People Against Drink/Drug Driving

The government has announced plans to slash the drink-drive limit in England and Wales to its lowest level ever. Furthermore, transport officials are warning drivers who plan to get behind the wheel should avoid alcohol entirely.

Transport minister Lilian Greenwood delivered the stark message following the announcement of Britain’s first comprehensive road safety strategy in over a decade. Moreover, the initiative aims to cut road deaths and serious injuries by 65 per cent by 2035.

Current Alcohol Limit Among Highest in Europe

The existing drink-drive limit stands at 35 micrograms of alcohol per 100 millilitres of breath. In fact, this represents the highest threshold in Europe alongside Malta. However, under the proposed changes, this would drop to 22 micrograms. Consequently, England and Wales would align with Scotland, which reduced its alcohol limit for driving in 2014.

When asked directly whether motorists should abstain from drinking if they plan to drive, Ms Greenwood was unequivocal. “That’s probably the best advice,” she told Sky News. “If you’re going to drive, don’t have a drink. Alternatively, if you want to have a drink, leave your car at home.”

260 Lives Lost to Drink-Driving Last Year

The minister’s comments reflect growing concern over casualties. Last year alone, 260 people were killed in incidents involving alcohol. Additionally, authorities describe this figure as unacceptable.

“I’ve sat down with numerous families over the last 18 months,” Ms Greenwood said. “They’re asking us to take action.” Indeed, the personal tragedies behind these statistics are devastating.

The strategy comes as Britain has fallen behind 22 European countries in reducing road crash deaths. Meanwhile, whilst fatalities have generally declined since the 1970s, progress has stalled significantly since 2010. Specifically, deaths dropped from 7,763 in 1972 to 1,850 in 2010. However, the figure only reached 1,602 in 2024.

Social Life Not Under Threat from Stricter Drink-Drive Limit

Ministers insist the tighter alcohol limit for driving isn’t designed to dampen social life. Instead, they’re encouraging alternative approaches to nights out.

“We don’t want to stop people from going to the pub and having a great night out,” Ms Greenwood told Times Radio. “What we’re just saying is don’t take your car.” She suggested taking buses or taxis. Alternatively, drivers could designate a sober friend or choose from the growing range of low-alcohol alternatives now available.

Evidence from Scotland suggests the reduced drink-drive limit didn’t significantly impact the pub trade. Therefore, this provides some reassurance for the hospitality sector.

Broader Road Safety Measures

Alcolocks and Technology for Enforcement

The alcohol limit changes form just one element of the broader road safety strategy. Additionally, other measures under consultation include mandatory eye tests for drivers aged 70 and above. Furthermore, authorities propose minimum learning periods for new drivers and crackdowns on uninsured motorists.

Perhaps most notably, some convicted offenders may be required to install alcolocks in their vehicles. These devices prevent a car from starting unless the driver passes a breath test. Already used in Australia, Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands, and the United States, these systems could offer shorter driving bans. However, this comes in exchange for proven sobriety.

Young Drivers Face Extended Learning Period

Young drivers face particular attention under the new drink-drive limit reforms. Those aged 17 to 24 represent just six per cent of licence holders. Nevertheless, they account for 24 per cent of fatal and serious collisions. Consequently, the government proposes introducing a three to six-month minimum learning period. This gives learners more experience in challenging conditions like night driving and adverse weather.

Road Safety Experts Welcome Lower Alcohol Limit for Driving

Road safety organisations have broadly welcomed the strategy. AA president Edmund King described it as a “radical reframing of road safety.” Meanwhile, RAC spokesperson Rod Dennis said it “can’t come soon enough.” Particularly, he praised the reintroduction of casualty reduction targets scrapped 16 years ago.

Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander framed the announcement as a turning point. “Every life lost on our roads is a tragedy that devastates families and communities,” she said. “For too long, progress on road safety has stalled.” Moreover, she added that the measures would save thousands of lives over the coming decade.

Four Daily Deaths Prompt Urgent Action

The Department for Transport estimates that approximately four people die on Britain’s roads every day. Additionally, thousands more suffer serious injuries annually. Through targeted action on speeding, substance impairment, seatbelt non-compliance, and mobile phone use, officials believe many tragedies can be prevented.

