety Week 2004, coordinated by Brake nationwide. No amount of
alcohol is safe when driving. 11 people are killed by drink drivers every week on UK roads. Go to
www.roadsafetyweek.org.uk for more information.
 A survey by Brake conducted with Green Flag Motoring Assistance found that half of drivers admitted
driving after drinking in the past year.
 Half of these had drunk two or more units. Respondents who admitted to drinking more than two units,
were also twice as likely to drink drive more than once a week.
 A quarter of respondents admitted to driving first thing in the morning after drinking heavily the night
before.
 Drivers surveyed weren’t aware of how much alcohol is in drinks, and thought there was only a small
chance they would be caught by police when drinking and driving.
 Nearly a third of drivers didn’t know that Government advice on drink driving is to drink nothing before
driving.
 There are a number of actions Brake wants the Government to take: reduce the drink drive limit to
20mg per 100ml of blood, down from 80mg – in line with Finland; have targeted random breath testing
without a requirement to prove that the driver was behaving suspiciously before stopping them; an
increase in traffic police and breath tests, which have declined; a new charge of driving with illegal
drugs in your system; roll out of alco-locks and tagging for offenders; and restorative justice and
community sentences as well as prison for offenders.
 We are pleased that evidential roadside breath testing is now law under the Serious Crimes Act 2005
 Drink and drug drive campaigning will succeed because: there is comprehensive evidence of the
debilitating effects; there is a united front of road safety and medical professions; and there is pertinent
best practice from abroad.
 Drink and drug drive campaigning also has ‘links’ to other areas of community work such as youth
education; young offenders; crime and disorder; binge drinking; and community safety. Today is about
learning; being inspired; and joining-up forces to achieve more.
T: 01484 559909
E: mwilliams@brake.org.uk
W: www.brake.org.uk
Session One: The science of impairment
Dr Martin Elton, Dept of Psychology, University of Amsterdam: How even small amounts of alcohol
affect brain activity
 There is electrical activity in the brain which is composed of spontaneous and event-related potential
(ERP) contributions.




We can monitor this using volunteers who have sensors on their heads to monitor brain activity. We
provide them with measured amounts of alcohol and look at their brain activity when in front of a
computer screen.
They were required to undertake a modified ‘Eriksen Test’ which uses arrow heads in place of letters to
indicate the side on which the volunteer has to make a response on a keypad.
The number of errors they made was recorded. Their responses were significantly slowed by alcohol.
The higher the amount of alcohol the slower the response, but even the low dosage of alcohol affected
the response. It should be ‘none for the road’.
E: M.R.Elton@uva.nl
Dr Rob Tunbridge, independent alcohol and drug consultant: How illegal drugs affect drivers
 TRL/DfT surveys checking for drugs in dead drivers conducted 1985088 and 1996-2000 showed an
increase in the presence of illegal drugs up from 3% to 18%. Medicinal drugs presence remains at 6%.
 Out of the 18% illicit drugs in 1996-2000, 8.2% were cannabis, and 5.7% were cocktails of drugs. The
remainder 4.2% (less than a quarter of the illegal drugs found) were individually-found amphetamines,
opiates, cocaine and methadone.
IMMORTAL – (Impaired motorists methods of roadside testing and for licensing) is a research programme
looking at the crash risk of different forms of impairment. A 36 month programme started 1 st Jan 2002. Interim
results published Aug 04 – final results available soon on www.immortal.or.at In this research, there was a
‘relatively high level’ of illicit drug use in drivers stopped at random at the roadside who provided a saliva
sample.
BRITISH CRIME SURVEY 2002/3 – Sample size 23.586 – shows 28% of 16-24 year olds had used an illicit
drug in past year. 26% had used cannabis. 8% had used a class A drug. 5% - ecstasy; 5% cocaine; 4%
amphetamines.
MIXMAG SURVEY FEB 2003 – A survey of 24 year olds earning less than £15k (both sexes) found 71% had
used cannabis in past month; 70% ecstasy; 34% cocaine; 25% amphetamines.
MIXMAG SURVEY FEB 2004 – A survey of 24 year olds – ¾ employed, ¼ students who used E found that
25% had taken more than 10 pills in one evening; the cost per pill had reduced from £3.35 to £2.78; the ave.
number of pills per session was 4.7; and the ave. number of pills to buy at one time was 10.
MIXMAG SURVEY FEB 2005 – Cost of pill has reduced to £2.09!
Effects of cannabis – Affects tasks requiring psycho-motor skills and continuous attention. Onset immediate,
duration 1-4 hours. Roadside observations: smell; poor balance and coordination; impaired perception of time
and distance; red eyes; increased appetite; relaxed inhibitions; disorientation; poor attention span; pupils
possibly dilated.
Effects of opiates – Effects depend on tolerance developed by user. Onset seconds. Duration 6-8 hours (up to
24 for methadone). Roadside observations: constricted pupils; sleepy; slow reflexes; low slow speech; possible
euphoria.
Effects of CNS stimulants (cocaine, emphetamines, E) - Develop sense of super strength and selfconfidence. Duration of effect – 30mins for cocaine, 4/6 hours for amphetamines, several hours for E.
Roadside observations – dilated pupils, eyelid tremors, restlessness, won’t keep quiet, euphoria, easily irritated,
grinding teeth, impaired perception of time.
CNS depressants – Alcohol, sleeping pills (nitrazepam), anti-anxiety medicine (diazepam etc.), GHB, Ketamine.
Similar effects to alcohol. Reduced social inhibitions, slowed reflexes, impaired judgment and concentration and
coordination. Effects for up to 12 hours or more. Pupils size normal, watery eyes, drowsiness, slurred speech,
uncoordinated and sluggish reactions.
