Drink Driving Offenders in a rural transport Community methodology

Face-to-face interviews were used to assess knowledge, attitudinal and lifestyle factors among drink driving offenders. Offenders who participated in this study were 149 drink drivers appearing before a Central Queensland court on a drink driving charge between January and September 1997. Offenders were interviewed on the day of their court appearance in one of three courthouses located in the intervention region.

The interview schedule included measures identified in the literature as potentially contributing to recidivism. These were:

* socio-demography of the offender sample including age, gender, marital status, education, employment status, and licence type.
* hearing outcomes of the offenders drink driving court appearance - suspension periods, fines, other offences heard on the same day, and the BAC reading for the drink driving offence.
* offenders prior criminal and traffic history
* questions pertaining to knowledge, attitudes and drink driving behaviours
* alcohol consumption
* mental health status, social support and self-esteem

Normative data for the Mental Health and Social Support scales was obtained by surveying a sample of TAFE students from the Central Queensland region.

Because gender is considered to be an important variable in drink driving behaviours, all analyses were examined for gender differences.

Socio-demographic Characteristics of Rural Offenders

Drink driving offenders had a mean age of 31 years, were mostly male and single, with a greater proportion being of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander background than in the regional population. Few offenders were educated beyond the Year 12 standard, with the majority having only completed the junior level of education.

At the time of their interview, the majority (58%) of offenders were employed and many of these were in full-time employment.

Their income distribution was bimodal with peaks at the less than $12,000 and $20,001 to $35,000 income levels. The majority of offenders were in the former income category, with most of those offenders being unemployed and/or on pensions. The latter income group represented the median income for offenders in paid employment.

Most offenders, at the time of their court appearance, were holders of an open licence.

The typology of the rural drink driving offender in Central Queensland is similar to typologies found in other jurisdictions. The rural Australian sample were somewhat more likely to be drawn from the older 25-34 year age group and to be unemployed and receiving a relevant pension.
Hearing Outcomes

Offenders in this study generally had high BAC readings for their current drink driving offence, with over one-third of the sample having a BAC reading above 0.15gm/100ml.

Long licence disqualification periods (mean = 8.8 months) were administered for the drink driving offence with the longest periods being administered to offenders with higher BAC readings.

Offenders who undertook the UTL program as part of their rehabilitation generally had their fine waived or reduced. As a result, fines for this group of offenders were substantially lower than the fines administered to offenders who stayed within the mainstream sentencing procedures.

Traffic and criminal history

Offenders had an extensive history of criminal and traffic offences. Many offenders at the time of their court appearance were also appearing for offences in addition to the drink driving charge, mainly unlicensed or disqualified driving. Approximately one-fifth of the total sample had been charged for drink driving at least once in the 5 years prior to their interview.

One-quarter of offenders had also been charged for criminal offences in the 5 years prior to their interview, mostly "public order" and "offence against property" crimes.
Knowledge

While knowledge of legal BACs was fairly high among offenders, especially with respect to open licensed drivers, knowledge of the number of drinks required to place an individual over this legal limit was quite low.

Inaccurate knowledge of the effects that alcohol has on the body appears quite high and indicates that inaccurate knowledge may be one contributing factor to the level of drink driving by this group.

Face-to-face interviews were used to assess knowledge, attitudinal and lifestyle factors among drink driving offenders. Offenders who participated in this study were 149 drink drivers appearing before a Central Queensland court on a drink driving charge between January and September 1997. Offenders were interviewed on the day of their court appearance in one of three courthouses located in the intervention region.
The interview schedule included measures identified in the literature as potentially contributing to recidivism. These were:

• socio-demography of the offender sample including age, gender, marital status, education, employment status, and licence type.
• hearing outcomes of the offenders drink driving court appearance - suspension periods, fines, other offences heard on the same day, and the BAC reading for the drink driving offence.
• offenders prior criminal and traffic history
• questions pertaining to knowledge, attitudes and drink driving behaviours
• alcohol consumption
• mental health status, social support and self-esteem

Normative data for the Mental Health and Social Support scales was obtained by surveying a sample of TAFE students from the Central Queensland region.
Because gender is considered to be an important variable in drink driving behaviours, all analyses were examined for gender differences.