The strategy adopts the internationally recognised Safe System approach. Essentially, this acknowledges that whilst human error is inevitable, deaths and serious injuries are not. Rather than placing responsibility solely on individual drivers, the system ensures road design, vehicle safety, enforcement, and education work together. Consequently, this protects all road users.

New Technology to Support Drink-Drive Limit Enforcement

A new Road Safety Investigation Branch will analyse collision patterns using linked police and healthcare data. Subsequently, this will identify root causes and target interventions more effectively. Additionally, 18 new vehicle safety technologies will become mandatory. These include autonomous emergency braking and lane-keeping assistance.

With consultations now underway on the drink-drive limit reduction and other measures, the government has signalled its commitment to reversing a decade of stalled progress. For millions of drivers, the message is clear. If you’re planning to drive, leave alcohol off the menu entirely.

(Source: WRD News)

The Turning Point report reveals something crucial about drug driving behaviour: people describe it not as aberrant, but as embedded in everyday routines (work, socialising, stress management). This apparent ordinariness, however, must be understood within a broader policy environment where harm reduction has been promoted in relative isolation from robust prevention and supply reduction. The unintended consequence is a perception that ongoing drug use is expected and manageable rather than something to be actively reduced. In this context, drug driving becomes a predictable outcome of a culture where drug use is framed as a given, and where policy energy focuses on managing risk instead of changing behaviour.

Harm Reduction in a Lopsided System

Harm reduction has an important place in public health. But when it dominates both narrative and resourcing at the expense of prevention and supply control, it can hollow out efforts to reduce initiation, frequency and intensity of drug use. Over the past decade, much public messaging has concentrated on safer use, overdose response and stigma reduction. Comparatively little has aimed to prevent uptake, delay use or actively support abstinence-oriented and reduction-focused goals (particularly in relation to driving).

The result, reflected in the experiences documented in the report, is telling: many individuals receive repeated signals about how to “be safer” while using, but almost no structured support or expectation to stop using before driving, or to address the underlying use itself.

The Missing Pillars: Supply Reduction, Prevention, Diversion

The Turning Point report highlights an enforcement-heavy roadside testing regime with minimal systematic prevention or therapeutic diversion. To correct this imbalance, drug policy around driving needs a deliberate triangulation of three pillars:

Supply Reduction Strong, targeted policing of trafficking and dealing, regulation of pharmaceutical prescribing, and disruption of local drug markets can reduce availability and convenience, making impulsive or routine drug use before driving less likely.

Prevention Evidence-based, developmentally appropriate prevention across schools, workplaces, families and communities is essential to delay initiation, reduce use and reshape expectations about combining drugs and driving. Prevention here means more than information: it encompasses skill-building, alternative activities, and structural supports that make non-use (or reduced use) realistic and attractive.

Diversion (Not Decriminalisation) When people are detected drug driving, responses should prioritise diversion into assessment, education and treatment rather than simply fines and disqualification, but without sending a message that drug use is consequence-free or socially accepted. Diversion is distinct from broad decriminalisation. It retains a clear legal boundary around drug use and driving, while using that boundary as an entry point to structured behaviour change.

By contrast, moves toward de facto normalisation or blanket decriminalisation, in the absence of strong supply control and prevention, risk further embedding drug use as a “new normal” (undermining public messaging around road safety and personal responsibility).

Consequences of Neglecting Prevention and Behaviour Change

The experiences captured in the report show how the neglect of prevention and behaviour change plays out on the ground:

• People report surprise at being detected, revealing that they have not internalised clear, consistent messages that any drug use before driving is unacceptable and risky.
• Many have long-standing patterns of drug use linked to mental health, work conditions or social networks, yet have never been offered sustained, structured help to reduce or exit those patterns.
• Contact points that could trigger change (police stops, courts, health services) rarely connect individuals to credible, evidence-based programs focused on abstinence from driving after drug use, and on broader behaviour change.

