Innocent drivers test positive for drugs

[vztrt]

http://theage.drive.com.au/motor-new...101-179yx.html

Innocent drivers test positive for drugs
Reid Sexton
November 1, 2010 - 3:36PM

Nearly four per cent of people who test positive for drug driving in Victoria and have their licences temporarily suspended are innocent, it emerged today.

Victoria Police today admitted that wrong results were part of the testing process but said it would not change its procedures.

Under the current system, drivers' saliva is tested for cannabis, ecstasy or amphetamines at the roadside and banned for up to 12 hours if they return a positive result.
Advertisement: Story continues below

But penalties or permanent bans are not issued until the sample is tested at a drug laboratory, which police say is 100 per cent accurate.

The new statistics emerged after it was revealed today that Geelong man Rory Lalor recently recorded a false positive test and was banned from the behind the wheel for four hours.

Mr Lalor paid $115 for an independent test that showed his system was free from illegal drugs, but Victoria Police said yesterday he would never have been fined or banned from driving permanently because his saliva swab was found negative by its laboratory.

Inspector Martin Boorman said today that false positives could be returned if equipment was faulty, if a test was not conducted correctly or if the sample itself was problematic but did not elaborate on the last point.

He said they were an unfortunate part of the procedure and that 62 of 1618 drug-driving tests sent to the laboratory, or 3.8 per cent, between 2004 and 2009 had been found to be false.

But he said Victoria Police would not be changing its methods.

"I apologise for the inconvenience of these people, but I make no apologies for what we're doing," he said.

Inspector Boorman said police had detected 1556 drug drivers that were potentially a danger to themselves and others on the road.

[XR6_661]

I don’t see the problem...

They are doing their job and have no reason to believe otherwise if you return a positive result after a saliva test on the side of the road.
According to those stats, it’s 96.2% accurate over a 5 year period...That's 12.4 persons a year according to that data. How many people get drug tested a year? Thousands. I'd imagine the actual figures in favour of negative results would be a lot more attractive than the above.

If you get told at the roadside you have tested positive, ask to go back to the station or wherever and have a proper test done.

How accurate is the old blow in the bag system for alcohol...Put money on it not being 100%....even when you go back to the station they test you a couple of times to get a conclusive result.

Even if you blow over when pulled up, how is the cop to know wether or not you are based on what you’re telling him?

People these days need to pull their bloody heads in and stop sooking about such little, irrelevant “problems”.

[WMD351]

Close to 4% of positive tests false? Seems like somewhat high rate to me. I think some sort of compensation for the innocent would be nice.
Given that our police lab has been known to make mistakes in the past (on a very very small scale) if I were to return a positive roadside test I think I might have to go for the independent test just to cover myself. $115 would be some cheap insurance.
What I really don't like though is them not testing for opiates.

[kyro_02]

Until someone loses their job...

innocent driver: sorry boss, I can't come in today because I've been banned driving for 12 hours due to drug test
boss: WHAT ?? #$@% you're fired!!
innocent driver: ohh SNAP!

then what?? should he harden up, or sook now that he doesn't have any income to support his family..?

just a thought!! but I am all for these tests but would think the tests can be more thorough ...

[XR6_661]

Originally Posted by kyro_02

Until someone loses their job...

innocent driver: sorry boss, I can't come in today because I've been banned driving for 12 hours due to drug test
boss: WHAT ?? #$@% you're fired!!
innocent driver: ohh SNAP!

then what?? should he harden up, or sook now that he doesn't have any income to support his family..?

just a thought!! but I am all for these tests but would think the tests can be more thorough ...

That's where it boils down to one of two things...

You either have done drugs and it's your **** up, or you haven't and get a independant test to prove your innocence.

Drugs, to me, are a no brainer.

[kyro_02]

yeah that would be the way to go, unless you're due at work at 4:30pm, but get pulled over at 4pm, you ain't got much time for an independent test lol

[04redxr8]

And if they stop doing drug tests and a drugged up driver crashes into your car injuring you permanently for life?

The 4% that are incorrect are corrected by the lab. That is why they have a 12 hour ban initially.

As far as an employee being sacked over a 12 hour banning that may be a wrong reading, I am an employer, and only one of my employees would be sacked at that time. His list of errors, unreliability, laziness, and other factors would weigh in. If you are an honest, reliable, hard working employee, you should have nothing to worry about.

I say let the Police do their job on this one. Drink and Drug Driving are far more dangerous than a few k's over the speed limit. From what I have seen personally, I believe that drug driving in particular is far worse now, than it was 10 years ago.

[fmc351]

Theres always going to be a margin of error with any kind of testing. What is really important is that all those people are cleared, and none are found guilty of a crime. All legal systems have some innocent people in jail, let alone things like this. Its par for the course, there is no method that enforces laws that has no innocent 'statistics'. Its just a very unfortunate and sad truth, dont assume the legal system doesnt care, it simply knows its limits while trying to enforce the laws of the land.

I do believe each should receive a letter of apology, and a statement that clearly spells out they are false positives and in no way reflect on the driver in question.

[buggo]

Being 4% off imois a little high. It should be more accuate.
And I agree with the work thing. What if you are going to an interview for a new job, that you would have got if you didn't get pulled over. Or are going to a big meeting doing a presentation that could be worth $millions, but you don't make it. Who pays for that guys/ that companies loss of income?