Socio-demographic Characteristics of Rural Offenders

Drink driving offenders had a mean age of 31 years, were mostly male and single, with a greater proportion being of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander background than in the regional population. Few offenders were educated beyond the Year 12 standard, with the majority having only completed the junior level of education.
At the time of their interview, the majority (58%) of offenders were employed and many of these were in full-time employment.
Their income distribution was bimodal with peaks at the less than $12,000 and $20,001 to $35,000 income levels. The majority of offenders were in the former income category, with most of those offenders being unemployed and/or on pensions. The latter income group represented the median income for offenders in paid employment.
Most offenders, at the time of their court appearance, were holders of an open licence.
The typology of the rural drink driving offender in Central Queensland is similar to typologies found in other jurisdictions. The rural Australian sample were somewhat more likely to be drawn from the older 25-34 year age group and to be unemployed and receiving a relevant pension.

Hearing Outcomes

Offenders in this study generally had high BAC readings for their current drink driving offence, with over one-third of the sample having a BAC reading above 0.15gm/100ml.
Long licence disqualification periods (mean = 8.8 months) were administered for the drink driving offence with the longest periods being administered to offenders with higher BAC readings.
Offenders who undertook the UTL program as part of their rehabilitation generally had their fine waived or reduced. As a result, fines for this group of offenders were substantially lower than the fines administered to offenders who stayed within the mainstream sentencing procedures.

Traffic and criminal history

Offenders had an extensive history of criminal and traffic offences. Many offenders at the time of their court appearance were also appearing for offences in addition to the drink driving charge, mainly unlicensed or disqualified driving. Approximately one-fifth of the total sample had been charged for drink driving at least once in the 5 years prior to their interview.
One-quarter of offenders had also been charged for criminal offences in the 5 years prior to their interview, mostly "public order" and "offence against property" crimes.

Knowledge

While knowledge of legal BACs was fairly high among offenders, especially with respect to open licensed drivers, knowledge of the number of drinks required to place an individual over this legal limit was quite low.
Inaccurate knowledge of the effects that alcohol has on the body appears quite high and indicates that inaccurate knowledge may be one contributing factor to the level of drink driving by this group.

Attitudes

Some offenders demonstrated deviant attitudes toward drink driving with many believing that drink driving behaviours are common. There was a strong belief that harsher laws against drink driving are not needed.
For many offenders, licence disqualification was considered a reasonable punishment for drink driving offences, while jail terms were seen in a less favourable light.
Although many offenders believed there is no excuse for drink driving, approximately half the sample indicated that they would still drive after consuming enough alcohol to place them over the limit.
Many offenders believed that if they drove while over the limit they would be picked up for drink driving.

Behavioural Intentions

Many offenders indicated that they would adopt new drinking and driving strategies in order to reduce the likelihood of re-offending.
The sample as a whole indicated that "taking a taxi" and "having a driver that does not drink" were the most viable alternatives to drink driving in the future.
The offender sample were least likely to agree to "drink lite beer" and to "avoid shouts".
In general, offenders were more likely to prefer changing their driving habits to changing their drinking habits to avoid future drink driving episodes.

Self-report behaviours

Self-reported alcohol consumption levels within the offender sample were high, with the highest consumption over a weekend period occurring on Fridays and Saturdays.
The level of self-reported drink driving was high with over two-fifths of the sample reporting drink driving more than once in the last 6 months.

Mental Health and Social Support

The level of mental health experienced by offenders in this sample was high but did not differ to normative levels. Social support, as measured by the Social Support Appraisals Scale, for offenders in this sample was generally high. Male offenders reported receiving more support from friends than males in the normative sample.
Support from family members appeared greater than support from friends or others in the social network of an offender. Self-esteem support and tangible support received by the offender sample were high, but in most cases did not differ from the normative data.
Males in the offender sample were found to have higher self-esteem support than males in the normative sample. Differences in the variables that influence self-esteem support for the offender and normative samples may be the cause of the higher self-esteem support experienced by male offenders. For offenders, Self-esteem Support scores were mostly related to support from others, while for the normative sample, mental health was the most important predictor of self-esteem support. That is, self-esteem support appears to be related to extrinsic sources for offenders and intrinsic sources for the normative sample.

Risk of alcohol problems and readiness to change

The risk of alcohol problems within the offender sample was high with many offenders being at moderate-to-high risk of alcohol problems.
Compared to the regional population, the offender sample was at higher risk of alcohol dependence. Problems with alcohol are a central or defining characteristic of many of these drink driving offenders.
The number of offenders who indicated that they were in the process of changing their drinking habits was similar to the number of offenders who were denying a problem exists.
Many of the offenders who were classified as being most at risk of alcohol dependence were not aware of their alcohol problem and were not taking action to change it.


