Drugged driving on the increase
Discussion
'About 1 in 6 deaths is caused by a drunk driver'
Snippet from Sky News online:
[quote=skynews]Drugged driving on the increase
More than one in seven young drivers admit to driving after taking illegal drugs, according to road safety charity Brake.
Brake's survey of 1150 drivers aged between 17 and 25 years-old reveals that 'drug-driving' is a serious problem in the UK. The charity says that many more respondents are likely to have also committed the offence, but not admitted to it.[/quote]
http://www.sky.com/skynews/xml/article/0,,40000-216711,00.html
But how does our government choose to tacke the problem?
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_rdsafety/documents/pdf/dft_rdsafety_pdf_033679.pdf
'Bill note 1: everything except anything which actually addresses the problem'
Yet Brake (the same people who are so pro-camera, thus resulting with less BiB patrolling the roads, bless 'em) think that further reducing the prosecution threshold will actually reduce this number?
http://www.brake.org.uk/index.php?p=279
[quote=Brake]We want the drink drive limit to be lowered from the current blood-alcohol level of 80mg per 100ml of blood to [b]20mg per 100ml[/b] of blood[/quote]
Snippet from Sky News online:
[quote=skynews]Drugged driving on the increase
More than one in seven young drivers admit to driving after taking illegal drugs, according to road safety charity Brake.
Brake's survey of 1150 drivers aged between 17 and 25 years-old reveals that 'drug-driving' is a serious problem in the UK. The charity says that many more respondents are likely to have also committed the offence, but not admitted to it.[/quote]
http://www.sky.com/skynews/xml/article/0,,40000-216711,00.html
But how does our government choose to tacke the problem?
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_rdsafety/documents/pdf/dft_rdsafety_pdf_033679.pdf
'Bill note 1: everything except anything which actually addresses the problem'
Yet Brake (the same people who are so pro-camera, thus resulting with less BiB patrolling the roads, bless 'em) think that further reducing the prosecution threshold will actually reduce this number?
http://www.brake.org.uk/index.php?p=279
[quote=Brake]We want the drink drive limit to be lowered from the current blood-alcohol level of 80mg per 100ml of blood to [b]20mg per 100ml[/b] of blood[/quote]
It's also totally meaningless without a detailed breakdown of what drugs people were on, how much, and in what combination with other drugs, food, time awake etc. Some drugs have positive effects, like speeding up your reaction time or making you more cautious. Some things which are not even thought of as drugs can dull alertness and slow reactions, like a big beef dinner. And some people drive better under the influence, like alcoholics who can't function without a drink.
I think the American system of "sobriety tests" is much better than the British system of analysing body chemistry with respect to some arbitrary number, because it is a reasonably (obviously not perfectly) good indicator of actual fitness to drive.
I think the American system of "sobriety tests" is much better than the British system of analysing body chemistry with respect to some arbitrary number, because it is a reasonably (obviously not perfectly) good indicator of actual fitness to drive.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I couldn't see any mention of drug driving in the Government documents link? I've been to the pub tonight so prob missed it? 
What struck me was, why are they comparing the 2003 KSI figures with the average between 1994-98? What happened in the missing 4 years?
If they have a 10 year 40% reduction plan, when did it begin?
Paul.S would know..
What struck me was, why are they comparing the 2003 KSI figures with the average between 1994-98? What happened in the missing 4 years?
If they have a 10 year 40% reduction plan, when did it begin?
Paul.S would know..
I guess the only fortunate thing here is that alcohol is one of the worst "drugs" from the perspective of the motor system and co-ordination.
I think Pigeon is right though.
What about smoking nicotine? It definately has an effect on your brain, whilst I can envisage a ban on the act of smoking whilst driving (much like mobile phones, I can't see the introduction of a "smokealyser".
I'm not sure its right, but if you do a flying exam, they get you to do a series of formal courses and exams on "Human Factors", like for example the effect of reduced oxygen and temperature on the ability of the human to function sufficiently well to fly.
I guess then it's self regulating. The single factor which reduces the incidence of "human factors" problems with flying, is that people who fly tend to be pretty sensible. It's not always true, but if you start from that premise, rather than the one that says "what should we regulate on the roads next", then you realise that the cost benefit analysis of constraining other driving scenarios doesn't weigh up.
I wonder what happens if you think of making a bigger effort to control drug driving, when you consider the wider picture? O.K. so road deaths are down by 0.01%, but on the other hand, you need bigger prisons, possibly greater levels of income support for those who cannot now work.