In effect, policy and practice communicate that the system will test and punish, and occasionally help people use more safely, but will not consistently invest in helping them use less (or not at all) in relation to driving.

Reframing Drug Driving as a Prevention Priority

To respond to the report’s findings, drug driving must be reframed as a central prevention priority rather than a niche enforcement issue or a side effect of broader harm reduction work. This reframing implies:

Public campaigns that explicitly challenge the idea that drug use is a normal, expected aspect of life, and that clearly condemn any drug use before driving as socially and morally unacceptable, not just technically illegal.

Integration of road-safety messaging into AOD and mental health services, with practitioners trained and resourced to work toward behaviour change (not only “safer” use) around driving.

Policy commitments that tie funding and performance measures to reductions in drug use prevalence, frequency and related driving, not solely to service throughput or distribution of harm reduction materials. 

In this model, harm reduction retains a role but is embedded within a broader framework that:

• Limits supply
• Strengthens prevention
• Uses legal boundaries to drive diversion into change-focused support
• Resists narratives that present drug use (and by extension drug driving) as inevitable

Conclusion

The lived experiences in the Turning Point report sit within a decade of harm reduction-led messaging and weak prevention. The current patterns of drug driving are not accidental but are, in part, the predictable consequence of policy choices. Rebalancing toward supply reduction, robust prevention and meaningful diversion (while rejecting decriminalisation and cultural normalisation) offers a clearer path to genuine reductions in both drug use and drug driving-related harm.

(Source: WRD News)

Devastating new research from the American College of Surgeons has exposed the lethal consequences of cannabis-impaired driving, revealing that more than 40% of drivers killed in car crashes between 2019 and 2024 in Ohio tested positive for high levels of THC.

Moreover, the findings, released last week, shatter the persistent myth that cannabis is a harmless substance with no fatal consequences. Indeed, the data adds to mounting evidence that driving under the influence of marijuana poses a severe and growing threat to road safety across the United States.

Federal Data Confirms Rising Threat of Drug-Impaired Driving

Significantly, the Ohio study aligns with multiple federal investigations documenting the escalating danger of cannabis-impaired driving on American roads. For instance, a 2022 study by the National Traffic Safety Board found marijuana present in approximately one-third of all motorists arrested for impaired driving nationwide.

Furthermore, research from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that same year revealed that over 25% of individuals killed or seriously injured in road accidents who tested positive for any drug had used marijuana. Remarkably, this figure exceeded the 23% who tested positive for alcohol, therefore signalling a fundamental shift in road safety threats.

Dangerous Misconceptions Fuel Cannabis-Impaired Driving Crisis

Perhaps most alarming is the widespread misunderstanding amongst cannabis users about the drug’s effects on driving ability. Consequently, a survey conducted by the Foundation for Traffic Safety earlier this year questioned 2,000 cannabis users, uncovering troubling attitudes towards drug-impaired driving.

Specifically, the research found that nearly 85% of cannabis users drive on the same day they consume marijuana. More concerningly, 81% believe that using cannabis either has no effect on their driving or actually improves it, a misconception with potentially fatal consequences.

In Virginia, for example, approximately 17% of residents admitted to driving whilst high multiple times in the previous month, according to the state Cannabis Control Authority. In other words, that equates to nearly one in five people regularly operating vehicles whilst under the influence. Disturbingly, 30% of respondents believe cannabis users are usually safe drivers.

State-Level Evidence Links Legalisation to Increased Fatalities

Meanwhile, data from states that have legalised recreational cannabis reveals a disturbing pattern. Notably, Washington state witnessed the proportion of drivers involved in fatal collisions who tested positive for THC double after legalisation, from approximately 9% on average in the five years before legalisation to 18% in the subsequent five years.

Similarly, Colorado, an early adopter of cannabis legalisation in 2014, experienced a near doubling of cannabis-related car crash fatalities between 2013 and 2020. Following legalisation in Oregon, Alaska, and California, car crash deaths increased by 22%, 20%, and 14% respectively.

As a result, these statistics suggest that legalisation contributes to increased cannabis-impaired driving incidents, thereby undermining road safety gains achieved through decades of public health initiatives.

