SUMMARY

  By 2010 the UK needs to reduce accidents and casualties to 50% of 2000 levels.

  The recent EC funded IMMORTAL study showed that of the 1,300 drivers chosen at random in Glasgow, one in seven had taken illegal drugs in the last 48 hours. Two of the 10 RTA fatalities each day and in some studies, four of the 10 daily traffic fatalities have illegal drugs in their system. Drug driving situation is being hidden from the public and what response there is has fallen between the two departments, with no priority to save lives. Technology has existed since the late 90's that could greatly assist the detection and arrest process. Between the DfT and the Home Office, they have been chasing "Blue Sky" solutions rather than adapting processes and changing legislation to utilise current and available technology. Government has not been asked to ban driving on drugs, so the law remains requiring proof of impairment. The Police were left to develop their own good but restrictively used solution, the Drug Impairment Test. The traffic officers want a simple road side screen to assist and greatly improve the effectiveness of the prosecution process.

  The question is, what have Government and the assorted Ministries done to allow the Police to tackle the same problem ? To be frank, the answer is worse than very little, over the past eight years it has effectively hindered the Polices ability to remove drug drivers from the road.

BACKGROUND

  Dtec International Ltd has been working in UK in the drug detection field for 10 years, on the supply of Drugwipe equipment and training for road side drug driver screening as has been the case since 1995 in Germany. Dtec supply a drug screening service to some of the countries largest bus and transport organisations who because society is giving them the potential problem of employees on drugs, they either screen all employees at random or safety critical employees, ie drivers, regularly.

  In 1996-98, the Dept for Transport funded a study of equipment capable of detecting drug consumption in a driver at the road side. The two devices capable of the task were operated by serving officers. Drugwipes were used to screen 5,000 drivers by a simple wipe on the skin. The driver was then provided with a 3 page questionnaire to complete it at a later time, supply an envelope and stamp and return it to the DoT. A long shot? There were over 60% of the people that made the effort to reply! By far the majority of the responses were "we do not mind being screened if it catches the drug drivers, It is a problem of great concern, please do something now". I do not believe the results of this trial were ever made public, even when the Journalists asked for information on the specific trial, they were told no such data existed. Other studies of a similar nature were also either delayed for several years or just never published. Why hide the facts?

DTec International Ltd, took the police feed back and created the new easier to read and operate Drugwipe 5. Since then, I feel like I have been perpetually pushing the DfT to move forward with use of the new improved Drugwipe 5 device. Effort that appeared to fall on deaf ears. There was always some reason not to go forward with an available solution that could do a very good job and could have saved lives.

  Why did it take so long to provide legislation allowing traffic police to take samples and then it came as an amendment in the RATS act? The authority to demand an impairment test took a similar tortuous route.

  One hurdle is that officials have assumed that the Government would never change the law to ban driving with drugs in your body, as is the situation in Germany. The UK law requires proof of impairment. Hence Dft and HO keep moving forward with requiring proof of impairment, which leads to talk and research on "impairment meters". Blue sky research takes many years. In the mean time people are dying. Even worse for the accountants are the 10 fold higher number of seriously injured that take massive amounts of NHS funds to care for or cure!

  The Police on the road want to reduce these drug driving casualties. Eight years ago, the "Government" would not let them have the available screening technology, so two officers from Strathclyde Traffic adapted the US Field Sobriety Test into a UK suitable field impairment test. This has over five years been developed and is now called the Drug Impairment Test. The DIT received Home Office approval and a small number of traffic officers are now trained to perform DIT at the road side.

  So the true situation at the moment in the UK, is that we have a certain sector of the public that has grown up accepting the use of drugs, and they consider the police to have no method of detecting the drugs they have consumed. The likelihood of being caught by the almost non existent Traffic Police is minimal, and then the chance that the particular officer is DIT trained is even less. So no deterrent for a problem that has an equivalence to drink driving and is seen in at least two of the 10 RTA fatalities each day and in some studies, four of the 10 daily traffic fatalities have illegal drugs in there system.

  The recent EC funded IMMORTAL study showed that of the 1,300 drivers chosen at random in Glasgow, one in seven had taken illegal drugs in the last 48 hours.

  Surely this must worry you?

  I attended the Association of Chief Police Officer's Roads Policing conference at the National Motorcycle Museum late in 2005. I noted down several of the principle speaker, Dr Ladyman's comments that impressed me.

