Road safety drug driving bill

[candor]

Submissions close the 14th December.

This bill needs support - it's weak as can be, but even so its a start. If you want to submit feel free to use "background" info provided below, or PM me if want to know anything. Written submissions need 2 copies and get posted free post to Transport and Industrial Relations Committee at Parliament Just checked and there's no online submission option for "Land Transport Amendment bill no.4" In the second post I've laid out what are prolly imo some of the most important points to make, if the extremely bare bones bill is to be workable.

http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/SC/Su...-Bill-No-4.htm

The issue - too much info?

In 1990 NZ approached the tolls of the safest Countries, but we now double theirs per capita, ever increasing crash and serious injury rates since 2001 have ensured the small insignificant gains in trimming the fatality toll are more than negated by increased disability.

Illicit drugs (mostly cannabis) were shown to have been taken by toll victims more often than was excess alcohol, when over 80% of NZ drivers deceasing in 2003-2005 were tested as part of ESR and Polices ongoing drug driving study.

Survey of 408 dead Kiwi drivers 2004-2006 (80% of the total dead)
- 53% no alcohol or drugs
- 14.7% alcohol
- 14.95% alcohol and cannabis (often alcohol at low low level)
- 10.05% cannabis
- 5.1% cannabis and other illicits
- 2.2% other illicits

This problem of traffic risk drugs being found in dead drivers has increased by 50% since the mid 1990's when only 22% of deceased drivers had recently used pot (ESR). This increase could be connected to substance switching related to lower youth alcohol limits being introduced in 1993.

Relative crash risks discerned from large robust studies such as the IMMORTAL for the 4 traffic risk drugs are; Opiates (32x), Poly drug (24x rising to 179x if driver was over BAL), Alcohol over limit (10-16x) Cannabis use by adult (5x), Benzodiazepines (2x, much higher risk if misused), Methamphetamine (risk high if sleep deprived, if other drugs used).

Maximum possible benefits have almost been achieved from strategies to defeat drink driving. Legislation targeting drink driving recidivists via reduced legal limits for them took effect in 2006. Driving under the influence of cannabis is a greater predictor of a young male crashing than drink driving (Poulin et al) and the great mass of drug users constitute a softer and more malleable target than the remaining drink drivers.

Many times drug driving has killed whole families. Most memorable in the local area was the case Coroner Evans highlighted of a husband and son from Wainui killed in a P/pot drug crash. The wife shortly after died too.

New Zealand is third for youth tolls globally per capita, the bad youth crashes increased by 20% since 2000 but only around 12% of young dead drivers are now found to be over alcohol limits (a decrease). Professor Ferguson has reported recent results from the longitudinal Christchurch baby study, which showed that a cohort of 1000 youth, now 25, were more likely to drive drugged than drunk & to have crashed under influence of drugs than alcohol.

37% of 15-19 yr old drivers killed in the toll from a recent sampling had used risk drugs as per results from the first year of the ESR study – sole cannabis (33% of all the dead) , cannabis plus alcohol (13%), then benzodiazepine tranquilisers (these are not the party pills).

In contrast to the high drug taking of young toll victims in 2006 lesser proportions ie 16 of 59 dead drivers under 24 were over alcohol limits. Drivers with very low (0-30 BAC) or nil alcohol were more numerous in the general toll statistics than heavy drinkers - atypical. It probably reflects NZer's tendency to add dope to a small tipple ++risk.

Youth are now designating drug drivers due to poor risk awareness

- G.B. 16, killed himself + 2 friends during a U-turn into a trucks path DUI marijuana near Taupo
- 6 youth died in a crash East Coast involving pot and alcohol
- W.H. killed three young people after crashing into the Waikatodue again to pot and alcohol, His friend had tossed him keys, saying he seemed fine to drive". (Herald 15 July 2005)
19 year old K.T. was made the designated driver for 8 people due to his preference for drugs over heavy drinking as he'd stuck more with P and cannabis. Hit a power pole in Hamilton killing one.

