a qualitative study of drinking and driving: report on the ... · clayton at rsn associates, helen...

Road Safety Research Report No. 113

A Qualitative Study of Drinkingand Driving: Report on theLiterature Review

Jean Hopkin, Wendy Sykes, Carola Groom and John KellyIndependent Social Research

June 2010

Department for Transport: London

Although this report was commissioned by the Department for Transport (DfT), the findings andrecommendations are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the DfT. While the DfThas made every effort to ensure the information in this document is accurate, DfT does not guarantee theaccuracy, completeness or usefulness of that information; and it cannot accept liability for any loss or damagesof any kind resulting from reliance on the information or guidance this document contains.

Department for TransportGreat Minster House76 Marsham StreetLondon SW1P 4DRTelephone 020 7944 8300Web site www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety/research/rsrr

# Queen’s Printer and Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 2010, except where otherwise stated

Copyright in the typographical arrangement rests with the Crown.

This publication, excluding logos, may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium for non-commercial research, private study or for internal circulation within an organisation. This is subject to it beingreproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context. The copyright source of the material must beacknowledged and the title of the publication specified.

For any other use of this material, apply for a Click-Use Licence at www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/information-management/our-services/click-use.htm

To order further copies contact:DfT PublicationsTel: 0300 123 1102Web: www.dft.gov.uk/orderingpublications

ISBN 978 1 84864 064 1

If you would like to be informed in advance of forthcoming Department for Transport priced publications, orwould like to arrange a standing order, call 020 7944 4673.

Printed in Great Britain on paper containing at least 75% recycled fibre.

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety/research/rsrr

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/click-use/

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.dft.gov.uk/orderingpublications

CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 6

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 7

1 INTRODUCTION 12

1.1 The research 12

1.2 Approach 12

1.3 Scope of the review 13

1.4 Overview of the material 13

1.5 Terminology 13

1.6 Outline of the report 14

2 BACKGROUND 15

2.1 National statistics on drinking and driving 15

2.1.1 Road accidents and casualties 15

2.1.2 Convictions 17

2.2 Attitudes and beliefs about drinking and driving 18

2.3 Drinking patterns 20

3 PREVALENCE AND INCIDENCE OF DRINKING AND DRIVING 23

3.1 Driving combined with drinking 23

3.2 Reported over the limit driving after drinking 26

3.3 Convicted driving over the limit 30

3.4 Passengers 30

4 WHO DRIVES AFTER DRINKING? 32

4.1 Socio-demographics and drinking behaviour 32

4.2 Socio-demographics and drinking combined with driving 33

4.2.1 Gender 33

4.2.2 Age 35

4.2.3 Social grade 37

3

4.2.4 Area 37

4.2.5 Links with other driving offences 38

4.3 Demographic profile 38

4.4 Typologies and clusters 41

4.5 Passengers 43

5 THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH PEOPLE DRIVE AFTER DRINKING 45

5.1 Where? 45

5.2 When? 46

5.3 Who with? 47

6 ATTITUDES OF INDIVIDUALS WHO DRIVE AFTER DRINKING 48

6.1 Why? – motivations/reasons for driving after drinking 48

6.1.1 Explanations 48

6.1.2 Profile of drinking behaviour – including planned and unplanned drinking 50

6.1.3 Planning transport (or not) to avoid drink driving 52

6.2 Changes in behaviour over time 53

6.3 Perceptions of own driving with drinking behaviour 53

6.3.1 The concept of drinking and driving 54

6.3.2 Acceptability of drinking and driving 54

6.3.3 Feelings of impairment (or not) when drinking and driving – personal safe limits 54

6.3.4 Actions to stay within the limit 56

6.3.5 Perceptions of the legal limit 56

6.3.6 Perceived risks 57

6.3.7 Perceived causes of accidents 57

6.4 Knowledge and understanding of laws and penalties 57

6.5 Views on consequences 59

4

7 60DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF DRUGS

7.1 Prevalence and incidence 60

7.2 Who? 61

7.3 Circumstances 62

7.4 Passengers 63

7.5 Attitudes and beliefs 63

7.6 Drugs, alcohol and driving 65

8 IMPLICATIONS FOR THE QUALITATIVE RESEARCH 66

8.1 Sample selection 66

8.2 Interview coverage 67

9 REFERENCES 68

APPENDIX 1: Documents reviewed – summary of scope and key points 71

5

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This research – the qualitative study reported in a separate document (Sykes et al.,

2010) and the literature review – was carried out with the kind co-operation of 50

drivers who contributed their time to the project. Thanks are also due to various

individuals and organisations whose input was important to the successful

completion of the study. They include Liz Brooker at Lewisham Council, Andrew

Clayton at RSN Associates, Helen Cooper at HAPAS Education and Training, Nick

Docherty and others at Leo Burnett, Kirsty Favell at Hertfordshire County Council,

Plus Four Market Research, Road Safety GB, TRL Library, Frances Underwood

Secretarial Services, and Jenny Wynn at TTC. Policy and research colleagues at the

Department for Transport whose input was highly valued by the research team

include Andrew Burr, Fiona Seymour, Louise Taylor, and especially Rebecca

Rhodes who managed the project from start to finish.

6

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In the light of the need to reinvigorate road safety strategy and policy and drink-

drive campaigns, the Department for Transport commissioned a qualitative research

project on drinking and driving to provide new insights. The project was designed to

provide more in-depth understanding of the attitudes, behaviour and motivation of

individuals who drive after drinking, whether or not they are knowingly over the

prescribed limit. The research consisted of a literature review and a qualitative

study:

1. The literature review was designed to inform the details of the qualitative

research design, and to provide background and context for the findings of the

qualitative study.

2. The qualitative study involved in-depth individual interviews that provided a

confidential setting for detailed exploration of the patterns and circumstances of

driving after drinking behaviour and the reasons why it occurs.

Two reports summarise the project outcomes: this report covers the literature review,

while the results of the qualitative study are reported in Sykes et al. (2010).

The review analysed what is already known or understood about the characteristics,

behaviour and attitudes of people who drink and drive (and drink drivers), and was

used to generate a reasoned framework for the design of the qualitative research,

including the composition of the sample, selection of sample members, and a topic

guide. It focused on literature that is relevant to driving over the limit and driving

after drinking generally, but included some studies on drug driving to identify

parallels and overlaps, and also some key sources on drinking attitudes and

behaviour in general. The review was confined to UK literature and most of the

sources included were published or made available since 2000. Some 60 documents

were identified, of which over 30 were summarised in the review.

Terminology

In this report, the term ‘driving after drinking’ is used to refer to driving after

drinking any quantity of alcohol, whether or not it is over the limit. ‘Drink driving’

refers to driving over the legal limit for driving, although because much of the

literature is based on self-report surveys, in practice this involves driving when

perceived to be over the limit.

Alcohol and road accidents

Studies of alcohol impairment have demonstrated that driving skills are impaired at

less than one eighth of the current legal limit. The accident statistics for Great

7

A Qualitative Study of Drinking and Driving: Report on the Literature Review

Britain show that, in 2007, almost 6% of road casualties and 14% of road deaths

occurred in accidents in which a driver had been drinking in excess of the legal limit

for alcohol; 22% of drivers killed in road accidents are in excess of the legal alcohol

limit; and 9% are well over twice the legal alcohol limit (Xu, 2009). Young drivers

aged 17–24 have the highest rate of drink-drive accidents per mile driven and the

rate declines with age. In the last 10 years the rate of drink-drive accidents per mile

has fallen in all age groups except 17–24. Women are less likely than men to be

involved in drink-drive accidents, and most convicted drink-drivers are men.

Convicted drink-drivers are twice as likely to have a criminal record as others of the

same age and gender.

Alcohol and daily life

Studies of drinking patterns and behaviour show that alcohol is an integral part of

daily life in Britain – a survey in 2008 found that 10% of adults drink almost every

day and 27% on at least three days per week (Lader, 2009). Drinking in excess of

the recommended daily maximum is relatively common and becoming more so: a

2007 survey found that 41% of men and 34% of women do so at least once a week

(Robinson and Lader, 2009). Much alcohol is now drunk at home rather than in

public places. Knowledge about measuring alcohol consumption is often inaccurate.

Prevalence of driving after drinking

Self-report surveys show that between one-fifth and two-fifths of drivers report

driving within a few hours of drinking alcohol in the past 12 months. In Scotland

there is some evidence of a decline between 2001 and 2007, but no recent

information on trends elsewhere in the UK was identified. Most of those who drive

after drinking alcohol report this to be a rare event: in Scotland, in 2007, 48% said

‘once or twice’during the year (Collins et al., 2008b). For a minority, driving after

drinking is more common: in England, in 2002, 14% said ‘once a month or more’

(Brasnett, 2004).

Prevalence of drink driving

Self-report surveys in Scotland in 2007 and 2001 found that 5% of drivers report

driving at some time in the past 12 months when they thought they were over the

legal limit for alcohol (Collins et al., 2008b; Anderson and Ingram, 2001). Most

drink drivers report this to be rare: just over 70% said ‘once or twice’during the year

in surveys in Scotland in 2007 and in England and Wales in 2002 (Collins et al.,

2008b; Brasnett, 2004). In these two studies a few reported drink driving more

frequently, for example 2% report driving over the limit ‘fairly often’ in Scotland in

2007 and 18% ‘once a month or more’ in England and Wales in 2002. One study in

2003 found that a small minority (1%) of heavy drinkers report that they drink drive

nearly every day (Dalton et al., 2004).

8

Who drives after drinking?

Those who drink alcohol more frequently are more likely to report driving after

drinking and drink driving in the past year. More men than women drive after

drinking, and more men than women are drink drivers. The highest reported

prevalence of driving after drinking in the past year is in the 30–59 age group

(Collins et al., 2008b; Anderson and Ingram, 2001). In contrast, the highest reported

prevalence of drink driving in the past year is in the 17–29 age group (in studies in

Scotland in 2007 and 2001, and in England and Wales in 2002). One study in

Scotland in 2007 found the highest number of driving after drinking incidents per

driver in the past year to be among people over 60 (Collins et al., 2008b). Driving

after drinking is more prevalent among social grade AB and lowest among social

grade DE, while drink driving is lowest among social grade DE, but more similar

across the other social grades.

Circumstances of driving after drinking

Surveys have found that driving occurs after drinking alcohol in a wide range of

places, including clubs, pubs, restaurants, visiting family and friends. Collins et al.

(2008b) found that these tend to be ‘casual’ occasions rather than ‘serious’ nights

out because drivers tend to plan alternative transport for the more ‘serious’

occasions. The drive after drinking alcohol tends to be on local, short journeys

where the road is well known and drivers feel ‘safe’. Over half of driving after

drinking occasions are in the evenings, but they also happen in daytime, late at night

and on the morning after drinking. Drivers do not tend to recognise driving on the

‘morning after’ as drink driving.

Motivations of individuals who drive after drinking

Drive after drinking journeys are mainly made when drivers perceive that they are

within the legal limit of alcohol consumption for driving. They are made when

drivers feel that they are safe to drive, using their own definitions of ‘safe limits’.

Unexpected events and changes of plan are not common explanations for driving

after drinking. However ‘circumstances’ are used to explain some driving that is

marginally over the legal limit. Habitual driving after drinking, and previous

experience of driving after drinking without incident and without ‘getting caught’,

also play a part in decisions to drive after drinking.

Attitudes towards planned and unplanned drinking

A qualitative study of men aged 17–29 in social grades C1 and C2 who drive after

drinking provided interesting insights (Davies McKerr, 2007). For planned events,

arrangements to avoid driving after drinking are made and drink driving is seen as

less ‘forgivable’. However, on unplanned and spontaneous occasions it is seen as

more acceptable to let events take their course; drink driving was often described as

9


something that ‘happens’ to people rather than something they choose to do. These

drivers do not accept responsibility for exceeding the limit on occasions when they

do not intend to do so, and they expect credit for their good intentions.

Planning transport to avoid drink driving

In urban areas public transport and taxis are seen as a reason to avoid drink driving.

However, some studies found resistance to using public transport, particularly in

rural areas, and the cost of taxis can be a deterrent. Cars are used for convenience

and when planning to drink within personal ‘safe limits’, in some instances with

arrangements for a designated driver.

Perceptions of own drinking and driving behaviour

The terms ‘drinking and driving’ and ‘drink driving’ are associated with drinking an

amount of alcohol which is significantly over the legal limit 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 before driving,

which may be well below the legal limit. However, the boundary between

‘acceptable’ and ‘dangerous’ behaviour is not fixed – a couple of drinks more than

this personal ‘safe’ limit.

