26 November 2024

More roadside drug tests needed after a 'bad year' on ACT roads, NRMA says

| James Coleman
Join the conversation
46
roadside breath testing

ACT Policing conducted more than 2000 roadside drug tests over the 2023/24 financial year, but is that enough? Photo: ACT Policing.

The NRMA is calling on the government and police to step up their game after “worrying” figures show the number of motorists driving under the influence of drugs on ACT roads is up.

The research, released this week, reveals that 19 per cent (or roughly one in five) of more than 2000 roadside drug tests conducted across the ACT in 2023 recorded positive results.

The number of roadside drug tests conducted each year in the ACT has also fallen 75 per cent since 2019.

NRMA spokesperson Peter Khoury said these figures are particularly “worrying” after the ACT recorded its 10th road fatality for the year on Monday.

“Anytime we get a double-figure road toll in the ACT, we would deem that to be a bad year,” he told Region.

“Too many Australians are driving high, and it’s clear we need to ramp up enforcement and boost education campaigns around ending this dangerous behaviour.”

The association said police across Australia have been struggling to meet roadside drug testing targets due to a lack of staff, and the ACT is “certainly not unique” in this.

READ ALSO Corrections officer allegedly stomped on man’s head, tried to run him over

Over the border in NSW, the NRMA’s recent ‘Driving High’ report found one in 10 drivers tested positive for illicit drugs in 2023.

In 2018, the state government set a target to conduct 200,000 roadside drug tests a year by 2026, but the NRMA says 2023 was well short of this figure by 40,000.

In 2023, 79 people lost their lives in NSW in drug-related crashes, 24 more than the previous year. In nearly 70 per cent of these cases, the drug in the driver’s system was cannabis, followed by methylamphetamine (43%) and cocaine (7%).

This makes drug driving the second leading cause of fatalities in NSW – surpassing fatigue, drink driving and non-seatbelt use. Speed is the leading cause of road deaths.

The overwhelming majority of drivers involved in fatal crashes who had drugs in their system were males (85%) and drivers or motorcycle riders aged 20-29 years old (31%) were the largest cohort. Also, nearly 50 per cent of drivers who tested positive were aged 30 to 49.

Police car

The NRMA says a more targeted approach to drug testing by ACT Policing is a blessing and curse. Photo: Michelle Kroll.

Mr Khoury said the high numbers are largely the result of a more targeted approach used by police in recent times as they grapple with understaffing.

“The police will position themselves outside pubs or clubs or music festivals to focus on those areas where there is likely to be the highest probability of people taking a gamble and getting behind the wheel while high or drunk,” he said.

“Now, the NRMA is not opposed to targeted drug tests, but we believe that if you increase the number of tests and make it more random, then people are more likely to change their behaviour. In the same way that if people see more highway patrols on the road, they’re more likely to second-guess their behaviour.”

Across the ACT, police use roadside drug testing to test for the presence of cannabis, methylamphetamine and MDMA, and from January next year, they will test for cocaine as well.

Mr Khoury said despite the ACT allowing for the personal use of cannabis, the zero-tolerance laws still apply when you get behind the wheel.

“It’s still illegal to have cannabis in your system while driving,” he said.

“You can’t be high and drive.”

READ ALSO Lake Burley Griffin floating sauna approved to open 2025, despite smoke concerns

The NRMA is calling for more widespread roadside drug testing, as well as extra resourcing for police and education for motorists on the dangers of driving high, particularly as the holiday season approaches.

Mr Khoury also said too many people are also in the dark about the risks posed by various prescription and over-the-counter medications.

“There needs to be more research into that, and the warning labels on these medications,” he said.

While a roadside drug test won’t pick up many of these ingredients, if you’re involved in a crash and a subsequent blood test reveals traces of a medication may have impaired your ability to drive, charges may apply.

A spokesperson for ACT Policing told Region it agrees the number of drivers on ACT roads with illicit drugs in their system is “unacceptable”.

