Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: November 22, 2024 Fri
Time: 12:20 pm
Time: 12:20 pm
Results for drugs and driving
27 results foundAuthor: 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: 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: Neale, Joanne Title: Recreational Drug Use and Driving: A Qualitative Study Summary: The behaviour of individuals who drive whilst under the influence of illegal drugs is now a major concern in many countries. This has generated a large amount of epidemiological and experimental research examining various aspects of drug-driving behaviour. Within Scotland, however, there has been a lack of information on the nature and extent of the drug-driving problem. Responding to this gap in knowledge, the Scottish Executive (in association with the Scottish Road Safety Campaign) commissioned a programme of research to examine both quantitative and qualitative aspects of recreational drug-driving. A national household survey by System Three Social Research has provided quantitative information on the prevalence of this behaviour among 17-39 year-old drivers in Scotland. The research reported here complements this survey by providing more in-depth qualitative information on the links between recreational drug use and driving. Details: Edinburgh: Scottish Executive Central Research Unit, 2000. 103p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 23, 2011 at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/156503/0042020.pdf Year: 2000 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/156503/0042020.pdf Shelf Number: 121784 Keywords: Driving Under the Influence of DrugsDrug AbuseDrug-Impaired DrivingDrugged Driving (Scotland)Drugs and Driving |
Author: Gemmell, Colin Title: Literature Review on the Relation between Drug Use, Impaired Driving and Traffic Accidents Summary: The health consequences of drug use are a priority area for the EMCDDA and impaired driving and road traffic accidents linked to drugs constitute an important topic on which comprehensive information is lacking. The literature review addressed inter alia the relationship between different patterns of drug consumption, impaired driving and traffic accidents. In addition drug testing procedures and associated legislation regarding drug-impaired driving in the different EU Member States were described and the issues raised by such testing reviewed. The outcomes of the study included a scientific literature review and annotated bibliography on the relation between drug use, impaired driving and traffic accidents. Details: Lisbon: EMCDDA, 1999. 96p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 24, 2011 at: http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/html.cfm/index58070EN.html Year: 1999 Country: Europe URL: http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/html.cfm/index58070EN.html Shelf Number: 121787 Keywords: Driving Under the Influence of DrugsDrug AbuseDrug-Impaired DrivingDrugged Driving (Europe)Drugs and DrivingTraffic Accidents |
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: Ormston, Rachel Title: Evaluation of the Drug Driving TV Advert Summary: This report presents the findings of research evaluating a recent TV advert aimed at discouraging people from driving under the influence of drugs (‘drug driving’). The evaluation was carried out by NFO Social Research on behalf of the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Road Safety Campaign between July and September 2002. The research consisted of three elements. Firstly, questions were included in the Scottish Opinion Survey (SOS) in June 2002 to establish baseline levels of awareness and understanding of the advert. Secondly, a separate survey of Scottish drivers was carried out between late July and early September 2002 to provide more detailed data on reactions to the advert and on individual experiences of drug driving. Finally, a series of qualitative interviews, including both paired depth interviews and peer focus groups, were carried out with 17-24 year-olds in September 2002 to explore attitudes towards the advert in more detail. Details: Edinburgh: Scottish Executive Social Research, 2003. 45p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 24, 2011 at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/47032/0013895.pdf Year: 2003 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/47032/0013895.pdf Shelf Number: 121791 Keywords: Driving Under the Influence of DrugsDrug AbuseDrug-Impaired DrivingDrugged Driving (Scotland)Drugs and DrivingPublicity Campaigns |
