Written evidence from Dtec International
Ltd (DDD 34)
UK agent for Securetec "DrugWipe"
global leaders in road side drug driver screening, helping save
lives since 1996.
SUMMARY
Sir Peter North Review was long over due and
tried to focus on a particular set of problems highlighted by
this committee in 2006 and 2008.
In my view having been involved in this industry
in the UK and abroad for 15 years, North Review does a fair amount
to high light the failings and inadequacies of the current UK
system with regards drink and drug driving and offers some credible
suggestions as to effective solutions.
When looking at other countries, I believe it
is not acceptable for our Government to say we are better, or
they have more to do to match us. Other countries may be coming
from behind as far as over all fatalities and seriously injured,
but importantly, they are doing more on drug driving and saving
lives that could just as easily be saved here. That is, given
suitable political will to make hard decisions, and very importantly,
a more positive attitude from the Home Office and Department for
Transport, especially when the rest of Europe and Australia is
proving how effective currently available solutions are.
My expertise is in reducing drug driving so
I will focus on that and let others advise on the drink drive
situation.
It must be remembered that changing the law,
or not, on drink drive, does not preclude law changes on drug
driving and vice versa. If the public sees the alcohol limit remain
at 80ng/ml, they will have an opinion some positive and some negative.
If Government introduces changes or new laws to reduce drug driving,
by far the vast majority of innocent public will agree with its
introduction and more importantly be safer on the roads for it.
DRUG DRIVING
The North Review highlights a number of significant
improvements that can be made to the procedural side of apprehending
and successfully prosecuting drug drivers. How ever, to make a
step change and save a significant number of lives and reduce
the harm (and reduce cost to NHS) of the 100 fold more significant
injuries, we need to look no further than what has proven successful
in Europe and Australia. The UK is now behind a dozen other countries,
yet this successful and available solution could be implemented
in the UK in as little as 3 to 6 months.
KEY POINTS
Step Change
Germany successfully prosecuted 34,500 drug
drivers in 2009. England and Wales only managed a couple of thousand.
Yet the UK is Europe's largest consumer of drugs. The UK once
lead this field with the worlds largest trial in the late 1990's
and suggested the modification of road side screeners to what
is used now. Yet the UK is significantly behind and has been for
10 years. The positive side is that a step change in saving lives
and reducing injury can be achieved and not in two or three years,
it can be done with what is successful and available now.
DRUID (DRiving Under the Influence of Drugs)
No country from England, Scotland, Wales or
Northern Ireland took part in the pinnacle of world research into
drug driving performed in 18 countries. Why? The DRUID results,
based on work done at the road side in 2008 and 2009 was unavailable
to the UK as North Review closed because we were not a part of
it. But DRUID and all its positives were made public before North
was released. So we didn't take part in DRUID and didn't use its
wealth of results in North.
Benchmark
Has North benchmarked the UK against any other
countries? There is passing remarks to what is being achieved
else where, but North should be shouting out that with political
will and departmental positive mental attitude, the same can be
achieved here.
Field Impairment Testing (FIT) is not infallible.
The UK is currently relying on Field Impairment
Testing because the law requires proof of impairment. DRUID shows
FIT is only 13% effective and even when the suspect tells the
officer what drug they have just taken, the FIT is still only
33% effective!
FIT is good to raise the knowledge and competence
level of officers and can work in extreme cases of impairment
with current "Driving whilst Impaired" laws. I believe
the current law should remain. (see later) How ever, with a Zero
Tolerance law, as in other countries, officers are trained to
use some of the FIT type tests to realise that they need to use
a road side screener.
HO vs DfT
Department for Transport has ownership of Road
Safety and the Fatal/Serious performance figures, but Home Office
has the manpower element in the police and the Type Approval authority
for any equipment used.
The previous Government's politicians appear
to have allowed these departments to put effort into effectively
"not finding a solution". In my view this Government
should make the political decision to solve the drug driving situation
as best they can now. This instruction should be driven through
both the DfT and HO departments and a step change achieved in
half a year.
Momentum will help drive development of better
equipment and procedures and the UK can benefit from input and
experience of a dozen other countries that already screen effectively
at the road side.
Type Approval
The Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003 Permitted
police to use Home Office Approved road side screening devices.
To be HO approved, any device has to pass a Type Approval. The
specification of the Type Approval has been in several stages
of Draft for 7 years now. Each successive one was slightly less
demanding than previous, but still far too restrictive to accept
any current device, or device likely for the next few years.
