 |
Colorado State Patrol CAPITOL STEPS LINED WITH SHOES OF COLORADO LIVES LOST Date released: 1/25/2006 Denver, January 24, 2005 – 282 pairs of shoes lined the West Steps of the State Capitol representing the Colorado lives lost in traffic crashes as a result of being unrestrained in 2004. A mangled car from a young survivor wearing his seat belt is a vivid reminder of how fragile life is. In 2004, 502 drivers and passengers died in traffic crashes and 282 (56 percent) were not using safety belts—twenty-nine of those passengers were children under the age of 16 and 55 percent were riding completely unrestrained. In conjunction with the display of the 282 pairs of shoes, the Colorado Safety Belt Coalition hosted a press conference to formally begin their campaign in support of House Bill 1125 calling for standard safety belt legislation. House Bill 1125, sponsored by Representative Fran Coleman and Senator Peter Groff, was introduced to the legislature on January 17th, 2006. “Traffic-related injuries are the leading cause of death for children and young adults, ages 1-33 and standard safety belt enforcement would help save more than half of those lives,” said Representative Coleman. “States with standard enforcement see a dramatic drop in traffic fatalities when passing this legislation and I believe that this bill is essential to saving the lives of Colorado families.” Colonel Mark V. Trostel, Chief of the Colorado State Patrol emceed the event and spoke to Colorado State Patrol’s support of House Bill 1125 and the Colorado Safety Belt Coalition. "The Colorado State Patrol (CSP) is strongly in favor of standardizing Colorado's seat belt laws," said Colonel Mark Trostel, Chief of the CSP. "We see all too many disabling injuries and deaths that occur on our highways as a result of drivers and their passengers not wearing a seat belt. In a motor vehicle crash your chances for survival are greater if you and your passengers are wearing a seat belt, and I base that on what I've personally seen at the site of far too many serious crashes." Pam Sallee and Wayne Burton, parents of the late Brittney Hudson, a 17 year-old high school junior, who was killed in a traffic crash as a result of being unrestrained on November 23, 2005 shared their story and voiced their support for standard safety belt enforcement. “As parents, we feel that Brittney would be here with us today had she been wearing her safety belt. Innocent lives with promising futures will continue to be ejected out car windows unless we enact a standard safety belt enforcement law. Please buckle-up, it may save your life.” Alexa Gromko, from AAA Colorado, a leading organization in the Colorado Safety Belt Coalition, emphasized AAA Colorado’s dedication to enacting a standard safety belt enforcement law and educating citizens on the importance of safety belts. "AAA Colorado is always a leader and advocate for the safety and security of all travelers, said Gromko. “For AAA, this issue boils down to one solid truth: seat belt usage saves lives. When a seat belt law is standard, more people buckle up. When parents buckle up, they're more likely to buckle up their children. And when that happens, fewer people will die in traffic crashes.” The high percentage of deaths and injuries that result from not wearing a seatbelt also impacts what we pay for auto insurance. The estimated economic cost of non-seatbelt use in U.S. motor vehicle crashes is $20 billion. “Of course the highest price we pay for car crashes is in the loss of lives,” says Carole Walker, Executive Director of the Rocky Mountain Insurance Information Association. “But if we can help people survive and reduce their treatment costs, those savings are passed on to all of us through our insurance premiums.” The Colorado Safety Belt Coalition’s campaign will extend throughout the state and will educate Colorado citizens on the importance of safety belt use in order to save lives and prevent injuries. Over 60 local government, health care, law enforcement, non-profit, and business organizations are part of the Coalition including AAA Colorado, the Colorado State Patrol and the Rocky Mountain Insurance Information Agency. Together, these organizations hope to help protect the lives of Colorado citizens through the passage of standard safety belt enforcement. Traffic-related injuries are the leading cause of death for children and