Random breath testing could halve serious head injuries and save the Country millions, an emergency surgeon has claimed.

But Transport Minister Ewart Brown and Road Safety Officer Roxanne Christopher said they were both against the idea.

Dr. Joseph Froncioni said: "Based on our experience in the emergency room, we think drink driving is one of the major causes of road accidents.

"If we enforced the laws we have, that would go a long way to solving the problem. Deterrent works very well in those communities that have random breath testing.

"It's not a sneaky thing. They announce it on the radio. People know that on Friday night on the following five streets every driver will be stopped and breath tested so they get wise to designated drivers or people stay at home and drink or take cabs.

"It's very effective. In those communities, they have seen drops in alcohol related accidents of up to 50 percent.'' Dr. Froncioni pointed out: "The cost of these preventable injuries is tremendous on the community. It wouldn't take much to save millions and millions of dollars. If we could prevent half of the severe head injuries we would save $1.5 to $2 million in health care dollars.

"Random testing is costly but what is saved in terms of economic burden of injuries would far outweigh what is spent on enforcing it,'' he said.

"With those 60 head injuries you have the $1.5 million in hospital costs and then the several million dollars in terms of job loss, productivity loss, cash spent on benefits, custodial care.'' Dr. Froncioni, who sits on the Road Safety Council, added: "I don't think drink driving is any worse in Bermuda than elsewhere where they haven't introduced measures to combat it.

"Drinking and driving used to be something you did as commonly as smoking in most of the communities that I know. I have lived in Australia and Canada, my home.'' "But now it's something you don't do. We haven't enacted the same rigorous deterrent measures that other communities have,'' he continued.

"In Canada, now, you have committed a serious crime if you get caught under the influence. You lose your car. You go to jail. There are all kinds of deterrents. We need to standardise the penalties here.'' But Dr. Brown countered: "I don't endorse random testing. I think if an officer sees a reasonable cause then fine, but random testing is flawed because it is difficult to ensure equitable administration. It's a little draconian. It goes too far.'' Ms Christopher added: "I don't believe you can legislate for better behaviour.

"I believe our penalties can be stiffer and in time our laws will catch up with the times. We need to re-examine and re-evaluate the penalties.

"One of my priorities this year,'' she continued, "is to re-evaluate drinking and driving in Bermuda and the penalties and make recommendations to the Minister of Transport.

"They are looking at seizing cars in North Carolina, that's something spoken about here but I can't see it being a reality here with the rule about one car per household and inconveniencing children getting to school and wives.

"That could catapult the family in disaster and that's not what we want to do,'' stressed Ms Christopher.

"We are in desperate times here, but I am proud to say drink driving has decreased over the past year thanks to campaigns by the Ministry of Transport and the Road Safety Council.'' Dr. Froncioni said there was another measure which could be used to curb the drink drive threat.

He said: "The Road Traffic Act of 1997, which was implemented in 1998, gave Police the right to obtain blood samples to test for alcohol levels for anyone suspected of drink driving.

"Unfortunately this has never been implemented for technical and legal reasons.

"There are problems with doctors who see themselves as advocates of the patient and not evidence gatherers for the judicial system. Those problems are being worked on.'' Tomorrow, in the final part of our road safety series National Traffic Coordinator Chief Inspector Roger Kendall calls for radical measures to curb drink driving.

DRUGS DGS