Ms Moyagh Murdock:

I thank the committee for the opportunity to engage with it this morning as part of the pre-legislative scrutiny of the road traffic Bill. When I have concluded my opening statement, Ms Burns, as RSA research manager, will explain the background to the research project, including how we came to the figures on alcohol related deaths, which might be of benefit to the committee.

The RSA mission is to reduce the number of deaths and injuries on Irish roads and to make them safer for all users. This is our purpose. It is what drives us and on what we base our positions. We are not coerced or bounced into taking a view on proposals, such as this Bill, by Ministers, civil servants or vested interests. We work off the data, the evidence professionally, scientifically and independently analysed. Unapologetically, our mandate is only to make our roads safer for all road users. It is important to state that the RSA’s pre-crash report is a factual document. In it, we have presented the evidence gathered by experts from numerous fields, including Garda investigators, forensic collision investigators, public service vehicle, PSV, inspectors, coroners, medical experts, as well as information from witnesses to the prior activity of those involved in the 867 fatal collisions. The data have been compiled in line with best practice research standards. There is no emotion in the report, just facts.

From our research, all the 250 drivers who consumed alcohol and were involved in a fatal collision were deemed culpable of causing the fatal collision due to their actions, as per the investigation. That other contributory factors were also identified in many of these collisions is ancillary to the current debate. Yes, in some cases speed was deemed to be a factor in addition to alcohol. In some cases, fatigue was a factor in addition to alcohol. After the consumption of alcohol, judgment is impaired and this will affect a driver’s ability to choose the appropriate speed for the road and for the vehicle. Feelings of fatigue are exacerbated, especially the day after a heavy night, even though alcohol levels may have dropped in the system. Members will have heard the light-hearted jokes about the effect of alcohol on a person's self-awareness. For example, after even one drink, jokes appear funnier, speaking louder is better, texts are sent to people which should not be sent, people convince themselves that they are not bad dancers and, alarmingly, they think it will be okay to drive home after a drink or two, but it will not. Anyone who says different is lying. Driving becomes impaired, just like all those other more innocent actions. Collisions are complex events and result from a complex interplay of many behavioural and vehicle-infrastructural factors, and, ultimately physics and biology. It is disingenuous to say there is no evidence to support that alcohol was a factor other than a presence in collisions where the toxicology showed levels of 51-80 mg. It shows not only a lack of understanding of the effects of alcohol on the body or an unwillingness to accept the facts in the first instance, but also a lack of understanding of the cognitive skills required to complete the driving task safely.

According to the European Transport Safety Council alcohol, even in small quantities, immediately affects the brain. Effects on the human body and behaviour range from anaesthesia after large amounts of alcohol to impairment of behavioural and cognitive capabilities after small doses.

Alcohol may also decrease motivation to comply with safety standards, which may result in an active search for dangerous situations such as competitive behaviour, or excessive speed, which we saw all too often in these files. In general, all functions which are important in the safe operation of a motor vehicle can be affected by the levels of alcohol well below current legal limits operating in EU countries. To give a practical example, the latest evidence shows that the relative risk of crash involvement starts to increase significantly from 40mg per 100ml. Specifically, driving with a BAC of 50mg per 100ml increases the risk of a fatal crash by up to a factor of five.

This brings me to the critical point made by some that there is no justification for the introduction of an automatic disqualification of drivers at BAC levels of 51mg to 80mg, and that the RSA's pre-crash report provides no evidence that alcohol was a contributory factor in these collisions. I categorically refute that. The analysis in table 28 of the RSA's pre-crash report on alcohol, which the Vintners Federation of Ireland, VFI, has presented in its statement, shows that eight drivers and motorcyclists involved in fatal collisions, for whom a blood alcohol reading was available, had a BAC between 51mg and 80mg. A further 17 drivers and motorcyclists had a BAC below 50mg. A total of 25 drivers and motorcyclists with a confirmed BAC between 21mg and 80mg were responsible, therefore, for killing themselves and-or others because they consumed alcohol. Additional analysis conducted by the RSA, which is in table 1 and which was shared with the committee on 29 March 2017, showed that 35 people lost their lives and eight people were seriously injured as a result of these 25 drivers and motorcyclists choosing to drive while impaired at BAC levels of between 21mg and 80mg. The VFI has attempted to downplay the value of the lives of these people, as well as the lives of their families, by reducing them to an insignificant statistic. Presenting the figure of 1.3% is a selective use of the data in an attempt to undermine the impact of drinking and driving. It is important to state that, of those killed in alcohol-related collisions where the driver or motorcyclist had a record of alcohol consumption, 12% were killed where the BAC of the driver or motorcyclist was between 21mg and 80mg, as confirmed in table 1. Committee members can see those figures set out clearly. Furthermore, more people are being killed and seriously injured due to drivers with a BAC of less than 80mg than we have outlined in the table. This is because, in 11 cases, a positive breath test confirmed that the driver had consumed alcohol, and in a further 52 cases, there was strong evidence in the file that the driver had consumed alcohol but no toxicology report was available. We had other evidence, and Ms Burns will explain that. In addition, the RSA has not been in a position to conduct a comparable toxicology analysis of all road users involved in serious injury collisions. We have only examined fatal collisions to date but we plan to examine serious collisions later.

