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 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.

The community and social impact of drink driving: Under the limit drink driving rehabilitation program

This video was prepared as a teaching resource for CARRS-Q's Under the Limit Drink Driving Rehabilitation Program

The effect of alcohol on driver ability: Under the limit drink driving rehabilitation program

This video was prepared as a teaching resource for CARRS-Q's Under the Limit Drink Driving Rehabilitation Program

The consequences of drink driving: Under the limit drink driving rehabilitation program

This video was prepared as a teaching resource for CARRS-Q's Under the Limit Drink Driving Rehabilitation Program

The effect of alcohol on the body: Under the limit drink driving rehabilitation program

This video was prepared as a teaching resource for CARRS-Q's Under the Limit Drink Driving Rehabilitation Program

Standard drinks: Under the limit drink driving rehabilitation program

This video was prepared as a teaching resource for CARRS-Q's Under the Limit Drink Driving Rehabilitation Program.

A Process and Outcome Evaluation of the Under the Limit (UTL) Therapeutic Drink Driving Program for Recidivist and High Range Offenders

Drink driving is a major public health issue and this report examines the experiences of convicted offenders who participated in an established drink driving rehabilitation program Under the Limit (UTL). Course completers were surveyed at least three months after they had finished the 11-week UTL course. The aim of this study was to examine whether the UTL program reduced the level of alcohol consumption either directly as a result of participation in the UTL drink driving program or through increased use of community alcohol program by participants. The research involved a self-report outcome evaluation to determine whether the self-reported levels of alcohol use after the course had changed from the initial alcohol use reported by offenders. The findings are based on the responses of 30 drink-driving offenders who had completed the UTL program (response rate: 20%). While a process evaluation was proposed in the initial application, the low response rate meant that this follow up research was not feasible. The response rate was low for two reasons, it was difficult to: recruit participants who consented to follow up, and subsequently locate and survey those who had consented to involvement.

The Impact of Drink Driving in Queensland - CARRS-Q Under the Limit Drink Driver Rehabiliation Program

This video was prepared as a teaching resource for CARRS-Q's Under the Limit Drink Driving Rehabilitation Program

Drink driver rehabilitation and new developments

Drink driving continues to be a major public health concern. Significant reductions in road fatalities have been achieved due largely to the Safe Systems Approach to road safety. However, serious injury due to road trauma has increased in most Australian jurisdictions. Some subgroups of drink drivers such as young drivers and Indigenous drink drivers are vulnerable to road trauma and have been less responsive to countermeasures based on the deterrence philosophy. Drink driving rehabilitation programs that use a combination of deterrence, education and social control models have been moderately successful in reducing recidivism. However, most of these programs do not adequately address alcohol related health concerns or the needs of drink drivers in remote and rural areas. Scant attention has also been given to the use of brief online drink driving interventions. The ‘Under the Limit’ (UTL) drink driving rehabilitation program has recently been revised to ensure that its content is contemporary, relevant and evidenced based. CARRS-Q has also developed a brief online program that targets first time convicted drink drivers who have a BAC under 0.15g/100mL and a culturally sensitive program that targets Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders living in rural and remote areas. These new developments will be discussed in the context of the most effective road safety educational policy and practice.

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.

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.

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.