Drug Driving

[Lady Whistledown]

If this is true then OTC (ie General sales List and Pharmacy Only) medicines will also be impacted. The driving "warning/caution" on medicines in relation to side effects etc is usually written in terms like* "........; if affected, do not drive", because not every patient will be affected so it'll be interesting how this is handled. You could make something like "don't drive" a statutory warning on all medicine leaflets where there is a possiblity of the drug imparing your ability but that's not a science based approach. I somehow doubt that this has been thought through in the govt's rush to deflect media attention from poor election results, lack of an economic policy, or whatever......

*eg: one of my anti-cancer drugs -
"Irinotecan may make you feel dizzy or cause visual disturbances. If this happens to you do not drive or operate machinery until this resolves."

Before you get too worried, it's realistically only going to apply where a police officer has reason to suspect you're impaired through some sort of drug. They're not going to be randomly stopping and testing motorists, there just isn't the time. Either you get stopped because you're all over the road, or you get stopped for some other reason and as a result of the conversation, the suspicion is formed that you're in some way impaired.

That's pretty much how it works with alcohol now: people aren't randomly breath tested on their way to work for the sake of it.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

That's the issue surely. Saying that most prescribed drugs have a warning isn't going to be good enough, is it?
Does everyone read the small print that comes with them? Should your GP make a point of asking and telling you whether or not should be driving before giving you a prescription?

It could open up a real can of worms if you are arrested and charged with drug driving. Ignorance isn't an excuse I accept, but if you are not aware because there was no warning from either the company or your GP, then what?

Will there be a drug limit in place in the near future?

Maybe my point is extreme but the authorities have to have some sort of guideline on this.

There is. Unless you have a legal limit, which I can't see happening due to the sheer complexity of implementing that for thousands of different drugs, there would have to be evidence of not only the drug, but of some impairment, ie drop in the standard of driving. I'm not talking about a single, small error of the type that motorists do all the time, but (for example) persistently swerving on to the wrong side of the road, or crawling along at a ridiculously slow speed, or clipping the kerb repeatedly.

People are not going to get arrested for taking their regular anti-depressants, unless there is clear and conclusive evidence that their driving suffered as a result. Which I think most people would agree is reasonable anyway, surely? Nobody wants people behind the wheel who are in no fit state.

 

[Muzzy]

There is. Unless you have a legal limit, which I can't see happening due to the sheer complexity of implementing that for thousands of different drugs, there would have to be evidence of not only the drug, but of some impairment, ie drop in the standard of driving. I'm not talking about a single, small error of the type that motorists do all the time, but (for example) persistently swerving on to the wrong side of the road, or crawling along at a ridiculously slow speed, or clipping the kerb repeatedly.

People are not going to get arrested for taking their regular anti-depressants, unless there is clear and conclusive evidence that their driving suffered as a result. Which I think most people would agree is reasonable anyway, surely? Nobody wants people behind the wheel who are in no fit state.

I certainly agree re unfit drivers. There is enough chaos on our roads on a daily basis caused by drivers that are drug free and sober!

It's about time the government introduced a compulsory driver refresher/test courses that all drivers have to take to periodically, and certainly for people over certain age. But that's another thread for another day

 

[Alex Alex Dawson oo! oo!]

Before you get too worried, it's realistically only going to apply where a police officer has reason to suspect you're impaired through some sort of drug. They're not going to be randomly stopping and testing motorists, there just isn't the time. Either you get stopped because you're all over the road, or you get stopped for some other reason and as a result of the conversation, the suspicion is formed that you're in some way impaired.

That's pretty much how it works with alcohol now: people aren't randomly breath tested on their way to work for the sake of it.

I understand how it's likely to work in practice and the proposal doesn't worry me, apart from the govt seemingly not having thought it through. However, there is no reason why licenced medicines shouldn't also be covered but the outcome must be science based; I may even come out of retirement and do some leaflet/SPC re-writing.

 

[slinky]

I don't think it works like that. The key to safe driving is concentration - speed and cocaine reduce concentration but also increase confidence so I reckon you would be more likely to crash under the influence of these.

I confess I have driven under the influence of cannabis in my teens and I found it made me more aware of hazards and traffic on the road, but also improved concentration, probably all derived by the paranoia that comes with being stoned.

Proves how little i know about drugs then doesn't it

Not condoning the use of drugs, just being very ignorant..

 

[Seagull over Canaryland]

Further to my earlier post when the young lady crashed into our house it was pretty obvious that she was under the influence of something other than booze as she was so spaced out. Our natural reaction might have been to give her some stick but we just cared for her until the cavalry arrived and she was sent off to hospital complaining of a bump on her head, otherwise no obvious injuries. The feedback from the Police was that a blood sample could not be taken at that time for testing purposes because of the alleged bump on her head meant she may not be in a fit state to legally authorise this. Then she (rather conveniently) discharged herself without warning. Yet she had a record of similar problems. The Police Officer we spoke to was sympathetic to our position but seemed frustrated that the driver could not be pursued for driving whilst unfit.

The cost of the repairs to the house were around £5k and as she was not insured were told this would be met from the independent motor insurance fund, at a cost to all of our car insurance premium. Not much of a deterent for drivers who choose to drive while under the influence. Ok we had a bit of hassle and our wall eventually got rebuilt but the thing that really pissed us off was the thought that her next victim might (God forbid) be an innocent child pedestrian.

