Proposed zero alcohol driving law will criminalise innocent South Africans

Driving.co.za managing director Rob Handfield-Jones has raised concerns about the recent reconsideration of the strict zero blood-alcohol limit.

Transport Minister Barbara Creecy announced last week that the government was pursuing amendments to Section 65 of the National Road Traffic Act to implement the new alcohol limit.

She indicated that this change is intended to reduce South Africa’s high road fatality rate and improve overall safety for all motorists.

However, this announcement has been met with strong criticism over its viability, with Handfield-Jones noting that the proposed amendment had already been suggested by the prior transport minister and dismissed.

“After exhaustive study, the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Transport decided to leave the limit unchanged less than three years ago,” he said.

He also touched on how a proposal for a zero-alcohol limit was published as a gazette over a decade ago.

Handfield-Jones went on to highlight how this amendment could also result in penalising South Africans with a metabolic syndrome which causes their bodies to naturally produce alcohol, resulting in very low levels of alcohol in their bloodstream.

These levels are so low that many will be unaware of the condition; however, the new amendment would regard even these low levels of alcohol as illegal.

“Criminalising people for simply having an unusual metabolism is wrong,” Handfield-Jones said.

The issue of medicine has also been raised, as certain pharmaceuticals contain alcohol, such as cold and cough syrups, and would result in South Africans taking them before driving being similarly penalised.

Handfield-Jones also said that the committee had already considered all currently available information when it chose to leave the limit unchanged, and no evidence has come to light to warrant revisiting the decision.

“We should not allow a minister from a failing and desperate political party to override a well-considered and extensive democratic investigation merely to fly her flag in an election year,” he said.

He also noted that one of the main reasons driving under the influence has become such a problem is the behaviour of municipal law enforcement in South Africa.

“Municipalities focus on easy revenue-generating enforcement like speed violations, where the money goes to the local authority,” he said.

“Criminal prosecutions for alcohol and driving require massive policing effort, and any eventual fine goes to the state’s coffers.”

He concluded that there was no reason for municipalities to seriously tackle alcohol driving as ‘there’s nothing in it for them’.

Historical precedent

Extensive analysis and assessment of the impact of alcohol levels have already been made, with the results determining that alcohol had a limited impact below 0.04% blood alcohol concentration.

“The original Grand Rapids study of the 1960s and its revised version both confirm that the knee point for a significant increase in risk is 0.08%, well above SA’s current limit of 0.05%,” said Handfield-Jones.

“In South Africa, the average intoxication level of a driver killed in a traffic crash while under the influence is nearly four times the legal limit.”

He additionally noted that in cases where driving under the influence resulted in a fatality, the driver is, on average, nearly four times over the legal limit.

“An unjustifiably low limit criminalises people who don’t pose a safety hazard. It is the equivalent of setting the speed limit to 30km/h on freeways and jailing anyone who exceeds it.”

Handfield-Jones also pointed out that South Africa had already tried this strategy, lowering the limit from 0.08% to 0.05% in 1999, but it only increased the number of motorists considered to be driving under the influence.

He said that two separate university studies of an identical change in Scotland in the 2010s showed no effect on fatality rates.

“Not a ‘limited’ effect, nor a ‘statistically insignificant’ effect; no effect,” he said.