Some offenders demonstrated deviant attitudes toward drink driving with many believing that drink driving behaviours are common. There was a strong belief that harsher laws against drink driving are not needed.

For many offenders, licence disqualification was considered a reasonable punishment for drink driving offences, while jail terms were seen in a less favourable light.

Although many offenders believed there is no excuse for drink driving, approximately half the sample indicated that they would still drive after consuming enough alcohol to place them over the limit.

Many offenders believed that if they drove while over the limit they would be picked up for drink driving.

Behavioural Intentions

Many offenders indicated that they would adopt new drinking and driving strategies in order to reduce the likelihood of re-offending.

The sample as a whole indicated that "taking a taxi" and "having a driver that does not drink" were the most viable alternatives to drink driving in the future.

The offender sample were least likely to agree to "drink lite beer" and to "avoid shouts".

In general, offenders were more likely to prefer changing their driving habits to changing their drinking habits to avoid future drink driving episodes.
Self-report behaviours

Self-reported alcohol consumption levels within the offender sample were high, with the highest consumption over a weekend period occurring on Fridays and Saturdays.

The level of self-reported drink driving was high with over two-fifths of the sample reporting drink driving more than once in the last 6 months.

Mental Health and Social Support

The level of mental health experienced by offenders in this sample was high but did not differ to normative levels. Social support, as measured by the Social Support Appraisals Scale, for offenders in this sample was generally high. Male offenders reported receiving more support from friends than males in the normative sample.

Support from family members appeared greater than support from friends or others in the social network of an offender. Self-esteem support and tangible support received by the offender sample were high, but in most cases did not differ from the normative data.

Males in the offender sample were found to have higher self-esteem support than males in the normative sample. Differences in the variables that influence self-esteem support for the offender and normative samples may be the cause of the higher self-esteem support experienced by male offenders. For offenders, Self-esteem Support scores were mostly related to support from others, while for the normative sample, mental health was the most important predictor of self-esteem support. That is, self-esteem support appears to be related to extrinsic sources for offenders and intrinsic sources for the normative sample.

Risk of alcohol problems and readiness to change

The risk of alcohol problems within the offender sample was high with many offenders being at moderate-to-high risk of alcohol problems.

Compared to the regional population, the offender sample was at higher risk of alcohol dependence. Problems with alcohol are a central or defining characteristic of many of these drink driving offenders.

The number of offenders who indicated that they were in the process of changing their drinking habits was similar to the number of offenders who were denying a problem exists.

Many of the offenders who were classified as being most at risk of alcohol dependence were not aware of their alcohol problem and were not taking action to change it.

Community Attitudes to Road Transport Safety Demographic comparisons

Age groups

The research clearly shows that age is the main predictor of how frequently drivers exceed the speed limit. One in five of the 15 - 24 year old age group admits to exceeding the speed limit often, compared with one in ten aged 25 - 59 and less than one in twenty in the 60 plus age group.

The youngest group surveyed, 15 - 24 years of age, is still more focused on alcohol (60%) as a road safety issue than speed (53%). Also, they are the most likely to say that they don't drink if they are going to drive (53%), against the average of 40%. People in this age group who do drink remain the most interested in using a self-operated breath testing machine,with 56% (47% in CAS 12) saying 'very likely' in comparison to the national average of 37%. The research has shown an increased interest this year in using a selfoperated breath testing machine, up from 28% (CAS 12) to 37%.

Male: Female

Consistent with previous surveys in this series, CAS 13 shows a marked difference in attitudes between females and males when it comes to speeding and drink driving.

More females than males again place speed as the main cause of road crashes (42% v 33%) and think that there should be strict enforcement of speed limits for 60 km/h zones (54% v 42%) and for 100 km/h zones (40% v 25%). Fewer females than males believe it is okay to exceed the speed limit if you are driving safely (27% to 40% of males), with females being more likely to say they never drive at 10 km/h or more over the posted speed limit (25% v 15%).

These attitudes are consistent with the finding that fewer females (16%) than males (24%) said they had been booked for speeding in the last two years.

Females who hold a driver's licence are significantly more likely than males to say they do not drink at any time (23% of females, 13% of males). A larger proportion of female licence holders (44%) than males (36%) say that they do not drink before they drive. Females are still less likely than males to be aware of the correct guidelines for alcohol consumption by their sex, particularly for the first hour.

In the context of being a pedestrian, females (61%) are significantly more likely than males (45%) to think that having a BAC over .05 would affect their ability to act safely as a pedestrian.