So any steps that empower the Police to legally gather evidence to successfully secure a conviction of a driver unfit through drugs and also get the offender some corrective treatment must be a good thing.

 

[perseus]

surely it would depend on what the drug is?

if it were coke or speed, surely this would improve peoples driving, as they will be more alert?

i can understand where people's driving skills are reduced on others like, cannabis, E, LSD, smack, ketamine and so forth...

However drugs are drugs and they are illegal for a reason i suppose....

I think it might be an illusion that CNS stimulants improve driving ability. It just keeps drivers awake when they should have a rest.

But my experience is that tranquillisers, people driving without spectacles they need, and mobile phones going off and being used when driving and generally distractions cause mistakes that can lead to accidents.

But the point is that all causes of accidents are being identified and being clamped down on. Legal tranquillisers use used to be a big cause of silly accidents. Judgement is impaired. I would have thought they ought be included in the clamp down.

 

[Tricky Dicky]

Does this mean that the pharmaceutical companies making prescription drugs will have to tighten up on whether or not you should be driving or not? And will they have to make it clearer on the packaging? Much like the government health warning on tobacco products.

My health problem makes me tired anyway without the drugs I have to take. Therefore, should I be driving at all?

Interesting - I've thought about this. I take loads of prescription stuff, and one does say that it can make you tired, but does not mention about driving. Have meant to ask my GP for ages whether it was an issue, but never got round to it.

 

[South Yarra Seagull]

Victoria have roadside random drug tests using a saliva sample. Been stopped at a 'Drug Bus' a couple of times.

They test for THC or amphetamine and if they find it your license in saliva your license is suspended pending a blood test.

These tests have been unreliable at best and often produce false positives, but the deterrent is clear.

Having said that, was riding to work the other morning behind someone smoking a very strong spliff. Those were the days...

 

[tubaman]

Before you get too worried, it's realistically only going to apply where a police officer has reason to suspect you're impaired through some sort of drug. They're not going to be randomly stopping and testing motorists, there just isn't the time. Either you get stopped because you're all over the road, or you get stopped for some other reason and as a result of the conversation, the suspicion is formed that you're in some way impaired.

That's pretty much how it works with alcohol now: people aren't randomly breath tested on their way to work for the sake of it.

Is this actually new legislation or just LOUD publicity for a new piece of equipment? There is already a power of arrest if a police officer suspects that your driving is impaired through drink or drugs without having to subject you to a test of any kind.

Random breath testing is good publicity but in practical terms a waste of police time.

 

[Falkor]

I would assume if people where on drugs now that could effect there driving they would have to notify the DVLA as it is already, i know if you have diabities you have to inform them, same for epileptic fits etc..

 

[Durlston]

There are quick and easy ways of telling if you have drugs in your system with a screen test. Wee into a pot, dip the plastic device in and within seconds you can tell if a red line doesn't appear. When I went to Addaction I was tested for cocaine, amphetamines, methadone, opiates and benzos. The results are 99.9% accurate. Cannabis is probably the biggest cause of drug driving accidents but it's not easy to screen for that. However I'm surprised the Police don't carry similar test kit with them to find drivers under the influence of drugs.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

There are quick and easy ways of telling if you have drugs in your system with a screen test. Wee into a pot, dip the plastic device in and within seconds you can tell if a red line doesn't appear. When I went to Addaction I was tested for cocaine, amphetamines, methadone, opiates and benzos. The results are 99.9% accurate. Cannabis is probably the biggest cause of drug driving accidents but it's not easy to screen for that. However I'm surprised the Police don't carry similar test kit with them to find drivers under the influence of drugs.

Purely on a practical basis, how are you going to make someone take a piss at the roadside, while at the same time having to consider their human rights (dignity, privacy etc)? Especially if it's a woman.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

If this is true then OTC (ie General sales List and Pharmacy Only) medicines will also be impacted. The driving "warning/caution" on medicines in relation to side effects etc is usually written in terms like* "........; if affected, do not drive", because not every patient will be affected so it'll be interesting how this is handled. You could make something like "don't drive" a statutory warning on all medicine leaflets where there is a possiblity of the drug imparing your ability but that's not a science based approach. I somehow doubt that this has been thought through in the govt's rush to deflect media attention from poor election results, lack of an economic policy, or whatever......

*eg: one of my anti-cancer drugs -
"Irinotecan may make you feel dizzy or cause visual disturbances. If this happens to you do not drive or operate machinery until this resolves."

There will need to be limits though ie if a drug label states you cannot drive there will need to be a threshold against which youre deemed to be under the influence. Given there are at least 67000 different compounds it's totally unworkable. The government cannot provide a limit for all of these which might impair concentration or whatever. I suppose they can choose specific compounds but even this will be difficult and probably be fraught with inconsistencies.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

There are quick and easy ways of telling if you have drugs in your system with a screen test. Wee into a pot, dip the plastic device in and within seconds you can tell if a red line doesn't appear. When I went to Addaction I was tested for cocaine, amphetamines, methadone, opiates and benzos. The results are 99.9% accurate. Cannabis is probably the biggest cause of drug driving accidents but it's not easy to screen for that. However I'm surprised the Police don't carry similar test kit with them to find drivers under the influence of drugs.

This is a specific and very very small group of drugs though. Many licenced pharma drugs can impair judgement etc in a similar manner. If the aim is to make the roads safer and tighten up laws on impairment then you will need to treat all drugs the same. Otherwise it moves away from safety and towards a crusade against illegal drugs which we already have laws in place for.