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS –
 Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003 – sec107 – Road traffic: testing for drink and drugs 6b
preliminary impairment test. 6c preliminary drug test. (using sweat or saliva) ‘used for the purpose of
obtaining an indication whether the person has a drug in his body’ (using a device type approved by the
Secretary of State).
 Preliminary impairment tests – pupil examination; Romberg test; walk and turn; one leg stand; finger
to nose. Used at roadside or police station by trained officers.
 Preliminary drug test – continuing development of mainly saliva devices that may eventually be
suitable for roadside testing. Draft drug cut off levels for roadside devices were debated at ICADTS
Glasgow Aug 04 (International Conference on Alcohol Drugs and Traffic Safety). No devices yet have
type approval from the Home Office for roadside use.
 EC – currently considering funding a project called DRUID on drug driving. This would include follow
ups to the Immortal and Rosita programmes and include a practical and scientific evaluation of roadside
drug screening devices.
T : 07966 146493
E: rob_tunbridge@yahoo.co.uk
Session Two: Education
Graham Wynn, TTC Group: National Drink Drive Rehabilitation Scheme (DDRS)
 The course is approved by the Secretary of State and there are 28 providers approved by the DfT with
25 currently delivering.
 There is an association: ADDAPT – Association of Drink Drive Approved Providers of Training.
 TTC is largest provider, but also provide a service in the workplace and do occupational road risk
assessments and the national driver improvement scheme.
 The DDRS started in 1993 and went nationwide in 2000.
 The course is a duration of 16-20 hours, and costs £100 to £250.
 Attendees come from court referrals and result in a 25% reduction in disqualification. More should be
done to ensure courts to encourage referrals and referrals go up.
 Course content includes: alcohol and effects on body; effects on driving; driving ability and behaviour;
analysis of offender behaviour and effect on victims; alternatives and future action; guest speakers. The
course is group work based and includes opportunities for peer discussions. It also includes homework.
 TTC works mainly in the Midlands and North West.
 TTC delivers 29% of completed DDRS courses.
 A TRL analysis of the course found it reduced reconviction rates and increased knowledge as well as
challenging attitudes.
 A survey of 3,500 course attendees at 72 months found that 7.6% of males had reoffended compared
with 17.9% who had not done the course. 3.7% of females had reoffended compared with 7.8% who
had not done the course.
 Drink driving is an offence that cuts across all social classes from farm workers to TV celebrities to
solicitors to lecturers.
 Next morning drink driving – 18.7% of drink drivers stopped the next day (survey of 4,000 drink drivers).
Classically: healthy 23 year old walks to pub, eats meal, drinks 5 pints, walks home, drives to work at
6.30, crashes, tests positive. Has a good attitude (walks to and from pub) but has poor knowledge of
absorbtion rates.
 There is much confusion on alcohol intake – there can be many different sizes of wine glass, for
example – some can hold half a bottle or more!
 High risk offenders – required to pass a medical exam before they are able to drive again. At least 2.5
times over the limit. Committed a previous offence in past 10 years.
 Roadside screening – down from 815,000 to 570,000 between 1998 and 2002: a 30% reduction.
 Positve/refused – Up from 13% to 18% from 1998 to 2002 (may partly be due to better targeting, but
still a high number regardless).
 Reduction in drink drive limit – Sky survey found 72% would support a reduction.
T: 01952 292246
E: train@ttc-uk.com
W: www.ttc-uk.com
Jools Townsend, communications manager, Brake: Reaching young drivers – bringing the victim into
the classroom
Brake has run two young driver projects – the Bridge House Trust scheme (2003-4) and the FedEx and Brake
road safety academy (2004 and ongoing). Young drivers are targeted because – 2% of car licence holders are
under 21, but 24% of death by dangerous driving convictions in 2003 are under 21 (Home Office). 62% of
young male passenger deaths are caused by young male drivers (TRL).
Drink drive crashes per 100 million vehicle miles: 17-19 = 31crashes; 20-24 = 18; 25-29 = 10; 30-35 = 5;
(decreasing from then on as age increases.
Other young driver education schemes – DSA arrive alive; locally run schemes by rsos and emergency
services.
The BHT project targeted young people in London aged 16-21.
 Bereaved road crash victims delivered presentations in schools, colleges and youth offender
institutions.
 This provided the basis for a roll out across the UK.
 As part of the project, questionnaires were sent to schools two weeks before each presentation and
results were collated and provided to volunteers before their presentation.
 The questionnaires included questions such as had they been a passenger with a young driver who has
drunk? (16%) and had they been a passenger with a young driver on drugs (15%). 5% admitted to
driving while over the drink drive limit and 7% to driving on illegal drugs (below actual levels).




























37% had been a passenger with an unlicensed driver and 72% had been a passenger with a driver who
drove at 40mph or more in a 30mph zone.
To young people, driving means freedom (69%); excitement (34%); and adulthood (33%). It does not
mean fear (4%) or danger (5%).
The presentation contains the big three – speeding, belting up and drink/drugged driving.
In a Brake survey with Green Flag Motoring Assistance in summer 2004, it was found that 27% of
young drivers up to 25 admitted drink driving.
20% of driver fatalities aged under 20 are over the drink drive limit compared with 11% in 1991 (DfT)
In 2002/3 44% of violent crimes were fuelled by alcohol (Home Office) and 14% of 16-19 year olds
experience dependence on alcohol (BMA)
9% of 17-25 year olds admitted to drugged driving in the Brake/Green Flag survey compared with 3% of
all drivers.
Attitudes of young drivers – one or two drinks are ok, drugged driving is not as bad as drink driving, we
won’t get caught, and police don’t test for drugged driving.
Young people are unaware of the drink drive limit – 21% think it’s the equivalent of three units or more
(Brake/Green Flag research).
