DESCRIPCIÓN Y DESARROLLO DE LA INVESTIGACIÓN
12.2. PROCEDIMIENTOS PARA LA RECOGIDA DE DATOS 1 Realización de los dictados
•
In towns and cities, public transport and taxis are seen as a reason for avoiding drink driving.•
There is resistance to using public transport, particularly in rural areas.•
The cost of taxis can be a deterrent to their use.•
Cars are used for convenience and when planning to drink within personal ‘safe limits’.•
Designated drivers are arranged in some cases.Two studies in Scotland investigated the way in which people plan their transport to avoid drink driving. The 2007 survey found that, in cities, the availability of buses and taxis is seen as a reason not to drink and drive (Collins et al., 2008b). The 2001 survey found that there was strong resistance to using public transport particularly in rural areas, due to the location, timing and lack of service late at night, with security issues also of concern to young women (Anderson and Ingram, 2001). In this survey, many reported using taxis when planning to drink, often sharing the cost with
others. However, the cost of taxis was found to deter some people, even if they had already spent much more than the taxi fare during the evening. In rural areas and small towns, hiring a minibus and driver for a group on a ‘big night out’, travelling into larger towns or cities, was relatively common and seen as convenient and cost- effective, but required significant advance planning.
Where the car is driven to social occasions, the 2007 survey found that this was justified by issues with alternative transport (either being unavailable, inconvenient or expensive) (Collins et al., 2008b). Generally, people reported that, when they took their car to an occasion when drinking alcohol is involved, the intention was to drink within their own self-defined ‘safe limit’. When more than this amount of alcohol is consumed, taking the car home afterwards was often explained by the convenience (such as needing the car the next morning) and security (for example, leaving the car in a pub car park could result in it being damaged, stolen or broken into).
Designated drivers were mentioned in the 2001 survey. Many reported that they would ensure that one person stayed sober enough to drive, often by taking it in
turns in groups of friends or between partners; for some partners there was a regular pattern, often with the woman driving home. In these arrangements, many people, particularly women, feel responsible for ensuring that partners and friends who are designated drivers do not exceed the limit.
6.2
Changes
in
behaviour
over
time
Two studies provide information on changes in individuals’ behaviour over time, but no studies were found that identified individual changes over time among a
representative cross-section of people.
A panel study of heavy drinkers found that the proportion who reported that they had driven over the limit in the past year had not reduced between 1999 and 2003 (Dalton et al., 2004), while a study of convicted drink-drivers found that self- reported frequency of drink driving among those who had returned to driving after the end of the disqualification period had reduced since the conviction (Inwood et al., 2007).
The study in Scotland in 2001 asked people about their perceptions of changes in attitudes and behaviour over time. It was generally felt that drink driving had
become less common than 20 years ago due to the emergence of a moral consensus, changes in enforcement, the increase in traffic and thus greater perceived risk of being involved in an accident, and the increasing dependence on the car – for example, in employment (Anderson and Ingram, 2001).
6.3
Perceptions
of
owndriving
with
drinkingbehaviour
Box
6.4:
Key
findings
•
The terms ‘drinking and driving’ and ‘drink driving’ are associated with drinking an amount of alcohol which is significantly over the legal limit of alcohol consumption for driving.•
Driving after drinking an amount of alcohol which is significantly over the legal limit is seen as irresponsible.•
Drivers tend to have their own self-defined ‘safe’ limits for drinking – which may be well below the legal limit.•
The boundary between behaviour which is considered to be ‘acceptable’ and ‘dangerous’ is moveable – a couple of drinks more than this personal ‘safe’ limit.•
There is widespread uncertainty about how the legal limit for drinking alcohol before driving is defined.6.3.1
The
conceptof
drinkinganddriving
The study in Scotland in 2007 looked at people’s attitudes and beliefs about the concept of drinking and driving and found that the term ‘drinking and driving’ is associated with being significantly over the legal limit, well beyond the point at which it is safe to drive (Collins et al., 2008b). The phrases ‘drink-driving’ and ‘drinking and driving’ were not found to be associated with having one or two drinks and then driving, even if this may involve driving near to, or over, the legal limit.
6.3.2
Acceptability
of
drinkinganddriving
The study in Scotland in 2007 found that driving when significantly over the legal limit (way past the point where it is safe to drive) was considered to be irresponsible (Collins et al., 2008b). Some thought that it was wrong to drive after drinking any amount of alcohol. The study found little evidence that attitudes to drinking and driving are strongly linked to behaviour, rather behaviour was found to be strongly linked to circumstances.
In Northern Ireland, 40% of motorists who drink alcohol said they think it is acceptable to drive after one drink (Department of the Environment Northern Ireland, 2008). The proportion who would normally drive after one drink who said they think it is acceptable is much higher (83%) than the proportion of people who would not normally drive after one drink (28%).
A study of 17–29-year-old males who drink and drive, but do not regularly drive after five or more pints, found that all agreed that it is wrong to drive when drunk, and they did not consider themselves to be drunk drivers (Davies McKerr, 2007). However, the boundary between behaviour which is defined as ‘acceptable’ and that which is considered to be ‘dangerous’ was found to be moveable, usually a couple more drinks than the amount which an individual considers to be their own ‘safe’ limit for driving. Moreover, drivers who drive over the legal limit ‘accidentally’ or when they are ‘only just over’ the limit were not considered to be ‘bad’.
