Is zero alcohol tolerance the answer to curbing drunk driving?

By Annalise Kempen

It is not unusual to hear or read about a serious or fatal vehicle crash where one of the drivers was under the influence of alcohol. It therefore comes as no surprise that authorities want to amend legislation to allow for a zero tolerance against alcohol for drivers. The question is whether this would be the solution to decrease the high level of serious and fatal crashes on South African roads or whether motorists will still be willing to take their chances, while hoping that they will not be stopped and tested by the authorities.

Current legislative provisions
South African motorists are well aware that it does not take too many drinks to push a person over the legal blood alcohol content limit. In fact, that second beer or glass of wine can make the difference between being legally safe or arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol. As the South African Police Service (SAPS) so rightly warns: "Your blood may not have an alcohol content of more than 0.05%. This means that even after what you may think is a ‘small drink’, you could be over the limit. If you have more than 350 ml of beer, or if you have more than a single tot of brandy or other spirit, you may already be over the limit. Remember that these levels of alcohol will remain in your system for up to eight hours after consumption!" (SAPS, Nd).

Section 65 of the National Road Traffic Act 93 of 1996 states that no person is allowed to drive while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or a drug having a narcotic effect, or with an excessive amount of alcohol in their blood or breath. Section 65(2) specifies this legal limit in terms of the blood alcohol level as having to be less than 0.05 g/100 ml, or in the case of a professional driver referred to in section 32 of this Act as less than 0.02 g/100 ml. Section 65(5) deals with the concentration of alcohol in any specimen of breath exhaled by such person, which has to be less than 0.24 mg/1000 ml, or in the case of a professional driver referred to in section 32, less than 0.10 mg/1000 ml. Section 65(9) provides that no person shall refuse that a specimen of blood, or a specimen of breath, be taken of him or her.

Proposed amendments to legislation
Proposed amendments to section 65 of the National Road Traffic Act 93 of 1996 to allow for no alcohol in the blood of breath levels of vehicle drivers have been widely publicised. The National Road Traffic Amendment Bill that was published in 2020 notes in its summary that the amendments to Act 93 of 1996 will, inter alia, further prohibit and reduce the limit of alcohol in a specimen of blood taken from any part of the body.

The proposed amendment of section 65 reads as follows:
“(2) No person shall on a public road -
(a) drive a vehicle; or
(b) occupy the driver’s seat of a motor vehicle the engine of which is running, while [the] there is any concentration of alcohol in any specimen of blood taken from any part of his or her body [is not less than 0.05 gram per 100 millilitres, or in the case of a professional driver referred to in section 32, not less than 0.02 gram per 100 millilitres]. (Words that are underlined indicate insertions in the existing legislation, while words in bold type in square brackets indicate omissions from existing legislation.)

This proposed amendment makes it clear that the aim of the legislature is to have a zero tolerance for the use of any alcohol by any vehicle driver.

***************************

[This is only an extract of an article published in Servamus: April 2021. If you are interested in finding out how you can read the rest of the article asking whether alcohol is the main contributor to road crashes; looking at BACs across the world; grey areas in terms of zero tolerance for alcohol and the consequences of driving under the influence, send an e-mail to: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..]

Servamus - June 2021

Meet the PSiRA Council and their vision to work towards safer homes, safer businesses and safer Communities

Not a day goes by that we do not see or interact with a private security officer - either when we visit a shopping centre, have a security crisis at home or at the office or when a private security officer passes us while patrolling the neighbourhoods in their vehicles.

By Annalise Kempen

Family murders: Tragedies with more questions than answers

Family murder is a heartbreaking topic and one will never understand how parents can commit such acts involving their own children.

By Kotie Geldenhuys

Children: some of the biggest victims of domestic violence are the smallest

“I am John. My ‘new’ father enjoyed a couple of drinks at night and then started swearing at my mother.

By Kotie Geldenhuys

When the eight-year-old victim of Nicolas Ninow (the so-called Dros rapist) was asked to testify in court, social media users were up in arms about the reason why this young victim had to testify.

By Kotie Geldenhuys

Pollex - June 2021

Sentence for raping an older person

Read More - S v Klaas, Case No: CC51/2020, dated 30 November 2020, High Court Grahamstown (ECG)

Mr Wandile Klaas, hereinafter referred to as the accused, was convicted by the High Court in Grahamstown (nowadays called Makhanda) of count 1: housebreaking with intent to commit theft; count 2: rape; and count 3: theft.

Great minds do (sometimes) think alike

A discussion entitled “Before the accused has pleaded to the charge” and/or, “Two men have been taken in for questioning by the police”, was published in Ask Pollex in Servamus: November 2020.

Again: Continuity or chain of possession of exhibits*

Read More - S v Thabani Luthuli Case no: AR 106/2020 High Court in Pietermaritzburg, KZN (KZP)

Introduction Mr Thabani Luthuli, the accused, was convicted before the regional court in Ixopo in KZN (“the trial court”) of count 1, housebreaking with the intent to rape, and, count 2, rape.

Letters - June 2021