RBT
both the literature review and key experts provide considerable evidence that rbt has been effective in reducing drink driving in Australia. further, findings of the Internet survey provide evidence of the widespread acceptance of rbt in the Australian community, with the vast majority of respondents reporting that they believe that rbt improves road safety. the high profile and visibility of rbt was also illustrated by the finding that many Internet respondents reported that they had been tested in the previous 12 months (although few were found to be over the limit) and most reported that they considered it at least “somewhat likely” that they would be tested in the coming 12 months. It is interesting to note, however, that being worried that they would be caught by the police was only the fourth most commonly cited reason for having decided not to drive under the influence of alcohol in the previous 12 months. the most commonly cited reasons for not driving were related to concerns about safety (others and their own) and impaired driving ability. these findings are discussed further below, when we discuss mass media campaigns.
RDT
following the success of rbt in reducing drink driving, rdt is now being implemented in Australia as a way to reduce the incidence of drug driving. saliva testing for the presence of drugs was first implemented in Victoria in 2004, and is now, or is soon to be, implemented across Australia. Key experts in this research noted that there is public support for rdt in the general community, and the findings from the Internet survey support this, whereby the majority of respondents agreed that rdt improves road safety. Although we did find that, when compared to rbt, a higher proportion of respondents reported being neutral or disagreeing that this was the case. this could be for a number of reasons. first, it could be because rbt is in its infancy and has as yet not been extensively rolled out throughout Australia. second, it could also reflect ambiguity or concerns about the effectiveness of rdt, as expressed by key experts in this research. Indeed,
concerns about the accuracy and reliability of saliva tests have been raised in previous research (Verstraete & raes, 2006). A number of experts indicated that findings of such research, including the evidence that saliva is not a good measure of impaired driving ability, and that rdt in its current form is costly and therefore not a good investment, were overlooked prior to the introduction of rdt in Australia. further, despite some key experts reporting complete confidence in the testing procedures currently used in Australia, and although there was general consensus that the tests used are very accurate for detecting methamphetamine, concern was raised as to the high levels of false negatives for cannabis. In terms of rdt acting as a deterrent to drug driving, previous research has reported conflicting findings. Many of the key experts argued that rdt is an important component of drug-driving countermeasures, as people will only stop if they think there is a chance that they will be caught and penalised. however, the deterrent value of rdt depends on how likely people think it is that they will be tested, with previous research suggesting that people need to perceive that there is at least a 30 per cent chance for it to influence their behaviour (Lenton, 2005). therefore, the deterrence value of drug driving in the general community could be quite limited by the targeted implementation of rdt. experts also cited the time-consuming procedures, as well as doubt as to the accuracy of tests, particularly for cannabis, as cause for the deterrence value of rdt to be questioned. this research found that respondents reported having little personal experience of being tested in the previous 12 months, with significantly fewer reporting being drug tested compared to those who were breath tested. In addition, very few reported testing positive following rdt. these findings are likely to reflect differing stages of rdt implementation at the time of survey. however, we also found that less than half of the sample reported that they think it is at least “somewhat likely” that they will be tested in coming 12 months. future research, using a similar survey, could monitor not only the rate of being tested, but also whether there is any change in respondents’ perception of rdt, in order to ascertain the effectiveness of rdt as a road-safety initiative.
