Drink and drug driving countermeasures have several similarities, yet also have a number of differences. To improve the effectiveness of these countermeasures, it is important to delineate the perceptions of both legal and non-legal factors between drink driving and drug driving. This study aimed to understand these differences and how legal and non-legal factors uniquely contribute to future intentions to engage in these illegal behaviours. A total of 546 licensed drivers who have a history of using both alcohol and drugs (marijuana, MDMA, and/or ice/speed) responded to an online survey that included legal deterrence measures as well as established measures of non-legal factors for both drink driving and drug driving. The non-legal factors included the fear of physical loss (e.g., fear of injuring yourself or others), social loss (e.g., social disapproval) and internal loss (e.g., guilt). Participants were more likely to report drug driving compared to drink driving, with a higher perceived chance of being caught for drink driving and more experience avoiding punishment for drug driving. Physical loss to others and internal loss were higher for drink driving. For both models, punishment avoidance was a significant predictor. Certainty of apprehension and severity punishment were only significant deterrents for drug driving, not drink driving. The threat of physical loss to oneself was a significant deterrent for drink driving, not drug driving. The results show that legal and non-legal deterrents are rated as lower for drug driving compared to drink driving, yet legal sanctions are still a deterrent for drug driving. Further, non-legal countermeasures are needed for both drink and drug driving that increase drivers’ perceived fear of physical loss to others, internal loss, and social sanctions associated with the behaviours.
AikenL. S.WestS. G.RenoR. R. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions.sage.
2.
AndenaesJ. (1974). Punishment and deterrence. University of Michigan Press.
3.
AndersonL.LoveS.FreemanJ.DaveyJ. (2021). Hit and miss: A comparison of targeted and randomised roadside drug testing (RDT). Policing: An International Journal, 44(6), 1154–1167. https://doi.org/10.1108/PIJPSM-07-2021-0090
4.
ArkellT. R.LintzerisN.MillsL.SuraevA.ArnoldJ. C.McGregorI. S. (2020). Driving-related behaviours, attitudes and perceptions among Australian medical cannabis users: Results from the CAMS 18-19 survey. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 148, 105784. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2020.105784
5.
ArmstrongK. A.WatlingC. N.DaveyJ. D. (2018). Deterrence of drug driving: The impact of the ACT drug driving legislation and detection techniques. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 54, 138–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2018.01.014
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2017). National drug strategy household survey 2016: detailed findings. Drug Statistics series no. 31. Cat. no. PHE 214. Canberra: AIHW.
8.
BeccariaC. (1764/2007). In R. Bellamy, R. Davies, V. Cox (Trans.) (Eds.), On crimes and punishments and other writings. Cambridge University Press.
9.
BorkensteinR. F.CrowtherF. R.ShumateR. P.ZielW. B.ZylmanR. (1964). The role of the drinking driver in traffic accidents. Department of Police Administration, Indiana University.
10.
BorkensteinR. F.CrowtherF. R.ShumateR. P.ZielW. B.ZylmanR. (1974). The role of the drinking driver in traffic accidents (The Grand Rapids Study). Blutalkohol, 11, Supplement 1.
11.
CameronM.NewsteadS.ClarkeB.ThompsonL. (2001). Modelling the crash effects of random and targeted roadside drug tests in Victoria, particularly on drug driving involving methylamphetamine. Proceedings of the 2021 Australasian Road Safety Conference.
12.
ChihuriS.LiG. (2017). Use of prescription opioids and motor vehicle crashes: A meta-analysis. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 109, 123–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2017.10.004
13.
DaveyJ.ArmstrongK.FreemanJ.ParkesA. (2020). Alcohol and illicit substances associated with fatal crashes in Queensland: An examination of the 2011 to 2015 Coroner’s findings. Forensic Science International, 312, 110190–110190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2020.110190
FieldA. P. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics: And sex and drugs and rock 'n' roll (4th ed.). Sage.
17.
FreemanJ.ParkesA.LewisN.DaveyJ. D.ArmstrongK. A.TrueloveV. (2020). Past behaviours and future intentions: An examination of perceptual deterrence and alcohol consumption upon a range of drink driving events. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 137, 105428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2019.105428
18.
FreemanJ.ParkesA.TrueloveV.LewisN.DaveyJ. D. (2021). Does seeing it make a difference? The self-reported deterrent impact of random breath testing. Journal of Safety Research, 76, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2020.09.013
19.
FreemanJ.SzogiE.TrueloveV.VingilisE. (2016). The law isn’t everything: The impact of legal and non-legal sanctions on motorists’ drink driving behaviors. Journal of Safety Research, 59, 53–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2016.10.001
20.
