Friday 27th January 2006

Drug driving on increase

Insurers want to get tough on drug drivers, but will they ever be caught?

---

Drugs could soon replace drink as the main cause of road deaths, experts have warned.

A new survey revealed that nearly 40 per cent of young divers have driven while under the influence of drugs, with almost 57 per cent of those admitting that their driving had been impaired.

Almost one in five confessed to being "very impaired" while driving, according to the results of an on-line survey by radio station Kiss 100FM.

Now insurers are to get tough with those found guilty of drug-driving in the same way as they do with drink-drivers.

Insurance intermediary The A&A Group Ltd believes that though the problem has been around for years, it is now getting out of control, forcing insurance companies and police to tackle it head-on.

"People might think they can get away with drug-driving more so than drink-driving but that's a myth," said Tony Allen, Chief Executive of A&A Group Ltd.

"Drug-driving is a big problem and one which is being taken very seriously.

"While it is technically prosecuted under the same law as drink-driving - driving while under the influence of drink or drugs - it is a double whammy because taking drugs is illegal in itself. So you can get prosecuted for driving while under the influence as well as possession.

"The focus of any campaign has traditionally been on drink-driving, but drug-driving is also on the radar.

"We do take all factors into consideration when assessing people for insurance and will treat each case individually. Those convicted of drug-driving are no different."

The survey was conducted among nearly 2,000 young drivers and was used to launch an awareness campaign, supported by the Metropolitan police, highlighting the risks of drug-driving. In the last few years, there has been an eight per cent reduction in the overall number of deaths on the roads in Britain - but the mortality rate for young drivers has risen by 12 per cent.

[core_four]

I was reading about this on a website a few weeks ago and remember this quote -

"An officer can request a pupillary test and a test to determine whether or not a driver can walk in a straight line, turn on one foot, and walk back"
(taken from an article on Drum & Bass Arena)

These seem a little 'early 80s' to me!

The lack of test also leaves a decision that, if wrongly made by the police, could condemn an innocent driver to a lengthy ban. Not to mention a few years behind the wheel of a small engined run around due to a massively boosted insurance premium!

Im not in any way in favour of drug, drink, or any kind 'impaired' driving but I do believe that, as I previously mentioned, there needs to be a rock solid test developed before they can seriously tackle the problem.

[jimothy]

But I thought speeding was the major and only cause of accidents

[qube_TA]

Surely you can't be prosecuted without a blood test.

Police aren't doctors without a box of tricks to tell them what's what they're not qualified to make a judgement.

Matthew

[bogga]

You see how the policing by automation (computers/camera's) has destroyed the forces credability.

We now think that the police are unable to make a decision on whether or not someone is 'under the influence'...

>> Edited by bogga on Friday 27th January 19:39

[dubbs]

I would argue that, with many of these substances, they wouldn't know anyway.

Any kind of dangerous driving, irrespective of the influencing conditions, should be dealt with harshly.

What I don't agree to is bringing limits down to ridiculous levels and penalising everyone for a minorities lack of responsibility.

Maybe they could follow people around all day with cameras and pre-emptively arrest everyone that takes an intoxicating substance just in case they drive... certainly feels like the law is but a step away from something like this with speed.

[ultimasimon]

The Police have trialled many different types of test over the years. The last one involved a piece of paper that they stuck on your forehead and which changed colour to indicate a positive or negative result. Cannabis is easily detected with a simple urine or blood test and traces can be seen upto six weeks later after taking for a regular smoker.

There was also a breathalyser type device for detecting Class A drugs. These devices have been on test for at least ten years but I have yet to see them in action on the streets.

LSD was the only drug which required a separate test and a blood test. Even then it is very difficult to detect by laboratory test, but very obvious to detect by observation .

Some people claim to be able to drive better on certain types of drugs however tests revealed that there were only a few who did and the the majority were under the normal standard of driving but due to heightened mood, they just thought they were driving better.

Accident statistics also indicate that more fatalities occur through alcohol related RTA's than drug related, but the statistics are starting to change as less people are drink-driving.

I used to go for a drugs test every six months when I was working on the railway contracts.