City: Rural

While speed and drink driving continue to be nominated as crash causes at a similar frequency in both capital cities and rural locations, fatigue is once again a factor of which the non-metropolitan community is more aware (38% compared with 26% in the cities).


Consistent with previous years, though again at lower levels, residents in nonmetropolitan areas (43%) are more likely than those residing in the cities (35%) to believe RBT activity has increased. The community in non-metropolitan areas is also slightly more likely to have noticed an increase in speed enforcement (66% v 60%) and a rise in occupant restraint enforcement (32% v 26%).

People in capital cities are significantly more inclined to report being booked for speeding in the past two years (22% v 16% elsewhere). Those living outside the cities are more likely to want 60 km/h zones in urban areas strictly enforced.

The likelihood of always wearing occupant restraints (both front and rear) is still higher in the cities, although the likelihood of wearing the rear belt has improved this year.

Evaluating a regulated Transport hours regime on-road and an alternative compliance

There is considerable evidence that for professional long distance drivers, fatigue is a major problem that is not being adequately addressed by current working hours regulations. Alternative approaches to fatigue management have been proposed and are in operation in Queensland, however these approaches have been hampered by a lack of specific evidence on what represents an effective work-rest schedule for managing fatigue.

In this project, so far, two work-rest schedules were chosen to examine their effects on fatigue and performance capacity. The first study looked at the influence of working the current working hours regulatory regime on fatigue and performance. This was designed to provide a baseline for comparison with alternative approaches to work-rest scheduling. The second study looked at an alternative work-rest schedule that involved drivers doing significantly longer trips than permitted under the regulatory regime. The first study was an on-road study where fatigue and performance were measured at intervals while drivers were working. In contrast, the second study was conducted as a simulation as the work-rest schedule being evaluated in this study contravened the working hours regulations. The simulation involved drivers going through all aspects of the trip, but not on the road.

The results of the first study showed that drivers working under the regulated hours regime did not report particularly high levels of fatigue over a work day nor over a work week. Over the first single shift these findings were mirrored by performance effects. There was no clear evidence of performance deterioration in this group of drivers whose trip lasted on average between 13 and 14 hours. The results suggest also that for a single trip of this length the effects on performance are the same for day and night work, provided drivers had a long rest immediately before the trip.

Over the work week, performance results were also much like the fatigue results since performance remained at much the same level as it had been at the beginning of the trip. There was, however, some performance deterioration across the week in the ability to pick up infrequent visual signals. The results of the Mackworth Vigilance test showed a significantly greater number of missed signals at the end of the week compared to the beginning. Compared to the performance standard developed against alcohol effects in the earlier laboratory studies (CR 189), this level of decrement was not sufficiently large to be of concern for safety. Nevertheless, it was concluded that this result is likely to be an early warning of more significant performance deteriorations that would occur in work-schedules with longer work periods and less rest over the work week.

Where the regulated regime study showed no changes of immediate concern, the results of the simulation study showed significant deterioration in fatigue and performance over the much longer trip. Furthermore, performance was significantly poorer than found for the laboratory-based alcohol standard for 0.05%BAC, thus leading to the conclusion that this trip would not be safe if it were conducted on the road. The long trips that were done in the simulation showed high levels of fatigue and clear effects on performance that would be very likely to affect driving, particularly affecting drivers' ability to pick up signals. The simulation trip also showed the consequence of not balancing rest with work demands in very long trips since after the second long day of work and with only around six hours overnight sleep, drivers did not recover and performance effects occurred very soon after starting the third day.

This conclusion was supported by the findings of the on-road study of consistent relationships between work, rest, fatigue and performance over a work shift and over the work week. Over a work shift, both fatigue and performance were positively related to the number of hours worked indicating that controlling the length of the work shift is appropriate for managing fatigue over a single shift. The results of this study do not allow us to be specific about the maximum number of hours that can be done with safety. The simulation study suggested that up to 16 hours of work may be done by rested drivers without producing significant adverse effects on performance, but that such a long shift cannot be sustained for longer than one shift. This finding needs to be replicated on the road as overall performance levels in this simulation were considerably poorer than expected.

From the on-road study, over a work week control of fatigue and safe performance were related to the steps drivers took to manage fatigue even at quite low levels of fatigue. Drivers who took more breaks and obtained more sleep had lower fatigue and showed better performance. The simulation revealed that recovery from fatigue is dependent on the accumulated level of fatigue and that recovery may not occur when too much fatigue had accumulated and insufficient recovery time was allowed. So it seems from these results that in the longer term, effective fatigue management should emphasise rest-taking rather than necessarily only limiting the length of the work shift.