FreemanJ.WatsonB. (2006). An application of Stafford and Warr’s reconceptualisation of deterrence to a group of recidivist drink drivers. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 38(3), 462–471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2005.11.001
21.
Governors Highway Safety Association. (2018). Drug-impaired driving: Marijuana and opioids raise critical issues for states.https://www.ghsa.org/resources/DUID18
22.
HomelJ. (1988). Policing and punishing the drinking driver: A study of specific and general deterrence. New York.
LaceyJ. H., Kelley-Baker, T., Berning, A., Romano, E., Ramirez, A., Yao, J., Moore, C., Brainard, K., Carr, K., Pell, K., & Compton, R. (2016). Drug and alcohol crash risk: a case-control study [No. DOT HS 812 355]. United States National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Office of Behavioral Safety Research.
25.
LennéM. G.FryC. L. M.DietzeP.RumboldG. (2001). Attitudes and experiences of people who use cannabis and drive: Implications for drugs and driving legislation in Victoria, Australia. Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy, 8(4), 307–313. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687630110048061
26.
MarcotteT. D.UmlaufA.GrelottiD. J.SonesE.SoboleskyP.SmithB.HoffmanM.HubbardJ.SeversonJ.HuestisM.GrantI.FitzgeraldR. (2022). Driving performance and cannabis Users’ perception of safety: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Psychiatry, 79(3), 201–209. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2021.4037
27.
MillsL.FreemanJ.DaveyJ.DaveyB. (2021). The who, what and when of drug driving in Queensland: Analysing the results of roadside drug testing, 2015–2020. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 159, 106231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2021.106231
28.
MillsL.FreemanJ.ParkesA.DaveyJ. (2022). Do they need to be tested to be deterred? Exploring the impact of exposure to roadside drug testing on drug driving. Journal of Safety Research, 80, 362–370. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2021.12.017
29.
NaginD. S.SolowR. M.LumC. (2015). Deterrence, criminal opportunities, and police. Criminology; An Interdisciplinary Journal, 53(1), 74–100. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12057
30.
PaternosterR.PiqueroA. (1995). Reconceptualizing deterrence: An empirical test of personal and vicarious experiences. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 32, 251–286. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427895032003001
31.
PiqueroA.PaternosterR. (1998). An application of Stafford and Warr’s reconceptualization of deterrence to drinking and driving. The Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 35(1), 3–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427898035001001
32.
PiqueroA. R.PaternosterR.PogarskyG.LoughranT. (2011). Elaborating the individual difference component in deterrence theory. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 7, 335–360. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-102510-105404
33.
PiqueroA. R.PogarskyG. (2002). Beyond Stafford and Warr’s reconceptualization of deterrence: Personal and vicarious experiences, impulsivity, and offending behavior. The Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 39(2), 153–186. https://doi.org/10.1177/002242780203900202
SitrenA. H.ApplegateB. K. (2007). Testing the deterrent effects of personal and vicarious experience with punishment and punishment avoidance. Deviant Behavior, 28(1), 29–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639620600887261
39.
StaffordM. C.WarrM. (1993). A reconceptualization of general and specific deterrence. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30(2), 123–135. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427893030002001
40.
SwiftW.JonesC.DonnellyN. (2010). Cannabis use while driving: A descriptive study of Australian cannabis users. Drugs: Education. Prevention and Policy, 17(5), 573–586. https://doi.org/10.3109/09687630903264286
41.
SzogiE.DarvellM.FreemanJ.TrueloveV.PalkG.DaveyJ.ArmstrongK. (2017). Does getting away with it count? An application of Stafford and Warr’s reconceptualised model of deterrence to drink driving. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 108, 261–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2017.08.006
42.
WatlingC. N.PalkG. R.FreemanJ. E.DaveyJ. D. (2010). Applying Stafford and Warr’s reconceptualization of deterrence theory to drug driving: Can it predict those likely to offend?Accident Analysis and Prevention, 42(2), 452–458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2009.09.007
43.
WestonL.HellierE. (2018). Designing road safety interventions for young drivers – The power of peer influence. Transportation Research. Part F, Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 55, 262–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2018.03.003
44.
WickensC. M.WatsonT. M.MannR. E.BrandsB. (2019). Exploring perceptions among people who drive after cannabis use: Collision risk, comparative optimism and normative influence. Drug and Alcohol Review, 38(4), 443–451. https://doi.org/10.1111/dar.12923
45.
World Health Organization. (2018). Global status report on road safety 2018. World Health Organization. Licence: CC BYNC-SA 3.0 IGO.
46.
ZimringF.HawkinsG. (1973). Deterrence: The legal threat in crime control. The University of Chicago Press.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
