M – Equipo GSV13

Drug use by long distance truck drivers understandably raises deep concern in the community and has been the focus, sometimes unreasonably, of media attention. While stimulant drugs are taken to combat fatigue they:

…do not guarantee driver alertness, and can even cause hallucinations and sudden drowsiness whilst driving. Linklater (1977) found that of drivers using stimulants, 28.8% reported experiencing hallucinations whilst driving within the preceding year (Hensher et al,

The problem was perhaps most graphically illustrated by an incident on 20 October 1989 when a semi-trailer carrying canned fruit from Brisbane to Sydney veered onto the wrong side of the Pacific Highway colliding with a passenger coach and killing both the semi driver and 19 passengers on the bus. The resulting coronial inquest heard evidence that the truck driver had an Ephedrine level in his blood that was 80 times the normal therapeutic dose, indicating he was a chronic user of the stimulant (Coroners Court of NSW, 1990:38). Such chronic usage is associated with (amongst other effects) hallucinations and the driver had suffered from this at least once prior to the incident. Given this, and eyewitness accounts of the crash, the Coroner accepted suggestions that the most likely cause of the incident was that the driver had experienced such an episode and swerved to avoid something that wasn’t there. The Coroner recommended that Ephedrine be added to Schedule N of drugs proscribed under the Motor Traffic Regulations – a measure rapidly undertaken by the NSW government.

At the same time, drug use amongst truck drivers should not be seen in isolation from other factors affecting the industry, and the Cowper case well illustrates the point, with a wide- range of safety-related issued being brought to attention of the Coroner. Of these, it is worth noting that the incident occurred early in the morning and for several reasons, including waiting for the load, the truck driver had little rest prior to departure. The driver was employed under a subcontracting arrangement that the Coroner found to be disturbingly loose. While viewed by colleagues as a reliable operator, the Coroner found he had a poor driving record (accumulating a considerable number of infringements and holding driving licenses issued by several states – something that undermined the effectiveness of the penalty point system). It is also perhaps worth mentioning that driver was separated from his wife (see the issue of work/non work balances discussed below).

Since the Cowper smash there have been a number of well-publicised incidents where a truck driver using drugs was involved in collisions killing other road users or bystanders. As in the Cowper case, these incidents often indicate that drug use was not a stand-alone cause but linked into a chain of events.

While drugs may appear to assist drivers in combating fatigue their effects on health, safety and well being extend well beyond those already mentioned. Used to excess or over long periods of time stimulant drugs may lead to a build up of ‘fatigue debt’, resulting in sudden impairment as the drug effect dissipates. There is also a very real risk of addiction and a steadily increase in dosage to maintain the stimulant effect. Aside from hallucinations, extreme or long-term abuse can lead to aggressive, risky driving behaviour or personality disorders (several incidents in recent years suggest this possibility). Very high dosages may cause sudden and severe brain damage by elevating blood pressure. Further, given the illicit nature of many stimulants, there are issues in connection with reliable dose and quality as well as information about hazardous interactions with other drugs.

The use of drug stimulants by truck drivers to combat fatigue has long been a feature of the long distance trucking industry in Australia (since at least the 1970s). Not all drug-use by truck drivers is work-related. Like other members of the Australian community, some drivers use drugs such as cannabis and alcohol for recreational purposes. Nevertheless, the weight of available evidence indicates that drug use is both common and related to drivers’ work tasks, particularly efforts to maintain alertness at the wheel over long hours. Indeed, it appears that these demands may also limit the use of some depressant drugs like alcohol. In its written submission (at page 12), the NSW Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) noted that alcohol was used by long distance truck drivers but it did not figure prominently in crash statistics. The RTA attributed this to drivers soon learning that alcohol magnified the risk of falling asleep at the wheel although it might be used to offset an excessive dose of stimulants (note the earlier discussion comparing the effects of alcohol and fatigue on driver performance. See Williamson et al, 2000a).

