Screening for drugs in oral fluid : illicit drug use and drug driving in a sample of urban and regional Queensland motorists

Police services in a number of Australian states and overseas jurisdictions have begun to implement or consider random road-side drug testing of drivers. This paper outlines research conducted to provide an estimate of the extent of drug driving in a sample of Queensland drivers in regional, rural and metropolitan areas. Oral fluid samples were collected from 2657 Queensland motorists and screened for illicit substances including cannabis (delta 9 tetrahydrocannibinol [THC]), amphetamines, ecstasy, and cocaine. Overall, 3.8% of the sample (n = 101) screened positive for at least one illicit substance, although multiple drugs were identified in a sample of 23 respondents. The most common drugs detected in oral fluid were ecstasy (n = 53), and cannabis (n = 46) followed by amphetamines (n = 23). A key finding was that cannabis was confirmed as the most common self-reported drug combined with driving and that individuals who tested positive to any drug through oral fluid analysis were also more likely to report the highest frequency of drug driving. Furthermore, a comparison between drug vs. drink driving detection rates for one region of the study, revealed a higher detection rate for drug driving (3.8%) vs. drink driving (0.8%). This research provides evidence that drug driving is relatively prevalent on Queensland roads, and may in fact be more common than drink driving. This paper will further outline the study findings’ and present possible directions for future drug driving research.

Applying Stafford and Warr’s Reconceptualization of Deterrence Theory to drug driving : can it predict those likely to offend?

In December 2007, random roadside drug testing commenced in Queensland, Australia. Subsequently, the aim of this study was to explore the preliminary impact of Queensland’s drug driving legislation and enforcement techniques by applying Stafford and Warr’s [Stafford, M. C., & Warr, M. (1993). A reconceptualization of general and specific deterrence. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30, 123-135] reconceptualization of deterrence theory. Completing a comprehensive drug driving questionnaire were 899 members of the public, university students, and individuals referred to a drug diversion program. Of note was that approximately a fifth of participants reported drug driving in the past six months. Additionally, the analysis indicated that punishment avoidance and vicarious punishment avoidance were predictors of the propensity to drug drive in the future. In contrast, there were indications that knowing of others apprehended for drug driving was not a sufficient deterrent. Sustained testing and publicity of the legislation and countermeasure appears needed to increase the deterrent impact for drug driving.

Perceptual deterrence versus current behaviours : a study into factors influencing drug driving in Queensland

A range of interventions are being implemented in Australia to apprehend and deter drug driving behaviour, in particular the recent implementation of random roadside drug testing procedures in Queensland. Given this countermeasure has a strong deterrence foundation, it is of interest to determine whether deterrence-based perceptual factors are influencing this offending behaviour or whether self-reported drug driving is heavily dependent upon illicit substance consumption levels and past offending behaviour. This study involves a sample of Queensland motorists (N = 898) who completed a self-report questionnaire that collected a range of information, including drug driving and drug consumption practices, conviction history, and perceptual deterrence factors. The aim was to examine what factors influence current drug driving behaviours. Analysis of the collected data revealed that approximately 20% of participants reported drug driving at least once in the last six months. Overall, there was considerable variability in the respondents' perceptions regarding the certainty, severity and swiftness of legal sanctions, although the largest proportion of the sample did not consider such sanctions to be certain, severe or swift. In regard to predicting those who intended to drug drive again in the future, a combination of perceptual and behavioural-based factors were associated with such intentions. However, a closer examination revealed that behaviours, rather than perceptions, proved to have a greater level of influence on the current sample's future intentions to offend. This paper further outlines the major findings of the study and highlights that multi-modal interventions are most likely required to reduce the prevalence of drug driving on public roads.