Type Approval is necessary, but it should not
preclude equipment that can significantly achieve what society
wants, that is to SCREEN for the drug user and identify them for
further steps towards successful prosecution.
Current draft Type Approval specification asks
for detection levels that are too low, and then sets Yes/No cut
offs either side of that level that are neither necessary nor
achievable.
This set of cut offs was chosen arbitrarily
by a committee of experts in the UK who have not taken part in
any of the European or Australasian trials or successful implementations.
We are talking about a "screener",
not a full blown laboratory analysis machine.
The road side screener is successful, reliable
and available now.
North hopes that one day a road side evidential
device will be available.
Perhaps but it is many years off before a suitable
device could be built to both identify and to quantify in whole
blood at the road side Should we delay and see people die and
be seriously injured while we wait for the perfect solution?
The UK introduced breath screening 43 years
ago with glass tubes and blow in the bag. Technology stepped on
every 10 years through electronic testers to the imminent arrival
of evidential road side testers. What if Government had not had
the courage to start back then, how many deaths and injuries would
those 43 years have given us?
The myth of "Anyone who ever takes Cannabis
will not be able to drive!"
If we take the urban myth of "You can detect
Cannabis use for a month, so I will never be able to drive"
being the topic hit upon by most ill informed journalists to deliberately
sensationalise the issue of drug driver screening.
Screeners look for THC in saliva not for the
long term metabolite THC-COOH. THC-COOH is a metabolite of THC.
It is distributed via the blood into the body's fatty tissue,
where upon it is slowly re-released over a period of several days
or weeks into all the body's tissues and fluids. It is thereby
also deposited on the skin in sweat but mainly detectable for
many weeks in the urine.
THC is the ingredient in Cannabis that causes
impairment, not THC-COOH. THC is present in the saliva for a short
period of time. Drug driver screening uses saliva at the road
side to detect THC (not THC-COOH). THC in the blood is used for
confirmation and prosecution.
The lower we chase the detection levels of THC,
the longer we can see back in time and the more people we will
catch. Detection levels are available now that will catch the
majority of users who have just smoked and importantly, are
likely still impaired.
The UK's proposed list of 7 drugs to be screened
for
If we go with the most successful method found
in Europe and Australia, we will screen at the road side for a
list of the most common problem drugs.
This is from the list of Cannabis(THC), Cocaine
(and Crack), Heroin, Amphetamine and Methamphetamine.
Benzodiazepines are screened for in some countries
making a total list of 6 drugs.
Methadone is not screened for in any country
that performs road side screening. This is because it is relatively
insignificant due to Heroin addicts having sold their car to buy
drugs, Methadone users also take a range of other drugs and would
show up on the list of 6. This was confirmed in studies from the
UK some years ago.
New drugs and illegally used medicines will
I believe require the current Section 4 impairment law to remain
in place.
Roadside vs at Police station
"Catch your fish then fry them" is
the motto used by the global leader in road side drug screening
Securetec.
The true effect of drug driver legislation is
deterrent. The best deterrent is a credible one and that means
drug users being caught whilst driving. Hence screening has to
take place at the road side.
Then a positive screen means a rapid and priority
processing to obtain a blood sample for detailed and exact laboratory
testing.
The current system is ineffective for a number
of reasons but principally because of the time delay between seeing
bad driving, performing a FIT, calling for suspect transport to
the station, queuing at the desk, waiting for a Doctor, then the
Doctor assessment and finally a blood sample. The majority of
drugs are fast acting and fast clearing, this Home Office measured
delay was reported by Jerry Moore Police Liaison at the DfT Road
Safety as averaging at 2½ hours by which time, most fast
acting drugs are out of the suspects system.
Many other countries will screen at the road
side and take blood as quickly as possible either in a Drug/Alcohol
bus or taken to a technician to extract the blood sample.
Screening in the station is discussed by North
as "a step" to take. Why? No other country performing
drug driver screening does it at the station, it is ineffective.
Screening at the station does nothing to help the officer at the
road side to decide who they should arrest, it will not speed
up the transport to the station, it will not prioritise the driver
in the queue at the station desk, nor will it aid in the availability
of a Doctor or technician to the station to take the sample of
blood.
I believe station screening was mooted by several
companies that cannot successfully operate their devices at the
road side as they require a stable environment to work. The device
chosen by the majority of countries has been show to match or
out perform the electronic station based reader devices, and can
be used where it has the most effect.