young adults ages 1-33, and research from the National Traffic Safety Administration shows that safety belts could save almost 50% of the lives lost each year. The Colorado Safety Belt Coalition’s members are committed to working for standard safety belt enforcement in order to save the lives of Colorado’s citizens. About the Colorado Safety Belt Coalition The Colorado Safety Belt Coalition is an alliance of law enforcement agencies, local businesses, government organizations and non-profit groups working to increase safety belt usage awareness through education and legislation. The goal of the Coalition is to work to reduce the number of injuries, deaths and the costs associated with automobile accidents and unbelted automobile drivers and passengers. Colorado Safety Belt Coalition Members AAA Colorado; Allstate Insurance Company; Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers; American Family Insurance; American Medical Response; Anheuser Busch; Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield; Association of Colorado State Patrol Professionals; Brain Injury Association of Colorado; Chiefs of Police; Colorado Association of Commerce & Industry; Colorado Association of Health Plans; Colorado Automobile Dealers Association; Colorado Beer Distributors Association; Colorado Care Management; Colorado Casualty Insurance Company; Colorado Coroners Association; Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment; Colorado Department of Public Safety; Colorado Department of Transportation; Colorado Highway Users Conference; Colorado Hospital Association; Colorado Motor Carriers Association; Colorado Municipal League; Colorado Organizations for Victim Assistance; Colorado Safety Association; Colorado State Patrol; Colorado State Patrol Family Foundation; Colorado State Patrol Safe Kids Coalition; Coors Brewing Company; Corporate Advocates; County Sheriffs of Colorado, Inc.; Craig Hospital; Daimler-Chrysler; Delta County Seatbelt Coalition; Denver Health; DRIVE SMART Colorado Springs; DRIVE SMART Weld County; Douglas County Coroner; Every Child Matters; Exempla Lutheran; Farmers Insurance; Ford; General Motors; Greeley Police Department; Kaiser Permanente; Kodak; Liberty Mutual Insurance; MADD Colorado; Meharry Medical College; Memorial Hospital Colorado Springs; National Safety Council, Air Bag and Seat Belt Safety Campaign; Parker Fire Safety Foundation; Red, White and Blue Fire Department; Rock Products; Rocky Mountain Insurance Information Association; Rocky Mountain Research & Prevention Institute; Safe Kids Colorado; Safe Kids Denver Metro; Safe Kids Larimer County; Safe Kids Colorado Springs; South Metro Fire Rescue; State Farm Insurance; and The Children's Hospital. For More Information download the release. Download File Teen Seat Belt Use Stuck at 70 Percent Statewide - Teen traffic deaths are down in 2005 yet more than 60 percent of teen victims did not use seat belts. Date released: 1/25/2006 Seat belt use by drivers and their front seat passengers ages 16 to 20 in Colorado has remained at about 70 percent statewide for the second year in a row, reports the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). Although teen traffic deaths decreased 20 percent on Colorado highways in 2005, 74 teens died and more than 60 percent of the young victims did not use seat belts according to preliminary statistics. “While changes to the Graduated Driver Licensing law appear to be working, the seat belt and fatality reports are grim reminders of the challenges ahead,” said Tom Norton, CDOT’s Executive Director. “We must see significant improvement in seat belt use if we hope to have more teens survive traffic crashes.” The greatest reductions in teen deaths last year were seen as the number of 16 and 17-year-old victims decreased by more than half. In 2005, 21 drivers and passengers ages 16 to 17 died. This compares to 46 similar deaths in 2004. Changes to Colorado’s Graduated Driver Licensing (GDL) law placed new passenger and nighttime driving restrictions on teen drivers under age 18. The new GDL provisions took effect on July 1, 2005. Last year, 74 drivers and passengers ages 16 to 20 died in traffic crashes in Colorado, compared to 93 such deaths in 2004. Of the 74 victims, 45 (61 percent) were not buckled up and 27 of them were partially or totally ejected from their vehicles. The 2005 teen seat belt use rate is 