further indicators of the deterrence value of rdt are the reasons provided by drug users for not having driven within three hours of using an illicit drug. while fewer illicit drug users reported not driving due to being worried about getting caught by the police compared to alcohol users, respondents were more likely to report this as a deterrent for the drugs that can be detected through the saliva tests (that is, methamphetamines, ecstasy and cannabis) and cocaine, than other illicit drugs (Lsd/hallucinogens and Ghb-type substances). Indeed, similar proportions of methamphetamine users (45.4 per cent) and alcohol users (43.3 per cent) reported making the decision not to drive because they were worried about being caught by the police. this may also be related to the fact that tests for methamphetamines are very accurate and can also detect the drug within 24 hours of its use. A smaller proportion of cannabis users (38.5 per cent) reported making the decision not to drive because they were worried about being caught by the police. It is of interest to note that being caught by the police was much less frequently cited as a reason for not driving following use of Lsd/hallucinogens, Ghb- types substances and heroin, which are not detected by current rdt procedures. As relatively few respondents answered these questions, these findings must be interpreted with caution. further, these findings may also be related to the fact that users of these drugs were much more likely to report not driving due to their driving ability being negatively affected following drug use. It may be concluded, however, that rdt seems to be having a deterrent effect for some of the drugs currently being tested. In the context of the current findings, it is also important to note that some key experts stressed the need to remain mindful of the potential unintended consequences of rdt, whereby users could change to drugs that cannot be detected, but that might be more impairing to driving. this needs to be monitored and researched further.
Although these findings indicate that rdt has a deterrent effect for some illicit drug users, it is important to note that illicit drug users are more likely to make the decision not to drive following drug use because of impairing effects and/or concerns about the safety of self or others, than due to police enforcement. we found similar reasons were provided as to not driving by illicit
drug users as by alcohol users. for example, concern about their own safety, the safety of others, as well as that their ability to drive had been negatively affected, were the most commonly cited reasons for both alcohol and the different illicit drug types.
finally, in relation to rdt, key experts in this research expressed concern that, as alcohol remains a significant road-safety issue, the current raised profile of drug driving and the subsequent focus on rdt, does not divert attention or resources away from rbt. A number of key experts suggested that the current trials in Australia are not being independently evaluated, nor are they open to public scrutiny. As such, it is crucial that research into rdt needs to be conducted by independent researchers, free from political or commercial influence, so as to ascertain not only the deterrence value but also the cost-effectiveness of rdt. there is also the need to develop improved technology for testing. It is also evident that the drug-driving field needs to openly evaluate and debate the evidence and approaches adopted. however, key experts in this research noted a number of difficulties for this field, including the lack of funding for research as well the concern about appearing critical about what has been implemented and/or appearing “soft on drugs”, particularly in the current political environment.
Sobriety testing
this research found that, although a number of pharmaceutical drugs are implicated in road trauma, key experts highlighted that random saliva testing has not been considered feasible for pharmaceutical drugs, although tasmania has recently implemented rdt for benzodiazepines. the existing literature, along with the key experts in this research, indicate that the detection and enforcement of pharmaceutical drugs and driving is a very difficult area to address, both politically and practically. first, there is widespread use of pharmaceutical drugs in the Australian community. second, there are complexities around the treatment of health conditions; for example, medication improves the driving of some drivers, as it can address potentially impairing conditions. third, it is difficult to distinguish between impairing and non-impairing drugs, similar
drug constituents (for example, opiate-based medicines and heroin), or between drugs that are either prescribed or illicit and/or used appropriately or misused. A further issue is the inability of current testing procedures to distinguish the actual level of use/impairment (that is, they can only detect the presence of a drug, not its impairment). Interestingly, this is also an issue for illicit drugs; however, due to their illicit classification, rdt has been implemented.
sobriety testing was originally introduced to test for all drugs, and while rdt testing has been introduced for some illicit drugs, sobriety testing remains the means of testing for other drugs, including pharmaceutical drugs. sobriety testing has a relatively low profile so is unlikely to have a deterrent effect, and experts noted that there is a need to increase awareness of sobriety testing. Indeed, findings from the Internet survey found that only very small proportions of respondents reported having been sobriety tested in the previous 12 months, or believed they would be sobriety tested in the coming 12 months. Of those who did report having been sobriety tested, however, a considerable proportion was deemed to be impaired, providing evidence of this strategy’s accuracy. this finding is consistent with the key expert reports that, although not widely implemented, sobriety testing is an effective strategy in removing impaired drivers from the roads.