“We know that impaired driving is one of the fatal five contributors to death and serious injury on our roads, and we will continue efforts to boost our roadside testing regime,” the spokesperson said.

Of the more than 2000 roadside drug tests conducted over the last financial year, ACT Policing said 330 resulted in charges.

“If you’re thinking of getting behind the wheel, or on a bike, after drinking or taking drugs, don’t,” the spokesperson added.

“At any time (and as we get closer to the holiday season with parties and end-of-year celebrations), driving with alcohol or drugs in your system is not worth the risk you pose to yourself and others around you.”

Join the conversation

46
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

Part of the problem is that the tests are very expensive, and ACT police’s testing budget is quite small. What’s more is that you then just get a yes/no result and positive results often mean having to then undergo blood/hair testing to determine levels.

However, I am all for increased RBT/RDT. There absolutely should be unannounced blitzes where all roads in/out of a specific area are targeted (e.g. for the city, put testing on barry drive, northbourne, macarthur, parkes way, barton hwy etc).

I’d even go one further, and say that in the essence of fairness, there should be testing done on weekdays leading into/out of the parliamentary triangle and other major hubs (e.g. Russell offices, marcus clark, CCC ).

The punishments should also be harsh to discourage others, with large fines, loss of licences, or restriction on ‘heavy machinery’ tickets. Let’s also not forget that anyone with a security clearance should have AGSVA notified.

I have no issues with people doing what they like in their own homes, but as soon as they take it on the roads it becomes other people’s problems.

behold, yet more dirty, stinking, rotten fruits of the ‘progressive’ society, where all things degenerate (like taking drugs) are on the rise, with no real effort to curb them with proper management, as though the essentials in life will take care of themselves.

It’s really the stuff of irresponsible, fantasy addicted uni students.

This has nothing to do with progressive society. It’s just selfish individualistic stupid reckless behaviour to screw up your brain function and then think you can drive safely. That’s not progressive but regressive.

A better educated population would know the risks and behave with more intelligence. A better government would communicate those risks more effectively, as well as managing them better.

Legalising hard drugs sure has worked

Hard drugs haven’t been legalised. It’s not legal to drive with any drugs in your system.

Those pesky facts getting in the way again.

Decriminalised, so this means that there is more opportunity to take “illicit” drugs and get behind the wheel. It may have always been the case, but when given this option:
“If you are found with small quantities of drugs you may be diverted to a health education and information session, or pay a $100 fine” then going off the title of this story:

Yes you are right. I stand corrected. But the title of the article means there is a big problem with drugs, especially now that they have been decriminalised.
https://www.act.gov.au/our-canberra/latest-news/2023/october/drug-law-reform-changes-commence

“People will no longer be exposed to potential prison sentences and instead may be issued a caution, a $100 fine or referred to a diversion program”
(well whoopy-do how many cautions are issued)

While penalties have been reduced, illicit drugs are still illegal and will be confiscated. (but you can jump behind the wheel of a car high as a kite. Yes, before you reply, you can be drunk as a skunk too, but that’s not what the article is about)

“The changes will mean drug use is treated as a health issue and not a criminal one”

I haven’t defended drug driving (quite the opposite), as I said earlier I want more visible police, more roadside testing and more fines for dangerous driving such as tailgating.

I don’t support sending people through the court system or to jail for having a drug problem. It doesn’t help them with their addiction issues but it does harm the community, particularly the families and dependents of those with drug problems. Criminalisation also comes with significant costs to the taxpayers for little to no gain.

Therefore I support decriminalisation for personal use but not drink/drug driving.

Drug driving was a problem before decriminalisation.

PS. Good to know you can recognise when you are wrong.

Decriminalisation leads to normalisation of drug use. It’s simply telling people drug use is ok, and there will be no consequences for abusing substances whos manufacture and distribution causes untold human suffering. But I guess the poor brown people being murdered, tortured and enslaved for your nose beers don’t matter since you can’t see that bit.