70.4 percent and the rate in 2004 was 70.9 percent. The findings are from the second annual teen observational seat belt use survey conducted by Colorado State University (CSU) for CDOT. The teen seat belt study also found a wide range of usage rates in the counties surveyed. The lowest usage rates were found in Logan, Gunnison, Montrose and Moffat Counties at 40.5, 49.7, 55.5 and 57.8 percent, respectively. Four counties had seat belt use rates at 80 percent or higher: Douglas at 80.6 percent; El Paso at 81.9 percent; Routt at 82.5 percent and Boulder at 90 percent. Observers recorded belt use for teens by the vehicle driven. Teens are most likely to buckle up in vans and SUV’s (sport utility vehicles) at 78.2 and 74.7 percent, respectively. Teen seat belt use in passenger cars is 70.5 percent and is lowest in pick up trucks at 57 percent. Seat belt use is also estimated by regions in the state. The Front Range usage rate for teens is 72.9 percent. In Eastern Colorado teens use seat belts at 70.8 percent, while in Western Colorado the usage rate drops to 60.9 percent. The teen statewide observational seat belt survey took place from September 12-23, 2005, and the observers were retired Colorado State Patrol troopers. The survey included 550 observations at 214 sites located at high schools, community colleges, state colleges and universities. The sites were either road intersections or parking lots. Drivers and front seat passengers were observed for seat belt use. CSU also conducts CDOT’s adult statewide observational seat belt use survey. Adult seat belt use in Colorado is 79.2 percent.(Editors note: For a list of teen seat belt use by counties surveyed, teen fatalities by county and a fact sheet on teen traffic deaths in Colorado, go to www.dot.state.co.us/trafficsafety and choose Media Room.) Download File Nearly 400 DUI Arrests Made in New Year’s Eve Enforcement Effort Date released: 1/23/2006 The Heat Is On campaign made 398 DUI arrests during its New Year’s Eve DUI enforcement period. The reported DUI arrests are from the Colorado State Patrol and 68 police and sheriff’s departments participating in the campaign. The arrests came during an enforcement period that started at 6 p.m. on Friday, December 30, 2005 and ended at 3 a.m. on Tuesday, January 3, 2006. The Colorado State Patrol made 75 DUI arrests. The Denver Police Department made 31 DUI arrests. In El Paso County, agencies made 51 DUI arrests. The El Paso County Sheriff’s Office made 17 DUI arrests and the Colorado Springs Police Department made 30 DUI arrests. The Monument Police Department made two DUI arrests. The Fountain and Manitou Springs Police Departments each made one DUI arrest. In Adams County, seven agencies made 44 DUI arrests. The Adams County Sheriff’s Office and Thornton Police Department each made 10 DUI arrests. The Brighton and Commerce City Police Departments each made eight such arrests. The Federal Heights Police Department reported four DUI arrests and the Aurora and Northglenn Police Departments each reported two DUI arrests. In Jefferson County, five agencies made 37 DUI arrests. The Lakewood Police Department made 18 DUI arrests and the Jefferson County Sheriff’s Office made 13 DUI arrests. The Mountain View, Golden and Edgewater Police Departments each made two DUI arrests. In Boulder County, four agencies made 23 DUI arrests. The Longmont Police Department made nine DUI arrests. The Sheriff’s Office and the Boulder Police Department each made five DUI arrests. The Lafayette Police Department made four DUI arrests. In Arapahoe County four agencies made 21 DUI arrests. The Aurora Police Department made 10 DUI arrests and the Sheriff’s Office made six DUI arrests. The Littleton and Greenwood Village Police Departments made three and two DUI arrests, respectively. In Larimer County, the Sheriff’s Office made 11 DUI arrests and the Loveland Police Department made three DUI arrests. In Mesa County, the Grand Junction Police Department reported six DUI Arrests. In La Plata County, the Durango Police Department made four DUI arrests. For a complete list of DUI arrests by enforcement agencies statewide, visit www.dot.state.co.us/trafficsafety/ and click on DUI Enforcement. Choose New Year’s Eve 2005 for the Enforcement Period and click on View Report. The Heat Is On campaign made 348 DUI arrests during the 2004 New Year’s Eve enforcement period which included four nights. The 2005 New Year’s Eve enforcement period included five nights and an additional nine enforcement agencies. The next Heat Is On enforcement period will be for St. Patrick’s Day weekend. Download File