Author: Mallick, Jane Title: Drugs and Driving in Australia: A Survey of Community Attitudes, Experience and Understanding Summary: Australian efforts to increase road safety, such as initiatives targeting drink driving, speeding and the use of seat belts, have seen considerable reductions in road trauma in the past 30 years. There is recent evidence to suggest that drugs other than alcohol, both licit (for example, pharmaceutical drugs) and illicit (for example, cannabis, methamphetamines and ecstasy) are associated with impaired driving ability and, thus, road trauma. There remain, however, many questions regarding drug driving in Australia. For instance, little is known about the prevalence of drug driving within the general population, or about the attitudes and perceptions of drivers in relation to drug driving. Such information is important to inform the development of effective prevention and road safety countermeasures. Further, although much of the previous research, policy and media attention have focused on illicit drugs, there is increasing evidence that pharmaceutical drugs impair driving ability and thus may be a road safety concern. There is, however, little information regarding the prevalence of driving following pharmaceutical drug use and the community’s attitudes and perceptions towards the use of such drugs and driving. It was the aim of this research to address some of the gaps in the knowledge by exploring the Australian community’s attitudes, experience and understanding of drugs and driving, in relation to alcohol, illicit drugs and pharmaceutical drugs. The ultimate aim was to inform the development of effective policy, and information and education campaigns, targeting drug driving. The research consisted of three stages: a review of the literature regarding drug driving; in-depth interviews with 20 key stakeholders from the Australian drug and alcohol and/or road safety sectors; and an Internet survey of Australian drivers (N=6801). The focus of the data collected from these three sources was on the prevalence of drug driving in Australia; the driving impairment associated with drug use; the attitudes and perceptions of drivers towards drugs and driving; and the road safety countermeasures adopted to address drugs and driving. Details: Melbourne, Australia: Australian Drug Foundation, 2007. 104p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 24, 2011 at: http://www.druginfo.adf.org.au/attachments/400_Drugs_and_Driving_in_Australia_fullreport.pdf Year: 2007 Country: Australia URL: http://www.druginfo.adf.org.au/attachments/400_Drugs_and_Driving_in_Australia_fullreport.pdf Shelf Number: 121792 Keywords: Driving Under the Influence of DrugsDrug AbuseDrugged Driving (Australia)Drugs and DrivingPublic Opinion |
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: Oliver, J.S. Title: Monitoring the Effectiveness of UK Field Impairment Tests Summary: The Field Impairment Test (FIT) is used by UK police officers at the roadside. It aids the officer in the decision to arrest a driver stopped because of observed impairment of driving, and who, during the interaction with the officer, raised suspicion that drug use may be the cause. Under these conditions, the driver may be asked to perform the test, and if performance is unsatisfactory the officer may decide to arrest a driver on suspicion of driving while unfit through drugs. After such an arrest, enforcement procedures require the driver to be brought into a police station to be seen by a Forensic Medical Examiner (FME). If the FME certifies that the driver’s condition may be due to drink or drugs, a biological sample is obtained from the driver for drug analysis. This study was undertaken to assess the effectiveness of FIT. In part, this was achieved by assessing the level of concordance between police officers’ judgements at the roadside following the use of FIT and the results of drug analysis of biological samples obtained from drivers. In addition oral fluid was obtained on a voluntary basis from drivers who were released at the roadside following the use of FIT. The contribution of each component of FIT to the correct identification of drivers impaired by drugs was also assessed, and additionally, the nature and extent of drug use in this group of drivers was recorded. The performance of FIT as part of the police enforcement process was judged against an objective measure: the presence of drugs in the biological specimens (blood, urine or oral fluid) obtained from drivers who had been assessed by FIT. The majority of biological samples from those arrested were blood, and all specimens from those released at the roadside were oral fluid. While the mere presence of drugs in blood or oral fluid does not indicate impairment per se, the occurrence of toxicologically significant concentrations of drugs supports the presumption of impairment when supported by the officer’s record of impaired driving. The analysis in this study was based on information from a database set up to record the results of the FIT tests carried out by the 22 participating police forces and the results of laboratory analysis of biological specimens for cases proceeding under Section 4 of the Road Traffic Act. Additional information was obtained from supplementary forms completed during FIT by the officer and from analysis of oral fluid specimens voluntarily donated by the drivers who were stopped but not arrested at the roadside, and therefore assumed to be not impaired through drugs. In total, 991 appropriate cases were reported during the study period. Of these, 334 cases had the information required for the evaluation process (performance in FIT and the presence or absence of drugs in biological samples). For these cases the information was used to calculate the sensitivity (the proportion of true positive cases detected), specificity (the