Our message to young people – never drink and drive, not a drop; never drive the morning after
drinking a lot (basic guidance on counting hours, then adding some extra time for good measure); never
get a lift with someone who may have been drinking
On drugs – the effects of drugs are unpredictable and long-lasting; you can’t judge your own
impairment; you can’t have illegal drugs and driving in your life at the same time
Our key resource is Sober Up – a funky leaflet on drink and drugged driving for distribution through
driving instructors and education / offender institutions
Please order this resource if you are a road safety professional – it is free thanks to DfT funding.
Obstacles to getting through to young drivers – boy racer culture; car means freedom and invicibility;
road safety is for kids and boring.
Factors on our side – road safety affects everyone; driving important to many young people; they can
relate to subject matter and have opinions; young people respond well generally to straight talking and
facts and figures.
Style of presentation – straight talking – no street slang; avoid us and them ; use facts and figures; use
open discussion; use personal story; ask for feedback and commitment.
Discussion topics – hazards; risks; good driving/safe driving; consequences of risk taking; empowering
to make safe choices; referring to questionnaires – are they risking lives?
10 volunteers trained by April 04 – delivered 44 presentations across London April –Nov 2004. 1,400
people attended.
Who are our volunteers? Bereaved parents and young people, witnesses of fatal crashes, emergency
service professionals, people committed/passionate and involved in some way.
Jane Evason, Brake volunteer, spoke to the conference as part of this presentation saying: She
contacted Brake 7 years ago following death of her son; she has since then done media work, surveys
and community education for Brake; she has given 5 presentations to 239 people, ranging from a group
of just four young offenders to 100plus 15/16 year olds.
It has been nerve-wracking and she has encountered complacency – especially by boys. But she has
been able to engage the audience using questions and a DVD from Brake. It also, in her view, helps
that she is a mother with first hand experience.
Pupils took an interest, asked questions, feedback through discussions. “You have really made me
think of how my actions may affect others.” “I will drive more responsibly.” “My son Tom told me about
the presentation you gave and it obviously made a big impression on him – thankyou.”
Resources provided to volunteers include: one day training on style and content; background info for
them in a folder; hard hitting DVD, only a few handouts as too many are useless; questionnaires and
feedback forms; a newsletter giving regular updates on the educational work of volunteers.
The Too Young to Die DVD contains first person interviews with bereaved people and one seriously
injured woman hit by a drink/drugged driver. It also includes interviews with paramedics and doctors.
The laminated tyre tread indicator carries Brake’s Pledge to Drive Safely and is an easy to keep and
use reminder card.
The feedback from the Bridge House Trust project showed than 86% thought the presentation improved
their survival chances; and 97% pledged to ‘clean up’ (not take drugs and drive) and 94% pledge to
‘sober up’ (not drink and drive).
Three quarters of attendees said they would apply the lessons of the training to their driving behaviour
‘forever’.
The training often uses local examples of tragedies to demonstrate how it could ‘happen to them’.

Now Brake is funded by FedEx to roll out the project nationwide. 40 volunteers have been trained since
September 04 – aiming to deliver 3 or 4 presentations each per year. 780 young people have been
reached so far, and 4,000 are predicted to see a presentation by the end of the second year of the
project. We help volunteers to develop their links with schools by providing introductory letters, etc.
 We get 10 enquiries a week from potential volunteers. We promote through our website, pr and email
cascades. We are empowering people who contact us to make a difference.
 We are now tightening the structure of discussions through development of ‘flash cards’ carrying key
facts, ensuring group sizes are small, and developing additional resources for volunteers.
 We would welcome the opportunity to work with any other road safety professionals who are delivering
local projects for young people.
T : 01484 559909
E : jtownsend@brake.org.uk
W : www.brake.org.uk
Session Three: Advertising
Jo Rushton, head of publicity, DfT: Drink drive campaign planning
 1967 – start of drink drive campaigning in UK, at the same time as breath testing introduced. Drink drive
is a Think! campaign priority. Messages aimed at society as whole and particularly young men 17-24.
 Spend: approx £2m a year.
 From 1979 to the early 90s drink drive deaths radically fell from about 1,600 to about 600, but rates
have remained static for the past decade.
 The number of drivers who say they never drink and drive under any circumstances rose significantly
from 1984 (52%) to 1990 (80%) but has remained static since.
 Survey of all drivers – number who don’t disagree that it’s safe to drive after two drinks: 1997 – 18% of
all drivers; Nov 04 – 12% of all drivers.
 Publicity themes: zero tolerance of how much to drink; fear of being caught; short and long term
consequences for you and others; making it personal and real; providing coping strategies (leave car at
home).
 How do we plan? Consider priorities; develop strategy; allocate budget; undertake research (focus
groups etc); plan media strategy; develop creatives; book media; refine; launch; evaluate, review and
refine.
 Research: drink drivers think – the chance of crashing and hurting others is low; they are more likely to
lose their licence; a drunk driver would know they are over the limit; it would be easy to be just over the
limit and not know; the limit is about two pints; drivers are nervous about being caught and the stigma of
a conviction.
 Campaign: launched July 04 to: maintain stigma; undermine confidence about when safe to drive using
rule of thumb; communicate that any amount of alcohol affects driving; get them to think about
consequences; dramatise the point in time to stop and THINK! (advert in pub with woman chatted up,
then she flies across the room, landing dead in a corner after man decides to have ‘one more’)
 Uses a mix of cinema, TV and radio (summer and Christmas only, with TalkSport most of the year), pub
beer mats, towels. Year round presence peaking in Aug and Dec. Extending campaign through: PR;
brand partnership; sports partnership; stakeholder relationships.
 91% of those surveyed said the TV ad ‘crash’ was easy to understand, and 85% said it was good.
