[Article] 20pc drivers killed on way to work are over drink limit

Victor

http://home.eircom.net/content/unison/national/9703236?view=Eircomnet

20pc drivers killed on way to work are over drink limit
From:The Irish Independent
Thursday, 18th January, 2007

ONE-in-five drivers killed driving to work in the morning is over the drink-drive limit.

These findings are revealed in an unpublished Health and Safety Executive (HSE) report. They completely undermine claims that gardai are annoying drivers going to work by giving breath tests.

The new research, obtained by the Irish Independent, was commissioned by the Road Safety Authority (RSA) in a bid to establish the truth about claims that no one is dying on our roads during the morning because of drink driving.

These claims are being aired almost daily in the media as the debate rages about whether drivers should be forced to take random breath tests on their way to work.

The latest research, due to be published later this week, is based on the blood alcohol levels of every driver killed last year. It found that 21pc of fatal road crashes between 6am and noon were alcohol related.

The report concludes that "the 'morning after' is a danger zone for drink-driving related death and injury on Irish roads".

It identifies Monday morning as a particularly high-risk period for "morning after" crashes. It also reveals that drivers who drank alcohol the night before and do not have a good night's sleep are twice as likely as others to be involved in a crash.

Risks are high in the morning because there are large numbers of schoolchildren, other pedestrians and vehicles on the roads.

Dr Declan Bedford, an HSE specialist in public health medicine, said yesterday that the high number of alcohol-related crashes in the morning proved that compulsory breath tests were justified.

"Mandatory alcohol testing in the morning time is saving and will continue to save lives," he said.

Transport Minister Martin Cullen said: "This research should end the debate that it is okay to have alcohol in your system and drive. This is a nonsense."

Mr Cullen said the random breath-test campaign, credited with reducing road deaths by 30pc since it was introduced just five months ago, was a 24-hour enforcement issue, "not just for a few hours".

"To suggest that people are only dying as a result of drink driving at nighttime or in the early hours of the morning is to totally misread the situation," the minister said. RSA chief executive Noel Brett said that drink driving had "horrific, brutal and heart-breaking" consequences.

"You really need to be aware that you may still be unsafe to drive the next morning. For example, after a heavy drinking session, it could take over 13 hours for alcohol to leave your system. That's lunchtime the next day. "International road-safety experts say that the impairment effects of alcohol in your body the 'morning after' could also be doubled if you have not had enough sleep the night before. Obviously, this would make you totally unfit to drive."

The RSA chief said that it was not a theory but a fact that even one drink impairs driving.

Treacy Hogan

mickoneill30

There was a guy on Newstalk this morning from the RSA. He also had the stat that 37% of people who died in a road accident between 6am and 8am accidents last year had alcohol in their system.

BrianD

One hopes that the TDs who lobby against morning breath testing will read the above. Random breathtesting should be a 24 hour affair. There are plenty of people who have liquid lunches and are on the roads early afternoon as well.

gobdaw

what numbers are we talking about here? What percentage of daily fatalities happen during these hours?

Indo seem to be selectively leaking statistics here.

Alun

Yes, it's an oddly phrased statement alright. It could easily be (intended to be) misread / misunderstood as "One in five of people killed due to drink driving are doing so in the morning on the way to work", which is clearly not what they really mean.

I mean, without knowing the actual figures, there might only actually have been a total of five people killed on their way to work in the morning all year, in which case the fact that one of them had been drinking is hardly a statistically significant event. I'd guess that most drink related accidents happen at night or in the early hours of the morning.

Still seeing as it's an "unpublished" report, we may never know.

copacetic

Hard to believe the story as they say a couple of conflicting things. If the report says "It found that 21pc of fatal road crashes between 6am and noon were alcohol related" then my understanding is that this means that one person involved in the accident was suspected of being over the limit. It is a long stretch from there to "ONE-in-five drivers killed driving to work in the morning is over the drink-drive limit".

jimmycrackcorm

Of course of those 20% I'd wonder how many would have died regardless of having any alcohol in their system.

unkel

Alun wrote:

Yes, it's an oddly phrased statement alright. It could easily be (intended to be) misread / misunderstood as "One in five of people killed due to drink driving are doing so in the morning on the way to work", which is clearly not what they really mean.

I mean, without knowing the actual figures, there might only actually have been a total of five people killed on their way to work in the morning all year, in which case the fact that one of them had been drinking is hardly a statistically significant event. I'd guess that most drink related accidents happen at night or in the early hours of the morning.

Still seeing as it's an "unpublished" report, we may never know.

