The Road Safety Act 1967 and its Effect on Road Accidents in the United Kingdom

Ministry of Transport. London.Introduction1. This paper gives an account of the introduction of legislation in the United Kingdom prescribing a maximum legal blood alcohol level for drivers. It then describes the reductions in accidents which followed this legislation, and the extent to which they can be attributed to it.The Road Safety Act 19672. Before the Road Safety Act was passed, the law in the United Kingdom”' made it an offence to drive, or to be in charge of, a motor vehicle while unfit through drink. "Unfit through drink11 was defined as meaning "when the ability to drive properly is for the time being impaired". The law provided that a driver who was arrested on suspicion of being impaired could be asked to provide a specimen of blood, breath or urine for analysis. He was under no obligation to do so, but failure to do so could be cited as evidence in court. If he did provide a specimen, the results of the analysis could be used as evidence of impairment, but no specific level of blood alcohol was laid down. To prove that a driver was impaired it was necessary to rely on direct evidence, for example, of eye-witnesses about the driver's speech and behaviour or of a doctor about a clinical examination of the driver, as well as expert opinion about the significance of the defendant's blood-alcohol level if known. It was often difficult to produce evidence in this way sufficient to obtain a conviction. The majority of drivers convicted had a level of blood alcohol above 150 mg/100 ml and drivers were not infrequently acquitted with levels considerably higher.^

33. The 1967 Act'made a fundamental change in the law by introducing for the first time a maximum prescribed level of blood alcohol. The level chosen was 80 mg per 100 ml (0.08^ or 0.3 promille). This level was chosen partly by comparison with other countries, and partly on the advice of the British Medical Association. On the basis of Professor Borkenstein's work‘d it appeared to be the level at which the average driver is twice as likely to have an accidentas he would if he had not been drinking. The main effect of this change in the law was that it enabled prosecutions to be undertaken on the basis of objective fact by relieving the courts of the need to decide whether or not a driver had been impaired.4. The Act also contains provisions about the circumstances in which a driver can be required to provide a specimen of blood or urine to determine his bloodalcohol level. A police constable in uniform is empowered to require a driverto take a breath test at the roadside in certain prescribed circumstances. These are if the constable has reasonable cause to suspect that the driver

(i) has been involved in an accident, or(ii) has committed a traffic offence while his vehicle was in motion, or(Hi) has alcohol in his body.

If the breath test indicates that the driver appears to be over the prescribedlimit he can be arrested without warrant and taken to a police station where he is offered a further breath test. The reason for the second breath test is that if the driver had been drinking very shortly before the first breath

test was taken, the traces of alcohol in his mouth might have given a falsa result. Assuming that the second breath test is also positive or is refused, the driver is required to provide a sample of either blood or urine which is seat to a forensic science laboratory for analysis. The driver is entitled to be given a sample of blood or urine to have analysed privately. Evidence of the result of the analysis is laid before the court when the driver is prosecuted. (The Act provides that if a driver has opted to provide a sample of urine rather than blood, a urine/alcohol level of 107 mg/100 ml shall be treated as equivalent to a blood alcohol level of 80 mg/100 ml.) It will be seen that the breath test is used only as a screening device, and the result has no direct bearing on whether or not the driver is convicted. If the driver refuses to give a specimen of either blood or urine he is liable to the same penalties as if he had been proved to have exceeded the statutory limit! there is no question of a specimen being taken by force. The maximum penalties for the offence of driving while over the prescribed limit are a fine of £100 or i months imprisonment (6 months on second or subsequent conviction) or both, on summary conviction, and an unlimited fine or two years imprisonment or both on conviction on indictment. In practice, imprisonment is very unusual for this offence. In addition, a driver must be disqualified from driving for at least a year: this is almost certainly a more powerful deterrent than the fine.The maximum penalties for being in charge of a vehicle (but not driving it) while over the prescribed limit are somewhat less, and disqualification is discretionary. The Road Safety Act completed its passage through Parliament in May 1967. The provisions about alcohol were brought into force on 9th October 1967.Publicity Campaign5. A major publicity campaign was mounted by the Ministry of Transport for the three month period starting in September 1967 with the object of making the public aware of the new law. In all about £350,000 was devoted to it. This was divided between television films, advertising in the national and local press, and leaflets which were distributed with vehicle licences, and by petrol companies and others. 20 million copies were distributed. The official publicity campaign was supplemented by an immense amount of "unpaid" publicity in theform of news and comment in press, radio and television. Whether this was stimulated by the official campaign, or whether it would have happened anyway is debatable but the effect was to create an exceptional level of public awareness of the new law, and of road safety generally. As it happened, the new law came into force at a time when there was comparatively little other news, so it received excellent coverage. The Ministry conducted a survey, part of the object of which was to assess the effects of the publicity campaign: the results are discussed in paragraph 10 below.Effect on Accidents6. The introduction of the new law was followed by an immediate and significant fall in road casualties.5 During October 1967 casualties fell by 12f by compari­son with October 1966 and during every subsequent month for the first year casualties were reduced in comparison with the corresponding month in the previous year. Over the twelve months as a whole the reduction was 10$. In actual numbers this represents 1,152 fewer people killed, 11,177 fewer seriously injured and 28,130 fewer injured slightly. What was particularly significantwas that almost 80$ of the casualty reductions occurred between 8 p.m. and U a.m., which is the time when the greatest number of drivers might have been expected -to have been drinking. Public houses in the United Kingdom close at between 10 and 11 p.m., and the two hours from 10 p.m. to midnight used to see more accidents than any other two hour period during the day. In the twelve month

