Alcohol Health Watch's Early April Fools
Candor Trust
 
Candor Trust describe as grievous Alcohol Health Watches latest claim in it's state funded efforts to dumb down the alcohol limit debate (Dominion Post, 14th Feb), Unsatisfied with falling back on Polices hyperbolic claim that a limit drop could save 14 lives yearly, Health Watch has stretched the yarn to now make the ridiculous claim that up to 72 lives may be salvaged. Between 3 lives lost and up to 8 saved is the right range according to our reviews, says Spokeswoman Rachael Ford.
 
It's not the limit this AHW maths disaster has dropping yet, but Candor Staff as they faint in pallid horror at the audacity of such a misrepresentation. The alcohol, alcohol and only alcohol lobby still aren't getting the message that crashes are multifactorial, and that the presence of alcohol at just any level is not indicative of significant risk or of causality.
 
A critical matter that is well understood by traffic scientists and those who have set and maintained the globally effective 0.08  limit that has reduced New Zealands drink driving carnage by over 300%. And a matter further reinforced by factor attribution studies showing the minimal crash risk increases earlier cited for those between 0.05-0.08 were overstated. 
 
AHWs wild estimates seem founded on the premise that removing all alcohol from drivers with a limit that is trickier to comply with (they perhaps hope this will result in abstinence) will reduce crashes.by the factor of all crashes featuring alcohol. Bar one or two. There is simply no evidence base for this kind of logic at all.
 
Limit drops in multiple countries like Japan are lately acknowledged by the European Road Safety Observatory as failing to reduce alcohol related fatalities, despite reducing absolute numbers of drink drivers on roads they do not impact on death rates. A seeming paradox until the phenomenon is examined in light of world drug use trends - now alcohol is not a Lone Ranger. A switch to drug driving (Irish Medical Board) or to mixing wee drams with drugs to get a a big bang for bucks, is the favoured explanation among field experts.
 
In 1998 the UK DfT (Department for Transport) discussed the effect of lowering the BAC limit to 0.05 and made an estimate that 50 deaths would be saved out of the typical annual numbers in drink-driving collisions. The equivalent formula applied in NZ today trims 2% off the road toll so saving only 8 lives - but even that estimate seems optimistic in light of International research showing that other drug dynamics call off all bets on estimated gains.
 
If fleetingly familiar with even the sole drink drive literature then AHW must well know that limit drops attempted since drug culture proliferated have not produce sustained gains after an initial soft impact in similar cultures to our own, such as in Queensland. That they likely divert Police road safety resources from fruitful endeavours, and that due to soft non criminal penalties being standardly attached to the notional limit range of 0.05-0.08, ticket rangers can ultimately undermine respect for the traffic law.
 
Not once have AHW troubled to mentioned a major alcohol issue of binge drinkers with hangovers or recent social drinker levels below 0.05 (its suggested new limit) commonly combining their super low BAC with cannabis, and that this checkpoint conning cocktail is now evidenced to produce a large slice of the drink driving harm in New Zealand.
 
Are they simply indifferent to the main source of violent road suffering after people who are usually recidivists driving at alcohol levels 20% higher than the current legal limit? Do road safety advocats need to plant outside AHW HQ a large BAC risk sign modelled on country fire risk ones? One showing orange for high risk at the left of the fan turning red where cannabis co-habits, graduating to blue for low risk between 0.05 and the current limit (where virtually no deaths occur), followed again by a red flare up to show an ultra high risk zone commencing a few gradations up from the current limit, exploding to white hot where cannabis is added to high blood alcohol.
 
It is truly difficult to understand how AHW can ignore the significant reality of lower blood alcohol in combination with pot causing approximately 10x the carnage on NZ roads of those sole social drinking people driving at the insignificant risk ratings co-related to 0.05-0.08 BACs. And it is impossible to comprehend why they would mislead the public about their drink related driving risks, and where they actually lie. This is omission of life saving information surely constitutes contributory negligence to a large part of the under 25's toll.
 
For complex reasons involving human behaviour a 0.05 BAC is going to be equally ineffective to address both major issues that should concern any researcher interested in reducing carnage -  high blood alcohol driving and low blood alcohol plus cannabis driving. The only evidence based options are to permit absolutely no alcohol on the wild assumption all drivers are probably drug misusers, or to continue allowing some alcohol level (0.05 is good) but to consistently test anyone with any small smidgeon of alcohol in them for drugs that are compounding their risk
 
The alternative of simplemindedly introducing a 0.05 limit as a stand alone intervention is an recipe for disaster that the alcohol doyens need to get to grips with. The designated drug driver will simply use small levels of alcohol (as they already do), continuing to massively raising their risk. And the public will be none the safer. Or if a 0.05 limit is bought in and drug testing eventually joins the party but with no testing for those happy to pick up an instant fine (perhaps shared by all passengers) for being at 0.05-0.08, in awareness this revenue based offence will get them off having to submit to a a drug test, then we'll have an even worse issue to deal with.
 
Those interested in the impaired driving debate must realise that alcohol can not be treated as an issue that does not have strong interdependence with other drugs, at least not in the current context of road safety harm. Any open and well stewarded debate of drink driving and especially of a lower limit must make its potential adverse effects and interactions with drug driving culture a central concern.
 
Mr Dunnes speech to the Drug Health Conference at Te Papa today was notable for intellectual sluggishness given it's dated misconception of road safety issues. He followed in the path of the ex PM's timid speech to Otago Students, in failing to acknowledge local drug driving harm, beyond diminishing harms from driving solely drunk. Drugs are a large catalyst and complement to the drink drive issue, and the snub to victims is disappointing.
 
It would do both him and AHW well to reflect on the fact that a 2005 study, found that money spent on treatment therapies for alcohol problems saved about five times that amount in health, social and criminal justice spending. But where drug addicts were concerned, $8 could be saved for each dollar spent. It is only if we can get beyond the taboo of talking drug driving that offenders can be identified and drink drivers, drink / drug drivers and drug drivers can get dealt to. But for that to happen NZTA media lackeys must develop the muscle to dilute Hive Propaganda with real facts. Lives hang in the balance. 
 

ENDS

© Scoop Media