Sex, drugs, and deterrence : applying Stafford and Warr’s reconceptualization of deterrence theory to drug driving across the genders

A consistent finding in the literature is that males report greater usage of drugs and subsequently greater amounts of drug driving. Research also suggests that vicarious influences may be more pertinent to males than to females. Utilising Stafford and Warr’s (1993) reconceptualization of deterrence theory, this study sought to determine if the relative deterrent impact of zero-tolerance drug driving laws is disparate between genders. A sample of motorists’ (N = 899) completed a self-report questionnaire assessing participants frequency of drug driving and personal and vicarious experiences with punishment and punishment avoidance. Results show that males were significantly more likely to report future intentions of drug driving. Additionally, vicarious experiences of punishment avoidance was a more influential predictor of future drug driving instances for males with personal experiences of punishment avoidance a more influential predictor for females. These findings can inform gender sensitive media campaigns and interventions for convicted drug drivers.

I know, but I don’t care : how awareness of Queensland’s drug driving testing methods impact upon perceptions of deterrence and offending behaviours

An increasing body of research is highlighting the involvement of illicit drugs in many road fatalities. Deterrence theory has been a core conceptual framework underpinning traffic enforcement as well as interventions designed to reduce road fatalities. Essentially the effectiveness of deterrence-based approaches is predicated on perceptions of certainty, severity, and swiftness of apprehension. However, much less is known about how the awareness of legal sanctions can impact upon the effectiveness of deterrence mechanisms and whether promoting such detection methods can increase the deterrent effect. Nevertheless, the implicit assumption is that individuals aware of the legal sanctions will be more deterred. This study seeks to explore how awareness of the testing method impacts upon the effectiveness of deterrence-based interventions and intentions to drug drive again in the future. In total, 161 participants who reported drug driving in the previous six months took part in the current study. The results show that awareness of testing had a small effect upon increasing perceptions of the certainty of apprehension and severity of punishment. However, awareness was not a significant predictor of intentions to drug drive again in the future. Importantly, higher levels of drug use were a significant predictor of intentions to drug drive in the future. Whilst awareness does have a small effect on deterrence variables, the influence of levels of drug use seems to reduce any deterrent effect.

Deterrence of drug driving : the impact of the ACT drug driving legislation and detection techniques

Overarching Research Questions Are ACT motorists aware of roadside saliva based drug testing operations? What is the perceived deterrent impact of the operations? What factors are predictive of future intentions to drug drive? What are the differences between key subgroups

Deterrence of drug driving: The impact of the ACT drug driving legislation and detection techniques

The study sought to explore the initial impact of the ACT's implementation of roadside oral fluid drug screening program. The results suggest that a number of individuals reported intentions to drug drive in the future. The classical deterrence theory variables of certainty of apprehension, severity and swiftness of sanctions were not predictive of intentions to drug drive in the future. In contrast, having avoided apprehension and having known of others that have avoided apprehension were predictive of intentions to drug drive in the future. Increasing perceptions of the certainty of apprehension, increased testing frequency, and increased awareness of the oral fluid drug screening program could potentially lead to reductions of drug driving and result in safer road environment for all ACT community members.

A review and comparative analysis of international drug driving policies. Report to the New South Wales (NSW) Centre for Road Safety

The New South Wales (NSW) Centre for Road Safety (CRS) called for research services to conduct a review of international policy and practice to address drug-driving. The project sought to provide Transport for NSW (TfNSW) with a comprehensive review of current and emerging international practices in this area1. This report is submitted by the Centre for Accident Research and Road Safety – Queensland (CARRS-Q)...

