Operation Tonic falls off the wagon

An eagle-eyed supporter (many thanks to AG) has sent us a very interesting page on the Avon and Somerset Constabulary website, promoting the dubious 'success' of their drink drive campaign:

More than 140 people have been arrested during Avon and Somerset Police's summer drink drive campaign.

Operation Tonic has seen officers carry out almost 30,000 stop checks throughout the month of June, and breathalysed almost 2,000 motorists.

141 arrested from 30,000 - or 0.47% of those stopped - is a disgraceful return. Just like Section 44, the overwhelming feeling we get is that thousands of people have had their journeys interrupted because the police needed to hit a target - we are little more than a statistic.

Now, of course we are not condoning drink driving. But I think it is fair enough to say that if people are drunk at the wheel, they will tend to give off a number of key warning signs. Equally, it is not unreasonable to imagine that a good proportion of those stopped for drink driving come from tip-offs, either from bar owners or responsible friends or family.

Big Brother Watch would like to see a change in the culture from random searching to reach predefined figures; to properly targeted operations aimed at making the roads safer. Is that too much to ask?

By Dylan Sharpe

Comments

[Sati Pera]

Have to disagree with you on this one 0.5% over the limit is still socially unacceptable and dangerous. What I can't understand is why such a huge amount of police time is spent enforcing traffic laws. It would make much more sense from a resources point of view to hand this responsibility over to an expanded traffic warden department. If they need a warranted official then get on the radio and ask for one. Of course the police will never give it up as it is far too cushy a number and they are far to well connected and politicaly organised.

[Dave K]

Arrested doesn't mean convicted, therefore that figure must be even lower.

Personally, inconveniencing >99.53% of the population is "socially unacceptable".

What a conundrum, zero tolerance, but distrustful of the police.

[Satipera]

Count how many vehicles you pass during the day. Is that 1 in 200 going to do for you? I worked with a really nice bloke going back a bit who was almost fatally injured in a crash leaving work. The driver of the other car had been drinking. We did not see him again in the work place for almost a year. When we did we could hardly recognise him.By this I do not mean his appearance but his behaviour. He had gone from the most easy going, chatty, comfortable to be with person to someone who hardly knew what to say about anything. Drugs and machinery do not mix.

[SadButMadLad]

"0.5% over the limit is still socially unacceptable and dangerous".

.5% over what? The current limits were set at an arbitrary figure with no scientific backing to justify it. If you want socially unacceptable make 0mg/100ml the drink drive limit. Anything else comes down to each individual's tolerance of alcohol.

Even then there will still be cases where someone will get seriously injured or killed due to drink driving. People are stupid, and stupidity happens. When the limit is 0 what else will people complain about as the limit can't go any lower. Stop serving drinks to everyone just on the off chance that someone might drink and drive? America tried to ban alcohol. It didn't work.

[Purlieu]

The limit can't be 0mg since quite a few foods that use yeast will contain alcohol e.g. bread
Remember the old Kaliber advert with a loaf of bread and bottle of Kaliber

[guy herbert]

Random/arbitrary breath tests, like random/arbitrary vehicle searches *are* supposedly illegal, are they not?

Perhaps random/arbitrary vehicle stops ought to be illegal.

According to the site almost 2,000 were breathalysed, so we must suppose that in 13 out of 14 cases, the Avon & Somerset police reasonably suspected someone had been drinking when they hadn't... How reasonable is that level of suspicion?

(If one is really suspicious - which dealing with Home Office and police statistics tends to make one - one would note that the site does *not* say more than 140 people were arrested and charged with drunk driving. It says more than 140 people were arrested "during Avon and Somerset Police's summer drink drive campaign". That is occasion, not cause. We are expected to impute the cause in every case is the rationale for the Operation, the wickedness of drink-driving. But if you stop 30,000 more or less at random, the chances of finding some other reasons to arrest at least some of them are surely quite high.)

This is just part of a broader question: what can be done to prevent police exceeding their powers? or, how can police powers be constructed to minimise any tendency for abuse?

---
PS - for another piece of statistical perspective, the PR says "In Avon and Somerset, seven people were killed and 35 seriously injured in drink-drive related collisions in 2009." That is clearly no more than 42 incidents in total, probably rather fewer.

In 2008, the latest year for which this handy resource
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8401344.stm
has figures, total road deaths in Avon and Somerset were 69. Britain, though you wouldn't know it if you pay attention only to safety campaigners and the police, has by some way the safest roads in Europe.

[Satipera]

I did not make myself clear when I said 0.5% over the limit. I did not mean 0.5% over the legal limit for alcohol in the blood but that 1 in 200 people failing breath tests (I assume) is still not acceptable. If well publicised campaigns did not happen there is an anti social element that would take the risk of drinking and driving. The police are doing far worse things than trying to stop drinking and driving, perhaps it would be a better use of all our time to concentrate on those matters.

[taobao shop]

* be happy together is good enough. I am not asking for things that I could never get.