Transcript identifying threats * quickly and reliably

Role of Drug Screening
Technology to Improve
Corporate
Presentation
European Road
Safety
Verena Zimmermann
Objectives
• Briefly highlight European road safety goals and achievements
• Consider economic benefits of reaching road safety goals
• Demonstrate characteristics of leading roadside drug screening
technology and its role to reduce related traffic accidents
• Review international roadside drug screening practices
2
Agenda
• Introduction to Securetec AG
• Road Accidents in the European Union
• Socio-Economic Impact of Road Accidents
• Potential Consequences of Drug Driving
• Case Study: Effective Technology to Reduce Drug Driving
Fatalities in Australia
• Characteristics of Leading Roadside Drug Screening Devices
• Roadside Drug Screening Practice in Europe
3
Introduction to Securetec AG
Detecting up to 6 Drug
Substances Simultaneously
• Founded 1995
• 45 Employees
• Located near Munich, Germany
• Subsidiaries in the U.S. and in France
• Leading in the area of drug detection with
worldwide sales in more than 30 countries on
5 continents
• In-house Research and Development
• Certified according to international standard
ISO 9001 for quality management and the
standard EN ISO 13485 for medical devices
4
Road Accidents in the European
Union: EU Objectives to Reduce
Fatalities
EU Safety Action Programme (2003) to halve road fatalities by 2010 was almost
fully achieved. New Target: Reduce further 50% by 20201
²
1. Towards a European road safety area, policy orientations on road safety 2011-2020, European Commission, page 4
2. DG-TREN, Technical Assistance in support of the Preparation of the European Road Safety Action Programme 2011-2020, Final Report, European Commission February 2010, page 5
5
Road Accidents in the European
Union: Fatalities per Million
Road Fatalities per
Million Inhabitants in
2006
Gap between the best and worst performing
Member State is large with the best
performing 4 times better than the worst
DG-TREN, Technical Assistance in support of the Preparation of the European Road Safety Action Programme 2011-2020, European Commission, Final Report, February 2010, page 8
6
Road Accidents in the European
Union: Evolution of Fatalities
According to Evolution of Fatalities, 2001 vs. 2008,
many countries could decrease fatalities
DG-TREN, Technical Assistance in support of the Preparation of the European Road Safety Action Programme 2011-2020, European Commission, Final Report, February 2010, page 9
7
Socio-Economic Impact of Road
Accidents
•
The estimated socio-economic costs in Europe are around €180 billion
comprising 2% of GDP1
•
The annual motor vehicle accident costs are approximately 20 billion Euros
in the UK alone²
•
The large number of road traffic deaths and injuries represents a substantial
burden for the health sector in Member States³
1.
2.
3.
DG-TREN, Technical Assistance in support of the Preparation of the European Road Safety Action Programme 2011-2020, European Commission, Final Report, February 2010 , page i
Baker Tilley report for Institute of Advanced Motoring, October 4th, 2011, http://www.mansgreatestmistake.com/the-true-cost-of-cars/annual-motor-vehicle-accident-costs
DG-TREN, Technical Assistance in support of the Preparation of the European Road Safety Action Programme 2011-2020, , European Commission, Final Report, February 2010 , page 5
8
Socio-Economic Impact of Road
Accidents: Cost Segments
Example of Costs
• Hospital treatment
• Outpatient treatment
• Rehabilitation
• Care/nursing
• Ambulance services
• Ambulatory rehabilitation
• Vocational rehabilitation
• Police operations
• Legal
• Administrative costs of insurances
• Job replacements
• Funeral expenses
• Duration of temporary disability
• Duration of hospital treatment
• Duration of rehabilitation
• Reduction of fitness for work
Federal Highway Research Institute (BASt), Economic Costs of Road Traffic Accidents in Germany, Presented by Dr. Thomas Kranz, DTU, Denmark, 8 - 10 June, 2011
9
Potential Consequences of Drug
Driving
• One major area of traffic accident causes is recognized as:
 Consumption of alcohol and drugs or fatigue... 1
• Availability and reliability of blood-screening procedures and confirmation
tests for measuring alcohol and drug levels are problems for most low-income
and middle-income countries²
• Post mortem research and studies on hospitalized injured motorists are only
performed in a number of countries. Epidemiological studies are available as
well
 Based on these studies it can however be concluded that drug
driving is a major contributing factor for road accidents with injured
and killed persons³
1.
2.
3.
SAVING 20 000 LIVES ON OUR ROADS, EUROPEAN ROAD SAFETY ACTION PROGRAMME, Halving the number of road accident victims in the European Union by 2010: A shared responsibility
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION COM(2003) 311 final, pages 6 & 7
WORLD REPORT ON ROAD TRAFFIC INJURY PREVENTION, World Health Organization, 2004, Page 84
TISPOL Strategic Drugs & Alcohol Working Group, Enforcing drug and drink driving within Europe TISPOL POLICY PAPER, October 2012, Page 6
10
Potential Consequences of Drug
Driving
• The use of illicit drugs and some
medicines, is an increasingly
worrying factor in road accidents…
• If nothing is done urgently, there
could soon be more accidents due
to drugs than to alcohol.