Drink and drug driving in Australian young adult users and non-users of illicit stimulants

- Introduction There is limited understanding of how young adults’ driving behaviour varies according to long-term substance involvement. It is possible that regular users of amphetamine-type stimulants (i.e. ecstasy (MDMA) and methamphetamine) may have a greater predisposition to engage in drink/drug driving compared to non-users. We compare offence rates, and self-reported drink/drug driving rates, for stimulant users and non-users in Queensland, and examine contributing factors. - Methods The Natural History Study of Drug Use is a prospective longitudinal study using population screening to recruit a probabilistic sample of amphetamine-type stimulant users and non-users aged 19-23 years. At the 4 ½ year follow-up, consent was obtained to extract data from participants’ Queensland driver records (ATS users: n=217, non-users: n=135). Prediction models were developed of offence rates in stimulant users controlling for factors such as aggression and delinquency. - Results Stimulant users were more likely than non-users to have had a drink-driving offence (8.7% vs. 0.8%, p < 0.001). Further, about 26% of ATS users and 14% of non-users self-reported driving under the influence of alcohol during the last 12 months. Among stimulant users, drink-driving was independently associated with last month high-volume alcohol consumption (Incident Rate Ratio (IRR): 5.70, 95% CI: 2.24-14.52), depression (IRR: 1.28, 95% CI: 1.07-1.52), low income (IRR: 3.57, 95% CI: 1.12-11.38), and male gender (IRR: 5.40, 95% CI: 2.05-14.21). - Conclusions Amphetamine-type stimulant use is associated with increased long-term risk of drink-driving, due to a number of behavioural and social factors. Inter-sectoral approaches which target long-term behaviours may reduce offending rates.

Friends looking out for friends as an intervention strategy for young adults' risky driving

Young adults are at the greatest risk of experiences road trauma disproportionately to those in other age groups. While the influence of peers is commonly associated with motor vehicle crashes and injury few studies examine whether their influence can be positive. In particular friends may be able to actively intervene to reduce the likelihood of risky driving (e.g. speeding, drink driving or drug driving) and alcohol use. The aim of this paper is to conduct a systematic review on intervening in risky driving behaviour including the situations in which it is likely or unlikely to occur, factors associated with individuals who might or report having intervened and any evaluated programs that make use of such strategies. In addition a study was conducted with 247 first year university students (32% males) to examine whether young adults report engaging in protective behaviour with their peers in South-east Queensland. In particular, if they intervene if their friends are about to drive after drinking, drive after taking illicit drugs or when speeding. It examines any differences in reported likelihood of discouraging such illegal and dangerous behaviour (in the past 12 months prior to the survey). Findings showed that young adults (17-25 years) did indeed report protective behaviour in relation to friends’ drink driving, drug driving, speeding and binge drinking. Conclusions will be drawn regarding important considerations in developing positive strategies and advertising campaigns that encourage positive behaviours (e.g. ‘don’t let mates drink and drive’).

Deterring drug drivers : a study into the initial impact of oral random roadside drug testing in Queensland

Objective: The global implementation of oral random roadside drug testing is relatively limited, and correspondingly, the literature that focuses on the effectiveness of this intervention is scant. This study aims to provide a preliminary indication of the impact of roadside drug testing in Queensland. Methods: A sample of Queensland motorists’ (N= 922) completed a self-report questionnaire to investigate their drug driving behaviour, as well as examine the perceived affect of legal sanctions (certainty, severity and swiftness) and knowledge of the countermeasure on their subsequent offending behaviour. Results: Analysis of the collected data revealed that approximately 20% of participants reported drug driving at least once in the last six months. Overall, there was considerable variability in respondent’s perceptions regarding the certainty, severity and swiftness of legal sanctions associated with the testing regime and a considerable proportion remained unaware of testing practices. In regards to predicting those who intended to drug driving again in the future, perceptions of apprehension certainty, more specifically low certainty of apprehension, were significantly associated with self-reported intentions to offend. Additionally, self-reported recent drug driving activity and frequent drug consumption were also identified as significant predictors, which indicates that in the current context, past behaviour is a prominent predictor of future behaviour. To a lesser extent, awareness of testing practices was a significant predictor of intending not to drug drive in the future. Conclusion: The results indicate that drug driving is relatively prevalent on Queensland roads, and a number of factors may influence such behaviour. Additionally, while the roadside testing initiative is beginning to have a deterrent impact, its success will likely be linked with targeted intelligence-led implementation in order to increase apprehension levels as well as the general deterrent effect.

