|Own your ow legal marijuana business||
Your guide to making money in the multi-billion dollar marijuana industry
|Miscellaneous Statements on Drug Policy|
|References on Drugs and Driving|
Research on Knowledge, Attitudes and Reported Behaviour on Drink-Driving in New South Wales
Road Safety Branch, Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales, PO Box 110, Rosebery NSW 2018, Australia
This paper presents results from a telephone questionnaire survey of drivers on the topic of drink-driving conducted in June 1994. A sample of 500 male and 500 female drivers who drink alcohol were interviewed across NSW. The aims of the survey are to assess current drink-driving issues; and to help provide direction for countermeasure development.
The survey examines factors which influence drink-diving decisions; self-reported drink-driving behaviour; and the shift towards "general prevention" of drink-driving. Multivariate analysis is used to develop a typology of drinks. A number of groups are confirmed, which include drivers self-motivated to comply with the laws and drivers currently deterred by countermeasure activity but who hold inappropriate attitudes to maintain compliance.
Substantial success has been achieved in NSW over the last 15 years in dealing with the drink-driving problem, in reduction in crashes and changes in attitudes. The foundation of the success has been the random breath testing (RBT) program. Despite the success and the substantial countermeasure activity which has continued and developed, there remains a substantial drink-driving crash problem, primarily amongst male drivers.
The aims of the current research were to assess the current drink-driving knowledge, attitudes and reported behaviour, and develop a typology of drink-drivers to help in the development of countermeasures.
Interviews were held with a sample of 500 male and 500 female drivers. Subjects were required to be aged between 17 and 69 and have something alcoholic to drink at least once a month. Quotas were set by age, sex and area of NSW to ensure reasonable sample sizes for making comparisons on these variables.
The questionnaire addressed a range of drink-driving issues, including perceptions and attitudes influencing drink-driving, and exposure to random breath testing. Qualitative discussion group research was conducted prior to the survey to help identify issues to be addressed and quantified in the survey. Questions were "pre-tested" to ensure that the questions were being interpreted and answered as intended, by face-to-face interviewing and subsequently interrogating a sample of 30 subjects on sections of the questionnaire.
Interviews were conducted by telephone by Research International Australia. Telephone numbers were selected randomly from a database of listed numbers. A person was randomly selected within each household (the person with the "last birthday") and interviewed if the selection criteria were met.
RESULTS AND COMMENTS
The unweighted data were used in the analysis and are reported. Younger drinking drivers are over-represented (as a result of the quota sampling) although to some extent this reflects the age distribution of the drink-driving crash problem. The unweighted data also over-represented females, who are less likely to be drivers and much less likely to drink frequently. Statistical differences between men and women are noted in the tables. (Apart from sex, however, weighting did not generally change the results significantly.) Owing to the large number of measures in the study and hence the large number of potential comparisons, statistical tests were conducted with a statistical significance level of a=.001.
Random Breath Testing
Random breath testing (RBT) has almost universal support in NSW (Table 1) with 98% agreeing "RBT should continue". The continuing impact of RBT is also well accepted with 88% agreeing that "RBT continues to help in reducing drink-driving". Only 19% agree that "police should be giving less attention to RBT". Furthermore, only 14% of men and 7% of women agree that "it is unfair to breath test drivers unless they are affected".
Exposure to RBT is high with 47% of men and 39% of women reporting having seen police conducting RBT in the last month. Men (38%) were more likely than women (22%) to report being tested in the last six months. In fact 35% of women reported never having been tested, compared with 15% of men. Around 40% reported that it was likely they would be tested in the next two months.
Only drivers who drink at least monthly were included in the survey. This group is two-thirds male when weighted to the population. Even within this group, men drink much more frequently: 30% of men and 19% of women drink at least three times a week; half of the women and a quarter of the men report drinking less than weekly.
Men (27%) were more likely than women (13%) to agree that "I can be a bit over .05 and drive ok as long as I am careful" (Table 2). This question represents a measure of the unacceptability of drink-driving, and has shown improvements over the past few years.
Women (39%) were more likely than men (24%) to report "never having any alcohol to drink before driving", and less likely (23%) than men (34%) to report "driving when near to or over .05" (Table 2). (This question measures self-judged drink-driving only and does not attempt to identify illegal drink-driving. It is meant to be a broad measure of behaviour.)