“Decriminalisation leads to normalisation of drug use.”

Not it doesn’t so there’s that.

“What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence” Christopher Hitchens.

Your first premise fails therefore your whole argument fails (which is why I didn’t read it).

It absolutely does unless you are a wilful liar pushing an agenda, so there’s that. And half the point of decriminalisation was the hope that it would de-stigmatise (AKA Normalise) drug addiction, and encourage addicts to seek help.

Your entire argument on this subject is quite amusing when you don’t even appear to understand the goal.

Alcohol is still the biggest cause of injury and violence in our society as well as a huge health cost but no-one is suggesting criminalising it. Both drugs and alcohol shut down parts of the brain, facilitating dangerous actions as well as massive self-destruction and harm to others.

The murder and torture of which you speak is the result of drug use being illegal & thus more lucrative as well as needing to be hidden. When there was prohibition of alcohol the same results occurred. When decriminalised people can seek help for their addictions when they get out of hand. There’s also less money to be had, so less involvement of organised crime.

Youbmean like how tobacco is legal and there is a heap of organised crime involved there, right up to firebombing competitors places of sale? 🤣

Yeah, it’s all because it’s illegal. Not at all because billions of dollars are involved in drugs whether it’s legal or not. See marijuana in the US and the cartels still smuggling it in.

Drugos live in an absolute fantasy land.

“It absolutely does unless you are a wilful liar pushing an agenda,”….please provide evidence.

We both know you can’t.

“What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence” Christopher Hitchens.

As our resident Russian apologist Komrade Kenbo I know that critical thinking is not your thing but this nonsense made me laugh.

“Yeah, it’s all because it’s illegal. Not at all because billions of dollars are involved in drugs whether it’s legal or not. See marijuana in the US and the cartels still smuggling it in.”

There are billions of dollars in the drug trade because it’s illegal, and because there’s a market for drugs whether they’re legal or not.

Oh, look, our resident conspiracy theorist seano is also not bright enough to realise that he just agreed with me with “there’s a market for drugs whether they’re legal or not”. 🤣

That’s the entire point, genius. De-criminalising, or even legalising drugs just normalises them. It does nothing to remove the organised crime from the trade as psycho claimed. You people like to make claims like “It’s not hurting anybody else when I take drugs”, but that’s a lie. You just care more about your Friday night fun than the brown people being enslaved to produce it. Those people are the reason drug use and possession should have far harsher penalties.

“That’s the entire point, genius. De-criminalising, or even legalising drugs just normalises them.”

I do laugh when you post your sad little insults and then follow up with a comment like this proving you have no idea what you’re talking about.

Komrade Kenbo the multi-billion dollar drug trade did not start after decriminalisation for small amounts for personal use in the ACT. Drugs were already pervasive well before, any claim otherwise would defy history and sanity….oh right.

“You people like to make claims like….” and this is why you lose every argument Komrade Kenbo, it’s not just being clueless and posting anyway, or rejecting facts, data, expertise and evidence that contradict your predetermined, set-in-stone worldview it’s that whenever faced with a superior argument you resort to sad little insults and strawman arguments.

PS. There is no conspiracy. It’s a documented fact that Russia has attempted to interfere in elections in the West. It’s also a fact that you came out on Team Russia despite this. If you love the Kremlin so much Komrade Kenbo you should move there….but better go before the Ruble collapses….oh wait.

And our resident cooker continues to embarrass himself. 🤣

Apparently your idea of comprehension is making things up that were never said. Nobody claimed that the criminal component started after decriminalisation of small amounts. The claim is that decriminalisation, and even legalisation, does absolutely nothing to remove the criminal element. It simply normalises drug use in the place drugs have been decriminalised.

As for your continued conspiracy theory nonsense, we both know you were proven to be a liar in the last comments section you harped on about it in. Imagine citing the Mueller report as proof of your claim when it expressly found zero evidence of Russian collusion in the 2016 US election. LOL.

