What they said ... `There are still a number of high blood-alcohol related fatalities and we need to reconsider our position and whether it is stringent enough' Victorian Police Minister, Mr Bill McGrath
`Why ... should we expect a .02, or even a zero limit, to stop the type of driver who is already willing to take a risk and break a well-known law and drive while heavily under the influence of alcohol?' RACV's manager of government and corporate relations, Mr David Cumming
On January 4, 1998, the Victorian Police Minister, Mr Bill McGrath, suggested that the legal blood alcohol limit in his state might be lowered from the current .05 to .02.
The Victorian Premier, Mr Jeff Kennett, later indicated that a review of the legal blood alcohol level for drivers was part of a more wide ranging review of the effectiveness of current strategies to reduce the road toll. Mr Kennett indicated that though a legal limit of .02 for drivers was a possibility, his government would not introduce a zero level as this would be `impossible'. By this the Premier appeared to mean that a zero level would be too extreme a measure and probably unenforceable.
The possibility of .02 being the highest legal blood alcohol level for drivers has the support of the chief executive of the Australian Drug and Alcohol Foundation and of some Victorian Liberal backbenchers.
However, the Royal Automobile Club of Victoria (RACV), the Police Association and the Victorian Opposition are all opposed to a .02 level.
Background
A legal blood-alcohol limit of .05 currently applies in all Australian States and Territories. A zero blood alcohol limit applies to all Victorian probationary drivers and to professional drivers, such as bus, truck and train drivers.
As a generalisation, to stay under .05 males can consume two standard drinks in the first hour and one every hour after that, while females can have one drink in the first hour and one thereafter.
These consumption levels are usually offered for guidance only as factors such as body size and the amount of food eaten prior to consuming alcohol can affect the amount of alcohol that can be drunk prior to reaching the current legal limit.
At a .02 limit most men would be able to consume one standard drink while most women would not be able to drink alcohol at all and then drive. Some commentators have also suggested that at this level of allowed blood alcohol some medications and alcohol-containing foods could place a person over the legal limit.
The .05 limit was originally arrived at because it was claimed that studies indicate driver competence begins to become significantly impaired beyond this level and also because a .05 level would allow some alcohol to be consumed by those intending to drive and thus was thought likely to achieve a significant degree of driver compliance.
However, a number of commentators have noted that all supposedly safe legal limits are approximations in that there can be a high degree of individual variation regarding the effect of allowed levels of alcohol consumption on driver competence.
There is a significant amount of information available on the Internet regarding the effect of alcohol consumption on driver performance. There are also a number of reports on the impact of different law enforcement and other strategies as means of reducing road accidents and fatalities. These are interesting as they allow for international comparisons.
Sweden is currently the only Western country to have a legal blood-alcohol limit of .02 for drivers. This limit was set in 1990.
A study of the effects of the new limit (see LINK ONE) on driver attitudes and behaviour, written by Lars Aberg, Uppsala university, Department of Psychology, and titled Long Time Effects of a Lowered Blood Alcohol Limit in Sweden, is available on the Internet.
This is particularly useful as it suggests the possible consequences of the introduction of a .02 limit in Victoria.
Legal blood-alcohol levels for drivers vary across the United States. Levels appear to range from .05 through to .1. There is, however, a growing move toward reducing allowable blood-alcohol levels in the United States, with a number of states having reduced their levels to .08.
The National Centre for Injury Prevention and Control, based in Atlanta, Georgia, has produced a fact sheet (see LINK TWO)titled, Alcohol-Impaired Driving. This gives a summary of a number of trends in the United States regarding drink-driving. The fact sheet is followed by abstracts of the various studies which supplied the information which the fact sheet presents.
Much in this series of documents is interesting, including the abstract outlining the tendency of convicted drink-drivers to re-offend.
There is also an interest analysis produced by members of the Clinical Forensic Medicine Unit, Sydney Police Centre and the Department of Pharmacology, University of Sydney (see LINK THREE).
The analysis is titled, Evidential Breath Analysis in New South Wales: An Exercise in Pragmatism.
It outlines the reasons behind the adoption of .05 as the legal blood-alcohol level for drivers in New South Wales and considers the effectiveness of the driver breath analysis strategies adopted by that state since 1968.
This is also a useful background document. Particularly informative is its discussion of the reasons for the .05 limit, its strengths and limitations.
