Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 3:08 am
Time: 3:08 am
Results for drugged driving
46 results foundAuthor: U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Title: Guidelines for Community Supervision of DWI offenders Summary: The guidelines presented in this document are intended to provide a framework for developing, implementing and operating effective programs for the community supervision of DWI offenders. These strategies are recommended to achieve the best possible outcomes and to provide a structure from which to build a solid approach and direction to ensure long-term public safety by reducing recidivism through offender behavioral change. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2008. 96p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2008 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 117803 Keywords: Community-based CorrectionsDrugged DrivingDrunk DrivingProbation |
Author: Jackson, P.G. Title: A Review of Evidence Related to Drug Driving in the UK: A Report Submitted to the North Review Team Summary: Sir Peter North has been invited to advise Ministers on the merits of specific proposals for changes to the legislative regime for drink and drug driving, reporting by the end of March 2010. In order to assist the North Review team in the work being undertaken, Clockwork Research has been contracted to submit a review drawing together and synthesising evidence on a variety of issues relating to drug driving. This report has been compiled from a review of a broad range of data sources including: a) UK Government research reports; b) European Council reports; c) Reports from transport authorities in other jurisdictions; d) EU research programmes reports; e) Papers that have appeared in academic journals; and f) Information and reports provided by independent drug expert organisations. As well as desk-based research, semi-structured interviews were conducted with relevant UK stakeholders, including coroners and their clerks, toxicologists, police officers and a representative from the Home Office Scientific Development Branch. These interviews served to inform our understanding of the current practices involving drug driving cases in the UK. The report is structured around five chapters, each focusing on one of the questions presented to Clockwork Research. Each chapter adopts a similar structure: following a brief introduction providing background information, the chapter reviews evidence that addresses the question. Evidence gaps are identified, and the chapter concludes with a summary of the key points, together with recommendations where appropriate. Details: London: Department for Transport, 2010. 109p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2010 Country: United Kingdom URL: Shelf Number: 119549 Keywords: Driving Under the InfluenceDrugged DrivingDruv Offenders |
Author: Poulsen, Helen Title: Alcohol and Other Drug Use in New Zealand Drivers 2004 to 2009 Summary: The influence of alcohol on road crashes and fatalities has been acknowledged for many years. It is only in more recent years that the use of other types of drugs has been associated with road crashes. While illicit drugs such as cannabis and methamphetamine may dominate, prescription drugs such as sedatives and opioid pain killers can also impair driving skills. The prevalence of drugged driving in NZ is not known. The NZ legislation does not permit random stopping of drivers for the purposes of drug testing, making it difficult to obtain any reliable information about drug use in the general driving population. This study, designed to get a current picture of drug use in the NZ driving population, can be considered only as a pilot study because the driving population available to study is biased and limited. Details: Wellington, NZ: New Zealand Police, 2010. 110p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 23, 2010 at: http://www.police.govt.nz/sites/default/files/Alcohol%20and%20other%20drug%20use%20in%20NZ%20drivers%202010.pdf Year: 2010 Country: New Zealand URL: http://www.police.govt.nz/sites/default/files/Alcohol%20and%20other%20drug%20use%20in%20NZ%20drivers%202010.pdf Shelf Number: 119666 Keywords: Driving Under the InfluenceDrugged DrivingDrunk Driving (New Zealand) |
Author: Lacey, John Title: Drug Per Se Laws: A Review of Their Use in States Summary: This report summarizes a study of the implementation of drug per se laws in 15 States. These laws generally make it an impaired-driving offense to drive with a measurable amount of certain drugs in one’s system. The specific prohibited drugs vary by State. The laws are generally integrated into the States’ overall impaired-driving statute. Though all 15 States were studied to some degree, deeper study of the process was conducted in 6 States. This involved discussions with government officials and law enforcement officers, and a series of structured discussions with prosecutors. This study was not an impact evaluation of drug per se laws on crashes, but rather an attempt to gain an understanding of how the drug per se laws are implemented and perceptions about the law of those charged with implementing the law. It was initially intended that the study would also assess the effect of passing driving under the influence of drugs (DUID) per se laws on the volume of DUID arrests and on conviction patterns, but data to directly address those issues were not available. A general consensus among law enforcement officers we held discussions with was the adoption of drug per se laws did not necessarily make enforcement easier, but did have a positive effect on prosecution. This general perception was shared by prosecutors we interviewed. Because the drug per se laws have typically been adopted as a component of States’ impaired-driving statutes, one difficulty of this study was obtaining accurate data on volume of arrests and conviction rates for the DUID component of the impaired-driving law was problematic. Recommendations include developing a procedure where impaired-driving citations indicate drugs, alcohol, or both, but also adopting procedures ensure information is integrated into computerized data systems of both law enforcement agencies and courts. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2010. 188p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 11, 2010 at: http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/nti/impaired_driving/pdf/811317.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/nti/impaired_driving/pdf/811317.pdf Shelf Number: 120446 Keywords: Driving Under the InfluenceDrugged DrivingDrugs and Driving |
Author: North, Peter Title: Report of the Review of Drink and Drug Driving Law Summary: The Review of Drink and Drug Driving law was requested by the Secretary of State for Transport to carry out a study into the legal framework in Great Britain governing drink and drug driving. It was asked to consider, in particular: • the legal framework applying to drink and drug driving in Great Britain; • the evidence on the nature of the drink and drug driving problems which the nation faces; • the evidence on the impact of potential measures to reduce drink and drug driving casualties; • discussions with, and representations received from, interested groups and individuals. In carrying out the Review, fundamental principles were considered: • drink and drug driving are clearly activities which endanger public safety and more should be done to detect and deter those driving while impaired by drink and drugs; • there should be a focus on practical steps which can deal with a significant part of the problem of drink and drug driving – the best must not be the enemy of the good; • the law should command respect among the general public and the public should understand both the law and the effects of drugs and alcohol upon driving; • the law and penalties imposed should be focussed on road safety (not on enforcement of wider law or policy on drugs and drink) and should reflect the degree of risk caused by impairment; • the procedures involved in enforcing the law should be fair to both the citizen suspected of the offence and to the wider public who are at risk from drink and drug driving; • the evidence of both the level of drink or drugs in a suspect’s body and the level of impairment should provide the best practicable indication of the levels at the time of driving; • the penalties for the offences should be a deterrent, adequate punishment for the offence and should safeguard the public; • any changes to the law or legal procedure need to be accompanied by appropriate and complementary campaigns of public information and enforcement. Details: London: Department for Transport, 2010. 285p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 14, 2011 at: http://fflm.ac.uk/upload/documents/1276856098.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://fflm.ac.uk/upload/documents/1276856098.pdf Shelf Number: 121352 Keywords: Driving Under the InfluenceDrugged DrivingDrunk Driving (U.K.) |
Author: Compton, R. Title: Drug-Impaired Driving: Understanding the Problem and Ways to Reduce It: A Report to Congress Summary: The report summarizes a series of studies undertaken by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to acquire the information needed to address the general problem of drug-impaired driving. The report describes the research conducted on prevention, detection, and prosecution of driving under the influence of drugs; issues associated with determining what drugs impair driving; difficulties in relating blood levels of drugs and impairment; lack of information about what drugs are frequently used by drivers and what drugs elevate crash risk; problems in obtaining representative data about current enforcement, prosecution, and adjudication of drug-impaired driving; training for law enforcement officers in recognizing drug-impaired drivers; review of drug-impaired driving laws; and what is known about the role of drugs as causal factors in traffic crashes. It highlights the need for further research and concludes with recommendations to better address the problem of drug-impaired driving. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2009. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 10, 2011 at: http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/nti/pdf/811268.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/nti/pdf/811268.pdf Shelf Number: 121698 Keywords: Driving Under the Influence of DrugsDrug AbuseDrug-Impaired DrivingDrugged DrivingDrugs and Driving |
Author: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Title: Drugs and Driving: Detection and Deterrence Summary: Driving while impaired by drugs – whether licit or illicit – has emerged as an important road safety issue. This report provides a state-of-the-art review of the role and impact of drugs in road accident risk. It reviews the legislation, deterrence and roadside detection practices in member countries as well as preventative measures to combat drug use while driving. The report first discusses the scientific evidence that provides the basis for understanding drug effects on driving performance, provides an assessment of the pharmacological effects in relation to driving skills and documents the relationship between blood toxicology findings and impairment. It then presents the evidence from studies that have examined the frequency of driving after drug use and the incidence of drugs among drivers involved in crashes and assesses the risks associated with driving after using drugs. It provides a review and discussion of legislative and enforcement policies and practices in OECD/ITF countries and of the prevention initiatives. Finally it draws conclusions about the role of drugs in traffic and identifies leading practices for controlling/preventing the behaviour based on the evidence presented. Details: Paris: OECD Publishing, 2010. 115p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 24, 2011 at: http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/download/fulltext/7710011e.pdf?expires=1306236897&id=id&accname=oid006203&checksum=71EE1FD0E45A16DCE930B61E1BF2F086 Year: 2010 Country: International URL: http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/download/fulltext/7710011e.pdf?expires=1306236897&id=id&accname=oid006203&checksum=71EE1FD0E45A16DCE930B61E1BF2F086 Shelf Number: 121788 Keywords: Driving Under the Influence of DrugsDrug AbuseDrug-Impaired DrivingDrugged DrivingDrugs and Driving |
Author: Fell, James C. Title: A Guide for Statewide Impaired-Driving Task Forces Summary: The purpose of the guide is to assist State officials and other stakeholders who are interested in establishing an Impaired-Driving Statewide Task Force or who are exploring ways to improve their current Task Force. The guide addresses issues such as (a) how to initiate a successful Task Force, (2) how to select the Task Force membership, (3) how to keep the membership involved, (4) how to select problem areas to work on, (5) how to use various strategies to solve problems, and (6) how to avoid potential pitfalls and obstacles that confront Task Forces. The appendices provide a series of useful documents for reference, such as brief descriptions of existing Task Forces, sample meeting agendas and meeting minutes, and sample Task Force recommendations. Some of the statewide Task Forces have been extremely effective in developing key legislation at the State level (that is later adopted) and in closing loopholes in their impaired-driving laws, enforcement, prosecution, and adjudication procedures. Others have addressed institutional changes such as developing better record-keeping systems or creating active communication between key agencies and stakeholders. Task Force efforts have addressed legislative issues, enforcement strategies, criminal justice processing changes, improvements in sentencing procedures, the treatment of DUI/DWI offenders, and initiatives for curbing underage drinking. By learning from the experience of others, those wishing to develop or augment statewide Task Forces can enhance the process and avoid "reinventing the wheel." Details: Washington, DC: U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2009. 80p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 24, 2011 at: http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/31000/31300/31303/5663_Impaired_Driving_Task_Force_Guide-tagged.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/31000/31300/31303/5663_Impaired_Driving_Task_Force_Guide-tagged.pdf Shelf Number: 121789 Keywords: Driving Under the Influence of DrugsDrug AbuseDrug-Impaired DrivingDrugged DrivingDrugs and Driving |
Author: Traffic Injury Research Foundation Title: Drugs and Driving: A Compendium of Research Studies Summary: It is clear that drug-impaired driving is a serious, wide-spread problem that requires effective responses. There is a broad spectrum of options, from strictly preventative to strictly punitive approaches. As seen in relation to alcohol-impaired driving, it is likely that a combination of both preventative and punitive responses provides the best results. Nevertheless, this annotated bibliography focuses on studies pertaining to identification and to prosecution of drug-impaired driving. Moreover it concentrates on studies about drug-impaired, rather than alcohol-impaired, driving. As described in the section that follows, there have been a substantial number of studies relating to drug-impaired driving worldwide. However, there has been a paucity of research that brings together data from these various sources. Assessment of the merits of proposed legislative changes in the future and identification of alternative options will require up-to-date knowledge of current literature pertaining to drug-impaired driving. This annotated bibliography attempts to meet these needs. Its objective is to provide a listing of drug-impaired driving research published in English, since 1999. Qualitative and quantitative research, relevant surveys and other materials pertaining to drug-impaired driving are included among its listings. Details: Ottawa: Department of Justice Canada, 2007. 89p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 24, 2011 at: http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/collection_2009/justice/J3-2-2006-8E.pdf Year: 2007 Country: International URL: http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/collection_2009/justice/J3-2-2006-8E.pdf Shelf Number: 121790 Keywords: Driving Under the Influence of DrugsDrug AbuseDrug-Impaired DrivingDrugged Driving |
Author: Lacey, John H. Title: 2007 National Roadside Survey of Alcohol and Drug Use by Drivers: Drug Results Summary: This report presents the first national prevalence estimates for drug-involved driving derived from the recently completed 2007 National Roadside Survey (NRS). The NRS is a national field survey of alcohol- and drug-involved driving conducted primarily among nighttime weekend drivers, but also daytime Friday drivers. The survey involved randomly stopping drivers at 300 locations across the continental United States; sites were selected through a stratified random sampling procedure. This included data that we collected during a two-hour Friday daytime session at 60 locations and during four 2-hour nighttime periods (10:00 p.m. to midnight and 1:00 a.m. to 3:00 a.m. on both Friday and Saturday) at 240 locations. Both self-report and biological measures were taken. Biological measures included breath alcohol measurements on 9,413 respondents, oral fluid from 7,719 respondents, and blood samples from 3,276 respondents. Oral fluid and blood samples were subjected to laboratory screening and LC/MS-MS and GC/MS confirmation for 75 drugs and metabolites, including illegal, prescription, and over-the-counter drugs. These data were analyzed to develop the first national prevalence estimate of alcohol- and drug-involved driving. Two prior reports on the 2007 NRS described: (1) the sampling plan and data collection methodology, summarizing the response patterns to the various stages of the multi-part survey; and (2) the prevalence estimates for alcohol-involved driving derived from the study, and comparing them with the three previous National Roadside Surveys (NRS). Details: Washington, DC: U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2009. 148p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 24, 2011 at: http://www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/Traffic%20Injury%20Control/Articles/Associated%20Files/811249.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: http://www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/Traffic%20Injury%20Control/Articles/Associated%20Files/811249.pdf Shelf Number: 121793 Keywords: Driving Under the Influence of DrugsDrug AbuseDrugged DrivingDrugs and Driving |