Perceptions of laws and penalties

Various surveys show that there is widespread uncertainty about how the legal limit

for drinking alcohol before driving is defined. The likelihood of getting ‘caught’ is

perceived to be low and, as a result, the consequences of being ‘caught’ are not of

great concern to people who drink and drive. Some of the penalties for drink driving

are little known, including the criminal record.

Driving under the influence of drugs

Self-report surveys indicate that drug driving is far more prevalent among those

under 40 than among older people; surveys in Scotland in 2005 and in the late 1990s

found that 3–6% of drivers under 40 reported driving under the influence of illicit

drugs in the past year (Myant et al., 2006; Ingram et al., 2000). Drug-driving

journeys are often for social reasons and over short distances. However, for problem

drug users, all driving is under the influence of drugs.

10

Implications for the qualitative research

The literature review produced wide-ranging insights into drink drivers and those

who drive after drinking, where, when and how often. These provided a sound base

for developing the qualitative research in the second phase of the project. The

results of the literature review contributed to the design of the qualitative research,

particularly in relation to the sample selection and the coverage of the interviews.

11

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 The research

In the light of the need to reinvigorate road safety strategy and policy and drink-

drive campaigns, the Department for Transport commissioned a qualitative research

project on drinking and driving to provide new insights. In particular, the project

was designed to provide more in-depth understanding of the attitudes, behaviour and

motivation of individuals who drive after drinking, whether or not they are

knowingly over the prescribed limit. There were two main strands to the research,

including a review of research of direct relevance to the project and original

qualitative research:

1. The literature review was designed to inform the details of the qualitative

research design, and to provide background and context for the findings of the

qualitative study.

2. The qualitative study involved in-depth individual interviews that provided a

confidential setting for detailed exploration of the patterns and circumstances of

driving after drinking behaviour and the reasons why it occurs. In particular, this

part of the research was concerned with the perspectives of people who drive

after drinking; how they construe and interpret the situations that surround and

give rise to occasions when they drive after drinking; and how they classify and

make sense of their own behaviour in this respect.

Two reports of the project outcomes have been prepared: this report covers the

literature review and the results of the in-depth interviews are reported in Sykes et

al. (2010).

1.2 Approach

The objectives of the literature review were to analyse what is already known or

understood about the characteristics, behaviour and attitudes of people who drink

and drive (and drink drivers), and to generate a reasoned framework for the design

of the qualitative research, including the composition of the sample, selection of

sample members, and a topic guide.

The approach adopted was to identify literature held by the Department for

Transport, and to carry out searches of the Transport Research Laboratory (TRL)

library database and other relevant databases to which the library has links, key

government websites and carefully worded internet searches. The reference lists in

key documents identified in this way then led to other relevant documents. Contact

was also made with road safety experts and practitioners to ascertain whether there

were other sources of information that had so far been overlooked.

12

The documents identified were entered in a table which summarised the scope, types

of information on characteristics, attitudes and behaviour, any limitations, and

whether the study was concerned with drinking only or drinking and driving. This

was used to select key documents for summarising in more detail. The more detailed

summaries were made using a framework that was linked with the expected

structure of the in-depth interviews. The information in the table and the more

detailed summaries of key documents were then taken into account when designing

the qualitative research. While the interviews were being conducted, the report of

the literature review was prepared so that it would be possible to draw together the

information from the interviews and the literature review at the reporting stage.

1.3 Scope of the review

The scope of the review was designed to focus on literature that is relevant to

driving over the limit and driving after drinking generally, to include some key

sources on drug driving to identify parallels and overlaps, and to include some key

sources on drinking attitudes and behaviour in general.

To ensure that the review was relevant to the UK, it was confined to UK literature.

No cut-off date was set for recent literature, but in practice most of the sources

reviewed were published or made available since 2000, although a few key

documents were older. The material in many of the older documents identified was,

in the main, covered by more recent studies.

1.4 Overview of the material

A total of 61 sources of information were identified as being potentially relevant. Of

these, 33 are referred to in this review. Most of the 33 sources include information

relevant to drinking and driving specifically, while seven have information on

characteristics, attitudes or behaviour of drinkers or are concerned mainly with

driving after using illegal drugs. The documents that were not used in the review

were either discussions of policy issues or general information and statistics on

drinking and driving that were either already covered in other sources included in

the review, or in studies that were covered by subsequent wider ranging reports, or

in research on drinking among specific groups; some of these other documents

contributed background information and insights for planning the qualitative

research phase of the project.

1.5 Terminology

In this report, the term ‘driving after drinking’ is used to refer to driving after

drinking any quantity of alcohol, whether or not it is over the limit. ‘Drink driving’

refers to driving over the legal limit, although, because much of the literature is

based on self-report surveys, in practice this involves driving when perceived to be

over the limit.

13


1.6 Outline of the report

Section 2 sets the scene with background information on drinking and driving from

national statistics, and discusses attitudes and beliefs about drinking and driving,

drink driving, and drinking patterns.

Section 3 then presents a range of quantified evidence on the prevalence and

incidence of drinking and driving.

Section 4 looks at who drives after drinking, including age distributions, gender and

other demographic information, summaries of typologies and cluster analysis that

have been identified, and information on passengers travelling with drivers who have

been drinking.

Section 5 summarises the evidence on the circumstances in which people drive after

drinking: where drivers are going, when, and who they are travelling with.

Section 6 examines the information on the attitudes of people who drive after

drinking: their explanations, perceptions, knowledge, and views on the

consequences.

Section 7 provides a brief summary of the literature on driving under the influence

of illegal drugs, prevalence, characteristics of drug drivers, circumstances, attitudes,

and overlaps with alcohol and driving.

Finally, Section 8 summarises the implications of the outcome of the review for the

design of the qualitative research involving in-depth interviews with drink drivers

and people who drive after drinking.

The appendix to the report contains two tables which summarise the types of

information and key points in the references identified: Table A1.1 covers those

referred to in the main text of this review, and Table A1.2 covers those which are not

referenced in the review.

14

2 BACKGROUND

2.1 National statistics on drinking and driving

Box 2.1: Key findings

• In 2007, almost 6% of road casualties and 14% of road deaths occurred in

accidents in which a driver has been drinking in excess of the legal limit for

alcohol.

• Twenty-two per cent of drivers killed in road accidents are in excess of the

legal alcohol limit and 9% are well over twice the legal alcohol limit.

• Young drivers are over-represented among road casualties who are over the

legal limit for alcohol.

• Young drivers have the highest rate of drink-drive accidents per mile driven

and the rate declines with age.

• In the last 10 years the rate of drink-drive accidents per mile has fallen in all

age groups except 17–24.

• Women are less likely than men to be involved in drink-drive accidents.

• Most convicted drink drivers are men.

• Convicted drink drivers are twice as likely to have a criminal record as others

of the same age and gender.

2.1.1 Road accidents and casualties

Key statistics on accidents and casualties involving drink drivers are summarised in

Xu (2009). The numbers killed and seriously injured in drink-drive accidents have

been declining – steeply in the late 1980s and early 1990s, slowly during the 1990s,

and more steadily since 2002. However, alcohol remains a significant factor in road

accidents. In 2007, 6% of all road casualties happened when a driver had been

drinking in excess of the legal limit for alcohol, and 14% of all those killed on the

roads were in accidents involving a driver who was over the legal limit for alcohol.

Provisional estimates1 for 2008 show that, again, 6% of casualties were associated

with drink driving, while 17% of those killed on the roads were in drink-drive

accidents. Of the people driving cars and other motor vehicles (excluding

motorcycle riders) who were killed in road accidents in 2007, 22% were over the

1 Estimates of the numbers killed in drink-drive accidents are provisional because they are based on coroners’ data which do not become available until some time after the data on the accidents themselves; 57% of records were available at the time when the 2008 statistics were compiled in this source.

15


legal blood alcohol limit (80 mg/100 ml), 15% were over 150 mg/100 ml and 9%

were over 200 mg/100 ml. Drinking alcohol at below the legal limit is also

associated with some road deaths: in 2007, 7% of drivers killed had blood alcohol

levels between 9 and 50 mg/100 ml, and another 2% had blood alcohol levels

between 50 and 80 mg/100 ml.

The provisional estimate of the proportion of people killed while driving cars and

other motor vehicles (excluding motorcycle riders) who were over the legal blood

alcohol limit in 2008 was highest among those aged 30–39, of whom 39% were

over the limit, and lowest among those over 40, of whom 15% were over the limit. A

larger proportion of young drivers aged 16–19 who were killed were over the legal

limit (23%) and 33% of drivers aged 20–29 who were killed were over the limit.

In 2007, drivers aged 20–24 who were killed had the lowest proportion with no

alcohol present and the highest proportion with over twice the legal alcohol limit

(over 16%). The proportion of drivers killed with over twice the legal limit for

alcohol in their blood was around 9–13% for drivers in their 30s, 40s and 50s.

Young drivers are over-represented among all road casualties who are over the legal

limit for alcohol while driving (whether killed, or with serious or slight injuries).

Estimates for 2007 indicate that drivers aged 16–24 represented 40% of car-driver

casualties who were over the legal limit (compared with 20% of those under the

limit); 57% of car-driver casualties over the limit were aged 25–59 (compared with

69% of those under the limit), while 4% of car-driver casualties over the limit were

aged 60 or over (compared with 11% of those under the limit). While the overall

trend in killed and seriously injured drink-drive casualties has been downwards, it

has recently levelled off among young drivers aged 17–24.

In 2007 young drivers had more drink-drive accidents per driver and per mile driven

than other drivers, and drivers over 60 had the least (Figure 2.1). Compared with 10

years earlier, the rates in each age group were lower, apart from in the 17–24 age

group.

The statistics also provide information on gender and regional variations. Women

drivers are much less likely than men to be involved in drink-drive accidents. The

estimated rate of drink-drive casualties per 100,000 population in 2007 was highest

in Wales, the West Midlands and the North West (over 27 per 100,000 population),

and lowest in London where there were less than 7 per 100,000 population. In

between these extremes, the rates in the East Midlands, South West and South East

were between 26 and 27 per 100,000; in the East and the North East between 18 and

26; and between 7 and 18 in Scotland.

16

Figure 2.1: Drink-drive accident rate by age group, per driver and distance driven (source: Xu, 2009, based on STATS19 and NTS)

The statistics on accidents and casualties show that, while there has been a decline

in accidents and casualties associated with alcohol, for young drivers aged 17–25 it

has levelled off. Drinking over the legal alcohol limit still accounts for a large

proportion of deaths among drivers in their 30s and in their 20s, with drink-drive

accidents per mile driven being highest among 17–19-year-olds and decreasing

steadily with age; it is likely that the high rate among this youngest group of drivers

reflects their higher level of involvement in road accidents of all types. Most drink

drivers involved in accidents are men, and the drink-drive casualty rate per head of

population varies considerably between different regions of the country. The

statistics also show that it is not just a case of misjudging the amount of alcohol

consumed before driving: some drivers are drinking more than twice the legal limit

for alcohol.

2.1.2 Convictions

Home Office statistics on convictions for drink driving show that convicted drink

drivers are predominantly men; the most recent statistics identified showed that a

third are aged 25–34 and almost half are aged 35 and over (Figure 2.2).

Analysis of those who had committed serious traffic offences compared with

‘mainstream’ criminal offences in the Home Office Offenders Index for March 1996

shows that 40% of convicted drink drivers had previous convictions (not necessarily

for drink driving) compared with 70% of those convicted of ‘mainstream’ offences

(Rose, 2000). Of those with previous convictions, drink drivers had a lower

incidence of offending: the average number of previous offences was seven

compared with 15 for mainstream offenders and their last court appearance was, on

average, eight years previously, compared with an average of 2.5 years for

17


Figure 2.2: Age and gender of convicted drink drivers, 2004 (source: Cunliffe and Shepherd, 2007)

‘mainstream’ offenders. However, drink drivers were estimated to be twice as likely

to have a criminal record as a member of the general population of the same age and

gender (based on data for people aged 21–32). Analysis of repeat offences showed

some evidence of ‘specialising’ in serious traffic offences, but the most common

type of reconviction among traffic offenders was for a mainstream offence.

Thus, while drink drivers may be perceived by some as being otherwise law-abiding

citizens who, on one occasion, made a mistake or were overtaken by circumstances,

a substantial minority of those convicted have already been convicted of previous

offences, some for traffic offences and some for other criminal offences.

2.2 Attitudes and beliefs about drinking and driving


• Many people who drink alcohol but do not drive afterwards think that driving

after drinking is wrong, and many think it is too risky.