• Different measures will have to be
taken e.g.:
o Establishment of a harmonised
procedure to detect illicit drugs
in drivers
o Development of detection
equipment…
SAVING 20 000 LIVES ON OUR ROADS, EUROPEAN ROAD SAFETY ACTION PROGRAMME, Halving the number of road accident victims in the European Union by 2010: A shared responsibility
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION COM(2003) 311 final, pages 20 & 21
11
Case Study: Effective Technology
to Reduce Drug Driving Fatalities
in Australia
Campaign: “Drivers tested: anybody, anywhere, anytime” reduced
percentage of drug drivers involved in fatal accidents by half
•
2003 - 31% of drivers involved in fatal accidents tested positively for drugs
•
2004 - the Australian federal state of Victoria was the first region worldwide
to establish a legal basis for drug control of vehicle operators which is not
dependent on cause for suspicion
 The entire street is blocked and all drivers are tested for alcohol and drugs
 For Drug Screening, Securetec’s DrugWipe® is applied
•
•
•
2005 - 25% of the drivers who were involved in severe traffic accidents,
tested positively for illegal drugs
•
2009 – Only 15%
www.police.vic.gov.au/policelife & www.tacsafety.com.au/campaigns/drug-driving
5th Australasian Drug Strategy Conference , Melbourne, Victoria in March 2010
12
Characteristics of Leading
Roadside Drug Screening Devices
•
Results in 3 to 8 minutes
•
Very high sensitivity, specificity and
accuracy
•
Simple, fast and hygienic sampling (saliva)
•
Very small saliva sample (e.g. obtainable
in seconds, not minutes)
•
Clear visible test lines
•
Small, portable, robust, and versatile
products (e.g. saliva, sweat, surfaces)
•
No electronics necessary: Handheld
electronic reading devices can be used as
an option
13
Roadside Drug Screening Practice
in Europe
Norway 2011
Finland 2004
Iceland 2006
Belgium 2010
Poland 2006
Luxembourg 2011
Slovak Republic
2009
France 2008
Czech Republic 2006
Switzerland 2005
Germany 1998
Italy 2011
Overview not comprehensive
14
Roadside Drug Screening Practice
in Europe: Rationale for Saliva
Sampling
•
Why Test Oral Fluid?
 Saliva collection is much
less invasive than urine
collection
Comparison of detectable THC traces in
blood, saliva, urine after consumption
 When test person is not
controlled during urine
collection, sample can be
manipulated and falsified
 Saliva sample reveals
recent drug use
Most often, legislation in
Europe dictates: Saliva is
tested at the roadside,
blood for confirmation
15
Roadside Drug Screening Practice
in Europe: DRUID Study
•
Sponsored by the European Commission, police officers evaluated failure
rate, operability hygiene and technical performance of the most common
oral fluid rapid tests - 36 institutions from 18 countries participated
•
The study took place from 2006 – 2009
•
All data were independently gathered and assessed by Police and
Universities in the EU and are publicly available
•
The DRUID Study was defined in two parts:
 Part I: ESTHER – Evaluation of Easy Operation
 Part II: DRUID – Scientific Evaluation of Reliability
http://www.druid-project.eu
ESTHER (Evaluation of oral Fluid Drug Screening devices by TISPOL to Harmonise European police Requirements
DRUID (Driving under the Influence of Drugs)
16
Roadside Drug Screening Practice
in Europe: ESTHER Study
Highlights
Part I “ESTHER” on Practicability (2006 – 2009)
17
Roadside Drug Screening Practice
in Europe: DRUID Study Highlights
Part II “DRUID” Scientific Evaluation (2008 – 2009)
(Accuracy = 93%)
Solutions
based on
electronic
readers
Druid Project Deliverable 3.2.1 from 8.12.2009 National Institute for Health and Welfare, Finland.
18
Roadside Drug Screening Practice
in Europe: Cooperation
Germany
•
First roadside trials in 1998
•
First sales in 1999
•
Used in 10 out of 16 German States
•
In 2011, over 60,000 DrugWipes were
employed
• Traffic legislation changed in 2005
• DrugWipe® 5 introduced countrywide
in 2005
• ~20,000 pieces are used annually
Switzerland
19
Roadside Drug Screening Practice
in Europe: Cooperation
Finland
Belgium
•
Various saliva tests evaluated in
ROSITA II
•
DrugWipe® 6 S (including
Benzodiazepines) introduced in 2005
•
~19,000 DrugWipe® 6 S Annually
• In 2011, the respected Institut National
de Criminalistique et de Criminologie
(INCC) in Brussels, Belgium confirmed
that DrugWipe® 5+ is the best
screening device for traffic controls
• Belgium police followed the
recommendation and are now using
DrugWipe® nationwide.
20
Roadside Drug Screening Practice
in Europe: Cooperation
In a comparative study in 2011, the best saliva tests available on the
market were tested intensively over a period of 6 months:
France
•
DrugWipe® performance in laboratory and field tests was
convincing.
•
The legally required detection limits in France could be achieved
and detection at these standards proved to be repeatable and
reliable.
• DrugWipe® 5 S safely detects at
least 15 ng/ml 9-THC in saliva
• DrugWipe® 5 S won the tender as
the best drug screening device
110,000 drug tests per year delivered to the Police, Gendarmerie and Military Services
21
Take Home Messages
• EU member states and institutions widely recognize that drug driving
significantly contributes to traffic accidents
• Several EU member states have already launched roadside drug screening
programs which aim to reduce traffic accidents
• Technology can enable drug screening: There are devices available which are
very easy-to-use and highly reliable
• Cooperation between industry and traffic police can only be achieved via
national political will and relevant legislation
22
Thank you
Securetec Detektions-Systeme AG
Lilienthalstr. 7
D-85579 Neubiberg (near Munich)
Germany
www.securetec.net
23