Recent calls for the introduction of random breathalyser tests, if taken on board, run the serious risk of diminishing civil liberties, liberties that are already being infringed every time a motorist is randomly stopped at a roadblock for a drugs check.

These particular columns of this newspaper have in the past called for stricter blood alcohol content limits to be implemented in Malta, which at present has the EU’s and among the world’s most liberal levels, as well as for more breathalyser tests to be carried out.

Drunk driving, in addition to seriously endangering the driver and any passengers foolish enough to get into a car driven by someone who has had one too many, is a serious threat to public health. How many times have innocent, sober drivers been injured or killed by drunk drivers − several, but even one such death or injury is one too many.

These stances have not changed in the slightest and we are reiterating them once again in the hope that due consideration will be given to both possibilities, so as to better safeguard the life and limb of all those using the country’ roads.

The introduction of random breathalyser tests at roadblocks, however, is certainly not the way to go about it.

There is no doubt that the country needs to keep up its fight against drugs and drunk driving, but are roadblocks, which yield not-so-impressive success rates for drugs, really the best way of going about it? The country could do better by its citizens than subjecting them, the vast majority of whom are blameless and unwilling participants in roadblock exercises, to the indignity of such stops and searches. That is not to mention the intimidation many feel when confronted by gun-toting soldiers.

This is not a country under martial law, and no one should be made to feel as though it is for no solid reason apart from a figurative fishing expedition.

How would we react if the police were to turn up on our doorstep demanding to search our homes without a warrant or any specific reason − just on the mere off chance that something illegal was taking place within? Would we welcome them in or would we send them packing? The answer from anyone who is even slightly familiar with their rights would be a resounding ‘no’.

But such a hypothetical situation − hypothetical in that such practices are not allowed anywhere this side of Burma − is not all that different to that which would be brought about if calls for random breathalyser tests were to be heeded by the powers that be.

We strongly object to the concept of the police being empowered to stop any motorist they please, without any probable cause to believe the driver is under the influence, to administer a breathalyser test, or to be searched for drugs for that matter.

With the new and improved breathalyser tests and the new modus operandi recently established through legal notices, if the police intend increasing the currently limited number of breathalyser tests being administered, there are plenty of probable causes out there to suspect drunk driving.

After all, the opportunities to pull someone over on suspicion of drunk driving are many given the way many drive – from failing to stay fully in one’s lane to not signalling when making a turn, to not stopping at zebra crossings or even failing to turn headlights on in tunnels.

Indeed, the multitude of blatant traffic contraventions gives plenty probable cause to suspect drunk driving and provide more legitimate means than roadblocks to administer breathalyser tests.

The government of late has apparently been laying the groundwork for a crackdown on drunk driving, which is encouraging and shows its resolve in tackling the matter.

New legislation has raised the bar for those refusing to undertake a breathalyser, blood or urine test. Whereas previous legislation had termed such refusal a crime, the new legislation, while retaining the criminality of refusing to provide the required sample, also provides for such refusal to be automatically considered as an admission of guilt of driving under the influence.

The fine for driving under the influence has also been more than doubled from the previous €465.87 to €1,200.

Moreover, as the previous legislation stood, the type of breathalyser equipment used by the police had been very specific, and equipment in use was expensive and repairs to the equipment were excessively costly. Now the minister responsible for the police has been given the flexibility to choose other types of equipment. It is thought the liberty provided, by no longer being constrained to particular types of equipment, could see a reinvigoration of breathalyser tests.

The new machinery needs to be put to the best possible use and the political will to tackle the problem once and for all by reducing the country’s very generous legal limit must be found. But the means of doing so must not come at the price of the further stripping of civil liberties.