• There is widespread uncertainty about how the legal limit for drinking alcohol

before driving is defined and measured.

• Many drivers develop their own ‘safe limit’.

• Studies of alcohol impairment show that driving skills are impaired at less

than an eighth of the current legal limit.

The views of people who drink alcohol but do not drink and drive may shed some

light on how to influence those who do drink and drive. One survey found that of

those who had drunk alcohol in the last year but who reported that they had never

driven within a few hours of drinking alcohol, half thought that it is not right to be

18

allowed to drink any alcohol before driving, 39% thought that driving after drinking

would be too much of a risk, 33% said that they would not feel safe after drinking

alcohol, and 27% said that they would be worried that they might be over the limit

without realising it (Collins et al., 2008b).

Misconceptions and misunderstandings about the definition of the legal limit for

driving after drinking alcohol abound. One study carried out group discussions and

in-depth interviews with drivers and found that the uncertainty about how the legal

limit for driving is defined and measured was due to confusion about the number of

drinks legally allowed and how this related to units of alcohol and milligrams

(Collins et al., 2008b). Drivers thought that the factors affecting alcohol absorption,

such as having a meal and an individual’s size and weight, also made it difficult to

estimate alcohol consumption, but there was also mention that this confusion led to

drivers giving themselves greater ‘leeway’ when drinking alcohol. Many drivers

develop a definition of their own ‘safe limit’ on the basis of a combination of

perceptions of the legal limit, their own feeling of impairment and previous

experience of driving after drinking. (This is discussed in more detail in Section 4.)

However, the research shows that these perceived safe limits are not as safe as

people assume. Data on blood alcohol concentrations of accident-involved drivers

show that any amount of alcohol can increase the risk of a crash. A summary of the

evidence on alcohol impairment and the implications for driving demonstrates that

the first effect of alcohol on the brain is to close down mental activity, while some of

the skills most critical to driving, namely the ability to observe, interpret and

process information from the eyes and other senses, are impaired at the lowest level

of alcohol consumption that can be measured reliably (Lyle Baillie International,

2005). This report shows that consuming alcohol at less than an eighth of the legal

limit results in the impairment of basic driving skills and divided attention ability.

The impairment of sensible decision-making at low levels of alcohol consumption

affects the ability to assess competence to drive and means that there is a perception

that it is safe to drive although some impairment is already occurring. As the

amount of alcohol consumed increases, there is a progressive increase in the extent

of impairment, as more and more mental functions fail to operate correctly,

producing a more complex set of impairments. Other information on the effect of

alcohol on driving skills states that alcohol can slow down reaction time by up to

30%, reduce peripheral vision and the ability to see distant objects, cause blurred

and double vision, and reduce night vision by up to 25% (Institute of Alcohol

Studies, 2009), although this source does specify the amount of alcohol that

typically causes these degrees of impairment.

19


2.3 Drinking patterns


• Alcohol is an integral part of daily life in Britain – 10% of adults drink

almost every day and 27% on at least three days per week.

• Drinking in excess of the recommended daily maximum is relatively common

and becoming more so: 41% of men and 34% of women do so at least once a

week.

• The prevalence of heavy drinking among women has been increasing.

• There is some evidence of a recent decrease in alcohol consumption among

16–24-year-olds.

• Much alcohol is now drunk at home.

• Knowledge about measuring alcohol consumption is often inaccurate.

Drinking alcohol is seen as an integral part of the way of life for many people in all

parts of the UK (see, for example, Smith and Foxcroft, 2009). A study in Scotland in

2007 found that 67% of adults agree that ‘drinking is a major part of the Scottish

way of life’, while at the same time the amount of alcohol consumed was also

something to be ashamed of for many (48%) people (Ormston and Webster, 2008).

Similar findings for other countries in the UK have not been identified, so the extent

to which this view is held elsewhere is not known. Another survey in Scotland, in

2001, found that there is a perceived difficulty with going out and remaining sober

which arises from the central role of alcohol in social life in Scotland – drinking

alcohol is seen as an integral part of a ‘good night out’ and those who are not

participating in this feel excluded (Anderson and Ingram, 2001). Other factors

identified as having an influence included social pressures, the size and appearance

of the glasses in which low alcohol and non-alcoholic drinks are served cause a

difficulty for men, while respondents also reported that there is little financial

incentive to avoid alcoholic drinks.

A national survey of adults’drinking behaviour in Great Britain in 2008 as part of an

omnibus survey found that 27% of people reported drinking alcohol on at least three

days a week in the last year, 28% once or twice a week, 14% once or twice a month,

15% between once a week and once a year, while 16% reported that they had not

had an alcoholic drink at all in the last year (Lader, 2009). For 10% of this sample,

alcohol was such an integral part of their lives that they reported drinking almost

every day; this proportion was highest among older people: 22% of men and 14% of

women over the age of 65 reported drinking almost every day compared, for

example, with 5% of men and 4% of women aged 25–44. In this study, average

weekly alcohol consumption was estimated at 12.7 units (18 units for men and 7.7

20

for women); 28% of men and 17% of women reported drinking amounts which are

above the level which is regarded in government guidance as ‘sensible’ (i.e. over 21

units per week for men and over 14 units for women), 58% of men and 66% of

women reported drinking amounts within these ‘sensible’ levels, while 14% of men

and 17% of women reported that they were non-drinkers.

The General Household Survey collects information on alcohol consumption in the

previous week ,which is regarded as more accurate than the consumption recorded

in the omnibus survey. The 2007 survey found that 72% of men and 57% of women

had had an alcoholic drink on at least one day during the previous week (Robinson

and Lader, 2009). Over a fifth of men (22%) and over a tenth of women (12%) had

drunk alcohol on at least five of the previous seven days, while 13% of men and 7%

of women reported drinking alcohol every day during the previous week.

A substantial minority of people in the General Household Survey (41% of men and

34% of women) reported drinking in excess of the recommended daily maximum

(four units for men and three units for women) on at least one day in the previous

week. On their heaviest drinking day in that week, 31% of men and 23% of women

had drunk at this recommended maximum level, and 24% of men and 15% of

women had drunk to the extent that they were likely to have been intoxicated (i.e.

more than eight units in the day for men and more than four units for women).

A recent examination of drinking trends in the UK over the past 20–30 years based

on a synthesis of large, regular cross-national surveys found an increase in average

weekly consumption of alcohol since 1992 in Great Britain and an overall increase

in drinking over the recommended weekly limits for men and women (Smith and

Foxcroft, 2009). Key trends in drinking among adults were identified: an increase in

drinking among women has reduced the gap between men and women in the

prevalence of heavy drinking; among middle- and older-age groups alcohol

consumption is lower than among younger people, but has increased steadily as a

result of a combination of factors; also, three of the surveys indicated a possible

recent decrease in drinking among 16–24-year-olds (since about 2000).

The omnibus survey found that much of the drinking in Great Britain now takes

place in the home. Of those who had drunk alcohol in the previous week, the most

recent or heaviest drinking day involved drinking at home for 45% of men and 60%

of women, and 9% of men and 11% of women had been drinking in another person’s

home. Just over a third (35%) of men and 17% of women had been drinking in a pub

or bar, 9% of men and 9% of women had been drinking in a restaurant, and 8% of

men and 7% of women had been drinking in a club (Lader, 2009).

Relevant to the issue of drinking and driving is people’s knowledge and behaviour

related to measuring alcohol consumption. Most of the respondents in the omnibus

survey in Great Britain had heard of measuring alcohol consumption in units, and

almost all heavy drinkers had heard of this (Lader, 2009). However, there was a

21


significant minority who were not aware of the number of units represented by

standard measures of the types of drink which they usually consumed: a third of

frequent beer drinkers and a quarter of frequent wine drinkers, for example, did not

have accurate information on the amount which constitutes a unit of these drinks. Of

those who had heard of units, 16% said that they kept a check on the number of

units they drank (although some of these checks were not likely to be accurate).

Research on some specific groups of drinkers provides further insights into drinking

patterns which have a bearing on driving after drinking.

A study of harmful drinkers2 shows that, for these people, alcohol has become a

seamless and integrated part of everyday life; they defend their level of drinking and

encourage others to join them. Over a long period of years their tolerance to alcohol

has increased and they do not consciously register much of their consumption as

‘drinking’ (2CV, 2008).

A study of young binge drinkers found that, while some young people planned their

‘big nights out’, many had experienced occasions when a ‘social drink’ had turned

unexpectedly into a ‘drunken evening’; most of these attributed this to difficulties

with both judging limits and slowing down once they had started drinking (Engineer

et al., 2003). Among these young binge drinkers, drinking was often associated with

asserting their personal freedom and independence and wishing to ‘escape’, which

encouraged some to behave less responsibly than usual or to be less likely to

consider the consequences of their actions. Peer-group norms were identified as

influencing drinking patterns and behaviour while drunk, encouraging extreme

behaviour and a belief that drunkenness is acceptable. The influence of drunkenness

on mood and behaviour was also shown to be strong, making them overconfident,

more likely to act on impulse and to think less about the consequences of their

actions.

The general picture presented is thus of a pervasive drinking culture with a large

proportion of people drinking alcohol, many of them frequently, often without

accurate knowledge about how to measure consumption. The possible recent

decrease in drinking among 16–24-year-olds since 2000 offers, on the face of it,

some hope for a reduction in drink driving, however this is the age group where the

number of killed and seriously injured drink-drive casualties has not fallen recently,

despite the overall downward trend.

2 For men, 50 or more units per week or 8 units per day; for women 35 or more units per week or 6 units per day.

22

3 PREVALENCE AND INCIDENCE OF DRINKING AND DRIVING

3.1 Driving combined with drinking


• Self-report surveys show evidence of lifetime prevalence of driving after

drinking and prevalence and incidence in the previous year.

• Surveys show that between one-fifth and two-fifths of drivers report driving

within a few hours of drinking alcohol in the past 12 months.

• In Scotland there is some evidence of a decline between 2001 and 2007 (but

no recent information on trends was identified for other parts of the UK).

• For most of those who drive after drinking alcohol, it is reported to be a rare

event: 48% said once or twice during the year.

• For a minority, driving after drinking is more common: 14% said once a

month or more.

Surveys have been used to assess the prevalence of drinking and driving in two

ways: self-report surveys and roadside surveys in which drivers are stopped and

asked to take part in a breath test.

The most recent roadside surveys identified were carried out in 1998 and 1999.

Police officers in 11 police forces in Great Britain surveyed drivers on Thursday,

Friday and Saturday nights between 10 pm and 2 am. Around 1% of the 10,000

drivers in October 1998 and 0.7% of around 10,000 drivers in April 1999 were

found to be over the legal limit for alcohol (Jackson, 2008); the figures for 1999

were considered to reflect an underestimate rather than a reduction in drink driving

between the two surveys.

In 1990, roadside surveys at over 400 sites in 10 areas during peak ‘drinking’ hours

(Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights between 7 pm and 2 am) reported in Maycock

(1997) found that 15% of all drivers at these times had been drinking an amount of

alcohol (13% of men and 7% of women). This may be higher than current levels:

there is some evidence from self-report surveys that the prevalence of driving after

drinking has decreased in recent years and the drink-driving casualty statistics have

also shown a reduction since then, as Section 2 showed.

The results of the self-report surveys are summarised in Table 3.1. Two studies in

Scotland have looked at the lifetime prevalence of drink driving among current

23


drivers; in 2001, 55% of drivers who had driven in the past year reported that they

had ever driven within a few hours of drinking alcohol (Anderson and Ingram, 2001)

and this had fallen to 43% by 2007 (Collins et al., 2008b). This second study

examined whether the difference could have been due to variations in levels of

reporting or other factors; on the basis of the evidence on respondents’ opinions

reported in the two studies, the authors concluded that prevalence and incidence of

drink driving had probably decreased between 2001 and 2007.

A survey in Northern Ireland in 2008 offers a different perspective, with 30% of

motorists who drink alcohol saying that they would never drink and drive, and 21%

saying that they would normally drive after one drink (Department of the

Environment Northern Ireland, 2008).