[davidra]

Although I am in favour of testing for drivers "under the influence" of drugs, this is an easy way to covertly bring in effective enforcement of soft drugs law. For example, in Victoria, Australia, the world's only Drug testing Bus is in use and detects amphetamine and marijuana use. However, the government refuses to publish details as to what levels of intoxication result in illegal (dangerous) impairment effectively preventing users from taking drugs and driving responsibly, however perverse that may sound. The rumour is that use within the last few days or weeks can result in prosecution, so it is really necessary to avoid driving for 1-2 months after use to be safe. Anyone who has smoked (etc) will know that the effects wear off in a day or so.

Further, the motivation for drug testing was based on higher levels of drug use detected in crash victims and drivers than was believed to be the norm, suggesting that drug impairment caused many accidents. However, once random sampling began it was discovered that drug use is far more common than previously suspected (1 in 5 drivers failing the tests) so the statistical basis for random drug testing is seriously flawed.

regards
dave

[cymtriks]

davidra said:

However, once random sampling began it was discovered that drug use is far more common than previously suspected (1 in 5 drivers failing the tests) so the statistical basis for random drug testing is seriously flawed.

No. It isn't flawed. Some drug users use more drugs than others so while some are no danger others are menaces behind the wheel.

This is the same argument that turned "drunk driving" into "drink driving". Drunks have more crashes! True. But having a drink (note the singular) is trivial especially when accompanied by a big meal or a long walk afterwards as in the case of many walkers who stop off for a pub lunch before finishing their walk and driving home.

Oddly with drugs the argument seems to be to "lots of people use drugs so drug use can't be a problem" as opposed to the alcohol argument of "a few serious drunks have accidents so we'd better ban anyone who isn't teatotal".

The alcohol result seems to be a knee jerk reaction to a mostly trivial problem while the drug result seems to be resigned acceptance of a serious social problem.

[zumbruk]

bogga said:

You see how the policing by automation (computers/camera's) has destroyed the forces credability. We now think that the police are unable to make a decision on whether or not someone is 'under the influence'... >> Edited by bogga on Friday 27th January 19:39

That's because they aren't. They can decide someone's driving is impaired, but they cannot know why. You have to have a blood test for that.

[pauladamson]

The drink and drug driving arguments almost always miss one other related problem - that of Perscription drugs.

I can check, but I don't think that there is even a box to tick on the police accident investigation form to record whether this is, or could be a contribuloty factor.

I wonder if that's on purpose?

Just how many drivers are there on our roads thinking happy thoughts?

[jazzyjeff]

pauladamson said:

The drink and drug driving arguments almost always miss one other related problem - that of Perscription drugs. I can check, but I don't think that there is even a box to tick on the police accident investigation form to record whether this is, or could be a contribuloty factor. I wonder if that's on purpose? Just how many drivers are there on our roads thinking happy thoughts?

Yeah - but this is just another argument for not drinking or taking illegal drugs before driving, as it is impossible to predict the effects of mixing with prescription drugs.

JJ

[bunglist]

pauladamson said:

The drink and drug driving arguments almost always miss one other related problem - that of Perscription drugs. I can check, but I don't think that there is even a box to tick on the police accident investigation form to record whether this is, or could be a contribuloty factor. I wonder if that's on purpose? Just how many drivers are there on our roads thinking happy thoughts?

I totally agree with you, on this the legal drugs always get missed. Lots of prescription drugs say do not drive or opperate machinery whilst taking these drugs.

But how many people take any notice of that.

What about cold & flu drugs they can make you drousey, so can hayfever tablets, and if they don't make you drousey they could probably effect your driving in some way or another.

Also what about the poor sod that smoked a joint on Saturday Night, and drove 2 days later, got stopped by the fuzz, was asked to do one of the roadside tests, IE colour change paper (or whatever it is), and the joint shows up, (as it does stay in your system for X amount of time)

This person is not drug driving, the effects would have worn off a long time before.

Don't get me wrong, I do not condone the use of recreational drugs but they need a test that can determine at the time if they had drugs 10 mins ago or 10 days ago.