IV. 8

period casualties during these hours fell by 32%, and between midnight and 4 a.m. by 36%. (See Table 3). There were particularly large reductions in accidents over the Christmas period, a time when accidents involving alcohol used to be at their highest. Deaths fell by 36%, and serious injuries by 30%. This may partly be explained by the fact that Christmas day fell on a Monday, but more than half the reductions occurred during the period 10 p.m. to 4 a.m.7. It is sometimes argued that the casualty reductions were largely due to reductions in traffic, because drivers avoided using their cars if they were likely to drink alcohol. There is little evidence to support this. During the first twelve months of the new law, motor traffic increased by 4%, whichis roughly in line with the average annual increase. During the evenings there was a very slight fall in traffic, of the order of 2%, but this was in no way comparable with the reduction in accidents.8. At the time of writing the latest complete figures available are those for December 1968. The three months October to December 1968 were the first months during which the accident figures were compared with a month in which the new law was already in force, so they give some indication of whether or not the reductions are being maintained. During these three months casualties rose by 1%, 7% and 3% respectively. In 1967 these three months had shown reductionsof 12%, 13% and 21% over 1966, so the latest indications are that a fair proportion of the reductions are being maintained, although it is clearly too early to assess the long term effects.9. It is arguable to what extent the casualty reductions described above can be attributed to the new law, and to what extent to other factors. During the year following the change in the law, the Minister of Transport introduced a number of other safety measures, including Regulations prescribing minimum tread depth on tryes, Regulations making the fitting of seat belts compulsory in certain cars, and a sustained publicity campaign directed to a variety of different road safety problems. All these and other measures almost certainly served to reduce accidents, and it is not possible precisely to identify the casualty savings attributable to each measure. On the other hand the fact that casualties began to fall sharply immediately after the new law was introduced, and continued to do so for the whole of the following year, and the fact that the bulk of the reductions happened during the late evenings, all provide strong evidence that the new law on alcohol was the major factor. Moreover, there are two ways in which the new law probably affected road safety indirectly. First, one of the circumstances in which the motorist may be asked to take a breath test is if he has committed a traffic offence, such as breaking a speed limit or failing to stop at traffic lights. It may very well be that drivers who had been drinking even only a little took particular care not to commit such offences, lest they should be required to take a breath test. Secondly, as had been mentioned above, the introduction of breath testing aroused enormous public interest, which was stimulated by considerable attention in press and radio:it is very likely that this stimulated interest in road safety generally, and led drivers to drive more carefully at all times.Other Effects10. There is other evidence that the introduction of the new law did reduce drinking and driving. For a period starting on 1st December 1966 coroners were asked to report the blood alcohol level of all drivers over 16 killed in road accidents. The Road Research Labroatory of the Ministry of Transport has done a survey of the average blood alcohol levels, comparing the average levels before and after the new law came into force.6 This shows that percentage of all drivers killed with blood alcohol levels of over 80 mg/100 ml fell from 28% before to 15%

