Government announce roadside drug testing scheme

Posted: 12/05/2009 at 14:53

More intresting write-up in the Telegraph today.

In 2001 a study by TRL, formerly the Government's road research laboratory, looked into the cases of 1,184 people killed on the roads.

What were described as "impairing drugs" were found in the samples of 22.9 per cent of drivers and 20.3 per cent of riders. This represented a threefold increase on a similar study carried out in the mid-1980s.

Other research, carried out for the Department for Transport's Think! road safety campaign identified a hard core of "frequent drug drivers" who were men aged between 25 and 35.
More recently a Glasgow based roadside survey saw 4.1 per cent of drivers test positive for ecstasy and 3.1 per cent for cannabis.

Sounds like a good idea - if it gets some of the dopey fucks off the road.  

But....

roadside tests could become a reality in two to five years.

Posted: 12/05/2009 at 15:14

Posted: 12/05/2009 at 15:22

How would it work?

Would it just give a positive reading? Or would it say you have had three spliffs and two E's and a couple of lines tonight?

Would asprin set it off? How about cough medicine?

I have asthma and I know for a fact that my inhalers can set off the drink driving test if used just before the test.

Posted: 12/05/2009 at 15:42

TongPo wrote (see)

i worry for you tho FJS, you strike me as a man who likes his E's

bikerchef wrote (see)

How would it work?

Would it just give a positive reading? Or would it say you have had three spliffs and two E's and a couple of lines tonight?

I expect that it will just give a 'positive' to support any any suspicion and the later blood test would be the way they showed by how much you were impaired and by what. 

bikerchef wrote (see)

Would asprin set it off? How about cough medicine?

I have asthma and I know for a fact that my inhalers can set off the drink driving test if used just before the test.

Posted: 12/05/2009 at 16:34

Posted: 12/05/2009 at 17:18

aye ,get your excuses in early

Posted: 12/05/2009 at 21:34

FJSRiDER. wrote (see)

TongPo wrote (see)

i worry for you tho FJS, you strike me as a man who likes his E's

Shows how little you know then.

.

Posted: 12/05/2009 at 22:07

TongPo wrote (see)

sorry,typo...meant to type you're the type o'man who needs to take a couple of E's

Posted: 13/05/2009 at 08:01

when i'm filtering through traffic in london in the eve rush hour the smell of skunk its pretty strong.

i think it might not be a bad idea....when i was younger i drove stoned, but older and wiser and realise what a cunt i was for doing it.

Posted: 13/05/2009 at 08:08

Posted: 13/05/2009 at 08:36

twoeyedbob wrote (see)

In my experience.it's not drug drivers we Should be worrying about,it's the (mainly) Women 4*4 ,tom tom watchers who seem Incapable of looking anywhere but forward. Sorry if that's sexist,but it's what I see every day. I know plenty peeps that have a joint and drive And it's not them I worry about.

you have a point, not with the spliffs, but in car distractions....idrive in bmws etc...

scenario

"i'm just adjusting my suspen...BANG!"

that goes for all sexes.

i see satnavs on in most cars on the way to work...these people have done the same journey for years...m3 - london - work...why on earth do they need a sat nav on for that..

why do cars need onboard computors that allow the driver to tinker...

people don't need drugs to be distracted...the car is a distraction itself.

still not good to be stoned driving though

Posted: 13/05/2009 at 08:45

twoeyedbob wrote (see)

In my experience.it's not drug drivers we Should be worrying about,it's the (mainly) Women 4*4 ,tom tom watchers who seem Incapable of looking anywhere but forward. Sorry if that's sexist,but it's what I see every day. I know plenty peeps that have a joint and drive And it's not them I worry about.

But you can see women in 4x4's looking at GPS's at a distance - the clue is they are women in 4x4's looking at GPS's.  Although I disagree - it is the vacuous and somewhat podgy young women in small harchbacks that are most prone to dumb driving.

The drunk or drugged up driver is far harder to see coming.

Posted: 13/05/2009 at 08:48

FJSRiDER. wrote (see)

TongPo wrote (see)

sorry,typo...meant to type you're the type o'man who needs to take a couple of E's

You might like to ingest disgusting chemical shite but don't go telling others what to do you sad fuck.

