Summary

Alcohol is a drug which effects the central nervous system and its use by motorists can lead to significant road safety problems because it impairs driving performance. Driving whilst under the influence of alcohol is regarded as being the single largest cause of road accident fatalities. It has been estimated that over 30% of all road fatalities and serious injuries involve at least one driver who was impaired by alcohol. The magnitude of the problem is evident from estimates relating to the number of alcohol impaired drivers in the traffic stream which range from between 0.2% to 8%.

In many countries the control of drink driving behaviour relies heavily on the criminal justice system. Traditional drink driving countermeasure place the emphasis on the individual road user to separate drinking and driving activities. Education and publicity have ensured that the combination of drinking and driving is regarded by society as being an unacceptable form of road user behaviour. However, the use of enforcement is generally regarded as being the most effective means of deterring the level of drink driving behaviour.

The effectiveness of drink driving enforcement is dependent on the legislation which governs the manner in which police can target and deter drink driving behaviour. Legislation needs to be structured in such a way so as to allow for the development of

enforcement strategies which can generate a high level of perceived apprehension risk. The most effective form of legislation is that which allows police to test motorists for alcohol impairment based upon the actual level of alcohol consumed. Legislation based upon behavioural impairment, in which the emphasis is placed on the police to prove that driving behaviour is significantly impaired, has only a minimal impact on reducing the level of drink driving behaviour.

The power of police to stop motorists is also an important factor which can determine the effectiveness of drink driving enforcement operations. Legislation allowing police to stop and test drivers only on the basis of obvious behavioural impairment has been shown to have only a minimal deterrent effect. The use of roadblock or sobriety checkpoints which allow police to stop drivers regardless of whether signs of alcohol impairment are present can be an effective means of deterring drink driving behaviour. However, the decision to administer a test is still dependent on the subjective judgement of the police and the fact that a large number of impaired drivers (up to 50%) can avoid being tested reduces the level of perceived apprehension risk.

The most effective legislation is that which allows police to randomly stop and test any driver for alcohol impairment. These type of enforcement operations, commonly referred to as random breath testing, have the greatest potential to deter drink driving behaviour and reduce the level of alcohol related fatalities and injuries. To maximise the benefits of such enforcement operations it is essential that a large proportion of drivers are stopped and ALL are tested for alcohol impairment. Enforcement operations should also be highly visible, accompanied by sustained high levels of publicity, rotated among numerous FIXED locations and undertaken for no longer than a one hour period at each location. These requirements maximise the perceived risk of apprehension by creating an awareness among road users that enforcement is highly active and can be encountered at any time and any place.

The most effective random breath testing operations are those which are highly intensive and maintained over a long period of time. These type of enforcement operations are cost effective in terms of their accident reduction potential but are extremely resource intensive. The strategic deployment of less intensive random breath testing operations may provide a more cost effective enforcement option, however, the accident reduction potential may be somewhat reduced. Examples of strategic deployment operations include the use of periodic, intensive enforcement 'blitzes' and the use of targeted enforcement programs which involve less intensive activities during low alcohol hours (the focus is on enforcement visibility) and more intensive activities during high alcohol hours (the focus is on apprehension).

The use of publicity can significantly increase the effectiveness of drink driving enforcement operations. Publicity is most effective when it is designed specifically to raise awareness of the likelihood and inevitability of apprehension as well as the severe consequences in terms of both punishment and increased accident risk. Publicity as a stand alone measure can initially bring about substantial reductions in drink driving behaviour, however, such benefits are usually only short term.

Passive alcohol sensors can also increase the efficiency of roadside testing operations. They provide a quick and relatively effective means of screening road users for the presence of alcohol. The use of these devices can ensure that the delay to motorists, due to roadside stopping and testing procedures, is minimal. The reduction in roadside stopping time also increases the capacity of police to screen a greater proportion of drivers. These

devices are relatively inexpensive and many existing alcohol screening devices can be used as both a passive and active alcohol sensor.

There are a range of legal sanctions that can be administered to the drink driver. These sanctions are usually quite severe, reflecting the low social acceptability and high risk nature of drink driving behaviour. However, the most severe drink driving sanction, that of imprisonment, has been found to have only a minimal impact on recidivism rates. The most effective drink driving sanction is the combined use of fines and licence actions such as suspension and revocation. The deterrence potential of licence actions has been well documented and they not only provide a means of punishing offenders but can also improve the level of road safety by removing potentially high risk drivers from the traffic stream.

There can often be long delays between the time a drink driving offender is apprehended and the imposition of licensing sanctions by the courts. The use of roadside licence suspensions provides a means of significantly increasing the immediacy and certainty of punishment. The particular use of such sanctions for drivers apprehended with relatively low blood alcohol levels (up to 0.02g/100ml above the legal limit) has the potential to reduce the time-consuming tasks associated with arrest procedures as well as the high costs associated with adjudication.

The introduction of special legislation for more high risk road users can be an effective means of reducing the level of alcohol related accidents. Young drivers are a particular group of road users that have been shown to have a significantly higher alcohol related accident risk than that of older drivers (> 25). The introduction of lower blood alcohol concentration (BAC) limits for young drivers during their first three years of licensure has been shown to be an effective drink driving countermeasure. Lower BAC limits for road users who have a higher traffic exposure as well as special risks and responsibilities (drivers of heavy vehicles and public passenger vehicles) may also warrant further consideration.

The fitment of alcohol ignition interlocks in the vehicles of recidivist drink drivers is one countermeasure that has considerable potential. The use of these devices has been shown to be an extremely effective means of reducing the level of alcohol impaired driving behaviour among convicted drink driving offenders. The main benefit of this type of device is that it bypasses any decision-making requirement by the drink driver and targets the vehicle as a point of intervention. One problem with early model interlock devices was that they could be easily bypassed, however, increasingly stringent Government requirements have resulted in the development of new tamper-proof devices.

A less costly alternative to the fitment of an ignition interlock is the use of some type of vehicle monitoring device. These devices provide a means of ensuring that offenders adhere to the driving restrictions imposed by the courts, and have been shown to be an effective means of reducing the level of illegal driving during licence suspension periods. These devices have a particular application in jurisdictions were courts can provide offenders with a special licence that allows them to use their vehicle for work related reasons.

Traffic law enforcement should never be relied upon as the sole means of modifying drink driving behaviour. There are a range of other preventative strategies that can be used in conjunction with enforcement to target the problem of alcohol impaired driving. The implementation of alcohol control policies and taxation measures, designed specifically to

reduce the availability of alcohol as well as the total amount consumed, have been shown to have the potential to significantly reduce the level of alcohol impaired driving.

Server intervention programs are designed to place a greater emphasis on those who sell and serve alcohol to be more responsible for their actions and have more control over the drinking environment. These programs are generally popular with patrons, can increase profitability for establishments and have been shown to significantly reduce the number of customers who become legally intoxicated. These programs can result in less drink drivers and can also reduce the level of alcohol impaired pedestrians.

The increased availability of public and personal breath testing devices provides a means of allowing drivers to obtain an indication of their alcohol consumption level. The installation of coin operated breath testing devices in drinking establishments has been shown to change driving intentions if a reading over the legal BAC limit is registered. A large proportion of drinking occurs at locations where coin operated testing devices are not available. The provision of some form of self-assessment device may also have the potential to lead to less drink driving behaviour.

4. ENFORCEMENT OF SPEEDING MOTORISTS