Author: Jones, R.K. Title: State of Knowledge of Drug-Impaired Driving Summary: This is the final report of a project entitled "State of Knowledge of Drug-Impaired Driving." The project was conducted by Mid-America Research Institute, Inc., of New England for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). David Shinar of Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Israel, and J. Michael Walsh of The Walsh Group, Bethesda, Maryland, made significant contributions. This review examines research published during the 1981-2001 period and references some of the earlier material contained in prior reviews. The scope of the review included foreign as well as U.S. literature with a direct bearing on highway safety. The review emphasizes controlled substances to include marijuana, benzodiazepines, non-benzodiazepine sedative and hypnotic drugs, and others such as amphetamines, cocaine, hallucinogens, and narcotic drugs. However, research related to any other drugs having the potential to significantly impair driving is also included in the review. Applicable research conducted in foreign countries, and documented in the English language, is included. This report is presented in six substantive chapters. Chapter 2 contains a description of the methods followed in determining the topics and issues of concern in the review, identifying, acquiring and screening the documents to be reviewed, and reviewing individual documents. Chapter 3 deals with research pertinent to the detection and measurement of drugs in drivers, and Chapter 4 reviews the experimental literature, including research conducted in a laboratory testing human performance on tasks believed to be related to driving, and research conducted either in a driving simulator or on a closed course testing performance in actual driving tasks. In Chapter 5, we examine literature flowing from epidemiologic studies of drugs and traffic crashes, including literature on the drug use of various subgroups of drivers such as drivers arrested for drunk driving or "drugged" driving. Chapter 6 deals with literature on countermeasures for drug-impaired driving, and Chapter 7 presents our conclusions and recommendations. An index of terms and a bibliographic listing of references follow at the end of the report. Our conclusions and recommendations are organized by the four major types of scientific literature examined in the review, namely: Detection and measurement of drugs in drivers, Experimental research on the effects of drugs on performance of driving-related tasks. Epidemiologic research on the drugs in driving populations, including drivers in crashes, on-the-road drivers not in crashes, and drivers suspected or convicted of drug-impaired driving. Research on countermeasures for drug-impaired driving. The conclusions and recommendations are presented below. Examples of documents supporting the specific conclusions are cited, and cross references to pages of this report discussing more general conclusions are provided. Details: Washington, D.C. U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2003. 120p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 29, 2011 at: http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/research/StateofKnwlegeDrugs/StateofKnwlegeDrugs/index.html Year: 2003 Country: United States URL: http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/research/StateofKnwlegeDrugs/StateofKnwlegeDrugs/index.html Shelf Number: 121899 Keywords: Driving Under the Influence of DrugsDrug AbuseDrug-Impaired DrivingDrugged DrivingDrugs and Driving |
Author: Sutherland, Rachel Title: Driving Behaviours Among People Who Inject Drugs in South Australia, 2006-2011 Summary: Key findings: • The prevalence of drug driving among PWID remained high across 2006-2011, whilst the frequency dropped more than threefold to a median of 24 occasions in a six month period (once a week). • There were few significant predictors of drug driving. A higher frequency of heroin use, and having completed any courses after school, were positively associated with drug driving; whilst those who had recently suffered from drug induced psychosis were less likely to have engaged in drug driving. • The use of cannabis prior to the last drug driving occasion decreased significantly from 2007-2011, whilst in 2011 the use of heroin increased. • There was a downward trend in the use of all pharmaceutical drugs prior to driving, with significant declines observed for morphine, methadone and subutex. • Across 2007-2011 the majority of drug drivers continued to report that the use of drugs prior to driving had no impact upon their driving ability. Participants who had used methamphetamine prior to driving were more likely to believe that this had improved their ability to drive, whilst those who had used heroin and subutex were more likely to report that their driving ability had impaired by the use of such drugs. • Drink driving was comparatively low among PWID, with less than 10% of recent drivers reporting that they had driven whilst over legal blood alcohol concentration limit. Younger participants, and those that were male, were more likely to have engaged in drink driving. Details: Sydney: National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of New South Wales, 2011. 6p. Source: Internet Resource: Drug Trends Bulletin, December 2011: Accessed February 10, 2012 at: http://ndarc.med.unsw.edu.au/resource/idrs-bulletin-december-2011-driving-behaviours-among-people-who-inject-drugs-south Year: 2011 Country: Australia URL: http://ndarc.med.unsw.edu.au/resource/idrs-bulletin-december-2011-driving-behaviours-among-people-who-inject-drugs-south Shelf Number: 124037 Keywords: Driving Under the Influence (South Australia)Drugged DrivingDrugs and Driving |
Author: Turnbridge, R.J. Title: Recognising drug use and drug related impairment in drivers at the roadside Summary: It is apparent from the large number of negative breath tests and the small number of drug driving submissions, that in the case of a negative result from a breath test for alcohol police officers are not considering whether that person may be impaired through drugs. This may be in part due to a lack of skills in identifying the signs of drug use in a driver. Drug Influence Recognition Training (DIRT) for police officers has recently been initiated. Police officers from six forces received training in drug influence recognition and also in the administration of a standardised Field Impairment Test (FIT). These officers then applied their training in a real world setting for a period of two months. As a comparison, specially trained TRL interviewers have also used these techniques at two city locations. People exiting clubs and public houses were invited to provide a saliva sample and perform the tests involved in DIRT/FIT. All samples (from both the police and TRL trials) have been analysed by independent forensic laboratories. Results show that the DIRT/FIT techniques are very useful in identifying impairment and the likely drug group responsible. This paper reports the results of both sets of trials and provides a list of recommendations based on experiences of the police and the TRL team. Details: United Kingdom: Transport Research Laboratory, 2000. 30p. Source: TRL Report 464: Internet Resource: Accessed March 2, 2012 at http://www.trl.co.uk/online_store/reports_publications/trl_reports/cat_road_user_safety/report_recognising_drug_use_and_drug_related_impairment_in_drivers_at_the_roadside.htm Year: 2000 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.trl.co.uk/online_store/reports_publications/trl_reports/cat_road_user_safety/report_recognising_drug_use_and_drug_related_impairment_in_drivers_at_the_roadside.htm Shelf Number: 124360 Keywords: Driving Under the Influence (U.K.)Drugged DrivingDrugs and DrivingPolicing Procedure |
Author: Taussig, Isabel Title: Penalties and Reconviction Risk Among Offenders Convicted of Drug Driving Summary: The aims of this study was to investigate: 1) penalties for drug driving; 2) risk of reconviction among drug drivers; and 3) how penalties and reconviction risk vary according to offender characteristics. Information for 3,770 offenders with proven drug driving offences (2007 - 2011) was extracted from the NSW re-offending database. Aims (1) and (2) were addressed by identifying the most serious penalties for drug driving and the number of convictions accumulated over 12 and 24 months. Aim (3) was addressed by building logistic regression models identifying independent predictors of penalty and recidivism. The results showed that the most common principal penalty for drug driving was a fine (60.2% received a fine and the average fine was $581). While 17.2 per cent of offenders had their matters dismissed without conviction, most dismissals (84%) also included a good behaviour bond. Offenders were less likely to have their matters dismissed if they were younger, had concurrent charges or a prior criminal record. One-third (35.3%) had been convicted for a new offence within 24 months. Recidivism was higher for offenders who had a prior criminal record, were not on bail and/or were Indigenous. Conclusion: The most common outcomes for drug driving are fines and dismissals. Those who have their matters dismissed tend to share characteristics with those at lower risk of recidivism. Details: Sydney: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, 2012. 11p. Source: Internet Resource: Bureau Brief, Issue Paper No. 79: Accessed September 18, 2012 at: http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/BB79.pdf/$file/BB79.pdf Year: 2012 Country: Australia URL: http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/BB79.pdf/$file/BB79.pdf Shelf Number: 126370 Keywords: Driving Under the Influence (Australia)Drugged DrivingDrugs and DrivingRecidivismReoffendingSentence LengthSentencing |
Author: Schulze, Holst Title: Driving Under the Influence of Drugs, Alcohol and Medicines in Europe — findings from the DRUID project Summary: Roadside surveys conducted in 13 countries across Europe, in which blood or oral fluid samples from 50,000 drivers were analysed, revealed that alcohol was present in 3.48 %, illicit drugs in 1.90 %, medicines in 1.36 %, combinations of drugs or medicines in 0.39 % and alcohol combined with drugs or medicines in 0.37 %. However, there were large differences among the mean values in the regions of northern, eastern, southern and western Europe. Although the absolute numbers were quite low, the prevalence of alcohol, cocaine, cannabis and combined substance use was higher in southern Europe, and to some extent in western Europe, than in the other two regions, whereas medicinal opioids and ‘z-drugs’, such as zopiclone and zolpidem, were detected more in northern Europe. Studies of hospitalised, seriously injured car drivers were conducted in six countries, and studies of car drivers killed in accidents took place in four countries. Among the injured or killed drivers, the most commonly consumed substance was alcohol alone, followed by alcohol combined with another substance. The use of illicit drugs alone was not frequently detected. After alcohol, the most frequently found substance among injured drivers was tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) followed by benzodiazepines, whereas, among drivers killed in accidents, it was benzodiazepines. The results of the roadside surveys and the hospital surveys were combined in a case–control study to calculate the relative risk of being seriously injured or killed in a traffic accident. The project assigned the investigated substances to one of four groups, according to whether the increased risk was considered to be slight, medium, considerable or high. The findings showed that alcohol is still one of the most dangerous psychoactive substances used by drivers. The biggest risk for a driver of being seriously injured or dying in a traffic accident arises from high blood alcohol levels or from combinations of alcohol, drugs or medicines. Most of the seriously injured or killed drivers who tested positive for alcohol were severely intoxicated. However, results of interviews in two countries showed that problem drinkers do not believe that alcohol impairs their driving. Intensive drug users were more likely than moderate drug users to drive under the influence, with the latter taking a more responsible approach to driving under the influence of drugs. Alcohol and drugs were detected more often in male drivers. Medicines were detected mainly in middle-aged and older female drivers, but, among drivers seriously injured or killed in accidents, medicines were more often found in male drivers in the same age ranges, often in combination with other substances. Experimental studies suggested that the illicit stimulants d-amphetamine, MDMA (‘ecstasy’) and cocaine have no negative influence on fitness to drive, but studies of drivers injured and killed in accidents found considerably higher median drug levels for stimulants, and such levels may have detrimental effects on self-perception, critical judgement and risk-taking. A night of sleep deprivation alone impairs performance to a similar degree to the 0.8 g/l blood alcohol concentration (BAC), i.e. higher than the common legal driving limit of 0.5 g/l, and MDMA in combination with alcohol (or sleep deprivation) causes dramatic impairment of driving performance; stimulants do not compensate for alcohol use or sleep deprivation. A few medicines can cause impairment of which the patient is unaware. A number of recommendations were made to update the wording of the 1991 European Council Directive on Driving Licences, referring to licence withdrawal due to consumption of drugs and psychoactive substances. Very few public information campaigns regarding drug-driving were evaluated for their impact — and some of them evaluated only awareness of the campaign, rather than if it changed driver behaviour. Psychoactive medicines on the EU market were classified into four categories depending on their influence on fitness to drive, and it was demonstrated that a pictogram on the package indicating the risk when driving was effective in changing patients’ intended behaviour. In collaboration with experts of the Pharmacovigilance Working Party of the European Medicines Agency, recommendations could be presented for improving the package information leaflet for category II (moderately impairing) and category III (severely impairing) medicines. It was also shown that a software package could assist physicians and pharmacists in giving advice to patients when prescribing and dispensing such medicines, respectively. Legal limits, consistently enforced, are the single most effective approach to combat drink-driving. The maximum standard legal limit should be 0.5 g/l BAC, and stricter limits for certain risk groups (novice drivers, professional drivers) should be considered. As mixed intoxication with other substances poses a greater risk, the alcohol limit must be lower in such cases. To combat drug-driving, most countries either operate a zero tolerance policy or take into account degree of impairment, sometimes in a two-tier system. Legal limits may be set low, at the limit of detection, or higher to take effects into consideration. For example, while the project set a detection limit of 1 ng/ml in whole blood for THC in the roadside surveys, it was found that 2 ng/ml THC in whole blood (3.8 ng/ml THC in serum) seems to cause impairment equivalent to 0.5 g/l BAC. Such equivalents could not be calculated for other drugs. It is not realistic to develop cut-off limits for all substances. Regarding driving under the influence of medicines, a legal limit for patients undergoing long-term treatment is inappropriate; sanctions should be based on degree of impairment. None of the roadside oral fluid testing devices achieved the target value of 80 % sensitivity, specificity and accuracy for all the individual substances tested. Thus, when considering the suitability of a device, the type and prevalence of drugs within the target population should be considered. An evaluation of a checklist of clinical signs of impairment, such as bloodshot eyes, did not give promising results; more experience and better training of police officers may improve this. In the near future, analysis of dried blood spots could be a much quicker and less invasive method of proving an offence than taking a sample of whole blood from a driver using a syringe. Transport and storage of dried blood spots are also much easier than for whole blood. A cost–benefit evaluation found that increased enforcement of drug-driving sanctions, based on roadside oral fluid screening, is potentially cost-beneficial, particularly for countries where the level of enforcement is currently low. However, increasing drug-driving enforcement at the expense of a reduction in drink-driving enforcement may actually decrease the positive impact on road safety. As the risk and share of injuries is higher for alcohol, targeting driving under the influence of alcohol should always be the first priority of law enforcers. Withdrawal of the driving licence is an effective deterrent and sanction, more so than prison or fines, but only when it is implemented quickly and for a period of 3–12 months (longer leads to non-compliance). Combining licence withdrawal with rehabilitation/treatment is more effective than licence withdrawal alone. Withdrawal of the licence of patients undergoing long-term treatment, including substitution treatment, should be based on an individual assessment of a patient’s fitness to drive overall, not simply on substance consumption. Some driver rehabilitation schemes can reduce recidivism by an average of 45 %. Drivers with addiction or similar problems are unlikely to benefit from a rehabilitation programme and should be matched to more appropriate treatment. Rehabilitation options should vary according to the needs of different offenders. Details: Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2012. 57 pp. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 17, 2013 at: http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/attachements.cfm/att_192773_EN_TDXA12006ENN.pdf Year: 2012 Country: Europe URL: http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/attachements.cfm/att_192773_EN_TDXA12006ENN.pdf Shelf Number: 127336 Keywords: Driving Under the Influence (Europe)Drugged DrivingDrugs and DrivingDrunk Driving |
