Drink, drugs and driving

[Jux]

In The Times today:

"People who drive after taking illegal drugs could be banned for a year and fined up to £5000 - even if there is no evidence that their driving was impaired." Yes someone has developed a roadside drug test, just need a sample of saliva.

Now, without the last clause, that would seem OK, bastard out of his head, driving like a maniac, yes of course, grab him and ban him and fine him. BUT his driving was fine, perfectly safe, sensible, not speeding (ha!), stops for little old ladies etc.

There is talk of allowing the police to perform random checks. That means stopping a car for no reason, breathalysing the driver (and presumably now doing the above roadside drug test as well).

I am wondering: does that mean that if you had a toke of cannabis a couple of weeks ago, you will then be up for the ban and fine? How fair is this? What about if you use it for pain relief?

To be honest, I know a few people who smoke the stuff and they are a lot safer on the road than people who drink.

Are we really in favour of random checks? Where will it stop? The next logical step is to stop people in the street, isn't it? How far is this going to go?

And if there is a limit to how much alcohol you are allowed to have in your body before you are considered unsafe to drive, should there be a measure of how much of any particular drug there is in your body before you are considered unsafe?

I just feel that our society is moving closer and closer to a police state. Big Gov is watching everything and wants to control everthing and very soon we will be being stalked by the thought police! Already neighbours are grassing up neighbours, next it'll be kids grassing up parents.

Maybe I'm just musing; but I really don't like the way this is going.

bring it on.

I don't think the laws on drink driving go far enough tbh. I think the law should be that you either drink, or you drive - no tolerance. And I think that if you're caught drink-driving you should be banned for life. People would certainly think twice about it if they thought they might lose their licence for ever as opposed to 6 months or a year...

And being caught with illegal drugs? oh well if you choose to take illegal substances it doesn't really matter when you're caught does it? It's illegal whether you take them and drive or take them and don't drive... the drugs are still illegal.

For those of us getting hung up on "illegal" status of certain drugs: How exactly do you intend to prove that the person "caught" as having smoked a joint a month ago didn't do so in a place where it was perfectly legal?

I agree with LittleBella.

And as for the nanny state argument - well we seem to be a nation of morons lately so the more nannying the better really.

I can't get excited about defending the civil liberties of people who break the law.

I think that protest about having no evidence that driving is impaired at the point of testing misses the point of this: to prevent the evidence occurring in the form of an accident.

"To be honest, I know a few people who smoke the stuff and they are a lot safer on the road than people who drink."

I know a few people who drink above the limit and themselves and their friends regard themselves as a lot safer on the roads, so I'd class that comment with theirs. Safer does not = safe.

"The next logical step is to stop people in the street, isn't it?"

No, because even without the comparison to a car crash, a collision between two pedestrians is far less likely to cause serious injury or loss of life.

There is, of course, a way to prove whether the drug had been taken in a country where it was legal to do so, with the evidence of travel records and so on, though to the government that would strengthen their case for biometric passports and the like which I do not agree with.

And having said all that, I do think that random checks should be performed at sensible times and locations (not in rush hour on the M25 for example).

I also think that there should be a limit set as there is for alcohol but unfortunately while these drugs are illegal in the UK, there is unlikely to be any chance of a more practical and realistic drugs policy, which means that not only will it continue to be very difficult to discover the true strength of a drug until it is taken, but there will continue to be no limit set as there is with alcohol.

Mumi (former stoned learner driver!)

On the probably rare occasion that someone is tested positive when they have taken the drug abroad, that would be easily proven by travel documentation. However, when in this country, you are deemed to be aware of the law and, if you get behind the wheel of a car having consumed an illegal drug (wherever that drug was consumed) which is still in your system (and if you take the drug you should know how long it remains in the system - if you don't, you're not being very bright), then you know the consequences.

yet you could probably take cocaine regularly and heroin yet be clear as that passes quickly out the system.

i think there should be zero tolerance for drinking and driving. another horrific case in the news today.

Freckle - For the umpteenth time: It is NOT the drug that remains in the system. It is the METABOLITE that remains in the system.

Meaning: You will test positive for some weeks, but you won't be under the influence AT ALL.

Sidge - You might have a point

Have you people ever wondered we keep hearing about drunk drivers, but very VERY rarely of drug drivers?

There are between 500,000 and 2,000,000 ecstacy tablets being used in the UK every weekend. Do you think all of these people walk? If not, why do you think there are practically no ecstacy-related car accidents?

Serious question. I'm interested in your theories.

I've seen plenty of reports of drug-drivers in the papers.
Not for one tiny second could you convince anyone that any drugs are safe while driving.

So you claim that the very low numbers of drug drivers causing accidents is not conspicuous?

what figures do you have? To show its low?
And what proof can you offer than mixing drugs and driving is ok?

a quick google leads to stories of drug taking and driving going up, people killed by drivers on drugs etc etc
Personally I'd ban drink and drug drivers for life, cube their cars and name n shame.

Tbh, I don't give a stuff what shows up in the tests. If you do illegal drugs, you have to accept the consequences. I'm not getting into shirt-rending because someone doing something illegal is found out - however they are found out.

What are you arguing for Cote? That people who take ecstasy/ cocaine should not be stopped by the cops when they're driving?