E: jo.rushton@dft.gsi.gov.uk
W: www.dft.gov.uk
Clare Hutchinson, AMV BBDO (DfT’s hired ad agency): Getting the message across to drug drivers
 The communication problem: There is little research; it is not illegal to drive on illegal drugs; driving
under impairment difficult to enforce; complex message; disengaged audience.
 Strategy: To provide first level awareness and education about the facts of drugs to young people in
a discreet and relevant way. Inform, don’t lecture. Many drug drivers are hungry for information
about drugs, and also don’t approve of drink driving.
 Since 2003 – infiltrating the drug taking community – at festivals, on line, in the loo!
 Connecting through www.drugdrive.com: promoted from other drug and relevant websites.
Contains facts and links to support sites.
 Glastonbury – 130,000 attendees. Presence in car parks with reminder cards that tell you where
you are parked also carrying drug drive messages.
 Drug drive wrap in pubs that looks like cocaine wrap, and toilet posters promoting the website
(showing lines of cocaine, like lines on a road).

Research company 2CV currently conducting qualitative research on drug driving through
interviews and workshop sessions.
T : 0207 616 3500
E : hutchinsonc@amvbbdo.com
W : www.amvbbdo.co.uk
Session Four: Fleet management
Chris Wakeham, Hampton Knight: More than your job’s worth – drug and alcohol testing in the
workplace
 Hampton Knight offers policy development; training and awareness; screening and testing;
occupational health; counselling.
 Have produced a guide to substance misuse policies in the workplace: The complete guide to a
substance misuse policy in the workplace.
 Get the balance right – a policy should be right for your company: it isn’t necessarily, or only, a testing
policy. It isn’t only a counselling policy, or only a dismissal policy. It has to be clear, concise, robust and
reasonable.
 It should contain the aim; definitions (eg. what does under the influence mean?); responsibilities;
discipline; help and support.
 A training programme is crucial. It should reflect your policy and be company specific. You will have to
show that employees were aware of the policy and its implications.
 Documentation is vital. On-going training is also required to reinforce the message. This will be
reflected in the success of your policy.
 If you are testing, you need to ensure everyone knows: when; how; who.
 Consider testing pre-employment; randomly or unannounced; post-incident; for cause or with cause;
part of an after-care or rehabilitation programme.
 Incidents should be dealt with effectively – focus should be ‘fitness to work’. Ensure you know
medication taken or medical conditions. Do you have protocols for managers to follow?
 If sending someone home – make sure they are not driving!
 Alcohol testing can use the Lion Alcolmeter 500 – an automatic breath tester with digital fast results.
Approved by law enforcement authorities world wide.
 Hair can detect drugs for up to three months.
 Urine can detect drugs up to 3 days after taking, with the exception being cannabis, which is up to 28
days, but often only 5-6 days.
 Oral swab tests can detect drugs up to a maximum of 2 days after taking, but some drugs cannot be
tested for in this way after only a few minutes after taking them.
T: 01827 65391
E: chriswakeham@hamptonknight.co.uk
W: www.hamptonknight.co.uk
Simon Noble, Risk Shifters: The introduction of alcohol locks
 Alcolocks can form part of a policy to manage the impact of drugs and alcohol in the workplace.
 In 1975 the technology came available. In 1985 there were the first installations. By 2001 they were
significantly used in the US and Australia.
 Today there are 7 key manufacturers working in the UK, US, Canada, Australia, Sweden, Belgium,
France, Germany, Norway and Sweden.
 Alco locks can stop the misinformed as well as the repeat offenders. We know that 1 in 5 convicted
drivers are stopped the morning after drinking socially.
 Alco locks can reduce deaths on roads caused while at work – up to one in 3 crashes involve a vehicle
being driven for work.
 Such a device would have stopped a Derby man, David Braines, driving his bus in 2004 – he had no
previous convictions but was three times over the limit when he crashed his bus-load of passengers on
20 September.
 In Sweden, taxi and bus companies have welcomed the reassurance that alcolocks offer the public and
claim an increase in business as a result.
 In the UK the DfT is currently trialling their use with a view to introducing new legislation.
 The device fits into the vehicle’s ignition and the driver has to take a breath test – if it is too high, the
vehicle will not start.
 It consists of a small box about the size of a car radio connected wirelessly or by a cord to a head and
mouthpiece.
 The technology on some allows for random testing, which can be used to monitor a driver en-route to
confirm they have not consumed alcohol since starting the journey.


They can be used in any vehicle.
SunBus operates 100 buses. In 2003, four buses were installed with alcolocks, and the union supported
it. Two drivers left. In 2005 – 25 were installed – numbers installed are growing.
 Albright (a manufacturer) has 2 factory and office sites and operates 3 light vans, a 7.5 tonne truck and
5 forklifts. The truck has been fitted with an alcolock and random testing is being introduced.
 A Home Counties taxi company with 20 cars/MPVs is trialling its use.
 Alcolocks can be beaten by a ‘friend’ blowing into the breathalyser for you. But who would do that in the
workplace? They would be complicit if anything happened.
 They are particularly likely to help employers who use agency drivers, lone workers working overnight,
or where customer perception affects the bottom line. The chances of anything occurring may be low
but the consequences would be dire.
T:01485 756732
W: www.riskshifters.co.uk
Session five: Enforcement
Anthony Hunt, Certified Drug Recongition Evaluation Instructor, Northamptonshire Police, National
Drug Recongition Training Unit: Detecting the drug impaired driver at the roadside
 Roadside impairment testing has been used in the US since the 1970s. It was used in the UK to detect
alcohol prior to the introduction of the breathalyser in the 1967 Road Safety Act.
 Today, we need it in the UK to help us identify drug driving.