6.3.3
Feelings
ofimpairment(or
not)
whendrinkinganddriving
–
personalsafe
limits
A study of drivers in Northern Ireland found that, of those who drink alcohol, 42% said that they personally could not have any drinks without affecting their driving (Department of the Environment Northern Ireland, 2008); 27% said they could have one drink without affecting their driving; 16% said two drinks; 7% said three drinks; 2% said four drinks; and 1% said five or more. There were 5% who did not know how many drinks would affect their driving.
In this survey, more female motorists (55%) than males (31%) thought they could not drink any alcohol without it affecting their driving. Men had higher ‘thresholds’ than women before they thought that alcohol would affect their driving.
Of those who normally drive after one drink, 10% said that they could not have a drink without it affecting their driving, implying that these people drive while feeling impaired, although the frequency with which they do this was not reported. Most of the drivers who drink alcohol and who said they could not have any drinks without affecting their driving, said they would not normally drive after one drink. Some of the studies referred to drivers having their own self-defined ‘safe’ limits for drinking when they were driving. In the study in Scotland, in 2007, driving after drinking was regarded by respondents as a low-risk activity if it took place within their own self-defined ‘safe’ limits, and the chance of being caught at such times was perceived to be low (Collins et al., 2008b). If driving after drinking within these ‘safe’ limits is then repeated without mishap, this reinforces confidence.
Drivers described their personal safe limits in terms of numbers of units of alcohol, but not in terms of impairment. Few people thought it was safe for them to drive after drinking more than two units. Generally people reported keeping within their own self-imposed safe limits and feeling that this did not affect their driving ability. Most were convinced that their drinking was usually measured and controlled, rarely well over the limit.
The earlier study in Scotland, in 2001, found that drivers who set their own personal limits tend to set them well below the legal limit. Of those who had driven after a drink in the last 12 months, 13% said that they did not feel comfortable driving after one drink, 33% said they would feel comfortable driving after one beer and 32% after one glass of wine.
A study of men aged 17–29 who drink and drive, but not regularly after 5 pints or more, were mostly convinced that they were safe to drive within their own personal limit, which was usually between one and three drinks (Davies McKerr, 2007). A study of heavy drinkers found that there is a concept of responsible drinking which involves monitoring drinking to ensure that it is ‘sensible’ and does not have negative consequences for others (in all aspects of daily life – not just driving), by being aware of the potential effects of drinking too much and knowing one’s own personal limits (Dalton et al., 2004). When driving, these drinkers had a clear sense of their own personal limit. This personal limit would not necessarily be under the legal limit for driving, but be defined by personal tolerance to alcohol and the fact that they did not feel intoxicated.
6.3.4
Actions
tostay
withinthe
limit
A study of heavy drinkers found that some reported measures to try and stay within the limit while still driving after drinking some alcohol (Dalton et al., 2004). These included: drinking lower strength drinks; limiting amounts; spreading drinking; and eating. One respondent used a breathalyser to ensure that the limit was not
exceeded.
6.3.5
Perceptions
of
thelegal
limit
As mentioned in Section 2, the findings of the studies reviewed reflected
uncertainties about how the legal limit for drinking before driving is defined. The varying size of drinks outside the licensed environment, the ‘hidden’ strength of some drinks, and the interaction between alcohol, diet and body mass are all causes of uncertainty.
In the survey in Scotland in 2007, respondents were unsure about the legal limit and distinguished between their own self-imposed safe limit and the legal limit (Collins et al., 2008b). The general consensus was that a safe amount would probably be one alcoholic drink, while some thought that it was wrong to drive after drinking any alcohol. There was confusion around the number of drinks that are allowed before driving and how this translates into units and milligrams.
Among a sample of drivers and non-drivers in England and Wales in 2002, the most common amount thought to be sufficient to be over the limit was two units (34%); 86% of women believed it to be two units or less compared with 60% of men (Brasnett, 2004).
In a sample of motorists in Northern Ireland, 45% thought that a driver could have one alcoholic drink without fear of prosecution, 26% thought it was two drinks and 4% thought three, 15% thought none, while 9% did not know (Department of the Environment Northern Ireland, 2008).
A survey of men aged 17–29 who drink and drive, but did not regularly do so after five pints or more, found that they were generally uncertain about the legal limit (Davies McKerr, 2007). Most thought of units or numbers of drinks and had a rule of thumb which was a mixture of their own perception of what is safe for driving and a guess about the limit. The legal limit was perceived by this group as having being set at a safe level, so they were confused by the idea that there is risk attached to driving after drinking below this limit. Some thought that having a limit above zero encourages drink driving.
6.3.6
Perceivedrisks
The survey in Scotland in 2007 found that the ‘worst’ risk of driving after drinking alcohol, which was mentioned spontaneously, was killing someone (Collins et al., 2008b). This risk was only considered in hindsight, not at the time of driving, due to a belief that an accident would be unlikely because they were in control and would drive carefully.
Qualitative interviews in the study in Scotland, in 2001, suggested that people who drink at a level which is around the legal limit for driving are more likely to think about the risk of being caught than about the risk of being in an accident (Anderson and Ingram, 2001). Men, particularly, would often say that their driving was safe, even after drinking.
A study of untreated, harmful drinkers found that none of those interviewed
considered that drink driving is an acceptable risk and several thought it to be most serious because of the potential for killing others (Dalton et al., 2004). Some regretted past occasions when they had driven after drinking.
6.3.7
Perceivedcausesofaccidents
A survey in England and Wales in 2002 (Brassnett, 2004) asked about factors in road accidents. Just over half (53%) of drivers who had driven when they thought they were over the limit believed that drink driving was very often, or always, a factor in road accidents (compared with 63% of all respondents – drivers and non-drivers). Speeding and drugs were given as the second most common factors in accidents.