Reported prevalence of driving within a few hours of drinking alcohol during the

previous 12 months has been measured in separate surveys in Scotland and in

England and Wales. In the Scottish surveys, 25% of drivers reported they had driven

within a few hours of drinking alcohol in the past 12 months in 2007 (Collins et al.,

2008b), compared with 37% in 2001 (Anderson and Ingram, 2001). Another

Table 3.1: Prevalence of driving combined with drinking

Prevalence Sample Year and place

Source

43% reported ever driving within a few hours of drinking alcohol

Drivers who had driven in last year (n = 1,034)

2007, Scotland

Collins et al., 2008b

55% reported ever driving within a few hours of having something alcoholic to drink

Drivers aged 17+ who had driven in last year (n = 1,004)

2001, Scotland

Anderson and Ingram, 2001

25% reported they had driven within a few hours of drinking alcohol in past 12 months


2007, Scotland


44% reported driving after drinking alcohol in past 12 months


2002, England and Wales

Brasnett, 2004

37% reported they had driven within a few hours of having something alcoholic to drink in past 12 months

Drivers aged 17+ who had driven in last year (n = 1,004)

2001, Scotland


20% reported driving on roads in a built-up area after drinking some amount of alcohol in past 12 months 16% reported driving on rural roads after drinking some amount of alcohol in past 12 months

Drivers aged 17+ who had driven on a rural road in past year (n = 991)

2007, Scotland

Collins et al., 2008a

30% of motorists who drink alcohol said they would never drink and drive 21% of motorists who drink alcohol said they would normally drive after one drink 3% of motorists who drink alcohol would normally drive after two drinks

Drivers interviewed in Northern Ireland Omnibus Survey (799 motorists of whom 545 drank alcohol)

2008, Northern Ireland

Department of the Environment Northern Ireland, 2008

24

Scottish survey in 2007, focusing on people who had driven on rural roads in the

past 12 months, found smaller proportions of drivers reporting driving after

drinking: 20% of drivers reported driving on built-up roads after drinking any

amount of alcohol and 16% on rural roads (Collins et al., 2008a). The difference

between the two surveys may reflect differences in focus; the sole purpose of the

former two Scottish surveys was to examine drinking and driving, and they went to

considerable lengths to reduce under-reporting, while this latter survey was not

focused specifically on drinking and driving and may, by comparison, have under-

reported drinking and driving. In a survey in England and Wales in 2002, 44% of

drivers reported driving after drinking some amount of alcohol in the past 12 months

(Brasnett, 2004).

It is not clear whether these differences between survey results represent real

differences between areas or years, or reflect other differences such as rates of

reporting, but they suggest that between about one-fifth and two-fifths of drivers

have driven after drinking during a recent year and that a rather larger proportion of

drivers have driven after drinking alcohol on at least one occasion in the past. There

is some indication of a possible decrease in Scotland between 2001 and 2007.

The surveys in Scotland and in England and Wales found that most people who

report driving after drinking alcohol present this as an occasional or rare event, as

Table 3.2 shows. However, for a small minority it is a relatively frequent occurrence:

once a month or more often during the previous year for 14% of those surveyed in

England and Wales in 2002 (Brasnett, 2004), and in Scotland, in 2007, 6.3 times in

the last year per driver who had driven after drinking (Collins et al., 2008b). The

higher levels of reported frequency and incidence of driving after drinking in the

2001 survey in Scotland compared with the 2007 survey indicate that these may

have declined between the two surveys.

Table 3.2: Incidence of drinking combined with driving

Frequency and incidence Sample Year and place

Source

Frequency of ever driving after drinking alcohol:* • 48% once or twice; • 42% occasionally; • 9% fairly often; and • 1% very often

Drivers who had driven in last year who had ever driven after drinking alcohol (n = 446)

2007, Scotland


Frequency of ever driving after drinking alcohol: • 43% just once or twice; • 46% occasionally; • 9% fairly often; and • 2% very often

Of those who had ever driven after having something alcoholic to drink (n = 552)

2001, Scotland


(continued)

25


Table 3.2: (continued )


Source

14% drive after drinking under the limit once a month or more in past year



Brasnett, 2004

154 incidents per 100 drivers of driving after alcohol reported in past 12 months


2007, Scotland


Average 3.6 times per driver in past 12 months Drivers who had driven in last year (n = 1,034)

2007, Scotland


Average 6.3 times per driver in past 12 months Drivers who had driven after drinking alcohol in last year (n = ,254)

2007, Scotland


229 incidents per 100 drivers in past 12 months Drivers who had driven in last year (n = 1,004)

2001, Scotland


* Calculated from Figure 4.6 in Collins et al. 2008b

3.2 Reported over the limit driving after drinking


• Self-report surveys show evidence on lifetime prevalence of driving after

drinking over the limit, and prevalence and incidence in the previous year.

• Surveys show that 5% of drivers report driving when they thought they were

over the legal limit for alcohol in the past 12 months.

• Most drink drivers report this to be a rare event: 72–73% said once or twice

during the year.

• A few report drink driving more frequently, for example 2% report driving

over the limit ‘fairly often’ and 18% ‘once a month or more’ (studies in

Scotland and Great Britain).

• A small minority of heavy drinkers report that they drink drive nearly every

day.

• A minority of people have travelled as passengers with drink drivers (13%).

• A majority of people say they would not travel in a car with a driver who has

had one drink.

The 1990 roadside surveys during peak ‘drinking’ hours (Thursday, Friday and

Saturday nights between 7 pm and 2 am) reported in Maycock (1997) found that 1%

of all drivers at these times had been drinking over the legal limit for alcohol

(between 0.5% and 1.6% in different areas). As in the case of driving after drinking

26

any alcohol, this may be higher than current levels because there is some evidence

from self-report surveys that the prevalence of driving after drinking over the limit

has decreased in recent years.

Self-report surveys can only reflect respondents’ perceptions of whether they have

driven while over the legal limit for alcohol. Table 3.3 shows that the proportion of

drivers reporting that they had ever driven when they might have been over the legal

limit varied between about 20% to just 1–2% in different studies. The highest

figures were from the two Scottish drinking and driving surveys in which 18% and

22% of drivers reported ever driving over the limit (Collins et al., 2008b; Anderson

and Ingram, 2001). A survey in Great Britain found that 13% reported having driven

when they were unsure whether they were over the limit (the time span for this

response is not clear), and 5% reported driving when they thought they were over

the limit (Angle et al., 2008). The lowest figures were from rural road drivers in

Scotland; just 1% reported driving on rural roads in the past year and 2% on urban

roads when they thought they might have been over the limit (Collins et al., 2008a).

In addition to possible differences between areas and time periods, the differences in

question wording and in the approach to reducing under-reporting may explain some

of the variation in these responses.

In the Scottish surveys, while the reported prevalence of driving after drinking

during the past year appeared to decrease between 2001 and 2007, the reported

prevalence of driving in the last year when the driver suspected that they might have

been over the legal limit did not decrease, but remained at 5% in each survey; the

authors noted that a change in this small proportion would have been more difficult

to detect in a survey of this size (Collins et al., 2008b).

Table 3.3: Prevalence of over the limit driving after drinking


Source

18% reported ever driving when they suspected they might have been over the limit for drink driving


2007, Scotland


22% reported they had ever driven when they suspected they might have been over the limit for drink driving


2001, Scotland


5% reported driving when they thought they were over the legal limit (time period not specified) 13% reported driving when they were unsure if they were over the legal limit (time horizon not specified)

Drivers aged 18+ (n = 1,227) 2008, Great Britain

Angle et al., 2008

5% reported driving when they suspected they might have been over the limit for drink driving in past 12 months


2007, Scotland


(continued)

27




Source

5% reported driving when they suspected they might have been over the limit for drink driving in past 12 months


2001, Scotland


12% reported driving when they thought they were over the limit in past 12 months



Brasnett, 2004

2% reported driving on roads in a built-up area in past 12 months when they thought they might be over the limit 1% reported driving on rural roads in past 12 months when they thought they might be over the limit

Drivers aged 17+ who had driven on a rural road in past 12 months (self-completion part of main survey, n = 991)

2007, Scotland


21% reported ever driving when they thought they were over the drink-drive limit 5% had done so in the previous year

Drivers aged 17–39 (n = 1,031)

2005, Scotland

Myant et al., 2006

27% reported that in the past year they had driven a car while intoxicated or after consuming two or more units of alcohol over the previous hour

Untreated heavy drinkers (n = 307)

2003, Birmingham

Dalton et al., 2004

22% of men and 5% of women had driven after drinking at least five units of alcohol on one or more occasions in the previous 12 months

Drivers aged 17–60 who sometimes drove a car or van in leisure time and who drank at least occasionally away from home (n = 1,700)


Riley, 1991

A survey of heavy drinkers in Birmingham in 2003 identified, as would be expected,

rather higher levels of reported drink driving: 27% (defined more precisely as

having driven a car while intoxicated or after consuming two or more units of

alcohol over the previous hour) (Dalton et al., 2004). A much earlier survey

identified self-reported drinking potentially well in excess of the legal limit: in 1986,

22% of men and 5% of women reported driving after drinking at least five units of

alcohol at least once during the recent year (Riley, 1991), although the study does

not report whether the time period for consumption and the time elapsed before

driving were specified to drivers answering this question.

Most people who admit to driving when they suspect they may be over the legal

alcohol limit report this as a rare event (Table 3.4). Surveys in England and Wales in

2002 (Brasnett, 2004) and in Scotland in 2007 (Collins et al., 2008b) found that

73% and 72% respectively reported one or two occasions in the past year. However,

for some it is a common occurrence: in Scotland, in 2007, 2% said they drove when

they might be over the limit ‘fairly often’, and in England and Wales, in 2002, 18%

said ‘once a month or more’. In the survey of untreated heavy drinkers in

28

Table 3.4: Reported incidence of over the limit driving


Source

11 incidents per 100 drivers of driving when suspected of being over the limit in past 12 months


2007, Scotland


19 incidents per 100 drivers of driving when suspected of being over the limit in past 12 months


2001, Scotland


Frequency of driving when suspected to be over the limit in past 12 months: • 73% once or twice; • 25% occasionally; and • 2% fairly often

Drivers who had ever driven when they suspected they might be over the limit (n = ,186)

2007, Scotland


Average two times per driver in year Drivers who had driven when they suspected they might be over the limit in past year (n = ,52)

2007, Scotland


Average four times per driver in year Drivers who had driven when they suspected they might be over the limit in past year (n = ,50)

2001, Scotland


Frequency of driving while over the limit in past year: • 72%, 1–2 times in year; • 9% every few months; and • 18% once a month or more

Drivers who admitted to driving over the limit in the past year (n = 130)


Brasnett, 2004

Number of occasions in past year when driven while intoxicated or after consuming two or more units of alcohol over the previous hour: • 16% on 1–10 occasions; • 6% on 11–50 occasions; • 4% on 50–300 occasions; and • 1% on more than 300 occasions

Untreated heavy drinkers (n = 307)

2003, Birmingham

Dalton et al., 2004

10% men and 2.5% women had driven after drinking at least five units of alcohol on one or more occasions in previous week

Drivers aged 17–60 who sometimes drove a car or van in leisure time and who drank at least occasionally away from home (n = 1,700)


Riley, 1991

Birmingham (Dalton et al., 2004), 4% reported driving within an hour of consuming

two or more units between 50 and 300 times in a year, and 1% reported that they did

this more than 300 times in a year, the implication being that this is a daily event for

a minority of heavy drinkers.

There is some evidence of a reduction in the overall frequency of driving after

drinking over the legal limit for alcohol. The number of incidents reported in the

past year per 100 drivers fell from 19 to 11 between the 2001 and 2007 surveys in

29


Scotland (Collins et al., 2008b). These two surveys also indicate a reduction in

frequency among drivers who drive when they suspect they may be over the limit,

from an average of four times per person per year in 2001 to two times in 2007. The

proportion of people who reported driving in the previous week after consuming at

least five units of alcohol in a 1986 survey (10% of men and 2.5% of women who

drive and drink away from home) (Riley, 1991) also implies a greater frequency of

driving over the limit at that time than in the more recent surveys.

3.3 Convicted driving over the limit

Little evidence was found on the prevalence or frequency of drink driving among

those convicted of drink driving over the legal limit. Studies of re-offending based

on national statistics focus on re-offending in general (rather than repeating the

same offences), and surveys of participants in Drink Drive Rehabilitation schemes

provide limited information on the incidence of drink driving among convicted

drink-drivers. Information on the High Risk Offenders scheme indicates that about a

quarter of High Risk Offenders3 are people who have re-offended following an

earlier conviction, amounting to around 10,000 people per year in 2005 and 2006

out of a total of around 40,000 High Risk Offenders in these years (Department for

Transport, 2008).

A study of a small sample (183) of convicted drink-drivers taking part in a trial of

alcohol interlock devices found that 82% were first-time offenders, 11% had been

convicted in the previous 10 years, and 6% had a prior conviction more than 10

years ago (Beirness et al., 2008). The records on use of the alcohol interlock provide

an indication of the incidence of potential drink-drive behaviour. Two-thirds of

participants had less than three occasions per month when their breath sample

exceeded 20 mg/100 ml when they attempted to start their vehicle, a quarter

averaged between 3 and 10 occasions per month, and one person averaged 47

(1.5 per day). In addition, there were attempts to circumvent the interlock, but their

frequency is not documented so it is not clear how many more potential drink-drive

trips these represent.