Three features of drug crashes make them often bad
-late or no braking due to drug related drowsiness results in much greater injury potential, may produce more daytime crashes (FARS database USA), more multi vehicle crashes than alcohol, younger risk demographic for drug crashes by 10 years (alcohol; 30-50)

Police due to skill deficits, and lack of powers to require impairment tests depend on offenders confessions. Often not forthcoming! The common course for offenders is to be undercharged with just carelessdriving when driving under the influence was their true offense.

These non representative charges result in frankly harmful sentences. Typically court orders to attend traffic school, which in many instances contributes to ongoing dangerous drug driving, culminating in grievous bodily harm (A.G. aged 18 put in wheelchair) or homicide (M.R. 60 Nurse).

Government policy has been to suppress the issue ever since 1995 for reasons quite icky. This suppression has made the drug driving issue loom smaller than is warranted in the Public consciousness. Government friendly media typically censor or de-emphasise any role of drugs in crashes.

Examples - when a Mr Ngan crashed with a car full of P and was charged with drug possession this year no hint of impaired driving made newspaper reports. This month the terrace tunnel was blocked by an overturned car. This happened because the driver was intoxicated on P, Police didn't look for the cause. As alcohol and speed were absent the media was mute.

A quick glance at “white cross” history further up the fairly short Hutt motorway shows it is drenched with drug related road fatalities – mostly un-prosecuted. 2 young women left a vehicle “drugged up”, and were hit and killed near the Kelson turn off.

A little further up 2 teens were killed in a head on, by a teen driver on P and opiates. A pot smoker died after pulling out onto the Hutt motorway without properly checking for oncoming traffic, nearby.

Evidence based laws can not develop without adequate ongoing data collection to help gauge which drugs are current issues, & impact of interventions so the clause in the bill allowing for blood taken in criminal investigations to be used for research is good.

It is vital that the Bill aims to capture irresponsible prescription drug abusers. Simple checks can help distinguish medical use from abuse such as – does the high driver have a prescription under their real name, do they have unexplainable needle marks, has the medicine been taken in abuse quantities or with other medicines of abuse.

We are concerned the testing lab says the plan in NZ to omit tests for benzodiazepines (the number 2 risk drug) in drug drivers showing symptoms of use, in blood screens is a dangerous one. It may highlight the grip of pharmaceutical companies on key decision-makers.

The benzodiazepines, considered in the top two risk drugs Internationally were found to be a fairly common factor (mostly without prescriptions) in the deceased NZ drivers by the ESR study. NZ sales increased 30% between 1999 and 2005 when half a million prescriptions were dispensed.
A study published Nov 2007 by the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction said that of eight recent research reports on drivers killed in road accidents, half said benzodiazepines were the most common drug found.
Benefits given projected increases in trucking

A high proportion of serious crashes involve trucks, and though the car drivers are more often to blame it's not by much. Given a Police customs operation found a third of Auckland trucks contained stimulant traces the Public needs greater confidence that major disasters will be avoided.
Provision of testing powers will enable a long extant problem, to be dealt with.

The owner of a taxi firm was given no assistance by the LTNZ when he reported a driver was unfit due to P use (because only a conviction would enable “interference”) – the driver then crashed into a cyclist, even then escaping drug driving charges it appears

A truck firm operator reported a P addict driver to the Police at Lower Hutt Station feeling he ought not be driving, but was told by Police that nothing could be done to get him off the road. A Hastings truck driver died on methadone in a spectacular mid afternoon run off road after injecting himself, with a drug other countries have strict controls around. Ability to test suspect professional drivers at weigh stations has potential to reduce the harm.

This bill plus education next best hope for toll reductions

Foreign jurisdictions such as Victoria, Malaysia and Northern UK have seen marked toll reductions since high profile policing of drug driving began. In Victoria which has a flawed model the toll nevertheless dropped. In Malaysia testing for pot and opiates halved motorcyclist deaths. In Durham England a 2 year campaign saw a reduction from 50% of dead young male drivers being found with drug in them to none of them.

