Experts to consider case for new drug driving offence
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16392880
|
"It is also expected to look at whether an individual's ability to drive safely could be impaired by the use of prescription or other legally obtained drugs".
That concerns me more TBH - all these old duffers driving around stoned up to the eyeballs!
My brother still drives his old banger of a Corolla (Alzheimer's)
My sis still drives while taking an absolutely amazing amount of chemo for the big C.
S'one reason I drive a large (ish) jamjar.
|
|
The problem is roadside testing, not sure there is a machine that can test for cannabis, cocaine amphetamines, etc etc at the roadside with the ease of the breathalyser.
|
My understanding too, Z. I believe this still has to be done by blood test 'down the nick'.
|
|
Only after a Doctor has examined the person and deemed them to be unfit through a series of physical tests. Problem is that there is a time lapse where the person can regain their faculties.
|
So we are going to put a legal limit on the amount if illegal drugs its legal to drive under the influence of.
Must the be the brainchild of some that were destined for the cutback chop.
You couldn't make it up.
|
|
Think its a non starter. There are so many different drugs, prescribed and non-prescribed, when mixed into a cocktail have different effects.
|
There was some talk of a sobriety test, similar to what they do in some US states, i.e. walking a straight line, one foot in front of the other, balance on one leg, touch your nose etc.
|
>> So we are going to put a legal limit on the amount if illegal drugs
>> its legal to drive under the influence of.
>>
Brilliant. I love flouting grammatical rules to make telling points. Shades of the great WSC himself. :)
|
But how much of a real problem is drug driving? I don't mean where drugs are found to be present, I mean where there is real evidence that their presence affected driving and/or caused an accident.
|
This is off the subject but I wonder how many people are affected working nightshifts or irregular hrs.
|
|
As I assume there is little testing done for drugs other than alcohol, I doubt there is a direct link between incident rates and what might be termed altered consciousness. Even though there may well be tests showing the harmful effects of many drugs on driving.
|
I'd fail the 'sobriety' test now, and I've not had a drink for 18 months for medical reasons. Nor am I on any drugs who have impairing effects. I have no sense of balance, and cannot walk one foot in front of the other. Cause is nerve related, and yes, DVLA know.
Whilst impaired abilities in this respect can point to drug use, they don't necessarily do so, and have no impact on the ability to drive a car. I'd be an idiot to try two wheels though.
|
>> I'd be an idiot to try two wheels though.
You need one of these: www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16345232
Don't try going round any corners though :)
|
I've driven 'under the influence' of LSD, cannabis, and Ale Cohol (not all at the same time!)
The only time I had an accident was while on the sherbet (no injuries BTW)
What I've found over the years is that I've been more cautious/careful while driving 'under the influence',
Being older and (can I say wiser?) I don't think drink/drugs and driving go together, in any way, shape, or form.
|
Do we need another law?
This already exists
You MUST NOT drive under the influence of drugs or medicine. Check the instructions or ask your doctor or pharmacist. Using illegal drugs is highly dangerous. Never take them if you intend to drive; the effects are unpredictable, but can be even more severe than alcohol and may result in fatal or serious road crashes.
[Law RTA 1988 sect 4]
The problem seems to me to be detecting and proving the offence.
Is this going to be yet another practically unenforcable law?
|
This is a classic example of the British love of legislation by cause rather than effect.
We set up arbitrary limits for things, thereby ensuring endless work for nit-pickers and lawyers, followed by more legislation to try and plug loopholes. Then more anomalies show up, so we need more laws.
But the problem is people driving badly because of something they have consumed. So why not simply have an on the spot co-ordination test? If you can walk along the edge of the pavement without falling into the gutter, it's a pass. Fall over and it's a fail.
So the only law needed would be one that says you must not drive if you can't walk straight.
That would cover drink, drugs, tiredness.
|
>> So the only law needed would be one that says you must not drive if
>> you can't walk straight.
>> That would cover drink, drugs, tiredness.
>
And the disabled, not to mention those who naturally cant walk straight.
|
>> So the only law needed would be one that says you must not drive if
>> you can't walk straight.
>> That would cover drink, drugs, tiredness.
I refer you to SlidingPillar's post above.
|
>>
>> I refer you to SlidingPillar's post above.
>>
Yes, he said the DVLA were aware.
There would obviously be exemptions - driver normally in a wheelchair for example.
Perhaps holding a glass steady, or a simple device where you push a button when a light shows.
The details of how to devise an appropriate test could be worked out. My point was that we should direct the requirement towards addressing the problem, not to making up arbitrary rules.
|
Many sufferers from Parkinson's disease have the greatest of difficulty doing light touch tasks - but can do those requiring more effort like driving, just fine. (Not my condition, just plucked from many out of the blue).
The moment you try to assess driving ability by measuring an arbitrary non-motoring task I feel you are doomed to fail - or else (and this will be abused) the DVLA give disabled motorists a 'get out of jail free' card. Either that or the police surgeons will become busy and need to be far better educated in driving impairment than most GPs are.
I'm not in favour of drug driving though, and I agree something needs to be done, but what?
|
New case for new drug driving offence ? - Dog