3.4 Passengers

Evidence in the literature on the prevalence and incidence of travelling as a

passenger with a driver who has been drinking alcohol is limited and is summarised

in Table 3.5. In 2002, a study in England and Wales found that 13% of people

interviewed had been a passenger with a driver whom they believed to be over the

legal limit in the previous year (Brasnett, 2004), while a 2008 study in Great Britain

found that 13% had travelled with a driver who may have been under the influence

3 Drink drivers are classified as High Risk Offenders if they are either convicted at, or above, two and a half times the prescribed limit for alcohol, or are re-offenders, or have failed to provide a specimen.

30

Table 3.5: Travelling as a passenger with a driver who has been drinking alcohol

Incidence/frequency/intentions Sample Year and place

Source

13% had been a passenger of a driver who they believed to be over the legal limit at least once in past year

Drivers who had driven in last year and non-drivers (n = 1,648)


Brasnett, 2004

79% had been a passenger once or twice in past 12 months

Passengers of a driver who they believed to be over the legal limit in past year (n = 214)


Brasnett, 2004

61% would not travel in a car in which the driver has had one drink 64% would not travel in a car in which the driver has had two drinks 85% would not travel in a car in which the driver has had three or more drinks

People interviewed (drivers and non-drivers) in Northern Ireland Omnibus Survey (n = 1,183)



17% had refused to travel with a driver who was possibly under the influence of alcohol or drugs 13% had travelled with a driver who was possibly under the influence of alcohol or drugs This behaviour did not differ between drivers and non-drivers

People aged 15+ (n = 2,009) 2008, Great Britain

Angle et al., 2008

of alcohol or drugs (the time period was not specified) and 17% reported that they

had refused to travel with a driver who may have been under the influence of alcohol

or drugs (Angle et al., 2008). In the case of the study in England and Wales,

travelling as the passenger of a driver who may have been over the limit was

relatively infrequent: 79% of them had done so once or twice in the last year.

Data on behavioural intentions from a survey in Northern Ireland indicated a low

level of willingness to travel with drivers who had been drinking alcohol: 61% said

they would not travel in a car with a driver who had consumed one drink, a slightly

larger proportion said they would refuse to travel with a driver who had had two

drinks (64%), and most said they would refuse if the driver had had three or more

drinks (85%) (Department of the Environment Northern Ireland, 2008).

31

4 WHO DRIVES AFTER DRINKING?


• More frequent drinkers are more likely to report driving after drinking and

drink driving in the past year.

• More men than women drive after drinking, and more men than women are

drink drivers.

• The highest reported prevalence of driving after drinking in the past year is in

the 30–59 age group.

• The highest reported prevalence of drink driving in the past year is in the

17–29 age group and it declines with age.

• One study found the highest number of driving after drinking incidents per

driver in the over 60 age group.

• Driving after drinking is more prevalent among social grade AB and lowest

among social grade DE.

• Drink driving is lowest among social grade DE, but more similar in other

groups.

4.1 Socio-demographics and drinking behaviour

The evidence on driving after drinking shows that there is a link between frequency

of drinking and incidence of driving after drinking. A survey in England and Wales,

in 2002, found that those who drink alcohol more often are more likely to have

driven after drinking any amount of alcohol in the past year (Brasnett, 2004). A

larger proportion (53%) of those who thought they might have driven while over the

limit in the past year drank alcohol on three or more days in a week compared with

32% of all respondents (drivers and non-drivers). Another study quoted by the

author (Johnson et al., 1998) found that frequency of drinking was more strongly

associated with driving after drinking than the level of drinking.

The 2007 Scottish study (Collins et al., 2008b) showed greater prevalence of

reported driving after drinking and driving while over the limit among drivers who

had drunk 15 or more units of alcohol in the past week compared with those who

had drunk none (Table 4.1).

32

Table 4.1: Recent alcohol consumption and reported et al., 2008b)

driving after drinking (source: Collins

Reported driving after drinking in Scotland in 2007 Alcohol consumption in last seven days

None (%)

15 or more units (%)

Never driven within a few hours of drinking alcohol Had not driven after drinking alcohol in last 12 months Had never driven while over the limit

66 60 65

36 34 42

One study provides evidence of high levels of alcohol consumption among

convicted drink-drivers who continue to drink alcohol. Most of those in a sample of

183 convicted drink-drivers who had attended a Drink-Drive Rehabilitation course

in two areas of England in 2004 had been drink driving for many years, often

without knowing that they were over the limit (Beirness et al., 2008). Of those who

had consumed at least one drink in the past seven days, the average alcohol

consumption was 32 units per week with a range between 2 and 200 per week; 79%

of males and 55% of females had exceeded the sensible drinking guidelines; and

three-quarters had drinking levels that are considered by health professionals to

represent hazardous4 or harmful5 drinking.

4.2 Socio-demographics and drinking combined with driving

4.2.1 Gender

Several surveys show that a larger proportion of men report ever driving after

drinking than women (Table 4.2), and the proportion reporting driving after drinking

in the past year is also higher among men than women (e.g. 28% of men and 21% of

women in Scotland in 2007 – Collins et al., 2008b). The difference between men

and women in the proportion reporting driving when they suspected they might be

over the legal limit is higher (e.g. 7% of men and 3% of women in Scotland, in

2007, reported driving when they suspected they might be over the legal drink-drive

limit in the past 12 months – Collins et al. (2008b)). This survey also found that the

reported frequency of driving after drinking was higher among men than women.

Some of the measures of prevalence and incidence of drinking combined with

driving reported appear to indicate lower reported prevalence and incidence among

men in recent surveys than in earlier surveys, but a smaller or no reduction among

women. For example, in Scotland, comparing results in 2007 with 2001, prevalence

fell less among women than men except among the over 60s; the authors concluded

that this may indicate that women are becoming more likely to drive after drinking,

but that the lower starting point for women means that any reduction is likely to be

smaller (Collins et al., 2008b).

4 22–49 units per week for men; 15–34 units per week for women.

5 50+ units per week or 8 units per day for men; 35+ units per week or 6 units per day for women.

33


Table 4.2: Gender differences in prevalence and incidence of driving after drinking

Prevalence, incidence and frequency Sample Year and place

Source

49% of men and 37% of women reported ever driving within a few hours of drinking alcohol

Drivers who had driven in the last year (n = 1,034)

2007, Scotland


64% of men and 44% of women reported ever driving within a few hours of drinking alcohol

Drivers aged 17+ who had driven in the last year (n = 1,004)

2001, Scotland


27% of men and 32% of women said they never drink and drive

Drivers who drink alcohol (n = 545)



23% of men and 11% of women reported ever driving when they suspected they might be over the legal drink-drive limit

Drivers who had driven in the last year (n=1,034)

2007, Scotland


32% of men and 11% of women reported ever driving when they suspected they might be over the legal drink-drive limit


2001, Scotland


28% of men and 21% of women reported driving within a few hours of drinking alcohol in past 12 months


2007, Scotland


43% of men and 30% of women reported driving within a few hours of drinking alcohol in past 12 months


2001, Scotland


55% of men and 31% of women reported driving after drinking alcohol in past 12 months

Drivers aged 16 and over who had driven in the last year (n = 1,083)


Brasnett, 2004

Incidence of driving after drinking alcohol in past 12 months: • 192 per 100 male drivers; and • 114 per 100 female drivers


2007, Scotland


Incidence of driving after drinking alcohol in past 12 months: • 314 per 100 male drivers; and • 126 per 100 female drivers


2001, Scotland


7% of men and 3% of women reported driving when they suspected they might be over the legal drink-drive limit in past 12 months


2007, Scotland


8% of men and 3% of women reported driving when they suspected they might be over the legal drink-drive limit in past 12 months


2001, Scotland


17% of men and 6% of women reported driving when they suspected they might be over the legal drink-drive limit in past year



Brasnett, 2004

34

4.2.2 Age

Several studies have found that the prevalence of reported ever driving after

drinking is higher among those aged 30–59 than among younger or older drivers,

and some have also found this to be the case for over-the-limit driving (Table 4.3).

However, in three studies, the proportion reporting driving in the past 12 months

when they suspected they might be over the limit was highest among young people

and declined with increasing age (Collins et al., 2008b; Anderson and Ingram, 2001;

Brasnett, 2004). In the 2007 Scottish survey, the number of incidents reported was

measured and, while prevalence is lowest among older people, they were found to

report more incidents per 100 drivers during the last year than younger drivers,

indicating that over 60s who drive after drinking do so more frequently than drivers

under the age of 60 (Collins et al., 2008b).

Comparison of the two Scottish studies showed a decline in prevalence in each age

group between 2001 and 2007, which was considered to be due either to a possible

effect of campaigns, making people less willing to mention driving after drinking, or

because responses to the question on ever drinking and driving related to more

recent rather than historical behaviour (Collins et al., 2008b).

The 2007 Scottish study found that, while in the age groups over 30 the proportion

reporting driving after drinking alcohol in the past 12 months was higher for men

than women, this was not the case in the youngest (17–29) age group (Collins et al.,

2008b). An earlier study in England and Wales in 2001 had found higher prevalence

of driving after drinking among men than women in all age groups (Brasnett, 2004).

Table 4.3: Age differences in prevalence and incidence of driving after drinking

Prevalence and incidence Sample Year and place

Source

Per cent who reported ever driving within a few hours of drinking alcohol: • 33% aged 17–29; • 49% aged 30–44; • 49% aged 45–59; and • 40% aged 60+


2007, Scotland


Per cent who reported ever driving within a few hours of drinking alcohol: • 43% aged 17–29; • 60% aged 30–44; • 61% aged 45–59; and • 48% aged 60+


2001, Scotland


Per cent who reported that they never drink and drive: • 29% aged 25–34; • 26% aged 35–49; and • 33% aged 50–64 (under 25 and over 65 samples small)

Drivers who drink alcohol (n = 545)



(continued)

35




Source

Per cent who reported ever driving when they suspected they might be over the legal drink-drive limit: • 14% aged 17–29; • 15% aged 30–44; • 25% aged 45–59; and • 14% aged 60+ Highest prevalence of ever drink driving is among males aged 45–59 (33%)


2007, Scotland


Per cent who reported ever driving when they suspected they might be over the legal drink-drive limit: • 15% aged 17–29; • 24% aged 30–44; • 29% aged 45–59; and • 17% aged 60+


2001, Scotland


Per cent who reported driving within a few hours of drinking alcohol in past 12 months: • 21% aged 17–29; • 29% aged 30–44; • 26% aged 45–59; and • 20% aged 60+


2007, Scotland


Per cent who reported driving within a few hours of drinking alcohol in past 12 months: • 34% aged 17–29; • 41% aged 30–44; • 40% aged 45–59; and • 28% aged 60+


2001, Scotland


Per cent who reported driving after drinking alcohol (whether under or over the limit) in past 12 months: • 54% of men and 30% of women aged 16–29; • 59% of men and 33% of women aged 30–59; and • 47% of men and 23% of women aged 60+



Brasnett, 2004

Incidence of driving after drinking alcohol in past 12 months: • 106 per 100 drivers aged 17–29; • 149 per 100 drivers aged 30–44; • 157 per 100 drivers aged 45–59; and • 177 per 100 drivers aged 60+


2007, Scotland


Incidence of driving after drinking alcohol in past 12 months: • 126 per 100 drivers aged 17–29; • 242 per 100 drivers aged 30–44; • 256 per 100 drivers aged 45–59; and • 154 per 100 drivers aged 60+


2001, Scotland


Per cent who reported driving when they suspected they might be over the legal drink-drive limit in past 12 months: • 9% aged 17–29; • 6% aged 30–44; • 5% aged 45–59; and • 2% aged 60+


2007, Scotland


(continued)

36



Source

Per cent who reported driving when they suspected they might be over the legal drink-drive limit in past 12 months: • 9% aged 17–29; • 7% aged 30–44; • 3% aged 45–59; and • 2% aged 60+


2001, Scotland


Per cent who reported driving when they suspected they might be over the legal drink-drive limit in past year: • 26% of men and 6% of women aged 16–29; • 17% of men and 7% of women aged 30–59; and • 10% of men and 2% of women aged 60+



Brasnett, 2004

4.2.3 Social grade

The survey in Scotland in 2007 was the only one identified which analysed

variations in prevalence and incidence of driving after drinking according to social

grade. Reported prevalence was highest in social grade AB and lowest among those

in social group DE, except in the case of driving over the limit in the past 12

months, where the sample was small (53) and no real difference was apparent. The

reported incidence of driving after drinking alcohol in the past 12 months was about

three times as high in the AB social group as in the DE social group (Table 4.4).

