Here's an interesting statistic for you: http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,25321352-3102,00.html

"out of 52,128 random breath tests, 225 people were caught drink-driving."

IOW, less than 0.5% of those tested were at or beyond the (already arguably too low) 0.5% limit. The sample is quite large, so this would seem to be a reasonably robust result.

Here's another statistic: "In the 48 hours to midnight Friday, three motorists were caught drug-driving,"

A whole 3 in the entire State of Qld. There was not a road fatality in Qld for the period reported on.

Given the hoopla around the issue of driving while impaired, with all sorts of broad claims made about the "scourge of drugs" and the massive expenditure by the various state govts on kits to test for them, surely only 3 people caught in a 48hour public holiday blitz is unexpected?

In NSW, http://www.smh.com.au/national/increase-in-road-deaths-alarms-police-20090411-a3du.html the figures are even lower, with "less than 0.2 per cent of the 93,500 drivers randomly breath tested over the weekend so far found to be over the limit." In NSW, the number of motoring deaths has risen by 20% over last year.

What is wrong? Is the testing methodology unreliable? Are police not using it, or using it incorrectly? Could it be that the so-called hordes of druggies on the road are simply a figment of political and police imagination? I suspect the latter.

My questions for OLOers sre these: does the small number of people using alcohol or drugs and then driving continue to justify the massive expenditure and the assault on civil liberties that roadside testing implies?

Is alcohol/drug use actually a causative factor in a large number of accidents, or is it merely a convenient scapegoat that can be used to give police more intrusive powers? Even the police only claim 2 out of 19 pedestrian deaths over the period "may" have alcohol as a "significant" factor.

the last time i perused the govt figures[1999]the figures had been dumbed down,the figures were representitive of thousands[and alternativly scaled down to per 1000 units

its clever accounting[in one case it was reported 950/1000 positive drink driving results, [they of course forgot to manipulate the figures down..lol]

but the same thing re fed figures[re drug deaths ,by reason, smokong was ATTRIBUTED to have 19,000 deaths [out of 22,000]..lol, mainly because docters ATTRIBUTED it [smoking] as THE CAUSE OF DEATH[lol death from smoking is pure fiction[but then if docters write a 'CAUSE' of death there is no autopsy[yeah its legal muder]..but the ant-smoking lobby needs its stats

asbestosis ans all cancer deaths [lung diseases are ALL attrributable to smoking, thus no asbestosis claims thanks be to docters atribut-ing death due to smoking 19,000 deaths from the act of smoking needs to be contrasted to the deaths from booze..lol

there were 3,000 of them[but in the final numbers that was somehow [via some aqccounting trick modified down to 1800[by reading the notes it was because of the benifitial affects of a drink...lol

so 1200 of 3000 who died from booze didnt..lol

anyhow the same tricks apply thoughout the whole scam of statistics, read them they are played down or up as suits the current debait

like full time employment means working 2 or more hours [lol]
real inflation is running a lot higher but we removed housing and a few other things from the equation

here is a fact hidden from people[deaths by adverse reaction to PERSCRIBED DRUGS]..in usa 3 jumbo jets [equivelent] die EACH DAY,in usa along, thats adverse reaction to perscribed by a docter drugs

then we habe the dose needed to cure number[i forget its acronim], but it lists the number needing to take a medication to get ONE CURE, like heart medications need 60 to take the medicine TO GET ONE CURE, the 60 have no advantage [and most likely adverse reaction, [1 in 10 hospital admitions is adverse reaction[1 in 10 result in death]

yeah give us the REAL FIGURES

"My questions for OLOers sre these: does the small number of people using alcohol or drugs and then driving continue to justify the massive expenditure and the assault on civil liberties that roadside testing implies?"

You would have to compare them with the figures before roadside testing? If roadside testing has reduced the number to a much safer level then perhaps it is justified. I don't see roadside testing as an affront of civil liberties - I think in my entire life I have only ever been pulled over four times.

I know from growing up in the era before RBT that there were many more people getting into cars while intoxiacted and unable to exercise sound judgement. There were more accidents before random breath testing and before the 0.5 limit was introduced.

Statistically the number of road accidents and road fatalities has declined despite growing populations so that is a good thing.

It is not surprising that fewer people are caught drink-driving over holiday periods when it is known that police and RBT are more prevalent.

"There's Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics".
But on a more serious level, hey, my kids are out there driving on those roads, so go for it, test away, and I don't mind the delay when I get pulled over for one.
I'm a social drinker, and I simply don't drive if I am drinking, end of, so I've never had the least worry blowing in the bag. Anyone can choose to do the same, if they don't, get them boys!