Posted: 13/05/2009 at 09:10

TongPo wrote (see)

go on dood, have a couple of little uns, might stop ya being so uptight.  Let us have ya address, I'll post you some. No charge. HTH

Posted: 13/05/2009 at 09:14

Here we go Come on lads  lets get back on topic.It's to early for back biting.

I for one welcome anything that makes the roads safer.

Posted: 13/05/2009 at 09:15

davemax wrote (see)

I for one welcome anything that makes the roads safer.

Posted: 13/05/2009 at 09:31

FJSRiDER. wrote (see)

davemax wrote (see)

I for one welcome anything that makes the roads safer.

While I am for the legalisation of all drugs I am also pro-road safety and while there are fuckwits like TongPo who would drive stoned we do need to have some way to measure drivers impairment.  So I think it will be a good thing too.  I hope they get those zombified on (prescription) meds off the road too.

Posted: 13/05/2009 at 09:38

dunno, regular re-tests would seem fair, though impractical.

Let's say I do drive stoned (and I'm not saying I do ) -  does that make me less safe than the 80 y/old gimmer with zero reactions/knowledge of modern traffic management/poor eyesight and slight dementia?

FJSRiDER. wrote (see)

TongPo wrote (see)

go on dood, have a couple of little uns, might stop ya being so uptight.  Let us have ya address, I'll post you some. No charge. HTH

Ever thought that if you had not trashed your tiny mind with MDMA that perhaps you would not be such a fuckwit?

 whats your excuse?

Posted: 13/05/2009 at 09:44

davemax wrote (see)

Good point.I'm also for an annual eyesight test for over 40's [am I going to far?]

Posted: 13/05/2009 at 09:47

TongPo wrote (see)

Let's say I do drive stoned (and I'm not saying I do )

TongPo wrote (see)

bollocks

Why would you think that roadside imparment tests are a problem if you don't, you idiot?

Posted: 13/05/2009 at 09:49

maybe i don't drive stoned but i drive coked up, idiot

edit  -  cos i'm not THAT facetious.

My concern is that with THC staying in the system a lot longer than alchohol, i presume it's detectable for a lot longer. I'm concerned you could smoke a spliff at the weekend, be stopped for speeding mid-week, be tested and done for drug driving when you're not under the influence at all.

Posted: 13/05/2009 at 10:07

davemax wrote (see)

FJSRiDER. wrote (see)

davemax wrote (see)

I for one welcome anything that makes the roads safer.

While I am for the legalisation of all drugs I am also pro-road safety and while there are fuckwits like TongPo who would drive stoned we do need to have some way to measure drivers impairment.  So I think it will be a good thing too.  I hope they get those zombified on (prescription) meds off the road too.

Good point.I'm also for an annual eyesight test for over 40's [am I going to far?]

i agree here, and with the comment made my FJSRiDER following. your eyesight dies change, and the change kicks in at about 40. the lenses harden and so your sight changes...mine did , and i now need glasses...mainly for close up stuff...my didtance sight has the minimum correction, but when i've been working for 16 hrs, mr specs make the journey home alot easier.

prescription meds...oh yes... a large portion of the public are on anti depressants and some are on strong pain killers (opiates)...

i'm not being funny but red bull is pretty bad for driving on as well...

davemax wrote (see)

TongPo wrote (see)

maybe i don't drive stoned but i drive coked up, idiot

edit  -  cos i'm not THAT facetious.

My concern is that with THC staying in the system a lot longer than alchohol, i presume it's detectable for a lot longer. I'm concerned you could smoke a spliff at the weekend, be stopped for speeding mid-week, be tested and done for drug driving when you're not under the influence at all.

arguably if its in your system, it's still affecting you....even though greatly diminished. all those fun things that come for free when you've had a bit of a blaze...short term memory loss, paranoia, dopamine craving & irritability last longer than just the day after. i was stoned for most of the nineties and i can confirm that.

as with necking a couple of E's of a night...its not just there for that night...you are the walking dead for days after.

so having done all that, and grown up, i wouldn't have wanted me on the roads then. 

like every drug, or drink or whatever...everyone thinks they can drive..."yeah it makes me drive more carefully...".no it doesnt really. 