"If we are not doing what we can today, then we share the responsibility!"

"We have to deploy the technology available to us today!"

"£18 billion cost of road accidents in the UK per year"

  Also comments from other experienced and knowledgeable speakers.

  Adam Briggs, ACC Cleveland, on accident figures for drink and drug driving.

"EC is requiring 50% reduction in road deaths by 2010" and the EC report in 2003 recommended regular enforcement of Alcohol and Drug laws, "The UK is expected to report on progress at the end of 2005." "We have to change the crying game."

Richard Brunstrum, CC, North Wales, Chair ACPO Traffic, on accident figures.

"We intend to be a major player in Europe, we are required to work to the plan, but how?"

  David Griffith, DCC Humberside, on the National Strategic Assessment.

"Traffic volume is expected to increase 20% between now and 2010, so we have to drastically reduce the RTA fatalities in a rapidly increasing market."

  Conference voted that 61% thought that reducing road casualties should be the most important issue for a traffic police officer today.

  Jerry Moore, CSupt, Roads Safety, Dept for Transport.

"Average number of people alcohol screened after an injury collision is 50%"

A lamentable fact, but where is his concern and priority for the drug driving problem? Conference voted 6% thought the Police were being successful and 62% thought that they the nations traffic police, were not doing as much as they could.

  Some powerful statements from some learned people, but as far as drug driver screening, who is picking up the ball and running with it to create a rapid conclusion. In my view, for the last seven years, no one is championing it.

PROBLEM

  We have a volume of cars that is growing rapidly giving us 20% more cars in 2010 over 2000.  We have a potential level of driving within 48 hours of illegal drug consumption of one in six or seven. (ref IMMORTAL, Wylie et al). We are expecting a relatively small number of trained officers to correctly and efficiently perform the Drug Impairment Test (DIT) at the road side, one of the most dangerous places to be, come rain or shine, day or night.

  As good as the DIT may be in ideal circumstances, I understand that the traffic officers are not able to perform it as intended, ie at the road side. The officers either feel the weather is too bad, the conditions at the side of the road are not conducive or most importantly, safe to perform the DIT. So they have to make a decision to let the person go or take them back to the station and perform the DIT in a stable environment. It is this very decision that the Traffic Police require assistance with.

  I have spoken to a large number of serving traffic police officers at many trade shows over the past 10 years and their view is, all they need is a simple but very effective road side screen. After that positive, they will then spend the next one to two hours processing the driver in the station with a Drug Impairment Test specialist, and pay the FME bill and the FSS laboratory bill in the knowledge that the prosecution will most likely be successful. These same serving traffic officers are very wary of being marked down for bringing someone forward through the above process, incurring all the costs, and failing to prosecute. Hence their desire for a preliminary road side screen to confirm their suspicion that drugs are involved.

  So, ideally, ALL traffic officers would be able to observe bad driving, suspect alcohol or drugs, alcohol screen and if below the limit, ALL of them be able to use Drugwipe 5 on the skin or saliva of the suspect in the safety of the police vehicle. Then add water, wait five minutes and read the quality line and any result lines, finally noting in their book or procedure certificate, a positive result to a particular drug or drugs. Take the driver back to the safety of a station for Drug Impairment Test by a "trained and very importantly, a practiced expert" to show impairment. After a medical review by the doctor, take a blood or urine sample for laboratory analysis and specification of the type of drug and level found. This quickly and safely provides a full picture of impairment to the court for prosecution.

POTENTIAL SOLUTION

  I distribute a device called Drugwipe 5 that can very effectively screen either saliva or the skin of a suspect driver. The sample is taken either at the road side or more importantly, inside the relative safety of the police vehicle, by ANY easily trained officer. With only the addition of a drop of water, the Drugwipe 5 gives a clear result in five minutes with out the need for bulky additional electronic devices. Training takes less than one hour and is no more complicated to operate and read than a simple home pregnancy test. Price per test is around £20 each. Just think what an instant effect a couple of million pounds would have on the statistics. Availability? Drugwipe 5 has been available

HURDLES TO OVERCOME

  If you ask the people at the Dept for Transport and on the ACPO Roads Policing sub committee, what they are doing about the drug driver screening, you may possibly get the same replies as I have.