My thoughts exactly after I read the article

Lennoxschips

Over the limit is over the limit, no matter what time of day it is. I can't believe people are even having this "debate".

Not to mention the fact that the alcohol limit in Ireland, 0.8 per mil, is the highest in the EU.

breadmonkey

Lennoxschips wrote:

Over the limit is over the limit, no matter what time of day it is. I can't believe people are even having this "debate".

Not to mention the fact that the alcohol limit in Ireland, 0.8 per mil, is the highest in the EU.

Details are sketchy but I remember hearing a discussion of a report on the radio quite recently that found that there is basically no difference between say 0.6 and 0.8 and that most drink driving fatalities involve people with alcohol concentrations that are way way way above the limit. Anyone know what I'm talking about?

Lennoxschips

The limit in the Netherlands is 0.5 permil, and 0.2 permil for people who have had their license for less than five years. Ireland is 0.8 permil for all drivers.

BrianD

We should bring the level down to 0.5 immediately and bring in a 0 level for all holders of provisional licences (perhaps this extended to the first 2 years of your full licence). These are the habit forming times of your driving career.

Having said that the above is largely irrelevant unless there is enforcement.

Lennoxschips

I'm personally not a fan of having different limits for new drivers and more experienced drivers. It kind of sends out a message that the more experienced you are the more you can drink. I'd be for lower limits for everyone.

If people are being caught over a limit of 0.8 permil the morning after then they must have been really, really wasted the night before.

gobdaw

breadmonkey wrote:

Details are sketchy but I remember hearing a discussion of a report on the radio quite recently that found that there is basically no difference between say 0.6 and 0.8 and that most drink driving fatalities involve people with alcohol concentrations that are way way way above the limit. Anyone know what I'm talking about?

RSA issued Bedford report on alcohol/blood of driver deaths in 2003. Slanted from basis of "some alco bad, no alco good". Some satistics, bit confusing mainly because findings don't endorse that proposition.

Legal limit is 80mg/100ml blood, but he devised a term "alcohol a factor" of 20mg and produced stats on that.


edit: "alcohol a factor" of 20mg

gobdaw

Drivers with alco responsible for fatal crash:
83% over legal limit (80mg)
17% not over (20 - 79mg)

Killed drivers:
not recorded = 27%
Zero = 32%
1-19mg = 2%
20-49mg = 3%
50-79mg = 4%
80-159mg = 7%
160-239mg =17%
240+ =9%

68% killed drivers within legal limits with only 33% over limits. Thats odds of 2/1 against!!

Think I'll have a couble of drinks before I drive home

seamus

gobdaw wrote:

68% killed drivers within legal limits with only 33% over limits. Thats odds of 2/1 against!!

Well, that's not entirely true. 27% are unrecorded, which gives an actual figure of
41% -v- 33%
If we assume that those 27% will be distributed in a similar fashion to the rest of the sample, then we actually get a figure of 56% -v- 45% (under limit -v- over limit).

Which gives a much less rosy view

gobdaw

seamus wrote:

Well, that's not entirely true. 27% are unrecorded, which gives an actual figure of 41% -v- 33%

I agree, thats certainly the way such a group would be treated in, say, political opinion poll. However, Bedford himself doesn't do so in his stats but seems to treat that group as if it was alcohol-free. Strange all right, but I did say the report is a bit comfusing

jkgvfg

I would think "not recorded" shouldn't be distributed evenly between both sides as it would have a higher bias towards "no alcohol reading" - if they couldn't smell any drink or had no reason to suspect drink, they didn't bother testing. So I would think 68% v 33% is more reflective of reality. However, given 33% of drivers aren't drinking and driving (we hope), it still means the chances of causing accidents is higher with alcohol.

gobdaw

Strangly, the 33% figure is that for drivers with blood reading exceeding the current limits of 80mg.

seamus

jkgvfg wrote:

I would think "not recorded" shouldn't be distributed evenly between both sides as it would have a higher bias towards "no alcohol reading" - if they couldn't smell any drink or had no reason to suspect drink, they didn't bother testing.

Actually, I would say it's probably for cases where the person badly mangled or burned. In statistical terms, we can't make an assumption of any kind about that 27%. So it's more correct to treat that 73% who *were* tested as being the entire tested sample. You can say "Of those tested, 45% were over the drink-driving limit", or "At least 33% of drivers involved in fatal accidents were over the limit".

As they say, you can prove statistics to prove anything, it all depends on how you phrase it. Both of the above statements are completely correct. But which one makes the situation appear more grim?