Janet Veldstra

Drugs of Abuse, Driving and Traffic Safety

Roadside studies indicate that 1-15% of drivers drive under the influence of one or more drugs of abuse. After drug use, drivers are more often culpable for an accident than non-users. Information on drugs and traffic safety comes from roadside studies, epidemiological research, experimental studies on driving-related skills, and on-the-road driving tests. Road-side studies show that drivers most frequently test positive for the use of alcohol and/or cannabis. These two drugs affect driving ability in a dose-dependent matter and result in poor vehicle control, especially when used in combination. Drivers on cocaine, ecstasy and amphetamine show no impairment on basic driving skills, but often overestimate their driving skills. In combination with impaired decision making, this increases risk taking during driving. Only few studies looked at the effects on driving of other drugs of abuse, such as ketamine, inhalants and anabolic steroids, but suggest a negative effect on driving performance. In conclusion, most drugs of abuse negatively affect driving ability, especially when used in combination with alcohol or another drug. It is of concern that a substantial number of drug users are not aware that their driving is impaired.

Effects of alcohol (BAC 0.5‰) and ecstasy (MDMA 100 mg) on simulated driving performance and traffic safety

RationalAn increasing number of fatal road-accidents have been reported in which ecstasy was found in the blood of drivers. Although, ecstasy is frequently found to have been used in combination with alcohol, studies on the acute effects of ecstasy co-administered with alcohol on driving performance are relatively rare.ObjectiveThe present study was designed to establish the extent of driver impairment as a consequence of ecstasy or combined ecstasy and alcohol use as compared to driving under the influence of 0.3‰, 0.5‰ and 0.8‰ alcohol. Furthermore, subjective performance was also assessed.ResultsAlcohol and ecstasy mainly influenced automated driving performance such as lateral and speed control. However, small to no effects of the substances were found on more complex driving behaviour. Overall, variance within the different driving measures was high especially when participants were treated with 3.4-methylenedioxy-methamphetamine (MDMA) and alcohol. Furthermore, equivalence testing showed that combined use may lead to impaired driving for some, but not all, drivers. Participants rated their own performance to be slightly worse than normal in both studies. Since driving was actually seriously deteriorated, this was a falsely positive assessment of their condition.ConclusionsThe dissociation between subjective perceptions and objective performance decrements are important notions for traffic safety since this may affect a driver’s judgement of whether or not it is safe to drive. For example, an intoxicated individual might decide to drive because the feelings of alertness caused by MDMA cloud the impairing effects of other drugs such as alcohol, thereby creating a potentially serious risk for traffic safety.

A neuropsychological instrument measuring age-related cerebral decline in older drivers: development, reliability, and validity of MedDrive

When facing age-related cerebral decline, older adults are unequally affected by cognitive impairment without us knowing why. To explore underlying mechanisms and find possible solutions to maintain life-space mobility, there is a need for a standardized behavioral test that relates to behaviors in natural environments. The aim of the project described in this paper was therefore to provide a free, reliable, transparent, computer-based instrument capable of detecting age-related changes on visual processing and cortical functions for the purposes of research into human behavior in computational transportation science. After obtaining content validity, exploring psychometric properties of the developed tasks, we derived (Study 1) the scoring method for measuring cerebral decline on 106 older drivers aged ≥70 years attending a driving refresher course organized by the Swiss Automobile Association to test the instruments validity against on-road driving performance (106 older drivers). We then validated the derived method on a new sample of 182 drivers (Study 2). We then measured the instruments reliability having 17 healthy, young volunteers repeat all tests included in the instrument five times (Study 3) and explored the instruments psychophysical underlying functions on 47 older drivers (Study 4). Finally, we tested the instruments responsiveness to alcohol and effects on performance on a driving simulator in a randomized, double-blinded, placebo, crossover, dose-response, validation trial including 20 healthy, young volunteers (Study 5). The developed instrument revealed good psychometric properties related to processing speed. It was reliable (ICC = 0.853) and showed reasonable association to driving performance (R2 = 0.053), and responded to blood alcohol concentrations of 0.5 g/L (p = 0.008). Our results suggest that MedDrive is capable of detecting age-related changes that affect processing speed. These changes nevertheless do not necessarily affect driving behavior.

Drugs of Abuse and Traffic Safety

In most Western countries, alcohol prevalence in traffic crashes and fatalities has been declining since the early 1980s. This is probably due to successful public health campaigns and vigorous enforcement. In contrast, the number of drug-impaired drivers seems to increase and so is the prevalence of combined alcohol and drug driving. Roadside studies estimate the prevalence of drug-impaired drivers between 1 and 15% [1]. A report by the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drugs Addiction (EMCDDA), [1] based on different driving studies in Europe, Australia, the USA, and Canada, estimates the prevalence of a combination of drugs and alcohol in the general driving population between 0.3% and 1.3%. These increasing numbers are of concern, since drugged drivers are, like alcohol-impaired drivers, significantly more likely to be culpable for a fatal accident [2, 3].