Posted: 13/05/2009 at 13:10

IIIrd wrote (see)

arguably if its in your system, it's still affecting you....even though greatly diminished. all those fun things that come for free when you've had a bit of a blaze...short term memory loss, paranoia, dopamine craving & irritability last longer than just the day after. i was stoned for most of the nineties and i can confirm that.

as with necking a couple of E's of a night...its not just there for that night...you are the walking dead for days after.

so having done all that, and grown up, i wouldn't have wanted me on the roads then. 

like every drug, or drink or whatever...everyone thinks they can drive..."yeah it makes me drive more carefully...".no it doesnt really. 

i get what you're saying, and kinda agree to a point. I'm not my full self after a heavy one, nor when stoned,  but I'm as sure as I can be  that I could pass my driving test stoned or a day after taking a few tablets. I'm certain a slightly wasted me is more switched on and traffic concious than a lot you see driving.  So why shouldn't I be allowed to?

Posted: 13/05/2009 at 15:07

TongPo wrote (see)

I'm certain a slightly wasted me is more switched on and traffic concious than a lot you see driving.  So why shouldn't I be allowed to?

Posted: 13/05/2009 at 15:11

FJSRiDER. wrote (see)

TongPo wrote (see)

I'm certain a slightly wasted me is more switched on and traffic concious than a lot you see driving.  So why shouldn't I be allowed to?

Because, measurably, you are not.

Posted: 13/05/2009 at 15:13

TongPo wrote (see)

No one's ever measured it, so there's no way to qualify that statement

Hopefully, when this roadside test comes in, you'll be able to find out then. 

In the meantime they will use data from from those involved in incidents to show the numbers and the prevelence of the problem.

Posted: 13/05/2009 at 15:18

but that still won't disprove that a slightly impared me thinks faster and reads situations better than a 65 year old woman who drives maybe 5 miles a week or some borderline retard trying to talk over his booming toons on his hands free...... the only time i struggle to drive is when gettin a blow job, cos I just giggle uncontrolably.

Posted: 13/05/2009 at 15:23

I took my wife to Amstedam and we sat in smoking coffee shops. She does not smoke at all. So with all the passive smoking she did she actually had a slight buzz going on.

Would she after a day or two pass the test or fail? Will there be tolerances allowed?

How can you allow tolerances for illegal substances?

If I have the flu and take non drowsey flu medication, would this set off the test? They need to prove that the drug is afecting the peoples driving and not just present.

What about my asthma medication I am sure there are many other medications that are illegal and have to be taken but are considered not to be infulencing any driver or rider.

What happens if the test is positive and you refuse a blood test? I don't fancy being jabbed with needles just because the test was positive fo my non drowsey cough medicine and inhalers.

Posted: 13/05/2009 at 16:26

TongPo wrote (see)

but that still won't disprove that a slightly impared me thinks faster and reads situations better than a 65 year old woman who drives maybe 5 miles a week or some borderline retard trying to talk over his booming toons on his hands free...... the only time i struggle to drive is when gettin a blow job, cos I just giggle uncontrolably.

The problem with drink/drugs and driving is that you DON'T drive better but you THINK that you do....chances are the 65 year old woman would actually beat you hands down in a reaction test...

( as shown by the likes of Top Gear/ 5th Gear and Mythbusters etc....let alone the TRRL and the Home Office)

Posted: 13/05/2009 at 17:04

As far as reactions being slower?maybe, maybe not, i still maintain i could pass a driving test in that state.

As far as the high numbers of people involved in incidents having illegal substances in their systems? is that not more of a reflection on society? I'd be intersted to see how many of these accidents were actuually caused by the driver being wasted, as opposed to it being an accident, and the driver happened to have smmat in his system.

I think this subject is one where each view will never be agreed with by someone subscribing to the other. I'd like to add i'm not advocating driving while clearly not in a state to do so. . . just that cos someone has weed/whatever in their system does not mean they're unfit to drive.

