Are random tests the answer?

MOTORISTS could face being subject to random breath-testing as part of a new national crackdown on drink-driving.

According to the Daily Telegraph newspaper, ministers are convinced tougher enforcement is the key to reducing the number of alcohol-related road deaths.

The newspaper claims plans for random breath testing will be contained in a Department for Transport consultation document due out "within weeks".

A spokeswoman for the DfT admitted today the department was in the process of drawing up a consultation document on drink-driving, although she stressed that the exact measures it would contain had "not been finalised as yet".

But the Telegraph claims the proposals will allow senior police officers to set up roadside checkpoints for up to 24 hours, anywhere where there was a "reasonable belief" that drink- or drug-driving was likely.

At the moment, police can carry out a breath test only if a motorist has been driving erratically, or if they have been involved in an accident or have committed some other motoring offence such as speeding or having a faulty taillight.

Random breath-testing is thought to be back on the agenda partly because of the success of the recent Christmas drink-drive blitz. Nationally, while the number of breath tests carried out rose, the number of drivers who failed tests fell.

That has led ministers to believe that the threat of increased breath-tests acted as a deterrent.

The figures for North Yorkshire appear to back that up. During a high-powered winter road safety campaign, only 2.7 per cent of drivers stopped by police in the county over the Christmas and New Year period failed a breath test - well below the national average.

Deputy Chief Constable Adam Briggs hailed the figures as proof that "most motorists in our county have heeded our warnings".

Nevertheless, the introduction of year-round random breath-testing is likely to be controversial.

The RAC said it would act as a "big deterrence" and help reduce the one-sixth of all road accidents that are drink-related. It would be especially effective against regular drink-drivers who thought they could get away with their behaviour as long as their driving showed no obvious signs of being erratic, an RAC spokesman said.

But the Association of British Drivers (ABD) said it would be "an infringement of people's liberty as if our freedom of movement is being withdrawn".

A spokesman for the ABD added it would also be a "totally pointless waste of police resources. They want to scare people into thinking they can be pulled off the road at any time. But everybody knows they haven't got the resources to do that".

So who is right? Would random breath-testing help reduce drink-driving and so cut down on road accidents?

Yes... says Chief Inspector David Hall, of York Police

RANDOM breath-testing would help reduce drink-driving in two ways, says Chief Inspector Hall. It would make it easier for police to pull over motorists and subject them to a breathalyser test. And it would act as a huge deterrent.

Some people argue that police already effectively have powers to randomly breath-test motorists, Chief Insp Hall said. It is true they can pull over drivers who are driving erratically, or if the taillight of their car is not working.

But to be within the letter of the law, officers have to wait for some excuse to pull over a motorist. Many drink-drivers are skilled at driving without showing any obvious signs that they are under the influence - leading them to believe they can get away with drink-driving.

Random breath-testing, by making it easier for the police to stop people, would force such motorists think again, Chief Insp Hall said. "It would send out a very strong message."

It would be especially useful in enabling police to target particular roads, often in rural areas, which police suspected were often used by drink-drivers. It would also allow police to target people suspected of being regular drink-drivers. "We could pull them over and see whether that was the case."

Police could easily incorporate drink-driving strategies that involved using the new powers into other ongoing road safety operations such as speed traps or mobile phone checks, Chief Insp Hall added.

He has little doubt that random breath tests would help change people's driving habits. "It would reduce the number of drink-drivers," he said.

No... says former police road accident investigator Mike Natt

DRINK-DRIVERS will continue to drink and drive no matter what the police do, says former senior road accident investigator turn traffic consultant Mike Natt.

"Like most criminals, they have the belief that they are not going to be stopped. They will still believe that."

You only have to look at the number of people who continue to drink and drive over the Christmas and New Year period to realise that, Mr Natt says.

New legislation giving police powers to randomly breath-test motorists would therefore be a waste of time, he believed.

Police already effectively have the power to stop motorists at random, he points out.

They can stop drivers to check their documents are up to date, or that they have a licence. "And once you have stopped a vehicle, for whatever reason, and then you smell drink, you have the power to carry out a breath test."

If accompanied by a media fanfare and a high-powered national promotional campaign, a new power to pull motorists over entirely at random might change a few people's attitudes to drink- driving for a short while, Mr Natt said.

"It might raise awareness for a short while. But six weeks after it was announced, people would have forgotten it."

While not in any way condoning drink-driving, Mr Natt points out that alcohol isn't anyway the biggest cause of road accidents.

Bad driving - often prompted by impatience, inexperience and the "inappropriate use of speed" - is the biggest factor leading to accidents, he says. And random breath-testing would do nothing to address this.

Maybe... says Mike Usherwood, a local campaigner for motorists' rights

LIKE Mike Natt, motorists' rights campaigner Mike Usherwood has no time for drink-drivers. But like Mr Natt, he too believes there are a lot of bad drivers out there whose poor driving is nothing to do with alcohol.

Random breath-testing would probably be a bit of an annoyance for ordinary motorists, he says. But he could cope with that. If a driver hadn't been drinking, he wouldn't be detained at the roadside for long.

"It would be quick and then you would drive away."

The main problem with such a system, he says, is that there are a lot of motorists it simply wouldn't reach: the bad drivers.

Many think themselves untouchable, no matter how poorly they drive, provided they haven't been drinking.

"They think you cannot touch me, I haven't had a drink'," he said.

He believes if the Government is serious about reducing road accidents, there has to be a crackdown on motorists who are simply bad drivers.

He would like to see unmarked police cars ready to pounce on motorists who flouted the simple rules of driving - whether it was speeding, jumping lights or failing to indicate properly. "I can't see why these people shouldn't be tackled and forced to take a re-test," he said.