CRICOS No. 00213J

Deterring Drug Drivers: A Study into the Initial Impact of Oral Random Roadside Drug Testing in Queensland

Professor Jeremy Davey ICADTS Oslo August 2010

Present Context• Drug driving is an increasing road safety problem as

research is demonstrating that an alarming number of motorists are driving after consuming illegal substances

• Of concern is that drug driving among motorists has been strongly linked to accident culpability

• For example, research has demonstrated that there is a particularly strong association between drug use and crash involvement, with accident risk estimated to be as high as a driver with a blood alcohol content of 0.1 to 0.15 percent

CRICOS No. 00213J

Present Context• In addition, a 10 year evaluation of road crashes in

Australia estimated that approximately 25% of drivers killed in road crashes tested positive to drugs other than alcohol (Drummer et al., 2003)

Recent Queensland Study• Oral fluid samples were collected from 2657 Queensland

motorists and screened for illicit substances at RBT sites:– 3.8% of the sample (n = 101) screened positive for at least one

illicit substance – Most frequent drug was cannabis– Higher detection rate for drug driving (3.8%) vs. drink driving

(0.8%).

Oral Fluid Testing• Recent Implementation of the Drug Driving

Legislation in Queensland including Random Oral Drug Testing (Nov 2008)

• No studies have examined the impact of random testing on drug driving behaviours

• Furthermore, little is known about the factors that can influence, and possibly deter, drug driving in the community.

Project Aim The current research project aimed to

examine a sample of QLD motorists’ drug driving behaviour, as well as examine the perceived affect of legal sanctions (certainty, severity and swiftness) and knowledge of the oral fluid testing countermeasure on subsequent offending behaviour.

Research QuestionsThe current study has three main research questions:

1.Are motorists aware of the new random road-side drug testing methods being implemented in Queensland?

2.How do drivers perceive the certainty, severity and swiftness of drug driving related sanctions?

3.Do legal sanctions and knowledge of oral fluid testing act as a deterrent against offending?

Method• A total of 922 respondents volunteered to participant in

the study. • Data was collected over a 12 month period using a

snowball sampling approach which involved encouraging general motorists, in particular university students, to participate in the study.

• Participation was on a voluntary basis and withdrawal was permitted from the study at any time.

Questionnaire

• The questionnaire included deterrence-based questions that related to legal sanctions, drug consumption patterns, driving behaviours, etc.

• Participants were required to respond on a 10-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = unsure, 10 = strongly agree).

Sample

Characteristics of drivers:• 58.4% male• Aged M = 35 • Majority of the sample reported driving

daily • 19.6% reported criminal conviction• Only 5 reported previous drug driving

conviction

General Drug ConsumptionDrug Type Cannabis Amphetamines Cocaine Heroin

n % n % n % n %

Drug Consumption Within 4 hours 22 (4.3) 2 (0.8) 2 (0.4) 2 (0.4) Within the last 24 hours

30 (5.8) 4 (0.8) 1 (0.2) 1 (0.2)

Within the last week 39 (7.6) 15 (2.9) 2 (0.8) 2 (0.4) Within the last month 43 (8.3) 29 (5.6) 1 (1.4) 1 (0.2) Within the last year 60 (11.7

)52 (10.1

)2 (7.0) 4 (0.5)

More than a year ago 154 (29.9)

78 (15.1)

29 (12.4)

29 (5.6)

Never 167 (32.4)

333 (64.5)

478 (77.9)

478 (92.8)• Approx 37% reported using cannabis in the last year

Frequency of Drug Driving Behaviour

• On average, 20% reported drug driving in the past 6 months

• 14.9% drug driving once or twice, 2.3% reported 3 – 5 times, 2.8% reported more than 10 times

• 30.6% reported being a passenger of a drug driver in the last 6 months

• 18% reported intending to drug drive at least once within the next 6 months

Perceptions of Drug Driving Legislation

• Knowledge of Testing• The largest proportion reported being aware of the

testing (64.1%), although 21% were unaware and 15% were unsure

• Perceived Effectiveness• The largest proportion reported that the testing would be

effective (44.4%), although a sizeable proportion believed testing would be ineffective (28.7%) and a further 26.8% were unsure

Perceptions of Legal Sanctions

Perceptions Mean

(SD) Low Unsure High

Certainty 6.47 2.14 10..2%

(n = 49)

39.9%

(n = 191)

49.9% (n = 239)

Severity 6.63 1.91 5.3% (n = 26)

46.9%

(n = 232)

47.8% (n = 236)

Swiftness 6.09 2.48 16.5%

(n = 83)

50.8%

(n = 256)

32.7% (n = 165)

Social Loss 5.81 3.22 28.9%

(n = 146)

25.4%

(n = 128)

45.7% (n = 231)

Internal Loss 6.03 3.13 26.5%

(n = 122)

27.0%

(n = 124)

46.5% (n = 214)

Physical Loss 6.69 3.11 21.9%

(n = 109)

20.8%

(n = 103)

57.3% (n = 285)

Convicted drug offenders vs general motorists

• We matched 49 participants on demographic characteristics

• Convicted offenders more likely to:1. Report a higher frequency of previous offending2. Report an intention to re-offend3. Report higher perceptions of apprehension certainty

Predictors of Intentions to Drug Drive

• Logistic regression analysis performed to determine factors associated with intending to re-offend in the next 6 months (yes/no)

– Certainty - Drug consumption– Severity - Drug Driving last 6 months– Swiftness

Significant Predictors1. Drug driving in last six months p<.001 (entered first

step)2. Perceptions of apprehension certainty p<.0013. Drug Consumption p<.0014. Awareness of testing practices p<.05

Limitations

1. Small sample size2. Non-random selection of sample3. Reliability of self-report data4. Questions about representativeness of sample 5. Deterrence Questionnaire needs to be further

tested

• Relatively large proportion were not aware of the introduction of random road-side drug testing

• Sizeable proportion uncertain regarding the effectiveness of the testing regime

• A sizeable proportion were undecided on the chances of being apprehended for drug driving (which is a problem for deterrence theory)

• Further emphasis on increasing motorists’ awareness of random road-side drug testing

Questions?

Mark your Diaries!International Council on Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety

Conference (T2013)August 2013, Brisbane Convention and Exhibition Centre