[candor]

Section 2 - recommendations for improving focus & practicality of bill

1. A legal definition of impairment be provided within the bill under section 11A. If there is no definition of drug impairment, in the absence of precedent setting case law for drug driving prosecutions it may be impossible for drivers, Police and Judges to decide if the law has been breached.

Currently Judges show repeated poor understanding of how drug impairment either differs from drink driving in symptoms, impairment is too important a concept to be left undefined for everyone to interpret personally.

The impairment standard implied by the current alcohol limit is of little use for comparison and benchmark setting when drug driving cases are heard. This is because the standard symptoms observable in a drinker (stumbling, slurred speech) are different in type than the typical impairments seen in many drug users who would still be at equal crash risk eg paranoia / euphoria / drowsiness / delayed speech.

Example wording for a definition of drug impairment
(a) unsafely affected by a psychoactive drug or combination of drugs (may include alcohol) because mental, physical or sensory faculties are appreciably diminished.

2. a new clause be added to provide for the limited usage of saliva drug screening tests

British Police have complained that field tests (FIT's) allow impaired drivers to pass because these really only detect gross psychomotor impairment not altered judgment & attitude.

Saliva or pupilometry drug tests would be preferable to field impairment testing on many occasions where drug impairment testing screening would be prudent and duly diligent, but circumstances dictate that a FIT would be impractical or likely unreliable.

A – methamphetamine use suspected - Field tests are only 10% reliable for detecting methamphetamine impairment
B – injured or shocked drivers - Field tests are clearly impractical for injured drivers eg a concussion affects pupil dilation, medical treatment may delay FIT tests too long by which time drug intoxication symptoms may have waned.
C – disabled drivers - Field tests may be unable to be completed due to disability and it would be too intrusive to progress directly to blood testing without having established that suspicions of drug use are well supported.

Saliva tests have high selectivity and specificity for methamphetamine, and have lately improved so they return few false negatives for cannabis (now within SAHMSA quality requirements). They are now able to be processed evidentially with a technique taking 18 minutes, making it a cheaper option than blood testing Ref ; A validated Method for the Detection of Delta 9 thc. Quintela O, Andrenyak A, Hoggan A, Crouch D. Journal of analytic Toxicology 2007 Apr; 31 (3); 157-64 .

3.Easily exploited loop-holes in prescription drug defense need tighteningSection 57a, 1(a) b2(a) should be amended to read “a current valid prescription written for that person by a health practitioner”.
The words “current valid” before the word prescription also need insertion in section 8(c)ii(a) and 91A(a).

The reason clause need the words “current” added to it is that 2 drug driving offenders have wrongfully reduced their culpability after killing people on NZ roads by claiming the drugs they had abused were prescribed to them. Despite any such prescriptions they might once have had being very historic and one being on a register preventing such scripts being written for him.

Similar legislation elsewhere normally includes the words “current valid”. “Valid” is necessary because drug addicts acquire prescriptions to abuse under false names (often having several identities and several Drs feeding their habits).

Prescriptions gained under false names but still made out “to that person” as per this bill's current wording would enable a defence against impaired driving, which is not reasonable.

Because drug abusers commonly inject prescribed drugs so as to get high or take too much or take them with non prescribed medicines so that the combination will cause intoxication, we recommend a subclause be added to the section 57a 1(b) 2 as regards the prescription defence as follows
( c ) heeding properly any health practitioners directions about safe use

Clause 91A requires a new subsection c again reading “( c ) heeding properly any health practitioners directions about safe use.” This is to ensure the defence is not available to people deliberately taking excess doses for the high, or driving against advice.

