Too young to drink but old enough to drive under the influence : a study of underage offenders as seen in substance abuse treatment in Texas

Driving under the influence (DUI) is a major road safety problem. Historically, alcohol has been assumed to play a larger role in crashes and DUI education programs have reflected this assumption, although recent evidence suggests that younger drivers are becoming more likely to drive drugged than to drive drunk. This is a study of 7096 Texas clients under age 21 who were admitted to state-funded treatment programs between 1997 and 2007 with a past-year DUI arrest, DUI probation, or DUI referral. Data were obtained from the State’s administrative dataset. Multivariate logistic regressions models were used to understand the differences between those minors entering treatment as a DUI as compared to a non-DUI as well as the risks for completing treatment and for being abstinent in the month prior to follow-up. A major finding was that over time, the primary problem for underage DUI drivers changed from alcohol to marijuana. Being abstinent in the month prior to discharge, having a primary problem with alcohol rather than another drug, and having more family involved were the strongest predictors of treatment completion. Living in a household where the client was exposed to alcohol abuse or drug use, having been in residential treatment, and having more drug and alcohol and family problems were the strongest predictors of not being abstinent at follow-up. As a result, there is a need to direct more attention towards meeting the needs of the young DUI population through programs that address drug as well as alcohol consumption problems.

Submission to Travelsafe : vehicle impoundment for drink drivers

This submission has been prepared in response to the Parliamentary Travelsafe Committee's Inquiry into vehicle impoundment for drink drivers to address research relevant to the committee’s investigation into whether: • Drink drivers in Queensland continue to drive illegally after being apprehended by police or disqualified from driving by the courts; • The incidence of repeat drink driving undermines the effectiveness of existing penalties for drink driving offences; and • Vehicle impoundment and/or ignition key confiscation are cost-effective deterrents that will reduce drink driving recidivism, relating to other existing or potential methods of managing offenders.

Eat, drink and be civil

Brisbane is provincial city that has been developing rapidly since the early 1990s. The growth and development of its public and semi-public spaces means there are many more ways to engage with the city than was previously possible. --------- I suggest the city’s new and transformed spaces have enabled 2 important developments 1) a growth in forms of sociability and encounters with difference and 2) the negotiation of civic competencies. --------- The paper draws upon research conducted during a PhD project which used multi-method approaches - including qualitative [interviews] and quantitative data [surveys], psychoanalytic theory and text analysis.The study also made connections between the real city and the discursive city to argue that urban experience is constituted both materially and imaginatively.

A three year outcome evaluation of a theory based drink driving education program

This study reports on the impact of a "drink driving education program" taught to grade ten high school students. The program which involves twelve lessons uses strategies based on the Ajzen and Madden theory of planned behavior. Students were trained to use alternatives to drink driving and passenger behaviors. One thousand seven hundred and seventy-four students who had been taught the program in randomly assigned control and intervention schools were followed up three years later. There had been a major reduction in drink driving behaviors in both intervention and control students. In addition to this cohort change there was a trend toward reduced drink driving in the intervention group and a significant reduction in passenger behavior in this group. Readiness to use alternatives suggested that the major impact of the program was on students who were experimenting with the behavior at the time the program was taught. The program seems to have optimized concurrent social attitude and behavior change.

Profiling the offence patterns of disqualified drink drivers in Queensland, Australia.

While unlicensed driving does not play a direct causative role in road crashes, it represents a major problem for road safety. A particular subgroup of concern is those offenders who continue to drive after having their licence disqualified for drink driving. Surveys of disqualified drivers suggest that driving among this group is relatively common. Method This paper reports findings from an analysis of the driving records of over 545,000 Queensland drivers who experienced a licence sanction between January 2003 and December 2008. The sample included drivers who were disqualified by a court (e.g., for drink driving); those who licence had been suspended administratively (e.g., for accumulation of demerit points); and those who were placed on a restricted licence. Results Overall, 95,461 of the drivers in the sample were disqualified from driving for a drink driving offence. During the period, these drivers were issued with a total of 2,644,619 traffic infringements with approximately 12% (n = 8, 095) convicted of a further drink driving offence while disqualified. Other traffic offences detected during this period including unlicensed driving (18%), driving an unregistered vehicle (27%), speeding (21%), dangerous driving (36%), mobile phone use (35%), non-restraint use (32%), and other moving violation (23%). Offending behaviour was more common among men than women. Conclusions While licence disqualification has previously been shown to be a relatively effective sanction for managing the behaviour of drink driving offenders, the results of the current study highlight that it is a far from perfect tool since many offenders continue to commit both drink driving and other traffic offences while disqualified. As such, this study highlights the ongoing need to enhance the detection of disqualified and unlicensed driving in order to deter this behaviour.

