Canadian drivers' attitudes regarding preventative responses to driving while impaired by alcohol.

BACKGROUND: In many jurisdictions, a risk assessment following a first driving while impaired (DWI) offence is used to guide administrative decision making regarding driver relicensing. Decision error in this process has important consequences for public security on one hand, and the social and economic well being of drivers on the other. Decision theory posits that consideration of the costs and benefits of decision error is needed, and in the public health context, this should include community attitudes. The objective of the present study was to clarify whether Canadians prefer decision error that: i) better protects the public (i.e., false positives); or ii) better protects the offender (i.e., false negatives). METHODS: A random sample of male and female adult drivers (N=1213) from the five most populated regions of Canada was surveyed on drivers' preference for a protection of the public approach versus a protection of DWI drivers approach in resolving assessment decision error, and the relative value (i.e., value ratio) they imparted to both approaches. The role of region, sex and age on drivers' value ratio were also appraised. RESULTS: Seventy percent of Canadian drivers preferred a protection of the public from DWI approach, with the overall relative ratio given to this preference, compared to the alternative protection of the driver approach, being 3:1. Females expressed a significantly higher value ratio (M=3.4, SD=3.5) than males (M=3.0, SD=3.4), p<0.05. Regression analysis showed that both days of alcohol use in the past 30days (CI for B: -0.07, -0.02) and frequency of driving over legal BAC limits in the past year (CI for B=-0.19, -0.01) were significantly but modestly related to lower value ratios, R2(adj.)=0.014, p<0.001. Regional differences were also detected. CONCLUSIONS: Canadian drivers strongly favour a protection of the public approach to dealing with uncertainty in assessment, even at the risk of false positives. Accounting for community attitudes concerning DWI prevention and the individual differences that influence them could contribute to more informed, coherent and effective regional policies and prevention program development.

Estimating the harms and costs of cannabis-attributable collisions in the Canadian provinces.

INTRODUCTION: In 2012, 10% of Canadians used cannabis and just under half of those who use cannabis were estimated to have driven under the influence of cannabis. Substantial evidence has accumulated to indicate that driving after cannabis use increases collision risk significantly; however, little is known about the extent and costs associated with cannabis-related traffic collisions. This study quantifies the costs of cannabis-related traffic collisions in the Canadian provinces. METHODS: Province and age specific cannabis-attributable fractions (CAFs) were calculated for traffic collisions of varying severity. The CAFs were applied to traffic collision data in order to estimate the total number of persons involved in cannabis-attributable fatal, injury and property damage only collisions. Social cost values, based on willingness-to-pay and direct costs, were applied to estimate the costs associated with cannabis-related traffic collisions. The 95% confidence intervals were calculated using Monte Carlo methodology. RESULTS: Cannabis-attributable traffic collisions were estimated to have caused 75 deaths (95% CI: 0-213), 4407 injuries (95% CI: 20-11,549) and 7794 people (95% CI: 3107-13,086) were involved in property damage only collisions in Canada in 2012, totalling $1,094,972,062 (95% CI: 37,069,392-2,934,108,175) with costs being highest among younger people. DISCUSSION: The cannabis-attributable driving harms and costs are substantial. The harm and cost of cannabis-related collisions is an important factor to consider as Canada looks to legalize and regulate the sale of cannabis. This analysis provides evidence to help inform Canadian policy to reduce the human and economic costs of drug-impaired driving.