Posted: 13/05/2009 at 18:56

TongPo wrote (see)

As far as reactions being slower?maybe, maybe not, i still maintain i could pass a driving test in that state.

As far as the high numbers of people involved in incidents having illegal substances in their systems? is that not more of a reflection on society? I'd be intersted to see how many of these accidents were actuually caused by the driver being wasted, as opposed to it being an accident, and the driver happened to have smmat in his system.

I think this subject is one where each view will never be agreed with by someone subscribing to the other. I'd like to add i'm not advocating driving while clearly not in a state to do so. . . just that cos someone has weed/whatever in their system does not mean they're unfit to drive.

Posted: 13/05/2009 at 19:05

sounds a good laugh. And maybe summat i should try, off the public highways of course. And in a mates car!

would you not concede though, even if my reactions are slower than normal that doesn't necessarily mean they're slower than required to pass a test.

I'm fuckin mustard on the xbox when red-eyed, i'm sure that counts for summat

Posted: 13/05/2009 at 21:09

TongPo wrote (see)

sounds a good laugh. And maybe summat i should try, off the public highways of course. And in a mates car!

would you not concede though, even if my reactions are slower than normal that doesn't necessarily mean they're slower than required to pass a test.

I'm fuckin mustard on the xbox when red-eyed, i'm sure that counts for summat

Posted: 13/05/2009 at 21:48

TongPo wrote (see)

I'm fuckin mustard on the xbox when red-eyed, i'm sure that counts for summat

classic

Posted: 13/05/2009 at 21:53

TongPo wrote (see)

sounds a good laugh. And maybe summat i should try, off the public highways of course. And in a mates car!

would you not concede though, even if my reactions are slower than normal that doesn't necessarily mean they're slower than required to pass a test.

I'm fuckin mustard on the xbox when red-eyed, i'm sure that counts for summat

Posted: 13/05/2009 at 22:06

Posted: 13/05/2009 at 22:14

gedge wrote (see)

TongPo wrote (see)

sounds a good laugh. And maybe summat i should try, off the public highways of course. And in a mates car!

would you not concede though, even if my reactions are slower than normal that doesn't necessarily mean they're slower than required to pass a test.

I'm fuckin mustard on the xbox when red-eyed, i'm sure that counts for summat

its not all about reactions..its about perception, field of vision, and feelings of mortality all of which can be subdued by intoxicants ... leading to feelings of invincibility and increased risk taking or poor judgement ( including the feeling I mentioned earlier about THINKING you can drive/ride better)

yeah, yeah, I'm not saying my driving necessarily improves if slightly wasted, just is still better than a majority of road users, and still good enough to pass a test.

Besides weed doesn't really increase feelings or immortality, nor really put you in a "risk taking" mindset.

Though Gedge and Davevmax - i admit you both have valid points and both make 'em well

Morning all

Posted: 14/05/2009 at 09:43

TongPo wrote (see)

IIIrd wrote (see)

arguably if its in your system, it's still affecting you....even though greatly diminished. all those fun things that come for free when you've had a bit of a blaze...short term memory loss, paranoia, dopamine craving & irritability last longer than just the day after. i was stoned for most of the nineties and i can confirm that.

as with necking a couple of E's of a night...its not just there for that night...you are the walking dead for days after.

so having done all that, and grown up, i wouldn't have wanted me on the roads then. 

like every drug, or drink or whatever...everyone thinks they can drive..."yeah it makes me drive more carefully...".no it doesnt really. 

i get what you're saying, and kinda agree to a point. I'm not my full self after a heavy one, nor when stoned,  but I'm as sure as I can be  that I could pass my driving test stoned or a day after taking a few tablets. I'm certain a slightly wasted me is more switched on and traffic concious than a lot you see driving.  So why shouldn't I be allowed to?

Posted: 14/05/2009 at 09:51

well, you kinda got me there, as you know damn well what my reaction would be.

But laws aren't set with hearts they're set with heads. . .and tryin to be dispassionate about it I'd have to know whether it actually had any bearing. Or summat

Posted: 14/05/2009 at 10:07