A drug abusing person prescribed a risk drug may deliberately take another risk drug knowing the combination will achieve a much greater degree of intoxication than either taken alone. Clause 91A therefore requires a new subsection (d) reading “provided that no illicit or non prescribed psychoactive drugs were also detected at impairing levels in the blood”.

4.. A risk drug schedule should be included within the Land Transport Amendment bill no.4

It is unnecessarily cumbersome and downright peculiar to have to refer to the Medicines and Misuse of Drugs Acts (an act set for major changes) for information central to the operation of this one. Failure to provide a risk drug schedule can result in expensive mistakes as people including Police may imagine there are potentially hundreds of risk drugs and bring misguided prosecutions.

It would be neither practical for effective for the law to attempt novel prosecutions eg for impairment by hay fever tablets. The 4 common serious problem drugs causing crashes are known, the ground for bringing such prosecutions is well trod, and setting the net so wide as to potentially take in users of any and all drugs is unnecessary and against best practice.

Many other jurisdictions have inserted a traffic risk drug schedule which typically helps focus the public and Police on the 4 acknowledged drug classes of concern (per Austroads, ICADTS and the DMV). Legal limits for sole intake of a risk drug can later be added to the schedule if and when any scientific consensus is reached.

5.Uneven impact of additional convictions on minorities possible

While this is likely (as with drink driving Policing) to be more than compensated for in saved lives, one way to hedge against additional convictions being accrued by minorities would be to follow the course Canada has charted. Possession of cannabis by an unimpaired driver (supply quantities disallowed) could be made into a traffic rather than criminal infringement. This would prevent the equivalent of a 6 o clock swill before driving to “get rid of evidence”.

6.A duty must be placed on Police Officers to include ruling out of drug intoxication at all serious crashes (and how bout alcohol too)

While a duty has been placed on drivers not to drive impaired by this bill no duty has been placed on Police to conduct reasonable investigations of potentially serious offences. It appears like the ability to let highly culpable drivers slip through the cracks in an era of overfilled prisons has been defended via this omission.

The public has a right to expect quality homicide and serious injury investigations given the number one form of violent crime is victimisation by impaired drivers. Just as it is not good enough that Officers today use their discretion to judge if potentially culpable drivers be breathalysed if they have caused injury or property damage, it is not good enough that cursory judgments by individual officers may be made about which culpable drivers to drug test.

An Australian State that has been working through drug driving legislation for several years had to return a similar bill to this one for re-legislating because it was found that Police were not utilising the powers conferred – leaving perplexed families asking if the crazy driving killer was drugged.

We believe that Police should be given a duty to document at the least that culpable drivers in injury producing or vehicle tow-away crashes have indeed been screened within 3 hours for signs of drug or alcohol intoxication and appropriate followup for "red eye" etc.

7. The Bill will be more effective safety and cost wise if 4 drug random testing is enabled

Without provision for random testing the bill (in it's current form) will merely enable proper police management of cases at the serious end of the spectrum and enable justice to be done for victim's. A few lives may be saved by the deterrent effect of Public awareness that the law is no longer going to be looking the other way.

However a random testing program would be required if any law change is to make significant improvements in road safety. The evidence shows drug drivers only change their ways if they perceive a reasonable chance of being caught. A random testing program would save in the ballpark of 80 lives yearly, provided those testing positive for alcohol under limits are not excluded from drug testing.

Nb. A 1000 member motoring issues survey by the NZ AA March 2004 found 88% of members supported NZ Police either saliva drug testing or using a hand held device as a means to remove impaired people from the road (whether the cause was drugs, medicines or fatigue).

Drug driving is a mainstream activity for young NZ males. Candor Trust's survey in Naenae and Otaki found that 49% of drivers under 25 admitted to having driven while drugged at some time in the past. You can't smash a pumpkin with a corkscrew.

Some people here helped get this off the ground! Will really appreciate bit more support if can be done. Even just a one liner submission just to say bill is basicly supported (if it is). Pain theres no net subs.