Table 4.4: Differences with social grade in driving after drinking in Scotland in 2007 (source: Collins et al., 2008b)

Prevalence and incidence AB C1 C2 DE

Per cent who reported ever driving within a few hours of drinking alcohol Per cent who reported ever driving when they suspected they might be over the legal drink-drive limit Per cent who reported driving within a few hours of drinking alcohol in past 12 months Incidence of driving after drinking alcohol in past 12 months per 100 drivers

58%

22%

40%

255/100

44%

17%

25%

146/100

40%

20%

21%

130/100

29%

12%

12%

86/100

4.2.4 Area

Two surveys in Scotland in 2007 investigated differences in driving after drinking

between people living in urban and rural areas. The proportion who reported ever

driving after drinking, ever driving when they suspected they might be over the legal

limit and driving within a few hours of drinking alcohol in the past 12 months

differed by just 1–3 percentage points in the survey focusing on driving after

37


drinking, but the incidence of driving after drinking was higher in urban areas –

163 per 100 drivers compared with 139 per 100 in rural areas (Collins et al., 2008b).

The other survey focused on people who had driven on rural roads in the past year,

and found slightly greater differences in prevalence of driving after drinking in the

past year on urban roads (20%) compared with rural roads (16%); the incidence of

driving when they thought they might be over the legal limit was also higher on

urban roads than rural roads, albeit at low levels (2% on urban roads and 1% on

rural roads (Collins et al., 2008a)).

4.2.5 Links with other driving offences

One of the surveys in Scotland in 2007 identified an association between driving

after drinking and other driving offences (Collins et al., 2008b). Those who reported

that they had ever driven after drinking were more likely to report having penalty

points on their licence than others (61% compared with 50%). There was also an

association with being breathalysed – of those who had ever been breathalysed, 61%

reported that at some time they had driven within a few hours of drinking alcohol,

compared with 47% of those who had never been breathalysed.

4.3 Demographic profile

The survey in Scotland in 2007 provides information on the demographic profile of

those who reported driving after drinking alcohol in the past year (Collins et al.,

2008b). The results can be compared with the profile of drivers stopped in earlier

(1990) roadside surveys which identified the profile of drivers who had been

drinking and a survey of people arrested for drink driving in 2003–04 (Boreham et

al., 2006). The evidence on demographic profiles is summarised in Table 4.5.

In the survey in Scotland, males were over-represented (57% of those who had

driven within a few hours of drinking alcohol in the last year were male compared

with 51% of all drivers in the sample). The 1990 roadside surveys found higher

proportions of males: 74% of those who had been drinking alcohol were men

(summarised in Maycock, 1997).

The age distribution of drivers reporting that they had driven after drinking in the

past year was generally similar to that of all drivers in the sample (10% were 17–29,

37% were aged 30–44, 28% were 45–59 and 24% were aged 60+), but over 60s

were slightly under-represented and those aged 30–44 were slightly over

represented.

Those in social grade AB comprise 36% of the sample, C1 comprised 33%, C2

made up 20%, and 10% were DE. Compared with drivers in the sample as a whole,

the AB group was over-represented (only 22% of all drivers were in this group) and

group DE was under-represented (21% of drivers in the sample).

38

In line with the finding that there were no differences between urban and rural areas

in the prevalence of driving after drinking, the distribution of people in the Scottish

survey in 2007 who reported driving within a few hours of drinking alcohol in the

past year was the same as in the sample as a whole: 63% lived in an urban area and

38% in a rural area.

The survey in Scotland provided indicative information only on the demographic

profile of those who reported driving when they suspected they might be over the

legal drink-drive limit in the past 12 months because the sample size was small (53).

Of these 53, 7 out of 10 were men; 1 in 5 were aged 17–29; 4 in 10 were aged 30–

44; 1 out of 4 were aged 45–59; and 1 in 10 were aged 60+. Between a quarter and a

third were in each of the social grades AB, C1 and C2, while just an eighth were in

social grade DE. Two-thirds of them were living in urban areas.

Earlier roadside surveys and surveys of drink-driving offenders in a range of areas

found quite different results. Of those stopped in the 1990 roadside survey, a higher

proportion of those driving over the limit were men: 89%. The social grade

distribution was also different, with far fewer professional, managerial and other

non-manual grades and more in the skilled and unskilled manual grades C2 and DE,

resulting in an over-representation of skilled manual and manual groups compared

with the population. A survey of people prosecuted for drink driving between 1990

and 1992 found that 92% were male and that, while just 6% were in social grade

AB, 18% were C1, 30% were C2 and 42% were in group DE.

A survey of convicted drink-drivers who had been referred to rehabilitation between

2000 and 2002 found that 89% were male, 43% were aged 16–29, 27% were 30–39,

23% were 40–54 and 6% were aged 55 or over (Smith et al., 2004).

A survey of over 7,500 people aged 17 and over who had been arrested on suspicion

of any offence in a 12-month period in 2003–04 provides the age distribution of

some 570 people who had been arrested on suspicion of drink driving. Nearly half

(45%) were aged 35 and over, 28% were aged 25–34 and 27% were aged 17–24

(Boreham et al., 2006).

It is not clear whether these differences between surveys reflect changes over time or

between Scotland and other areas of Great Britain, or differences in the nature of the

samples. All surveys confirm the preponderance of men in samples of people who

drive after drinking and who drink drive, but the evidence on age and social grade

distributions of these groups is conflicting.

39


Table 4.5: Demographic profile of drinking drivers

Demographic characteristics Sample Year and place

Source

57% male, 43% female Males over-represented (51% of all drivers in sample were male): • 10% aged 17–29; • 37% aged 30–44; • 28% aged 45–59; and • 24% aged 60+ Similar to age distribution of drivers except that over 60s slightly under-represented, 30–44 slightly over-represented Social grade: • 36% AB; • 33% C1; • 20% C2; and • 10% DE ABs over-represented (22% of drivers in sample) DEs under-represented (21% of drivers in sample) 62% live in an urban area, 38% in rural (same as distribution of drivers in sample)

Drivers who had driven after drinking alcohol in last year (n = 254)

2007, Scotland


• 7/10 male;* • 1/5 aged 17–29; • 4/10 aged 30–44; • 1

4 aged 45–59; • 1/10 aged 60+; • 1

4 to 1/3 in social grades AB, C1 and C2; • 1/8 in DE; and • 2/3 live in urban areas

Drivers who reported driving when they suspected they might be over the legal drink-drive limit in past 12 months (n = 53)

2007, Scotland


74% of those who had been drinking alcohol were men

Drivers who had been stopped in roadside survey (n = 13,316)

1998–90, 10 areas

Maycock,1997

89% of those who had been driving over the limit were men Over-representation of skilled manual and manual groups compared with the population: • 13% in AB; • 26% in C1; • 40% in C2; and • 20% in DE

Drivers who had been stopped in roadside surveys who were over the limit (n = 129)

1998–90, 10 areas

Maycock, 1997

92% male Over-representation of skilled manual and manual groups compared with the population: • 6% in AB; • 18% in C1; • 30% in C2; and • 42% in DE

Prosecuted for drink driving (n = 7,063)

1990–92, 3 police force areas

Maycock, 1997

(continued)

40


Demographic characteristics Sample Year and place

Source

• 89% male, 11% female • 43% aged 16–29; • 27% aged 30–39; • 23% aged 40–54; and • 6% aged 55 +

Convicted drink drivers referred for rehabilitation (n = 87,650)

2000–02, Great Britain

Smith et al., 2004

• 27% aged 17–24; • 28% aged 25–34; and • 45% aged 35+

People aged 17+ who had been arrested on suspicion of drink driving (n = 572)

2003–04, England and Wales

Boreham et al., 2006

* Results are quoted in fractions because the sample size is small.

4.4 Typologies and clusters

The survey in Scotland in 2007 looked at attitude clusters associated with aspects of

disapproval, fear of consequences, and myths and excuses, and identified six groups

of respondents, but found that those who admitted to driving over the limit did not

fit within specific attitude ‘clusters’, implying that they did not have similar attitudes

(Collins et al., 2008b). Attitudes were not linked to demographic characteristics

either. The study concluded that drink driving is often linked to situational factors

and postulated that one reason may be that the sample of people who admitted to

driving over the limit was too small for clusters of people with similar attitudes to be

apparent.

The survey in Scotland in 2001 (Anderson and Ingram, 2001) identified the

following clusters associated with situational factors and behaviour, rather than

demographics and attitudes:

• The ‘chronic drink-driver’ – these are caught repeatedly and lose their licence

for years at a time, some with a prison sentence. They have serious alcohol

problems and are unable to recognise the problem with alcohol itself or drink

driving.

• The ‘lads’ night out’ – a culture of excessive alcohol consumption and

resistance to staying sober or having soft drinks, more likely to take risks and

less likely to check behaviour by criticising drink drivers.

• The ‘quiet back-road driver’ – a common justification for drink driving is that

the journey is short and at a time when the roads are quiet so there are unlikely

to be police and there are fewer hazards (for example, from other vehicles or

complex junctions).

• The ‘one-off’ – many respondents referred to a particular occasion when they

had driven while they suspected that they might be over the legal limit. This

41


often followed an unexpected event: a change of plan, an impromptu social

gathering, or an emergency when they had either not expected to drink or not

expected to drive.

• ‘Three pints on an empty stomach’ – these are people who regularly drink an

amount which might mean that they are over the legal limit. Other factors such

as how much they have eaten or the length of time between the last drink and

driving can be enough to take them over the legal limit.

• The ‘golf club dinner’ – an evening of drinking in significant quantity during a

meal is a typical risk for older people, often in the belief that, while probably

over the limit, their driving was not impaired so the chances of anything

happening were slight.

• The ‘truly drunk driver’ – these have drunk so much that they no longer know

what they are doing, are unlikely to be influenced by any inhibiting factors, and

may be influenced by other irrational justifications; these tend to be young

people, particularly men.

• ‘Next day driving’ – a common occurrence, and even if they are aware that it is

possible still to be over the limit the following morning, people are reluctant to

face up to it. This is affected by the elapsed time, the need to fulfil work or

domestic responsibilities, and the fact of having slept, showered and eaten

breakfast since their last drink.

A much earlier study came to different conclusions about the role of situational

factors and it is possible that there has been a change in factors associated with

drink driving in the intervening years. Reporting on a 1986 national survey of

drivers aged 17–60 in England and Wales who drink away from home on some

occasions, Riley (1991) found that drink driving was closely associated with five

types of factors (in descending order of importance). In this case the factors were

linked more with attitudes and beliefs than with situational factors, as follows:

1. Whether drivers regarded drinking and driving as an important aspect of their

social lives.

2. Drivers’ beliefs about how drinking increased their chances of being stopped by

the police and drivers’ concerns about the legal consequences of conviction.

3. Drivers’ beliefs about the dangers of drinking before driving.

4. Drivers’ beliefs about the likelihood that family or friends would disapprove of

their drinking and driving.

5. The effects of alcohol on mood and behaviour which they have experienced.

Cluster analysis of data from a survey of men in a large metropolitan area who had

been convicted of drink driving in 1992 focused on behavioural and demographic

characteristics and attitudes (Clayton, no date). Situational factors comprised one of

42

the components of these clusters, but attitudes were also a component in this case.

The clusters identified were as follows:

• ‘Persisters’ – 23% of the sample, aged 25 to 44, typically drinking beer (81%)

or strong beer (16%) in a pub or at home before offending. Many were

unemployed C2DE men with previous convictions for drink driving and other

crimes.

• ‘Refuters’ – 19% of the sample, aged 25 to 54, typically drinking beer (80%) or

strong beer (13%) in pubs before offending. Largely C2DEs who denied that

drink driving is wrong and felt that the chances of being stopped were remote.

Generally, they believed that they were good drivers who were unaffected by

drinking.

• ‘Devastated Professionals’ – 19% of the sample, aged 25 to 44, of whom 72%

drank beer, 16% wine and 16% spirits, in either a pub or at home before

offending. Predominantly middle-aged ABs or C1s who were shocked at being

treated as criminals. They felt that they were capable of driving after drinking.

• ‘Young Irresponsible’ – 17% of the sample, aged 25 to 35, who typically drank

strong beer at home or at friends’ homes before offending. C1s and C2s with a

carefree attitude to life, easily influenced in a group, and inexperienced drivers.

