Illicit drugs - common

Illicit drugs - rarer

Medicines  

Alcohol & benzo tranquilisers

Road Victim Rights

Land Transport Act - seeking safer laws

Land Transport Amendment Bill Number 4 

Pictured - Land Transport NZ's vain catch cry kills

The section of the Land Transport Act dealing with drink and drug driving has long contained glitches that mean most drug drivers Police might have sought to charge would get off on technicalities.

This is because the law was originally written to ban drink and drug drivers who were grossly intoxicated ie legless.

It was once only illegal to drive when "incapable of proper control". Law courts established what was meant by this prior to 1969 - it meant being so intoxicated you could barely stand, Police needed to prove alcohol and drug impairment through roadside tests. 

In 1969 this was formalised to equate to a new blood alcohol limit of  0.1. No blood test was then or is now required to obtain a conviction for drink or drug driving. 

DUI suspects may decide to refuse blood tests in which case Police and Courts proceed on other flimsier evidence of intoxicated driving.

Drink or drug drivers who kill but refuse to be blood tested can only be fined a maximum of $10,000 whereas those who provide blood can be fined $20,000.

Double standard created

In 1978 the alcohol limit dropped to 0.08, meaning that drinkers removed from the road were now just impaired not grossly intoxicated. However the benchmark drug drivers had to meet for prosecution remained at the higher level of gross intoxication.

Occasionally to this date the Police will charge a drunk driver with "incapable of proper control" to make a point when someone is grossly impaired. There were perhaps 2-3 such prosecutions last year.

This is easy to prove with alcohol as Police can require blood alcohol  tests, and then the system treats offenders as guilty if they're declined.

Proving "incapable of proper control" with drugs is more difficult, because blood drug tests are not able to be required under the current law. Nor are road side impairment tests compulsory. 

This leaves Police with almost zero ability to gather and produce compelling evidence of drug driving offences. The result is that there are similar numbers of drug driving offences committed to drink drive ones daily. 

But Police only managed to nail about 11 convictions out of 30 blood tests in the year to June 2006 (versus about 29,000 tests and convictions for drink driving). In Sweden, Australian States and other comparable countries drug driving convictions run at the volume of about 1/4 of the drink drive total.

Double standard dangerous

Many injustices are done to victims of drug drivers on a daily basis - a Police have little choice but to "drop the ball" and lay only minor charges such as careless driving. Penalties for careless driving are insane ones to apply to substance abusers.

The killer of Nurse Mary Radley (killed in head on in 2004) had been sentenced to a driving school refresher course over a "careless" conviction he'd added to his collection just 40 days earlier. 

This was for writing off 3 cars while drugged to the eyeballs a couple of months prior, so as is obvious this was a judicially encouraged homicide. And such stories are commonplace.

The latest statistics from the Police control of drunk and drugged drivers study, clearly demonstrates that drivers under 40 are killing and dying as a result of a large booze bus triggered trend to switch quite equally to either drug driving, or to low level drink + drug driving.

Other countries with legal codes based on the British statutes have in the last few years updated their drink and drug driving laws to correct the same glitch - less important in 1969 than it is today now that alcohol and drugs are both big grim reapers on roads!

How will the amendment correct things here

The amendment gives Police the powers to gather evidence of drugged driving via an impairment test where there is suspicion of drug use and where a driving offence has occurred of such a type as might arise suspicion of impairment. 

This test (a field test ie modified "walk the line test" or other test if technology allows) will only occur when alcohol has first been ruled out as part of inquiries. 

A field test that is not failed is no indication of innocence of driving impaired - as for some drugs the test typically returns false negatives, and about a quarter of pot smokers who would test as impaired on driving simulators and blood tests pass this gross impairment test.  

A blood test may also be required of suspects, dependent on the circumstances. Presence of still active impairing drugs atop evidence from impairment tests will convict per the Amendment bill.

Candor believes that youth only should have a zero limit for active cannabis in blood, but a 5ng limit for tests obtained within 3 hours of an offence would be fairer for adults based on the evidence.

It will continue to be illegal to drive impaired by illicit drugs and by abused medicines whether legally or illegally obtained, but Police will now be enabled to enforce this previously muddly law when common sense warrants doing so. 

It will no longer be a crap shot, with convictions only worth chasing given a mountain of evidence eg a dozen witnesses and a confession (as in the days of drink driving convictions prior to 1969). 

Advertising

It is a sad commentary on the state of NZ road safety to be the only country not running a Xmas 2007 drug driving prevention campaign. Many countries have been at it for 5-10 years.

ACC funded an advert jointly with Candor not long ago that could easily be used, but they say they no longer have no staff assigned the drug driving issue. Funny given they ran a huge seminar about it in 2005!  

Secondment of a scientist involved in speed control and alcohol control experiments to become LTNZs (part time) chief advertising executive could be linked to shelving of the Minister's policy to commence a drug driving campaign in 2007. Perhaps it would just be "anti science" to go changing set variables on experiments now running 15 years?