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.

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.

Factors affecting two- and five-year re-offence rates in Queensland drink drivers

Risk factors for repeat drink driving, an important road safety issue, are well known, but estimates of Australian recidivism rates by risk factors, apart from a recent NSW study, are not. Driving records of a cohort of Queensland drink drivers matched by age, region, BAC level and prior offence to participants in a drink driving rehabilitation program were used to estimate sex-specific two- and five-year re-offence rates overall and by these factors. Estimates of the proportion of Queensland drink drivers with a prior DD offence in 2004 were used to standardise rates to the Queensland drink driving population. Rates were higher in remote areas, as were rates in males, young drivers, drivers with high BAC levels and in drivers with one and especially with at least two prior DD convictions. Five-year rates for Queensland were estimated as 21.8% in males and 16.4% in females, appreciably higher than in NSW.

What are the offence and offender risk factors for Indigenous repeat drink drivers in Queensland?

In Australia and internationally, there is scant information about Indigenous repeat drink drivers. The aim was to identify the risk factors associated with repeat offending. De-identified data on drink driving convictions by offenders identifying as Indigenous in Queensland between 2006 and 2010 were examined. A range of univariate analyses were used to compare first time and repeat offenders on gender, age, court location and region (based on the accessibility/remoteness index of Australia), blood alcohol concentration and sentencing severity. Multivariate logistic regression adjusted for confounding variables. Convictions for repeat offenders were more likely from locations other than ‘major cities’ with the association strongest for courts in the ‘very remote’ region (OR=2.75, 2.06-3.76, p<.001). Indigenous offenders 40 years or older were found to be at reduced risk in comparison to offenders aged 15-24 years (OR=0.68, 0.54-0.86, p=0.01). After controlling for confounding factors, gender, sentencing severity and blood alcohol concentration levels were not significantly associated with recidivism. The association of recidivism and remoteness is consistent with higher rates of alcohol-related transport accidents involving Indigenous Australians in isolated areas. This study provides a platform for future research and allows for early attempts to address the need for intervention to reduce Indigenous drink driving recidivism.

What are the offence and offender risk factors for Indigenous repeat drink drivers in Queensland Australia?

Background Road crashes contribute to high injury rates in Indigenous population in Aust, NZ, Canada and USA Alcohol one of the leading risk factors for road crashes: 31.5% Indigenous drivers in remote areas over 0.05mg/100ml, compared to 7.4 percent of non-Indigenous counterparts 17.5% Indigenous drivers in regional areas over 0.05mg/100ml compared to 3.8 percent of non-Indigenous counterparts Indigenous peoples are overrepresented in alcohol-related fatality rates, with this group 40% more likely to be killed

Catching drink drivers in Queensland through Random Breath Testing : what does the last decade of data tell us

Background Random Breath Testing (RBT) has proven to be a cornerstone of enforcement attempts to deter (as well as apprehend) motorists from drink driving in Queensland (Australia) for decades. However, scant published research has examined the relationship between the frequency of implementing RBT activities and subsequent drink driving apprehension rates across time. Aim This study aimed to examine the prevalence of apprehending drink drivers in Queensland over a 12 year period. It was hypothesised that an increase in breath testing rates would result in a corresponding decrease in the frequency of drink driving apprehension rates over time, which would reflect general deterrent effects. Method The Queensland Police Service provided RBT data that was analysed. Results Between the 1st of January 2000 and 31st of December 2011, 35,082,386 random breath tests (both mobile and stationary) were conducted in Queensland, resulting in 248,173 individuals being apprehended for drink driving offences. A total of 342,801 offences were recorded during this period, representing an intercept rate of .96. Of these offences, 276,711 (80.72%) were recorded against males and 66,024 (19.28%) offences committed by females. The most common drink driving offence was between 0.05 and 0.08 BAC limit. The largest proportion of offences was detected on the weekends, with Saturdays (27.60%) proving to be the most common drink driving night followed by Sundays (21.41%). The prevalence of drink driving detection rates rose steadily across time, peaking in 2008 and 2009, before slightly declining. This decline was observed across all Queensland regions and any increase in annual figures was due to new offence types being developed. Discussion This paper will further outline the major findings of the study in regards to tailoring RBT operations to increase detection rates as well as improve the general deterrent effect of the initiative.

The self-reported impact of legal and non-legal sanctions on a group of recidivist drink drivers

Concern remains regarding the efficacy of legal sanctions to reduce drink driving behaviours among repeat offenders. The present study examined the impact of traditional legal sanctions (e.g., fines and licence disqualification periods), nonlegal sanctions, alcohol consumption and the frequency of recent offending behaviour(s) on intentions to re-offend for a group of recidivist drink drivers (N=166). The analysis indicated that participants perceived legal sanctions to be severe, but not entirely certain nor swift. In addition, self-reported recent drink driving behaviours and alcohol consumption levels were identified as predictors of future intentions to drink and drive. The findings of the study confirm the popular assumption that some repeat offenders are impervious to the threat and application of legal sanctions and suggests that additional interventions such as alcohol treatment programs are required if the drinking and driving sequence is to be broken for this population. (c) 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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).

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.