What a kook.

And before you start telling more lies, here again is the American Bar Associations press release on the Mueller report you attempted to use as evidence of Russian interference in the 2016 US election: https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2019/03/mueller-concludes-investigation/

“And our resident cooker continues to embarrass himself.” Projection is a hell of a drug.

Sorry Komrade Ken I’m not interested in your backpedalling. Drugs were already pervasive and a multi-billion dollar industry nationwide before decriminalisation in the ACT. Decriminalisation did nothing to “normalise” drugs.

The only thing that decriminalisation did was reduce the load on the courts and direct some people with addiction problems to better treatment options.

“Imagine citing the Mueller report”….every time you stick your fingers in your ears and pretend things you don’t like aren’t real you lose. You also lose when you try to change real things into things you’ve made up. No one said anything about collusion.

The Russians have interfered in our elections, Russia is not our friend, being an apologist for a regime with Australian blood on its hands is shameful. If you like them so much I hear they’re desperate for conscripts Komrade Ken, off you go.

“The special counsel found that Russia did interfere with the election, but “did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts”

I didn’t say “collusion” Komrade Kenbo, I’ve read the report, YOU said it.

And yet you’re so cooked Komrade that you would still side with the Russians on the off chance that someone might think something mean about your thin-skinned orange god.

Russia is not our friend Kenbo, they did interfere in numerous elections in the West and defending Russia because that’s what the MAGA idiocracy has decided to do is shameful.

If you like Russia so much you could be there by the weekend Komrade.

LOL
The cooker just keeps digging. Your comprehension skills are apparently at about a second grade level. Either that or cooker minds just imagine things that weren’t said. Nobody claimed organised crime only came into it after decriminalisation. I can’t put it any more simply than “Decriminalisation and even legalisation has done nothing to remove the organised crime element from drugs anywhere in the world”. A claim often made by drugos is that legalising drugs removes yhe criminal element, which has been proven incorrect repeatedly.

And again, your cooker claims about Russia have zero substance outside of conspiracy theorist circles. You can accuse me of being pro-Russian all you like. The reality is I’m simply anti kooky conspiracy theory. Your side lost because people didn’t vote for them. Not because “the Russians” interfered. It’s pure crackpottery.

Your rants are harder to make sense of as they become more hysterical.

You claimed that decriminalisation normalises drugs. This is not true. Drugs were already pervasive before decriminalisation. Decriminialisaiton did not make them more normalised than they already were. You can admit you were wrong but you can’t change the facts.

Speaking of facts, Russia did interfere in elections in the West. There is well-documented evidence of this. Rejecting evidence that doesn’t suit your narrative doesn’t make it go away, it’s at best childish, doing so as MAGA apologist for Russia is shameful Komrade Kenbo.

If you don’t like Australia you don’t have to stay here.

Tripling down on poor comprehension and disproven conspiracy theories. 🤣

Absolutely deranged.

LMAO “poor comprehension” Oh Komrade Kenbo champ old buddy that’s a good one. I didn’t say “collusion” you did, I didn’t Russian interference was why Trump won you just assumed I did (I blamed the Democrats if you look it up, facts they can be pesky).

You can’t have a nuanced discussion because all of your opinions are blindly partisan and rusted on.

And that’s the difference between you and me champ. I wouldn’t support the Russians spreading misinformation to help “my side” because I know who our enemies are but you’re so blindly partisan you’re happy to support an oppressive regime that has nukes pointed at us and has murdered civilians including Australians because you think they support your team…shameful.

There needs to be more drug and alcohol testing in the ACT. I have never been pulled over for a roadside test in the ACT, IDK know that I know anyone who has.

But the largest percentage of accidents in the ACT are nose to tail, ie. tailgating and nothing is being done about it.

The AFP is barely visible on our roads and that needs to change. They should step up their game on roadside testing and also pulling drivers over for tailgating and other dangerous driving offences.