Author: Perreault, Samuel Title: Impaired Driving in Canada, 2011 Summary: Impaired driving has been a recognized criminal act in Canada since 1921. Despite a sizeable drop in the impaired driving rate since the mid-1980s, impaired driving is the leading cause of criminal death in Canada. Impaired driving continues to be an important issue for governments throughout Canada, as well as for police services, the justice system, community organizations and the general public. In Canada, the Criminal Code prohibits driving while one’s ability to operate a vehicle is impaired by alcohol or drugs. It is also an offence to drive with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) in excess of 80 mg of alcohol per 100 ml of blood. In recent decades, the federal government has implemented numerous measures to combat impaired driving. For example, a number of amendments have been made to the Criminal Code to increase the minimum and maximum penalties for impaired driving, with the most recent amendment introduced in July 2008. In addition to the measures taken by the federal government, the provinces and territories have instituted administrative penalties or controls that allow immediate action to be taken against suspected impaired drivers. All jurisdictions except Quebec have also implemented temporary preventive suspensions for drivers with a BAC that is considered elevated, but still below the criminal limit of .08 set out in the Criminal Code. As well, all provinces have adopted zero BAC limits for novice drivers as part of graduated driver-licensing schemes (Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights 2009), while half have adopted similar limits for all young drivers, whether or not they are novice. These provincial and territorial administrative sanctions enable police to remove drivers who have been drinking from the road, yet avoid the longer time required for the police to process a Criminal Code impaired driving charge (Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights 2009). This Juristat article analyzes trends in police-reported impaired driving in Canada, as defined by the Criminal Code, the penalties imposed by the courts, as well as characteristics of those admitted to correctional services for an impaired driving conviction. Details: Ottawa: Statistics Canada, 2013. 29p. Source: Internet Resource: Juristat Article: Accessed January 31, 2013 at: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2013001/article/11739-eng.pdf Year: 2013 Country: Canada URL: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2013001/article/11739-eng.pdf Shelf Number: 127463 Keywords: Driving Under the Influence (Canada)Drugged DrivingDrunk Driving |
Author: Kierkus, Christopher A. Title: Michigan DWI-Sobriety Court Ignition Interlock Evaluation Summary: This report was commissioned by the Michigan Association of Drug Court Professionals (MADCP), and was produced pursuant to Michigan Public Act 154 of 2010, in cooperation with the State Court Administrative Office (SCAO). Its purpose is to provide the legislature, the Secretary of State, and the Michigan Supreme Court documentation related to the program participant’s compliance with court ordered conditions. This 2012 report provides the reader with a description of the data, implementation issues, innovative practices, obstacles, lessons learned, and results from the first year of the DWI/sobriety court interlock pilot project that began in 2011. This document is the first of three annual reports. Subsequent reports (2013 and 2014) will provide additional qualitative and statistical analyses related to the implementation and outcomes of PA 154. This study was guided by the following research questions set forth in the PA154 legislation: a) The percentage of program participants ordered to place interlock devices on their vehicles who actually comply with the order; b) The percentage of program participants who remove court-ordered interlocks from their vehicle without court approval; c) The percentage of program participants who consume alcohol or controlled substances; d) The percentages of program participants found to have tampered with court-ordered interlocks; e) The percentage of program participants who operated a motor vehicle not equipped with an interlock; f) Relevant treatment information about program, participants; and, g) The percentage of program participants convicted of a new offense under section 625(1) or (3) of the Michigan vehicle code, 1949 PA 300, MCL, 257.625. The target population for this study included offenders (N=84) that met the eligibility requirements for entry into a DWI/sobriety court program, based on PA 154 criteria. Participating courts submitted offender data into the Michigan Judicial Data Warehouse/ Drug Court Case Management Information System (DCCMIS). The SCAO staff then provided the researchers with an identity stripped dataset that included information related to the each offender’s demographics, criminal history, history of drug abuse, alcohol abuse, mental health issues, progress through DWI/sobriety court, compliance with interlock restriction, and information on re-offending. In addition to the official data from the SCAO, site visits were conducted with each participating court where Stakeholders (court administrators, judges, probation officers, etc.) involved the DWI/sobriety Court and ignition interlock program were given the opportunity to informally share their impressions of the initial implementation and administration of the pilot program. This report is directed toward legislators, court administrators, and other criminal justice practitioners who are interested in the use of ignition interlock devices as a means of controlling and reducing drunk driving recidivism in the state of Michigan. Section 1 of this report provides the reader with information regarding the nature and extent of drunk driving, traditional prevention practices, an overview of ignition interlock technologies, and criminological theories that support the use of interlocks in controlling drunk drivers. Following this review, Sections 2 and 3 provide the methods used, and the findings from the first year of the ignition interlock pilot program. Section 4 provides conclusions, and a summary of lessons learned during the first year of the project. Details: Lansing, MI: State Court Administrative Office, 2012. 60p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 16, 2013 at: http://www.dwicourts.org/sites/default/files/ncdc/INTERLOCK%20EVLAUTION%20REPORT%202012%20(Distribution%20Version).pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.dwicourts.org/sites/default/files/ncdc/INTERLOCK%20EVLAUTION%20REPORT%202012%20(Distribution%20Version).pdf Shelf Number: 127646 Keywords: Alcohol Ignition Interlock Devices (Michigan)Driving Under the InfluenceDriving While IntoxicatedDrugged DrivingDrunk DrivingIgnition Interlock Program |
Author: Carey, Shannon M. Title: San Joaquin DUI Monitoring Court Process and Outcome Evaluation. Final Report Summary: For the past 20 years in the United States, there has been a trend toward guiding nonviolent drug and alcohol offenders into treatment rather than incarceration. The original drug court model links the resources of the criminal system and substance treatment programs to increase treat-ment participation and decrease criminal recidivism. Drug treatment courts are one of the fastest growing programs designed to reduce drug abuse and criminality in nonviolent offenders in the nation. The first drug court was implemented in Miami, Florida, in 1989. As of December 2010, there were 2,633 drug courts including 1,881 adult and juvenile drug courts, 343 family courts, and 409 other types of drug courts in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands (NDCI, 2011). In a typical drug court program, participants are closely supervised by a judge who is supported by a team of agency representatives that operate outside of their traditional adversarial roles. These include addiction treatment providers, district attorneys, public defenders, law enforce-ment officers, and parole and probation officers who work together to provide needed services to drug court participants. Generally, there is a high level of supervision and a standardized treatment program for all the participants within a particular court (including phases that each participant must pass through by meeting certain goals). Supervision and treatment may also include regular and frequent drug testing. More recently, over the past 10 years, the drug court model has been expanded to include other populations (e.g., juveniles) and other systems (e.g., child welfare and mental health). The model has also been used with a special focus on specific types of offenders (e.g., DWI offenders). DWI courts specifically target repeat driving-while-intoxicated (DWI) offenders with the main goal of protecting public safety. Benefits to society take the form of reductions in crime and fu-ture DWIs, resulting in reduced costs to taxpayers and increased public safety. DWI courts, specifically, have been shown to be effective in reducing recidivism (both of DWIs and other crimes) and in reducing taxpayer costs due to positive outcomes for DWI court participants, in-cluding fewer re-arrests, less time in jail and less time in prison (Carey, Fuller, Kissick, Taylor, & Zold-Kilbourn, 2008). In 2008, San Joaquin County implemented a system change where all repeat DUI offenders in the largest judicial district (mainly the City of Stockton) are required to participate in a DUI Monitor-ing Court program. Because this program was designed to treat all repeat DUI offenders, and be-cause the drug court model is designed to treat high-risk/high-need offenders (in particular, drug- or alcohol-dependent individuals) the San Joaquin DUI Monitoring Court (SJDMC) does not fol-low all tenants of the drug court model for all participants. Many of the repeat DUI offenders in this program are not dependent on alcohol or other drugs and do not need the high level of supervision and treatment that would be appropriate for high-risk/high-need offenders. For this reason, there are two tracks to the San Joaquin DUI Monitoring Court. Track 1 is the “monitoring track” where participants are required to come to court infrequently to report on progress in completing the terms of their probation, including DMV requirements to qualify to get their license returned. Track 2 is for those participants who demonstrate that they are unable to comply with Track 1 re-quirements and are assessed as needing drug and alcohol treatment. Track 2 follows a drug court model more closely. The SJDMC program is described in detail in Chapter 1 of this report. For the evaluation of the SJDMC, the court was interested in learning about the effectiveness of this program in reducing DUI recidivism and protecting public safety and, if it proved to be effec-tive, wanted a detailed process evaluation that would allow other interested jurisdictions to follow the model in implementing a similar program. Chapter 1 of this report describes the process eval-uation methods and provides a detailed description of the program. Chapter 2 presents the meth-ods and results of the outcome evaluation. The process evaluation was also designed to provide the SJDMC program with suggestions for process improvement. Chapter 3 compares the SJDMC practices with the research-based drug court best practices and provides recommendations for en-hancing Track 2 of the program. Details: Portland, OR: NPC Research, 2012. 60p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 17, 2013 at: http://www.centurycouncil.org/sites/default/files/reports/California-Evaluation-1.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.centurycouncil.org/sites/default/files/reports/California-Evaluation-1.pdf Shelf Number: 128398 Keywords: Driving Under the Influence (U.S.)Drugged DrivingDrunk DrivingProblem Solving Courts |
Author: Veisten, Knut Title: Cost-Benefit Analysis of Drug Driving Enforcement by the Police Summary: One of the deliverables in DRUID WP3 is a cost-benefit analysis (CBA), an assessment to what degree (increased) enforcement against driving under the influence of drugs is profitable in economic terms for the society, together with an assessment of which of the existing devices for such enforcement are more profitable. The policy goal of increased enforcement, targeting driving under the influence of psychoactive substances, would be to increase societies’ benefits (reduce societal costs) through a deterrence effect that should reduce prevalence and driving under the influence of psychoactive substances, and subsequently reduce the tolls of fatalities and injuries. This implicitly assumes that individual behaviour is affected by the increased presence of police at the roadside and/or the word-ofmouth of acquaintances being tested and/or that the particular driver is tested. While positive benefits in the CBA will be due mainly to an expected decrease in fatalities and injuries, there are other effects of an enforcement increase that will be counted as negative benefits, particularly the additional time use of the road users. The cost of increased enforcement against driving under the influence of drugs will comprise the costs of control equipment and police work, as well as additional medical and judicial costs in case of suspicions and convictions. Both costs and benefits may depend on the quality of the particular drug screening test device to be applied by the police. Even if the particular device selection normally is beyond the CBA, e.g., that some hypothetical/average device is assumed in the analysis, in the case of drug screening the selection of device might become more decisive for the results. Data are collected from the three participating countries: Belgium, Finland, and the Netherlands. Also the CBA is applied to these three countries. Applying these three countries as case studies may prove illustrative, in that they have different baseline levels of drug screening. Although the CBA model will have some limitation (stiffness) in terms of differentiating effects with respect to the baseline level, it will appear that the current control level will affect the outcome of the CBA. However, estimating the effect of control change on prevalence (the “deterrence effect”) is indeed a very complex issue, and the approach in our CBA must be regarded as fairly simplified. The input variables and different scenarios for the CBA are complex and must often be based partly on assumptions. The primary assumption relates to the deterrence effect. Firstly, the effect of increased enforcement will depend on the relative increase with respect to the reference level; the deterrence effect will most probably not be linear – there will be relatively less effect of higher increases. The quality of the device, its sensitivity (how good it is at detecting true positives), will affect the objective risk of being detected when tested for drugs. Cost figures for devices are generally not available from producers. Therefore we use a common unit price for the disposable devices. Based on information received, unit prices may be reduced substantially for large quantity purchases. We use the estimates for six different groups of drugs: amphetamines (including metaamphetamines), benzodiazepines, cocaine, medical opioids, opiates and cannabis. The selection of these six groups is based on the fact that these six are more or less the standard groups of drugs that are included in the on-site oral fluid screening devices for drugs. This report has been produced under the IP DRUID of the EU 6th Framework Program and reflects only the authors' view. The European Commission is not liable for any use of the information contained therein. Details: Gladbach, Germany: DRUID, 2011. 48p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 18, 2013 at: http://www.druid-project.eu/cln_031/nn_107548/Druid/EN/deliverales-list/downloads/Deliverable__3__3__1,templateId=raw,property=publicationFile.pdf/Deliverable_3_3_1.pdf Year: 2011 Country: Europe URL: http://www.druid-project.eu/cln_031/nn_107548/Druid/EN/deliverales-list/downloads/Deliverable__3__3__1,templateId=raw,property=publicationFile.pdf/Deliverable_3_3_1.pdf Shelf Number: 129436 Keywords: Cost-Benefit AnalysisDriving Under the Influence (Europe)Drugged Driving |
Author: Walsh, J. Michael Title: Illegal Drugs and Driving Summary: This report attempts to summarize global activities on the subject of "Illicit Drugs and Driving". The goal of the working group was to identify what is known about the scope of the problem, to provide a discussion of the current status of political, legislative, and law enforcement efforts, and to make recommendations for new strategic initiatives and future research. A survey was developed to assess the current status of global legislation regarding driving under the influence of illegal drugs. An attempt was made to assess whether testing for alcohol and illegal drugs was permitted under current laws, the circumstances under which such testing was authorized, and the logistics of the testing process. The survey was sent out to all ICADTS members/affiliates and responses were received from 62 individuals representing 16 nations and 12 U.S. states [approximately 42% response rate]. Results of the survey indicate that most countries currently have existing laws that cover driving under the influence of illegal drugs in some fashion. Ninety-three percent of respondents indicate that the laws in their countries/states permit testing for illegal drugs. However, only 28% of survey respondents indicated that the current laws in their country would permit roadside drug tests. Survey results clearly indicated a concern about the growing problem of driving under the influence of drugs, and that marijuana, cocaine, amphetamines (including amphetamine analogs- e.g. MDMA), opiates, and the illegal use/high dose use of benzodiazepines constitute the principal illegal drug use of concern. DUI statutes in most countries are complex and create difficulties in enforcement. [N.B. There is a detailed discussion of the legal complexities in Section II.] With regard to the prosecution of drugged driving most statutes require proof of impairment due to the use of illegal drug. This legislative approach is difficult to enforce because proving that the drug "caused" the impairment is problematical. Germany, Belgium, Sweden and 8 of the U.S. states have established 'Per Se' Laws that avoid having to prove impairment due to drug. This 'Per Se' law approach allows the prosecution to be based solely on the analytical detection of drugs in body fluids [primarily blood / urine]. Survey responses indicate clearly that while alcohol testing is a routine procedure in most countries of the world, testing for non-alcohol drugs is only occasionally used. If drug testing were to become more common saliva would be the preferred specimen matrix. Details: Utrecht, The Netherlands: International Council on Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety (ICADTS), 2000. 96p. Source: Internet Resource: ICADTS Working Group Report – “Illegal Drugs and Driving”: Accessed July 18, 2013 at: http://www.icadts.nl/reports/Drugs-FinalReport.pdf Year: 2000 Country: International URL: http://www.icadts.nl/reports/Drugs-FinalReport.pdf Shelf Number: 129443 Keywords: Driving Under the Influence (International)Drugged Driving |