And on the flip, does that mean 4% of negative readings are actually positives? While innocent drivers are being suspended some junkie is free to go.
And I realise it's a very minute number, but it's still more than 0.

[fmc351]

Originally Posted by buggo_gt

Being 4% off imois a little high. It should be more accuate.
And I agree with the work thing. What if you are going to an interview for a new job, that you would have got if you didn't get pulled over. Or are going to a big meeting doing a presentation that could be worth $millions, but you don't make it. Who pays for that guys/ that companies loss of income?

And on the flip, does that mean 4% of negative readings are actually positives? While innocent drivers are being suspended some junkie is free to go.
And I realise it's a very minute number, but it's still more than 0.

How feasible is it to get a test with 0 errors? Im sure there are complex machines that can do it, but the time consumed renders the possibility of roadside testing useless. If the results were higher I would argue they dont have a test for roadside testing and thus shouldnt be doing one. Given they only prohibit driving for a limited period, and the testing error rate of 4%, it isnt too bad. And the likelihood of the scenarios youre talking about are remote, not the norm.

I would suggest if millions are at stake there should be contingency plans in place, ar least a mobile phone and other arrangements made. If they arent bright enough to have contingency plans, i doubt they are bright enough to be in million dollar deals.

Criminals already walk free from courts, the legal system is well aware of it. It doesnt like it, it simply understands the limits of a legal system. The idea of adjudicating a matter without witnessing the event themselves, they can only rely on what they have. The alternative is to have no legal system at all.

[jmack]

not condoning drug or drink driving but if they are going to bring in a system they should make sure they are accurate,i would be pretty pd if that happened to me having never touched any drugs to be falsely accused and then persumed guilty until proven inocent wasting time and money.you are nearly better off killing someone in this country than commiting a traffic offence,at least you are innocent till proven guilty.sooner we get rid of gummby and his side kicks with there magic fingers that f... everything they touch the better

[GTP owner]

Originally Posted by buggo_gt

Being 4% off imois a little high. It should be more accuate.
And I agree with the work thing. What if you are going to an interview for a new job, that you would have got if you didn't get pulled over. Or are going to a big meeting doing a presentation that could be worth $millions, but you don't make it. Who pays for that guys/ that companies loss of income?

And on the flip, does that mean 4% of negative readings are actually positives? While innocent drivers are being suspended some junkie is free to go.
And I realise it's a very minute number, but it's still more than 0.

4% false positives is actually pretty low for a test. Most medical tests that are considered to be highly accurate are around this kind of percentage.

As for the second point - no, it does not mean that 4% of negative readings are actually positive. The rate for false negatives would be different, and probably a lot higher. The reason for this is that if you wanted to eliminate all false positives, you will get more false negatives, and vice-versa. The terms used are called sensitivity and specificity.

[nfury8]

given most people have been done at some point or another for something they didnt do doesnt make it right, a system to remove license MUST be flawless. There are numerous tests available rather that the one shot wonder they currently use, its a disgace that peoples livlihood can be affected for incorrect testing methods and readings.
Its practically impossible to fight any charge unless you have very deep pockets and even if you win you wont see your money invested to clear yourself

[Bobman]

Originally Posted by nfury8

Its practically impossible to fight any charge unless you have very deep pockets and even if you win you wont see your money invested to clear yourself

That's it. Why should it be up to the individual to pay for an independent test when the onus should be on the police to ensure that their testing units are as accurate as possible.

I'm anti-drugs as they come, but to be inconvenienced in such a way and be accused of something you didn't do is just not on. NSW drug tests have also had a few false-positives.

[jaytyn]

The media has not reported this 100% correctly.

Basically how it works is:

1) you submit a saliva sample on the side of the road, this is a blot style test where it shows lines on blotting paper if you test positive. This is only a preliminary SCREENING test. Like many similar medical tests, they do return false positives very rarely. Not much can be done about this. This test IS NOT used for prosecution.

2) if you test positive on the screening test, a saliva test is taken, and sent to an independent laboratory for testing. This comes back in a few weeks and states how much of the drug is present in the system. This is the test the prosecution is based on, and is always 100% accurate.

So the false positives are from the roadside screening test only.
Worst case scenario, you loose a bit of your time providing a proper sample and get let off with a clean record if the lab test comes back neg.

[WMD351]

Originally Posted by jaytyn

This comes back in a few weeks , and is always 100% accurate.

I doubt these two points, here in Victoria at least.

[burnz]

so i have a ham & cheese on a poppy seed roll and im done for heroin, oh great..

[jaytyn]

Originally Posted by burnz

so i have a ham & cheese on a poppy seed roll and im done for heroin, oh great..

Haha, they only test for methamphetamine and cannabis.

You are safe to eat your poppy seed roll!

[3vXT]

Originally Posted by burnz

so i have a ham & cheese on a poppy seed roll and im done for heroin, oh great..

Poppy seed rolls lead to harder breads. Eventually you'll be wanting to add cheese, cured meats and condiments. People of a higher socio-economic status are getting fatter and fatter, when will the cycle of illegal bread consumption end???

EDIT: One day you'll realise that every time you have a drink your pinky finger sticks straight out. Maybe then you'll seek help.