|
|
Breathalyzers analyze the alcohol Breathalyzer daniel gray's geekbooks.com - from the swamps of joisey Breathalyzer As I was flipping through the dial last night, I happened to tune into the Larry King show. Tracey Gold, the actress--best known for her role as Carol Seaver on the ABC sitcom Growing Pains --was Larry's guest. Tracey shared the frightening story of how she rolled her Yukon after drinking two glasses of wine at a private party. Why the heck am I babbling about this? Because it could have easily been preventable through the use of technology, that's why... As a result, Tracey was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI). She has since pled guilty to a felony drunken driving charge. Sentencing is slated for late March. The charge carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison. While Tracey's taken full responsibility for the incident in which her oldest son fractured his collarbone and husband fractured his neck, one point is clear. It was preventable. If Tracey had been aware that she was over the legal limit for alcohol, she would have not gotten behind the wheel of the hulking SUV. Tracey did not know her driving would be impaired. She didn't think that two glasses of wine would do it. A simple breathalyzer test would have brought that to light. Breathalyzers analyze the alcohol content of exhaled air. This correlates directly to the alcohol level in the blood stream. Once your blood alcohol content reaches 0.08 grams of alcohol per 100 ml of blood, you are considered to be under the influence (in most states). A few months ago, I suggested that perhaps every fast food joint should have a defibrillator . Why can't every commercial establishment that serves liquor and beer offer a free breathalyzer test before a patron leaves the premises? Why don't hosts pick up breathalyzers at the liquor store with their party supplies? (There are fancy corkscrews that are more expensive, for Pete's sake.) Oh sure, some bars have coin-operated breathalyzers ... but why should patrons have to pay? Why can't they be complimentary, along with the popcorn and pretzels on the bar, and the toothpicks and breath mints at the cash register? Consumer grade breathalyzers start at well under $100. While they might not be as accurate as the professional models used by law enforcement officers (which can run over $500), the inexpensive breathalyzers offer a clue to those who might otherwise be clueless.
|
|
DUI / DWI, Drinking DUI Help with Drunk Driving Laws, Alcohol Treatment, DWI Attorneys and Criminal Defense Lawyers Everything You Need to Know About First Offender DUI / DWI, Drinking Driving and Drugs Home | State By State Help | DUI Lawyers | Insurance Help | Breath Testers | DUI Videos What's Hot New DWI Articles... Breath Test Penalties New DUI and DWI Laws for 2006 New MA OUI Law Poppy Seed Defense Works on DUI Charge Others Share Their DUI Experience... DUI Consequences Drunk Driving Education and Information National DUI.com A State by State Listing of DUI/DWI/OUIL Resources DUI Attorneys Lawyers Who Specialize in DUI/DWI/OUI Defense The DUI Library A Full Library of Information on DUI, Driving and Drugs Insurance Help Brokers Who Have the Best Rates for Each State Alcohol Issues Information on Issues Related to Use and Abuse of Alchohol and Drugs Videos Educational Videos for Schools and Programs Criminal Records Criminal Records, DMV, Employment Background Checks Breath Testers Breath Analyzers for Prevention and Calibration D.O.T./NHTSA Approved Prevent a DUI Arrest DUI Research Book for Lawyers How to Avoid a DUI Personal breath testers can save you and your friends the hassle and expense of a DUI arrest. Makes a great Christmas gift! More Information Drunk Driving Defense by Orange County DUI Attorney and Los Angeles DUI Defense Lawyer Lawrence Taylor. When you need a breath alcohol ignition interlock device (BAIID), there is no better choice than the Intoxalock . DISCLAIMER : This website provides only general information intended for those charged with drunk driving offenses. The information and news items on the site are for information only. This information is not legal advice, nor is it intended to create any binding advisory relationship. Do not take action based upon this information unless you consult with an attorney or other specialist. © 2005 Drivers Research Institute All Rights Reserved Send eMail Advertise With Us