 The Fleming Stewart report in 1998 identified that there was a problem of drugged driving, police were
unable to identify the signs as they had lost the skills to conduct sobriety tests since the introduction of
breathalysers, and there was no consistency by police surgeons after arrest for impairment under
Section 7(3) (c) RTA 88
 Now police surgeons can consult the form MG/DD/F (Impairment assessment form) and following the
doctor’s examination, can conclude a conduction is present under section 73c of the RTA.
 There is no offence for driving with a drug in the body. This is a problem as the medical test devices
that tell us that a driver is drugged cannot tell us whether they are impaired – the law only allows us to
prosecute if impaired.
 Field Impairment Testing (FIT) is the only statutory method of determining and providing evidence of
impairment to drive. They are ‘divided attention tests’ based on the US system of Standardised Field
Sobriety Tests (SFST).
 The FIT tests are: Pupil examinations (using a pupil size chart – normal range is 3 to 6.5mm in size);
Romberg balance test; walk and turn test; one leg stand test; finger to nose test.
 Each test provides clues to the officer about the ability of the driver to drive safely.
 Officers trained to do the FIT test are taught to use the same words on a plastic aide memoir card or on
MG/DD/F. This means it is a systematic standardised assessment tool, that can gain court acceptance,
avoid errors and promote professionalism.
 Pupil examination – there are some medical reasons why someone may have dilated or constricted
pupils, as well as time of day, so this alone cannot indicate being high on drugs.
 The Romberg test requires a driver to stand with their feet together and ther head tilted back and to
estimate the passage of 30 seconds. Drugs degrade a person’s ability to count in real time and whether
they count fast or slow can give a clue to the type of drug they have taken – emphetamines can result
in them thinking just a couple of seconds is 30 seconds, while opiates can result in them thinking that
well over a minute is 30 seconds. If a driver doesn’t stop the test themselves, then the test is stopped
by the officer at 90 seconds.
 The walk and turn test provides 8 clues of impairment which include stopping while walking and failing
to turn correctly.
 The one leg stand test provides 4 validated clues of impairment, including failing to count correctly and
swaying or hopping. The leg must be held out in front of the driver a few inches off the ground.
 The finger to nose test must be done using alternate hands – left, right, left, right, right, left. 66% of
drugged drivers can be identified through this test alone.
 In addition to the FIT tests, officers are also taught about the signs of drug abuse (Drug Recognition
Training) in the following categories: cannabis; opiates; CNS stimulants; CNS depressants;
hallucinogens; inhalants. The officer is not there to identify the drug, but can help identify the category
into which the drug may fall.
 Officers are also instructed in multiple-drug use – most abusers do not just use one drug. Most
commonly, alcohol and a drug are combined.
 FIT and DRT help close the gap between drug abuse and driving and provide the only standardised
system to determine impairment. They promote professionalism and secure court acceptance.

This system is the best and an important way to determine impairment by drugs in the absence of any
scientific roadside device and while there is no law saying it is illegal to drive with drugs in your system.
E: tony.hunt@northants.pnn.police.uk
W: www.northants.police.uk
Richard Allsop, Centre for Transport Studies, University College London: Lowering the drink drive limit
Abstract
The current legal limit on drivers’ blood alcohol content was set at 80mg/100ml nearly 40 years ago and there
are now only 3 other Member States of the European Union, all of them small countries, with limits higher than
50mg/100ml. Deaths from drink driving in Great Britain stopped falling 10 years ago, and show signs of rising.
The reasons for the setting of the current limit in 1967 and changes since then are discussed, and a fresh look
is taken at the likely annual reduction in deaths on the road in Great Britain if the limit here were lowered to
50mg/100ml. Lowering the limit is seen not as a measure to be taken in isolation, but as part of a substantial
initiative to resume and sustain a clear downward trend in death and injury resulting from the avoidable excess
risk of driving after drinking.
Background
The purpose of the legal limit on drivers’ blood alcohol content (BAC) is to reduce death and injury on the roads.
After 40 years or more of continual public information, we all know by now that the best advice is never to drive
after drinking. And if the world were ideal in terms of road safety almost every driver’s BAC would be near
zero, and absolutely every driver’s would be below 20mg/100ml.
But there is more to life than road safety, and legislation is about what it is reasonable to require of people for
the common good. So up to now, against a background of advice not to drive at all after drinking, legal
sanctions in Britain concerning doing so have been confined to driving with BACs higher than 80mg/100ml, or
with breath alcohol content higher than the empirically equivalent 35microgrammes/100ml. In this paper, all
alcohol levels mentioned are BACs and are given in the more familiar units of mg/100ml without repeating the
units.
The limit of 80 was set in 1967 and although it and its enforcement remained controversial for several years,
both were generally accepted within a decade, and over the last 20 years the question whether the limit should
be lower has been raised with increasing vigour.
How the limit came to be set at 80
When considering the case for change, it is often helpful to recall the reasons for the status quo. It was
realised early in the history of motoring that too much alcohol made one unfit to drive and this was recognised in
law by the offence of driving while under the influence of drink. All of that happened long before 1967, but in
the mid 1960s it was still a matter of active debate whether moderate drinking increased or decreased the risk
of accident and hence of death or injury on the road. Loss of capability in skills analogous to driving was
demonstrated in the laboratory, and reduced skill and judgement in vehicle handling were demonstrated under
experimental conditions, but evidence of these kinds was insufficient to convince enough parliamentarians or
opinion formers that moderate drinking increased accident occurrence. Invention of the breathalyser had
opened the way to enforcement of a legal limit on BAC, but opponents of legislation could cite the lack of
evidence of increased accident risk (except from limited studies that were too easy to discount), and were rarely
without anecdotal accounts of improved driving after a few drinks.
