Does past offending behaviors catch up with you? A study examining the relationship between traffic offending history and fatal crash involvement.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the current study was to compare the traffic histories of drivers fatally injured in a road traffic crash, to alive drivers of the same age and gender in order to determine if key markers of increased fatality-risk could be identified. METHODS: The case sample comprised 1,139 (82% male) deceased drivers, while the control sample consisted of 1,139 registered Queensland drivers (who were individually matched to the case sample on age and gender). RESULTS: Using a logistic regression model, and adjusting for age and gender, it was found that a greater number of offenses predicted greater odds of fatal crash involvement, with each increase in offense frequency category increasing ones' odds by 1.98 (95% CI: 1.8, 2.18). When each offense type was considered individually, dangerous driving offenses were most influential, predicting a 3.44 (95% CI: 2, 5.93) increased odds of being in the case group, followed by the following offense types: learner/provisional (2.88, 95% CI: 1.75, 4.74), drink and drug driving (2.82, 95% CI: 1.97, 4.04), not wearing a seatbelt/helmet (2.63, 95% CI: 1.53, 4.51), licensing offenses (1.87, 95% CI: 1.41, 2.49), and speeding (1.48, 95% CI: 1.33, 1.66). In contrast, mobile phone and road rules offenses were not identified as significant predictors. CONCLUSION: The findings indicate that engagement in a range of aberrant driving behaviors may result in an increased odds of future fatal crash involvement, which has multiple implications for the sanctioning and management of apprehended offenders.

Versatile, but not focused, traffic offenders are more likely to be at fault for a fatal crash.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to determine whether drivers who had received more traffic infringements were more likely to be at fault for the crash in which they were killed. METHOD: The current dataset was derived from the crash and traffic history records provided by the Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads and Coroner's Court for every driver, with available records, who was killed in a crash in Queensland, Australia, between 2011 and 2019 (N = 1,136). The most common traffic offenses in the current sample were speeding, disobeying road rules, driving under the influence of drugs and alcohol, and unlicensed driving. Logistic regression models were used to compute odds ratios for the number of overall offenses, the number of specific offense types, and for specific offending profiles that were derived from the literature. Age, gender, and crash type were each controlled for by entering them into the initial blocks of the regression models. RESULTS: After accounting for the variance associated with age, gender, and crash type, only the overall number of offenses and the number of unlicensed driving offenses predicted a significant change in a drivers' likelihood of being at fault for the crash that killed them. Furthermore, drivers who were identified as having versatile (i.e., multiple offenses from different categories) or criminal-type offense profiles (i.e., offenses that were considered to approximate criminal offenses) were each significantly more likely to be at fault for a fatal crash. PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS: This study provided an important contribution by demonstrating how a more nuanced approach to understanding how a driver's traffic history might be used to identify drivers who are more at risk of being involved in a crash (i.e., for which they were at fault). The implications of these findings are discussed with recommendations and consideration for future research.

Do they need to be tested to be deterred? Exploring the impact of exposure to roadside drug testing on drug driving.

INTRODUCTION: Maximizing the deterrent effects of Roadside Drug Testing (RDT) operations remains critical for improving road safety. While preliminary research has explored the impact of being tested at RDT sites, there is yet to be an investigation of different types of exposure (e.g., seeing an operation, being tested) and the subsequent relationship(s) with perceptions of certainty of apprehension and future intentions to offend. The overall objective of this research was to explore these relationships with a sample of drug takers. METHOD: A total of 803 Queensland motorists aged between 16 and 75 (M = 27.12, SD = 13.09) completed an online-based survey, and all reported consuming marijuana, MDMA, and/or methamphetamine at least once in the previous 12 months. A convenience sampling method was utilized (via Facebook). RESULTS: The drug driving proportion of the sample (58%) reported a total of 30,858 instances of drug driving, or 66 instances on average. Seeing RDT in the previous 12 months (26% of sample) was more common than being tested at RDT (7%). The results indicated that seeing RDT two or more times was related to increased certainty of apprehension (compared to those who had seen it only once or never), although the increase was relatively small. Correlational analyses suggest there were some positive (albeit weak relationships) between exposure to RDT (seen and tested) and past and future offending. However, only three significant predictors of future offending emerged: older age, lower perceptions of apprehension certainty, and greater use of marijuana. Practical Applications: The results illuminate the extent of the drug driving problem and the need for greater resourcing to increase the real threat of detection. While the effect of exposure to enforcement was small, it was positive, incremental and supportive of increased roadside police enforcement as well as further research to quantify such deterrent processes.

Does seeing it make a difference? The self-reported deterrent impact of random breath testing.

