Examining the differences in perceived legal and non-legal factors between drink driving and drug driving
| Author | Verity Truelove,Benjamin Davey,Natalie Watson-Brown |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/26338076221114481 |
| Published date | 01 March 2023 |
| Date | 01 March 2023 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Examining the differences in
perceived legal and non-legal
factors between drink driving
and drug driving
Verity Truelove and Benjamin Davey
Road Safety Research Collaboration, School of Law and Society,
University of the Sunshine Coast, Queensland, Australia
Natalie Watson-Brown
Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Centre for Accident
Research and Road Safety –Queensland (CARRS-Q), Queensland,
Australia
Abstract
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 delin-
eate the perceptions of both legal and non-legal factors between drink driving and drug driv-
ing. 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 fearof 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,
Corresponding author:
Verity Truelove, Road Safety Research Collaboration, School of Law and Society, University of the Sunshine Coast,
90 Sippy Downs Dr, Sippy Downs, Queensland 4556, Australia.
Email: vtruelove@usc.edu.au
Article
Journal of Criminology
2023, Vol. 56(1) 59–77
© The Author(s) 2022
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/26338076221114481
journals.sagepub.com/home/anj
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.
Keywords
Deterrence, drink driving, drug driving, random breath testing, roadside drug testing
Date received: 13 December 2021; accepted: 27 June 2022
Introduction
Driving under the influence of drugs and alcohol is widely considered to be a major public health
concern that is responsible for thousands of avoidable deaths (World Health Organization, 2018).
Over 20 per cent of fatalities across the globe (including but not limited to Australia, Canada,
Austria, Cambodia, Norway, United States, United Kingdom) have been attributed to drink
driving (International Transport Forum, 2017). More recently, in Queensland, Australia (where
this study took place), over 22 per cent of fatalities in 2020 were attributed to drink driving motor-
ists (Queensland Government, 2022). Driving under the influence impacts judgment, reflexes, lane
positioning, and vision, which increases crash risk, dependent on blood alcohol content (BAC)
(Queensland Government, 2022). For instance, driving with a BAC of more than 0.10 increases
crash risk up to 70 per cent (Department of Transport and Main Roads, 2015).
In terms of drug driving, it has been reported that over 15 per cent of Australian drivers’
have driven under the influence of drugs (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2017).
Further, in Queensland between 2011 and 2015, 48 per cent of road crash fatalities had illicit
drugs detected in their system (Davey et al., 2020). Clearly, drug driving is a prominent issue in
Australia,with 1in5randomdrugtestsbeingpositive(Andersonetal.,2021).Yet,evenmorecon-
cerning is the increased crash risk upwards of 35 per cent when driving under the influence of drugs
(Chihuri & Li, 2017; Governors Highway Safety Association, 2018). Taken together, the current lit-
erature provides strong evidence that drink and drug driving pose a major risk to road safety in
Australia and throughout the world. As a result, Australian officials have implemented strong
enforcement initiatives in the form of random breath testing (RBT) and roadside drug testing
(RDT). These enforcement programs have been considered to be the most intensive worldwide
(Davey & Sheldrake, 2017). RBT operations involve police officers stopping vehicles at any time
of the day or night for either a mobile or static roadside breath test and measuring if drivers are
above the legal blood alcohol limit (in Australia, this limit is .05; Australian Government
Department of Health, 2021). Meanwhile, RDTs can also occur at mobile or static roadside
testing sites and consist of a police officer obtaining a mandatory saliva sample which is analysed
for the presence of select drugs. However, drug testing is more expensive and time consuming
than breath testing which has resulted in RDTs being more targeted (Davey & Sheldrake, 2017)
and occurring less frequently than RBTs. For example, according to the Queensland Police 2018–
2019 Annual Report (Queensland Government, 2019), over 2.66 million random breath tests were
conducting during the reporting period, detecting more than 16,000 drink driving offences.
However, only 70,000 roadside drug tests were conducted in the same period, with approximately
one in five drivers testing positive.
60 Journal of Criminology 56(1)
To continue reading
Request your trial