Exploring the theoretical underpinnings of driving whilst influenced by illicit substances

An increasing number of studies are highlighting the alarming proportion of motorists that drive after having consumed illicit drugs. However presently, little attention has focused on the factors that may facilitate drug driving from a criminogenic paradigm. This study evaluated the contribution of deterrence, defiance, and deviance theories on intentions to drug drive to determine factors that might facilitate or reduce this behaviour. A total of 922 individuals completed a questionnaire that assessed frequency of drug use and a variety of perceptions on deterrence, defiance, and deviance constructs. The analysis showed that the defiance constructs (i.e., experiencing feelings of shame and believing in the legitimacy of sanctioning authority) and the deviance constructs (i.e., moral attachment to the norm and having a criminal conviction) were predictive of drug driving intentions. The facets of deterrence theory were not found to be significant predictors. Ultimately, this study illustrates that a range of behavioural and perceptual factors have the capacity to influence decisions to drug drive. As a result, there appears the need to extend the focus of research endeavours beyond legal sanctions to examine other factors that may be utilised to both understand the aetiology of drug driving as well as increase the possibility of compliance with the corresponding legislation.

The psychosocial factors influencing aggressive driving behaviour

Many drivers in highly motorised countries believe that aggressive driving is increasing. While the prevalence of the behaviour is difficult to reliably identify, the consequences of on-road aggression can be severe, with extreme cases resulting in property damage, injury and even death. This research program was undertaken to explore the nature of aggressive driving from within the framework of relevant psychological theory in order to enhance our understanding of the behaviour and to inform the development of relevant interventions. To guide the research a provisional ‘working’ definition of aggressive driving was proposed encapsulating the recurrent characteristics of the behaviour cited in the literature. The definition was: “aggressive driving is any on-road behaviour adopted by a driver that is intended to cause physical or psychological harm to another road user and is associated with feelings of frustration, anger or threat”. Two main theoretical perspectives informed the program of research. The first was Shinar’s (1998) frustration-aggression model, which identifies both the person-related and situational characteristics that contribute to aggressive driving, as well as proposing that aggressive behaviours can serve either an ‘instrumental’ or ‘hostile’ function. The second main perspective was Anderson and Bushman’s (2002) General Aggression Model. In contrast to Shinar’s model, the General Aggression Model reflects a broader perspective on human aggression that facilitates a more comprehensive examination of the emotional and cognitive aspects of aggressive behaviour. Study One (n = 48) examined aggressive driving behaviour from the perspective of young drivers as an at-risk group and involved conducting six focus groups, with eight participants in each. Qualitative analyses identified multiple situational and person-related factors that contribute to on-road aggression. Consistent with human aggression theory, examination of self-reported experiences of aggressive driving identified key psychological elements and processes that are experienced during on-road aggression. Participants cited several emotions experienced during an on-road incident: annoyance, frustration, anger, threat and excitement. Findings also suggest that off-road generated stress may transfer to the on-road environment, at times having severe consequences including crash involvement. Young drivers also appeared quick to experience negative attributions about the other driver, some having additional thoughts of taking action. Additionally, the results showed little difference between males and females in the severity of behavioural responses they were prepared to adopt, although females appeared more likely to displace their negative emotions. Following the self-reported on-road incident, evidence was also found of a post-event influence, with females being more likely to experience ongoing emotional effects after the event. This finding was evidenced by ruminating thoughts or distraction from tasks. However, the impact of such a post-event influence on later behaviours or interpersonal interactions appears to be minimal. Study Two involved the quantitative analysis of n = 926 surveys completed by a wide age range of drivers from across Queensland. The study aimed to explore the relationships between the theoretical components of aggressive driving that were identified in the literature review, and refined based on the findings of Study One. Regression analyses were used to examine participant emotional, cognitive and behavioural responses to two differing on-road scenarios whilst exploring the proposed theoretical framework. A number of socio-demographic, state and trait person-related variables such as age, pre-study emotions, trait aggression and problem-solving style were found to predict the likelihood of a negative emotional response such as frustration, anger, perceived threat, negative attributions and the likelihood of adopting either an instrumental or hostile behaviour in response to Scenarios One and Two. Complex relationships were found to exist between the variables, however, they were interpretable based on the literature review findings. Factor analysis revealed evidence supporting Shinar’s (1998) dichotomous description of on-road aggressive behaviours as being instrumental or hostile. The second stage of Study Two used logistic regression to examine the factors that predicted the potentially hostile aggressive drivers (n = 88) within the sample. These drivers were those who indicated a preparedness to engage in direct acts of interpersonal aggression on the road. Young, male drivers 17–24 years of age were more likely to be classified as potentially hostile aggressive drivers. Young drivers (17–24 