Enforce existing laws January 30, 1999 Dear Sir, I write at this time to congratulate you on an excellent editorial "Enforce the law first'' which was run in the January 28 edition of The Royal Gazette .

Those readers who have heard or read some of my comments recently relating to the issue of road safety, will know that your editorial struck the right chord with me.

There can be no doubt that Road Safety is an issue that urgently needs to be addressed, and we all have comments and suggestions which merit attention.

However if the rules of the road were enforced on a daily basis I am of the opinion that we would see a drastic improvement.

No-one will argue with the fact that the increased number of vehicles on the road has made the roads more dangerous. However I believe there is more concern for the way in which these vehicles are driven. All of us who use the roads are more than just familiar with those who abuse the privilege daily without regard for the safety of others; whether it be speeding, or riding on the wrong side of the road in the face of oncoming traffic, or double parking on a busy street, or running the red light, or going the wrong way on a one-way street.

Before we even consider any new laws pertaining to our roads, we must first enforce the laws that we have on the books at the present time. Perhaps our Police Service will hear this call? MICHAEL H. DUNKLEY, MP Devonshire Support zero tolerance January 29, 1999 Dear Sir, I refer to your recent articles concerning drink-driving and I congratulate Delcina Bean Burrows, the new Road Safety Council chairman on her efforts to deal with the carnage on our roads. Whilst I support Ms Bean Burrows, I did wish to draw attention to a particular point, which is to warn against the making of policy on the basis of any mistaken notion of "privilege''. Ms Bean Burrows asserts that driving is a "privilege'', and it may be that her policies will be developed with that notion in mind. Before taking that view, let us be precise.

Driving is not a mere "privilege'' but rather an established right. Driving is indisputably a right as a matter of law as is clearly set out in the Road Traffic Act 1947 definition of "highway''. Ms Bean Burrows is thus incorrect in her statements in this regard. Passage and re-passage on the public highway is unarguably a long established right, and embraces the use of vehicles for that purpose. Indeed, any common use of the highway is enjoyed as of right.

Equally, the consumption of alcohol as you observe correctly in your editorial on January 27 is enjoyed as of right. This right may be limited in certain circumstances, such as drinking and driving. However, that is merely the limitation of the right to drink, not the creation of a "privilege''. What is a "privilege'' is the ability to enjoy the use of two separate rights simultaneously. Thus the combination of the right to drive with the right to drink was enjoyed only as a privilege. A person may do one or the other but not both simultaneously if the law prohibits it.

Thus, I suspect that Ms Bean Burrows uses the expression "privilege'' simply to convey that being allowed to drink a little and drive at the sane time is a privilege. Certainly it is a privilege which the statistics clearly show has been abused. I therefore have no hesitation in supporting a zero tolerance rule, and think your editorial of January 28 was wrong in this regard. It is on this analysis that I would support the abolition of the privilege to drink and drive, but would defend to the utmost the enjoyment of each right individually. So Ms Bean Burrows must be precise. The public uses the highway as a right and attempts by public authorities to mischaracterise our public rights must be resisted. To do otherwise leads to autocracy. But Ms Bean Burrows is entirely correct to take an extreme measure to deal with an extreme danger.

WARREN CABRAL City of Hamilton Policy just won't work January 27, 1999 Dear Sir, The recently publicised notions of the newly appointed head of the Road Safety Council are novel, no doubt well intended, and very likely highly impractical for this Island.

The problem with zero tolerance is that it means just that.

It is a little known fact that orange juice contains alcohol. Admittedly not a great deal of alcohol, but it does contain alcohol. With modern technology, this could, no doubt, be detected. So, technically speaking, before one gets past Johnny Barnes at the roundabout, one could be had up, tested and charged for having had breakfast.