[rainman]

One thing I've noticed more frequently while commuting to work down the Northern motorway is the smell of pot. Makes me a bit nervous, does that.

Will see if I can send in a small submission.

[candor]

In todays CHCH Press the day I get a letter from D.O.L. saying 6 occupational drivers this year involved in fatal accidents in which cannabis was a factor! Also says most times drugs NOT investigated so thats iceberg tip.

This death was contributed to by high tolerance of drugs at work - by employers, cops and D.O.L!

James Kirkpatrick, 18, died after being run over by the rubbish truck on which he had been working. He apparently attempted to jump onto the step of the truck as it accelerated away, slipping to fall under the wheels.

The post-mortem showed he had smoked cannabis that morning and might still have been under its influence. But the truck driver was not breathalysed or drug tested.

Christchurch Coroner Richard McElrea criticised health and safety authorities for suspecting for more than a year before Kirkpatrick's death in April 2005 that there was a drug abuse culture at the company but not addressing it.

The driver, James Manson, said he had seen Kirkpatrick standing by the road "in a dazed state" just before the incident. Manson admitted smoking cannabis at work on occasion, adding "Quite a lot of people I knew smoked it (at work)".

Pua'auase was put on Manson's truck three weeks before the accident, and said Manson and Kirkpatrick had "smoked dope" in the truck on the way to begin their run.

The week before, police had arrested three staff for smoking cannabis in the recycling truck, prompting them to be sacked.

That's bloomin' extreme - why not just employ conditional on clean saliva drug tests at work (they pay)

An audit by Land Transport New Zealand three months after the fatality showed the drug culture had "all but disappeared", with 42 of the 67 staff being dismissed in the interim.

The Department of Labour, which oversees health and safety enforcement, said it was aware of innuendo of a drug culture at Onyx the year before Kirkpatrick died, with eight incidents with the company in just over three years.

The police admitted to the coroner that their investigation was deficient, with no attempt to test Manson for alcohol or drug use.

The coroner called on the police and the Department of Labour to consider the lack of a wider investigation under workplace safety rules, given the known suspicions that drugs were suspected to be a factor in the fatality.

Other recommendations included a zero tolerance of drug use, ensuring drivers are aware of the location of their runners at all times, and possible pre-arranged signals to keep them in touch with each other.

[Jantar]

At the "Safe As" workshop last year drug testing was one of the issues discussed. A senior police officer claimed that testing would not work as it wasn't possible to set a tolerance level at which driving could be deemed to be impaired. He didn't seem to understand that because ALL drug taking is illegal that the tolerance level should be set at zero.

[Usarka]

At the "Safe As" workshop last year drug testing was one of the issues discussed. A senior police officer claimed that testing would not work as it wasn't possible to set a tolerance level at which driving could be deemed to be impaired. He didn't seem to understand that because ALL drug taking is illegal that the tolerance level should be set at zero.

you cant prosecute someone for driving under the influence when they aren't. plenty drugs stay stay in the system long enough to show on tests but not affect the driving. charge for possession yes, but not for driving.

do we also introduce charges of driving while carrying stolen goods?

[Jantar]

...do we also introduce charges of driving while carrying stolen goods?

That is already an offence.

All drug taking is illegal because the drugs affect the mind and/or body. There is no tolerance level whereby it is legal to use P up to a certain level because at that level there is no effect. Similarly there should be a zero tolence level when driving.

[James Deuce]

At the moment you can't prosecute them for driving under the influence, but you can prosecute them for illegal drug use. Like Jantar, I can't understand the "senior police officer" making an objection. Not covered by a driving law? Simple. Arrest them under drug laws. They allow for property seizure as well.

