Increasing fine for drunk driving likely to make greater impact than naming and shaming – Kissoon

The fine for drunk driving ought to be increased, anti-alcohol abuse activist Vidya Kissoon says, opining that the publication of photographs and names of those found guilty of this offence will not make much of an impact.

Since the start of this month, the Guyana Police Force has been on a campaign against drunk driving and has so far published via the media the names and photographs of 12 men who were fined for driving under the influence of alcohol. Concerns have been raised in some quarters about the $7,500 fine, which is said to be too meagre to put a dent in the scourge of drunk driving.

Over the years there have been numerous cases of traffic accidents caused by drunken drivers and this current holiday season has seen that trend continue and even increase.

Asked about the police issuing for publication the names and photographs of those found guilty of this offence, Kissoon told Stabroek News that he has taken note and his first reaction was “good they are charging. The second was why are they publishing the pictures? I mean, we know drunk driving is serious, but do they publish all the offences? I do not know if they think this will prevent persons from [driving while under the influence], since some big ones who were under the influence and driving seem to have not been charged.”

He said that as far as he understands the law, when it’s a first offence, the person is fined and if the person commits the offence a second time, that should result in the person’s licence being taken away.

The Evidence and Motor Vehicles and Road Traffic Amendment Bill 2008 states that any person who contravenes the law (drives or attempt to drive or be in charge of a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol), shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine of seven thousand five hundred dollars.

A person convicted of two consecutive offences shall “unless the court for special reason thinks fit to order otherwise and without prejudice to the court to order a longer period of disqualification, be disqualified for a period of twelve months from the date of the conviction from holding a licence; and a third conviction for a like offence, shall be permanently disqualified from holding or obtaining a licence.”

According to Kissoon, he agrees that there should be a fine for the first offence, though it should be higher than $7,500, perhaps $25,000. The anecdotal evidence, he said, suggests some persons spend more than $7,500 in one night of drinking. “I do not know if the publishing of names and pictures would make a difference to those who have been charged,” he said.

He said the system of suspension for the second offence “I agree with, though I hope we have the systems in place to keep track of who are the offenders.

“It is not clear whether the records are in such a way to determine a person’s drunk driving history,” he said while stressing that the fine is low compared to others.

While pointing out that marijuana offences carry a higher fine, he said the main issue is that there are not enough breathalyzers and what is needed are breathalyzer kits at every station around the country.

Kissoon expressed the view that those selling alcohol have some responsibility “to not sell to drunk people.”

The law which aims to curb driving under the influence of alcohol and makes provision for breathalyzer tests was passed by Parliament on July 25, 2008.

Under this law it will be an offence for any person who drives or attempts to drive or be in charge of a motor vehicle if he has consumed alcohol in such quantity that the proportion in his breath or blood exceeds the prescribed limit.

The prescribed limit according to the bill means 35 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath and blood alcohol concentration of 80 milligrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood.

The legislation also provides for the certification of the accuracy of speedometers, radars and weighing devices by the appropriate public officer specified in the document. A document which certifies the accuracy of a speedometer, radar or weighing device may then be produced before the court. The document shall be prima facie evidence of all matters contained therein.

Clause 3 of the Bill amended the Motor Vehicles and Road Traffic Act, Chapter 51:02, to make provision for the authorization of any member of the Guyana Police Force to operate a breath analyzing device or instrument on a driver of a motor vehicle if he is suspected of having consumed alcohol in such a quantity that the proportion in his breath or blood exceeds the prescribed limit.

During presentations on the issue, prior to its passage, parliamentarians had expressed the view that drunk driving was a serious problem in Guyana which had contributed to traffic deaths. They said that they all need to join hands to ensure that our roads are safer, pointing out that accidents would be avoidable if drivers were sober.

Home Affairs Minister Clement Rohee had said that the new law will make drivers recognize their limitations in consuming alcohol.

If an accident occurs owing to the presence of a motor vehicle on a road, the amendment said, a constable in uniform on showing his authority as a member of the Police Force may require any person whom he has reasonable cause to believe was driving or attempting to drive the vehicle at the time of the accident to provide a specimen of breath for a breath test either at or near the place where the requirement is made or, if the constable thinks fit at a police station specified by him being the police station in reasonable proximity to that place.

According to the amendment there are circumstances where a driver at a hospital (after an accident) may only give a specimen of breath after certain conditions are met. A member of the Police Force shall not require any person to undergo a breath test or to submit to a breath analysis if that person has been admitted to a hospital for medical treatment and the registered medical practitioner in immediate charge of his treatment objects on the ground that compliance would be prejudicial to the proper care and treatment of that person.

Between November 27 and December 23, police have issued to the media, the names, addresses and photographs of 12 men who were found to be driving while under the influence of alcohol above the legal limit. The men all appeared in courts in the various jurisdictions and were fined $7,500 each.

Those so named and shamed are: Govindiadat Sasenarine, of 69 Section ‘A’ Number. 70 Village; Raiesh Nevrang, of Number 76 Village; Delvon Abrams of 13 Princetown; Parmanand Paramchane of Number 71 Village; Romell Mc Donald of Number 77 Housing Scheme; and Ruel Jagroo of Rose Hall Town all in Corentyne, Berbice. From East Canje, Berbice the men were Hafeez Persaud of Sheet Anchor and Jaipersaud Lallbeharry of Adelphi. Then there were Devindra Umraw of Windsor Forest and Kennard Basdeo of Anna Catherina, both on the West Coast Demerara. The last two were Eon Bentinck of 41 La Grange, West Bank Demerara and Ron Derrick of 13 Sommerset Court, Her-stelling East Bank Demerara.