All this was changed by the findings of the Grand Rapids study (Borkenstein et al 1964). Reinforced by some
reanalysis by the author (Allsop 1966), this quantified the relationship between BAC and risk of accident
involvement in a way that provided effectively irrefutable evidence for greatly increased risk at higher alcohol
levels. This brought a legal limit on to the practical political agenda and the question became: at what level of
BAC? The chosen value of 80 was probably determined mainly by a combination of the facts that:

it was the level above which the Grand Rapids evidence indicated that average risk of accident involvement
was at least doubled (and at which, for forecasting the effects on casualty numbers, the risk of injury or
death was also, cautiously as it was supposed at the time and was later shown to be, assumed to be
doubled);
 it was in the range of levels being considered or implemented in other countries;
 it was plausible that public and parliamentary acceptance could be gained – partly on the basis of advice
that most people could have three small drinks without exceeding it; and
 it was the level at which the Grand Rapids evidence, in the form in which it was published, enabled
increased risk to be established with the conventional statistical 95 per cent level of confidence against a
background of neutrality as to whether the risk was increased or decreased.
How things have changed
The world has changed a lot since 1967, but just a few salient changes make it clearly doubtful whether the limit
of 80 set in 1967 is still the most appropriate one:

A further large-scale study in the USA in the late 1990s (Compton et al 2002), analogous to the Grand
Rapids study in data collection but helped by advances in statistical technique since the 1960s, found a
somewhat more rapid rise in risk of accident involvement with increasing BAC up to a doubling at about 70
and a much more rapid rise at higher BACs
 Estimates have been made (Maycock 1997) of the relationship in Great Britain between BAC and risk of
accident involvement, and these not for drivers’ involvement in any kind of accident including the many in
which no-one is hurt, as were the Grand Rapids estimates and their successors, but for their involvement in
an injury accident and for their being killed in an accident. For example, the former risk is estimated to be
multiplied by 2.9 at a BAC of 50 and 5.6 at a BAC of 80 compared with the corresponding risk at a BAC of
zero, and the latter to be multiplied by 5.0 and 12.4 respectively. Thus for drivers’ involvement in injury
accidents and being killed in an accident the risk multiples at a BAC of 80 are respectively nearly 3 and
more than 6 times the doubling that informed the setting of the limit at 80 in 1967. Even at the lower BAC
of 50 the risk multiples are 1.5 and 2.5 times that doubling.
 There is widespread understanding that the risk of accident involvement is indeed increased by even
moderate drinking and consequent acceptance of a legal limit on BAC and its enforcement.
 Acceptance that risk increases with increasing BAC changes the background against which the statistical
level of confidence is assessed in analysing the Grand Rapids and similar data. The consequence of this
for the Grand Rapids data, in the form in which it was published, is that increased risk is established with
the statistical 95 per cent level of confidence at BACs from 60 upwards, instead of from 80 upwards as was
the case against the background of neutrality that prevailed in 1967.
 The annual number of deaths in drink-driving accidents fell by 66 per cent between 1980 and the mid-1990s
(compared with a fall of 40 per cent in total deaths on the roads), but has not fallen further, and shows signs
of rising.
 The Government was minded in 1998 to lower the limit to 50 and consulted (DETR 1998) on this and other
measures to reduce drink-driving. The response was on balance supportive of the lowering (DETR 1999)
but the Government’s road safety strategy to 2010 (DETR 2000) stated an intention to deal with the matter
in the context of European harmonisation that was then being reviewed.
 The European Commission adopted a Recommendation in January 2001 that Member States should set
BAC limits at or below 50, and the only Member States other than the United Kingdom that have not yet
complied with this Recommendation are Cyprus, Ireland and Luxembourg, but the Government did not
include provision for lowering the limit in the Road Safety Bill that was lost with the calling of the 2005
general election.
What might be gained by lowering the limit
For reasons of enforceability (including the possibility of having low levels of alcohol in the blood unwittingly
from sources other than alcoholic drinks), the lowest practicable legal limit is probably 20, which applies in
Sweden, but in the circumstances just outlined, the most realistic possibility for lowering in Great Britain in the
foreseeable future is to 50.
In Annex 2 of its 1998 consultation document, the DETR discussed the effect on casualties of lowering the limit
to 50 and made a cautious estimate that about 50 deaths and 250 serious injuries per year would be saved out
of the then typical annual numbers of 550 and 3000 respectively in drink-driving accidents. This estimate was
based largely on data that had recently been reviewed by Maycock (1997), principally his estimate that with a
BAC of B , a driver’s risk of death is exp(0.032B) times the risk without alcohol, and the following distribution
of non-zero BACs in car drivers killed in Great Britain in the 5 years 1990-94, from Coroners’ and Procurators
Fiscal’s data:
BAC
Number
Per cent
1-40
765
47.3
41-80
115
7.1
81-120
117
7.2
121-160
151
9.3
161-200
175
10.8
201-240
132
8.2
241-320
119
7.4
321-400
31
1.9
>400
11
0.7
>1
1616
100.0
More recent data have not been published in the same form, but summary percentage tables for individual
years (e g Department for Transport 2004 page 33 Table 2i) and Maycock’s comparison with 1980-84 are
consistent with this distribution being broadly stable over time.
In revisiting the same data (in the absence of more up-to-date corresponding data) to take a fresh look at the
numbers of deaths that might be saved each year, it will be assumed that the percentage distribution of deaths
in accidents in which a driver had a non-zero BAC with respect to the BAC of the drinking driver is the same as
the above distribution of car drivers killed.
Then in a typical recent year with an estimated 550 deaths in
accidents involving a driver over the legal limit, these 550 deaths correspond to the sum of the percentages in
columns 4-10 of the above table, i e 45.6 per cent of those in accidents in which a driver had a non-zero BAC.
The 47.3 and 7.1 per cent for the BAC ranges 1-40 and 41-80 represent a further 571 and 86 deaths
respectively. It is also relevant that the distribution of deaths with respect to BAC is roughly uniform over the
range 41-120, and this enables the numbers of deaths per year to be estimated for accidents involving drivers
with BACs in the following four ranges:
BAC
Deaths per year
1-50
593
51-80
64
81-110
65
>110
485
The possible effect of lowering the limit from 80 to 50 can be discussed for each of these ranges of BAC in turn.