Author: Beasley, Erin E. Title: A Comparison of Drug- and Alcohol-involved Motor Vehicle Driver Fatalities Summary: Drugs and driving is an emerging issue both within Canada and internationally, but knowledge about this topic is still in its infancy. This project was designed to complement and extend our previous and ongoing work on drug-impaired driving. Data from two distinct sources (coroners‘ reports and motor vehicle crash records) were merged to compare and contrast the circumstances and characteristics of fatally injured drivers of motor vehicles who have used either alcohol, drugs or both, and the crashes in which they were involved. The first of these datasets, the Fatality Database, houses information on all persons killed in motor vehicle collisions in Canada. This database contains the results of alcohol and drug tests performed by coroners on victims of motor vehicle collisions in Canada. These data were linked with detailed information about the crash contained in the National Collision Database, which is collected and maintained by Transport Canada. From 2000–2007, 12,978 drivers died in vehicle crashes on public roadways in Canada. Of these driver fatalities, 84.0% were tested for alcohol and 46.4% were tested for drugs. There were 5,929 drivers that were tested for both alcohol and drugs. Of these drivers, 2,689 (45.4%) had no alcohol or drugs present, 1,097 (18.5%) tested positive for a psychoactive drug (but negative for alcohol), 1,301 (21.9%) tested positive for alcohol only, and 842 (14.2%) drivers tested positive for both alcohol and at least one psychoactive drug. These findings indicate that the extent of drug use among fatally injured drivers (33%) is comparable to that of alcohol use (37%). The most common psychoactive substances found among fatally injured drivers were central nervous system depressants, cannabis, central nervous system stimulants, and narcotic analgesics. Different patterns of drug use by gender and age were also evident. An examination of the circumstances and factors associated with the crash provides evidence that collisions involving drugs were very different in nature than those involving alcohol. For example, whereas alcohol-involved fatal crashes were most common during early morning hours on weekends, drug-involved fatal crashes were more likely than alcohol-involved crashes to occur during daytime hours on weekdays. There was also a tendency for alcohol-involved crashes to involve a single vehicle; drug-involved crashes were more likely to involve more than one vehicle. The overall pattern of findings indicates that the use of drugs by drivers is an issue distinct and separate from that of alcohol use by drivers and therefore requires a unique approach to prevention, education and enforcement to reduce the number of fatal crashes involving driver drug use and improve overall road safety in Canada. Details: Ottawa, ONT: Canadiain Centre on Substance Abuse, 2011. 39p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 18, 2013 at: http://www.ccsa.ca/2011%20CCSA%20Documents/2011_CCSA_Drug-and_Alcohol-Involved_Motor_Vehicle_Driver_Fatalities_en.pdf Year: 2011 Country: Canada URL: http://www.ccsa.ca/2011%20CCSA%20Documents/2011_CCSA_Drug-and_Alcohol-Involved_Motor_Vehicle_Driver_Fatalities_en.pdf Shelf Number: 129444 Keywords: Driving Under the Influence (Canada)Drugged DrivingDrunk DrivingMotor Vehicle Fatalieis |
Author: Beirness, Douglas J. Title: Alcohol and Drug Use Among Drivers: British Columbia Roadside Survey 2010 Summary: In the spring of 2010, the Government of British Columbia announced new sanctions for drinking drivers. As part of an evaluation of the impact of these new sanctions, a random survey of drivers was conducted at preselected locations in British Columbia from Wednesday to Saturday nights in June 2010. The primary purpose was to gather information on the prevalence of alcohol use among nighttime drivers to be used as a pre-legislation baseline for the evaluation. This study was also intended to extend the findings from a previous Roadside Survey (Beirness and Beasley 2009; 2010) to include a community in northern British Columbia as well as a community from the interior. An additional purpose of the survey was to gather information on the prevalence of drug use among drivers in the selected communities to complement and extend the information gathered as part of the 2008 Roadside Survey. Drivers were randomly sampled from the traffic stream between 21:00 and 03:00 and were asked to provide a voluntary breath sample to measure their alcohol use and an oral fluid sample to be tested subsequently for the presence of drugs. Of the 2,840 vehicles selected, 86% of drivers provided a breath sample and 71% provided a sample of oral fluid. Key findings include: • 9.9% of drivers had been drinking; • 7.2% of drivers tested positive for drug use; • Cannabis and cocaine were the drugs most frequently detected in drivers; • Alcohol use among drivers was most common on weekends and during late-night hours; drug use was more evenly distributed across all survey nights and times; • Alcohol use was most common among drivers aged 19 to 24 and 25 to 34; drug use was more evenly distributed across all age groups; and, • While driving after drinking has decreased considerably since1995, the number of drivers with blood alcohol concentrations (BACs) sufficient to be subject to provincial sanctions (i.e., over 50 mg/ dL ) or Criminal sanctions i (i.e., over 80 mg/dL) continues to be an area of concern. The results show that drug use among drivers is not uncommon and that the pattern of drug use by drivers differs from that of alcohol use. For example, whereas the prevalence of alcohol use increases during late night hours, particularly on Friday and Saturday nights, drug use appears more consistent across days and times. The different patterns of alcohol and drug use by drivers suggest that driving after drug use presents a unique behaviour that differs from driving after drinking, indicating the need for a separate and distinct approach to enforcement, public education, prevention, and research. In comparison to previous surveys conducted in British Columbia since 1995, there has been a considerable reduction in the proportion of drivers found to have been drinking. However, the proportion of drivers with BACs over 50 mg/dL and over 80 mg/dL remain high, suggesting the need for further initiatives directed specifically at these high risk groups. Details: Ottawa, ON: Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, 2011. 23p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 18, 2013 at: http://www.ccsa.ca/2011%20CCSA%20Documents/2011_CCSA_Alcohol_and_Drug_Use_Among_Drivers_en.pdf Year: 2011 Country: Canada URL: http://www.ccsa.ca/2011%20CCSA%20Documents/2011_CCSA_Alcohol_and_Drug_Use_Among_Drivers_en.pdf Shelf Number: 129449 Keywords: Breath TestsDriving Under the Influence (Canada)Drugged DrivingDrunk Driving |
Author: Beasley, Erin E. Title: Alcohol and Drug Use Among Drivers Following the Introduction of Immediate Roadside Prohibitions in British Columbia: Findings from the 2012 Roadside Survey Summary: In the spring of 2010, the Government of British Columbia announced new measures to deal with drinking drivers that would be implemented in September 2010. The Immediate Roadside Prohibition (IRP) program involved a series of increased sanctions applied at roadside for drivers with blood alcohol concentrations (BACs) starting at 50 mg/dL. As part of an evaluation of the impact of the IRP legislation on the drinking-driving behaviour of drivers, a survey of drivers was conducted in five communities in British Columbia in June 2010 and again in June 2012. Drivers were randomly selected from the traffic stream between 21:00 and 03:00 on Wednesday through Saturday nights and asked to provide a voluntary breath sample to measure their alcohol use and an oral fluid sample to be tested subsequently for the presence of drugs. Of the 2,513 vehicles selected for the survey in 2012, 89% of drivers provided a breath sample and 70% provided a sample of oral fluid. Driving after drinking decreased significantly following the introduction of IRP. In particular, the percentage of drivers with BACs over 80 mg/dL decreased by 59%; drivers with BACs of at least 50 mg/dL decreased by 44%. Compared to similar roadside surveys dating back to 1995, the levels of drinking and driving were the lowest ever recorded. The decreases in drinking and driving were not restricted to specific sub-groups of drivers but were universal across age groups, sex, and communities. The results also revealed a changing pattern of drinking of driving. For example, the typical pattern of increased drinking and driving on weekend nights was not observed and the prevalence of drinking drivers on the road during late night hours was less than half that found in 2010. No driver with a BAC over 80 mg/dL reported that they were coming from a bar, pub or nightclub. Together, these findings are evidence of a profound and universal change in drinking and driving in British Columbia following the introduction of the IRP legislation in September 2010. The prevalence of drug use by drivers in 2012 did not change from the levels reported in 2010. Overall, 7.4% of drivers tested positive for drugs; in 2010 7.2% of drivers were drug-positive. Once again, cannabis and cocaine were the most commonly detected substances. As was the case in previous surveys, the pattern of drug use by drivers was more consistent than alcohol use across age groups, days of the week, and time of night. It was evident from the interviews and questionnaires that drivers in British Columbia were aware of the new IRP legislation and remain concerned about impaired driving. They appear willing to accept tough measures in support of efforts to improve the safety of the roads. Several challenges remain to sustain the observed changes and further reduce the impact of impaired driving. Male drivers between 25 and 34 years of age remain the most likely to drive after consuming impairing amounts of alcohol. Although females are less likely than males to drink and drive, when they do, they tend to do so with elevated BACs. Of the drinking drivers that remain, they tend to be frequent and/or heavy drinkers. Also, the overall prevalence of drug use among drivers has not changed but there were increases in drug use among certain subgroups. These issues continue to be in need of further study and extra attention is required to develop appropriate and effective policies and programs for education, prevention, enforcement, and rehabilitation. Details: Ottawa, ON: Beirness & Associates, Inc., 2012. 42p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 22, 2013 at: http://www.pssg.gov.bc.ca/osmv/shareddocs/bc-roadside-report2012.pdf Year: 2012 Country: Canada URL: http://www.pssg.gov.bc.ca/osmv/shareddocs/bc-roadside-report2012.pdf Shelf Number: 129480 Keywords: Driving Under the Influence (Canada)Drugged DrivingDrunk Driving |
Author: Holmes, Erin Title: The Problem of Youth Drugged Driving and Approaches to Prevention: A Systematic Literature Review Summary: Concern about the frequency of drugged driving among youth is high, as the combination of impairment and lack of driving experience increases their risk relative to other age groups of being involved in a collision. Even when they are not impaired by alcohol or drugs, 16- to 19-year-olds have a fatal crash rate more than four times as high as that of drivers aged 25-34 and nine times as high as drivers aged 45-54 (Mayhew, Simpson & Singhal, 2005). Cannabis use and driving, in particular, is a problem among youth, as cannabis is the drug most commonly found in young drivers who are fatally injured in crashes (Asbridge, Poulin & Donato, 2005; Beasley, Beirness & Porath-Waller, 2011). To reduce the occurrence of drugged driving among youth, targeted prevention efforts are needed to educate, raise awareness, change attitudes and alter behaviour. This report systematically reviews the literature on prevention initiatives and approaches aimed at reducing drugged driving among youth and to determine their effectiveness. The findings from this review will help to inform the development of future drugged driving prevention initiatives specific to a youth audience. Methods Researchers conducted a systematic search of literature from a number of databases. They identified, screened and included as evidence relevant studies that evaluated interventions directed to youth to prevent drugged driving. Of the 106 studies the researchers identified, they included nine studies for analysis. The researchers also conducted an environmental scan of drugged driving prevention programs and campaigns internationally. In addition to online searches, they reached out to road safety and drug policy experts to inquire about the availability of these types of programs and campaigns. Key Findings The available body of youth drugged driving prevention literature is limited and outdated, which makes it difficult to offer conclusive findings as to the effectiveness of initiatives or their features. However, the evidence included in this systematic review does highlight four program models and three awareness campaigns that have proven to be promising in altering youth attitudes and perceptions about drug use and driving. Some evidence shows that education and prevention programs have a positive impact on increasing knowledge and altering youth perceptions about risky behaviours such as drugged driving. The evidence on media and awareness campaigns is weaker, although it does suggest that the messaging reaches its target audience and increases awareness. However, insufficient evidence exists at this time to indicate that these approaches are effective in changing behaviour. The programs in the studies use different models with various theoretical underpinnings, structures, delivery mechanisms and content. However, some common features among these initiatives appear promising and can be considered for future interventions: - Specific approaches, such as encouraging youth to examine their attitudes, think critically, make responsible choices and communicate, could create opportunities for empowerment. - The teaching of coping skills, life skills and peer pressure resistance strategies, as well as having youth assume leadership roles, could build self-esteem. - The involvement of parents and engagement of the community could expand the outreach and impact of prevention initiatives. Data about the prevalence and characteristics of the problem suggest a need to develop and deliver drugged driving prevention initiatives targeted to a youth audience. To better inform these efforts, more research is required to determine the effectiveness of existing programs and campaigns, and to establish agreed-upon best practices. Conclusions This systematic review identifies several prevention programs and awareness campaigns that increased participant knowledge and altered youth perceptions about drugged driving. While definitive conclusions about the impact of these programs and campaigns on behaviour cannot be drawn because of the limited body of literature, the review does identify promising prevention strategies that affected knowledge and changed attitudes in this area. Prevention initiatives should consider approaches that include teaching specific skills and critical, reflective thinking about decisions. The involvement of parents and engagement of the community could expand the outreach and impact of prevention initiatives. Details: Ottawa, ON: Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, 2014. 42p. Source: Internet Resource: Technical Report: Accessed June 14, 2014 at: http://www.ccsa.ca/Resource%20Library/CCSA-Youth-Drugged-Driving-technical-report-2014-en.pdf Year: 2014 Country: International URL: http://www.ccsa.ca/Resource%20Library/CCSA-Youth-Drugged-Driving-technical-report-2014-en.pdf Shelf Number: 132456 Keywords: Driving Under the InfluenceDrugged Driving |
Author: U.S. Government Accountability Office Title: Drug-Impaired Driving: Additional Support Needed for Public Awareness Initiatives Summary: The issue of alcohol-impaired driving has received broad attention over the years, but drug-impaired driving also contributes to fatalities and injuries from traffic crashes. However, knowledge about the drug-impaired- driving problem is less advanced than for alcohol-impaired driving. Through Senate Report No. 113-45 (2013), Congress required GAO to report on the strategies NHTSA, ONDCP, and states have taken to address drug-impaired driving and challenges they face in detecting and reducing such driving. This report discusses (1) what is known about the extent of drug-impaired driving in the United States; (2) challenges that exist for federal, state, and local agencies in addressing drug-impaired driving; and (3) actions federal and state agencies have taken to address drug-impaired driving and what gaps exist in the federal response. GAO reviewed literature to identify sources of data on drug-impaired driving; reviewed documentation and interviewed officials from NHTSA, ONDCP, and HHS; and interviewed officials from relevant advocacy and professional organizations and seven selected states. States were selected based on: legal status of marijuana, proximity to states with legalized marijuana, and drugged-driving laws. What GAO Recommends GAO recommends that NHTSA take additional actions to support states in emphasizing to the public the dangers of drug-impaired driving. DOT agreed with GAO's recommendation. Details: Washington, DC: GAO, 2015. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: GAO-15-293: Accessed February 26, 2015 at: http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/668622.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/668622.pdf Shelf Number: 134685 Keywords: Driving Under the Influence (U.S.)Drugged DrivingDrugs and Driving |
