A ‘two strikes and you’re out’ policy, in which excessive speedsters caught twice would lose their licence, is among proposals being considered by the government for strengthening road safety. A detailed analysis of traffic casualties shows that “extreme speeders” are more likely to be involved in an accident and the consequences will be more severe when they are. The evidence also shows that the same drivers speed excessively across all speed limits and the proposal is to introduce a graduated fixed penalty of 6 penalty points for drivers who exceed the speed limit by a very large margin – 20 mph in most speed limits. Get caught twice and you lose your licence.

There were 2946 road users killed in 2007, and nearly 28,000 more seriously injured. Publishing a consultation process designed to reduce this annual toll, Jim Fitzpatrick, the transport minister responsible for road safety, said that it “seeks views on proposals for measures aimed at improving compliance levels with key road safety laws. Transgressions of these laws are the cause of many hundreds of deaths.” The consultation sets out a package of measures aimed at “helping the responsible majority of road users and cracking down on the reckless few.” Apart from speeding, the very detailed package tackles drink driving, the wearing of seat belts, drug driving and careless driving.

In October the minister disappointed safety experts when he stated that the government had decided against reducing the legal limit for alcohol in a driver’s blood (see ‘Drink and driving’ blog posted on 27.10.08). Instead he proposes to tighten up the enforcement regime by developing targeted checkpoint enforcement. The introduction of digital breath-testing equipment, at a reported cost of £2m, will remove the necessity for a blood or urine test, reducing police time spent dealing with drunk driving. And a reduction in the legal limit in a driver’s blood is not ruled out at some time in the future.

Drug driving, which is estimated to cause 20% of all road deaths, presents different problems. There is no legislation in place to allow for easy prosecution. The current law requires proof that a driver is impaired by drugs. The procedure is complex and cases are few. The consultation promises to explore whether a new offence needs to be created.

The DoT claim to have achieved a very high overall level of seat belt wearing, but have nevertheless developed a new, hard-hitting THINK! campaign which you have probably seen on TV already. In addition, the Home Office is currently consulting on an increase in the penalty for failing to wear a seat belt from £30 to £60 in 2009. Also proposed is a fixed penalty offence for careless driving, which will enable the police to enforce with a minimum of bureaucracy against careless drivers who admit their fault. The fixed penalty would be £60 and 3 penalty points.

If you want to contribute to the consultation process you have until 27 February 2009.

See: http://www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/open/compliance/roadsafetyconsultation.pdf

The trouble with discussing the relationship between alcohol and driving is that the basic principles are so technical. Once you start talking about milligrams of alcohol per millilitres of blood most people are lost.

That is a shame, because the outcome of the debate is quite literally a matter of life and death, particularly as the government has decided against reducing the legal limit for alcohol in a driver’s blood. This is despite suggestions it could save 65 lives a year. The government had previously planned to cut the limit from 80 to 50 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood. Cutting the limit to 50 milligrams – equivalent to about half a pint of beer – would put drivers at risk of prosecution after just one drink, and bring them in line with Europe. But Road Safety Minister Jim Fitzpatrick has now said that the consultation document on plans to reduce drink-driving, to be published this month, will not recommend the reduction. According to ‘The Times’, he said “we are not convinced that dropping to 50 is the right answer. Drivers who are between 50 and 80mg are not the ones we’re most worried about. It’s the ones above 100.” He said his focus would now be on better enforcing the existing limit. Police could be given new powers to stop and test drivers at random rather than needing to suspect an offence is being committed.

Road safety campaigners have accused the Government of backtracking. The proposed reduction had been supported by the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. Andrew Howard, head of road safety at the AA, said that the motoring organisation used to oppose any lowering of the limit but had changed its position recently. The BMA’s Head of Science and Ethics, Dr Vivienne Nathanson, told BBC News that the BMA believed a reduction in the drink-drive limit would prevent deaths and reduce the number of lives ruined by drinking drivers. “There is clear evidence of the link between rising blood alcohol concentrations and dangerous driving behaviour,” and she added that a new impetus was needed to reduce the toll of injury and death.

Ben Webster, writing in ‘The Times’, suggests that “by leaving the alcohol limit unchanged, the Government will avoid the awkward question of whether to introduce a lower penalty for registering just over 50mg. At present, anyone caught drink-driving serves a minimum ban of 12 months. Most countries that have lower limits only fine drivers and give them penalty points for minor breaches.”