years) also scored significantly higher than other drivers on all subscales of the Aggression Questionnaire (Buss & Perry, 1992) and on the ‘negative problem orientation’ and ‘impulsive careless style’ subscales of the Social Problem Solving Inventory – Revised (D’Zurilla, Nezu & Maydeu-Olivares, 2002). The potentially hostile aggressive drivers were also significantly more likely to engage in speeding and drink/drug driving behaviour. With regard to the emotional, cognitive and behavioural variables examined, the potentially hostile aggressive driver group also scored significantly higher than the ‘other driver’ group on most variables examined in the proposed theoretical framework. The variables contained in the framework of aggressive driving reliably distinguished potentially hostile aggressive drivers from other drivers (Nagalkerke R2 = .39). Study Three used a case study approach to conduct an in-depth examination of the psychosocial characteristics of n = 10 (9 males and 1 female) self-confessed hostile aggressive drivers. The self-confessed hostile aggressive drivers were aged 24–55 years of age. A large proportion of these drivers reported a Year 10 education or better and average–above average incomes. As a group, the drivers reported committing a number of speeding and unlicensed driving offences in the past three years and extensive histories of violations outside of this period. Considerable evidence was also found of exposure to a range of developmental risk factors for aggression that may have contributed to the driver’s on-road expression of aggression. These drivers scored significantly higher on the Aggression Questionnaire subscales and Social Problem Solving Inventory Revised subscales, ‘negative problem orientation’ and ‘impulsive/careless style’, than the general sample of drivers included in Study Two. The hostile aggressive driver also scored significantly higher on the Barrett Impulsivity Scale – 11 (Patton, Stanford & Barratt, 1995) measure of impulsivity than a male ‘inmate’, or female ‘general psychiatric’ comparison group. Using the Carlson Psychological Survey (Carlson, 1982), the self-confessed hostile aggressive drivers scored equal or higher scores than the comparison group of incarcerated individuals on the subscale measures of chemical abuse, thought disturbance, anti-social tendencies and self-depreciation. Using the Carlson Psychological Survey personality profiles, seven participants were profiled ‘markedly anti-social’, two were profiled ‘negative-explosive’ and one was profiled as ‘self-centred’. Qualitative analysis of the ten case study self-reports of on-road hostile aggression revealed a similar range of on-road situational factors to those identified in the literature review and Study One. Six of the case studies reported off-road generated stress that they believed contributed to the episodes of aggressive driving they recalled. Intense ‘anger’ or ‘rage’ were most frequently used to describe the emotions experienced in response to the perceived provocation. Less frequently ‘excitement’ and ‘fear’ were cited as relevant emotions. Notably, five of the case studies experienced difficulty articulating their emotions, suggesting emotional difficulties. Consistent with Study Two, these drivers reported negative attributions and most had thoughts of aggressive actions they would like to take. Similarly, these drivers adopted both instrumental and hostile aggressive behaviours during the self-reported incident. Nine participants showed little or no remorse for their behaviour and these drivers also appeared to exhibit low levels of personal insight. Interestingly, few incidents were brought to the attention of the authorities. Further, examination of the person-related characteristics of these drivers indicated that they may be more likely to have come from difficult or dysfunctional backgrounds and to have a history of anti-social behaviours on and off the road. The research program has several key theoretical implications. While many of the findings supported Shinar’s (1998) frustration-aggression model, two key areas of difference emerged. Firstly, aggressive driving behaviour does not always appear to be frustration driven, but can also be driven by feelings of excitation (consistent with the tenets of the General Aggression Model). Secondly, while the findings supported a distinction being made between instrumental and hostile aggressive behaviours, the characteristics of these two types of behaviours require more examination. For example, Shinar (1998) proposes that a driver will adopt an instrumental aggressive behaviour when their progress is impeded if it allows them to achieve their immediate goals (e.g. reaching their destination as quickly as possible); whereas they will engage in hostile aggressive behaviour if their path to their goal is blocked. However, the current results question this assertion, since many of the hostile aggressive drivers studied appeared prepared to engage in hostile acts irrespective of whether their goal was blocked or not. In fact, their behaviour appeared to be characterised by a preparedness to abandon their immediate goals (even if for a short period of time) in order to express their aggression. The use of the General Aggression Model enabled an examination of the three components of the ‘present internal state’ comprising emotions, cognitions and arousal and how these influence the likelihood of a person responding aggressively to an on-road situation. This provided a detailed insight into both the cognitive and emotional aspects of aggressive driving that have important implications for the design of relevant countermeasures. For example, the findings highlighted the potential value of utilising Cognitive Behavioural Therapy with aggressive drivers, particularly the more hostile offenders. Similarly, educational efforts need to be mindful of the way that person-related factors appear to influence one’s perception of another driver’s behaviour as aggressive or benign. Those drivers with a predisposition for aggression were more likely to perceive aggression or ‘wrong doing’ in an ambiguous on-road situation and respond with instrumental and/or hostile behaviour, highlighting the importance of perceptual processes in aggressive driving behaviour.