Author: Berning, Amy Title: Results of the 2013-2014 National Roadside Survey of Alcohol and Drug Use by Drivers Summary: Over the last four decades, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and/or the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) conducted four national surveys to estimate the prevalence of drinking and driving in the United States (Wolfe, 1974; Lund & Wolfe, 1991; Voas et al, 1998; Compton & Berning, 2009; Lacey et al, 2009). The first National Roadside Survey (NRS) was conducted in 1973, followed by national surveys of drivers in 1986, 1996, 2007, and now 2013-2014. These surveys used a stratified random sample of weekend nighttime drivers in the contiguous 48 States and collected data directly from drivers on the road. The 2007 NRS added procedures to the NRS for the first time to estimate the use by drivers of other potentially impairing drugs. Prior roadside surveys had only collected breath samples to determine breath alcohol concentration (BrAC). Due to developments in analytical toxicology, NHTSA determined it would be feasible in the 2007 and 2013-2014 surveys to determine driver use of a variety of potentially impairing drugs including illegal drugs as well as legal medications. In 2013-2014, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration conducted the most recent National Roadside Survey of Alcohol and Drug Use by Drivers. This voluntary and anonymous study is the second to collect data on drug use, presenting our first opportunity to examine drug use trends on a national scale. The 20132014 NRS was designed to produce national estimates of alcohol and drug use by weekday daytime and weekend nighttime drivers. Thus, the use rates presented below are national prevalence rates calculated from the percentage of drivers using alcohol or drugs and adjusted with an appropriate weighting scheme. Details: Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2015. 5p. Source: Internet Resource: (Traffic Safety Facts Research Note. Report No. DOT HS 812 118): Accessed March 9, 2015 at: www.nhtsa.gov Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: www.nhtsa.gov Shelf Number: 134767 Keywords: Driving Under the Influence (U.S.)Driving Under the Influence of DrugsDriving While IntoxicatedDrugged DrivingDrunk Driving |
Author: Goldsmid, Susan Title: Findings from the DUMA program: Drink and drug driving among police detainees Summary: In Australia, random breath testing (RBT) was introduced in the mid-1970s to detect drivers under the influence of alcohol (Baldock & Woolley 2013). This resulted in a reduction in fatal crashes and alcohol-related traffic accidents across Australia (Drummond, Sullivan & Cavallo 1992; Henstridge, Homel & Mackay 1997; Watson & Freeman 2007). The success of RBT can be explained through the classic deterrence doctrine, which suggests that decision-making is influenced by the perception of whether the benefits of the crime outweigh the risks of being caught (Homel 1988). The introduction of RBT arguably increased the perceived and real risk of being caught, which positively influenced individuals' decisions to refrain from driving while intoxicated. Following the successful implementation of RBT, between 2004 (in Victoria) and 2011 (in the Australian Capital Territory), random roadside drug testing (RRDT) was introduced across Australia. The aim of RRDT was to deter drug driving, decreasing both the prevalence of drug driving and the associated harms. In 2013, data from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) indicated that drug driving and drink driving had been engaged in by more than one in 10 Australians (16% and 12% respectively) surveyed during the previous 12 months (AIHW 2014). Rates of drug driving are even higher in populations where illicit drug use is common, such as among police detainees, where 65 percent of detainees surveyed reported driving while under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs in the previous 12 months (Adams, Smith & Hind 2008). Examining perceptions of risk of drug driving, in terms of both being caught and legitimacy (perceptions of impairment to driving ability), will identify whether the preconditions exist to support drug driving deterrence through RRDT. Details: Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology, 2015. 9p. Source: Internet Resource: Research in Practice, No. 39: Accessed May 20, 2015 at: http://aic.gov.au/media_library/publications/rip/rip39/rip39.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Australia URL: http://aic.gov.au/media_library/publications/rip/rip39/rip39.pdf Shelf Number: 135734 Keywords: Driving Under the InfluenceDriving While IntoxicatedDrugged DrivingDrugs and DrivingDrunk Driving |
Author: Lowe, Nathan C. Title: Screening for Risk and Needs Using the Impaired Driving Assessment Summary: Drunk driving continues to be a serious public health concern and a threat to public safety in the United States. In recent years, greater efforts have been made to enhance assessment practices for those offenders convicted of DWI in order to increase the identification of predicting which offenders are most likely to continue to drive impaired from those who are less likely to engage in this behavior. Under a cooperative agreement with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the American Probation and Parole Association (APPA) prepared this report on their development of a screening tool, Impaired Driving Assessment (IDA) to identify a DWI offender's risk of engaging in future conduct of impaired driving, and to help determine the most effective community supervision that will reduce such risk. APPA conducted a literature, analyzed assessment responses of DWI offenders, and interviewed experts in the field of impaired driving research and treatment to provide guidelines in selecting the measurement components of the most appropriate instrument. APPA identified several major risk areas of DWI recidivism. An individual's past behavior stood out across multiple risk areas, including prior DWI and non-DWI involvement in the justice system and prior involvement with alcohol and other drugs. In addition, resistance to and non-compliance with current and past involvement in the justice system was identified as a major risk area. These identified areas informed the inclusion of certain items in the IDA. APPA pilot test IDA with DWI probationers in Brown County Adult Probation, Minnesota; Nicollet County Adult Probation, Minnesota; Westchester County Probation Department, New York; and Tarrant County Community Supervision and Corrections Department, Texas. The development of IDA and the pilot test results are shared in this document. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway traffic Safety Administration, 2014. 48p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 5, 2015 at: http://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=1343067 Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=1343067 Shelf Number: 136329 Keywords: Driving Under the InfluenceDriving While IntoxicatedDrugged DrivingDrunk Driving |
Author: Hedlund, James H. Title: Drug-Impaired Driving: A Guide for What States Can Do Summary: Drug-impaired driving is an increasingly critical issue for states and state highway safety offices. In 2013, the most recent year for which data are available, NHTSA's Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) reported that drugs were present in 40% of the fatally-injured drivers with a known test result, almost the same level as alcohol (FARS, 2015). NHTSA's 2013 - 2014 roadside survey found drugs in 22% of all drivers both on weekend nights and on weekday days (Berning et al., 2015). In particular, marijuana use is increasing. As of August 2015, marijuana may be used for medical purposes in 23 states and the District of Columbia (NCSL, 2015a). Recreational use is allowed in Alaska, Colorado, Oregon, Washington and the District of Columbia and 16 other states have decriminalized possession of small amounts of marijuana (NCSL, 2015b). Congress is considering HR 2598 which would require NHTSA to issue guidance on the best practices to prevent marijuana-impaired driving (http://1.usa.gov/1Cld6yr). Legislatures, law enforcement, and highway safety offices in many states are urged to "do something" about drug-impaired driving, but what to do is far from clear. Details: Washington, DC: Governors Highway Safety Association and Foundation for Advancing Alcohol Responsibility, 2015. 51p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 20, 2015 at: http://www.ghsa.org/html/files/pubs/GHSA_DruggedDrivingt2015_R5_LoResInteractive.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.ghsa.org/html/files/pubs/GHSA_DruggedDrivingt2015_R5_LoResInteractive.pdf Shelf Number: 137041 Keywords: Driving Under the InfluenceDrugged DrivingDrugs and Driving |
Author: Harrison, Paige M. Title: Otter Tail County DWI Court Fergus Falls, MN. Process, Outcomes, and Cost Evaluation Report Summary: WI courts are complex programs designed to deal with some of the most challenging problems that communities face. DWI courts bring together multiple and traditionally adversarial roles plus stakeholders from different systems with different training, proessional language, and approaches. They take on groups of clients that frequently have serious substance abuse treatment needs. Adults with substance abuse issues involved in the criminal justice system must be seen within an ecological context; that is, within the environment that has contributed to their attitudes and behaviors. This environment includes their neighborhoods, families, friends, and formal or informal economies through which they support themselves. The DWI court must understand the various social, economic, mental health and cultural factors that affect their participants. In late 2011, NPC Research was contracted by the State of Minnesota's Department of Public Safety, Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) to conduct an assessment of Minnesota's DWI courts and to determine the work necessary and the feasibility of performing process, outcome, and cost evaluations in these programs. The overall goal of the DWI court project is to have a credible and rigorous evaluation of Minnesota's DWI courts. In June 2012, it was decided to move forward with a full evaluation including a detailed process evaluation and outcome evaluation in all nine of Minnesota's DWI court programs and a cost benefit evaluation in seven of these programs. This is the site-specific report for the Otter Tail County DWI Court (OTC-DWI). The OTC-DWI was implemented in February 2008. This program, designed to take 18 months to complete, takes post-conviction participants, but also allows some participants to enter the pro-gram pre-plea (offenders who know they are pleading guilty and want to start the program before their court hearing). The general program population consists of repeat DWI offenders (with two or more DWI offenses) charged in Otter Tail County with a gross misdemeanor or felony level DWI, who are determined substance dependent. Process Evaluation Summary. The OTC-DWI has been responsive to the community needs and strives to meet the challenges presented by substance-dependant individuals. This program is demonstrating some exemplary practices within each of the 10 Key Components of Drug Courts including good communication between team members, rapid results from drug testing, an appropriate range of services, written incentive and sanctions guidelines, and swift response to participant behaviors. The process evaluation did reveal some recommendations that could further enhance program outcomes that the court was considering or was in the process of implementing in our last discussion. These recommendations included the following: - Flexible hours for the probation officer. The probation officer currently works 24 hours per week on a set schedule of every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. It is strongly recommended that the probation officer position have flexible hours. This would allow for more random drug testing (especially for the female participants) and allow the probation officer to do more home and workplace visits. - Ensure that the home and workplace visits are truly random and ensure appropriate training for the surveillance position. Participants reported that the visits mostly occur in the evening and they are often able to determine when the visit will occur (or were actually told when the next visit would occur). It is recommended that the OTC-DWI develop procedures to ensure that participants are unable to determine the visit schedule. In addition, due to reports of frequent turnover in the surveillance officer position, it is recommended that guidelines be created for this role and training instituted to ensure that all surveillance officers are following appropriate procedures. - Schedule staffing meetings and court sessions for a recurring day and time when all team members are able to attend. Participant feedback and site visit observations indicated that many team members do not regularly attend court sessions. It is strongly recommended that the staffing meeting and court session be held at a time when all team members are able to regularly attend. - Continue efforts toward getting a defense attorney on the team. It was reported that some public defenders support the program and some do not (because they feel their clients do not receive due process and are better served by taking jail time instead of participating in DWI court). The OTC-DWI has made efforts to reach out to and educate the public defenders about DWI court, but due to a severe lack of funding the public defender office does not have time or resources to participate. - Consider sentencing more offenders into the program, specifically felons and high-risk offenders. It was reported that the option of sentencing an offender into the OTC-DWI is rarely used. It is recommended that the program be explained to all judges and that they consider it among their sentencing options. In addition, the OTC-DWI currently has only two felons in the program, and only four felons have been in the program over the past year. It is recommended that the team make an effort to take on more felons in the program since it is the higher risk offenders who most need the services and intensive supervision provided in the OTC-DWI. Outcome Evaluation Summary. The outcome analyses were primarily performed on OTC-DWI participants who entered the DWI court program from January 2009 through December 2011, and a matched comparison group of offenders eligible for DWI court but who received the traditional court process rather than OTC-DWI. Figure A illustrates the average number at 1 year and 2 years after program entry for OTC-DWI graduates, all OTC-DWI participants, and the comparison group. DWI court participants were rearrested about half as often as comparison group members across both years; this difference was statistically significant in Year 1 (p <.05). The results of the outcome analysis for the OTC-DWI are positive. Overall the data showed few-er average arrests among DWI court participants than the comparison group. While most differences were not statistically significant, some of this is attributable to the small sample size. We recommend the program continue to track participants and perhaps conduct another study several years hence. Cost Evaluation Summary. Although the OTC-DWI is a substantial taxpayer investment, over time it results in significant cost savings and a return on its investment. Recommendations. Based on the outcome and cost evaluation, there are some key possibilities for program adjustments that may improve program outcomes. These include: - Ensuring that the program is targeting high-risk/high-need offenders (e.g., felony DWIs) - Decreasing the frequency of court sessions in Phase 2, or seeing some participants who are doing well less often so that the judge can spend at least 3 minutes per participant and also decrease the costs of court appearances. Details: Portland, OR: NPC Research, 2014. 120p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 28, 2015 at: http://npcresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/MN-DWI-Process-Outcome-and-Cost-Report_Otter-Tail-FINAL-FOR-OTS.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://npcresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/MN-DWI-Process-Outcome-and-Cost-Report_Otter-Tail-FINAL-FOR-OTS.pdf Shelf Number: 137164 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCost-Benefit AnalysisDriving While IntoxicatedDrugged DrivingDrunk DrivingDrunk Driving CourtsProblem-Solving Courts |
Author: Harrison, Paige M. Title: Borderland Substance Abuse Court, Lake of the Woods County, MN: Process and Outcome Evaluation Report Summary: There are two key policy questions of interest to policymakers about DWI courts. The evaluation of Borderland Substance Abuse Court (BSAC) provided answers to these questions. This study included participants who entered the program between 2008 and 2012, and a matched comparison group of DWI offenders who were eligible but were not referred to the program. Just over half of the participants were assessed as high-need (54%) and two-thirds were assessed as high risk (69%). Participants had an average of 2.4 DWI arrests in the ten years before DWI court entry. DWI Recidivism. Out of 33 DWI court participants, there were only two new DWI arrests in the two years after DWI court entry, an indicator of reduced driving while using alcohol, and increased public safety. Compared to DWI offenders who experienced traditional court processes, the BSAC participants (regardless of whether they graduated from the program): - Had 24% fewer rearrests two years after program entry; - Were 32% less likely to be rearrested for any charges - Had no rearrests for person crimes - Had a longer time to the first rearrest for any charge (20 months versus 18 months) - Had a substantially higher graduation rate than the national average (77% versus 57%) Research indicates that drug and DWI courts should target high-risk/high-need individuals, as lower risk participants require different intervention methods and may not benefit (or may actually be harmed) from the intense supervision provided by the full drug court model (NADCP, 2013). These positive results indicate that the BSAC is targeting the correct population and should continue or increase its focus on high risk individuals. In general, these outcomes provide some evidence that the BSAC is implementing its program with good fidelity to the DWI court model and is having the intended impact on its participants. Details: Portland, OR: NPC Research, 2014. 92p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 28, 2015 at: http://npcresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/Lake-of-the-Woods-MN-DWI-Process-and-Outcome-Report_FINAL-FOR-OTS.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://npcresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/Lake-of-the-Woods-MN-DWI-Process-and-Outcome-Report_FINAL-FOR-OTS.pdf Shelf Number: 137165 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationDriving While IntoxicatedDrug CourtsDrug OffendersDrugged DrivingProblem-Solving CourtsRecidivism |