|
|
driving under influence ofalcohol Driving Under the Influence of Drugs: An Increasing Problem Sign the Resolution Contents | Feedback | Search DRCNet Home | Join DRCNet DRCNet Library | SchafferLibrary | Drugs and Driving Driving Under the Influence of Drugs: An Increasing Problem J. Mrland, K-M. Beylich, A. Bjrneboe, A. S. Christophersen National Institute of Forensic Toxicology, P.O. Box 9934, Ila 0132, Oslo, Norway ABSTRACT The Norwegian road traffic act prohibits driving under the influence of alcohol (A)and/or other psychoactive drugs (PD). In practice police officers refer the suspecteddriver to blood sampling without or with a clinical examination depending on suspicion ofA or PD involvement, respectively. All blood samples are analyzed at one nationalinstitute. In PD cases written expert witness statements are accompanying the result ofthe clinical examination and blood concentration determinations, which together give thebasis for sentences by the courts in a large percentage of the positive cases. A dramatic change has been observed over the last 10 years with respect to A- andPD-cases. A-cases have declined from about 10 500 in 1983 to 5 500 in 1993, while PD-caseshave increased from 800 to 3000 during the same period. In 1993 52% of the A-cases had BACs between 0,05 and 0,15 per cent, and 41% higher than0,15 per cent. 63% of the PD-cases contained PD, most often THC, amphetamine andbenzodiazepines, the latter often in combination with other drugs or in highconcentrations, 26% had BACs between 0,05 and 0,15 per cent, and 17% higher than 0,15 percent. Additional analyses for PD in all A-samples during two months revealed such drugs inapproximately 15% of the cases. Combination of our data gave the total picture in thewhole national sample of drivers apprehended under the suspicion of drunken or druggeddriving: A only (above 0,05 per cent) 51%, PD only 18%, A+PD 14% and 18% contained neitherA nor PD. PD were present in 39% of cases with positive analytical results. This studyappears to be the first conducted on a total national material focusing on PD and revealeda high prevalence of drugged driving. INTRODUCTION The Norwegian road traffic act prohibits driving under the influence of alcohol and/orother psychoactive drugs. Per year approximately 8000 - 9000 drivers are apprehended bythe police on the suspicion of either drunk or drugged driving. In all these cases a bloodsample is taken shortly after the apprehension, and this sample is subsequently analyzedby a single national institute. The analysis for foreign substances is directed by therequest from the police. The samples are routinely stored for more than one year. They cantherefore be screened for other drugs than originally asked for retrospectively, in asystematic manner. This was done in the present study with all samples arriving during twomonths of 1993. The aim of this study was to find the prevalence of alcohol and/or otherdrugs in drivers as a group being suspected for influenced driving regardless of theprimary suspicion of the cause of their influence. MATERIALS AND METHODS Design The material consisted of the routine samples (10-20 ml whole blood in Therumo venojecttubes) sent to the National Institute of Forensic Toxicology (NIFT) from roadside trafficcases in the months February and September 1993. These were ordinary samples taken on therequest by the police on the suspicion of influenced driving. The reason for the suspicionwas seldomly given in the police documents, but was from other studies known to bestrange, reckless, dangerous driving or involvement in accidents in the majority of cases.In total the institute received 1197 blood samples from drivers suspected of driving underthe influence during these two months. In 739 cases the primary suspicion was influence ofalcohol, in 458 cases drugs were suspected as the sole or additional cause of influence.When the analytical work required by the police was finished, all samples were analyzedfor the substances indicated below (analytical). This was performed by noting the resultsobtained for those analyses already being performed for the police, anonymizing