|
Cannabis Campaigners' Guide News Database result:
|
|
UK: Smoking out doped drivers
Simon Potter The Sunday Times
Sunday 15 Dec 2002 It was 4am and after a long night of partying 16-year-old Amy Carpenter needed a rest. Her friends were reluctant to go home, so they let Amy into a Ford Fiesta parked outside. She fell asleep. A week later she woke from a coma in hospital in Chester. It emerged that another party-goer, an acquaintance of Amy's, had set off from Liverpool in the car while she was still asleep, with another passenger in the front. During the course of the night the driver had taken three ecstasy tablets and amphetamines. He fell asleep at the wheel and the car careered off the southbound carriageway of the M53 and down a 40ft embankment, throwing Amy out of the rear window. The Fiesta came to rest upside down on a bridle path, with Amy pinned under the bonnet. Amy's crash happened eight years ago. She spent two months in hospital and a great deal longer re-establishing a normal life, eventually overcoming the flashbacks and nightmares. Since then her mother Diana has campaigned for better education on drugs and driving, and is keen for it to have as high a profile as drunk-driving, especially at this time of year when attention focuses on driving under the influence. "The lack of understanding - from teenagers through to the House of Commons - is the most worrying aspect of this issue," says Diana Buckley Carpenter. "The dangers of drink-driving are well understood, but drugs is an unknown area." Take cannabis, for example, which makes up about two-thirds of illegal drug use. "When you hear an MP saying cannabis does not make you a worse driver because you tend to be more cautious, you do worry about what cloud he's living on," she says. "How can reduced reaction times be anything other than potentially lethal in a driver?" Experts agree, acknowledging that cannabis does slow reaction times. But is drug-driving widespread enough to warrant a national campaign or a change in the law? Recent evidence shows a disturbing trend. The Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) has conducted two studies into the influence of drugs on road accident deaths. Between 1985 and 1988 illicit drugs were involved in 3% of road deaths. A decade later (1996-2000) the figure had grown to 18% and two-thirds of those cases involved cannabis. In 2000 1,800 people were convicted of drug-driving but police warn many thousands more escaped conviction because of a lack of roadside testing. If the problem is increasing so rapidly, why were only 2,000 blood tests for drugs carried out on drivers in 2000, compared with 715,000 alcohol breath tests (of which 13% proved positive)? Part of the answer lies in the vagueness of the law. Astonishingly, it is not strictly illegal to take illicit drugs and drive. To be prosecuted you must be shown to have been "unfit to drive", which under current laws is difficult to prove. Another aspect is cost. A blood test to ascertain the presence of drugs is an expensive process involving police surgeons, so police are reluctant to do it unless they're absolutely sure the person is "impaired". Furthermore, the result may well prove inconclusive. "Cannabis is fat-soluble so it can stay in your system for 28 days or more," says Rob Tunbridge of the TRL. "So we can pick up cannabis in a driver's blood days or weeks after he or she consumed it and it may have had no relationship to his or her driving." Nick Hawkins, a shadow Home Office minister, has promised to table a bill making drug-driving a specific offence. "I've been astounded at the lack of information available about the effect of drug-taking on road accidents," he says. "In July I called on the Home Office to carry out a full investigation into the issue, but they continue to bury their heads in the sand. I will therefore be seeking to amend the Road Traffic Act to introduce a separate offence of drug-driving. It will also require the police to make every effort to identify when a driver is under the influence of drugs, as opposed to alcohol." Current government policy is leaning towards a softer attitude on drugs. Steve Collier, one of only two police "drug recognition experts", believes the downgrading of cannabis from class B to C sends the wrong message to young drivers. "Because it has been downgraded, the thinking is that it must be all right," he says. "However, it impairs drivers like any other drug." So without effective laws or affordable detection technology, the most effective drug-driving detection techniques have required a return to traditional pre-Breathalyser policing methods, in the form of the field impairment test. "This has been used in America for 30 years and it is proving highly successful over here," says Sergeant Nigel Welham, who is spearheading Thames Valley police's offensive against drug-driving. "We carry out five tests that measure attention and co-ordination. Depending on where and how drivers may fail, we can get a pretty clear idea of what type of drug they might be on." Evidence of the FIT's accuracy comes from trials carried out among six police forces. Specially trained officers conducted 111 tests over a six-week period. Around 40% of drivers failed the test. Each of these was taken to a police station, where a surgeon was brought in to give a second opinion. This led to 26 blood samples being taken and sent off for drug analysis, 24 of which were positive. The training allowed officers in two-thirds of the FITs to identify the drug group causing the impairment. However, an even more accurate method could be in use soon. Tunbridge says: "I am optimistic about the availability of a convenient and accurate roadside drug-testing device. That could be a Breathalyser or a swab that analyses perspiration. It's probably only around three years away." How drugs affect drivers Cannabis interferes with users' ability or willingness to pay attention, making it extremely dangerous to drive while stoned. Effects are felt after eight or nine seconds, reaching a peak after 10 to 15 minutes, but impairment can last for several hours Heroin provides a feeling of euphoria and relief of all pain, but in doing so it depresses reflexes, and co-ordination will be poor. Drivers on heroin will not be able to see properly, concentrate or react quickly enough to events on the road Cocaine brings exaggerated feelings of confidence, strength and intelligence, and judgment is severely impaired. It is a stimulant, so users are likely to be hyperactive, unable to stand still or judge time and distance accurately Ecstasy combines a hallucinogen with a stimulant, so all emotions are exaggerated. Hearing a sound may lead users to believe they can see or smell something that isn't there. Pupils will appear dilated and users will be dazed and uncoordinated. Balance and judgment of time and distance can also be affected Source: Thames Valley police Put to the test The Field Impairment Test (FIT) involves: An examination of eye pupils A Romberg test in which a driver is asked to hold his or her head back, close his or her eyes and estimate when 30sec has passed A one-leg stand test that requires a driver to balance on one leg while counting A heel-toe test that involves taking nine steps forward before turning and coming back A finger-to-nose test where the driver puts his or her head back, closes his or her eyes and attempts to touch the nose.
After you have finished reading this article you can click here to go back.
|
This page was created by the Cannabis Campaigners' Guide.
Feel free to link to this page!