The Erosion of Road Safety Culture

Over several decades, America developed a powerful cultural taboo against drink-driving, largely through sustained education and prevention campaigns by organisations such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD). Subsequently, these efforts fundamentally changed public attitudes and behaviours, saving countless lives.

However, the data indicates that cannabis legalisation has eroded similar taboos against drug-impaired driving. In particular, industry marketing campaigns promoting cannabis as medically beneficial and harmless have contributed to dangerous misperceptions about the drug’s effects on driving ability.

Additionally, the parallels with historic tobacco industry tactics are striking. Decades ago, tobacco companies paid medical professionals and scientists to promote cigarettes as beneficial to health. Today, the cannabis industry employs sophisticated marketing strategies that downplay or ignore the substance’s well-documented risks.

Broader Health Concerns Beyond Road Safety

Nevertheless, the dangers of cannabis extend well beyond impaired driving. Recent studies have linked marijuana use to serious cardiac events, damaged fertility in women, schizophrenia, and other severe mental health conditions. Furthermore, high-profile incidents involving individuals with documented cannabis use have highlighted the drug’s potential connection to violent behaviour.

Consequently, these broader health implications underscore the need for comprehensive approaches to cannabis prevention that address both immediate risks like cannabis-impaired driving and long-term health consequences.

Urgent Need for Prevention and Education

Clearly, the escalating crisis of drug-impaired driving demands immediate action. Therefore, robust awareness and prevention programmes are essential to educate the public, particularly younger drivers, about the deadly dangers of operating vehicles whilst under the influence of cannabis.

In addition, states must reconsider policies that have normalised cannabis use without adequate safeguards or public health protections. Indeed, the rush to legalisation has outpaced understanding of the substance’s risks, thus creating preventable tragedies on roads across the nation.

Moreover, federal authorities should prioritise research into cannabis-impaired driving, develop evidence-based prevention strategies, and support states in implementing effective enforcement and education measures. Ultimately, public health campaigns must counter industry messaging and establish clear understanding that cannabis significantly impairs driving ability.

In conclusion, the evidence is unequivocal: cannabis-impaired driving represents a growing threat to public safety. Only through comprehensive prevention efforts, honest public education, and evidence-based policy can this escalating crisis be addressed effectively.

(Source: WRD News)

A comprehensive decade-long study examining drug and alcohol presence in Victorian road crashes has revealed alarming trends, with methylamphetamine emerging as the most prevalent illicit substance detected in both injured and fatally injured drivers between 2010 and 2019.

The research, published in Injury Prevention and led by Monash University, represents the largest investigation of its kind conducted in Australia. Analysing data from 19,843 injured drivers and 1,596 fatalities, the findings paint a concerning picture of drug-impaired driving across Victoria’s roads.

Methylamphetamine Prevalence in Road Crashes Reaches Alarming Levels

The study found that methylamphetamine had the highest prevalence among Victorian drivers involved in crashes. Researchers detected the substance in 12.3% of fatalities and 9.1% of injured drivers, and these detections increased over time.

Taken together, these statistics underscore a growing public health and road safety challenge. In particular, methylamphetamine impairs cognitive function, reaction times, and decision-making abilities, all of which are critical for safe vehicle operation.

Multiple Substances Detected in Victorian Drivers

The research revealed that 16.8% of car drivers and motorcyclists tested positive for one or more drugs. Alcohol remained a significant factor, with 14% of crashes involving a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) at or exceeding 0.05%.

Cannabis (THC) emerged as another substance of concern, with detections rising amongst injured drivers until 2018. The study found THC detected in 8.1% of injured drivers and 15.2% of fatally injured drivers.

MDMA-positive driving decreased amongst injured drivers and remained stable at approximately 1% of fatalities throughout the study period.

Drug-Driving Patterns in Motorcyclists

Motorcyclists emerged as a particularly vulnerable population. Between 2015 and 2019, methylamphetamine was detected in 27.9% of motorcyclist fatalities, a figure substantially higher than the overall driver population. THC followed at 18.3%, with alcohol at or above 0.05% BAC detected in 14.2% of fatal motorcycle crashes. Similar but lower frequencies were observed amongst injured motorcyclists.