Arguments in favour of the legal blood-alcohol limit for drivers being lowered to .02
One of the major arguments offered in favour of the legal blood alcohol limit for drivers being lowered to .02 is that although the road toll has fallen dramatically in Victoria and across Australia, a significant proportion of road accidents still involve drunk drivers.
This was the principal reason given by the Victorian Police Minister, Mr McGrath, for his government's considering lowering the legal limit. Mr McGrath expressed concern that more than one in four of those drivers killed on Victorian roads last year was over the legal limit.
`There are still a number of high blood-alcohol related fatalities and we need to reconsider our position and whether it is stringent enough,' Mr McGrath said.
Those supporting the .02 proposal have also noted an apparent increase in the number of Victorians who are drinking and driving. In 1993-4 booze buses detected one driver over the legal limit for every 663 tested. In 1996-7 the incidence of drunk driving appeared to have increased with one driver over the legal limit being detected for every 407 tested.
It has been claimed that many of those who are drinking and driving are somewhat older drivers who have not had the experience of being allowed to drive only with a zero blood-alcohol level as probationary drivers.
Supporters of lowering the legal blood-alcohol limit argue that being prevented from drinking as a probationary driver increases a driver's subsequent awareness that alcohol and driving are incompatible. Liberal backbencher, Mr Gordon Ashley, has claimed, `People over 30 have not grown up with a zero (probationary) limit and are more tolerant about alcohol and what it does to them.
`They have an easy-going attitude and are unaware that another mouthful of alcohol could put them over the limit.'
Thus, it is argued, if all drivers were required by law to further restrict their alcohol consumption before driving then this might increase the general level of awareness that about the dangers of drinking and driving.
It has further been suggested that having penalties apply to those found driving with a blood-alcohol level above .02 would increase people's fear of being caught and losing their licence for drink-driving.
These points have been emphasised by Herald Sun commentator Paul Gray. Mr Gray has claimed, `The point is, public attitudes toward drink-driving have dramatically changed in recent years. This is because of the increased awareness of two things: the risk of being caught `over the limit', and the damage done by road accidents.
`A .02 limit would further increase awareness of the risk of being caught. It's hard to see how that could not reduce drink-driving further.'
Mr Gray emphasises the educative and standard setting functions of the law. `Through its laws, a community sets its expectations. Today our community overwhelmingly says that people should not drink then drive. Cutting the blood alcohol limit further would give recognition to that fact.'
A number of supporters of the .02 limit acknowledge that it would mean a virtual prohibition on drinking and driving, however, they claim that this may be what is necessary.
Mr Bill Stronach, the chief executive officer of the Australian Drug and Alcohol Foundation, has noted, `We already know that alcohol does inhibit driving capability dramatically.'
According to this line of argument, for many people the only safe level of alcohol consumption prior to driving may be between zero and .02.
`For some people the .05 limit is too much for them to drive safely,' Mr Stronach has claimed.
Supporters of the .02 proposal have also noted that for some sections of the community we have already accepted that a zero level of alcohol consumption is all that is appropriate.
Thus, Mr Stronach has noted, `We already have a zero limit for people who drive heavy vehicles or buses and for probationary drivers, and it should be no different for ordinary drivers.'
Mr Stronach went on to observe, `Pilots can't drink for twenty-four hours before flights so what is the difference? ... A person would not be comfortable with a brain surgeon who had had a couple of drinks but was still under .05.'
The Victorian Police Minister, Mr McGrath, has claimed that the advantage of a .02 blood-alcohol limit over a zero blood-alcohol limit is that the .02 limit prevents those who accidentally consume small quantities of alcohol and then drive being punished for such behaviour.
Mr McGrath has suggested that the .02 blood alcohol limit would protect those who unwittingly consumed alcohol prior to driving, for example, in medicines or chocolates flavoured with alcohol.
Arguments against the legal blood-alcohol limit for drivers being lowered to .02
One of the major arguments given against lowering the legal blood-alcohol limit for drivers is that it is unnecessary.
According to this line of argument, Victoria, and Australia as a whole, has been very successful in reducing the number of fatalities on our roads.
Mr David Cumming, RACV's manager of government and corporate relations, has noted, `The evidence at the moment is that most drivers have taken the drink-drive message to heart. The Victorian toll is in steady decline and that includes drink-drive fatalities, which have been halved over the past 25 years.'
