Drug-impaired driving, also referred to as “drugged driving” or driving under the influence of drugs (DUID), has been characterized as a growing public health issue in the US and abroad. Wide-scale research studies such as the Driving under the Influence of Drugs, Alcohol and Medicines (DRUID) project in Europe and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s (NHTSA) National Roadside Survey (NRS) of Alcohol and Drug Use by Drivers in the US, have been conducted in recent years to examine the prevalence of drug use among drivers. In 2007, the percentage of night-time weekend drivers testing positive for at least one drug (i.e., illicit, prescription or over-the-counter drugs with potential for impairment) was 16.3%. In 2013/2014, the NRS estimates the percentage of drivers testing positive for at least one drug increased to 20%. Other possible emerging trends suggest drugs other than alcohol are increasingly detected in the blood of fatally injured drivers. Also, the prevalence of drugs in drivers stopped for impaired driving is generally higher than drug prevalence in the general population. One reaction to these trends is to pass zero tolerance (ZT) per se drug-impaired driving laws that make it illegal for individuals to operate a motor vehicle with positive levels of drugs in their system. Even though driving while impaired by drugs is already considered a crime in all 50 states, the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) has urged all states to pass additional per se laws as part of their National Drug Control Strategy. Globally, Australia and European countries such as Belgium, Sweden, and France have passed such laws. And as of May 2015, 21 states have passed some form of a per se law. Anecdotal evidence suggests the per se laws make a difference; however, the degree to which per se laws are instrumental in reducing drugged driving or improving public health is not yet clear. Others claim the value of ZT per se laws is in increasing drugged driving convictions, but there has not been any data collection to empirically examine this either. It is important to understand the nature of the problem ZT/per se laws are purported to address in order to evaluate their efficacy. Compared to alcohol’s relatively universal effects on driving, the relationship between consumption of any given drug and driver impairment is very complicated. Empirical research testing the effects of common drugs on individuals’ driving skills is generally inconclusive due to a number of mediating and moderating factors. Drugs affect individuals differently. Moreover, studies comparing crash risk associated with alcohol and drug use generally indicate alcohol (alone or in combination with other drugs) tends to be associated with greater crash risk than drugs alone. A review of scientific literature conducted by the International Traffic Forum concludes that, despite the “growing volume of literature on the topic, current methodological difficulties limit the pace at which knowledge and understanding in this area accumulates”. Hence, the “contribution of drugs to motor vehicle crashes, injuries, and deaths continues to be a subject of considerable interest and debate”. The enforcement of DUID laws requires appropriate testing equipment and the implementation of procedures requires training for officers, prosecutors, judges, lab technicians–anyone involved with the process of identifying, investigating, and adjudicating drivers charged with DUID. Therefore, it is important to examine the procedures and practices associated with data collection, investigation, and prosecution of drug-impaired driving. Also, before new legislation is introduced, it is important to assess and quantify the impact of drugged driving on public health. Specifically, the goals of this research are (1) to use Louisiana as a case study in evaluating laws and policies about drugged driving to identify obstacles to a per se, or ZT, law for drugged driving and (2) to collect data on drugged driving and analyze its frequency in Louisiana and other states where data is publically available and to identify ways to improve data collection in Louisiana. The primary objective for this research study is to (1) evaluate laws and policies about drugged driving in Louisiana and other states and identify obstacles to a per se law for drugged driving; and (2) collect data on drugged driving and analyze its frequency in Louisiana and other states where data is publically available to develop specific recommendations for improved data collection on drugged driving. The purpose of this project is to: evaluate per se laws for drugged driving in other states; present an overview of the literature; provide highway safety stakeholders, law enforcement, and prosecutors with information to guide strategies to reduce drug impaired-driving through detection, enforcement actions, and more successful prosecution; identify training and other resource needs for law enforcement and prosecutors; provide initial baseline information of drug-impaired driving in Louisiana to inform public health community, enforcement community and other stakeholders that make strategic decisions regarding resource allocation; identify opportunities to collect data needed for adequate characterization of drug impaired driving; and develop recommendations for data collection in the future. (Author/publisher)
Samenvatting