CRICOS No J 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 J

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 Questions The 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 Consumption Drug Type Cannabis Amphetamines Cocaine Heroin n%n%n%n% Drug Consumption Within 4 hours22(4.3)2(0.8)2(0.4)2 Within the last 24 hours 30(5.8)4(0.8)1(0.2)1 Within the last week39(7.6)15(2.9)2(0.8)2(0.4) Within the last month43(8.3)29(5.6)1(1.4)1(0.2) Within the last year60(11.7 ) 52(10.1 ) 2(7.0)4(0.5) More than a year ago154(29.9 ) 78(15.1 ) 29(12.4 ) 29(5.6) Never167(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 PerceptionsMea n (SD)LowUnsureHigh Certainty % (n = 49) 39.9 % (n = 191) 49.9%(n = 239) Severity %(n = 26) 46.9 % (n = 232) 47.8%(n = 236) Swiftness % (n = 83) 50.8 % (n = 256) 32.7%(n = 165) Social Loss % (n = 146) 25.4 % (n = 128) 45.7%(n = 231) Internal Loss % (n = 122) 27.0 % (n = 124) 46.5%(n = 214) Physical Loss % (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 offending 2.Report an intention to re-offend 3.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 Predictors 1.Drug driving in last six months p<.001 (entered first step) 2.Perceptions of apprehension certainty p< Drug Consumption p< Awareness of testing practices p<.05

Limitations 1.Small sample size 2.Non-random selection of sample 3.Reliability of self-report data 4.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