Are more city dwellers caught drink driving than country folk? An analysis by random breath testing apprehension rates

Background Random Breath Testing (RBT) remains a central enforcement strategy to deter and apprehend drink drivers in Queensland (Australia). Despite this, there is little published research regarding the exact drink driving apprehension rates across the state as measured through RBT activities. Aims The aim of the current study was to examine the prevalence of apprehending drink drivers in urban versus rural areas. Methods The Queensland Police Service provided data relating to the number of RBT conducted and apprehensions for the period 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2011. Results In the period, 35,082,386 random breath tests (both mobile and stationary) were conducted in Queensland which resulted in 248,173 individuals being apprehended for drink driving offences. Overall drink driving apprehension rates appear to have decreased across time. Close examination of the data revealed that the highest proportion of drink driving apprehensions (when compared with RBT testing rates) was in the Northern and Far Northern regions of Queensland (e.g., rural areas). In contrast, the lowest proportions were observed within the two Brisbane metropolitan regions (e.g., urban areas). However, differences in enforcement styles across the urban and rural regions need to be considered. Discussion and conclusions The research presentation will further outline the major findings of the study in regards to maximising the efficiency of RBT operations both within urban and rural areas of Queensland, Australia.

Why do Indigenous Australians drink and drive? A qualitative exploration of self-reported influences on drink driving behaviours of Indigenous peoples from remote communities

Drink driving contributes towards high injury rates for Indigenous populations in Canada and Australia, particularly in more isolated regions. At present there is limited research on the cultural and psychosocial factors that underpin Indigenous peoples’ drink driving. This study is part of a broader project aiming to inform a culturally sensitive program. Qualitative interviews with 29 convicted Indigenous drink drivers (aged 20-51 years) from a remote region of Queensland, Australia were used to explore their cognitions about, and underlying motivation for, drink driving as well as the factors that might facilitate or impede it. Although a number of themes were identified, this paper will focus on the first theme, respondents’ self-perceived rationale for their behaviour. Two subthemes were identified: ‘being the hero’ referred to situations where respondents were motivated by a bravado mentality to drive after drinking despite having, on some occasions, the opportunity to avoid this (e.g. another person offering to drive); and ‘family obligations’ which referred to situations where respondents described pressure from members of their extended families to drive after drinking. The underlying responsibility for transporting family members appeared to be difficult to avoid and related to cultural values. Findings indicate the social and individual characteristics for younger drink drivers are similar to mainstream populations. However, the reinforcers for Indigenous drink drivers may be different for this population, consistent with findings on other Indigenous populations outside Australia. Specific programs should contain a family-centred approach and explore the kinship value system to build strategies around these strong relationships.

Profile of women detected drink driving via Roadside Breath Testing (RBT) in Queensland, Australia, between 2000 and 2011

Background Drink driving among women is a growing problem in many motorised countries. While research has shown that male and female drink drivers differ on a number of characteristics, few studies have addressed the circumstances surrounding women’s drink driving offences specifically. Aim To add to previous research by comparing apprehension characteristics among men and women and to extend the understanding of the female drink driving problem by investigating the drink driving characteristics that are unique to women. Results The sample consisted of the 248,173 (21.5% women) drink drivers apprehended between 2000 and 2011 in Queensland, Australia. Gender comparisons showed that women were older, had lower levels of reoffending, and were more likely to be apprehended in Major Cities compared to men. Comparisons of age group and reoffending and non-reoffending among female drink drivers only revealed that higher BAC readings were more common among younger women. Moreover, a substantial minority (13.7%) of women aged 24 years or younger were apprehended with a BAC below0.05%, reflecting a breach of the zero tolerance BAC for provisional licence holders in Australia. Older women were more likely to be charged with a ‘failure to provide a test’ offence as a result of refusing to provide a breath or blood sample, indicating that drink driving is associated high levels of stigma for this group. Reoffending occurred among 16.2% of the female drink drivers and these drivers were more likely than non-reoffending drivers to record a mid to high range BAC, to be aged 30-39 or below 21years, and to be apprehended in Inner Regional or Remote locations. Conclusion Findings highlight the unique circumstances and divergent needs of female drink drivers compared to male drivers and for different groups of female drivers.

Drink driving among Indigenous people in Far North Queensland and northern New South Wales: A summary of the qualitative findings

Purpose In response to the threat that drink drivers pose to themselves and others, drink driving programs form an important part of a suite of countermeasures used in Australia and internationally. Unlike New Zealand/Aotearoa, United States and Canada that have programs catering for their First Peoples, all Australian programs are designed for the general driver population. The aim of this study was to identify the factors that contribute to Indigenous drink driving in order to inform appropriate recommendations related to developing a community-based program for Indigenous communities. Broader drivers licensing policy recommendations are also discussed. Methods A sample of 73 Indigenous people from Queensland and in New South Wales with one or more drink driving convictions completed a semi-structured interview in respect of the to their drink driving behaviour. Participants were asked to disclose information regarding their drink driving history, and alcohol and drug use. If participants self-reported no longer drink driving, they were probed about what factors had assisted them to avoid further offending. Results Key themes which emerged to maintain drink driving include motivations to drink and drive, and belief in the ability to manage the associated risks. Factors that appeared to support others from avoiding further offending include re-connecting with culture and family support. Conclusions and Implications A range of recommendations regarding delivery and content of a program for regional and remote communities as well as other policy implications are discussed.