Tougher Measures to Target Drug Drivers in Britain (December 2004)

News & Topical Articles

Tougher Measures to Target Drug Drivers in Britain

22 December, 2004

New powers to help tackle the dangers of drug driving can be used from today announced David Jamieson, Road Safety Minister.

A new Code of Practice means that drivers will be compelled to undertake roadside impairment tests if the police suspect they are driving under the influence of drugs.

The Code details the way trained police officers must conduct the tests to help judge whether someone may be unfit to drive. Refusal to participate is an offence in the same way as failure to provide a breath test [i.e. where alcohol is suspected - DSA].

David Jamieson said: "Drug driving puts lives at danger and is as irresponsible as drink driving. Drivers should never get behind the wheel when they're unfit to drive. Law abiding motorists are fed up with anti social drivers who put not only their own lives at risk but those of other innocent road users.

"The Code of Practice issued today will help to further drive down the number of casualties on our roads. Testing will mean that a trained officer will have more information on which to judge whether a driver may be impaired and more evidence when deciding whether to make an arrest."

The Code of Practice details the tests to be undertaken, how they should be administered, the kind of observations that may be made and the inferences that may be drawn. It also deals with the training for officers and their authorisation by Chief Constables. More than half of the police forces in England, Scotland and Wales already have officers trained in impairment testing with others set to follow.

The tests are a range of tasks including a pupilliary examination, the walk and turn test and the one-leg stand. Other training helps officers to recognise the outward signs of drug recognition.

Additional Notes

1. The Code of Practice can be viewed via a link from the THINK! website or on the Homeoffice website

2. The road traffic offence is to be unfit to drive through drink or drugs (section 4 of the Road Traffic Act 1988). Police must therefore demonstrate that a suspect may be unfit to drive and also that it may be through drugs, or drink, before making an arrest. It is for a court to consider the evidence and to decide whether an offence has been committed. Whether drugs or drink is suspected, impairment assessment will therefore always be an important part of enforcing the law.

3. The ability to test for the presence of drugs at the roadside, which requires type-approved equipment, will only confirm the presence of a drug. Such tests will not replace the need to prove impairment to drive. The type-approval specification for such equipment is expected to be ready in 2005.

4. Drugs includes prescription drugs or medicines, and over-the-counter preparations as well as illegal drugs.

5. The penalties for driving while unfit through drugs are the same as for drink-driving. A maximum fine of £5,000, obligatory disqualification for 12 months (with 3-11 penalty points if the driver, exceptionally, is not disqualified outright) and the possibility of up to 6 months in prison.

Source: Department for Transport (DFT/SE/12/12)

DSA Comments: These measures will undoubtedly be very welcome among road safety practitioners and police officers in Britain, for they will undeniably save lives.

Interestingly, this development is the first to introduce the equivalent of what American law calls 'field sobriety testing' to Britain, because dealing with a driver who has been drinking alcohol has always been a very straightforward matter in the UK, and will remain so, despite the mentions of 'drink' in the above press release.

Since the 1960's, anyone suspected of drinking and driving, in Britain, has been required to provide a specimen of breath at the roadside. The result of that test was not prima facie evidence in itself, but if the reading was positive it resulted in the person being arrested and taken to a police station, where further evidential testing was carried out.

If the second-phase tests showed a blood-alcohol concentration exceeding the equivalent of 0.08 per cent, the driver would go to court. Escaping conviction has always been hard and -- having been convicted -- escaping the mandatory, disqualification from driving (one year minimum) has always been extremely rare. Longer driving bans are frequently applied in the cases of high BAC's and of repeat offenders. And both the risk of being caught and the penalties involved for 'driving while disqualified' are severe.

Refusal to provide any of the required test specimens inevitably incurs heavy fines and mandatory disqualification.

Due to type-approval of the latest equipment, British police forces will now progressively turn to evidential roadside breath testing where alcohol is suspected, and in these cases it will continue to be the case that no equivalent of 'field sobriety testing' will be needed -- an over-the-limit BAC is all that is required secure conviction.

And if a driver is displaying signs of impairment but does not fail a roadside breath test for alcohol (whether evidential or otherwise) that driver may then be tested for drug impairment, using the method outlined in the above press release.

Eddie Wren, Executive Director, Drive and Stay Alive, Inc.

ARTICLES AND TOPICS	TIP OF THE DAY	FOR YOUNG DRIVERS
INFORMATION SECTION	CALENDAR OF EVENTS	CONTACT US
IN THE NEWS	FOR PARENTS OF YOUNG DRIVERS	LINKS