New Zealand decreased the drink-driving limit from 0.08 to 0.05 percent BAC (blood alcohol concentration) in December 2014. In the lead-up to the change, there were worries that bars and pubs would lose business (for example, see here). Similarly, after the changes came in, there were a number of news stories about negative impacts (for example, see here and here). When my research team was doing fieldwork in 2019, a local bar owner we talked to complained about how dead the Hamilton CBD was during the week (from our observations, the weekends were still pretty busy! [*]).
So, I was interested to read this 2020 article by Colin Sumpter (NHS Forth Valley) and co-authors, published in the journal Drug and Alcohol Review (open access). They interviewed bar and pub managers and owners in 2018, over three years after Scotland introduced the same reduction in drink-driving limit that New Zealand did [**]. Sumpter et al. note that before the law change, there was a lot of opposition from within the industry, similar to what we saw in New Zealand around the same time. However, Sumpter et al.'s results, based on qualitative analysis of in-depth interviews with 16 bar or pub owners or managers, shows that the results are more nuanced. First:
Most participants reported that prior to the limit change, there was little concern about the potential impact the change would have on their own business, although many felt it would impact on the hospitality industry as a whole. Post-limit change, most participants felt there had been no overall impact on their profits. A few reported a short-term impact that had lasted six to 12 months, but had seen profits return to normal after this period. A small minority reported a significant and persisting financial impact on their business and a similar number reported a smaller persisting financial impact. Rural pubs were more likely to report a negative economic impact while urban food-led establishments were less likely to report this as customers had continued to eat out while switching alcohol for soft drinks.
The perceived impacts on drinkers were interesting, and essentially what public health advocated would have hoped for:
Participants described three groups of drinkers that were particularly affected by the limit change. First and most commonly mentioned was the ‘after-work drinker’ group, which mainly comprised of men who would have dropped in on the way home from work. Participants reported that this behaviour had declined and attributed this to a public perception that the limit had changed from a ‘two-pint limit’ to a ‘no pint limit’...
The second affected group comprised of the ‘next morning driver’. Participants had observed that these people were now finishing drinking earlier on most nights, and particularly Sundays...
The third affected group comprised of the ‘lunchtime drinker’, although these were reportedly less affected by the limit change. In food-led establishments, it was often female customers who would previously have shared a bottle of wine, or had single glasses, but who now preferred to either have a designated driver or drink only soft drinks.
Finally, businesses adapted (or, at least, those businesses that were still around three years later had adapted!):
The major change in practice was around the provision of alternatives to alcohol. While participants from drink-only venues reported that their main income still came from alcoholic drinks, others described a growing trend in customer demand for no/low-alcohol drinks, and the range and quality of these drinks on offer from manufacturers. Whereas previously only one no/low-alcohol alternative would have been sold (other than soft drinks), examples were given of no/low-alcohol ranges intended to mimic the experience of drinking alcohol. This trend was primarily for beer but also present in cider and wine.
Don't forget mocktails! I think I rarely saw a premium mocktail on a menu prior to 2014, but now they are standard fare for most pubs and bars (in New Zealand, at least). The research participants also noted incentives for designated drivers, such as free soft drinks, but like in New Zealand, those were often available before the drink-driving limit reduced. Overall, it appears that the pre-law worries about the negative impacts on bars and pubs, those worries were not borne out. In fact, Sumpter et al. find that:
Overall, despite the reservations of participants (regardless of premise type or location), there was broad acceptance of the limit change, disapproval of drink-driving, and little suggestion that the reduction should be reversed.
If even bar and pub owners and managers approve of the change afterwards, then it was clearly a positive change overall.
*****
[*] You can read about that research here and here, or our earlier research just after the drink driving limited changed here and here (ungated version here).
[**] Incidentally, Scotland's new drink-driving limit came into force just four days after New Zealand's new limit (5 December 2014 vs. 1 December 2014).
No comments:
Post a Comment