The committee may ask whether this trend is continuing because we have all heard that drink-driving is a thing of the past. We have proved in the pre-crash report on alcohol that drink-driving with a BAC of between 20mg and 80mg is killing, on average, seven to eight people per year. If that is not evidence enough for some of the opponents to the proposed legislative change, the most current data to hand are further concrete evidence that there is a problem with this type of drink-driving in Ireland. The Health Research Board, HRB, collected information on 2013 and 2014 road traffic fatalities from closed coroner files on behalf of the RSA in the context of the national drug-related death index, NDRDI. A total of 49 deceased drivers had a confirmed measurement of alcohol for analysis, and seven drivers reported BAC values between 20mg and 80 mg. This represents 14% of all drivers with a confirmed measurement of alcohol for analysis in 2013 and 2014. That analysis does not include other people who were killed or injured in those crashes. Provisional data supplied in advance of our appearance here for the period 1 January 2016 to 2 May 2017 show that of 246 drivers arrested at the scene of a crash - not detected at an MAT checkpoint or from observed behaviour - on suspicion of driving under the influence or driving while intoxicated, 38 drivers tested positive for alcohol at a BAC level between 20mg and 80mg or equivalent for breath or urine. The 38 excludes drivers who were medially unfit to be tested, deceased or who left the scene of the crash.

The Garda also provided data to the RSA that shows each year over the period 2012 to 2016 an average of 573 drivers had a fixed penalty of €200 and three penalty points imposed on them as a consequence of being found driving a vehicle in a public place while the concentrate of alcohol found to be in their systems was between 50mg and 80mg per 100ml of blood or equivalent in breath or urine. That tells us this is continuing and even this year a significant number of drivers have been arrested with BACs at this level. All this evidence confirms that we have a serious problem with alcohol consumption and driving at levels below 80mg and the current sanction is not working. Intuitively, we know that a driver is less likely to get behind the wheel after drinking if he or she knows they might lose their licence rather than face a fine and penalty points. It is much less of a risk. We believe the Bill will have a strong deterrent effect on would-be drink drivers.

We know only too well the devastating impact on families and communities when just one driver makes the decision to drink and drive and this results in someone being killed or seriously injured. We support the introduction of this Bill for all of these reasons. We agree this Bill must be supported by enforcement to be most effective, and we are working with the An Garda Síochána to address this. Over the years, Oireachtas Members have overwhelmingly supported measures initiated by RSA research to make our roads safer. They have done so, despite opposition from those who today seek to misinterpret data which have been scientifically and independently analysed. If their opposition had prevailed, I have no doubt more lives would have been lost on our roads, and without this legislation, more lives will be lost. We believe that losing one's licence for three months for a confirmed BAC between 51mg and 80mg is a much more compelling deterrent for a driver considering whether to drink and drive compared to the current sanction of penalty points and a €200 fine. A public attitude survey of 1,000 adults conducted on behalf of the RSA in January 2017 showed that 91% of Irish adults support the introduction of a mandatory disqualification for drivers caught between 51mg and 100mg. Many of those who support this state they believe disqualification should be for 12 months.

I feel compelled to clarify a final point, and make sure it is on the record, in reference to the submission by the VFI to the committee, in which it described their interpretation of our pre-crash report as "forensic". The only valid interpretation of what happened in the fatal crashes outlined in this report was conducted by the investigating gardaí who conducted the forensic collision investigations, the expert statements of medical experts, coroners, and witness statements. Their conclusions are reflected in our report and the RSA has presented these facts. The VFI's submission is not a forensic analysis of this report. It is a vested interest and it is inappropriate to suggest that it represents "one side" of the debate. The federation has conducted a disingenuous and selective interpretation of the report and it is not in full possession of all the facts in coming to its conclusion. The report covers a period when the lowest number of road deaths were recorded in the State. Since then, the situation has, sadly, deteriorated as has the number of people involved in alcohol-related crashes at these levels.

I hope that this committee, in concluding its pre-legislative scrutiny of this Bill, will accept the independent evidence that supports it, the integrity of the Road Safety Authority's work in fulfilling our mission, but, most importantly, will move us one step closer to a change in the law which will make our roads safer and ultimately save lives, prevent injuries and protect our local communities from further harm.