Random breath testing in New South Wales

attracting a police officer's attention, this system of breath testing had only a limited deterrent value. The highly visibleRBT system now in force in New South Wales was designed to rid drivers of all such optimistic conceptions, thereby increasing both their perceived and their real risk of being caught. Supported by intense media interest and a Government-funded publicity campaign which emphasized the arrest procedures that would follow drink-driving offences, RBT was launched with dramatic effect. Police statistics indicate that, immediately after RBT was introduced, drink-driving was reduced to near zero proportions. No doubt this was because even hardened drink-drivers believed that, as "breath testing was around just about every corner", drink-driving was a risk not worth taking. Even though people who regularly drink and drive are now very much more likely to be breath tested than they were before RBT was introduced, there are indications that" some drinkers are again taking the risk. I base this assertion on figures which show that in the first six weeks of random breath testing, only one person in about every 350 who underwent breath testing in the Sydney metropolitan area was charged with drink-driving while one in every 190 tested was being charged in country areas. By April, 1983, one person was being charged for about 220 tested in the metropolitan area and one for every 90 tested in the country. When RBTwas introduced in Victoria in 1976, one motorist was being charged for every 40 tested. These figures show that some of the effect of RBT as a deterrent. has diminished. Nevertheless, the reduction in drink-driving that was achieved at the start of RBT in December, 1982 was the maximum that could have been hoped for and it would be unrealistic to expect that such an effect could be sustained indefinitely. On the other hand I am confident that we will not return to the days when f~w peoplecared about drink-drivingand even fewer cared about the consequences. However, it is too early yet to make any 1982 1983 WHEN THE Joint Parliamentary Standing Committee on Road Safety (STAYSAFE), comprising members of the Labor, Liberal and National Parties, met for the first time on April 2, 1982, it had no hesitation in choosing alcohol and other drugs as the first issue to be examined with a view to making recommendations to the New South Wales Parliament on ways of reducing the appalling numbers of deaths and injuries caused by motor vehicle accidents in New South Wales. Time and experience have shown that the Committee unquestionably made the right decision. Only 20 weeks after the introduction of random breath testing (RBT) on December 17, 1982 and because of the consequent heavy reduction in the numbers of serious crashes, some 200 fewer people had been killed and thousands fewer casualties had been admitted to hospital than in the corresponding period in 1981-1982. Apart from the avoidance of the human misery that road accidents cause our community, many other benefits of RBT are now apparent. Fewer citizens are facing drink-driving and other serious traffic charges, police have more time to devote to criminal investigations, hospital intensive care units and beds have been freed. for patients with other medical conditions, pressures have been eased on government welfare agencies and motor vehicle insurance premiums have been reduced. The benefits to the community of a permanent reduction in the numbers of road crashes are vast. The contribution of alcohol to motor vehicle crashes throughout the world has been documented for a long time. In New South Wales, where drinking is such an accepted (some would say forced) part of social and everyday life, alcohol has undoubtedly been a major factor in placing the road toll among the worst in the world. The latest statistics on road traffic accidents in New South Wales show that during 1981,of 540 drivers and motor cycle riders killed on the roads who were tested at autopsy for alcohol, 261 had alcohol in their blood at the time of the accident and 224 (41.5%) had blood alcohol concentrations above the legal level. This situation existed despite heavy penalties for drink driving, and despite laws which required motorists to undergo breath testing if involved in an accident, if caught committing a serious traffic offence or if seen driving a vehicle in such a manner as to suggest that they might be affected by alcohol. Regrettably, because few drink-drivers believedthat they would have an accident or be caught committing a traffic offence, and because most believed that they could drive well enough to avoid