These studies also provide a model for evaluating the effects of long hours on fatigue and performance. Using a set of performance tests that have demonstrated sensitivity for fatigue, based on laboratory results, allows interpretation of the meaning of the results for safety. Because the tests have been standardised, it is possible to conclude from the results of the working hours regime evaluation that the small performance change across the work week did not compromise safety, but from the extended trip simulation it must be concluded that performance during that trip would be highly likely to be unsafe.

A number of issues have not been resolved from these studies. While the results suggest that trips of around 14 hours and possibly even up to 16 hours do not compromise safe performance for rested drivers, it was not possible for this report to look at changes in performance within the trip. This issue needs to be addressed further. Similarly, the results of the on-road working hours regime study showed only very moderate effects on performance, but most drivers in this study did considerably shorter total weekly hours than are allowed by the working hours regulations. From these results it is not possible to suggest what the effects of longer weekly hours would be.

Clearly then, the results of these studies have shed light on the relative effects of a number of important aspects of the working hours regime on fatigue and safe performance. Not surprisingly, a number of issues need further clarification, but the results of these studies also show that we now have an effective method for evaluating the effects of work-rest scheduling on fatigue and performance.

Conclusions

These studies were important for three reasons. Most notably, these findings provide evidence about the effectiveness of two different work-rest regimes and suggest some general principles for the management of fatigue. The results showed that trips that are conducted under the current working hours regime of up to 14 hours allowable in each trip, do not produce significant levels of fatigue nor significant adverse effects on performance. The results of both studies show, however, that increasing hours of work produce both fatigue and poorer performance, even over the week. Further work is needed to be specific about how many hours work can be done and still remain safe. The simulation study suggests that up to 16 hours of work may be done without producing significant adverse effects on performance, but that such a long trip cannot be sustained for longer than one trip. This finding needs to be replicated on the road as overall performance levels in this simulation were considerably poorer than expected.

These studies also showed the importance of taking into account the effects of accumulation of fatigue over consecutive trips. The simulation revealed that recovery from fatigue is dependent on the accumulated level of fatigue and that recovery may not even occur when too much fatigue has accumulated. The on-road study showed that even at relatively low levels of fatigue, the amount of sleep and the number of breaks determine fatigue and performance. The results imply that management of chronic fatigue will be achieved best by controlling the amount and pattern of rest breaks rather than simply the number of working hours permitted.

The second reason that these findings are important is that the observed performance effects are of relevance to driving. Performance functions, such as reaction speed and the ability to consistently react quickly, and the ability to detect infrequent signals, were affected most by work-rest experiences and fatigue. Decrements in these types of functions are certainly likely to affect driving ability. It is also significant that the same performance effects, increases in the number of missed signals in the Mackworth Vigilance test and more variable reaction speed in the Simple Reaction Time test, were found across work periods in both studies. This suggests that these functions are most sensitive to fatigue.

Lastly, these studies are important because they demonstrate a method for systematically evaluating the effects of different work-rest patterns on fatigue and performance. One of the major problems for management of fatigue in the long distance road transport industry has been a lack of scientific evidence for recommending effective limits for work or patterning of rest. The results of these studies and of the previous laboratory study demonstrate a method that is sensitive enough to pick up effects of variations in the work-rest schedule and variations in fatigue levels. This method will therefore enable informed judgements to be made about how work and rest can be arranged to reduce the problem of driver fatigue. This method can be applied to assess other work-rest schedules, to evaluate their effectiveness for managing fatigue and to develop alternative schedules where a particular schedule is shown to be ineffective.

Bull bars and Road Transport Trauma

Road safety barriers are designed to enhance the safety of the road infrastructure by containing errant vehicles and reducing the severity of off-path collisions. Experience indicates that conventional barrier systems used in accordance with specific guidelines have performed well in protecting the occupants of passenger cars. However, their effects on the safety of motorcyclists, is somewhat problematic. Given the limited available information on motorcycle-barrier interactions, and the lack of established procedures for motorcycle crash-testing, ATSB commissioned a preliminary investigation of relevant issues. This report is the principal output of these preliminary investigations.

The main purpose of this initial work was to recommend a research method for investigating the interactions between motorcycles and road safety barriers. Specific objectives were to:

* identify barrier design issues likely to impact on motorcycle rider safety;
* identify relevant rider injury mechanisms;
* identify and assess the feasibility of research methods for investigating interactions between motorcycles and safety barriers;
* recommend a research program, addressing the overall aims described above.