proportion of true negative cases detected) and accuracy (the proportion of cases that were correctly diagnosed in the study sample). The study results demonstrate that oral fluid can be used to identify drugs in drivers. Donation and collection of oral fluid specimens presented no operational hazard to police officers and was acceptable to drivers, including those who were drug positive. From the results obtained from the analysis of blood, urine and oral fluid, the nature and extent of drug use by drivers was found to be similar throughout the study areas, and reflected drugs misuse rather than the therapeutic usage of prescribed medicines. In relation to the use of FIT, the assessment of impairment by a police officer using the test was supported by the clinical examination performed by the FME in 77% of the cases. Biological samples were received and analysed in only 65% of this group but significant drug use was confirmed in 94% of them. Consequently, where there is initial suspicion of drug impaired driving supported by the use of FIT and the medical investigation, the procedure as a whole has demonstrated a high positive predictive value (94%). Overall, the roadside application of FIT demonstrated a sensitivity of 65%, a specificity of 77% and an accuracy of 66%, meaning that FIT identifies the majority of drug positive and drug negative cases. Consequently, FIT in its current form is useable for screening purposes. However, further development is required to improve its performance. The drug recognition skills of the police officers were generally good. Within the battery of tests that forms FIT, the pupillary examination contributed very little. Despite the positive results described above, there were several areas of concern. We were unable to obtain biological specimens from drivers where the FME did not corroborate the opinion of the arresting officer (23% of cases). From the significant number of drug positive cases found from the analysis of oral fluid provided by drivers released by the police officer prior to the involvement of the FME, there is concern that in these disputed cases there might be a high number of drug positives. Additionally, although we had only a small number of specimens volunteered at the roadside by those who were stopped but were judged to be unimpaired by the police officer, a significant number of these were drug positive (71%). This is of some concern as the majority of drugs detected in these specimens were indicative of drug misuse. This highlights the possibility that the current roadside procedure is not sensitive enough to detect all those impaired through drugs, or that there is a possible training issue for the police officer or that driver tolerance to the effects of the drug may explain this finding. Finally, there is no absolute definition of driving impairment nor is there an objective, validated method by which driving impairment (and FIT) can be assessed. Details: London: Department for Transport, 2006. 62p. Source: Internet Resource: Road Safety Research Report No. 63: Accessed May 24, 2011 at: http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety/research/rsrr/theme3/monitoringtheeffectiveness.pdf Year: 2006 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety/research/rsrr/theme3/monitoringtheeffectiveness.pdf Shelf Number: 121794 Keywords: Driving Under the Influence of DrugsDrug AbuseDrug-Impaired DrivingDrugged Driving (U.K.)Drugs and Driving |
Author: DuPont, Robert L. Title: Drugged Driving Research: A White Paper Summary: Drugged driving is a significant public health and public safety problem in the United States and abroad, as documented through a growing body of research. Among the research conducted in the US is the 2009 finding that 33% of fatally injured drivers with known drug test results were positive for drugs other than alcohol. Among randomly stopped weekend nighttime drivers who provided oral fluid and/or blood specimens in 2007, 16.3% were positive for drugs. While these and other emerging data demonstrate the drugged driving problem, the US has lagged behind other nations in both drugged driving research and enforcement. The White House Office of National Drug Control Policy’s (ONDCP) 2010 National Drug Control Strategy established as a priority reducing drugged driving in the United States. To achieve the Strategy’s goal of reducing drugged driving by 10% by 2015, the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) enlisted the Institute for Behavior and Health, Inc. (IBH) to review the current state of knowledge about drugged driving and to develop a comprehensive research plan for future research that would hold the promise of making a significant impact by 2015. IBH convened an expert committee to develop this report. Committee members included top leaders across a broad spectrum of related disciplines including research, public policy, enforcement and law. Details: Rockville, MD: Institute for Behavior and Health, Inc., 2011. 62p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 27, 2011 at: http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/pdf/nida_dd_paper.