These elevated rates amongst motorcyclists warrant particular attention, as riders already face heightened vulnerability on roads due to reduced physical protection compared to enclosed vehicle occupants.

Alcohol Trends Show Mixed Results

The study documented a decline in alcohol detections (≥0.05% BAC) amongst fatalities. However, alcohol detections increased amongst injured motorcyclists and car drivers until plateauing in 2017. This mixed trend suggests that whilst fatal alcohol-related crashes may be decreasing, alcohol continues to contribute significantly to road trauma overall.

Demographics and Risk Factors

The research identified that there was a higher incidence of drug-positive driving amongst men and individuals aged between 25 and 59 years, alongside patterns of increasing drug use in motorcyclists.

Implications for Road Safety Prevention

The comprehensive data from the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine and Victoria Police provides robust evidence of persistent drug-impaired driving despite Victoria’s enhanced road safety measures.

Co-senior author Adjunct Associate Professor Dimitri Gerostamoulos from Monash University’s Department of Forensic Medicine and the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine stated that the findings confirm methylamphetamine, alcohol, and cannabis are the drugs that cause the most harm on Victorian roads.

The decade-long trends demonstrate that current prevention strategies require re-evaluation and strengthening. The study’s authors concluded that despite enhanced road safety measures in Victoria, drug-driving persists, indicating a need for revised prevention strategies targeting this growing issue.

Addressing the Drug-Driving Challenge

This research provides critical baseline data for policymakers, law enforcement, and public health officials working to reduce drug-driving incidents. The upward trajectory of methylamphetamine detections, combined with persistent alcohol involvement and rising cannabis presence, indicates that impaired driving prevention must remain a priority.

Understanding which substances most frequently impair drivers, and which demographic groups exhibit highest risk, enables targeted prevention initiatives. The particularly high rates of drug detection amongst motorcyclists suggest this group requires specialised attention in prevention messaging and enforcement strategies.

As Victoria continues developing its road safety framework, this evidence base highlights where authorities should concentrate prevention efforts to achieve meaningful reductions in drug and alcohol-related road trauma.

Read the full paper in Injury Prevention: https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/early/2025/01/17/ip-2024-045342

(Source: WRD News)

Abstract:

Background Driving under the influence of alcohol and other drugs contributes significantly to road traffic crashes worldwide. This study explored trends of alcohol, methylamphetamine (MA), 3,4-methylenedioxy-N-methylamphetamine (MDMA) and Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), in road crashes from 2010 to 2019 in Victoria, Australia.

Methods We conducted a cross-sectional analysis using data from the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine and Victoria Police, examining proscribed drug detections in road crashes. Time series graphs per substance explored indicative trends and comparisons between road users. Negative binomial regression models, with robust SEs and adjusted for exposure (kilometres travelled, Victorian licence holders), modelled the incidence rate ratio, with a Bonferroni-adjusted α=0.007 for multiple comparisons.

Results There were 19 843 injured drivers and 1596 fatally injured drivers. MA had the highest prevalence (12.3% of fatalities and 9.1% of injured drivers), demonstrating an increase over time. Overall, 16.8% of car drivers and motorcyclists tested positive for one or more drugs, with 14% of crashes involving a blood alcohol concentration (BAC)≥0.05%. MA and THC were the most common drugs in fatalities. Between 2015 and 2019, MA was detected in 27.9% of motorcyclist fatalities, followed by THC (18.3%) and alcohol ≥0.05% (14.2%), with similar but lower frequencies among injured motorcyclists. Alcohol detections (≥0.05% BAC) in fatalities declined, but increased in injured motorcyclists and car drivers until plateauing in 2017. THC detections rose among injured drivers until 2018, detected in 8.1% and 15.2% of injured and fatal drivers, respectively. MDMA-positive driving decreased among injured drivers and remained stable at ~1% of fatalities.

Conclusions Despite enhanced road safety measures in Victoria, drug-driving persists, indicating a need for revised prevention strategies targeting this growing issue.

(Source: BMJ JOURNALS)