Review of the under the limit drink driving rehabilitation program

The combination of alcohol and driving is a major health and economic burden to most communities in industrialised countries. The total cost of crashes for Australia in 1996 was estimated at approximately 15 billion dollars and the costs for fatal crashes were about 3 billion dollars (BTE, 2000). According to the Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development and Local Government (2009; BITRDLG) the overall cost of road fatality crashes for 2006 $3.87 billion, with a single fatal crash costing an estimated $2.67 million. A major contributing factor to crashes involving serious injury is alcohol intoxication while driving. It is a well documented fact that consumption of liquor impairs judgment of speed, distance and increases involvement in higher risk behaviours (Waller, Hansen, Stutts, & Popkin, 1986a; Waller et al., 1986b). Waller et al. (1986a; b) asserts that liquor impairs psychomotor function and therefore renders the driver impaired in a crisis situation. This impairment includes; vision (degraded), information processing (slowed), steering, and performing two tasks at once in congested traffic (Moskowitz & Burns, 1990). As BAC levels increase the risk of crashing and fatality increase exponentially (Department of Transport and Main Roads, 2009; DTMR). According to Compton et al. (2002) as cited in the Department of Transport and Main Roads (2009), crash risk based on probability, is five times higher when the BAC is 0.10 compared to a BAC of 0.00. The type of injury patterns sustained also tends to be more severe when liquor is involved, especially with injuries to the brain (Waller et al., 1986b). Single and Rohl (1997) reported that 30% of all fatal crashes in Australia where alcohol involvement was known were associated with Breadth Analysis Content (BAC) above the legal limit of 0.05gms/100ml. Alcohol related crashes therefore contributes to a third of the total cost of fatal crashes (i.e. $1 billion annually) and crashes where alcohol is involved are more likely to result in death or serious injury (ARRB Transport Research, 1999). It is a major concern that a drug capable of impairment such as is the most available and popular drug in Australia (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2007; AIHW). According to the AIHW (2007) 89.9% of the approximately 25,000 Australians over the age of 14 surveyed had consumed at some point in time, and 82.9% had consumed liquor in the previous year. This study found that 12.1% of individuals admitted to driving a motor vehicle whilst intoxicated. In general males consumed more liquor in all age groups. In Queensland there were 21503 road crashes in 2001, involving 324 fatalities and the largest contributing factor was alcohol and or drugs (Road Traffic Report, 2001). 23438 road crashes in 2004, involving 289 fatalities and the largest contributing factor was alcohol and or drugs (DTMR, 2009). Although a number of measures such as random breath testing have been effective in reducing the road toll (Watson, Fraine & Mitchell, 1995) the recidivist drink driver remains a serious problem. These findings were later supported with research by Leal, King, and Lewis (2006). This Queensland study found that of the 24661 drink drivers intercepted in 2004, 3679 (14.9%) were recidivists with multiple drink driving convictions in the previous three years covered (Leal et al., 2006). The legal definition of the term “recidivist” is consistent with the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act (1995) and is assigned to individuals who have been charged with multiple drink driving offences in the previous five years. In Australia relatively little attention has been given to prevention programs that target high-risk repeat drink drivers. However, over the last ten years a rehabilitation program specifically designed to reduce recidivism among repeat drink drivers has been operating in Queensland. The program, formally known as the “Under the Limit” drink driving rehabilitation program (UTL) was designed and implemented by the research team at the Centre for Accident Research and Road Safety in Queensland with funding from the Federal Office of Road Safety and the Institute of Criminology (see Sheehan, Schonfeld & Davey, 1995). By 2009 over 8500 drink-drivering offenders had been referred to the program (Australian Institute of Crime, 2009).

The influence of conformity and group identity on drink walking intentions : comparing intentions to drink walk across risky pedestrian crossing scenarios

Despite the dangers associated with drink walking, limited research is currently available regarding the factors which influence individuals to engage in this risky behaviour. This study examined the influence of psychosocial factors upon individuals’ intentions to drink walk across four experimental scenarios (and a control condition). Specifically, a 2 × 2 repeated measures design was utilised in which all of the scenarios incorporated a risky pedestrian crossing situation (i.e., a pedestrian crossing against a red man signal) but differed according to the level of group identity (i.e., low/strangers and high/friends) and conformity (low and high). Individuals were assessed for their intentions to drink walk within each of these different scenarios. Undergraduate students (N = 151), aged 17–30 years, completed a questionnaire. Overall, most of the study's hypotheses were supported with individuals reporting the highest intentions to drink walk when in the presence of friends (i.e., high group identity) and their friends were said to be also crossing against the red man signal (i.e., high conformity). The findings may have significant implications for the design of countermeasures to reduce drink walking. For instance, the current findings would suggest that potentially effective strategies may be to promote resilience to peer influence as well as highlight the negative consequences associated with following the behaviour of other intoxicated pedestrians who are crossing against a red signal.

