Disseny gràfic i interfícies

A number of studies have noted some of the common characteristics of drink driving offenders, generally defined in the research as those who are convicted of at least one drink driving offence. Drink drivers are not a homogenous group in terms of characteristics or reasons for reoffending. In a comprehensive review of relevant literature up to the date of publication, Nochajski and Stasiewicz (2006) concluded that simple models relying on only a few domains to explain drink driving relapse are insufficient, and the interplay of legal, social and psychological factors must be taken into account in order to understand the complex nature of reoffending and

heterogeneity within drink driver subgroups. Drink drivers offend for a number of reasons. In one community sample, of those who self-reported drink driving and provided a reason for drink driving (where the majority did not provide any reason), the main reasons given were feeling ok to drive, only needing to travel a short distance, believing they were just over the legal limit, and not wanting to leave their car at the premises (Freeman & Watson, 2009).

The following section provides a summary of a number of frequently researched characteristics of drink drivers.

2.6.1 Demographics

It is well known that the vast majority of drink driving offenders are male, and also that alcohol related crashes are more likely to involve male drivers than females (Kelley-Baker & Romano, 2010; Morrison, Begg, & Langley, 2002). While the number of female drink drivers convicted in recent years has increased in many

motorised countries, including Australia, they generally still represent less than a quarter of drink driving offenders in offence data (Armstrong, Watling, Watson, &

Davey, 2014). The increase in conviction rates for females may be a reflection of the increased consumption of alcohol in the female population (ABS, 2004/2005), as well as other factors such as the increase in drinks marketed towards women (for example, premixes and low calorie/sugar beverages). Interestingly, some research has found that once women incur a first offence for alcohol-impaired driving, men and women are at a similar risk of being convicted for a second offence (Rauch et al., 2010).

While it is not a specific focus of this thesis, it is expected that the research presented will reflect these findings, that is, that the majority of offenders will be male.

Historically, drink driving was commonly associated with younger age groups (Doherty, Andrey, & Macgregor, 1998); however, the growing body of evidence suggests that the average age of a first time drink driving offender is around 30 (Leal et al., 2008) and the age of repeat offenders tends to be older, which is likely due to a longer exposure, therefore having more opportunities to drink drive. In Queensland, this also reflects the five year period of time used to determine recidivism. Drink driving offenders are also more likely to be single.

First time offenders are more likely to have a university education, more likely to be employed, and more likely to have a higher household income than repeat offender groups (Leal et al., 2008). This is consistent with the research of Morrison et al. (2002), who found that in a New Zealand sample, those with lower socioeconomic status as well as those with no school qualifications were more likely to report a drink driving incident at the age of 26.

2.6.2 Personality factors

Drink driving behaviour has been researched in terms of personality factors exhibited in offender groups, as it is assumed that personality plays a role in first time and repeat drink driving offending; however, the results have been mixed. Donovan and Marlatt (1982) found that individuals with the highest rates of driving while impaired have psychological profiles suggesting impulsiveness, hostility and

sensation seeking. Further, drink driving offenders, in comparison with non-offenders, exhibit higher levels of neuroticism and lower levels of conscientiousness (Jornet-Gilbert, Gallardo-Pujol, Suso, & Andres-Pueyo, 2013) as well as higher levels of deviance and hostility (Cavaiola, Strometz, Wolf, & Lavender, 2003) as measured by standardised personality inventories. Bingham, Elliot and Shope (2007) sought to identify whether a number of variables, including personality, could be explained solely by high levels of alcohol use, and found that risk taking propensity, hostility, and tolerance of deviance (as personality factors) were all confounded by the level of alcohol use exhibited by drink driving offenders, and for the variables tested, they do not necessarily contribute directly to drink driving but, rather, are associated with alcohol use which is the only strong predictor. Some research has found that there are no personality factors that can distinguish between first time and repeat drink driving offenders (McMillen, Adams, Wells-Parker, Pang, & Anderson, 1992).

2.6.3 Attitudinal factors

While the research is less clear regarding personality traits and drink driving, specifically mediating factors, attitudes have been found to be strongly linked to drink driving behaviour. Studies have been undertaken to determine the degree to which attitudes predict drink driving.

Firstly, it has been found that attitudes predict drink driving at the community level. MacKenzie, Watling, and Leal (2014) conducted an online study of 293

Queensland drivers to determine whether demographics, attitudes, and perceptions of law enforcement influence self-reported drink driving. They found that 1/3 of the overall sample had a positive attitude towards drink driving. They also found that an overall positive attitude towards drink driving, when entered into a model with the other tested predictors, emerged as the singular predictor of self-reported drink

driving. While this was a community sample and therefore likely different to offender research, the suggestion by the authors that attitudes are modifiable and therefore can be targeted in interventions, is a promising one (MacKenzie et al., 2014). Similarly, Freeman and Watson (2009) conducted a study examining 780 Queensland drivers to determine their perceptions of legal and non-legal sanctions on their self-reported offending. They found that positive attitudes towards drink driving in a community sample was predictive of self-reported drink driving, more so than legal and non-legal penalties (Freeman & Watson, 2009).