[Mr. Peanut]

SELF MUTHA FUCKING RESPONSIBILITY

I'm sick of hearing about an "act" everytime someone knocks themselves off. The world is dangerous, HTFU

[candor]

SELF MUTHA FUCKING RESPONSIBILITY
The world is dangerous, HTFU

So... you'd be happy to repeal drink driving laws then, and depend on others self responsibility? We're the 2nd last country to fix this law and thx to that heaps are dead. HTFU isn't gonna protect my 5 yr old niece from blazed rubbish truck trivers ta. Neither will cops busting them for possession - cos they still keep their licence and get no message about doing what they want to do when / where it does not affect others safety.

Usarka - the bill is allowing prosecution for any drug at any dose, so long as impairment is proven in a physical test and the drug is active in blood. Its a myth tests pick up pot for 3 mths - as they now can just detect use within 12 hours. So as is - it'll be up to defence lawyers to prove the drug in the blood did not cause the impairment found in a walk the line test.

Annette King says they're setting the blood test criteria to net anyone who smoked in the last 12 hours ie zero tolerance. Its likely the smokers will unite to argue his or to seek a blood limit for thc, because while prosecutors can vome up with studies showing impairment for 12-24 hours exists after a smoke, most studies show this only increases crash odds for a 2-3 hours.

A limit of 4-5ng rather than of 1ng which seems to be Governments idea now would make the bill more workable and relevant to road safety.

Limits that are likely impairing can actually be set for most of the 4 risk drugs and actually have been elsewhere.

Germany – has both zero tolerance and set limits for all main problem drug classes. Iif you test under the limit for illicits it is an administrative (non-criminal) DUI offense.

If over the set limit (any risk drug including typically abused meds) you are considered to be endangering others, an impairment test is required and you’re charged with a criminal DUI offence if the evidence flies.

France has limits, some US states are zero tolerance, some have limits. Oz states can have zero or limits or both depending on if you're in a crash or just picked up at checkpoints.

Our stats are worse than Irelands but one third of stopped erratic drivers under the legal limit for alcohol tested positive for drugs there. Irish aren't doing walk the line tests but are going to use these eye check machines.

[Mr. Peanut]

Things are fine as they are, thanks I'd rather not give the government any more power.

THE SKY IS FALLING THE SKY IS FALLING

[candor]

Ths is not the smacking bill - its not trivial. You can still get stoned at your 21st. Just get a sobre rider.

[Squiggles]

Sounds like the start of a good law, agree with your 2nd to last post candor
Drugs affect your driving just as alcohol, believing in self responsibility is not going to work, just looking at the figures in the first post tells the story, thats roughly 100 fatalities where drugs may have played a significant part....
I support it

[Usarka]

At the moment you can't prosecute them for driving under the influence, but you can prosecute them for illegal drug use. Like Jantar, I can't understand the "senior police officer" making an objection. Not covered by a driving law? Simple. Arrest them under drug laws. They allow for property seizure as well.

I agree to an extent. but what i took from jantars post is that the perp should get a DIC equivalent charge, which shouldnt be the case if there is no decrease in the ability to drive.

if they have drugs, bust them. if they cant drive ok then bust them. But if they can drive ok based on established criteria then dont bust them for a driving offence.

Doing otherwise goes against the grain of our legal system. (mind you, most of the recent laws have anyway so might aswell....).

[Edit] It'll be interesting if someone ever devlops a test for fatigue....... If i work an all day and nighter i reckon its equivalent to 6 pints but im still allowed to drive home.....

[Jantar]

I agree to an extent. but what i took from jantars post is that the perp should get a DIC equivalent charge, which shouldnt be the case if there is no decrease in the ability to drive.

if they have drugs, bust them. if they cant drive ok then bust them. But if they can drive ok based on established criteria then dont bust them for a driving offence.

Doing otherwise goes against the grain of our legal system. (mind you, most of the recent laws have anyway so might aswell....).

[Edit] It'll be interesting if someone ever devlops a test for fatigue....... If i work an all day and nighter i reckon its equivalent to 6 pints but im still allowed to drive home.....

So what you are saying is that someone who has a few beers too many, ie over our legal limit, shouldn't be prsecuted for DIC if they they can still drive OK?