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/pdf/nida_dd_paper.pdf Shelf Number: 121829 Keywords: Driving Under the Influence of DrugsDrug AbuseDrug-Impaired DrivingDrugged Driving (U.S.)Drugs 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: U.S. Department of Transporation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Title: Low-Staffing Sobriety Checkpoints Summary: Impaired driving crashes result in tens of thousands of injuries and thousands of lives lost every year. Stopping and arresting a drug- and/or alcohol-impaired driver may seem to be a simple process. In fact, it is a series of procedures that are dictated by complex State and local laws. Before addressing the issue of impaired driving enforcement, it is important for law enforcement to consider all components involved in successfully deterring the impaired driver. High visibility enforcement efforts accompanied by aggressive media coverage of enforcement efforts, public awareness, and education are essential to a comprehensive impaired driving campaign. These tools have proven effective in reducing impaired driving, and were documented in the Checkpoint Tennessee Evaluation Project. This document will provide guidance to law enforcement agencies on how to adequately coordinate the planning, operation, data collection, and actions of conducting low-staffing sobriety checkpoints. Details: Washington, DC: U.D. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2006. 24p. Source: DOT HS 810 590: Internet Resource: Accessed March 2, 2012 at http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/enforce/LowStaffing_Checkpoints/images/LowStaffing.pdf Year: 2006 Country: United States URL: http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/enforce/LowStaffing_Checkpoints/images/LowStaffing.pdf Shelf Number: 124353 Keywords: Alcohol Impaired DrivingCrime Reduction, HandbooksDriving Under the Influence of DrugsDrug-Impaired DrivingDrugs and DrivingDrunk DrivingPolicing Procedures (U.S.)Sobriety Checkpoints (U.S.) |
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: Kerrigan, Sarah Title: Drug Toxicology for Prosecutors: Targeting Hardcore Impaired Drivers Summary: Drug impaired drivers kill and maim thousands of people each and every year in the United States. Unfortunately, prosecuting drug-impaired drivers is a daunting task. Jurors, who are very familiar with alcohol’s effects, signs and symptoms, often know little or nothing about other drugs. Tainted by crime shows like CSI: Miami, they may have unrealistic expectations about the nature and quantum of available proof. Unlike alcohol, most states do not have “per se” limits for drugged driving. To successfully explain the evidence and issues to jurors in Driving Under the Influence of Drugs (DUID) cases, prosecutors must understand the basics of drug toxicology. This publication is designed to provide prosecutors with a basic understanding of drug pharmacology and testing. The prosecution of drug impaired driving cases is more complex than alcohol-related DWI (driving while impaired) cases—both scientifically and legally. Impairment can be more difficult to discern and prove, thus making these cases more difficult to prosecute. Although alcohol is a drug, not all drugs can be considered in the same way. This means that a case involving a driver suspected of driving under the influence of drugs (DUID) may require special handling and evaluation. Good communication and effective integration of law enforcement and legal and scientific personnel are essential in these cases. Details: Alexandria, VA; American Prosecutors Research Institute, 2004. 59p. Source: Special Topics Series: Internet Resource: Accessed August 30, 2012 at http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/drug_toxicology_for_prosecutors_04.pdf Year: 2004 Country: United States URL: http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/drug_toxicology_for_prosecutors_04.pdf Shelf Number: 126173 Keywords: Crime LaboratoriesDriving Under the Influence of DrugsDrug AbuseDrug-Impaired DrivingDrugs and DrivingForensic ScienceForensics |
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: Kay, Gary G. Title: Drugged Driving Expert Panel Report: A Consensus Protocol for Assessing the Potential of Drugs to Impair Driving Summary: In November 2008 and again in March 2009, an expert panel was convened by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration with the goal of determining whether a list could be developed to indicate which medications or classes of medications may pose a hazard to driving. There was particular interest in having the panel develop a list of “safe” medications that do not impair driving. The value of the list would be to better inform patients and physicians regarding the likely effects of a drug on driving. This information could lead to better-informed prescribing practices and to more rational selection of medications by patients. The panel was composed of an international group of behavioral scientists, epidemiologists, pharmacologists, toxicologists, and traffic safety professionals to provide a broad-based perspective on the issue. Discussions included prescription (Rx) medications as well as over-the-counter (OTC) medications and illicit drugs. Although illicit drugs are best known for