What's a life or six worth?
It only takes one irresponsible drug infused person to kill or maim .
Two cases come to mind
The woman in Surfers who while on drugs did a burn out ,lost it and ploughed into pedestrians killing two injuring 4.
Then 6 youths in a ute killing four 3 girls in the back.
Stats form no part in my reasoning on road safety I am concerned about people not gambling with lives.

Has it occurred to anyone that maybe random drug/alcohol testing is having a deterrent effect and that is why there are so few arrests?

To take current statistics without also looking at stats from before RBT is obviously misleading and the worst possible spin imaginable.

A far more useful investigation along the same lines would be to compare statistics before and after 911 and whether all the fences, guards and screening everywhere has been worth it

The numbers that matter are these, how many fatal accidents involve drugs or alcohol?
22 years on the road, first call at 3 am to a dreadful smash so many times.
Part of that time also in a road rescue team.
On the death highway, up to 12 dead in two weeks.
It matters that drunks drive, and kill.
It matters that a short walk on any highway, near a truck parking bay will see interested people find more than one pill bottle, hundreds if you look for a few days.
I will take the test every time rather than see one more needless death.

It seems some are misinterpreting my point. I'm not suggesting that drugs and alcohol should be suddenly open slather, my point is that if the numbers of affected people on the roads is now so tiny, perhaps it is time to reconsider the massive resources being consumed.

Pavlov discovered years ago that the most effective way to condition behaviours is to have a punishment or reward administered randomly, rather than in a simple "stimulus/response" mechanism.

ISTM that we have a well-conditioned population that requires almost no application of the punishment to remain responsive. Furthermore, although the claim is that 50,000 Qlders were tested, this is a tiny fraction of the numbers on the roads. Most people already rarely encounter an RBT, yet less that 0.5% of the populace in Qld and less than 0.2% in NSW are apparently doing the wrong thing.

IOW, the main exposure most people have to these operations is via the media, so why not reduce the actual numbers and increase the publicity? The cost savings would be quite large.

Somehow a discussion on Alcohol testing turns into DRUG and Alcohol?
The Macquarie Uni, and another east coast uni that I don't recall, both did tests on how Mariahuana affected driving, and the results showed that drivers who'd been smoking tended to drive far more slowly and carefully than non-smokers, and NO discernable effects on their skills or judgment were found.
Given these results, it would seem we'd all be safer if we were encouraged to smoke it before driving, lol!
But I do wonder why they're testing for, and punishing, it? Alcohol testing makes obvious sense, but I suspect there's another agenda running there.

Max, the discussion was always about both.

I agree with your comments about marijuana. Having driven literally thousands of kilometers in all sorts of conditions whilst stoned and never having an accident in that condition, I must admit to some concern about these drug tests from a purely personal POV, but that wasn't the reason for my post

Do you think there is a vast, undetected group of people using drugs whilst driving? The propaganda that we have been getting for years is that a large portion of accidents are directly attributable to alcohol and/or drugs, yet the figures from this weekend show that the actual number under the influence is very small.

Are those small numbers really responsible for half the MVAs as has been frequently claimed? It doesn't make sense to me.

i can only agree max, i would take the issue further[randon drug testing is not random, they are well aware of who uses drugs, via criminal records and survelance withy known drug users]

but the road side breath testing scam is fully revealed for the farce it is[how many have seen them outside pubs after closing,i usually see them on main roads on monday moring when the policing units need to use up their backlog quota of testing

the system is a training tool getting people to submit to authority[authority colluding in an illegal activity]..yes we can all bring egsamples to the table of this or that road carnage, because thats how its sold to us.. but the facts are if drugs are detected there is still no proof the drugs were a public threat

those flying the modern jet fighters for egsample ARNT ALLOWED TO FLY IF THEY HAVNT taken their speed pil], truckdrivers drive on speed[they only smoke dope to cancel out the affect of speed]dope is an antidrug, plus being fat soluble it dosnt have a withdrawel, but that also mean's it is detectable long after its use[besides its a plant not a drug]

the whole statiostics game is flawed , police are failing to report many crimes formely, so thus by virtue of no crime report being filed they can statisticlly claim a fall in crime[but al that fell was the reportability of a crime[rape features way #up in this [by the time the police have finished their re play of the rape[then the courts 3 replays of the rape most victims cant face the ordeal ever again[it must be the most underreported crime ever

police seem helpless against white colour crime[they do nothing to stop the real criminals[they police petty crime , to revenue raise fcourt costs and fines from the peons, as for stoping major fraud or those who steal your pension or retirment funds, or those rip off bank charges or shop keeper or white colour fraud forget it

Statistics is the simple answer there, and vested interests.