IV. 9

11. The Ministry also arranged for a survey of the public's attitudes before and after the new law was introduced. This was based on a sample of 2,000 people interviewed before the law came into force, and a further 2,000 interviewed three months after. The survey was intended primarily to attempt to assess the effect of the publicity campaign described in paragraph 5 above, but also throws some light on public attitudes before and after, and on changes in habits resulting from the new law. For example, drivers were asked whether they ever drink before driving: in the first survey 56% said they did: in the secondonly 46%. In the first survey, of drivers who drink in public houses, said that they usually drove themselves home: in the second only 37% did so. Driversalso appeared to have a better knowledge of the new law in the second survey, and a clearer idea of the amount that they thought that they could drink without- breaking the law. In both surveys the majority were in favour of the police having the power to take breath tests - in the second survey the percentage in favour was 76 among drivers who drink and drive, and 88 among drivers who do not.7 Other public opinion polls were conducted independently: theseshowed a steadily rising percentage of the public being in favour of the new legislation: the last one reported the figure of 87%.12. It is often asked whether the introduction of the new law affected the consumption of alcohol in the United Kingdom. Precise information is not available, but consumption of alcohol in 1968 is estimated to have increased by 5% over 1967. This is in line with the average annual increase over previous years. There is some evidence that slightly less alcohol was consumed in public houses, and slightly more elsewhere. The survey described above indicated that rather fewer drivers drank in public houses after the change in the law than before, although rather more appeared to drink in their or other people's homes.13. The new law was by no means universally popular. At the time of its introduction there was a considerable outcry from a small but vocal minority who regarded it as an unjustified interference with their social life, and argued that they were capable of driving safely when over the legal limit.Fears were expressed in parts of the licensed trade, who felt that their business would suffer. The bulk of this opposition disappeared when the casualty reductions were announced. It was clear from the opinion polls that themajority of the public, including the majority of drivers, welcomed the changein the law.Conclusion1<4. There seems little doubt that the introduction of the statutory blood alcohol level for drivers in the United Kingdom led to a marked fall in road accidents. Whether this reduction will prove permanent or not remains to be seen, but thelatest indications are that after almost 18 months the new law is still havinga fair impact. However, there are no grounds for complacency. 15% of drivers who are killed in road accidents still have blood alcohol levels of over 80 mg/100 ml and 11% have levels of over 150: there is still a long way to go beforethe problem of the drinking driver is solved in the United Kingdom.

immediately afterwards. Full details are shown in Table IV.

References

The Road Traffic Acts I960 and 1962 (HMSO).Road Safety Legislation 1965-6 (Cmnd. 2359) (HMSO).The Road Safety Act 1967 (HMSO).R.F. Borkenstein and others. The Role of the Drinking Driver in Traffic Accidents. Department of Police Administration Indiana 196^.Road Accidents 1967 and 1968 (HMSO).R. F. Newby.(RRL Report in course of preparation).D. Sheppard. The 1967 Drink and Driving Campaign:A survey among Drivers.(RRL Report LR 230).

TABLE 1HOAD CASUALTIES IN GREAT BRITAIN

JANUARY 1967 TO DECEMBER 1968

Month NumberPercentage change compared v/ith previous year

January 27,493 + 2February 11 27,208 + 4March " 30,199 + 1April " 28,553 - 12May 11 34,085 - 3June " 30,884 - 10July " 34,677 - 3August " 33,737 + lSeptember " 33,560 + 5October " 30,995 - 12November " 28,880 - 13December " 29,707 - aJanuary '68 23,885 - 13February " 24,679 - 9March " 27,493 - 9April 11 26,715 - 6May " 28,747 - 16June " 3 0 ,2 7 2 - 2July " 3 1 ,2 5 3 - 10August " 3 2 ,1 3 9 - 5September " 31,228 - 7October " 31,377 + 1November " 30,783 + 7December " 3 0 ,6 3 7 + 3

T VRT.-ff 2

FATAL AND SERIOUS CASUALTIES IN HOURLY PERI CDS

OCTOBER 1967 TO DECEMBER I968

c

HOUR 1967/68 1 9 6 6 /6 7 CHANGE io CHANGE

Midnight-4 a.m. 6,849 9,399 - 2550 - 274 a.m.-8 a.m. 7,157 7 ,0 0 4 + 153 + 28 a.m.-Noon 18,547 17,285 + 1268 + 7Noon-4 p.m. 2 5 ,5 0 0 2 6 ,3 6 6 - 866 - 34 p.m.-6 p.m. 20,234 21,927 - 1793 - 86 p.m.-8 p.m. 14,656 15,192 - 536 - 38 p.m.-10 p.m. 10,611 11,228 - 617 - 510 p.m.-Midnight 1 6 ,2 1 0 21,305 - 5095 - 24