Author: Zil, Charlene E. Title: South St. Louis County DWI Court, St. Louis County, MN: Process, Outcome, and Cost Evaluation Summary: WI courts are complex programs designed to deal with some of the most challenging problems that communities face. These courts bring together multiple and traditionally adversarial roles plus stakeholders from different systems with different training, professional language, and approaches. They take on groups of clients that frequently have serious substance abuse treatment needs. Adults with substance abuse issues involved in the criminal justice system must be seen within an ecological context; that is, within the environment that has contributed to their attitudes and behaviors. This environment includes their neighborhoods, families, friends, and formal or informal economies through which they support themselves. The DWI court must understand the various social, economic, mental health, and cultural factors that affect their participants. In late 2011, NPC Research was contracted by the State of Minnesota's Department of Public Safety, Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) to conduct an assessment of Minnesota's DWI courts and to determine the work necessary and the feasibility of performing process, outcome, and cost evaluations in these programs. The overall goal of the DWI court project is to have a credible and rigorous evaluation of Minnesota's DWI courts. In June 2012, it was decided to move forward with a full evaluation including a detailed process evaluation and outcome evaluation in all nine of Minnesota's DWI court programs and a cost benefit evaluation in seven of these pro-grams. This is the site-specific report for the South St. Louis County DWI Court (SSLC). The SSLC was implemented in February 2008. The program is designed to take 12 to 24 months to complete and takes pre-plea, post-plea/pre-conviction, and post-conviction participants. All offenders must be in the post-adjudication stage upon phase advancement and cannot graduate if not in that stage. The general program population consists of repeat DWI offenders, with gross misdemeanors and felonies accepted into the program. Process Evaluation Summary. The SSLC has been responsive to the community needs and strives to meet the challenges presented by substance-dependant individuals. This program is demonstrating exemplary practices within each of the 10 Key Components of Drug Courts and the 10 DWI Court Guiding Principles including having a dedicated, collaborative, team with members from all key agencies (a law enforcement representative, prosecutor, defense attorney, probation, treatment, coordinator, and judge); a focus on regular training on the drug court model and other relevant topics for the team; a swift referral process; the use of evidence-based treat-ment models, rapid results from drug testing; a random and fully observed drug testing process; a judge who has been with the program long term (well over 2 years); and good communication among the team with a coordinated response to participant behavior. Although this program is functioning well, NPC's review of program operations resulted in some recommendations for program enhancements, which the program has already begun work on implementing. These recommendations included: Modify the current team member Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) to include language about the use and disclosure of protected health information at staffing sessions. Protected health information, particularly around the topic of participant re-lapse, may need to be disclosed by treatment providers at staffing sessions so that the team can make an appropriate and informed decision regarding incentives and sanctions for the participant. - Continue to assess transportation needs of participants and look for resources to provide transportation to those participants who need it. Team members noted significant challenges in providing transportation to participants. - Reevaluate the required length of sobriety to help make program completion a more realistic goal for participants. The SSLC requires that all participants complete 300 days of sobriety in order to graduate. Although there is a clear relationship that indicates the longer a person remains clean (as shown through negative drug tests) the less likely he/she will be to relapse, there are diminishing returns to the participant remaining in the program for an extended length of time (Carey et al., 2005). - Increase the focus on rewards for participants who are doing well. The SSLC has identified the need to provide more meaningful incentives to their DWI court participants. The SSLC currently provides a wide range of intangible rewards, such as praise from the judge and applause for participants, but only occasionally provides tangible re-wards, such as gift cards or tickets to sports games. Focus group participants mentioned the value of overnight passes. The team might consider raffling off or awarding overnight stays or similarly valued rewards for positive behaviors or advancement in the program. - Consider holding graduation ceremonies separate from the drug court hearing or implementing practices that would make them more distinct from regular drug court hearings. Graduations provide an opportunity for community partners to witness DWI court program successes. Inviting community partners to observe and participate in graduations is a low-cost way to highlight the effectiveness of the program and garner interest for continued and future involvement with the program. - Apply to be a DWI Academy Court. Based on the success of its operations, its commitment to best practices, and its strong team, we recommend that the SSLC apply to the National Center for DWI Courts in the next round of applications to be a NCDC DWI Academy Court. Outcome Evaluation Summary. The outcome analyses were primarily performed on SSLC participants who entered the DWI court program from February 1, 2008, to August 23, 2012, and a matched comparison group of offenders eligible for DWI court but who received the traditional court process rather than SSLC. The study groups were tracked for 2 years from program entry. Outcomes measured included graduation rate, rearrests with associated charges (including new DWI charges), crashes, and license reinstatements. The results of the outcome analysis for the SSLC were positive. Figure A illustrates the rearrest rates over a 3-year period for graduates, all participants and the comparison group. (Graduates should not be compared directly to the comparison group as the two groups are not equivalent.) Compared to offenders who experienced traditional court processes, the SSLC participants (re-gardless of whether they graduated from the program) had: - 3 times fewer rearrests for any charge in Year 1 - 66% fewer rearrests, and 66% fewer new DWI arrests 3 years after program entry - Half as many victimizations (person and property arrests) 2 years after entry - 60% fewer felony arrests 2 years after entry Overall the data showed that DWI court participants were rearrested less often than the comparison group, despite the fact that the DWI court group had more offenders with felony DWI arrests than the comparison group. Moreover, and of particular interest, high-risk participants (individuals with three or more prior arrests) had the highest reductions in recidivism (showing the greatest benefit from this program), while lower risk participants (those with two or fewer prior arrests) show little reductions in recidivism. Details: Portland, OR: NPC Research, 2014. 128p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 30, 2015 at: http://npcresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/St-Louis-County-DWI-Court-Process-Outcome-and-Cost-Report-FINAL-FOR-OTS1.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://npcresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/St-Louis-County-DWI-Court-Process-Outcome-and-Cost-Report-FINAL-FOR-OTS1.pdf Shelf Number: 137176 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationDriving Under the InfluenceDrugged DrivingDrunk DrivingDWI CourtsProblem-Solving CourtsRecidivism |
Author: Lacey, John H. Title: Results of the 2012 California Roadside Survey of Nighttime Weekend Drivers' Alcohol and Drug Use Summary: Background This report summarizes the results of the first California Statewide Roadside Survey of Nighttime Weekend Drivers' Alcohol and Drug Use. To our knowledge, it is the first state-level survey of this magnitude. It is modeled on data collection procedures used in the "2007 National Roadside Survey of Alcohol and Drug Use by Drivers" sponsored by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Methods A random sample of nighttime drivers was interviewed on Friday and Saturday nights from 10 p.m. to midnight and 1:00 a.m. to 3:00 a.m. Data were collected on one weekend in eight communities and on two weekends in one community during the summer of 2012. The nine communities where data were collected were Eureka, San Rafael, and Redding in the northern part of the state; Fresno and Modesto in the central part of the state; and Anaheim, Ontario, Chula Vista, and Gardena in southern California. Anonymous breath tests and oral fluid samples as well as responses to questionnaires were collected from over 1,300 drivers. The breath alcohol samples were analyzed for alcohol and the oral fluid samples were analyzed for nearly 50 drugs, including prescription, illegal, and over-the-counter drugs. Analyses were conducted by screening using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) microplate technology and positive screens were confirmed using gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC/MS) or liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS) technology. Results Among eligible drivers approached to participate in the survey, 81% (1,375 drivers) agreed to answer questions, 85.3% (1,449 drivers) provided a breath sample, and 77.3% (1,313 drivers) provided an oral fluid sample. Among drivers participating in the interview, 3.7% reported having a medical marijuana permit and, of those, 65.8% reported having used the permit to purchase marijuana. Within the total population, 40% admitted to having at some time used marijuana. In terms of breath and oral fluid test results, 184 (or, 14%) tested positive for at least one drug, and 7.3% tested positive for alcohol. One percent of tested drivers were at .08 blood alcohol content (BAC) or above. The vast majority (89.6%) of drug positive drivers tested negative for alcohol. Of the drug-positive drivers, 2.7% had a BAC above zero but less than .05; 5.5% from .05 to .08; and 2.2% at or above .08. Marijuana was the most frequently encountered drug at a prevalence rate of 7.4%, with 5.5% of drivers testing positive for marijuana alone; 1.1% testing positive for marijuana and an illegal drug; 0.5% testing positive for marijuana and a medication; and 0.3% testing positive for marijuana, an illegal drug, and a medication. Illegal drugs were present alone in 2.7% of drivers, and in combination with medications in 0.5%. Medications alone were present in 3.3% of drivers. Synthetic marijuana was found in 5 (or 0.4%) drivers. Conclusions This survey provides a baseline California prevalence estimate for alcohol and drug use among nighttime weekend drivers and can be compared with results of future surveys to examine patterns of change in drug and alcohol use in that population. It should be noted that these figures describe the prevalence rates for the presence of these drugs in drivers and do not address whether those drivers were impaired by these substances. Details: Calverton, MD: Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, 2012. 33p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 8, 2016 at: http://www.ots.ca.gov/Media_and_Research/Press_Room/2012/doc/2012_Drug_And_Alcohol_Roadside_Survey.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.ots.ca.gov/Media_and_Research/Press_Room/2012/doc/2012_Drug_And_Alcohol_Roadside_Survey.pdf Shelf Number: 138135 Keywords: Driving Under the InfluenceDriving Under the Influence of DrugsDrug AbuseDrugged DrivingDrugs and DrivingDrunk DrivingNighttime Economy |
Author: Berghaus, G. Title: Meta-analysis of empirical studies concerning the effects of medicines and illegal drugs including pharmacokinetics on safe driving Summary: In essence two different scientific approaches exist to evaluate the effects of psychoactive substances on driving behaviour: epidemiology and experimental studies. The subtask "Meta-Analysis" of Task 1.1 of DRUID (Driving under the influence of Drugs, Alcohol and Medicines) defines the target to evaluate the relevant literature on experimental studies on the effects of psychoactive substances on human performance and driving behaviour for their impact on traffic safety. The evaluation should include - "Medicines regarding to the frequency of driving under medicine influence or the insufficiency of documentation - Drugs regarding to the frequency of driving under drug influence or their novelty with a suspected hazard to driving - Prominent combination of drugs, medicines and alcohol - Alcohol research data will serve as a reference data base" (Description of work) The report at hand picks medicines, drugs (amphetamine, cocaine, cannabis) and prominent combinations out as a central theme whereas the remaining aspects (alcohol, other illegal drugs) will be presented in other deliverables. For medicines and illegal drugs for that exist sufficient relevant literature about their effects on human performance, a meta-analysis is conducted to quantify the results of the experimental studies. The report of the results of the meta-analysis is based on the publication of Berghaus (1997) who reviewed the literature on medicines some years ago. But two completely new approaches were introduced for this evaluation. On the one hand the empirical data on the time-dependent performance impairment of a medicine p.a. was smoothed by an appropriate curve fitting to establish - dose- and time-dependent impairment curves. On the other hand - since one objective of the DRUID project is to determine concentration-dependent effects with emphasis on establishing concentration thresholds - a new research approach had to be established: In a time-consuming evaluation, kinetics (time-dependent course of concentrations of a medicine in blood) of many medicinal agents had to be calculated on the basis of appropriate kinetic studies. With the help of these kinetics we were in the position to establish --concentration-dependent impairment curves. The results will be a quantitative estimation of the effects of the various substances on driving related skills. As requested the knowledge on alcohol will serve as reference base because for alcohol an extensive body of results has been accumulated over the last years and especially the effects of different legal thresholds on driving safety are well understood. Details: DRUID: Driving under the Influence of Drugs, Alcohol and Medicines; Bergisch Gladbach: Federal Highway Research Institute, 2010. 772p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 2, 2016 at: http://www.bast.de/Druid/EN/deliverales-list/downloads/Deliverable_1_1_2_B.pdf?__blob=publicationFile Year: 2010 Country: Europe URL: http://www.bast.de/Druid/EN/deliverales-list/downloads/Deliverable_1_1_2_B.pdf?__blob=publicationFile Shelf Number: 138535 Keywords: Driving Under the InfluenceDrugged DrivingDrunk Driving |