thesamples, coding the results and then subjecting the samples to analysis for the rest ofthe foreign substances included in this study. Analytical All blood samples were analyzed for alcohol (ethanol) by gaschromatography (GC) and anenzymatic (ADH) method, and screened for the following drugs: benzodiazepines,barbiturates, amphetamines, cocaine, cannabinoids, opiates, other strong analgesics,tricyclic antidepressants, neuroleptics, antihistamines and central muscle relaxants onappropriate immunologic and gas chromatographic methods used by NIFT for routine work.Positive results were confirmed by GC/MS-, HPLC- or GC methods and the substances werequantified versus calibrator samples made from dilutions of the respective pure compoundsin blood bank blood. The results were corrected for losses during analysis by use ofappropriate internal standards. RESULTS The prevalence of positive alcohol and drug findings in the material ispresented in Table 1. Samples with BACs of 0.05% (the lowest legal limit in Norway) orlower were considered as negative in this Table. Table 1 Distribution of Findings of Alcohol and other Psychoactive Drugs in Samples fromDrivers Suspected of Driving Under the Influence n % female (%) male(%) median age (years) Total 1197 100 8 92 29 Alcohol (>0.05%) Only 658 55 7 93 28 Drugs only 196 16 9 91 29 Alcohol and drugs 166 14 5 95 31 Neither alcohol nor drugs 177 15 12 88 29 It is seen from Table 1 that alcohol was found in 69 per cent of the cases, while thecorresponding percentage for psychoactive drugs was 30. The low percentage of women,specially in the group combining alcohol and drugs is notable. The latter group hadaccordingly the highest male percentage and also the highest median age. In Table 2 the distribution of drug findings is presented by BAC level.It is seen that the highest fraction of drug detections was found in alcohol negativesamples. It was also interesting to observe that a substantial percentage of samples withalcohol also contained drugs. This percentage decreased somewhat from 25 to 18, byincreasing BAC. Table 2 Distribution of Cases with Detection of Psychoactive Drugs BAC (%) n (total) n (with drugs) drug positive (in%) 0 259 167 64 0.0-0.05 114 29 25 0.051-0.10 179 39 22 0.101-0.15 220 50 23 >0,15 425 77 18 The cases with positive drug findings are presented in more detail inTable 3. This Table presents the material divided in five main groups, according towhether benzodiazepines, THC, amphetamine, opiates or other drugs had been found,mentioned in falling order of frequency of detection. The Table should be read e.g. forbenzodiazepines that these drugs were detected in 206 samples. In 19 of these 206 samplesonly one single benzodiazepine was found, in 103 cases alcohol was present besidesbenzodiazepine(s), in 23 cases more than one benzodiazepine was found, in 54 cases THC wasfound in addition to benzodiazepine(s) etc. It is seen from Table 3 that the sum of thedetections of the 5 main groups (n=526) exceeds the sum of drug positive cases (n=362).This was because many cases contained more than one drug. The details of these drug-drugcombinations can be read from the subgroups, "with---". For all five main groupsfinding of the main drug alone, was rather the exception than the rule. Amphetamine caseshad the highest frequency of measuring the main drug only (25%). In all groupscombinations of three different drugs were seen, most frequently in benzodiazepine and THCcases. The majority of cases in which only a single drug was found exhibited substantialdrug concentrations. This indicated supratherapeutic doses of medicinal drugs and recentuse of illegal drugs. Finally other medicinal drugs than benzodiazepines were seldomlyfound. The main contribution to "other drugs" was made by psychoactive centralacting muscle relaxants and paracetamol ( acetaminophene). Only one case with aneuroleptic drug was seen, and no cases with antidepressants and antihistamines. Table 3 Drug Detections in Samples Containing Psychoactive Drugs (N=362) Main drug Benzodiazepines THC Amphetamine Opiates Other drugs Total 206 147 81 58 34 Single main drug only 19 33 20 8 11 With BAC>0.05% 103 61 5 21 17 With (other) benzodiaz. 