INTRODUCTION: Random Breath Testing (RBT) remains a primary method to both deter and apprehend drink drivers, yet a large proportion of road fatalities continue to be caused by the offense. Outstanding questions remain regarding how much exposure to RBT operations is needed to influence deterrence-based perceptions and subsequent offending. METHOD: Given this, licensed motorists (N = 961) in Queensland were recruited to complete a questionnaire either in the community (N = 741) or on the side of the road after just being breath tested (N = 243). Survey items measured different types of exposure to RBT operations (e.g., "seen" vs. "being tested") and subsequent perceptions of apprehension as well as self-reported drink driving behaviors. RESULTS: The key findings that emerged were: motorists were regularly exposed to RBT operations (both viewing and being tested), such exposure was not significantly correlated with perceptions of apprehension certainty, and a sizable proportion reported engaging in drink driving behaviors (e.g., approx. 25%), although roadside participants naturally reported a lower percentage of offending behaviors. Importantly, it was revealed that current "observations" of RBT was sufficient, but not actual levels of active testing (which needed to be doubled). Nevertheless, higher levels of exposure to RBT operations was found to be predictive of a lack of intention to drink and drive again in the future. CONCLUSIONS: This paper suggests that mere exposure to enforcement may not create the intended rule compliance, and that the frequency of exposure is also essential for the roadside.

Alcohol and illicit substances associated with fatal crashes in Queensland: An examination of the 2011 to 2015 Coroner's findings.

PROBLEM: The problem of impaired driving is well documented in the literature but is heavily dependent upon self-report studies and/or databases that do not include in-depth information about the contributing origins of fatalities. AIM: This study aimed to conduct an in-depth analysis of Coroner's findings for all fatally injured drivers in the state of Queensland in order to explore the prevalence of alcohol and different types of illicit substances (including drug combinations) in fatal crash reports. METHOD: A total of 701 Coroner's reports related to drivers or controllers of vehicles involved in traffic related fatalities for the period of 2011-2015 were analysed, revealing 306 controllers (43.6%) were detected with either alcohol or illegal drugs (e.g., methylamphetamine, Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol, cocaine or MDMA) RESULTS: Alcohol was the most commonly detected substance identified with 223 cases (72.9% of the drug and alcohol sample). Illicit drug detections totalled 147 cases (48% of the drug and alcohol sample) with Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol the most commonly detected illicit substance (109 cases; 35.6% of the drug and alcohol sample) followed by methylamphetamine (total of 63 cases; 20.6% of the drug and alcohol sample). An important theme to emerge was the prevalence of polysubstance use among fatally injured drivers, not just for alcohol and one drug type, but also multiple drug combinations. Fatality trends revealed a decrease in both non-substance and alcohol-related fatalities across the study period. However, road fatalities where an illicit substance was detected increased by approximately 57%. Males were overrepresented as a proportion of total fatalities (82.4%) and there were no significant sex or age differences regarding illicit substance related deaths. Drivers of passenger vehicles were most commonly identified in the data (66.2%), but motorcycle operators were disproportionately represented (28.1% of the total controller sample compared to 4% of vehicle registrations in Queensland) CONCLUSION: This case study analysis of fatal crashes not only confirms the ongoing problem of alcohol and driving, but also illuminates the emerging (and escalating) issue of illicit substances detected in fatally injured drivers.

Past behaviours and future intentions: An examination of perceptual deterrence and alcohol consumption upon a range of drink driving events.

INTRODUCTION: The threat of application of legal sanctions remains the prominent approach to reduce the prevalence of drink driving in a vast array of motoring jurisdictions. However, ongoing questions remain regarding: (a) the extent that such mechanisms impact upon offending behaviours, (b) the deleterious effect alcohol consumption has on decisions to drink and drive and (c) how best to operationalise (and measure) the concept of drink driving to enhance the accurate measurement of the dependent variable. METHOD: This paper reports on an examination of 773 Queensland motorists' (across nine local government areas) perceptions of both legal and non-legal drink driving sanctions (as well as alcohol consumption) in order to gauge the deterrent impact upon a range of measures of drink driving: the driver thinking they are over the limit, the driver knowing they are over the limit, attempts to evade random breath testing, and intentions to re-offend. The sample completed an online or paper version of the questionnaire. RESULTS: The majority of participants reported "never" engaging in "possible" (74.5 %) or "acknowledged" (83.4 %) drink driving events, although a considerable proportion of the sample reported engaging in "possible" (25.5 %) or "acknowledged" (16.6 %) drink driving and attempting to evade RBT (18 %) events, as well as possible intentions to drink and drive in the future (22 %). Males were more likely to report such events. Perceptions of both legal sanctions (certainty, severity and swiftness) as well as non-legal sanctions (fear of social, internal or physical harm) were relatively high and consistent with previous research. Interestingly, non-legal sanctions were reported as stronger deterrents than legal sanctions. However, multivariate analysis revealed that legal deterrents had limited utility predicting offending behaviours, but rather, demographic characteristics (e.g., younger motorists, males) as well as risky drinking behaviour were better predictors. In regards to intentions to offend, a past conviction for drink driving was also a predictor of re-offending. PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS: These results highlight the ongoing challenges of addressing the problem of drink driving and that some motorists: (a) have entrenched behaviour and/or (b) make the decision to drink and drive before they are under the influence of alcohol.