Additionally, it has been argued that further reducing the legal blood-alcohol limit for drivers would be ineffective, as only a minority of road fatalities now involve drink-driving and further the vast majority of those who drive under the influence of alcohol are significantly over the current .05 limit.
Mr Cumming has stated, `Where alcohol has contributed to driver deaths, in 70 per cent of cases, the driver's blood-alcohol content was above .15.
`The .05 message was forgotten and the law tragically and stupidly broken.'
Thus, it has been claimed, those who drink-drive and become involved in accidents are not those who remain either just below or just above the .05 limit. They are drivers who appear to have ignored current restrictions and who have drunk sufficient to place them well above current limits.
The conclusion that some have drawn from this is that simply making restrictions more severe would have little or no impact on those drivers who are ignoring the current limits.
Mr Cumming has raised the following doubt, `Why then should we expect a .02, or even a zero limit, to stop the type of driver who is already willing to take a risk and break a well-known law and drive while heavily under the influence of alcohol?'
It has also been suggested that lowering the legal blood-alcohol limit to .02 might be counter productive and encourage more drivers to ignore legal limits.
Those who put this point of view note that for many drivers, particularly women, a .02 limit would mean that they would be unable to consume any alcohol at all and then drive. It has also been noted that such a low limit would also mean that many people who had drunk the night before driving might not have metabolised or excreted sufficient alcohol to come within the legal limit until after noon the next day.
It has been claimed that the proposed restrictions would be so difficult to adhere to that they would probably be ignored.
The leader of the Victorian Opposition, Mr John Brumby, has opposed the law, claiming, `It's a question of whether people are prepared to accept that sort of impact on their rights and freedoms.'
Numbers of experts have suggested that a .02 blood-alcohol limit might provoke a community backlash and undo much of the educative work that has resulted in a majority of Victorians accepting the current drink-driving restrictions.
It has also been claimed that the proposed law is discriminatory because it penalises women, who would be effectively prohibited from drinking alcohol at all if they later planned to drive, and because it penalises all responsible drivers who are restricting their alcohol intake to the current limits.
Mr Brumby has noted, `It will simply penalise the many reasonable drivers who might drive after one glass of wine or two beers with dinner.'
It has also been claimed that the .02 limit has not been shown to have any significant impact on the incidence of drink-driving accidents and fatalities.
Dr Mark Smith, an emergency specialist at the Alfred Hospital's trauma centre, has claimed that research would have to show that drivers became impaired at lower blood-alcohol levels before toughening the laws was considered.
While Mr David Cumming has noted that the only state or country in the Western world with a .02 blood-alcohol limit for drivers is Sweden and that this is because of that country's climate conditions which make driving very hazardous for much of the year.
Finally, it has been claimed that lowering the legal blood-alcohol limit is not the most effective means of further reducing the road toll. Speed and driver fatigue have been identified as major causes of road accidents and fatalities. Further education programs to increase driver awareness of these hazards have been recommended. It has also been claimed that there are additional measures which should be taken to improve vehicle construction and the quality of our roadways.
It has also been noted that repeat offences among known drunk-drivers form a significant component of road accidents and fatalities. In Victoria, for example, about one third of convicted drink-drivers are known to re-offend.
It has been suggested that harsher penalties, such as the impounding of vehicles and the installation of devices which prevent a drink-driver starting his or her vehicle, should be considered for convicted drink-drivers.
Further implications
It seems unlikely that the Victorian government will reduce the legal blood-alcohol limit for drivers to .02. The Premier, Mr Kennett, has already indicated that any change in legal blood-alcohol levels would not be brought into effect until 1999 and then only after thorough investigation and community consultation.
Given that most of the relevant special interest groups, including Victoria Police and the RACV, are opposed to the proposal and given that it is likely to be electorally unpopular it is probable that the measure will not be introduced.
Immediately after the possibility of a .02 blood-alcohol level was raised by the Victorian Police Minister all other Australian States and Territories rejected the proposal and indicated that they were satisfied with the .05 limit.
At the same time the Federal Government has indicated that it believes it would be pointless to introduce a change to legal blood-alcohol levels for drivers unless this were adopted uniformly across all states and territories.
The Victorian Government has not previously indicated a predisposition to follow federal directions, not has it been adverse to adopting policies that have not been implemented elsewhere in Australia. There are also those who have suggested that the fines associated with drink-driving offences might make lowering the legal blood-alcohol limit to .02 a desirable revenue-raising measure.