Attitudes have also been studied in drink driving offender samples. Ferguson, Sheehan, Schonfeld and Davey (1998) found that most drink driving offenders agreed that there is no excuse for drink driving, that people who drink and drive should lose their licence, and that their friends would think they were really stupid if they drove after drinking. In an extension to this study by Baum (2000), a sample of drink driving offenders and community offenders were interviewed with the same survey instrument developed by Ferguson et al. (1998) that explored the differences between 149 drink driving offenders and 149 community members living in Central

Queensland. This study found that community respondents had far more negative views about drink driving than the offender sample. They found that, in particular,

offenders were more likely to think that the risks of drink driving are overrated and that everybody drinks once in a while (Baum, 2000). However, they also found that offenders were more likely to believe that they would be detected by police if they drove after drinking, which may be unique to offender groups, as they have already been convicted at least once (Baum, 2000).

It has also been found that drink driving offenders are more likely to have general antisocial attitudes than comparative non-offender groups. In a study that explored personality and attitudinal variables associated with drink driving, it was found that positive attitude towards drink driving is more similar to general antisocial attitude than to attitudes about other unsafe driving (Jornet-Gilbert et al., 2013).

Therefore, drink driving is a unique offending behaviour that may have separate predictors than other risky driving behaviours.

In summary, attitudes have been found to predict drink driving, with those who have positive attitudes towards drink driving are more likely to report drink driving, or to already have been convicted for a drink driving offence. It is of interest to determine the attitudinal factors that apply to the first offender group within this research, and how they are associated with drink driving behaviours and behavioural expectation at the time of the offence and afterwards.

2.6.4 Alcohol misuse

The link between risky alcohol use and drink driving is strong; indeed it demonstrates a problem with alcohol consumption when an individual drives over the legal alcohol limit. A large proportion of first time offenders meet standardised clinical criteria for alcohol abuse or dependence (Cavaiola et al., 2003). Age of onset of substance abuse, having a prior treatment for alcohol problems, or loss of

employment or expulsion from school because of drug or alcohol use is linked with

future drink driving convictions after the first offence (Dugosh, Festinger, &

Marlowe, 2013). Frequency of alcohol use and positive drinking expectations have predicted self-reported drink driving (Schell, Chan, & Morral, 2006).

Some studies have found that repeat drink drivers were more likely to be alcohol dependent than first time offenders (Wieczorek & Nochajski, 2005) so excessive alcohol use may be a predictor of repeat offending. It has been suggested that drink drivers are problem drivers who drink (Vingilis, 1990), and that drink drivers are problem drinkers who and are in need of treatment (Taxman & Piquero, 1998).

The type of alcohol use must be considered in this context. It is well known that people in younger age groups tend to engage in more ‘binge’ drinking than any other age group, and this makes them more susceptible to crashes. For example, Vingilis and Wilk (2008) examined motor vehicle collision injuries and noted that binge drinking among young people was associated with a higher traffic crash injury risk; however, this study did not report on whether the injuries were caused

specifically by drink driving.

Yu (2000) conducted a study to determine factors relating to drink driving recidivism and found that alcohol use was the strongest predictor. Further, it was found that punitive sanctions did not decrease the likelihood of re-offence when alcohol use was controlled for. This is an important finding however – it stands to reason that the one cause of drink driving and drink driving recidivism is hazardous, harmful or dependent alcohol use, but the strength of this factor in predicting

recidivism needs to be determined. Specifically, further knowledge on this issue is critical to the development of countermeasures to reduce recidivism in the first offender sample, such that counselling and therapy to reduce and eliminate alcohol

use in the sample may be as effective as other measures relating to sanctions or punishment, or they may have a combined effect.

The location in which the alcohol is consumed also plays a part in drink driving, with it alone being a strong predictor of drink driving (Gruenewald, Millar, &

Roeper, 1996). Drink driving incidents are commonly associated with driving alone, drinking at bars, and having no strategies or advanced planning to avoid driving after drinking (Morrison et al., 2002).