Capital Retro9:24 pm 26 Nov 24

I would hate to be the police officer who eventually does give you a roadside test.
You will be challenged when he/she/choose pronoun asks you to count from 1 – 10.

Capital, you seem upset. Who has ever asked you to use a specific pronoun?

As always, it’s amusing to see people who don’t let facts inform their opinions making snide comments about intelligence.

Counting 1-10 means you are education privileged

Too busy focusing on devices to control road rules and not investing where it’s really needed.

I’m not arguing that there shouldn’t be more roadside drug tests but like alcohol there should be levels set based on level of impairment. If you hold a standard licence and your BAC is under .05 there is no penalty.

They’re currently conducting large-scale studies in the US to determine a “BAC-like” scale for cannabis, but sadly it’s far less easy to determine. There’s also the inherent problem where different levels affect people differently, and no standardised measurements like there is for alcohol, and the strength and chemical levels in a single joint vary wildly. This is a huge issue for unregulated drugs, so the easier and better solution is just a zero tolerance.

“2000 roadside drug tests conducted across the ACT in 2023”, which is just 5-6 tests per day.
“drug tests conducted each year in the ACT has also fallen 75 per cent”, which were 8,000 in 2019.
“19 per cent … across the ACT in 2023 recorded positive results”, which means many are not caught.
The establishment should re-fund the police, increase their pay, and improve workplace conditions.

Samuel Gordon-Stewart12:28 pm 26 Nov 24

Random testing should not be permitted at all. Police should only be able to stop a driver when they have reasonable suspicion of an offence and preferably evidence to back up the suspicion (eg. CCTV or dashcam vision of poor driving), and then testing should only be permitted if there is reasonable suspicion of impairment or intoxication such as odour of alcohol or signs of intoxication.

We are beyond the point where increased testing and more restrictive laws will achieve a constant reduction in road toll. We have even gone beyond the diminishing returns of such actions and are at the natural low point of the road toll with an ebb and flow to it. It will naturally go up and down from year to year and this is not cause for alarm. Using it as an excuse to trample on people’s freedoms (yes, being stopped even for a short time to be made to prove you’re not committing an offence is an unacceptable intrusion on liberty and a reversal of the onus of proof) and introduce stricter laws is disgraceful authoritarian behaviour and must be condemned at every opportunity.

“Random testing should not be permitted at all.”

Rubbish, you don’t have an unimpeded right to drive on public roads.

By the time someone is identified by police as “impaired” in too many cases (which is any number above zero really) it will be too late to save lives.

Your freedom to get on the gear and get behind the wheel does not trample my freedom not to have my family mowed down by a drug/drunk driver.

PS. What do they call someone who used to be a Libertarian? An adult.

@Samuel Gordon-Stewart
Because driving while under the influence of alcohol (and drugs) is a potential catastrophe for other innocent drivers, I am happy to forego my ‘presumption of innocence’ if it means there’ll be one less inconsiderate scrote on the road.

It’s not just that JS, a driver’s license comes with conditions and restrictions that must be adhered to including not drink/drug driving and submitting to roadside testing.

If Samuel doesn’t want to submit to those conditions, he should return his license.

@Seano
Yes – you are right.

I think Samuel Gordon-Stewart believes it’s only illegal if you get caught.

Andrew Cooke11:56 am 26 Nov 24

Coming from both Melbourne and Sydney previously, the ACT is very lax when it comes to the enforcement of any drug and alcohol testing for drivers. In the past 4 years I’ve seen a total of 1 RBT in Canberra in comparison to it being an almost weekly occurrence in other state capitals.

It’s rare to see the police on the road at all! I haven’t seen a RBT / drug test at all over the last few years. I remember 30 years ago there was lots of RBTs. Usually I saw one every second week.
This is probably a consequence of Barr reducing how much is spent on ACT policing per head over the last decade.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.