Those driving with BACs >110 are those who already drive with BACs well over the limit of 80 – about 1 in
200 of those driving even on weekend evenings and nights in the last national roadside surveys reported in
1990 (Maycock 1997).
These account for nearly 500 of the 550 drink-drive deaths each year – and since they seem to be beyond the
influence of the limit of 80, they probably won’t be affected much if at all by lowering it to 50. It is right to
address this major part of the drink-driving problem through enforcement and penalties – in particular as was
achieved in the final days of the 2001-05 parliament by enabling the police to enforce more effectively through
evidential breathtesting at the roadside. Some of these lives may be saved by reduced drinking among those
well over the limit who are so as a result of a one-off binge in which they have allowed themselves too much
leeway, and would allow themselves a bit less leeway under a lower limit – but there seems no way of
estimating how many, and they might be very few, so it seems best to regard them as a bonus.
This does not mean, however, that lowering the limit is irrelevant to the problem of driving well over the existing
limit. Taken with enhanced enforcement and an accompanying fresh programme of public information to help
people to understand and comply with the lower limit, it could reasonably be expected to have enough effect on
the culture of drinking and driving to achieve an appreciable long term reduction in the proportion of each agecohort who ever turn into people who persistently drive well over the limit.
Those driving with BACs between 80 and 110 – about 1 in 150 of those driving on weekend evenings and
nights – are currently exceeding the 80 limit by up to 30. If they were each to reduce their drinking just enough
to exceed a 50 limit by the same margin as they now exceed 80, then Maycock’s estimate of the effect of BAC
on risk implies that 62% of the associated deaths, that is 40 deaths, would be saved.
Those driving with BACs between 50 and 80 – about 1 in 75 of those driving on weekend evenings and
nights – are complying with the current limit but exceeding the lower limit. If they were each to reduce their
drinking just enough to comply with the new limit, that is to bring their BAC down to 50, then Maycock’s estimate
of the effect of BAC on risk implies that 36% of the associated deaths, that is 23 deaths, would be saved.
Those driving with BACs greater than zero but not greater than 50 – probably about 1 in 8 of those driving
on weekend evenings and nights – are already complying with the lower limit, and would not need to reduce
their drinking. But this does not mean that none of them would do so. Some of those currently near to 50
would realise this and drink less to be on the safe side, and others would do the same because they do not
realise how much below 50 they already are. There seems no way of estimating how many would do so, but
since the associated number of deaths is nearly 600 per year, it would only take a small percentage reduction to
take the number saved per year well into double figures.
To sum up, as was recognised in the Government’s 1998, the most clearly identifiable likely reduction in deaths
as a result of lowering the limit will come from changes in behaviour by those to whom the level of the limit is
most relevant, those already driving at around the limit. The foregoing combination of assumptions about
changes by those with BACs within 30 of the existing limit indicates a reduction of, in round figures, about 65
deaths per year.
While the assumption about those with BACs currently between 50 and 80 is a cautious one, the assumption
about those with BACs currently between 80 and 110 may well be rather optimistic – but against this should be
set the very real prospect of reduction in deaths associated with those whose BACs are already below 50,
which has not been counted in the estimate of about 65 deaths per year.
Lowering the limit in the wider context of combating drink driving
Lowering the limit will require consideration of the penalty for driving or attempting to drive with a BAC between
50 and 80. Whilst some would wish the same penalty to apply at 50 as now applies at 80, others may regard
this as too severe. If this were seen as an obstacle to lowering the limit it could be overcome without any
relaxation of the penalties applying above 80 by making the normal minimum penalty for driving or attempting to
drive with a BAC between 50 and 80 six penalty points to remain on the licence for 10 years and a maximum
fine at the level below that which applies above 80.
years would lead to disqualification.
This would mean that a second similar offence within 10
No single measure can address adequately the persistent problem of drink driving. To resume and then
sustain a clear downward trend in the death and injury resulting from the avoidable excess risk associated with
driving after drinking requires not only the education of each new cohort of drivers and reinforcement of the
message to drivers of all ages, but also a fresh initiative to achieve a step change in awareness and behaviour
among those who, after nearly 40 years of the present law, persist in disregarding it.
Lowering the limit, accompanied by a raising of the profile of targeted enforcement, made more efficient by
evidential roadside breath testing, and the substantial public information campaign that would need to
accompany these two changes, could together form just such a fresh initiative.
Acknowledgement
The author was encouraged to revisit this issue by leading members of PACTS, the Parliamentary Advisory
Council for Transport Safety
References
Allsop R E (1966) Alcohol and road accidents RRL Report No 6 Crowthorne: Road Research Laboratory
Borkenstein R F, R F Crowther, R P Shumate, W W Zeil and R Zylman (1964) The role of the drinking driver in
traffic accidents Bloomington: Department of Police Administration, Indiana University
Compton R P, R D Blomberg, H Moskowitz, M Burns, R C Peck and D Fiorentino (2002) Crash risk of alcohol
impaired driving Proceedings of the 16th Conference on Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety, Montreal, August
2002
Department for Transport (2004) Road Casualties Great Britain London: TSO
DETR (1998) Combating drink driving: next steps London: Department of the Environment, Transport and the
Regions
DETR (1999) Summary of public response to the Government’s proposals in “Combating drink driving: next
steps” London: Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions
DETR (2000) Tomorrow’s roads – safer for everyone London: Department of the Environment, Transport and
the Regions
Maycock G (1997) Drinking and driving in Great Britain – a review TRL Report 232 Crowthorne: Transport
Research Laboratory
T : 020 7679 1555
E: rea@transport.ucl.ac.uk
W: www.cts.ucl.ac.uk
Dr Andrew Clayton, partner, RSN Associates: Random breath testing
 There are different types of random breath testing. Eg. road blocks (used in Europe); targeting
particular locations such as outside pubs or clubs; using mobile vehicles or static test points (both used
in Australia).