Author: Hargutt, Volker Title: Driving under the influence of alcohol, illicit drugs and medicines. Risk estimations from different methodological approaches. Summary: The objective of this deliverable is to assess the risk of driving with alcohol, illicit drugs and medicines and to deliver substance concentration thresholds for per se legislation. Therefore the results of all epidemiological and experimental studies conducted in DRUID are integrated in this deliverable. In case of combating driving under influence of alcohol, legislative regulations and enforcement practices are clearly defined. Regarding alcohol a clear correlation between consumption, blood concentrations and the score of driving impairment is proved for several years, whereas up to now defining limits for combating drugged driving comprises a lot of challenges. Thus per se limits for alcohol are based on scientific risk research which is a prerequisite to assure the compliance of the population with these regulations. Determining legislative regulations against drugged driving is more difficult, as a variety of aspects have to be taken into account. Especially defining risk thresholds for psychoactive substances is a challenging task. The most relevant information in order to determine thresholds is the information about the accident risk in traffic dependent on different concentrations of single substances. Direct information about the accident risk in traffic can only be gained by conducting epidemiological studies. Thus the data regarding risk estimates of psychoactive substance use in traffic are taken from the DRUID deliverable 2.3.5 In cases where low prevalence epidemiological data do not allow risk calculation (odds ratios) of different concentration ranges from single psychoactive substances the results of experimental studies should be taken into account. In order to integrate study results resulting from different methodologies, a reference curve is helpful. Here alcohol data delivered with these different study methodologies are used as the golden standard. Further on a harmonization of the system for DUI of alcohol and non-alcohol drugs (DUID) leads to achieve the compliance of the population. Therefore impairment limits corresponding to the 0.5 g/L limit for alcohol were defined for the drugs where scientific evidence showed a dose-response relationship for impairment. The main finding of this report is that the three substance categories, which are connected with extremely high risks (OR>10), are the two high alcohol concentrations (0.8 - 1.2 and > 1.2 g/L) and the combination of alcohol and drugs, all of them present with moderate prevalence rates of about 0.4%. In the risk range from a 5-to 10-fold injury alcohol including all concentrations is dominant with a prevalence rate of 3.5%. Moreover the epidemiological doubtful risk of amphetamines, medicinal opioids/opiates and drug-drug combinations are also in this range, but showing much lower prevalence rates (for amphetamines 0.08%) and therefore less demand for action. The group of illicit opiates, z-drugs and cocaine shows risks between 2-3 and prevalence rates lower than 0.5%. The risk associated with cannabis seems to be similar to the risk when driving with a low alcohol concentration (between 0.1 g/L and 0.5 g/L), which is slightly increased to about 1-3 times that of sober drivers. The proposed risk threshold for THC equivalent to 0.5 g/L alcohol is 3.8 ng/ml serum with an added value for measurement error and confidence interval. Thus alcohol, especially in high concentrations must remain focus number one of traffic safety efforts and the combination of alcohol and drugs or medicines seems to be a topic, which should be addressed more intensively because it leads to very high risks in traffic. In determining substance concentration thresholds, stimulant drugs like amphetamines and cocaine pose a particular challenge. The correlation between drug concentration and risk of traffic accidents/impairment is variable or insufficiently documented. In experimental studies, at the (rather low) doses that were given, driving performance increases rather than decreases. However, in epidemiological studies the accident risk is increased, but the data should be handled with care as the risk is calculated with only a few cases. Regarding legally prescribed medicines use it is not reasonable to define cut-off values for patients especially if they are in long-term treatment. Other than with drug users, the responsibility and compliance of patients under long-term treatment is usually high. The disease itself may affect the driving behavior even more and the use of medication could decrease this effect. Dosage effects were only investigated and observed with single users or new users. Hence, an impairment check is an objective way to judge recreational use. Thus a balance between concerns about ensuring road safety and the therapeutic needs of individuals is guaranteed. Additionally a separation of drinking, medicine consumption and driving is necessary and the respective information should be part of the physician's consultation. The epidemiological studies in DRUID have shown that drivers very often use more than one psychoactive substance including alcohol. The combination of alcohol and drugs or medicines, or the combination of more than one drug, increases the accident-risk exponentially. If risk thresholds respective lower effect limits will be implemented, they shouldn't be simply combined in the case of combined consumption. Because of the highly increased accident risk of combined consumption stricter regulations should be elaborated for this case. Details: Gladbach, Germany: Federal Highway Research Institute. 2011. 120p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 5, 2016 at: http://www.bast.de/Druid/EN/deliverales-list/downloads/Deliverable_1_3_1.pdf?__blob=publicationFile Year: 2011 Country: Europe URL: http://www.bast.de/Druid/EN/deliverales-list/downloads/Deliverable_1_3_1.pdf?__blob=publicationFile Shelf Number: 138566 Keywords: Driving Under the Influence (Europe)Drugged DrivingDrugs and DrivingDrunk Driving |
Author: Kierkus, Christopher A. Title: Michigan DWI-Sobriety Court Ignition Interlock Evaluation: 2016 report Summary: This report was commissioned by the Michigan Association of Treatment Court Professionals (MATCP) and was produced in cooperation with the State Court Administrative Office (SCAO). Its purpose is to provide the legislature, the Secretary of State, and the Michigan Supreme Court, documentation related to the program participants‟ compliance with court ordered conditions, their progress through the program, and the outcome(s) of being placed on interlock restrictions. This document is the fifth annual report: it provides the reader with an overview of issues pertaining to ignition interlock programs in Michigan, nationally, and internationally. It also summarizes the study design, provides a description of the data, analyzes the operation and effectiveness of the DWI/Sobriety Court interlock program, and discusses innovative practices, obstacles, and lessons learned from the five year study. Details: Lansing, MI: State Court Administrative Office, 2016. 75p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 23, 2016 at: http://courts.mi.gov/Administration/admin/op/problem-solving-courts/Drug/Documents/2016%20Ignition%20Interlock%20Final%20Report%20(2).pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://courts.mi.gov/Administration/admin/op/problem-solving-courts/Drug/Documents/2016%20Ignition%20Interlock%20Final%20Report%20(2).pdf Shelf Number: 139798 Keywords: Alcohol Ignition Interlock Devices (Michigan)Driving Under the InfluenceDriving While IntoxicatedDrugged DrivingDrunk DrivingIgnition Interlock Program |
Author: Robertson, Robyn Title: Cannabis and Road Safety: Policy Challenges Summary: Drugged driving and strategies to address the problem have been increasingly recognized as a priority in the past decade. Coordinated action across law enforcement, transportation and health sectors at Federal and provincial/territorial levels is needed to keep Canadians safe on our roads. The focus of this study was to identify key strategies, relevant issues, and implementation plans to help inform the development of drugged driving strategies. A total of 46 individuals, that included line staff and managers in 25 agencies representing Federal and provincial stakeholders, were interviewed. Topics explored included: research, laws and penalties, implementation strategies, public perceptions and education, and metrics and evaluation. These results provide practical insight into the knowledge and tools that are needed to help stakeholders address this issue, and the remaining barriers that must be overcome to ensure road safety enhancements. Prevention strategies require adequate resources in the form of capacity, time and funding to support the necessary large-scale modifications to road safety policies and programs to reinforce the emphasis on safety underscored by the Federal government. Details: Ottawa: Traffic Injury Research Foundation, 2016. 30p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 14, 2016 at: http://www.tirf.ca/publications/PDF_publications/TIRF_DruggedDriving_Policy%20Challenges_12_published.pdf Year: 2016 Country: Canada URL: http://www.tirf.ca/publications/PDF_publications/TIRF_DruggedDriving_Policy%20Challenges_12_published.pdf Shelf Number: 146647 Keywords: Driving Under the InfluenceDrugged DrivingMarijuana |
Author: High Intensity Drug Trafficking Program Title: Marijuana's Impact on California. California High Intensity Drug Trafficking Report Summary: A growing number of California residents are interested in removing barriers to recreational marijuana use, and this paper will outline the current state of marijuana policy in California and the potential impacts of further legalizing marijuana use. Section One, The Science on Marijuana Marijuana is the most abused illicit drug in the world, but the gap between the science on marijuana and the common perception of marijuana has never been greater. Section Two, California Youth Marijuana Use In 2013, California was ranked 20th in current use among youth, and by 2014 California was ranked 11th in the country. The state's largest average increase in youth past 30-day use of marijuana coincided with the proliferation of marijuana dispensaries in the state; at that time, California’s youth use rate was already 29% higher than the national average. Section Three, California Schools Due to a new program, school expulsion rates in California have greatly decreased, even though the number of students who are caught with drugs has not declined. Section Four, California Marijuana Use Ages 18-25 In 2012 and 2013, adult marijuana use for California adults aged 18-25 years was 22% compared to the national average of 19%. Section Five, Marijuana-Related Emergency Department Visits and Hospital Admissions From 2010 to 2014, after marijuana dispensaries began to proliferate, there was a 116% increase in Emergency Department visits and admissions for any related marijuana use. Marijuana-related exposures for young children (0-5 years old) also increased 513% between 2005 and 2015. During the same time there was a 139% increase among children 6-19 years old. Section Six, Treatment From 2005 to 2015, the rate of admissions to drug treatment programs for marijuana abuse remained steady – so did the fact that teens and young adults make up the largest proportion of people admitted for treatment. Section Seven, California Impaired Driving From 2005 to 2014, total statewide traffic fatalities decreased 29% in California, but fatalities involving drivers testing positive for marijuana increased 17%. Section Eight, Diversion More interdiction events, including those by the United States Postal Service (USPS) Inspection Service, resulted in seized marijuana originating from California than from any other state. Details: s.l.: California High Intensity Drug Trafficking Program, 2016. 65p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 20, 2016 at: https://learnaboutsam.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/CA-MJ-IMPACT-REPORT-FINAL1.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://learnaboutsam.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/CA-MJ-IMPACT-REPORT-FINAL1.pdf Shelf Number: 147299 Keywords: Driving Under the InfluenceDrug Abuse and AddictionDrug TraffickingDrug TreatmentDrugged DrivingMarijuana |
Author: Schneider, Helmut Title: Drugged Driving in Louisiana: Quantification of its Impact on Public Health and Implications for Legislation, Enforcement, and Prosecution Summary: Drugged driving, i.e., driving under the influence of drugs, is considered a rising public health issue in the US and the rest of the world, yet due to under-reporting and limitations of existing data, not much is known about the frequency of drugged driving or how it affects public safety. While the federal government has encouraged states to enact zero-tolerance drugged driving laws, the lack of clarity surrounding the effects of drugs on driving abilities, as well a lack of empirical evidence about the efficacy of such laws, indicate more research is necessary. Using Louisiana as a case study, this report provides important insight into the state of knowledge about drugged driving, the limitations to current data collection practices, and how to proceed from here. There are two main goals: first, evaluate laws and policies about drugged driving and through a series of interviews with prosecutors, defense attorneys, police, and the public, identify obstacles to zero-tolerance legislation in Louisiana; and second, analyze the frequency of drugged driving in Louisiana and other states where data is publically available to identify ways to improve data collection. Analysis of data from the Louisiana State Crime Lab as well as other available sources provide a preliminary baseline estimate about the frequency and nature of drug-impaired driving in Louisiana. Findings indicate substantial disparities exist among parishes in terms of the number of drug-impaired driving arrests and the quality of evidence submitted for testing, which reflects a lack of standardized procedures and an uneven distribution of resources. This study compares the prior DWI arrests, speeding violations and crashes of drivers who tested positive for various drugs to all other drivers. While there are substantial limitations to the analysis, particularly in sample size and selection, the findings suggest the drivers arrested for drugged driving have higher rates of prior unsafe driving incidents than all other drivers. Survey interviews with the target populations reveal an overall lack of training, resources, and testing capacities in Louisiana, as well as a wide range of concerns about per se laws. This study contributes a clearer understanding of existing data limitations and challenges with which states must contend, and presents a series of recommendations for developing a comprehensive approach to dealing with drug-impaired driving in Louisiana and other states moving forward. Details: Baton Rouge: Highway Safety Research Group, Louisiana State University, 2017. 156p. Source: Internet Resource: Final Report 576: Accessed April 10, 2017 at: https://www.ltrc.lsu.edu/pdf/2017/FR_576.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://www.ltrc.lsu.edu/pdf/2017/FR_576.pdf Shelf Number: 144776 Keywords: Driving Under the InfluenceDriving While IntoxicatedDrug-Impaired DrivingDrugged Driving |
Author: Grondel, Darrin T. Title: Marijuana Use, Alcohol Use, and Driving in Washington State: Emerging Issues With Poly-Drug Use on Washington Roadways Summary: This report provides select updated fatal crash information originally presented in Washington Traffic Safety Commission's report Driver Toxicology Testing and the Involvement of Marijuana in Fatal Crashes, 2010-20141 (October 2015). Since that report was published, poly-drug drivers involved in fatal crashes have increased significantly and is described more thoroughly in the present report. For the first time, this report also includes compilations of analyses of Washington's Roadside Self-Report Marijuana Survey, and questions from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance and Healthy Youth Surveys. The following is a summary of key observations from these various data sources. - Driver impairment due to alcohol and/or drugs is the number one contributing factor in Washington fatal crashes and is involved in nearly half of all traffic fatalities. Poly-drug drivers (combinations of alcohol and drugs or multiple drugs) is now the most common type of impairment among drivers in fatal crashes. - Among drivers involved in fatal crashes 2008-2016 who were blood tested for intoxicants, 61 percent were positive for alcohol and/or drugs. - Among drivers in fatal crashes 2008-2016 that tested positive for alcohol or drugs, 44 percent tested positive for two or more substances (poly-drug drivers). The most common substance in poly-drug drivers is alcohol, followed by THC. Alcohol and THC combined is the most common poly-drug combination. - Although research-based estimates of the risks posed by THC have varied greatly, all studies included in this report agree that combining alcohol and THC will only further inflate the level of impairment and crash risk. The deadly consequences of combining these two impairing substances and driving are already apparent in Washington fatal crash data. - For the first time in 2012, poly-drug drivers became the most prevalent type of impaired drivers involved in fatal crashes. Since 2012, the number of poly-drug drivers involved in fatal crashes have increased an average of 15 percent every year. - By 2016, the number of poly-drug drivers were more than double the number of alcohol-only drivers and five times higher than the number of THC-only drivers involved in fatal crashes. - According to the biological results of Washington's Roadside Survey, nearly one in five daytime drivers may be under the influence of marijuana, up from less than one in 10 drivers prior to the implementation of marijuana retail sales. - According to Washington's Roadside Self-Report Marijuana Survey: o 39.1 percent of drivers who have used marijuana in the previous year admit to driving within three hours of marijuana use. This is similar to the results from Washington's Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance Survey (33.5 percent). o More than half (53 percent) of drivers ages 15-20 believe marijuana use made their driving better. This is a significantly higher rate than drivers ages 21-25 (13.7 percent) and drivers ages 26-35 (17.4 percent). o Among drivers who have used marijuana in the past year, only 36.6 percent believe that it is very likely or likely that marijuana impairs a person's ability to drive safely if used within two hours of driving, compared to 77 percent of drivers who have not used marijuana in the previous year. o 53.5 percent of drivers who have used marijuana in the past year believe it is very likely or likely to be arrested for impaired driving after using marijuana within two hours of driving, versus 70.2 percent of drivers who have not used marijuana in the previous year. - According to Washington's Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance Survey, drivers who admit to driving within three hours of marijuana use in the previous year are also more likely to: o Drive after having perhaps too much to drink (14.5 percent). o Not always wear a seatbelt (15.2 percent). o Binge drink (45.1 percent). - According to Washington's Healthy Youth Survey: o One in four 12th graders, one in six 10th graders, and one in ten 8th graders report riding in a vehicle with a driver who had been using marijuana. o Slightly more than 16 percent of 12th graders and 9 percent of 10th graders who have used marijuana admitted to, at least once, driving a vehicle within three hours of using marijuana. - From 2008-2016, 76 drivers ages 16-18 involved in fatal crashes tested positive for alcohol and/or drugs. One in four of these young drivers were positive for multiple substances (polydrug drivers). - While driving under the influence of alcohol remains a significant issue, the interplay of drugged driving must be equally considered if we are ever to reach our goal of zero fatalities and serious injuries on Washington roadways. This complex issue will require government, non-profit, corporate, and community response to reverse a rapidly increasing trend. Details: Olympia, WA: Washington Traffic Safety Commission, 2018. 47p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 3, 2018 at: http://wtsc.wa.gov/wp-content/uploads/dlm_uploads/2018/04/Marijuana-and-Alcohol-Involvement-in-Fatal-Crashes-in-WA_FINAL.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: http://wtsc.wa.gov/wp-content/uploads/dlm_uploads/2018/04/Marijuana-and-Alcohol-Involvement-in-Fatal-Crashes-in-WA_FINAL.pdf Shelf Number: 150045 Keywords: Driving Under the InfluenceDriving While IntoxicatedDrugged DrivingTraffic Safety |