Overall, however, the practical and political implications of the .02 proposal make it appear unlikely. What does seem more probable is that the Victorian Government will proceed with the more general review of road safety referred to by the Premier and that there will be a series of reforms, not necessarily relating to drink-driving, that come from this.
With regard to drink-driving the current consensus appears to be that there should be more severe penalties imposed on those convicted of drink-driving, particularly at higher blood alcohol levels. Measures such as the impounding of vehicles have been suggested.
Sources The Age
5/1/98 page 4 news item by Mary-Anne Toy, `Drink-drive limit may drop, says Premier'
6/1/98 page 3 news item by Sushila Das, `Doubt over lowering of .05 alcohol limit'
6/1/98 page 10 editorial, `Over the limit'
The Australian
5/1/98 page 3 news item by Rachel Hawes, `Critics say .02 proposal way over limit'
6/1/98 page 5 news item by Rachel Hawes, `Kennett takes low road with .02 limit'
The Herald Sun
4/1/98 page 1 news item, `We'll look at .02'
4/1/98 page 4 news item by Sue Hewitt, `Get set for .02'
4/1/98 page 36 editorial, `It's worth a look'
5/1/98 page 5 news item by Michelle Edmunds and Kamahl Cogdon, `Outcry at .02 push'
5/1/98 page 5 news item by Kamahl Cogdon, `Wowser warning'
5/1/98 page 5 vox pop comments, `What do you think of the .02 proposal?'
6/1/98 page 18 editorial, `Proceed with caution'
6/1/98 page 19 comment by David Cumming, `Taking it to the limit'
6/1/98 page 19 comment by Paul Gray, `Lower level a sound option'
6/1/98 page 20 letter from Charles Knox, `.02 idea the limit'
7/1/98 page 18 letter, `Bushed by .02 plan'
8/1/98 page 20 letter from Warwick Murphy, `Drink not just a drive problem'
Internet * It appears that the English Board of Studies may be refining its guidelines on the use of Internet sources for CAT I.
* Currently it is probably preferable for students to restrict their use of Internet sources to Part 2 of CAT I.
* Please consult your teacher for direction on this matter.
There is a significant amount of information available on the Internet regarding the effect of alcohol consumption on driver performance. There are also a number of reports on the impact of different law enforcement and other strategies as means of reducing road accidents and fatalities. These are interesting as they allow for international comparisons.
Sweden is currently the only Western country to have a legal blood-alcohol limit of .02 for drivers. This limit was set in 1990.
A study of the effects of the new limit on driver attitudes and behaviour in Sweden, written by Lars Aberg, Uppsala university, Department of Psychology, and titled Long Time Effects of a Lowered Blood Alcohol Limit in Sweden, is available on the Internet at http://raru.adelaide.edu.au/T95/paper/s15p2.html
This is particularly useful as it suggests the possible consequences of the introduction of a .02 limit in Victoria.
Legal blood-alcohol levels for drivers vary across the United States. Levels appear to range from .05 through to .1. There is, however, a growing move toward reducing allowable blood-alcohol levels in the United States, with a number of states having reduced their levels to .08.
The National Centre for Injury Prevention and Control, based in Atlanta, Georgia, has produced a fact sheet titled, Alcohol-Impaired Driving. This gives a summary of a number of trends in the United States regarding drink-driving. The fact sheet is followed by abstracts of the various studies which supplied the information which the fact sheet presents.
Much in this series of documents is interesting, including the abstract outlining the tendency of convicted drink-drivers to re-offend.
The fact sheet and accompanying abstracts can be found on the Internet at http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/drving.htm
Looking at the situation in Australia, there is an interesting analysis produced by members of the Clinical Forensic Medicine Unit, Sydney Police Centre, and the Department of Pharmacology, University of Sydney.
The analysis is titled, Evidential Breath Analysis in New South Wales: An Exercise in Pragmatism.
It outlines the reasons behind the adoption of .05 as the legal blood-alcohol level for drivers in New South Wales and considers the effectiveness of the driver breath analysis strategies adopted by that state since 1968.
This is a useful background document. Particularly informative is its discussion of the reasons for the .05 limit, its strengths and limitations.
The analysis can be found on the Internet at http://raru.adelaide.edu.au/T95/paper/s5p5.html
Back to previous page