Given the illegality of many stimulant drugs, obtaining accurate information on the extent and nature of the practices has always been difficult. It is therefore impossible to discuss the use of drugs with complete precision. Nevertheless, earlier inquiries and research as well as evidence presented to this Inquiry strongly suggest a consistent pattern whereby drug-use is widespread and associated with the hours of work (both length and timing) and pressure on drivers to meet tight schedules or financial commitments (in the case of owner/drivers). The connection between long hours, fatigue and drug use has been raised or at least hinted at by a number of previous studies. A study of 615 drivers by Dawn Linklater in 1977 found they worked an average of 71.6 hours per week, 40.7% used stimulant drugs and 28.8% reported hallucinations while driving. Analysing questionnaire responses, Linklater deduced heavy vehicle drivers exceeding 55 hours of driving a week had an increased risk of crash involvement (cited in STAYSAFE 15). In their small pilot study of 46 drivers Hensher and Battellino (1990:549) found that 22% of drivers reported using ‘stay awake’ pills on every trip while another 35% used pills on some trips. The total of 67% was higher than the Linklater study and also indicated a higher overall reported use of drugs amongst owner/drivers (69%) than employee drivers (51%). This study was notable in suggesting a connection between drug use and speeding. Hensher and Battelino (1990:551) found drivers not using ‘stay awake’ pills undertook trips at a significantly lower average speed than their counterparts using drugs. As discussed in a later section, they found speed was in turn connected to economic pressures on drivers. In a follow up survey of 820 drivers (Hensher et al, 1991:101) 46% of drivers admitted taking stimulant drugs on at least some trips – a figure just a little higher than that disclosed in Linklater’s study undertaken well over a decade earlier. Drug use was highest amongst small fleet drivers (11.5% used drugs on every trip and 48.5% on some trips) and lowest amongst owner/drivers (7.4% every trip and 30.3% sometimes) and large fleet drivers (3.3% every trip and 37.7% sometimes. Hensher et al, 1991:62).

A study conducted by the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission (NOHSC, 1992) found over 75% of the 960 truck drivers surveyed believed tiredness was a serious problem - a view confirmed by the finding that driver fatigue was a factor in at least 20% of road accidents involving articulated vehicles. The report found that, despite legal limits on driving hours of 11-12 per day, an average trucking run covered 1260km in 27 hours and one third of drivers admitted using stimulants in order to meet schedules. Another NOHSC funded study (Arblaster et al, 1996) found that almost half of the drivers interviewed at truck stops reported taking stimulants on most trips. Time-use diaries revealed that few drivers had more than 6 consecutive hours of sleep and many drove on the basis of only 3-4 hours sleep in a 24- hour period. Most recently, a study of truck drivers in Western Australia found 13% used illicit drugs (Hartley, 1999).

A number of parties to this Inquiry submitted evidence relating to the use of drugs, which was generally consistent with previous research and indicated that drug use remains a widespread phenomenon in the long distance trucking industry. A written submission from the Traffic Services Branch of the NSW Police Service stated:

The absolute involvement of drugs within the Heavy Vehicle industry is unknown. However, we know they are there and we know they are used to overcome the symptoms of fatigue. Police are active in the area of detecting drug affected driving by heavy vehicle drivers. Recent operations have seen Police participating with other government agencies specifically targeting the heavy vehicle industry. In one four day period 402 heavy vehicles were stopped. Areas of those trucks were swabbed and then underwent an Ion Scan. 141 or 35% of those vehicles scanned returned positive swabs for amphetamines or other drugs. In another four – day period of similar operations 38% of heavy vehicles swabbed returned positive readings for drugs.

It should be noted that several driver witnesses giving evidence to this Inquiry pointed to a number of measures used to defeat swab tests such as rubbing the steering wheel with WD 40 and other chemicals. The Inquiry was unable to determine the extent and actual effectiveness of such practices but to the extent they are effective then swab tests may understate the use of drugs. More importantly perhaps, reference to these practices provides just one example of numerous devices used to evade regulators in the area of drugs and other safety issues that the Inquiry was informed of.

During the course of its own investigation a number of witnesses to the Inquiry indicated that the use of drugs was by no means uncommon, although to label every driver as a likely drug- user would be a gross exaggeration. One driver estimated that slimming pills, speed and “shakers” were used by about one third of truck drivers, which is remarkably consistent with available survey evidence.

Witnesses and written submissions from drivers and their wives made repeated references to the work pressures that caused drivers to use drugs.

The combination of long hours and drugs can have implications not only for on-road safety but also has long-term health effects on drivers as well as impacts on their families. Drivers and their wives are not unaware of these effects. This is well illustrated by the comments of the wife of one owner/driver:

Drivers resort to taking drugs out of necessity; it is not for recreational purposes. Many drivers spend large amounts of money on drugs so they can make the miles needed to earn enough money to support their families. What should be considered is that the drivers taking drugs know that they are risking their own health and well being in doing so. Amphetamines, ephedrine, shaker, whatever they may be taking, all have short and long term effects on their health. All drugs, which are central nervous stream [sic], have the ability to cause problems with raised blood pressure and increased heart rate. They can cause renal problems, heart and lung damage, there is the possibility of stroke if there is a brain aneurysm and indirectly there can be harm done to the liver and kidneys. Of course there are also problems that arise through sleep deprivation. Ask any wife that has been the recipient of a dressing down over the phone by their husband just because he is so damn tired that he has to vent his anger and frustration at the only person that will understand how he is feeling. Drivers do not glorify in the use of drugs; in fact most are usually ashamed of it. They try to keep it to themselves for fear that their children may find out and get the wrong impression – the impression that taking drugs is ok. But what are their choices? Well there really isn’t any (written

submission, wife of owner/driver southern New South Wales (written submission, wife of owner/driver, southern NSW)

Another witness pointed to scheduling pressure:

You take drugs, not because drivers want to take them but because they’re forced to take them or they will get the sack for being late (oral submission, female driver, NSW)

In his evidence to the Inquiry, Dr Michael Belzer from the University of Michigan made essentially the same point, stating that drivers in the US used drugs to stay awake because they felt under pressure to get loads to their destinations in time or face the sack.

