The Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Transport has rejected a clause that would have revised a section of the National Road Traffic Amendment Bill dealing with the proposed zero-tolerance legislation for driving – which would have made it unlawful for a driver to test positive for any blood alcohol concentration (BAC), a departure from the current provision allowing up to 0.05g/100ml.
Dr Anesh Sukhai, Professor Ashley van Niekerk and Professor Mohamed Seedat from the Unisa Institute for Social & Health Sciences say the decision contradicts recommendations made by the SA Medical Research Council and the SA Alcohol Policy Alliance, which advocated for a 0.02g/100ml threshold, with administrative rather than criminal sanctioning between 0.02-0.05g/100ml.
They also point out that a higher burden on state resources may also be expected from increased enforcement, prosecutions and contestations with the adoption of a zero-BAC limit, a critical issue in the current resource-strained climate of the country.
“Accordingly, this recent portfolio committee decision begs an interrogation of the information and arguments used to inform the decision-making by the stakeholders and the importance for legislative considerations of being guided by the available scientific evidence,” they said.
Writing in Daily Maverick, the authors said there is significant evidence to support the adoption of zero-tolerance legislation, but at a BAC threshold limit for the general population set at 0.02g/100ml (rather than the zero-BAC limit proposed in the Bill), to accommodate a range of challenges with detection, enforcement and prosecution at a zero-BAC limit.
The authors also propose the adoption of a broader gradualist approach for implementation, saying this is sensitive to the impact of historical context to alcohol-related harms, including a range of strategies centred on public engagement and the phasing of complementary interventions to enable and sustain behaviour change. “Public engagement is widely recognised as crucial for fostering public acceptance and thus enhancing sustainability with government interventions.”
A phased strategy with a preparatory phase would allow for an incremental approach to the introduction of enforcement measures to allow time for transitioning and behavioural modification among those who would be most affected by stricter enforcement.
“Additionally, a phased strategy would also enable the timely introduction of education, awareness and harm-reduction measures, and other supporting legislation, such as a graduated driver licensing system to complement the zero-tolerance legislation.”
The authors recommended a holistic approach, “whereby the above efforts are aligned with strategies focusing on the structural and upstream drivers of excessive alcohol consumption, including the interrelated influences of socio-economic deprivation, mental health conditions, substance abuse and addiction”.
See more from MedicalBrief archives:
SA’s 0% alcohol legislation – Threat of punishment won't reduce unsafe driving
Law enforcement and drunk driving — how to curb SA’s road crash epidemic
AA sceptical over reduction of blood alcohol limits