The ministerial statement about random roadside drug testing is long overdue and arises from botched legislation passed two years ago. The legislation was unable to be implemented because it prescribed a level and scope of testing which was impossible to achieve with existing technology. The mind boggles about how Parliament can pass such a law without being sure it was able to be implemented.
Random roadside saliva-based testing has been operating successfully in Australia since 2004. They only test for illegal substances - THC (cannabis), methamphetamine, and MDMA (Ecstasy). These aren’t substances you can buy over the counter and their sale and possession is still illegal in NZ. So the question of impairment, which seems to worry some people, isn’t an issue and the two roadside saliva screening tests are not evidential.
Accepting a fail in the saliva tests would involve a fine, demerit points and temporary licence suspension. Not accepting the screen test fail then leads to a voluntary blood test and failure of that means much stiffer penalties.
Prescription drug tests are not in play in Australia and testing for prescription drugs while driving is a quite different more complex issue. It’s the presence of illegal drugs that counts.
The problem with the current legislation is that it required a roadside test for a whole lot of substances, which was able to be presented as evidence in court. The test capable of doing that does not exist. The minister though, expects to amend the legislation so that NZ police have the same opportunity as the Aussies to catch and charge those drivers high on illegal drugs. The measure of success will be a reduction in our road toll as a result of drugged drivers being caught.
In the last few weeks as well, Grey Power has been on the warpath about the national inconsistency and relevance of the testing regime so that senior drivers can retain their driver’s licence. When you reach 75, then 80 and every two years thereafter you need a certificate provided by a doctor or other identified medical professional to indicate that you are medically fit to drive.
You are tested for word memory, number conversion and verbal fluency, none of which relates specifically to your ability to drive safely. NZTA is about to present the outcome of its review of tests used to assess medical fitness to drive. These tests have been roundly discredited as poor predictors of driving capability by US driving simulation expert Dr Alexander Crizzle, and local neuroscientist Dr Kerry Spackman.
Dr Spackman indicated that the widely used SIMARD MD test has been completely discredited by the US Institute of Health as totally unreliable and “It is outrageous that NZ doctors are using a discredited test.”
In fact GPs themselves are not particularly happy about their involvement in the senior driver assessment process. A Canterbury survey of GPs in 2013 indicated a wide variety of cognitive screening tests used and suggested that “GPs did not rate themselves highly in feeling confident informed or satisfied with the testing regime. They wanted more information and training about how cognitive impairment affects driving ability.”
A subsequent NZ study of GPs in 2020 indicated the assessment process is problematic, not evidence based, and not patient centric. The testing regime can give rise to a breakdown in doctor/patient clinical relationships. Clearly the whole senior driving testing system is in need of the complete overhaul that Grey Power is calling for.
The ability and capability to drive are precious factors in our lives. It’s important that the tests assessing that can be relied on.