This research: http://www.jsad.com/jsad/article/Identification_of_the_Motor_Vehicle_Accident_Victim_Who_Abuses_Alcohol_An_/372.html

seems to indicate that some drivers are prone to have several accidents over time correlated with drug or alcohol use. They suggest that a better methodology for acident prevention may be to target those who have had an alcohol or drug-related incident, rather than the general populace. I quote:"treatment for alcoholism might reduce vehicular trauma".

At present, there is a "scattergun" approach, in which the 99.5% of unimpaired drivers are inconvenienced in order to prevent the 0.5% from offending. Surely it makes more sense to target those in the risk group, rather than the general populace?

An anlalogous example is something like the new cervical cancer vaccine, which is most effective in young women and much less so in older ones. Quite sensibly, there is a targetted approach, rather than a blanket vaccination program covering all people, including old women and males, who are not at risk.

If the aim is genuinely to reduce the risk of alcohol/drug related road trauma, rather than to advertise the presence of police and allow them greater intrusive powers, why do we persist with the "scattergun"?

Furthermore, it seems we have reached something of a plateau in our efforts to reduce road trauma. where do we go to reduce the level further, or have we already reached the minimum possible under the current model of individual self-directed transport?

Antiseptic I have driven as a passenger with someone under the influence of marijuana a number of times (in my youth) and I cannot agree that there is no effect. Perhaps it affects some more than others. The biggest difficulty was the lack of perceptive ability to judge speed and distance.

As another poster said earlier the RBT is really a deterrent and it seems to be working. If the program is legitimately saving lives it could be considered worth the resources.

Pelican, what the testing showed was that drug-affected drivers were not affected in that way, but instead "perceived" that they were, it was illusory, and so acted, and drove, more cautiously. There was none of the aggression and risk-taking behaviour associated with alcohol.
It's quite possible that some are affected adversely, that's humanity, but since there's no proof whatsoever of detrimental effects on driving skills or behaviour, why random-test for it?
As I said, I totally support RBT, and would happily see more of it, drunks are KILLERS.
There was an article in the local rag here, stating the Vic police were "shocked" that they had caught ten people(I forget the precise number, but it was low)well over the limit in one swoop, yet up here a Fri/Sat blitz regularly nets over 50!
And we have less than 10% of Melb's population!
I confront drunk, unlicensed, un-registered drivers here every single time I hit the road, it's endemic, and bloody scary to boot!

pelican:"the RBT is really a deterrent "

It's the PERCEPTION of RBT that's working. As I said, if 50,000 people were tested out of a driving population of perhaps 1,000,000 in Qld, then the vast majority of people are not encountering one. Therefore, it's not the actuality, but the perception, which is easily manipulated via the media.

Maximillion:"I confront drunk, unlicensed, un-registered drivers here every single time I hit the road, "

So your perception is that RBT isn't working? The paper I referenced above claims that most drink-drivers who get involved in accidents are actually repeat offenders, who are simply not deterred in any significant way by RBT. If that is the case, why do we waste our time and money? Why do you see RBT as the best possible solution, given you perceive it not to be effective in preventing "drunk, unlicensed, un-registered drivers"?

To one or two of the posters here. Do they really think that abolishing RBT for any of the reasons mentioned would not tempt or increase the incidents of drivers to get behind the wheel either under the influence of drugs or alcohol ?

Surely you must realise it is the threat of being caught that is the deterent. Abolish that and we are back to drink driving

snake:"the threat of being caught that is the deterent"

Yes, so just reduce the total number of actual RBTs, while not reducing the media. Same result, less cost and inconvenience for people doing the right thing.

What do you think of targetting drivers with a known record of drink-driving? It seems that the best predictor of future drink-driving is past behaviour according to the paper I cited above.

The police already target locales that are likely to have drink or drug-affected drivers. Is there a difference between that and targetting individuals with a history?

Statistically, standing with one foot on hot coals and the other in a bucket of ice makes you reasonably comfortable.

You can take a stand and work back from there with numbers to try and prove your point, but despite all that, it only takes the RBT detection of one person to potentially avoid an injury or fatality.

The odds may be very low, but of little comfort to the family of any unfortunate victims.

Antiseptic,

Good questions.

"My questions for OLOers sre these: does the small number of people using alcohol or drugs and then driving continue to justify the massive expenditure and the assault on civil liberties that roadside testing implies?"