Walking when intoxicated : an investigation of the factors which influence individuals' drink walking intentions

Annually, in Australia, 10-15% of all road-related fatalities involve pedestrians. Of those pedestrians fatally injured, approximately 45% were walking while intoxicated or 'drink walking'. Drink walking is increasing in prevalence and younger persons may be especially prone to engage in this behaviour and, thus, are at heightened risk of being injured or killed. Presently, limited research is available regarding the factors which influence individuals to drink walk. This study explored young people's (17-25 years) intentions to drink walk, using an extended Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB). Participants (N = 215), completed a self-report questionnaire which assessed the standard TPB constructs (attitude, subjective norm, perceived behavioural control) as well as the extended constructs of risk perception, anticipated regret, and past behaviour. It was hypothesised that the standard TPB constructs would significantly predict individuals' reported intentions to drink walk and that the additional constructs would predict intentions over and above the TPB constructs. The TPB variables significantly predicted 63.2% of the variance in individuals' reported intentions to drink walk, and the additional variables, combined, explained a further 6.1% of the variance. Of the additional constructs, anticipated regret and past behaviour, but not risk perception, were significant predictors of drink walking intentions. As one of the first studies to provide a theoretically-based investigation of factors influencing individuals' drink walking intentions, the current study's findings have potentially significant implications for understanding young people's decisions to drink walk and the design of future countermeasures to ultimately reduce this behaviour.

Drink driving after the first offence: Characteristics of offenders who continue to drink and drive

Drink driving remains a significant problem on Australian roads, with about a quarter to a third of fatal crashes involving drivers or riders who have a BAC of 0.05 or greater. Last available data in the state of Queensland (2003) of the major factors involved in road fatalities and injuries indicated that alcohol and drugs were noted as one of the contributing factors in 38% of fatalities and 11% of all crashes, making it the highest single contributing factor to road fatalities. Until this point, there has been little information about first time offenders as a group, but it is known that offenders typically are not first time drink drivers but rather ‘first time apprehended’, in that most have engaged in drink driving in the years leading to the first offence. This paper follows 89 first time drink driving offenders who were interviewed at the time of court mention and followed up around 6 months following the court hearing. Of the offenders, 27% reported to have driven over the limit in the time between initial contact and follow up. The paper demonstrates the characteristics and offending patterns of first offenders who engaged in drink driving following conviction and those who didn’t, providing suggestions on how to target those at high risk for the behaviour and subsequent offending.

The impact of completing a drink driving rehabilitation program on future drinking : the clients’ perspective

The paper explores the role and focus of drink driving rehabilitation programs. It is particularly concerned with whether programs that specifically focus on reducing driving after drinking also have a positive effect on clients’ levels of drinking. A sample of volunteering clients was recruited while they were participating in the Australian “Under the Limit” program and they were followed up at least three months post completion. Response rates were very low and the sample is assumed to reflect the views and outcomes of persons who felt positive about the program. Clients reported large and meaningful reductions in their drinking and in their drink driving. They also reported important moves towards action and change in their drinking habits. The findings deserve to be followed up given the fact that drink driving programs are generally of much shorter duration than alcohol focussed interventions. There is a need for further research in this area and for developing more effective recruitment strategies.

A comparison of the psychological, social, and legal factors contributing to speeding and drink driving behaviour