c

IV. 13

KILLED O

ft SER

IOUSLY

INJURED

KILLED OR SER

IOUSLY

INJU

RED

HOUR BEGINNING

IV. 14 HOUR BEGINNING

road

accidents

December

1966

to September

1968

w

to

-poEn

0 in1

O'Io

5C Ö«

0 001

Ré

ON

4> rHN <M P ,•h o aCQ 3(0

l f \ KN

R t<\l *-

lA

o-p O

r - -P 0 0VO VO v o

cjn t v ON<JN VO

(JNu T—u0) <D

4) JUS <D fcis <D .O (I)4) 4-> O -PO Pi -P Pho 0 o <Du CO O co

IV. 15

T.1BLE 5

breat

h Tes

ts Und

er Sections 2

(l) and

(2) of

the Hoa

d Saf

ety Act

, 1967

(Provisional figures)

m O I

22

,12

9

20,4

97

2,7

31

45

,35

7

48

.8

45.2 6.0

8961. saqraa^das

VO O CN W h O IA f— roCM

inOvo ON 3̂- t'-

CO VOin ro

896t ^snSny’t G\ ro VO O CO VO C CNJoT T-"

voinvo OJ t— t—

VO vo in ro

8961-OJ r- in O VO T-oj m ojOJ T-

COt—ONro

OJ ««*•in on in in ro

8961 etmf2

,364

1,54

7

245 VO

in

•*3*

ON CM ONvo r— in in ro

896 t- t e n

ro in 0 r- in cm r— ojoT

OJr - CO T- T-

OJ v~ VOin ^

8961- I T ^ v

ON CM C\JO O T-r— vo cm

roCMinro

in in 0 co in vo

8961. qojBpi

O T-O ^CO CO CM

inCOcoro

ro ^ rovo vo

8961. jta o iq a .jCM CM ONf— roro t— OJ

roinroro

ONO t- C—

in

89g L jÇ-TEnuEf

in cm o\t- CO VOro in T-T~ T—

vov oOro

on vo incm t- in rj- in

A96 1- ^aqraaoag;

1,73

8

2,01

8

263 ONO-3-

CM CM v o

ro O vo in

içg l. aeqcraAOkjin c*- in 0 co f -CM C“- r-

f—VO

ro

0 ^ voco vo in ro in

Z.96 L J:aqo^=0 » s ie - m 6

T- OJro ro r-O VO t-

t—r—c—CM

^ ^ ^ T- CO r-

C~— CO -vfro in

S g «M M WM <>!O') p ['IP h £4

IV. 16

rq MEhs g

wEh

>3P-;

TABLE

6 DEI

NK AND DEI VING

(XF

EENCES

1ST

OCTOBER I96

7 TO

30TH

SEPTEMBEE

I96E

(Provisional figures)

■S&

<D1p

CDb0+> G rH3*3G C3

«■P

'3a1

<H rHasrH *H CÖ *H

-P P

cöfH 'Örrt Û)£CQ -H <D ^ Î3Û

ä s s

■vt-ir\co

9OJ

»

f— tr\ro

00o 3t—

CM CMrOCM

a<H O O -H

U 3a> o A a)1 213 H P.

% * »

■aI

P CM VO

P o \

OQ O rH VO •H G\Q) £-<JO«a)Ä ÇQIt

•s ̂O -H O H'O h m O ft O f -

H «H VO P O ON

rHa} ca

CQ PîjO a) ofl O <1T* H .> a> >>cö -PÆ ö a>CQ G 03

rH O •H -H TJä -p aJ £ aï ou «

?*) P V_^ G G

•r| Q) -P> 9 *d•H G S h O -H

P O rH

<H <fl•h r— ä Hvo(D 4) ON

8 0 aftp M au aJ ^

cs a a> 0) 00«■saS-p oO OJh <\> Öf t - P »H

1

l aR

s urQ *H3 3

ft

a.IV 17

DRINK

AND DRI

VING

OFFENCES

1ST

OCTOBE

R 196

6 TO

30TH

SEPTEMBER

1967 «HO

GO -P ÎJ0.H Ö *H mvOO

• PU3

■aw

0)•p-p

uo

oEr*

bü rH C *H

5 SPr O

COM 'drö <D Æ w

CDO

»

covo

3a

ä s s

n 3<1) O rQ <Dg a)

125 Qip<

•pao

I

•ä•H

■9

IV. 18