E-scooter riders and pedestrians: Attitudes and interactions in five countries.

Electric scooters (e-scooters) have become a popular phenomenon internationally; however, their use has raised concerns about pedestrian safety. This study describes the possible effects of the emergence of e-scooters on pedestrians. We focus on the interaction, conflicts, crashes, and attitudes between pedestrians and e-scooter riders and pedestrians' perceived safety in the presence of e-scooters. Data were collected from e-scooter riders and non-riders (n = 3385) through an online survey in Australia, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Norway, and Sweden. Around 20-30% of e-scooter riders rode on sidewalks, whether it is allowed or not. Non-riders of e-scooters tended to report that riding an e-scooter is rather dangerous. Pedestrians, except Australian ones, perceived e-scooter riders (and e-scooter operation) as annoying. Half of the e-scooter riders had experienced a near miss at some point in the past and more than 50% of these near misses included another road user. Up to 10% of the e-scooter riders from all five countries reported having experienced a crash. On the basis of these findings, we believe that the most relevant suggestions for the implications in sustainable (urban) mobility involve separating e-scooter riders and pedestrians.

Comparison between self-report of cannabis use and toxicological detection of THC/THCCOOH in blood and THC in oral fluid in drivers in a roadside survey.

The objective of this study was to compare the number of drivers who self-reported cannabis use by questionnaires to the results of toxicological analysis. During roadside surveys, 2957 respondents driving a personal car or van completed a questionnaire to report their use of drugs and medicines during the previous two weeks and to indicate the time of their last intake. Cannabis was analyzed in oral fluid by ultra performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (UPLC-MS/MS), in blood by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS). Frequencies in the time categories were calculated and compared with toxicological results. Diagnostic values were calculated for the time categories in which positive findings were to be expected (<4 h and <2 4h, respectively for tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THCCOOH) in blood, <12 h for THC in oral fluid). Most self-reported cannabis use was more than 12 h before driving. The sensitivity of the questionnaire was low, while the specificity and accuracy were high. Kappa statistics revealed a fair agreement between self-report and positive findings for THC in oral fluid and blood and moderate agreement with THCCOOH in blood. Self-report largely underestimates driving under the influence of cannabis, particularly recent cannabis use; therefore analysis of biological samples is necessary.

Presence of psychoactive substances in injured Belgian drivers.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the percentage of drivers involved in a traffic crash in Belgium who have alcohol and drugs in their blood. METHODS: Blood samples of the drivers injured in a traffic crash and admitted to the emergency departments of 5 hospitals in Belgium between January 2008 and May 2010 were analyzed for ethanol (with an enzymatic method) and 22 other psychoactive substances (with ultra-performance liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry or gas chromatography-mass spectrometry). RESULTS: One thousand seventy-eight drivers were included in the study. Alcohol (≥0.1 g/L) was the most common substance (26.2%). A large majority of the drivers (64%) who were positive for alcohol had a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) ≥1.3 g/L (legal limit in Belgium: 0.5 g/L). These high BACs were most frequent among male injured drivers. Cannabis was the most prevalent illicit drug (5.3%) and benzodiazepines (5.3%) were the most prevalent medicinal drugs. Approximately 1 percent of the drivers were positive for cocaine and amphetamines. No drivers tested positive for illicit opioids. Medicinal drugs were more likely to be found among female drivers and drivers older than 35 years, and alcohol and illicit drugs were more likely to be found among male drivers and drivers younger than 35 years. CONCLUSION: A high percentage of the injured drivers were positive for a psychoactive substance at the time of injury. Alcohol was the most common substance, with 80 percent of the positive drivers having a BAC ≥0.5 g/L. Compared to a roadside survey in the same area, drivers/riders with high BACs and combinations of drugs were overrepresented. Efforts should be made to increase alcohol and drug enforcement. The introduction of a categorization and labeling system might reduce driving under the influence of medicinal drugs by informing health care professionals and patients.

Comparison of drug concentrations measured in roadside surveys and in seriously injured drivers in Belgium.

The objective of this paper is to compare concentrations of alcohol, illicit, and medicinal drugs in seriously injured drivers and drivers selected randomly at the roadside. Blood samples were analyzed for alcohol, 17 medicinal drugs and 8 illicit psychoactive substances and/or their metabolites by ultra performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (UPLC-MS/MS) and gas chromatography mass spectrometry (GC-MS) in injured drivers admitted to the emergency departments of five hospitals in Belgium between January 2008 and May 2010 and in drivers randomly selected between January 2008 and September 2009. Three hundred and seventy-seven seriously injured drivers and 2750 roadside respondents were selected. In the roadside survey, out of the 203 concentrations above DRUID (Driving Under the Influence of Drugs, Alcohol and Medicines) cut-offs for medicinal drugs, 51% were in the therapeutic range, 46% infratherapeutic, and 2.5% supratherapeutic. In the seriously injured drivers, out of the 78 concentrations above DRUID cut-offs for medicinal drugs, these percentages were respectively 63%, 33%, and 4%. Significant differences were found in the distribution of concentrations for opioids, benzodiazepines, and Z-drugs. For the latter, while in the seriously injured drivers study most concentrations were therapeutic, in the roadside survey most were infratherapeutic. The opposite was observed for the opioids. Eight and 41% of the roadside respondents and injured drivers, respectively, had an alcohol concentration above 0.1 g/L, with higher concentrations found in the injured drivers. For illicit drugs, significant differences were found for amphetamine and cocaine, for which respectively lower and higher concentrations were observed in the blood samples taken in the roadside survey.

DUID: oral fluid and blood confirmation compared in Belgium.

The objective of this study was to compare the number of drivers with drug concentrations above the legal cutoffs for driving under the influence of illicit substances in paired samples of blood and oral fluid. Between January 2008 and September 2009, 2,949 randomly selected drivers participated in a roadside survey. Each was asked to provide blood and oral fluid. Samples were analyzed for 11 illicit substances or metabolites by ultra-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry and gas chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Out of the 2,750 drivers who gave both blood and oral fluid, 28 (1.0%) had drug concentrations above the legal cutoff in blood and 71 (2.6%) were above the legal cutoff in oral fluid. Fifteen (7.5%) of the 199 drivers who gave an oral fluid sample but refused to provide blood tested positive, significantly more than drivers who provided both samples. Based on oral fluid analysis, 2.6 times more subjects tested positive for drugs compared to blood analysis. Those that refused to give a blood sample were 3 times more likely to test positive for drugs. Even in a survey that guaranteed total anonymity, people fearing a positive test result might have been more likely to refuse to give a blood sample.