2.6.5 Other substance use

While the link between risky alcohol use and drink driving is strong, it has also been demonstrated that many drink driving offenders engage in other problem behaviours including substance use other than alcohol. For example, drink drivers engage in more cigarette smoking (Bingham et al., 2007; Everett et al., 1999), and cannabis use (Morrison et al., 2002) than non-offenders. It has been found that if a substance use disorder has been diagnosed in the past 12 months, this is a significant predictor of DUI recidivism (Lapham, Skipper, & Simpson, 1997).

2.6.6 Previous legal issues

As previously stated, a large proportion of the driving population admit to drinking after drinking alcohol (Owens & Boorman, 2011), and many first offenders engage in drink driving on a number of occasions before they are detected

(Wiliszowski, Murphy, Jones, & Lacey, 1996). Having a first conviction

automatically increases the risk of drink driving relative to non-offenders (Donovan, Umlaf, & Salzburg, 1990; Marques, Voas, & Tippets, 2003), and having any prior arrest for any offence also predicts repeat drink driving (Gould & Gould, 1992;

Moffatt & Poynton, 2007; Ryan, Ferrante, Loh, & Cercarelli, 1996). Drink drivers are more likely than the general population to have had other legal problems and traffic

problems prior to the first conviction for drink driving. Drink driving offenders are more likely to be engaging in behaviours that bring them to the attention of police which may increase the likelihood of subsequent arrests (Yu & Williford, 1993;

Donovan et al., 1990).

Research conducted by Peck (1994), involving analysis of transport records of 7,316 offenders in California, found that prior involvement in crashes and traffic offences were the strongest predictors of recidivist drink driving offences. Recent research conducted by Dugosh et al. (2013) sought to identify factors that contribute to the likelihood of DUI reoffending in Pennsylvania. They conducted a small scale study with 59 DUI offenders (29 first offenders and 30 repeat offenders), and asked them to complete an assessment tool developed by identified risk constructs found in previous research studies. They found that the predictors of drink driving were age at the time of first arrest for any criminal activity, age at the time of first DUI arrest, having a prior alcohol or drug offence, having a prior misdemeanour offence, having a misdemeanour offence for a crime against a person, or having five or more moving violations prior to the first offence (Dugosh et al.).

2.6.7 Drink drivers in Queensland

No one factor has been useful in explaining or predicting drink driving

behaviour. As the above literature demonstrates, there are a number of characteristics that are more common in drink driving offender populations.

As the profiling of offenders in the sample uses a sample based in Queensland, Australia, mention must be made of a comprehensive profile of Queensland drink driving offenders conducted by Leal, King and Lewis (2008), which replicated and extended previous findings in relation to the characteristics of drink driving offenders by comparing a number of different data sources. This investigation analysed data

from a number of sources, including Queensland Police Service RBT statistics, the 2004 National Drug Household Survey, Queensland Road Safety Perceptions and Attitudes Tracking Research, Department of Transport and Main Roads licensing and offence data, the “Under the Limit” drink driving rehabilitation program evaluation, an Alcohol Ignition Interlock Trial, and Department of Transport and Main Roads crash data. Because of the large number of data sources, findings from this study were reported in range values rather than as a discrete index. Similar to the studies

presented above, this analysis found that drink driving offenders are predominantly male, under 35 years of age, live in urban areas, hold provisional or open licences, and self-report drink driving at least once in the last 6 months. For those who register a BAC of over 0.05g/100ml, the average BAC was 0.1g/100ml⁶ when caught. Also of the offender group, 13.9-14.9% were classed as recidivist (based on a previous

offence within the last 2 to 3 years). Offenders also commonly had previous traffic and criminal convictions. Crash data from this study indicated that drink drivers tend to crash alone or with one passenger in a car/ station wagon or utility / panel van, which is no different from other crashes where drink driving is not a factor (Leal et al., 2008).

Leal et al. (2008) found that average income varied within the drink driving population in Queensland, $20000-$60000 P/A was noted for self-reporting drink drivers in the general population survey, less than $20000 P/A was recorded for all convicted drink drivers, and an average annual income of $12000-$35000 P/A was found for recidivists. In the comparable period of 2006-2007, the average Australian

6 Queensland Police Service data, likely to be an overestimate as it does not take into account some drink drivers (zero BAC licence holders such as Learner and Provisional)

had a salary or wage of $42,081 (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2010). Most people in the general population who reported drink driving at some time (in a national survey) had completed year 12, had tertiary qualifications and were employed, while convicted drink drivers including recidivists had only completed year 10 or less, and were less likely to be employed (those that were tended to be in blue collar

occupations) (Leal et al., 2008).

The current program of research will explore the characteristics of first time drink driving offenders in Queensland, including the characteristics noted in the preceding literature and other characteristics of interest, which will be further examined in the discussion (Chapter 11) of this thesis.