Within Australia, motor vehicle injury is the leading cause of hospital admissions and fatalities. Road crash data reveals that among the factors contributing to crashes in Queensland, speed and alcohol continue to be overrepresented. While alcohol is the number one contributing factor to fatal crashes, speeding also contributes to a high proportion of crashes. Research indicates that risky driving is an important contributor to road crashes. However, it has been debated whether all risky driving behaviours are similar enough to be explained by the same combination of factors. Further, road safety authorities have traditionally relied upon deterrence based countermeasures to reduce the incidence of illegal driving behaviours such as speeding and drink driving. However, more recent research has focussed on social factors to explain illegal driving behaviours. The purpose of this research was to examine and compare the psychological, legal, and social factors contributing to two illegal driving behaviours: exceeding the posted speed limit and driving when over the legal blood alcohol concentration (BAC) for the drivers licence type. Complementary theoretical perspectives were chosen to comprehensively examine these two behaviours including Akers’ social learning theory, Stafford and Warr’s expanded deterrence theory, and personality perspectives encompassing alcohol misuse, sensation seeking, and Type-A behaviour pattern. The program of research consisted of two phases: a preliminary pilot study, and the main quantitative phase. The preliminary pilot study was undertaken to inform the development of the quantitative study and to ensure the clarity of the theoretical constructs operationalised in this research. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 11 Queensland drivers recruited from Queensland Transport Licensing Centres and Queensland University of Technology (QUT). These interviews demonstrated that the majority of participants had engaged in at least one of the behaviours, or knew of someone who had. It was also found among these drivers that the social environment in which both behaviours operated, including family and friends, and the social rewards and punishments associated with the behaviours, are important in their decision making. The main quantitative phase of the research involved a cross-sectional survey of 547 Queensland licensed drivers. The aim of this study was to determine the relationship between speeding and drink driving and whether there were any similarities or differences in the factors that contribute to a driver’s decision to engage in one or the other. A comparison of the participants self-reported speeding and self-reported drink driving behaviour demonstrated that there was a weak positive association between these two behaviours. Further, participants reported engaging in more frequent speeding at both low (i.e., up to 10 kilometres per hour) and high (i.e., 10 kilometres per hour or more) levels, than engaging in drink driving behaviour. It was noted that those who indicated they drove when they may be over the legal limit for their licence type, more frequently exceeded the posted speed limit by 10 kilometres per hour or more than those who complied with the regulatory limits for drink driving. A series of regression analyses were conducted to investigate the factors that predict self-reported speeding, self-reported drink driving, and the preparedness to engage in both behaviours. In relation to self-reported speeding (n = 465), it was found that among the sociodemographic and person-related factors, younger drivers and those who score high on measures of sensation seeking were more likely to report exceeding the posted speed limit. In addition, among the legal and psychosocial factors it was observed that direct exposure to punishment (i.e., being detected by police), direct punishment avoidance (i.e., engaging in an illegal driving behaviour and not being detected by police), personal definitions (i.e., personal orientation or attitudes toward the behaviour), both the normative and behavioural dimensions of differential association (i.e., refers to both the orientation or attitude of their friends and family, as well as the behaviour of these individuals), and anticipated punishments were significant predictors of self-reported speeding. It was interesting to note that associating with significant others who held unfavourable definitions towards speeding (the normative dimension of differential association) and anticipating punishments from others were both significant predictors of a reduction in self-reported speeding. In relation to self-reported drink driving (n = 462), a logistic regression analysis indicated that there were a number of significant predictors which increased the likelihood of whether participants had driven in the last six months when they thought they may have been over the legal alcohol limit. These included: experiences of direct punishment avoidance; having a family member convicted of drink driving; higher levels of Type-A behaviour pattern; greater alcohol misuse (as measured by the AUDIT); and the normative dimension of differential association (i.e., associating with others who held favourable attitudes to drink driving). A final logistic regression analysis examined the predictors of whether the participants reported engaging in both drink driving and speeding versus those who reported engaging in only speeding (the more common of the two behaviours) (n = 465). It was found that experiences of punishment avoidance for speeding decreased the likelihood of engaging in both speeding and drink driving; whereas in the case of drink driving, direct punishment avoidance increased the likelihood of engaging in both behaviours. It was also noted that holding favourable personal definitions toward speeding and drink driving, as well as higher levels of on Type-A behaviour pattern, and greater alcohol misuse significantly increased the likelihood of engaging in both speeding and drink driving. This research has demonstrated that the compliance with the regulatory limits was much higher for drink driving than it was for speeding. It is acknowledged that while speed limits are a fundamental component of speed management practices in Australia, the countermeasures applied to both speeding and drink driving do not appear to elicit the same level of compliance across the driving population. Further, the findings suggest that while the principles underpinning the current regime of deterrence based countermeasures are sound, current enforcement practices are insufficient to force compliance among the driving population, particularly in the case of speeding. Future research should further examine the degree of overlap between speeding and drink driving behaviour and whether punishment avoidance experiences for a specific illegal driving behaviour serve to undermine the deterrent effect of countermeasures aimed at reducing the incidence of another illegal driving behaviour. Furthermore, future work should seek to understand the factors which predict engaging in speeding and drink driving behaviours at the same time. Speeding has shown itself to be a pervasive and persistent behaviour, hence it would be useful to examine why road safety authorities have been successful in convincing the majority of drivers of the dangers of drink driving, but not those associated with speeding. In conclusion, the challenge for road safety practitioners will be to convince drivers that speeding and drink driving are equally risky behaviours, with the ultimate goal to reduce the prevalence of both behaviours.