their impairing effects, Rx and OTC medications are also known to be capable of producing impairment and many are frequently encountered in impaired driver populations. The panel agreed that one of the barriers to categorizing drugs with respect to driving impairment risk is the lack of a common, standardized protocol for assessing the impairing potential of drugs. The panel recognized the need for a structured, standardized protocol for assessing the driving impairment risk of drugs that would lead to better classification of drugs in terms of driving impairment risk. The approach could be useful in providing more meaningful precautions for users and prescribers regarding the impact of drugs on driving. This report provides the background for the project and assembly of the expert panel, a description of the proposed protocol, and offers examples of how the protocol could be useful in evaluating a drug. Details: Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety, Administration Office of Behavioral Safety Research, 2011. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: DOT HS 811 438: Accessed November 24, 2012 at: www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/nti/pdf/811438.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 126993 Keywords: Driving Under the InfluenceDrugged Driving (U.S.)Drugs and DrivingPrescription Drugs |
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: Wolff, K. Title: Driving Under the Influence of Drugs Summary: Sir Peter North’s review of drink and drug driving law in Great Britain which reported in 2010 confirmed that there is a significant drug driving problem. He carried out a thorough analysis of the problems regarding drug driving and set out a road map for action which included the recommendation to create a new offence. The Government accepted the recommendation and in the 2011 Department for Transport (DfT) Strategic Framework for Road Safety, the Government committed to explore the case for introducing an additional offence of driving with a specified controlled drug in the body, without the need for proving impairment. The proposed new offence would be a strict liability offence, in the same way as the offence of driving with more than the prescribed amount of alcohol in the body. In spring 2012, the Department for Transport convened an expert Panel to provide technical advice related to a new offence on drug driving. The Crime and Courts Bill, which was introduced into Parliament in May 2012 makes provision for a new offence of driving, attempting to drive or being in charge of a motor vehicle with a specified controlled drug in the body above the level specified for that drug. It also includes a power for the Secretary of State in relation to England and Wales, and Scottish ministers in relation to Scotland, to specify the controlled drugs and the limit for each in regulations. The Panel’s advice will specifically inform these regulations. The introduction of the new offence reflects increasing evidence that drug driving is a significant road safety problem, and that the existing offence (in section 4 of the Road Traffic Act 1988) is insufficient to deal with it effectively. Impairment by drugs was recorded as a contributory factor in about 3% of fatal road accidents in Great Britain in 2011, with 54 deaths resulting from these incidents. This compares to 9% or 156 fatal road incidents, with 166 deaths, which have impairment by drink reported as a contributory factor. Some evidence suggests drug driving is a much bigger road safety problem than reported and may be a factor in 200 road deaths per year. Contributory factors are recorded by police officers attending the scene of an accident. The factors are largely subjective, reflecting the opinion of the reporting officer, and are not necessarily the result of extensive investigation. Contributory factor data are likely to underestimate the true scale of the issue. Based on coroners and breath test data, the provisional estimate for the number of people killed in drink drive accidents was 280 in 2011 (15 per cent of all road fatalities). Details: London: Department for Transport, 2013. 205p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed march 15, 2013 at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/118803/drug-driving-expert-panel-report.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/118803/drug-driving-expert-panel-report.pdf Shelf Number: 127962 Keywords: Driving Under the InfluenceDrugged Driving (U.K.)Drugs and Driving |