Drugs are, according to witnesses, comparatively easy to obtain. One driver, for example, claimed that he could obtain any drug we cared to mention within two hours of leaving the venue of the Inquiry hearing in a regional city.

Since the commencement of the inquiry police have carried out several raids on truck stops dealing in amphetamines and other drugs, including a major drug supply point at Peak Hill

where a number of arrests were made. These raids confirm that oral evidence given to the inquiry was not just hearsay.

The allegation by witnesses that some road houses, including some on the New England Highway, were being used as drug supply points was echoed in several written submissions and appears not to be confined to New South Wales. The author of one submission from Western Australia stated:

I have worked at a roadhouse where I saw drugs being stored in the staff quarters (written

submission, Western Australia)

Most disturbing of all were allegations that some transport companies supplied drugs to their driver. A number of drivers told the Inquiry that some small companies handed out sachets of speed or other drugs in pay envelopes. Other parties, including an experienced accident investigator, also claimed that some companies were supplying drugs. The Report is inclined to accept allegations about the supplying of drugs to drivers by transport companies presented to this Inquiry as there is recent evidence in another jurisdiction to confirm this practice occurs. On 3 August 1996 a semi-trailer (the prime mover being federally registered) belonging to WRB Transport Pty Ltd that had been travelling erratically for some time collided with two cars near Blanchetown, South Australia resulting in the death of six people. The semi driver, who survived the smash, was later found to have drug residues (Phentermine - a derivative of amphetamine, Ephedrine and Tetrahydrocannabinol - found in Cannabis). The Coroner found that a number of company personnel (named in the inquest) had knowingly supplied drugs to the driver and this was a common practice in response to the 'ludicrous hours many of the drivers spent at the wheel' (Coroners Court of South Australia, 1999:32). During the Inquest the Coroner undertook the time-consuming and almost certainly unusual step of interviewing many of the drivers for WRB enabling him to corroborate the existence of the practice (and despite an unsuccessful appeal by the company to have the Supreme Court rule the evidence inadmissible).

While accepting that some transport companies supply drugs to drivers the number of times this allegation was made would seem to indicate that it is a practice involving only a small minority of companies (worrying enough). In its submission the NSW branch of the TWU provided evidence that at least one company openly counsels its drivers on the 'safe' way to use drugs. The union supplied a set of hints to ‘safe drug use’ published in the company’s staff newsletter/journal. Again, there is nothing to indicate this is a common practice although the company concerned had a reputation of being at the more respectable end of the spectrum rather than an acknowledge rogue operator. The Inquiry heard submissions from some companies that adopted very strong stance on drug use by drivers but this was by no means typical, reflecting the degree of tacit acceptance of drugs in the industry.

The Inquiry heard evidence from long-term drivers about how the types of drugs had changed over time since the 1970s. A report by Hensher et al (1991) found that the use of amphetamines by long distance truck drivers exceeded that of the general population and this use was associated with the working conditions of drivers. Their survey of 820 drivers confirmed the widely held belief that long distance truck drivers used stimulant drugs to stay alert on long trips (Hensher, 1991:62).

It is comparatively easy to sensationalise the issue of drug-use in the long distance trucking industry. The image of a ‘spaced out’ or ‘bug-eyed’ driver barrelling down the highway in a vehicle with a GVM of anywhere between 40 and 60 tonnes is certain to alarm the community, especially in the context of the Cowper incident in 1989. It is therefore not surprising that periodic reports of drug use in the industry receive prominent coverage in the print and electronic media. Understandably, such media images cause immense distress to

responsible drivers and transport companies that avoid drugs. At the same time, drug-use is a major problem and the only way to effectively address this issue is to alter this situation. Summarising the above, a number of points can be made. First, though evidence is fragmentary, all available information indicates that drug-use has been common in the long distance trucking industry over many years and this remains the case. Second, the use of drugs has a number of effects on health and safety, not simply the commonly recognised problem of ‘spaced-out’ drivers hallucinating and smashing into another vehicle. These effects include evidence suggesting a connection between drug use and speeding as well as long-term health problems for drivers (premature aging etc)

The weight of evidence presented to this Inquiry is that drug-use by long distance drivers widespread such practices are tolerated or at least not actively discouraged by companies to the extent that might be expected. This situation, which exposes both drivers and other road users to an avoidable risk, must be addressed.