UK: Drug-driving campaign is launched

7zark7

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Jun 7, 2004
Messages
2,559
Location
UK
[size=+1]Drug-driving campaign is launched[/size]
An advertising campaign warning of the risks of driving after taking drugs is being launched in England and Wales.


A TV ad will warn motorists that police can spot signs someone is under the influence of drugs if they are stopped.

The Department for Transport says one in 10 young male drivers admits drug driving and that education is crucial.

Road safety charity Brake has welcomed the £2.3m campaign but says it is more important for ministers to approve a breathalyser-style drug-testing device.

Anyone caught drug-driving faces up to six months in prison and a £5,000 fine.

The campaign is led by a television advert which warns drivers that police can spot involuntary signs of drug use such as severely dilated or constricted pupils.

It shows a car-full of young people with their eyes enlarged, adding: "Your eyes will give you away."

The Department for Transport (DfT) estimates that one in five drivers or riders killed in road accidents may have an impairing drug - legal or illegal - in their system.

Young men aged between 17 and 29 are thought to be most likely to drive while on illegal drugs and Brake says they can be affected in a range of different ways:

• Cannabis - distorts a driver's perception of time and distance so other vehicles seem closer than they really are. Users also struggle to do two things at once, like changing gear and steering

• Cocaine - causes a feeling of over-confidence, leading to aggressive, risky driving at high speeds

• Amphetamines, such as speed - impair co-ordination and make drivers less likely to react to potential hazards

• Ecstasy - causes blurred vision and poor judgement, and may also lead to extreme anxiety and paranoia

Police currently have no equivalent to an alcohol breathalyser to test for drugs and instead use a Field Impairment Test or FIT.

This can include the Romberg Test in which a driver is asked to close their eyes and estimate when 30 seconds have elapsed. Drugs impair the body's internal clock so drug users tend to be wildly inaccurate.

Other tests include standing on one leg, touching your nose with the tip of your finger and walking heel-to-toe while counting the steps out loud.

If officers see signs of drug abuse they can take a suspect to a police station to perform a blood test to confirm it.

A DfT spokeswoman said that in the past drug-driving campaigns had been run by individual forces or aimed at particular groups such as those attending music festivals.

"We hope this will create a national debate around drug-driving because it's something that maybe people aren't very aware of," she said.

She also said the Home Office had been investigating roadside testing devices, but finding one sophisticated enough was difficult.

"It's not as simple as setting a single level as we do with alcohol," she said.

"There would need to be a specification that police and other law enforcement agencies are happy with and as yet we don't think such a device is available."

Cathy Keeler, deputy chief executive of Brake, welcomed the campaign, saying that drug-driving was "potentially a huge problem on our roads".

"But while education is fantastic, what we really need is the enforcement to back it up," she said.

"The government has been dragging its heels on approving a roadside testing device even though police in countries like Germany are already using saliva wipes to catch lots of drug drivers.

"There are already some devices out there that can identify some of the most common drugs people take and there's really no reason for the government to wait for some perfect device to detect all of them."

The television advert focuses on illegal drugs, but other strands of the campaign in print and online will also address the issues surrounding legal prescription drugs.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/uk/8201407.stm

Published: 2009/08/17 03:03:22 GMT

© BBC MMIX
 
Couple of things...

Are they saying that having an illegal drug in your system while driving constitutes 'drug-driving' - and is therefore an offence? Having a drug in your system doesn't necessarily mean you are under its influence.
Furthermore, the way the drugs mentioned effect people varies wildly from person to person and even if they are under the influence, is their driving impaired sufficiently (or at all) to be deemed dangerous?

I see that the Government "estimates that one in five drivers or riders killed in road accidents may have an impairing drug - legal or illegal - in their system." That sounds very loose criteria for then focussing on illegal drugs. What about prescription drugs? I wonder how many people drive 'impaired' after taking things like hay-fever tablets (anti-histamines) that make you drowsy or steroids that make you hyperactive and aggressive, for example

There is already legal framework in place in the UK to catch and punish people for "Driving or attempting to drive when unfit through drugs" so why does it seem to me that they are solely concentrating on drivers that have used illegal, recreational drugs without sufficient evidence that it is actually a significant problem?

I am not saying that driving while high is a good idea - it's not! To be honest the last thing I'd want to do is drive while having a good time... but I just think the whole thing is handled in a very disproportionate way and feel that it is just way to catch drug users under the guise of road safety.
 
^ I agree. It's just another way to invade privacy and control people.

If you are high be responsible and just stay home or let a sober person drive or else take public transportation. But six months in prison for DUI is outrageous! Drug and alchohol testing should be banned. If someone is driving just fine they should not be pulled over by the police. I don't agree with checkpoints either. But if someone is driving erratically then stop him and see if he can walk a straight line or not. Cannabis can stay in your system for weeks (days for other drugs) and you are certainly not high that long. Also, experienced drinkers can drink more than others and not be impaired. The legal blood alcohol limit is abitrary and for many people it's set too low.
 
Incidentally, I heard a piece on BBC radio on the (sober ;)) drive into work this morning. They were speaking to a solicitor (attorney) who explained that it will still be up to the police officer to prove, in court, that the driver was unfit to drive through drugs. This is obviously very difficult as the roadside tests will not be able to measure the concentration of drug in in the driver's system and therefore how 'impaired' the driver was.


Makes me wonder though... how many dropped 'drug-driving' charges will then be used as a start point for regular drug related charges (ie: possession, searches, etc.)?
 
Here in Australia they have roadside drug testing, I would be all for it as I don't think people have a right to drive intoxicated and put other peoples lives at risk but the problem is that you can fail while sober just for having drugs in your system but not actually being high.

If you have positive drug tests there is no need for cops to argue that you were impaired by them and there is no threshold for what is acceptable and what isn't like there is with alcohol.
 
Top