23 54 38 19 11 With THC 54 - 39 13 1 With amphetamine 38 39 - 5 1 With opiate 19 13 5 - 4 With other drug 11 1 1 4 - DISCUSSION This study shows that the main finding in blood samples from subjects being suspectedfor driving under the influence is alcohol, which was found above the legal limit in 69per cent of the samples. More surprising was the detection of psychoactive drugs in 30 percent of the samples from people suspected for influenced driving. Thus in 35 per cent ofsamples where any detection (alcohol, other drugs) was made some psychoactive drug otherthan alcohol was found. There are few published studies available for comparison. In otherstudies drugs have been found in 7 to 30 per cent of blood samples from fatally injureddrivers as reported from some countries ( for references see Gjerde et al, 1993). Forliving drivers who have not been subject to some kind of selection after apprehensionbefore blood analysis, there are few published data. In a comparable smaller material fromNorway, similar findings, as in the present study, were reported (Christophersen et al,1990). In a Danish study it was found that 5.5 per cent of drivers suspected for drunkendriving only had diazepam/N-desmethyldiazepam in their blood samples (Worm et al, 1985).In another report it was found that every third driver suspected to drive influenced byalcohol had another drug in his urine (Holmgren et al, 1985). Drugs can, however, bedetected in urine for much longer time periods than in blood, long after their influenceof the central nervous system has disappeared. In the present study blood was the onlymatrix analyzed. Our results, therefore, indicate recent use before driving. The frequentdetection of illicit drugs, alone or in combinations, and the finding of supratherapeuticconcentrations of therapeutic drugs in our material was accompanied by almost lack offinding of therapeutic drugs in therapeutic concentrations. Thus drivers on therapeuticdrug regimens seemed to be represented very seldomly in suspicious driving calling theattention from the police. On the other hand these results probably reflect that peoplewho are drug abusers often drive, and then in a way that gives rise to reaction from thepolice. The high concentrations found as well as the frequent detection of combinations inthe present study, indicated that influence of driving ability was likely in the majorityof the cases with detection of psychoactive drugs. Norway is a modern industrialized western European country with a mixture ofurban/suburban and rural population in the ratio 2:3. The size of the country is large(approx. 325 000 km2) compared to the population (4.3 million). The number of vehicles isabout 3 million. The drug problems are considered to be rather below than above theEuropean mean. Our finding that a psychoactive drug other than alcohol is involved inevery third case under suspicion of influenced driving in this country comes from anon-selected, nationwide material. It can therefore probably to some extent be consideredto be representative for other nations also. Differences in the awareness by the police ofthis problem, different legislation and other factors may contribute to variations betweencountries with regard to the real prevalence of the problem as well as to its discovery.Some generalizations appear, however, to be possible to make. The focus on alcohol shouldnot mislead us to forget other drugs that could be present very often in suspectedinfluenced driving cases. Thus a negative or low breath-alcohol test should not be used asthe only measure to free a person from further investigation in suspected driving cases.Accordingly, the look for better tests to discover influenced driving due to other drugsthan alcohol should be intensified. REFERENCES Christophersen, A.S., Gjerde H., Bjrneboe, A., Sakshaug, J. and Mrland, J.Screening for drug use among Norwegian drivers suspected of driving under influence ofalcohol and drugs. Forensic Sci. Int., 45:5-14, 1990. Gjerde, H., Beylich, K-M. and Mrland, J. Incidence of alcohol and drugs in fatallyinjured drivers in Norway. Accid. Anal. and Prev., 25:479-483, 1993. Holmgren, P., Loch, E. and Schuberth, J. Drugs in motorists traveling Swedish roads: Onthe road detection of intoxicated drivers and screening for drugs in these offenders.Forensic Sci. Int., 27:57-65, 1985. Worm, K., Christensen, H. and Steentoft, A. Diazepam in blood of Danish drivers:Occurrence as shown by gas-liquid chromatographic assay following radioreceptor screening.J. of Forensic Sci. Soc., 25:407-413, 1985.
|
|
DUI / DWI, Drinking 