Subjects were asked how important were each of a number of factors in their decision about drink-driving when near to or over .05 (Table 3). The two main risk factors - "fear of crashing" and "fear of being caught by RBT" - were rated similarly by men (around 60% saying very important), while women tended to rate crashing as more important (76% vs 60%). The other factors are consequences of being caught or crashing. Among these, "injuring someone else" is the most important for men and women, with "loss of licence" also important for men.
Typology of Drink-Drivers
A K-means cluster analysis (SPSS, 1992) was conducted to develop a typology of drink-drivers. The analysis was on male subjects, being the major drink-driving crash group.
A principle component analysis (SPSS, 1992) was conducted on a series of attitudes as a first step in reducing the number of variables. Some variables which were loaded on the main factors were combined so as not to give the common "factors" a high weighting in the cluster analysis. Eight attitudinal measures (collapsed to 3-point scales) were selected for the analysis as suitable for determining the typology. A four cluster solution was used (Table 4).
* = question in cluster analysis
The clusters appear to be categorised mainly on two axes: importance of factors in decisions about drink-driving and acceptance of .05 and countermeasures. An examination of the attitudinal profile and reported behaviour indicates interesting differences in risk-taking elements within the clusters.
Cluster 1 - "Believers" (higher fear, higher acceptance)
This group is the most accepting of drink-driving countermeasures and of .05, has the lowest proportion of frequent drinkers, and drank the least on the last drinking occasion. The group is highly motivated to comply with the law, based on importance both of crashing and of being caught, and has the lowest reported drink-driving.
Cluster 2 - "Pressured" (higher fear, lower acceptance)
This group reports high motivation to comply with the law. In comparison with Cluster 1, the group has a much lower acceptance of countermeasures and of .05, and reports a much higher level of social pressure not to "drink less than group". This profile suggests an element of potential risk-taking.
Cluster 3 - "Deterred" (lower fear, higher acceptance)
This group reports higher levels of agreement with countermeasures, although acceptance of .05 is not as high as in Cluster 1. The group is not as highly motivated to comply with the law (although loss of licence is very important) but in contrast with Clusters 1 and 2 the threat of RBT is rated higher than crashing, suggesting a lower level of self-motivation to comply.
Cluster 4 - "Opposers" (lower fear, lower acceptance)
This group consumed the most alcohol on the last drinking occasion and has the highest reported incidence of drink-driving. The group combines lower motivation to comply, lower agreement with countermeasures and the lowest acceptance of .05; and shares with Cluster 3 the pressure not to "drink less than group", and lower fear of crashing. While the group contains the highest risk elements, a much lower proportion drove home on the last occasion.
The survey results show a generally high acceptance of drink-driving countermeasures and strong public opposition to drink-driving in the context of the current laws.
The reported levels of exposure to RBT and perception of RBT have been achieved with an intensive RBT program. The typology of drivers based on drink-driving attitudes demonstrates the continuing role of RBT in deterring drink-driving.
Given the attitudes of the higher risk elements, the potential of the following types of strategies are indicated: implementing targetted enforcement activities to build on the threat of RBT; developing intervention strategies in drinking environments to influence behaviour; and marketing alternatives to drink-driving.
SPSS (1992). SPSS for Windows: professional statistics, release 5, SPSS Inc. Chicago, Ill.
Schaffer Library of Drug Policy
Major Studies of Drug and Drug Policy
Marihuana, A Signal of Misunderstanding - The Report of the US National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse
Licit and Illicit Drugs
Short History of the Marijuana Laws
The Drug Hang-Up
Congressional Transcripts of the Hearings for the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937
Frequently Asked Questions About Drugs
Basic Facts About the Drug War
Charts and Graphs about Drugs
Information on Alcohol
Guide to Heroin - Frequently Asked Questions About Heroin
LSD, Mescaline, and Psychedelics
Drugs and Driving
Children and Drugs
Drug Abuse Treatment Resource List
American Society for Action on Pain
Let Us Pay Taxes
Marijuana Business News
Reefer Madness Collection
Medical Marijuana Throughout History
Drug Legalization Debate
Legal History of American Marijuana Prohibition
Marijuana, the First 12,000 Years
DEA Ruling on Medical Marijuana
Legal References on Drugs
GAO Documents on Drugs
Response to the Drug Enforcement Agency
|Drug Information Articles|
Taking a drug test:
How To Pass A Drug Test
Beat Drug Test
Pass Drug Test
Drug Screening Tests
Drug Addiction Treatment