Author: Arnold, Lindsay S. Title: Advancing Drugged Driving Data at the State Level: Synthesis of Barriers and Expert Panel Recommendations Summary: The objective of this project is to identify and recommend strategies for improving statelevel data on the nature and extent of drugged driving in the United States by addressing the most significant barriers that impede state efforts to collect and compile such data. According to National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA, 2012b) Traffic Records Program Advisory Assessment, states need accurate and reliable traffic records data to understand traffic safety problems, and to select and evaluate countermeasures to address the problems and ultimately improve traffic safety. Inadequate state data on drugged drivers limits understanding the extent and nature of the drugged driving problem, communicating it to the public, and measuring how it changes over time and in response to efforts to reduce it. (Berning & Smither, 2014; NHTSA, 2012a, MMUCC Guideline Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria Fourth Edition DOT HS 811 631; National Transportation Safety Board, 2012a, Reaching Zero: Actions to Eliminate Substance-Impaired Driving Forum Summary.) While drugged driving is receiving increasing national attention, especially as a result of state legalization of marijuana for medical or recreational use, most state data on drugged driving in its current form is of limited use for measuring and tracking drugged driving incidents, evaluating the effects of changing laws regarding drug use and driving, or improving our knowledge about drug use and driving impairment. In addition to the limitations of existing data, the relationship between the presence and levels of drugs in a driver's body and their impairment or crash risk is further complicated by the number of potentially impairing drugs, the complexity of drug metabolism compared to that of alcohol, the variability of effects on individuals, and individuals using more than one drug or combining alcohol and drug use. Unlike with alcohol, drug concentrations do not necessarily relate to impairment, and drugs may be detectable after impairment has subsided. Threshold concentrations for drugs, similar to the 0.08 blood alcohol concentration (BAC), have not been agreed upon, and may not be feasible. (Government Accountability Office, 2015) Drugged driving is commonly defined as driving under the influence of or impaired by drugs other than alcohol. Some states define drugged driving as drug-positive driving, though the drugs included vary by state. For the purpose of this effort, "drugged driving" refers generally to driving with any detectable amount of illegal or potentially impairing amounts of prescription or over-the counter medications in one's system, which includes driving while impaired by any of these drugs. "Drug-impaired driving" describes driving while impaired by a drug or drugs other than or in addition to alcohol, as differentiated from drugged driving, which includes drivers whose impairment is unknown (e.g., roadside survey subjects). Drugged driving data of interest include data on the prevalence of drugged and drug-impaired driving, drug-impaired driving citation and adjudication data, and toxicology data for drivers arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol and/or other drugs and/or involved in serious injury and fatal crashes. The focus of this project is on improving the quality of data related to drugged and drugimpaired driving. Efforts to enforce drugged driving laws generally, and barriers to such efforts, are outside the scope of this project. Improving our understanding of drug use and driving impairment, while important to combating drug-impaired driving and in need of additional research, is also outside the scope of this project. The improved data that would result from implementation of the recommendations in this report, however, should help guide drugged driving enforcement efforts and improve our understanding of drug presence/levels and crash risk. Issues not specific to collection of data on the presence and levels of drugs in drivers, e.g., funding of law enforcement generally, are clearly relevant to improving data on drugged driving and are important to this project, but are not the focus of this project and thus are only briefly mentioned and not discussed at length. Details: Washington, DC: AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, 2016. 31p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 19, 2018 at: https://aaafoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/AdvancingDruggedDrivingData.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://aaafoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/AdvancingDruggedDrivingData.pdf Shelf Number: 150585 Keywords: Driving Under the InfluenceDriving While IntoxicatedDrug-Impaired DrivingDrugged DrivingTraffic Safety |
Author: Fell, James C. Title: Advancing Drugged Driving Data at the State Level: State-by-State Assessment Summary: There is an urgent need for better data on the drugged driving situation at both the state and national levels as this affects our understanding of the extent of the drugged driving problem and how it is changing over time, of ways of communicating the risks to the general public, and of measuring the effectiveness of efforts to reduce it. In order to address this need for better data, in 2015 the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety conducted a synthesis of scientific literature on barriers that impede state efforts to collect and compile drugged driving data, and existing recommendations aimed at addressing the identified barriers. An expert panel of law enforcement officials, toxicologists and other traffic safety professionals then used that information to formulate recommendations to improve drugged driving data at the state level (Arnold & Scopatz, 2016). Some of the recommendations in that report were at the national level such as authorizing federal funds for roadside surveys and developing national model specifications for oral fluid drug test devices. Twelve recommendations were at the state level to improve drugged driving data, and are addressed in this report. Methodology Based upon legal research and responses to a survey, state laws, policies, and practices were assessed to determine whether and to what degree they align with recommendations aimed at improving drugged driving data. Results State laws, policies, and practices vary across states and substantial progress is still needed. While most law enforcement officers (LEOs) have been trained in the Standardized Field Sobriety Tests, very few have been trained in the "Drugs That Impair Driving" curriculum and the "Advanced Roadside Impaired Driving Enforcement" (ARIDE) course, which is critical. The SFST training was developed for detecting alcohol impairment while the other two courses are for detecting impairment by drugs other than alcohol. At the time of the review, 15 states reported they authorize the collection and testing of oral fluid for alcohol and/or other drugs, and 10 states reported having pilot testing programs. Most states authorize the testing of drivers fatally injured in crashes and surviving drivers only when there is probable cause. Most states also reported they have improved the implementation and utilization of the Drug Evaluation and Classification program. The majority of states do not expressly authorize electronic warrants which reduce delays in collecting specimens from drivers arrested for DUI. Finally, 41 states reported that LEOs report observed behavioral impairment among surviving drivers in fatal crashes. Details: Washington, DC: AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, 2018. 190p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 22, 2018 at: http://aaafoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/NORC-FINAL-REPORT_State-Recommendations-to-Improve-Data-on-Drugged-Drivi....pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: http://aaafoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/NORC-FINAL-REPORT_State-Recommendations-to-Improve-Data-on-Drugged-Drivi....pdf Shelf Number: 150639 Keywords: Driving Under the InfluenceDriving While IntoxicatedDrug-Impaired DrivingDrugged DrivingTraffic Safety |
Author: Bui, Becky Title: Driving Under the Influence of Drugs and Alcohol: A Report Pursuant to House Bill 17-1315 Summary: "Driving Under the Influence of Drugs and Alcohol, A Report Pursuant to House Bill 17-1315," tracks Colorado DUI offenses in 2016 from arrest through final court outcome, and also examines data from probation. In 2017, the Colorado legislature passed HB 17-1315 directing the Colorado Division of Criminal Justice within the Department of Public Safety to analyze the types of DUI offenses being committed by offenders and issue an annual report. This is the first annual report issued pursuant to that legislation. The data has a one-year lag in order to allow enough time to follow most cases from their initial filing through final court disposition. Analysts with the Division of Criminal Justice Office of Research and Statistics reviewed more than 27,000 case filings with at least one DUI charge and nearly 100,000 total charges associated with these cases in order to examine data such as: Offender demographics - Toxicology results, including type of impairing substance and amount detected in the breath and/or blood stream - Time elapsed from traffic stop to biological sample Charges, final dispositions, and associated traffic charges - Whether the incident resulted in fatalities or injuries. The publication also provides an overview of Colorado's laws, enforcement and detection methods, court processes, and challenges in regards to data. For example, it's important to note that drug-related impairment is likely under-represented in the data compared to alcohol. This is due to the fact that alcohol is faster, easier and cheaper to screen for than other drugs. Once alcohol is detected, agencies have enough evidence to reliably achieve a conviction. Therefore, agencies have not consistently spent the additional money and time to request blood testing for substances beyond alcohol. Details: Denver: Colorado Division of Criminal Justice, 2018. 106p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 10, 2018 at: http://cdpsdocs.state.co.us/ors/docs/reports/2018-DUI_HB17-1315.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: http://cdpsdocs.state.co.us/ors/docs/reports/2018-DUI_HB17-1315.pdf Shelf Number: 151106 Keywords: Driving Under the InfluenceDriving While IntoxicatedDrugged DrivingDrunk Driving |
Author: Insurance Information Institute Title: A Rocky Road So Far: Recreational marijuana and impaired driving Summary: As of March 11, 2019, more than 30 states, the District of Columbia, Guam and Puerto Rico have programs that allow qualifying patients to access medical marijuana products. Another 13 states permit non-intoxicating medical marijuana products. Ten states and D.C. permit recreational marijuana, where any adult over the age of 21 can possess and use the drug. Recreational marijuana sales are booming. Many people are rightly concerned about road safety in an age of legal recreational marijuana. Alcohol-impaired driving claimed nearly 11,000 lives in the U.S. in 2017 alone. Will increasing acceptance and use of marijuana lead to a similar trend? In a 2017 report to Congress, the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) concluded that "the scope and magnitude of the marijuana-impaired driving problem in this country cannot be clearly specified at this time." However, the report did note that "there are a number of indicators that suggest that a problem exists." For example, based on the available evidence, it seems clear that "stoned driving" is dangerous. This report examines the current state of knowledge related to marijuana impairment: its effects on driving abilities, how traffic safety might be impacted, and how states are grappling with the issue of "stoned driving." Key takeaways: Marijuana affects users differently but it generally impairs cognitive and motor skills. The intensity and duration of marijuana impairment depends on several factors. But most research agrees that marijuana use to some degree results in impairment in the following: coordination, memory, associative learning, attention, cognitive flexibility and reaction time. Marijuana impairment increases the risk of culpability for a car crash. And mixing marijuana and alcohol heightens risks. The more impaired the user, the more likely they are to be culpable for a traffic accident. The risks rise dramatically if the user has also consumed alcohol. Mixing both substances increases impairment greater than the net effects of each individual substance. Marijuana use could increase after recreational marijuana legalization - and the number of THC-positive drivers could increase as well. When a state legalizes marijuana, more people use the drug. More people using marijuana could mean more people driving with THC in their systems. Legalization is associated with an increase in collision claim frequency. Early evidence suggests that states with legal recreational marijuana experience higher collision claim frequency than comparable non-marijuana control states. Fatal crashes involving drivers who tested positive for THC have increased - but it remains unclear how legalization impacts fatal crash rates. While THC-positivity rates in fatal crashes has increased, there is conflicting evidence about whether legalization increases fatal crash rates. Details: New York: The Institute, 2019. 20p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 3, 2019 at: https://www.iii.org/sites/default/files/docs/pdf/marijuanaanddui-wp-031119.pdf Year: 2019 Country: United States URL: https://www.iii.org/sites/default/files/docs/pdf/marijuanaanddui-wp-031119.pdf Shelf Number: 155275 Keywords: Automobile AccidentsAutomobile InsuranceDrugged DrivingImpaired DrivingLegalized MarijuanaMarijuana UseMarijuana-Impaired DrivingRoad SafetyTraffic Safety |
Author: Capler, Rielle Title: Cannabis Use and Driving: Evidence Review Summary: Cannabis is widely used in Canadian society (used by 12% of Canadians in 2011) for both medical and recreational purposes. Recently, the federal government announced its intention to legalize cannabis, with the implementation of new laws expected in early 2018. The federal government's stated intention of the new laws is to mitigate potential risks of cannabis use. A potential risk that is of great concern is driving after using cannabis. Public education pertaining to the use of cannabis and driving must be based upon current research knowledge if it is to be effective and relevant. To this end, we have undertaken a scoping review of available research evidence in order to: 1. Synthesize current research regarding risks associated with cannabis use in the context of driving; 2. Identify research that points to effective strategies for mitigation of this risk. Details: Burnaby, BC: Canadian Drug policy Coalition, Simon Fraser University, 2017. 67p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 3, 2019 at: https://drugpolicy.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/CDPC_Cannabis-and-Driving_Evidence-Review_FINALV2_March27-2017.pdf Year: 2017 Country: Canada URL: https://drugpolicy.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/CDPC_Cannabis-and-Driving_Evidence-Review_FINALV2_March27-2017.pdf Shelf Number: 155277 Keywords: Driving Under InfluenceDriving While IntoxicatedDrugged DrivingLegalizationMarijuanaRecreational MarijuanaSubstance UseTraffic AccidentsWeed |
Author: AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety Title: Marijuana Use in Elder Drivers in Colorado: A LongROAD Study Summary: This research brief used baseline data from the Longitudinal Research on Aging Drivers (LongROAD) study to characterize marijuana use and its relation to self-reported driving outcomes in older adult drivers. Recent U.S. studies have demonstrated significant increases in marijuana use among adults ages 65+ over the past decade (Han et al., 2016; Hasin et al., 2015; Salas-Wright et al., 2017). Here, we describe marijuana use among 598 drivers ages 65-79 in Colorado and its relationship to risky driving behaviors and adverse outcomes. Of 54 participants (9.0%) who reported marijuana use in the past year, one-third used it at least weekly. The rate of past-year marijuana use in the Colorado LongROAD cohort was substantially higher than in recently reported nationally representative surveys, which may be due to national trends showing increasing use in older adults (Han et al., 2016) and to Colorado's recent legalization of recreational marijuana (National Conference of State Legislatures, 2017). In the Colorado LongROAD cohort, older drivers rarely reported marijuana use within one hour of driving. However, past-year marijuana users were four times as likely to report having driven when they may have been over the legal blood-alcohol limit compared with those who had not used marijuana in the past year. Despite potential risks from both marijuana use and increased driving after drinking, there was no increase in the likelihood of having a crash or police action (e.g., being pulled over) in the past year in this sample of older drivers who reported using marijuana in the past year. Details: Washington, DC: Author, 2018. 7p. Source: Internet Resource: Research Brief, Accessed April 15, 2019 at: https://aaafoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/18-0054_AAAFTS-Older-Driver-Marijuana-Brief_v5.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://aaafoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/18-0054_AAAFTS-Older-Driver-Marijuana-Brief_v5.pdf Shelf Number: 155416 Keywords: Aging Drivers Driving Under the Influence Drugged DrivingElderly Drivers Marijuana Traffic Safety |