The bottom line is that the deterrent has to
be maximised and that deterrent is the fear of being screened
and found positive at the road side. Then prioritise them to rapidly
have blood taken and sent to the lab for confirmation.
CONCLUSION.
Please consider why do a dozen other countries
use currently available equipment and are benefiting by saving
lives and reducing injury, yet the UK is not?
Also consider why the Transport Select Committee
reviews of 2006 highlighted the problem of lack of cooperation
and lack of results on drug driving, then 2008 pushed again for
action, yet two years on, the matter is not resolved and is still
in discussion. Meanwhile, another half dozen countries have started
roadside drug screening!
Government should in my view make sure the real
effort is put positively into making an accepted road side screening
system work. Improve in the future but start saving lives now.
August 2010
NORTH REVIEW
RECOMMENDATIONS DRUG
DRIVING SECTION
BY POINT
R1.The correct statistics MUST be recorded and that
will show the magnitude of the problem. Do not wait to see this
before taking action. Every one involved knows the problem is
there and needs sorting now, not after two years of benchmarking
statistics.
R2.Yes, commission research, any changes should be
monitored and researched, but not at the expense or delay of actually
getting on with solving the problem!
R3.Detailing Field Impairment Test (FIT) information
will help highlight drug driving as a priority and show officers
that they will be supported for taking the time to do it. It will
also high light the forces that are not doing enough. This is
apparent with the percentages of breath tests post RTC when analysed
by force.
R4.As above. If an officer stopped a car suspected
of impaired driving, and only breathalysed, and the breath test
is negative make the officer explain why they did not consider
drugs and why they did not perform FIT or screen the driver.
R5.CPS to rely more on trained officers observations
of impairment.
R6.It is unbelievable that a stolen Kit Kat is a
recordable offence yet drink or drug driving is not. This is a
simple solution which would have great effect in this world of
targets and performance monitoring.
R7.The officer saw bad driving, trust them, take
the blood as quickly as possible. Let the lab decide if illegal
drugs are there. When Government considers changing the law for
zero tolerance, they should allow for the option that one day
in the future, technology could provide an officer with the capability
to take a blood sample immediately at the road side? Most diabetics
take samples daily.
R8 & R9.This is also so the health care professional
knows they are not being asked to prosecute and remove the driving
license of an individual, just to understand they are there to
take a blood sample. Many Doctors have taken this view in the
past.
R10.Proper paperwork.
R11.Earliest practical type approval, but this should
be at the road side. Not seeing DRUID results meant North fell
back on a supposed safe option that will not give a step change
in deterrent or prosecutions. As for two years, the European system
could be ready by the time the House passes legislation, which,
with the right political will could be 6 months. In our view,
the list does not require Methadone, but could be optional test.
R12 & R23.This research will be nigh on impossible
for different people have different tolerances. Also the UK is
a massive poly drug using community. Different drugs taken at
different times for different effects. Then throw Alcohol into
the mix. DfT's own research tried to show the additive effect
of a small amount of alcohol on the impairment levels of a cannabis
user. Don't let this research be a red herring and a substantial
and costly delay to saving lives.
R13.As above. Impossible and time consuming.
Other countries have variously set either low levels
from current research, to low levels as detectable by the global
leader in road side screening, or, have set no levels at all.
A simple test of if a drug from the list is detected at the laboratory
(by what ever technique is used) this will be considered positive
should be the aim.
Put the effort into the confirmation accuracy, not
the screener that just finds then and deters them.
R14 & R21 & R22.Medical advice should include
training Doctors to take responsibly for the advice they should
give to patients about driving on medication. The simple "do
not drive if affected" is not good enough from the Doctor,
the Pharmacist or the Pharmaceutical industry. The traffic light
system has been discussed for 10 years but there is no universal
agreement.
R15.The light of day, don't wait for almost impossible
research. Set a Zero Tolerance on the list of 6 drugs.
R16.Sec4 RTAct1988 should stay for medicines, medicines
Over the Counter, medicines self prescribed, legal highs and anything
else.
R17.Why wait, this step of screen at the road side
can and is being done in a dozen countries now. This is because
it is the only real true deterrent.
R18.Evidential will come, but don't wait until then!
(See previous comments)
R19 & R20.High Risk Offenders loose their licence
permanently in some countries. Germany, they need to attend specialist
and prove over a period that they are reformed before a licence
is re issued.
| 