An overview of CARRS-Q’s advanced driving simulator

The global road safety problem The role of human factors in road crashes The use of driving simulators in road safety research The CARRS-Q advanced driving simulator –Functionality –Problems encountered and related solutions Past and current projects using the driving simulator Limitations of driving simulators

"I drove after drinking alcohol" and other risky driving behaviours reported by young novice drivers

Background Volitional risky driving behaviours including drink- and drug-driving and speeding contribute to the overrepresentation of young novice drivers in road crash fatalities, and crash risk is greatest during the first year of independent driving in particular. Aims To compare: 1) the self-reported compliance of drivers with road rules relating to substance-impaired driving and other risky driving behaviours including speeding and driving tired, one year after progression from a Learner to a Provisional (intermediate) licence; and 2) the interrelationships between substance-impaired driving and other risky driving behaviours (crashes, offences, and Police avoidance). Methods 1268 drivers (373 males) aged 17-26 years were surveyed regarding their sociodemographics (age, gender) and self-reported driving behaviours including crashes, offences, Police-avoidance, and driving intentions. Results A relatively small proportion of participants reported driving after taking drugs (5.9% males, 1.3% females) and drinking alcohol (19.3% males, 11.6% females). In comparison, a considerable proportion of participants reported at least occasionally exceeding speed limits (85.7% novices) and driving when tired (82.7% novices). Substance-impaired driving was associated with avoiding Police, speeding, risky driving intentions, and self reported crashes and offences. Forty-four percent of illicit-drug drivers also reported alcohol-impaired driving. Discussion and conclusions The low self-reported prevalence of substance-impaired driving suggests official enforcement measures play a role in promoting compliance, in addition to social influences such as the broader community and the young novice drivers’ social networks including friends and family. Conversely, the prevalence of speeding appears to reflect the pervasive cultural acceptance of this behaviour. Given the interrelationships between the risky driving behaviours, a deeper understanding of influential factors is required to inform targeted and general countermeasure implementation and evaluation during this critical driving period.