Author: Pashley, Charlotte R. Title: The Road Safety Monitor 2013: Drugs and Driving Summary: The new report, The Road Safety Monitor 2013: Drugs and Driving, based on a survey of Canadian drivers, looks at drivers' views, experiences and behaviours in relation to the use of licit and illicit drugs and driving. While there is less concrete evidence regarding the prevalence, risks and implications of drug-impaired driving in comparison to alcohol-impaired driving, there are indications that the problem is a growing source of concern among road safety professionals and drivers. "According to Transport Canada, drugs, other than alcohol, are found in about one-third of the fatally injured drivers in Canada who are tested for drugs," notes TIRF President and CEO Robyn Robertson. "The National Fatality Database, maintained by TIRF, contains an index of over 200 different substances that have been detected in fatally injured drivers in Canada." The proportion of Canadian drivers admitting to using both licit and illicit drugs (3.2% prescription drugs; 1.6% marijuana or hashish and 0.8% illegal drugs) before driving underscores the need for more research and increased awareness of the potential risks associated with mixing drug use and driving. While the presence of a particular legal or illegal drug does not necessarily imply impairment of a driver, more research is needed to better understand the effects on driving behaviour. Over 63% of respondents to the survey said they felt that drug-impaired drivers posed a serious threat to traffic safety with the youngest (71.9%) and oldest (78.5%) of drivers expressing the most concern for drug-impaired drivers. While only a relatively small percentage of the population chose to drive under the influence of drugs in 2013, concern is still warranted due to the relative risk of crashing that has been associated with different drugs. "Survey results showed that individuals who chose to drive after taking prescription drugs that may affect their driving had a 60% increase in the odds of self-reporting injury as a result of a motor vehicle crash compared to those who did not drive after taking prescription drugs," explains Robertson. "In addition, drivers who drove under the influence of marijuana had a 71% increase in the odds of reporting that they had been injured in a motor vehicle collision." Researchers also remind drivers that it is illegal under the Criminal Code to drive impaired by any legal or illegal drugs. Progress has been made in the detection of drug-impaired driving, and in 2008 the Criminal Code of Canada was strengthened to include specially-trained police officers trained in detecting impairment among drivers, known as Drug Recognition Experts (DREs). Details: Ottawa: Traffic Injury Research Foundation, 2014. 30p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 10, 2014 at: http://www.tirf.ca/publications/PDF_publications/2013_RSM_Drugs&Driving_6.pdf Year: 2014 Country: Canada URL: http://www.tirf.ca/publications/PDF_publications/2013_RSM_Drugs&Driving_6.pdf Shelf Number: 133250 Keywords: Driving Under the Influence (Canada) Drugged Driving Drugs and 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: Tashima, Helen N. Title: An Evaluation of Factors Associated with Variation in DUI Conviction Rates Among California Counties Summary: Although California's statewide driving-under-the-influence of alcohol and/or drugs (DUI) conviction rate has improved over time from 64% in 1989 to 79% in 2006, the DUI conviction rates vary considerably among counties. The purpose of this study was to identify factors associated with differences among California county DUI conviction rates averaged from 2000-2006. The three approaches to obtain information were: (a) surveys sent to California judges, prosecuting attorneys, public and private defense attorneys, and court administrators; (b) face-to-face interviews conducted with California judges, prosecuting attorneys, and public and private defense attorneys; and (c) analyses of various county-level demographic and socioeconomic factors, DUI arrest and conviction process measures, and crash/recidivism variables. It was found that counties with higher DUI arrest rates tend to have lower DUI conviction rates. Counties with high DUI conviction rates tend to convict at lower BAC levels and have higher percentage usage of blood BAC tests. Counties also varied in their alcohol-reckless conviction rates as well as the BAC levels considered appropriate for negotiating alcohol-reckless plea bargains. While the 7-year (2000-2006) statewide average percentage of DUI arrestees convicted of alcohol-reckless driving was 8.1%, county percentages ranged from 0% to 22.6%. Higher prosecution caseload as measured by county violent crime rates is associated with lower DUI conviction rates, while shorter lengths of time from arrest to conviction are associated with higher DUI conviction rates. Varying prosecution policies were strongly identified by survey respondents as influencing variation in county DUI conviction rates. Convicting for drug-only DUI was considered to be very difficult due to the lack of scientifically based per se levels of drug impairment. Recommendations are made based on these findings. Details: Sacramento: California Department of Motor Vehicles, 2011. 150p. Source: Internet Resource: RSS-11-235: Accessed April 15, 2015 at: http://apps.dmv.ca.gov/about/profile/rd/r_d_report/Section_3/S3-235.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://apps.dmv.ca.gov/about/profile/rd/r_d_report/Section_3/S3-235.pdf Shelf Number: 135238 Keywords: Alcohol Law EnforcementDriving Under the InfluenceDrugs and DrivingDrunk Driving (California) |
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: 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: 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: 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 |