Drink driving is a problem that drink flying is not. Ask yourself why that is, and then ask yourself if it's reasonable to make a big effort against drink driving. Then consider the differing effects of drugs like asprin, nicotine, valium or cocaine and ask yourself if wider controls are necassary.
I would have thought that a law against driving a vehicle whilst abstaining from cocaine, or heroin, might be a good one.
I think Pigeon is right though.
What about smoking nicotine? It definately has an effect on your brain, whilst I can envisage a ban on the act of smoking whilst driving (much like mobile phones, I can't see the introduction of a "smokealyser".
I'm not sure its right, but if you do a flying exam, they get you to do a series of formal courses and exams on "Human Factors", like for example the effect of reduced oxygen and temperature on the ability of the human to function sufficiently well to fly.
I guess then it's self regulating. The single factor which reduces the incidence of "human factors" problems with flying, is that people who fly tend to be pretty sensible. It's not always true, but if you start from that premise, rather than the one that says "what should we regulate on the roads next", then you realise that the cost benefit analysis of constraining other driving scenarios doesn't weigh up.
I wonder what happens if you think of making a bigger effort to control drug driving, when you consider the wider picture? O.K. so road deaths are down by 0.01%, but on the other hand, you need bigger prisons, possibly greater levels of income support for those who cannot now work.
Drink driving is a problem that drink flying is not. Ask yourself why that is, and then ask yourself if it's reasonable to make a big effort against drink driving. Then consider the differing effects of drugs like asprin, nicotine, valium or cocaine and ask yourself if wider controls are necassary.
I would have thought that a law against driving a vehicle whilst abstaining from cocaine, or heroin, might be a good one.
i think the problem with drugged driving is that people just arent really aware that its a problem. alot of the people i know (between 17 and about 23)who undertake such activities know all about drink driving but dont have a clue about the laws and penalties surrounding drugs and driving
paulhol said:
i think the problem with drugged driving is that people just arent really aware that its a problem. alot of the people i know (between 17 and about 23)who undertake such activities know all about drink driving but dont have a clue about the laws and penalties surrounding drugs and driving
I don't think there's anything for which there no penalty in this country of ours. I don't think that 17 to 23 year olds think any different either. They might think they can get away with it though.
What I'm not clear about, is what you think the problem is. Is it the number of people incapable of controlling their vehicles due to substance use, or is it the number of people who think they can break the law and get away with it?
If only our judiciary would stop pussyfooting around over illegal drugs!
Something like the Singapore system would seem appropriate:
Anyone aged 18 or over convicted of carrying more than 15 grammes (0.5 ounce) of heroin, or 30 grammes (1.1 ounces) of cocaine, 500 grammes (17.6 ounces) of cannabis or 250 grammes (8.8 ounces) of methamphetamines faces mandatory execution.
And a good thing too!
Something like the Singapore system would seem appropriate:
Anyone aged 18 or over convicted of carrying more than 15 grammes (0.5 ounce) of heroin, or 30 grammes (1.1 ounces) of cocaine, 500 grammes (17.6 ounces) of cannabis or 250 grammes (8.8 ounces) of methamphetamines faces mandatory execution.
And a good thing too!
dilbert said:
i think the problem with drugged driving is that people just arent really aware that its a problem. alot of the people i know (between 17 and about 23)who undertake such activities know all about drink driving but dont have a clue about the laws and penalties surrounding drugs and driving
I don't think there's anything for which there no penalty in this country of ours. I don't think that 17 to 23 year olds think any different either. They might think they can get away with it though.
What I'm not clear about, is what you think the problem is. Is it the number of people incapable of controlling their vehicles due to substance use, or is it the number of people who think they can break the law and get away with it?
the government spends alot of time and effort promoting drink driving and its effects. therefore everyone knows about it whether they choose to do it or not. drugs and driving is never advertised and you never hear about it, therefore its not the first thing on someones mind when they get into their car and drive off.
The law is at fault here.
There is no law that says you cant drive on heroin, cocaine, LSD or any other sort of drug.
There is however a law that says you cannot drive whilst impaired from taking drugs (of any sort)
As these drugs are illegal there has been no research as to when impairment occurs like there has with booze.
Proving impairment on that basis is quite tricky, though the roadside tests (walking the line) are trying to ascertain this.
How well it would stand up in court though maybe a different matter.
There is no law that says you cant drive on heroin, cocaine, LSD or any other sort of drug.
There is however a law that says you cannot drive whilst impaired from taking drugs (of any sort)
As these drugs are illegal there has been no research as to when impairment occurs like there has with booze.
Proving impairment on that basis is quite tricky, though the roadside tests (walking the line) are trying to ascertain this.
How well it would stand up in court though maybe a different matter.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff