Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for Road Traffic Bill 2015

Transcription

1 Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for Road Traffic Bill 2015 Structure of RIA 1. Policy Context/Background 2. Statement of Objectives 3. Identification of Choices/Options 4. Other Impacts 5. Consultation 6. Enforcement and Compliance 7. Review Appendix I Prevalence of Drug Driving in Ireland 1

2 1. Policy Context/Background Intoxicated Driving Intoxicated driving is widely acknowledged as one of the major causes of road traffic collisions. Legislation governing driving while intoxicated due to alcohol has been strengthened significantly in recent years. Mandatory Alcohol Testing (MAT) roadside checkpoints were introduced in 2010, along with the introduction of lower blood alcohol limits and stricter limits for learner and novice drivers. New measures were also provided in the Road Traffic Act These include provision for the testing of drivers incapacitated following a collision and provision for nontechnological roadside impairment tests, which may be used in evidence. The influence of drugs, including prescribed medications, on driving behaviour is an issue of increasing concern. The process of identifying the presence of drugs is more complex than it is for alcohol given that there are a wide range of drugs available, both legal and illegal, that can impair driving. In addition the chemical composition of such drugs can be readily altered (as was demonstrated during the Head Shop issue in recent times, when it was found difficult to ban individual synthetic drugs as chemists could easily change their chemical composition, producing the same physiological effect but rendering the legislation void). In response to this, the Department commissioned the Medical Bureau of Road Safety (MBRS) to undertake a considered study of all aspects of roadside drug testing, including reference to, and analysis of, any equipment currently in use or anticipated to be introduced for carrying out such tests and indications of the likely timescale involved in reaching an acceptable solution to the problem. The MBRS report Report on Roadside Drug Testing and Equipment and Related Matters was published in June The MBRS report recommended that roadside drug intoxicant testing should progress in 2 stages: Stage 1 - Continue the current position with the addition of roadside impairment testing to be made operational as soon as practicable (this has been legislated for in the Road Traffic Act 2014). Stage 2 - Introduce roadside chemical testing as soon as practicable. The MBRS also recommended that the current legislative framework, modelled on the successful mandatory alcohol screening methodology, should be amended to allow for a zero tolerance approach for illicit drugs and drugs taken illicitly alongside impairment plus a presence test for drugs which are authorised medicinal products taken in accordance with prescription or on healthcare advice. Any equipment that would be used by Gardaí at the roadside to detect drugs in a driver s body is technically more complex than that required for the detection of alcohol, which is easily chemically liberated from the body in exhaled breath. 2

3 It is now proposed to strengthen the legislation in relation to drug driving. Provision will therefore be made in the Bill to create new offences of driving or being in charge of a mechanically propelled vehicle with the presence of illicit drugs and driving or being in charge of a mechanically propelled vehicle with the presence of prescribed or over the counter drugs while impaired. Provision will also be made to allow for testing for drugs at the roadside similar to alcohol and for the mandatory testing for alcohol (MAT checkpoints) to be extended to allow for the mandatory testing for drugs. These will therefore be known in future as Mandatory Intoxication Testing (MIT) checkpoints. Penalty Points The penalty points system was introduced in The offences covered all relate directly or indirectly to road safety, and the principal focus of the system is to influence and improve driver behaviour and reduce the level of death and serious injury on our roads. In 2012 the Department completed a review of the penalty points system, the results of which were incorporated into amendments to the penalty point system in the Road Traffic Act Since the passage of the 2014 Act, new regulations have been introduced making it an offence to text from a hands-free mobile phone. The present Bill will include a more comprehensive measure dealing with use of electronic devices while driving. It is therefore intended to amend the Schedule to the 2002 Act to provide for penalty points under that section. The Bill will also include some changes falling out of the Review which were not ready for introduction at the time of the 2012 Act. Other Matters A number of additional matters will be addressed At present there is no register of written-off vehicles. The Department had intended to address this issue in the Road Traffic Act 2014, but this was not possible due to constraints of time. It is now proposed to introduce powers to allow the Minister to make regulations in relation to the classification, use, detention and destruction of a written off vehicle; Racing of animals and animal-drawn vehicles on public roads will be prohibited unless approved by the Local Authority in consultation with An Garda Síochána, and it will be made an offence to participate in such an event. An obligation will be placed on employers of drivers or of people to test their drivers for intoxicants; Stronger measures will be introduced to cover the use of electronic devices while driving. The opportunity provided by the current Bill is being taken to address a number of minor and technical matters. 3

4 2. Statement of Objectives General The overall objective of the legislation is to reduce road deaths and injuries in line with Road Safety policy, as set out in the Road Safety Strategy (RSS) In 2006, the last year before the previous ( ) Strategy, there were 365 deaths on Irish roads. That RSS set a target of reducing this to 252 by 2012, an average of 21 per month. The number declined each year to an historic low of 162 in 2012, an average of 13.5 per month. However, the figure rose to 190 in 2013, with a further small increase to 196 in Irish roads are now a great deal safer than they were less than a decade ago. However, it was always clear that, as the downward trend continued, this momentum would become increasingly difficult to sustain. The RSS sets out a wide range of actions to keep up the pressure for improved road safety, and the current Bill will contribute to this process. Immediate Objectives Intoxicated Driving It will be made an offence to drive or be in charge of a mechanically propelled vehicle with the presence of an illegal drug, or while impaired due to the presence of a prescribed or over the counter drug. Provision will be made for testing for the presence of drugs, including Mandatory Impairment Testing (MIT) checkpoints. It should be emphasised that this legislation is being introduced to address road safety issues, and is not primarily about combating drug-taking in a wider sense. Penalty Points The schedule to the Road Traffic Act 2002 will be amended to provide for penalty points for breach of new legislation on use of nomadic electronic devices by drivers, to be introduced in this Bill. There will also be an amendment to provide penalty points for using a trailer or semi-trailer with a maximum permissible weight exceeding 3,500 kgs without a licence. Other Matters A Ministerial power will be provided allowing for regulations in relation to the classification, use, detention and destruction of a written off vehicle. At present there is no register of written-off vehicles, and the matters to be dealt with in regulations under the proposed new legislation are not presently addressed in law. The racing of animals and animal-drawn vehicles on public roads is already prohibited unless approved by the Local Authority in consultation with An Garda Síochána. It will now be made an offence to participate in such an event. 4

5 A responsibility will be placed on employers of larger passenger vehicles (not including taxis) and HGVs to test employees who drive as part of their work for intoxicants. Wider measures will be put in place to restrict the use of nomadic electronic devices while driving a mechanically propelled vehicle or an animal-drawn vehicle on a public road. 3. Identification of Choices/Options Intoxicated Driving It has long been recognised that impairment due to intoxication is one of the major safety risks on roads. While legislation has been greatly improved in the area of alcohol intoxication, a gap in relation to drug intoxication has been identified. Currently, there is a legal requirement of evidence of impairment provided by the Garda, and the confirmed presence of a drug or drugs in a blood specimen provided by the driver in a Garda station or in a hospital as subsequently analysed by the MBRS. Only evidence of impaired driving is permitted and only when the driver is very obviously impaired is the Garda able to form the opinion that the driver is impaired. This evidence is the most challenged element of any prosecution. The introduction of roadside impairment testing under the 2014 Road Traffic Act should provide a standardised approach to impairment testing which will be used in evidence. The impairment based approach has also been criticised for not addressing the increased collision involvement risk of drug using drivers when impairment is not readily observable. In addition, it does not provide a high level of deterrence from using drugs and driving, as enforcement is not generally visible compared to the visible enforcement of drink driving. Current legislation does not provide for mandatory intoxicant testing or drug testing after a collision involving injury comparable to that which is provided for in relation to alcohol. Finally, the current levels of detection do not match levels of prosecutions and the level of successful prosecutions remains low. Penalty Points The penalty points system was significantly adjusted in the Road Traffic Act 2014, following from a comprehensive review conducted in 2012, ten years after the introduction of the penalty points scheme. However, ongoing changes in legislation require that the system should be considered as constantly under review. A number of 5

6 changes will now be required, in particular to reflect proposals in the present Bill on use of nomadic electronic devices while driving. Other Matters Several matters have arisen or have been under consideration for some time. It has been the Department s intention for some time to provide for registration of writtenoff vehicles. It was not possible due to constraints of time to include it in the Road Traffic Act 2014, but it is now being introduced here. Legislation regarding use of mobile phones while driving dates to While this bans holding of mobile phones and allows regulation in the case of hands-free use of phones, the advance of technology means that it is necessary to take a broad approach to the use of nomadic electronic devices in vehicles. It is also necessary in so far as possible to provide measures which are future-proofed. Experience in recent years has shown that current legislation on races of animaldrawn vehicles is not sufficient. In particular, the legislation allows the prosecution of organisers of unauthorised races, but not of participants. The opportunity provided by the Bill is being taken to address a number of minor and technical matters. Intoxicated Driving Current Position It is currently an offence to drive a motor vehicle whilst under the influence of an intoxicant. This includes drugs as well as alcohol. However, detection at the roadside is problematic for a number of reasons. A Garda must provide evidence of impairment, which can be difficult to prove to the satisfaction of a Court. Provision for roadside impairment testing was included in the Road Traffic Act These non-technological tests to identify impairment have been developed to standards which have been tried and tested, and are accepted as evidence in other jurisdictions. The option to use roadside impairment testing as evidence in a prosecution will be available to Gardaí under the 2014 Act when the relevant section is commenced. Gardaí currently also have the option, once they have formed an opinion of impaired driving, to detain the driver for the purpose of taking a blood or urine sample. They may also seek to have a blood or urine sample taken from a driver who has been taken to a hospital. There is currently no legislation relating to the detection of drugs comparable to legislation to detect alcohol by taking breath specimens. The prevalence of drug driving in Ireland is considered in detail in Appendix 1 to this document. 6

7 Options considered for Framing Legislation on Drug Driving Option 1 -Do Nothing In these circumstances, the Gardaí would continue to enforce current legislation. This requires them to form an opinion as to the possibility that a person s driving is impaired by virtue of the ingestion of a drug. They currently have the power of detention and can demand a sample of blood or urine which is then analysed by the Medical Bureau of Road Safety and a prosecution initiated depending upon the results. This system is prone to legal challenges. It does not have the deterrent effect that is part of the intention of the proposed legislation. Current legislation does not provide for mandatory intoxicant testing at roadside checkpoints, or drug testing after a collision where there is an injury, which is provided for in relation to alcohol. The impairment-based approach alone does not address the increased collision involvement risk of drug using drivers when impairment is not readily observable. It does not provide a high level of deterrence from using drugs and driving as the enforcement is not generally visible. The current levels of detection do not match levels of prosecutions and the level of successful prosecutions remains low. Option 2 Legislative Actions Provide for the introduction of a device that will detect, at the roadside, the widest range of drugs likely to impair driving and design the legislation to allow updates as the technology available improves. Provide for the use of these devices at Mandatory Impairment Testing (MIT) Checkpoints. Provide new offences of (a) driving with the presence of illicit drugs, and (b) driving while impaired with the presence of a prescribed or over the counter drug in a driver s body. Option 2 is the preferred option which will address the shortcomings with the existing legislation we are endeavouring to address. Within Option 2, there were a number of legislative actions considered: Option zero tolerance approach to illicit drugs 1 This is where a zero limit is applied to illicit substances and any measurable amount of an illicit substance which is unequivocally identified in a specimen of blood or oral fluid of the driver is an offence. 1 An illicit drug may be defined as one which is not a medicinal product. A medicinal product as defined under Article 1 of EU Directive 2004/23/EC is any substance or combination of substances presented as having properties treating or preventing disease in human beings; or any substance or combination of substances which may be used in or administered to human beings either with a view to restoring, correcting or modifying physiological functions by exerting a pharmacological, immunological or metabolic action or to making a medical diagnosis 7

8 A prosecution can be made based on the presence of the drug alone whether or not the driver showed signs and /or symptoms of being under the influence of drugs The zero tolerance approach is based on the detection in a driver of a drug known to impair driving skills and therefore constituting a risk to road safety. The Garda will not have to prove impairment in this case. It is intended that it will be an offence under this legislation to drive with the presence of an illicit drug in your system. It is intended that drugs such as cannabis, cocaine, opiates, heroin, amphetamines and detectable synthetic drugs such as MDMA will fall under this offence. Option Zero tolerance approach to licit or prescribed drugs, taken illicitly (i.e. without a valid prescription or not in accordance with a prescription and medical advice) This is where a zero limit is applied to controlled substances and any measurable amount of a controlled substance which is unequivocally identified in a specimen of blood or oral fluid of the driver is an offence where it can be shown that the driver has taken the drug illicitly This means that it is an offence for the driver to be detected with the presence of a prescribed drug in their body where they do not have a valid prescription for the drug or where they have not taken the prescribed drug in accordance with a valid prescription or on the advice of the medical practitioner. The intention of including such an offence was to include those drivers driving under the influence of drugs available on prescription where they have no valid prescription, e.g. benzodiazepines taken illicitly. It was also intended to cover those driving impaired under the influence of a drug which had not been taken in accordance with their prescription e.g. increasing the recommended dose or driving against the advice of a medical practitioner. It is considered that adopting this approach would be too difficult to implement for a number of reasons including that it would involve a person having to carry their prescription with them; a Garda having to read and understand a prescription; a Garda treating a person with a prescription differently than a person without a prescription (if a driver claimed they had a prescription, the Garda would have to prove impairment; if the driver did not have a prescription (i.e. was taking a drug illicitly) but tested positive for a drug e.g. benzodiazepine, the Garda could arrest them for having an impairing drug in their system under this zero-tolerance approach). A medical defence would also have to be included in the legislation. It is therefore not proposed to have a zero tolerance approach to drugs that are not illicit drugs. Option Impairment approach to driving under the influence of drugs Under this approach, the Garda has to prove impairment. This will be done by conducting roadside impairment tests provided for under the Road Traffic Act 2010 (as amended). 8

9 This option is not being considered for illicit drugs for the reasons outlined under option 2.1. i.e. it is not considered necessary for An Garda Síochána to have to prove impairment where a driver is under the influence of an illicit drug. This option will therefore be used under the proposed legislation for those drivers driving while impaired with the presence of a prescribed or over the counter drug. Under the proposed legislation it will be an offence for a driver to be impaired due to the presence of a licit or prescribed drug in their system. Impairment will be determined via impairment testing as set out in section 11 of the Road Traffic Act 2010 (as amended). Option 2.4 per se approach to drug driving This approach sets out in law, limits for certain classes of drugs (licit and illicit) such as opiates, cannabis, amphetamines, cocaine and benzodiazepines. This approach is similar to the per se limits set for alcohol and it is in its early stages of acceptance in the scientific and legal communities. A prosecution is made if the driver is over a specific limit set for the specific drug. It has not been widely adopted and research is continuing in this area as to agreement on the limits that might be set. MBRS is not keen on a per se approach as in its view it is difficult to establish such ranges which would represent driving impairment in the general population due to the complex nature of how drugs interact with the body. It is therefore not proposed to include this approach in the legislation. Option 2.1 is therefore the preferred option for dealing with illicit or illegal drugs while Option 2.3 is the preferred option for dealing with legal or prescribed drugs. Cost/Benefit and Impacts of Options A major benefit to road safety from the introduction of a device to detect drugs will be the deterrent effect of the ready availability of a suitable device to test for drugs at the roadside at Mandatory Intoxication Testing Checkpoints. It is expected that the introduction of this legislation, the ensuing media attention and any Road Safety Authority advertising campaigns will serve to provide a very strong deterrent to driving while impaired while intoxicated either by alcohol or by drug taking. The public reaction may not be dissimilar to that observed with the introduction of the highly visible Mandatory Alcohol Testing (MAT) checkpoints mounted by the Gardaí. The accepted underlying cost/benefit of preventing a fatality as a result of a road traffic collision, currently estimated at 2.58 million per person, is a significant influencing factor. The direct and indirect costs of on-going care for a person seriously injured or incapacitated as a result of a collision involving an impaired 9

10 driver are difficult to quantify, as is the on-going emotional damage caused to the injured parties and those around them. The MBRS were allocated 500,000 for capital spend in 2014 towards their toxicology programme, including developing the technology to test suitable devices as part of the tendering process for the roadside devices. A further 500,000 capital allocation will be provided in Any detection devices will be considerably more expensive that the breath analysis equipment currently in use for alcohol. No final figures for unit costs for the devices will be available until after the tendering process is complete and a supplier identified. However, an approximate figure for the cost of roadside testing equipment is estimated at per device, compared to a cost per breath alcohol test mouthpiece of around Any further small administrative or training costs associated with implementation can be covered within current budgetary provision by An Garda Síochána, and the Medical Bureau of Road Safety (MBRS), Penalty Points The proposed changes to penalty point offences arise from the Department s 2012 review of the penalty points system and from subsequent advances in the legislation on use of mobile phones. Option 1 No Change This would mean that the offences referred to in the Bill did not entail penalty points. Option 2 Implement the Proposed Changes. Implementing the proposed changes will facilitate highlighting the offences in question and increasing public awareness of them. As such it will have a beneficial effect in reducing risk on our roads. Cost: There is no exchequer cost in either Option. There is a social cost in Option 1. The penalty points system has proven to have a positive impact on driver awareness of dangerous behaviour, and a deterrent effect on offences. This would not be achieved in the case of the offences in question if nothing were done. Benefit: There is no benefit to Option 1. Option 2 would provide benefit for road safety insofar as it would involve drawing attention to the offences in question and providing a stronger deterrent. Option 2 is therefore the preferred Option. 10

11 Other Matters Many of the miscellaneous matters addressed in the Bill are minor and/or technical. The remainder involve changes beneficial to improving road safety across a variety of areas. (a) Provision for a register of written-off vehicles; Option 1 - No Change This would mean that, as at present, there is no national register of written-off vehicle. Option 2 - Legislate to create a register of written-off vehicles This would create a national register of written-off vehicles, to be held by the Department in conjunction with the National Vehicle and Driver File. Cost: Option 1 would involve no cost to the Exchequer. It would however mean that there would remain no way of identifying vehicles which were supposed to be written-off. Option 2 would involve a capital outlay in terms of IT, and could then be self-financing from an operational point of view. The capital outlay is not precisely identifiable, but would be small. Benefit: Option 1 would avoid the capital input required to establish a register. Option 2 would enable the state to provide clarity on what vehicles were written-off, what criteria were required to write off a vehicle, and how following repairs a written-off vehicle might be taken off the register. Option 2 is therefore the preferred Option. (b) Offence of participating in unauthorised races of animal-drawn vehicles (e.g. sulky races); Currently, it is an offence to organise an unauthorised race on a public road. Participating is not an offence. There has been heightened concern in recent times about the safety risk posed by unauthorised sulky races in particular. Frequently, these races have no identifiable organiser, and so no one can be prosecuted. Option 1 No Change 11

12 This would mean that there would be no sanction against participants in unauthorised races. Option 2 Legislate to Create an Offence of Participating in an Unauthorised Race This would provide a basis for prosecution of participants in unauthorised races on public roads. Cost: Neither Option involves a cost to the Exchequer. Option 1 leaves open the potential cost that such dangerous events may continue as long as participants know that they cannot be prosecuted. Benefit: There is no benefit from Option 1. Option 2 would provide a mechanism for prosecuting participants in unauthorised races, and should thereby act as a deterrent against this dangerous practice. Option 2 is therefore the preferred Option. (c) Responsibility on employers of drivers of large passenger or heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) to test employees for intoxicants Drivers of HGVs and buses have a greater responsibility than most in matters of road safety, due to the size and weight of the vehicles under their control and due, in the case of buses, to the responsibility for passenger safety. While it is an offence to drive while intoxicated, it is not a requirement that the employer of the driver check them for intoxication. It is now proposed to change this. Option 1 No Change There will continue to be no legal responsibility on employers of HGV and bus drivers to ensure that their employees are free from intoxicants. Option 2 Create a Legal Responsibility of Employers to Test Drivers of HGVs and Buses for Intoxicants This would place a legal requirement on employers of HGV and bus drivers to ensure that their employees are free from intoxicants Cost: There will be no cost to the Exchequer of either Option. Option 2 will place an indeterminable cost burden on employers. The Department has spoken to CIÉ and IBEC, and both are aware of this but in favour of the proposal. Benefit: Option 1 has no benefit. Option 2 will give added impetus to the pressure to eliminate intoxicated driving in the case of some of the most potentially dangerous vehicles on our roads. 12

13 Option 2 is therefore the preferred Option. (d) Tighter restrictions on use of electronic communications while driving; Option 1 No Change Present legislation making it an offence to hold a mobile phone while driving and to text from a hands-free device would be the only legislation against use of communications devices while driving. Option 2 Outright Ban on Use of Electronic Communications while Driving Use of all electronic communications devices while driving would be banned. Option 3 Regulate use of Electronic Communications while Driving There would be a facility to use some electronic communications devices while driving, while others would be banned. Cost: There is no Exchequer cost involved in any of these Options. Nor is there any cost to the travelling public. Benefit: Given that driver distraction is a major cause of road traffic collisions, and given the monetary as well as human cost of death and serious injury (the estimated cost for one life lost is 2.58 million), any measure which can have a positive effect in reducing road risk has a financial as well as a social benefit. Options 2 and 3 would therefore have distinct benefits. While Option 2 might be preferable in a purist sense in the longer term, a blanket ban (except for emergencies) might be seen as a step too far at present. Option 2 is therefore the preferred Option 3. This does not rule out further action in future. 4. Other Impacts National Competitiveness The Bill will have no impact on national competitiveness. 13

14 Socially Excluded or Vulnerable Groups The Bill will have no impact on social excluded or vulnerable groups. Environmental Impacts The Bill will have no environmental impact. Economic Market/Consumers and Competition The Bill will have no market, consumer or competition impacts. The Rights of Citizens The Bill will have no impact on the rights of citizens. Compliance Burden Some elements of the Bill will involve a compliance burden Provision for the first time for a register of written-off vehicles will require vehicle owners to register vehicles as written-off; Responsibility on employers of drivers of passenger or heavy goods vehicles to test employees for intoxicants will place additional responsibility on employers of drivers of HGVs and buses (CIÉ and IBEC have been consulted and have indicated support); 5. Consultation There was widespread consultation throughout the preparation of this Bill with key stakeholders. The Road Safety Authority, the Medical Bureau of Road Safety and An Garda Síochána were consulted throughout. In relation to drug driving, two working groups were established 1. Technical working group Following a decision to introduce roadside chemical testing for drugs, a technical working group chaired by the Medical Bureau of Road Safety (MBRS), with representation from: 14

15 An Garda Síochána, and The Department of Transport Tourism & Sport, was established to consider the scientific, operational, resource and cost issues associated with the introduction of the devices. 2. A legislative working group A legislative working group was also established to consider the legislative changes necessary in relation to intoxicated driving. On this working group, chaired by the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport were representatives from: The Medical Bureau of Road Safety (MBRS) The Department of Justice The Road Safety Authority (RSA) An Garda Síochána The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions In addition, a number of other stakeholders were consulted on issues of particular relevance to them, including - Drug Driving o The Irish Medicines Board (now the Health Products Regulatory Authority) o Representatives from the Pharmaceutical Industry o Road Authorities in Finland o The Department of Health o The Royal College of Physicians in Ireland o The National Programme Office for Traffic Medicine o Health and Safety Authority o Representatives and families of road traffic victims Employer testing of drivers for intoxicants consultation with CIÉ, Health and Safety Authority and IBEC 6. Enforcement and Compliance The new requirements regarding drug driving will be enforced by the Garda Traffic Bureau. 7. Review While there are no specific provisions for review, road traffic legislation is the subject of ongoing appraisal and is informed by on-the-ground experience, best practice policy going forward as well as legal challenges to the legislation as they arise. 15

16 Prevalence of drug driving in Ireland Appendix 1 Extracts from the Medical Bureau of Road Safety Report on Roadside Drug Testing and Related Matters, 2012 A Review of available data was conducted in MBRS Report of 2012 in order to establish the prevalence of drugs used both in the driving population and the wider population as follows: 1. Nationwide Survey: Medical Bureau of Road Safety and University College Dublin The MBRS was commissioned by the then Department of Environment and Local Government to carry out a nationwide survey during 2000 and 2001 on blood and urine specimens from drivers suspected of intoxicated driving, in order to determine the trends in DUID in Ireland and to establish an evidence based model to inform future Road Safety Strategies and a review of the legislation at that time. 2,000 specimens were selected for drug analysis, 1,000 with results under the limit for alcohol and 1,000 over the limit of 80mg/100mL in blood or 107mg/100mL in urine. [1, 2] The drugs tested for were: Amphetamine Class Methamphetamine Class Opiate Class Cannabinoids Class Methadone Cocaine Benzodiazepine Class 231 (33.1%) of the drivers under the legal limit for alcohol tested positive for one or more of the relevant drugs, and the corresponding figures for drivers over the limit was 142 (14.2%). Using weighted analysis this corresponded to 15.7% of all tested drivers (15.8% in men and 14.5% in women). Of drivers who had minimal blood alcohol levels (<10mg/100mL), 67.9% were taking at least one type of drug. The prevalence of taking drugs reduced steadily as alcohol concentration increased, but still remained as high as 11.1% for drivers with blood alcohol concentrations greater than 200mg/100mL. Being under the limit for alcohol, being stopped in a city area, being stopped between 6am and 4pm, or 4pm and 9pm, and being of the younger age group were each independently associated with drug positivity. 16