There's no doubt that some random checking of drivers is warranted. Otherwise the roads would deteriorate to becoming the Wild West. The problem is that the majority of the driving public are inconvenienced while there are still massive gaps in the system. Seeing as though the roads are slowly turning into the Wild West anyway, it seems pretty useless and unfair overall.

"Is alcohol/drug use actually a causative factor in a large number of accidents, or is it merely a convenient scapegoat that can be used to give police more intrusive powers? Even the police only claim 2 out of 19 pedestrian deaths over the period "may" have alcohol as a "significant" factor."

I suspect it is the Police's stalking horse to get more powers. I say this because I was almost hit by a drunk driver while I was walking across a zebra crossing one evening. The reason I know he was drunk was because he stopped and raucously told me how lucky I was because he didn't see me as he was bliiiiiind. After passing his rego number along with a statement to the ACT police, nothing happened. When I chased it up, it seems the police didn't act because they lost the email I sent to their website - it smacked of real Keystone Cops stuff. Perhaps, it is feedback like mine the cops are using as a spur to try to get more powers. Maybe I should shup up in future and just live with the consequences of being hit by a drunk driver. End of story.

Big Pharma Push Bill to Drug America’s Mothers
http://www.infowars.com/government-big-pharma-push-bill-to-drug-americas-mothers/

It’s called the Melanie Blocker Stokes/MOTHERS-Act...It was killed in the Senate last year but it was reintroduced in January of this year.

Democrat-Senator/Robert.Menendez[from New/Jersey,..home to a large number of drug companies,and[Democrat]Richard Durbin are the main sponsors of the bill in the Senate(S.1375]


Brooke Shields supports the government and Big Pharma effort to convince women they need to be on dangerous psychotropic drugs.

In a March 30,2009 speech on the House floor,the original sponsor of the bill,Illinois[Democrat]Bobby.Rush claimed that“60 to 80 percent of new mothers experience symptoms of postpartum depression while the more serious condition,..postpartum psychosis,affects up to 20 percent of women who have recently given birth.”

In response to a House vote to pass the legislation..on the same day,...Rush said:“H.R.20..will finally put significant money and attention into research,screening,treatment and education for mothers suffering from this disease.”

The bill was moved to the U.S.Senate Health,Education,Labor and Pension Committee[on March 30]..where it will be“marked up”in the near future...The legislation is backed by the U.S.Senate H.E.L.P. committee,chaired by Senator Edward Kennedy,and supported by president Obama.

Evelyn Pringle,a columnist for Scoop Independent News,writes that the“true goal of the promoters of this Act is to transform women of child bearing age into life-long consumers of psychiatric treatment by screening women for a whole list of‘mood’and‘anxiety’disorders and not simply postpartum depression.”

In short,the medical industry and Big Pharma want to deem pregnancy a mental illness and prescribe dangerous psychotropic drugs.

“The Mothers Act has the net affect of reclassifying the natural process of pregnancy and birth as a mental disorder that requires the use of unproven and extremely dangerous psychotropic medications(which can also easily harm the child).

The bill was obviously written by the Big Pharma lobby and its passage into law would be considered laughable except that it is actually happening,” writes Byron Richards for NewsWithViews.

The act would mandate health care professionals indoctrinate pregnant women into mental health treatment“options”(prescribe dangerous drugs)for mild depression-like symptoms experienced during or following pregnancy.
http://www.infowars.com/mothers-act-branding-pregnancy-as-mental-illness/
http://www.infowars.com/senate-bill-proposes-to-screen-and-medicate-mothers/
http://www.infowars.com/congress-drug-mothers-suffering-from-postpartum-depression/

Antiseptic,
I don't know if this is true, but I have been told that if a user rinses thier mouth with vinigar just prior to being tested for drugs that the vinigar nutralises the drug for testing purposes.

Thanks rehctub. I've heard that sucking a strong mint is effective, but I don't know the chemistry, so it's probably all just urban myth.

I wouldn't recommend either of those methods. They may have been relevant in the old, old days of crude chemical breath testing where the pH and hydrocarbon content of your breath were part of the assumptions in determining the chemistry of the test. The modern electrode-based breath testers and antibody-based drug tests are very selective, and well buffered.

Drink or whatever, but try not to drive.

one under god: Babies born to alcoholic mothers usually have fetal alcohol syndrome, junkies often have babies born dependant. Wonder how many guaranteed future customers might be born to mothers getting their first few "prophylactic" depression treatments? Are serotonin reuptake inhibitors secreted in milk? Obviously I shouldn't trouble the already paranoid, but are we paranoid enough?

Rustopher.