"Drugwipe and other devices can not do an effective job" Dept for Transport.

  Have they asked me, the device distributor for our latest capability? No.

  Have they performed their own studies on the effectiveness of current products? No. They are relying on information from other countries studies, performed a number of years ago but only recently published. ROSITA I and ROSITA II. Even so, that information was still positive enough for Australia, Finland and Belgium to commence road side screening with Drugwipe.

"Levels of detection have not been decided by the Home Office, therefore no device can be declared as available now". Dept for Transport.

  The DfT and the HO are debating over whether levels of detection should be 20 or 50 ng/ml (nano grammes per milli litre). Is Drugwipe or another product to be potentially rejected because it can detect 30ng/ml but not 20ng/ml? When in reality, some one who has recently consumed and is under the influence as far as driving impairment is concerned, will have levels a 100 to a 1,000 times higher!

  "We are drafting a specification for type approval" Dept for Transport.

  So the DfT is employing the FSS (who have a commercial tie up with one of the two possible credible suppliers) to write a specification for a device, which would then be assessed for compliance and then have to be approved by the Home Office before being available to Police. This took years to even get started to commission the report and has been ongoing for over two years and it is still not been finalised.

  "The draft specification from a year ago stated Type Approval will require an electronic reader" Dept for Transport advised by the FSS (who has a commercial tie up with the company that MUST use an electronic reader for their equipment to work.)

  Why? The law (RATS Act) does not require an electronic reader. An electronic device uses exactly the same chemical detection element but simply gives out a reading of yes or no. BUT, an electronic device will take time to design, build, test, comply with the phenomenally strict regulations covering all the other electronics in a police vehicle, take operator training time, calibration, asset management, space and weight in the car, plus capital expense. More delay upon delay.

OBSERVATIONS AND A WAY FORWARD

  We are not talking about the evidence that creates the prosecution, we are talking about a screening device that gives the officer the confirmation that his suspicion of drug driving is correct. He has seen bad driving, suspected impairment, tested but not found alcohol. Confirmation that he should proceed with the time and effort and cost to determine that the driver is in fact impaired on drugs and confirm it with a drug impairment test, a doctor examination and a laboratory result.

  With regard to the DfT and the Home Office, if it is not on our list of priorities, we are not being assessed on achieving it, so we will get on with some thing else.

  Surely they should be tasked, what is substantially correct with what we can get right now, and how effective this would be if we introduced it as soon as possible. With use, yes, improvements will become apparent and need to be addressed but many lives will have already been saved.

  It has also been shown in several published studies and polls, including one by the AA, that members of the public believe that they cannot be detected for consuming drugs. In their own words, "the introduction of a road side screening device would prove a massive deterrent" and therefore for the Police, a very effective tool.

  Society would also be able to see the benefit, not only to Road Safety but also the massive potential cost savings to the Health Service for the many serious injuries and the masses of minor injuries, from the immediate introduction of an effective road side screening device. As a long shot. may be the current Minister for Health could spent £10 million and save £100 million or more by the funding of the police use of the Drugwipe 5 for road side screening?

  Drugwipe 5 is an instant read out disposable device for detecting the consumption of drugs. It is already used by a number of Police Forces, the National Crime Squad and NCIS including the testing of their own officers. Drugwipe 5 is under assessment with the Home Office and the Dept for Transport for Drug Driver Screening. Drugwipe has been used by all the traffic police in Germany for 10 years and is under trial through out Europe, with Finland and Belgium having gone operational in late 2005.  The Minister for Police in the State of Victoria, Australia, after only six months Drugwipe usage, was amazed at the magnitude of the problem, and seeing the effectiveness of the screening, has ordered eight more specialist drug driver screening units equipped with Drugwipe.

CONCLUSION

  Todays technology such as Drugwipe can help the traffic police be more effective in reducing drug driving and would be a massive deterrent to the potential offenders.

  You are asking is the fact that the target is on one departments agenda but the operational capability in the control of another, hindering progress? The answer is Yes! Most definitely and it is costing lives. Approve available equipment and start reducing the casualties.

  Please also ask your selves this question. Why have we spent more Government time and effort on preventing the death of a number of foxes by hunting, than we have on preventing the deaths of our friends, family and colleagues through driving on drugs? You now only have four years to get fatalities from 3,300 to below 2,000!

14 February 2006