They generally knew that their driving was impaired, but took the risk.

• ‘One-Offs’ – 7% of the sample, aged 35 to 54, C1 and C2DEs who typically

drank beer at a friend’s or relative’s home before offending. Often unusual

circumstances, such as a celebration, argument or depression, led to the offence

being committed. These people were severely affected by their conviction and

claimed to be reformed as a result.

To summarise, four studies were identified which looked at clusters or typologies of

drinking after driving or drink driving. Of the two recent studies – since 2000 –

(Collins et al., 2008b; Anderson and Ingram, 2001), one found that driving after

drinking is often linked to situational factors rather than attitudes, and the other

developed a typology based primarily on situational factors. One of the earlier

studies (in 1992) of convicted drink-drivers identified a typology based on a

combination of situational factors, behaviour, demographics and attitudes. However,

the other (in 1986) identified factors associated with attitudes and beliefs influencing

drink driving rather than situational factors; changes in attitudes and behaviour since

this study was carried out may account for different factors being identified.

4.5 Passengers

Information on the characteristics of people travelling as passengers with drivers

who had been drinking is limited to just one of the studies reviewed. The survey in

England and Wales in 2002 found that, among all drivers and non-drivers in the

sample, a larger proportion of drinkers (15%) compared with 2% of non-drinkers

43


had been a passenger of a driver who they believed to be over the legal limit at least

once in the past year (Brasnett, 2004). This study also found that 9% of drivers who

had not driven while over the limit in the last year had been a passenger of a driver

who they believed to be over the legal limit at least once in the past year.

These results imply an association between drinking behaviour, drink driving (or

not) and travelling as a passenger with a drink driver, which merits further

investigation.

44

5 THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH PEOPLE DRIVE AFTER DRINKING


• Driving occurs after drinking alcohol in a wide range of places, including

clubs, pubs, restaurants, and visiting family and friends.

• These tend to be ‘casual’ occasions rather than ‘serious’ nights out.

• The drive after drinking alcohol tends to be on local, short journeys where the

road is well known and drivers ‘feel safe’.

• Over half of driving after drinking takes place in the evenings, but it also

happens in the daytime, late at night and on the morning after drinking.

• Drivers do not recognise driving on the ‘morning after’ as drink driving.

5.1 Where?

Two studies provided information on where and when people drive after drinking.

These journeys typically involve driving home after visiting a club, pub or

restaurant, a friend or relative’s house, or a night out with friends. One study noted

that they tend to be ‘casual nights out’ rather than a ‘serious’ night out because those

planning to drink alcohol would not take the car for a ‘serious’ night out (Collins et

al., 2008b). However, in Northern Ireland 14% said they would normally drive after

drinking at a wedding or christening and 10% would drive after attending a sporting

event (Department of the Environment Northern Ireland, 2008).

A study of convicted drink-drivers in 1992 found that 38% had been drinking in a

pub prior to the offence and 36% had been drinking in a private home (see Clayton,

no date).

The Scottish study found some ‘explanation’ of driving when going out for a meal;

alcohol was thought by some to have less effect with a meal and to be more socially

acceptable, while some did not think drinking with a meal was ‘proper drinking’

(Collins et al., 2008b).

Among 35–49-year-olds, this study identified an element of driving ‘slightly over

the limit’, often for convenience, in situations such as driving locally that were

associated with social activities such as golf, visiting family and friends, and

attending meals.

45


The 2007 Scottish survey found that the types of journey involving driving after

drinking tend to be local (22% less than a mile and 51% between one and five

miles), on quiet roads (53%), in urban areas (39%) or rural towns and villages

(40%). Few are on motorways or dual-carriageways (16%), or unlit roads (12%), or

rural roads outside towns (14%). Thus, drink driving occurs when the roads are

known, the journey time is expected to be short and it feels safe enough to risk

taking the car home – i.e. local events and frequently made journeys.

5.2 When?

The majority (68%) of driving after drinking occasions reported in the 2007 survey

in Scotland by the 254 people who had driven after drinking in the past year (Collins

et al., 2008b) were at weekends (Friday to Sunday).

Evening drinking accounted for just over half (57%) of the driving after drinking

occasions reported by this group; these tend to be the ‘shorter’ nights out (with

alternative transport being arranged for big occasions or longer nights out), but a

fifth had been late at night, 16% had been in the daytime and 7% had been on the

morning after they had been drinking.

The proportion of occasions that were reported on the morning after drinking was

thought to be an underestimate, given that most respondents drove every day.

Qualitative interviews carried out as part of this study suggested that driving the

morning after drinking is seen as a separate issue from driving on the same night as

drinking; it is often seen as accidental and not recognised as drink driving. This was

recognised as being potentially more of an issue than evening drinking because it is

less easy for the driver to assess whether they are still over the limit or not, and a

need for greater guidance on how long it takes to eliminate alcohol was identified.

Furthermore, a larger proportion of those who reported driving over the limit

reported that they had driven the morning after compared with those who had driven

after drinking (but had not thought that they were over the limit).

In Northern Ireland almost a third of a sample of 545 motorists who drank alcohol

said they would normally drive the morning after they had four (women) or five

(men) alcoholic drinks, 55% said they would not and 14% said they do not normally

drink that amount (Department of the Environment Northern Ireland, 2008). The

proportion of men who would drive the morning after drinking this amount was

somewhat higher (34%) than for women (28%).

One study asked how long people had left between the last alcoholic drink and

driving, the last time they had driven within a few hours of drinking alcohol. The

most common response was between one and two hours (31%), and while 16% said

that they left between two and four hours and 15% said more than four hours, 13%

reported driving within half an hour, and 25% between half an hour and an hour

46

after drinking. Men were more likely than women to report driving within half an

hour (20% compared with 4%), and those who had reported consuming more

alcohol during the week waited less time than those reporting lower levels of

consumption during the week.

5.3 Who with?

One study – the survey in Scotland in 2007 (Collins et al., 2008b) – asked whether

these individuals drink and drive alone, or with others in the car. On the last

occasion when respondents drove after drinking, 46% reported that they had driven

alone, 46% with one passenger and 7% with more than one passenger. The under

29s were more likely to drive alone than older drivers, while 17–20-year-olds rarely

drove alone – for this young age group the drive is part of the group activity. Older

drivers would avoid drinking and driving with others in the car because of their

responsibility to their passengers.

47

6 ATTITUDES OF INDIVIDUALS WHO DRIVE AFTER DRINKING

6.1 Why? – motivations/reasons for driving after drinking


• People drive after drinking when they perceive that they are within the legal

limit of alcohol consumption for driving.

• They do so when they feel that they are safe to drive, using their own

definitions of ‘safe limits’.

• ‘Circumstances’ are not an important factor in driving after drinking –

unexpected events and changes of plan are not common explanations for

driving after drinking.

• However, ‘circumstances’ are used to explain some driving that is marginally

over the legal limit for alcohol.

• Habitual driving after drinking, and previous experience of driving after

drinking without incident and without ‘getting caught’, also play a part in

decisions to drive after drinking.

6.1.1 Explanations

Five studies provide information on explanations given by drivers for driving after

drinking and for drink driving either on the last occasion or the occasion for which

they had been arrested.

For those driving after drinking when they thought they were under the limit, the most

common reason given was that they thought they were under the limit (57% in

Scotland in 2007 (Collins et al., 2008b, and 63% in England and Wales in 2002

(Brasnett, 2004)). Qualitative research found that many said they drove after drinking

because they are allowed to and would not if it was illegal (Collins et al., 2008b). The

second main reason given for driving after drinking was that people felt that they were

safe to drive (35% and 25% in Scotland and England and Wales, respectively). In

Scotland, some reported that they had their car and needed to take it home (18%),

while 19% said they had waited a few hours before driving. A few explained that the

reason for driving after drinking was a lack of alternative transport (12% of those in

England and Wales), the inconvenience or cost of alternative transport. A perception

that they would not be caught did not feature strongly.

The times when people drive when they perceive that they are marginally over the

legal limit are not planned, but reported to be due to circumstances ‘beyond their

48

control’ arising from social activities, travelling a short distance or to somewhere

that has poor public transport (Collins et al., 2008b).

In Scotland, in 2007, on most of the times when driving after drinking occurred,

people had been expecting to drive (73%), although presumably a significant

minority had not. A few gave the reason for driving after drinking as not expecting

to drink (13%).

The balance of the explanations given by convicted drink-drivers and drivers who

had driven when they thought they were over the legal limit was rather different

from the reasons given by all reporting driving after drinking. More reported that

they felt safe to drive, more said that there was no other transport available, or

alternative transport was too inconvenient or expensive (although the proportions

were still small), and fewer said they thought they were under the legal limit

(Collins et al., 2008b; Brasnett, 2004). A study in 1992 found that 39% of convicted

drink drivers said they had drunk more than they had intended (Clayton, no date),

while a study of convicted drink-drivers referred to rehabilitation found that a

quarter said that they thought they were under the limit, another quarter did not

think about whether or not they were over the limit, and a quarter said that it was

because they did not have far to travel (Inwood et al., 2007) and a sixth reported that

they had to go somewhere unexpectedly.

The study of convicted drink-drivers in 1992 referred to by Clayton (no date) found

that 43% had thought they were over the legal limit, but still drove on that occasion.

One study found that those driving when they thought they may have been over the

legal limit were not more likely than those who had driven after drinking under the

limit to say that this was because they thought they could get away with it (1% in

each case – Brasnett, 2004), while a survey of convicted drink-drivers found that

19% gave this as a reason (Inwood et al., 2007).

A review of previous research on the factors contributing to drink-drive behaviour

among young men aged 17–29 (Davies McKerr, 2007) highlighted the following

factors:

• a deeply embedded drinking culture;

• a strong belief in the driver’s ability to tell whether they are ‘OK to drive’;

• a lack of clarity about the legal limit and how many drinks are ‘allowed’;

• previous experience of getting away with it; and

• a distinction between ‘drunk-driving’ (which is thought of as wrong) and ‘drink

driving’ (which is seen as acceptable).

In Scotland, peer acceptability was found to be a factor in young people driving after

drinking, with some saying that they were encouraged by friends (Collins et al.,

49


2008b). When a young driver’s friends are drinking, the social stigma of drink

driving is reduced and it becomes acceptable for both passenger and driver to drink.

Among older people, the study in Scotland found that those who habitually drink

and drive recognise that it is probably wrong, but because they feel fine and have

been driving after drinking for many years, they convince themselves that it is

acceptable to continue. Others perceive that older people drink and drive out of

habit, since it was not an issue when they started driving, and they therefore see no

reason to change now.

In rural areas, the survey in Scotland found that more people thought they were

under the limit than in urban areas (Collins et al., 2008b); it identified a perception

that it is relatively safe to drive after drinking in rural areas where the roads are quiet

and there are few police. Many of those in rural areas said that they would not

consider a public transport alternative if they were driving locally and within their

own ‘safe limit’.

In summary, the most commonly reported explanations for driving after drinking are

associated with perceptions about being within the legal limit and feeling safe to

drive within personally defined limits, often for short distances on quiet roads. The

influence of circumstances is less strong – unexpected events and changes of plan

are given as explanations, but in relatively small numbers of cases, although one

study found ‘circumstances’ to be a common type of explanation for driving

marginally over the limit. Issues with alternative transport do not tend to be reported

by many, but are rather more common among those driving over the limit than

others driving after drinking. Finally, habit and previous experience of driving after

drinking or drink driving without incident or without getting caught also play a part.

6.1.2 Profile of drinking behaviour – including planned and unplanned drinking


• One qualitative study of men aged 17–29 in social grade C1 and C2 who

drive after drinking found that, for planned events, arrangements to avoid

driving after drinking are made and drink driving is less ‘forgivable’.

• On unplanned and spontaneous occasions it is seen as more acceptable to let

events take their course.

• Drink driving was often described as something that ‘happens’ to people

rather than something they choose to do.

• These drivers do not accept responsibility for exceeding the limit on

occasions when they do not intend to do so – they expect to receive credit for

their good intentions.

50

Two studies have established the amount of alcohol which people thought they had

drunk the last time they had driven after drinking.

In the survey in England and Wales, in 2002, drivers who had consumed alcohol

before driving in the past year and believed themselves to be under the limit on the

last occasion had, on average, consumed what they perceived to be two units

(Brasnett, 2004). For those who believed they had been over the limit, the average

was four units on the last occasion. The largest amount they reported drinking

before driving in the past year was, on average, five units. Almost all (95%) of those

who thought they had been over the limit on the last occasion thought they had only

been slightly over the limit (21% thought they had drunk less than two units, 44%

between two and four units, and 35% more than four units). Of those who thought

they had been under the limit, 74% thought they had drunk less than two units, 18%

between two and four units, and 8% thought they had drunk more than four units.