17 This study also showed that the impairing drugs being used by drivers were both licit and illicit in nature. The most prevalent drug by far was Cannabis followed by Benzodiazepines. 2. Medical Bureau of Road Safety Specimen Analysis Data Testing for drugs has continued as part of the enforcement of the Road Traffic Act and drug test results for 7,776 specimens of blood and urine tested between the years were reviewed. Cannabis followed by benzodiazepines continued to be the most prevalent drugs detected. Cocaine, opiates and methadone are the next most prevalent and have increased in prevalence when compared with the study. Amphetamine and methamphetamine type compounds are less prevalent recently than previously reported in that study. 3. The National Advisory Committee on Drugs: Drug Prevalence Survey 2010/2011 Data published by the National Advisory Committee on Drugs (NACD) on surveys of drugs trends is available. In 2012 the NACD and the Public Health Information and Research Branch (PHIRB) in Northern Ireland published data from a household survey conducted in 2010/2011. The results of the survey showed that cannabis was the most commonly used illegal drug with a lifetime prevalence of 25% in the Republic of Ireland and 24% in Northern Ireland. Cannabis use was more prevalent in the younger age groups. Another finding was that women and older adults continue to report higher levels of use of sedatives, tranquiliser and anti-depressants. This shows that in terms of the use of cannabis and benzodiazepines the most up to date data points to the fact the cannabis and drugs such as benzodiazepines are the most relevant in the driving population as was borne out in the MBRS survey in 2000/2001 and MBRS data from It is important to address the numerous new psychoactive substances which have been available on the Irish market in the last number of years. From the study conducted by the Dublin Institute of Technology (DIT) it would appear that there are a significant number of different drugs sold as intoxicating alternatives to illegal drugs. Examples are drugs such as benzylpiperizine and mephedrone. These substances have received a significant deal of media attention in the last few years. These drugs are sold over the internet and through Head Shops. The difficulty with these is that suppliers offer drugs for sale which are not currently controlled by any relevant legislation. If the drug is considered to be a danger to public health and are subsequently brought under control an alternative is very rapidly available. This presents a new challenge for policymakers, legislators and scientists. A new consideration in the NACD/PHIRB 2010/2011 survey was that new psychoactive drugs were included. It showed that prevalence was 9.7% in the year age group and 4.6% in the year age group highlighting the significance of this new trend. 17

18 4. Road Traffic Collisions (RTC) deaths in vehicle drivers with a positive toxicology for an illicit drug(s), recorded by the NDRDI 2004 to 2009 in Coroner s Districts Nationally A review was undertaken by the NDRDI of drug toxicology from Coroners nationwide data on driver fatalities between 2001 and The following analysis presents the NDRDI data on road traffic collisions (RTC) deaths among vehicle drivers in Ireland, for the period 2004 to 2009, where the individual had a positive toxicology finding for an illicit drug(s) at the time of death. In this six year period there were 93 of these deaths recorded by the NDRDI. Cannabis (38.7%) was the most common illicit drug found in the toxicology of these 93 individuals, followed by cocaine (23.7%) and MDMA (18.3%) 5. RTC deaths in drivers of a vehicle (car, van or motorcycle) reported to the Coroner s District of Kildare 1998 to 2009 A review of road traffic collisions and drug and alcohol toxicology analyses from the Coroners District in Kildare during the period of was also carried out. This was undertaken jointly by the NDRDI and the Kildare Coroner. The focus of the analysis was on deaths where a positive toxicology finding was recorded. In the eleven year period a total of 164 deaths due to road traffic collisions were reported in the district of Kildare. The majority of the deaths were males (81.7%) and between the ages of years (61%). The median age was 29.5 years. Of the 164 deaths during the reporting period 1998 to 2009, 92 (56.1%) were the driver of a vehicle (car, van or motorcycle). Of these 92 deaths, 46 (50%) had a recorded positive toxicology. Of the 92 driver deaths: 31 (33.7%) had a positive toxicology for BAC 80mg/100mls. 6 (6.5%) had a positive toxicology for a BAC 80mg/100mls and a drug(s). 9 (9.8%) had a positive toxicology for a drug(s). A further 6 drivers (6.5%) had a positive toxicology for BAC 20mg/100mls. 18