 There are different types used around the world.
 There are different views in the UK on whether it should be introduced – the RAC and AA are against it.
Road safety charities representing victims are for it.
 The EC recommends that countries adopt RBT as well as 50mg limit.
 The level of deterrence of RBT depends on certainty of being caught and severity of punishment. To be
successful it must be swift, sure and tough – like airport security!
 IN Australia, RBT has been extended across all states since 1986 – it originated in Victoria in 1976 and
then spread to South Australia and NSW by the early 80s.
 Random means a random time, location and random selection. RBT is designed to deter, NOT to
detect. It can be more effective as a deterrent if it has a low hit rate as this allows a quick throughput of
drivers, more checks to be carried out. In Australia, the job is often given to new police recruits, as it is
easy and routine.
 In Australia it is connected with the ad message ‘If you drink and drive you’re a bloody idiot.’ This
package of enforcement and advertising encourages drivers to accept it, like airport security. $38m is
spent in Australia on the campaign.
 Fatalities where drivers are above 50mg came down rapidly between 1987 and 1992 in Victoria after
the introduction of RBT but since then the fatality rate has not reduced.
 The fatality trend in Victoria is not dissimilar, since the early 90s, to that in the UK – i.e. drink drive
deaths are not coming down.
 In Australia, typically the RBT is done in 1 hour in every 8 hour officer shift. Mobile RBTing can be
done during prescribed periods at different locations. ‘Prescribed periods’ are advertised in newspapers
and are often entire weekends – Friday teatime to Sunday teatime.

In South Australia there are 600,000 RBT tests a year – 3% are positive from mobile RBTs and 0.3%
from static RBTs.
 Operation ‘longbow’ – conducted over Anzac weekend (24 April 05) involved 100 officers over 26 sites
– 6,140 drivers were tested; 66% were tested after 1am; 11% of drivers were positive; numerous
drivers were over 150 and the highest was 220.
 RBT is not legal in the US – sobriety static check points can only breathalyse if there is ‘articulate
suspicion’ to stop. This is expensive and difficult to staff. Static checkpoints also hold up traffic, causing
congestion.
 Road blocks are allowed in Europe except for in Ireland, the UK and D. Drivers are pre-selected from a
traffic stream based on behaviour, vehicle condition and vehicle age. This has a higher hit rate than in a
pure RBT. Levels of associated publicity vary.
 To summarise:
 Static RBTs are: used in Aus/NZ; expensive; have a low hit rate; may create a greater deterrence; are
boring to staff; help train staff. They can help blitz certain towns depending on their design (by cutting
off exit and entry routes effectively). (A blitz in Cheshire has been evaluated by Larry Ross.)
 Mobile RBTs are: widely used; cheaper; have a higher hit rate; greater detection; and can be mixed
with other duties.
 Both types need high visibility and extensive accompanying publicity to succeed.
 In the UK there is a very low visibility of breath testing – we’ve all seen a mobile speed camera, but it is
very, very rare to see someone being breath tested.
 Deterrence is only possible if a visible police presence is maintained – lack of visibility, peer pressure
and successful drink driving can undermine deterrence.
 In the UK, drink drive casualties are rising but breath test numbers are decreasing.
 What should we do? Change law? Introduce booze buses? Require traffic police to spend 1 hr per shift
on RBT? Re-introduce traffic police who have been depleted in numbers?
 RBT can be implemented without a backlash if you can persuade motoring interest groups of its value,
the Police Fed, the Home Office and DfT and tabloid media.
 “If it comes to be believed by drinking motorists that the chance of being stopped and subjected to the
tests are so remote as to be a risk worth taking, they will continue to take their pleasures much as
before and habits will not be changed.” (The Times, 9 October 1967) – the day the act came in to allow
breathalysing at the roadside and the drink drive limit was fixed.

So in some ways nothing has changed – but it urgently needs to!
T: 0121 605 0348
E: andrewc@roadsafetynet.com
W: www.roadsafetynet.com
Andria-Louise Degia, HPRU Medical Research Centre, School of Biomedical and Molecular Sciences,
University of Surrey, Guildford: The development of a roadside devise for testing drivers’ reaction times
and concentration
 There is a 20 year strong database of data concerning normal and impaired cognitive and psychomotor
functioning. This provides a validated and sensitive battery for assessing skills involved in driving
(visual search, information processing, decision making and sensorimotor control)
 Any device must be objective and quantitative, not become easier the more its use is ‘practised’. It must
require minimal instruction and no requirement for comprehension or numeracy skills. It must not be
unuseable by those scared of modern technology and it must be durable and operational during night
and difficult weather conditions.
 The tests are: critical tracking test (CTT) and sustained attention to response test (SART). This includes
tests such as tracking a ball across a screen and recognising objects when they appear.
 The device is a hand held palm top style device, but durable.
 When tested in a laboratory with healthy volunteers the prototype showed there was a significant
difference observed between and those tested who had high dose and low dose alcohol and the
placebo.
 A field study testing festival-goers showed significant inability to do the test after taking drugs, taking
drugs and alcohol, and taking alcohol alone. Tracking errors and reaction times were both monitored.
 The tracking test and SART are sensitive measures of performance impairment. A combination of both
tests can be used to discriminate between impaired and non-impaired subjects.
 Future research will include clinical trials with drug groups, and the most promising tests programmed
onto a single device.
 This research provides a useful additional tool to officers performing FIT tests.
E: a.degia@surrey.ac.uk
www.surrey.ac.uk