The police have the right to stop me as a driver for any reason - if I'm driving badly, if they notice a fault on my car, if they suspect the car is stolen, not insured, if they think I'm a wanted criminal, etc. If you as a driver get stopped, the police generally don't breathalise (is that how you spell it) or test you for drugs unless they realise that you might be under the influence or unless you're in an accident. What are they supposed to do if traces of a drug show up, ignore it? I don't quite understand what you are arguing for, except that if someone isn't driving badly, then they shouldn't be banned even if traces of drugs show up in their system. But they won't be, if their defence is good enough. Apart from drunk driving, it's actually quite difficult to get banned from driving in this country even if you drive really badly.

The article in OP talks about random checks, not incidence where a driver is stopped because he is driving erratically or his car has a broken light.

Since I am on this thread, that is obviously what I objected to. Not the breathalising/drug testing that would come after an accident or when driver is behaving funny on the road.

More generally, I was trying to have a debate on why police would want to fine & ban drivers who are totally sober, but the consensus on this thread seems to be that occasional drug users are criminals who deserve whatever punishment they get from anyone, albeit unrelated to traffic offenses so that debate didn't even start.

Lastly, I was trying to initiate a conversation on the interesting effects of certain drugs that erase drunkenness (a bit of info many here wouldn't be aware of), but that topic couldn't even start because nobody admits that the few drug-related accidents are extremely low in frequency, especially compared to alcohol-related accidents.

Hoping all that is now clearer, I wish all a nice day

even one drug related incident is one too many. Even if it was one a year. Thats still might be one dead innocent.
I think the death toll of 3000 a year (in this vcountry alone) and the hundreds of thousands maimed, injured and left disabled is horrifying.
If someting else did it it would be banned. But cars are seen as a god-given right.

Are there any reliable statistics relating to drug-related accidents? Bearing in mind that it is not standard practice to test for them? How many accidents are caused by drivers under the influence of drugs but which are never recorded because no tests were carried out?

Perhaps with legalised testing for drugs, we might find that as many accidents are caused by drug-users as by drink-drivers.

"but the consensus on this thread seems to be that occasional drug users are criminals who deserve whatever punishment they get from anyone, albeit unrelated to traffic offenses"

I don't think that's exactly representative of the thread. I've said that I don't think they will get any punishment. Bad driving, unless it is accompanied by drunkenness, is very rarely punished in this country in any significant way.

Loads of drugs impair driving including legal prescribe ones. Having a filthy cold impairs driving.

If the law was properly enforced, just keeping illegal drivers off the road might get accident figures down.

Why should people be allowed to drive when they are under the influence of drink or drugs or a cold when being behind the wheel of a vehicle is a privilege and not a right?

Yes apparantly htis legislation will also take into account legal prescribed drugs.

I think it's a good thing that people take the need to be fit to drive seriously. Having too little sleep is another risk factor - anyone remember that driver who had been on the internet all night and crashed into a train line causing a train crash?

oh the old chestnut, driving under the influence, compared to what ? All the muppets picking their spoilt little brats up from school, i can guarantee that most people who have had a spliff drive a lot more sensibly and carefully than the majority of these fucktards ( and with a whole lot more skill ). I mean, if they are going down this road, why not make it mandatory to pass an IQ test before being allowed behind the wheel, i'm guessing a whole lot of "sober" people would fail miserably, bunch of cnuts :o (sry for the abuse, (i'm drunk, will have to take a walk to pick my car up (friggin pain), if i were stoned it'd be no problem :) (cue all the righteous bassa )

There are laws in place already (they make no differation between legal or illegal drugs):
Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52)
Part I Principal Road Safety Provisions
Motor vehicles: drink and drugs

1. Driving, or being in charge, when under influence of drink or drugs.? (1) A person who, when driving or attempting to drive a [F1 mechanically propelled vehicle] on a road or other public place, is unfit to drive through drink or drugs is guilty of an offence.

(2) Without prejudice to subsection (1) above, a person who, when in charge of a [F1 mechanically propelled vehicle] which is on a road or other public place, is unfit to drive through drink or drugs is guilty of an offence. (3) For the purposes of subsection (2) above, a person shall be deemed not to have been in charge of a [F1 mechanically propelled vehicle] if he proves that at the material time the circumstances were such that there was no likelihood of his driving it so long as he remained unfit to drive through drink or drugs. (5) For the purposes of this section, a person shall be taken to be unfit to drive if his ability to drive properly is for the time being impaired.

I don't agree with extending the law, driving should need to be affected first.

I would like an easier way of reporting dangerous driving and it being taken seriously.

They have random stop for drugs over here already (Australia). As I understand it, you use a drug detection strip & place it on your tongue. If that shows up a positive for E, cannabis or meth (speed, ice etc) you then have to go into the police bus & provide a larger sample (saliva, I believe) if this shows a +, you are then interviewed officially & then that sample is sent to a lab for analysis. If it shows high enough levels of these drugs, you are fined/punished in accordance to the law etc etc.

There is no harm if you don't do drugs.

1st Offence here attracts a $420 (260gbp) fine & 4 points. Or a court penalty of [no less than] $500 & no more than $900 & 4 points

2nd : Not less than $700 and not more than $1,200 fine and 4 demerit points and licence disqualification ? not less than six months

3rd : Not less than $1,100 and not more than $1,800 fine and 4 demerit points and licence disqualification ? not less than 12 months

Any further offences : Not less than $1,100 and not more than
$1,800 fine and 4 demerit points and licence disqualification ? not less
than 2 years

Ignore random numbers