How do we deal with the summer weddings? Six hundred people show up. There are not enough taxis to deliver them and to take them home. The alternatives are that the bride and groom are not toasted in champagne. Lemonade and Evian are the liquid refreshments, so that half of the 600 are deprived of enjoying such a festive occasion along with the half which can drink. I can see it very clearly: the police Gestapo squad will position itself outside the gates of any Bermuda wedding and breathalyse anyone behind a wheel and haul them off God knows where.

Another scenario. After the Queen's birthday parade, the CBEs, OBEs, MBEs, and all the other Es troop up to Government House for a reception. If any liquor is served, as has been traditionally a very pleasant midday tradition, the Gestapo squad will post itself down at the north entrance to Government House and proceed to make life miserable for the attendees. Who knows? the poor Governor might himself be charged as being an accessory. This is not as fanciful as it sounds -- the people in the state of Kentucky have enacted a law whereby people that host parties can be charged if any of their guests are found to have exceeded the limit and are involved in an "event''. With the proposed legislation there is no limit, so if you have had a drink you're for the high jump! The Roman Catholics won't be worried because, if my understanding is correct, they are served "unfermented'' grape juice at Communion. But the Gestapo squad would very quickly establish a presence outside the Anglican Cathedral so that the pastoral flock of lambs could be led to the slaughter. The only alternative would be to refuse Communion with the Almighty or alternatively to seek a non-available taxi on a Sunday.

And, how about our tourists? The few that we have left might well take it into their heads to stop off at The Swizzle Inn. If they were emboldened to try anything more adventurous than tea and crumpets, (say a pint of Fosters) they would no doubt be stopped by the Gestapo squad (positioned in Mr. Haycock's driveway) the second they put their paws on their bikes and go out onto the main road.

The problem is not with the drivers who have a reading between 0 and 80 milligrams -- it is with the drivers who are greatly in excess of 80 milligrams. Why do moderate and restrained drinkers have to suffer for the excesses of the few? All of this has little to do with road safety. Rather it is de facto prohibition. Prohibition did not work in the US in the 1930s and it certainly won't work in Bermuda in the year 2000.

Is Government going to pay compensation to the hotels, bars and restaurants that will be put out of business? Let's not throw out the baby with the alcohol! ANNE AUREXIA Bailey's Bay Shocked by plans January 31, 1999 Dear Sir, While driving home from the gym today I was listening to Mr. Brian Darby interviewing Police Commissioner Lemay regarding random drug testing of drivers. I must admit I was shocked at the idea, which, together with that of a zero tolerance for alcohol currently being promoted by the Road Safety Council, gives rise to concern about the direction Bermuda seems to be headed on such issues.

While I certainly do not condone impaired driving, whether related to drugs or alcohol, I have no desire to see our community become one where citizens may be subject to harassment without cause. Moreover, the premise that people who have enjoyed a glass of wine with dinner are unable to drive home safely is not a generally accepted concept. One cannot help but wonder whether this whole idea of zero tolerance is in truth driven by some sort of confused Puritanism, rather than by a genuine and statistically valid concern for road traffic safety.

Basically my concerns are as follows: Random testing means that the Police are not required to have a reason for pulling a person over and testing them; This puts the Police at an increased risk of being accused of harassment and in the end makes it harder for them to carry out their important and already difficult responsibilities; and Zero tolerance of alcohol levels as opposed to the current .08 level will inevitably lead to disregard of this law by otherwise law-abiding citizens.

While it is easy to reel off figures for a one-year or two-year period and hypothesise about "trends'', upon reflection it does not seem that the numbers are indicative of a serious problem. Not only are the numbers modest relative to Bermuda's driving population, but there is no demonstration of cause and effect, i.e. that small amounts of alcohol lead to accidents or reckless driving.

What then is the problem? In my opinion it relates less to impaired driving than to high speeds and recklessness at all times of the day and night. In many cases we are no doubt seeing simply the unimpaired exploitation of Bermuda's comparative lack of road traffic rule enforcement. As to solutions, a misguided zealotry is not the answer. Rather, we need an increased level of consistent and reasonable enforcement of our present reasonable laws.

RHIANON M. PEDRO Southampton