A study of convicted male drink-drivers in a large metropolitan area in 1992

referred to by Clayton (no date) found that, on average, the drivers reported drinking

12.5 units immediately before the offence; this was considered by the research team

to be an underestimate.

Further insights into drinking behaviour are found in a qualitative study of men,

mainly aged 17–29, living in five areas of England, mainly in social grade C1 and

C2 who drink and drive (Davies McKerr, 2007), but who do not regularly do so after

five pints or more. For these, the second pint is the key, or ‘tipping point’. One pint

is seen as under the limit and safe to drive, while three pints is ‘pushing our luck’

because it would lead to a positive breath test even if the driver feels safe to drive.

The decision to have a second pint is the transition point; it is seen as a trivial

decision with potentially vast consequences, including a driving ban, a fine, more

expensive insurance and a criminal record, while, at the same time, there is the

possibility of killing or injuring oneself or others and having to live with that – all

for the sake of a pint.

All of these drivers said that they did not set out to exceed the limit for drink driving

and so did not accept full responsibility when they did so. They wanted to receive

credit for their good intentions, but would not always accept the blame for having an

extra drink or two. The over 30s were less tolerant of going over the ‘personal limit’,

while the under 25s were more likely to see themselves as ‘at the mercy of events’.

No one in the study considered that it is morally wrong to drive at, or just above, the

legal limit when it is not your intention to do so.

For the drivers in this study, spontaneous occasions were seen to be more of a

problem than planned events. Planned events provide an opportunity for making

arrangements to avoid driving and drinking, so it is seen as less forgivable to drive

after drinking then. On spontaneous occasions it was seen as more acceptable to let

circumstances take their course. Circumstances were often blamed for forcing

51


people into driving after a few drinks in spontaneous events, justified by the cost or

availability of taxis, being let down by a designated driver, public transport stopping

too early, or needing the car the next day. Drink driving was often described as

something which happens to people rather than something they choose to do or

allow to happen.

6.1.3 Planning transport (or not) to avoid drink driving


• 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

52

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 own driving with drinking behaviour


• 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.

53


6.3.1 The concept of drinking and driving

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 drinking and driving

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 of impairment (or not) when drinking and driving – personal safe 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.

54

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.

55


6.3.4 Actions to stay within the 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 the legal 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.

56

6.3.6 Perceived risks

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 Perceived causes of accidents

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.

6.4 Knowledge and understanding of laws and penalties


• The likelihood of getting ‘caught’ is perceived to be low.

• As a result, the consequences of being ‘caught’ are not of great concern.

• Some of the penalties for drink driving are little known, including the

criminal record.

Several of the studies found that the likelihood of getting caught while drink driving

was perceived to be low.

In England and Wales in 2002, 55% of those who had driven when they thought they

were over the limit in the past year believed that it was unlikely that drink drivers

would be caught by the police even if they drove while over the limit once a week

(Brasnett, 2004).

57


The study in Scotland in 2007 also found that those who drive after drinking did not

generally believe that they would be caught. The reasons given for the risk being

thought to be low were the small number of police on the roads, the fact that most

drivers had never been stopped by the police, and those that had been stopped had

not been breathalysed (Collins et al., 2008b). Many thought that if they were careful

to avoid accidents and their car was in good working order, then the police would be

unlikely to stop them and conduct a breath test.

In Northern Ireland, 39% of motorists who drink alcohol think it is likely that they

would be stopped by the police if they were drinking and driving (Department of the

Environment Northern Ireland, 2008). Men (37%) were rather less likely than

women (42%) to think that they would get stopped by the police.

A 1986 national survey of drivers aged 17–60 in England and Wales who drink

away from home on some occasions found that drivers in areas with high levels of

breath testing for drink-driving enforcement were significantly less likely to drink

and drive than those in areas with low levels of enforcement (Riley, 1991). However,

drivers in areas with high levels of enforcement did not perceive a higher risk of

being caught than those in areas with low levels of enforcement. The effect of high

levels of enforcement appeared to be to reinforce social pressures against drink

driving and to increase the awareness of the greater risk of accidents after drinking.

As the risk of getting caught by the police was considered to be low, the

consequences of being caught were not a great concern (Collins et al., 2008b). Some

perceived the chance of being caught to be higher at times of anti-drink-drive

campaigns and would modify their behaviour at such times.

As mentioned earlier, perceptions about how the legal limit for alcohol before

driving is defined were often vague or inaccurate. Awareness of penalties was also

found to be limited in one of the studies: in Scotland, in 2007, the proportion of

drivers interviewed that mentioned particular penalties for drink driving are listed

below (Collins et al., 2008b). Some of the penalties were little known, including the

criminal record, despite its far-reaching consequences:

• 77% mentioned being disqualified;

• 54% mentioned a fine;

• 54% mentioned losing their licence for a year;

• 35% incorrectly thought there would be points on the licence;

• 6% mentioned a criminal record; and

• 5% mentioned having the conviction recorded on the driving licence.

Perceptions of the penalties varied between age groups, for example 17–29-year

olds were most likely to mention a criminal record, while over 60s were least likely

58

to mention losing their driving licence. A lack of knowledge of the penalties may

lead some drivers to underestimate the risks.

6.5 Views on consequences

The study in Scotland in 2007 found that many of those who drive after drinking do

not appear to have seriously considered the consequences of being caught (Collins et

al., 2008b). When asked to consider the effects of being caught, the main impacts

recognised were: gaining a criminal record and the possibility of this resulting in

losing a job and future employability, embarrassment and humiliation. Drivers who

had been disqualified described the trauma of being arrested and held in custody,

and the embarrassing, inconvenient and costly consequences of being convicted and

disqualified.

A study of men aged 17–29 who drink and drive, but not regularly after 5 pints or

more, found that many did not realise that being over the limit is a criminal offence,

and a majority did not realise that a first drink-drive offence results in a criminal

record (Davies McKerr, 2007).

A study of convicted drink-drivers found that being disqualified from driving was

more difficult to cope with than other penalties, as this resulted in losing jobs,

earning opportunities, status and the trust of those most important to them (Beirness

et al., 2008). Other impacts mentioned were: loss of employment, being passed over

for promotion, inconvenience (for themselves and others), loss of income, loss of

status or respect, the stigma of being a drink driver and a criminal, and the long-

term loss of trust. For the family members of these convicted drink-drivers, the

impacts mentioned included the inconvenience of acting as a chauffeur, difficulties

with relationships, and the changing family dynamics after one had lost their driving

licence. The social stigma attached to being a family member of a drink driver was

seen as being worse than being a drink driver. There were also financial impacts

resulting from the unexpected additional costs associated with the conviction, the

rehabilitation course and transport costs.

Another study of convicted drink-drivers (referred to by Clayton (no date) and

carried out in 1992) found that some of the worst consequences of being convicted

for drink driving which were mentioned tended to be associated with specific groups

(see Section 4.4 for the details of the groups):

• greatly increased car insurance costs (Young Irresponsible);

• inconvenience of not having a car (Persisters);

• loss of job (this happened to 15% of the sample as a result of their conviction);

and

• loss of mobility (Devastated Professionals).

59

7 DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF DRUGS


• Drug driving is reported as being less prevalent than drink driving.

• Drug driving is far more prevalent among those under the age of 40 than

among older people – 3–6% of drivers under 40 report driving under the

influence of illicit drugs in the past 12 months.

• Drug driving occurs more among single people and those who drive less

frequently than among others.

• Drug driving journeys are often for social reasons and over short distances.

• But for problem drug users, all driving is under the influence of drugs.

7.1 Prevalence and incidence

A national survey of people in Great Britain in 2008 found that 2% of drivers aged

18+ admitted to driving after smoking cannabis and 2% after taking Class A drugs

(Angle et al., 2008).

Other studies focus on specific groups and do not provide evidence on prevalence in

the population as a whole; key results are presented in Table 7.1. A survey of drivers

who had driven on rural roads in Scotland in the past year found that 15% had

driven on urban roads and 16% had driven on rural roads after taking any kind of

drug (including prescription drugs) in the past 12 months (Collins et al., 2008a).

In 2005, a survey of drivers in Scotland aged 17–39 found that 6% had ever driven

after using illicit drugs within a time period when they were likely to have been

impaired, and 3.5% had done so in the past year; the authors estimated that after

taking account of under-reporting, 11% might ever have driven while impaired and

up to 6% in the previous year. An earlier survey of drivers in Scotland aged between

17 and 39, which was reported in 2000, found that 9% had ever driven under the

influence of a recreational drug and 5% had done so in the previous 12 months

(Ingram et al., 2000).

In 1999, a roadside survey of drivers crossing Scotland’s four toll bridges on Friday

and Saturday nights found that 3% of drivers aged 40 and over reported that they

had ever driven within 12 hours of using illegal drugs compared with 16% of those

aged 17–39 (Neale et al., 2000). This study also included qualitative research

among people attending night clubs and dance events, and found that, while drug

60

driving is associated with this lifestyle, most drug driving involved cannabis and

occurred at times when they were not travelling to or from clubs or dances. A

difference was identified between driving after using cannabis and other recreational

drugs. The number who had driven after using cannabis was much larger than the

number who had driven after ecstasy, cocaine, amphetamines or LSD; cannabis

driving was a routine part of daily life, while driving after using other drugs took

place less often and mainly in the early hours of Saturday and Sunday mornings.

Table 7.1: Prevalence of driving after using illegal drugs


Source

2% had driven after smoking cannabis 2% had driven after taking Class A drugs

Drivers aged 18+ 2008, Great Britain

Angle et al., 2008

Driving after taking drugs in past 12 months (including prescription drugs): • 15% on roads in a built-up area; and • 16% on rural roads

Drivers aged 17+ who had driven on rural roads in past year

2007, Scotland


6–11% had ever driven while under the influence of illicit drugs 3.5–6% had done so in the past 12 months

Drivers aged 17–39 2005, Scotland

Myant et al., 2006

9% had ever driven under the influence of any recreational drug 5% had driven under the influence of any recreational drug in past 12 months

Drivers aged 17–39 (n = 1,008)

No date, Scotland

Ingram et al., 2000

Drivers who had ever driven within 12 hours of using illegal drug: • 16% of those aged 17–39; and • 3% of those aged 40+

Drivers at toll bridges on Friday/Saturday nights

1999, Scotland

Neale et al., 2000

7.2 Who?

A survey of drivers aged 17–39 in Scotland in 2005 found that the prevalence of

drug driving did not differ between men and women or within age groups within the

sample (Myant et al., 2006). Drug driving in the past year was more common

among single people than those living with a partner. Those who drove less

frequently (less than once a week) were more likely to report drug driving than

frequent drivers. In contrast, a survey of people at clubs and dance events in

Scotland found that drug driving appeared to be more common among men than

women, and that people engaged in drug driving less frequently as they grew older

(Neale et al., 2000). In contrast to the 2005 survey, an earlier survey in Scotland

found that, among 17–39-year-olds, driving under the influence of illegal drugs

appeared to be most prevalent among those aged 20–24 and more common among

men than women (Ingram et al., 2000).

61


Data on people killed in road accidents who had been using illicit drugs found that

71% were under the age of 40 compared with 27% of those who had not used any

drugs, and that there was a higher prevalence among unemployed people (39%) than

others (Tunbridge et al., 2001).

Data from blood samples of drivers tested for alcohol in 1997–99 showed that illicit

drugs occurred predominantly among those under 40 (90%): 38% of drivers tested

aged 16–19 had been using illicit drugs compared with 36% of those aged 20–24,

23% of those aged 25–39 and 8% of those aged 40–59 (Keigan et al., 2004).

7.3 Circumstances

The survey of 17–39-year-old drivers in Scotland in 2005 found that most driving

after using illicit drugs took place for social reasons: half were to, or from,

someone’s home and most were for short distances (Myant et al., 2006). However,

problem drug users in this age group said that they were almost always under the

influence, so all their driving was under the influence.

The survey of clubbers found that drug driving mainly involved cannabis and was

not associated with travelling to or from club or dance events (cannabis tended to be

smoked during the week at home or at friends’ homes) (Neale et al., 2000).

Among clubbers, it was less common to take steps to avoid drug driving than it was

to avoid drink driving. Many of the clubbers had, in the past, arranged a designated

driver to avoid drink driving, but hardly any had arranged one to avoid driving after

using drugs. While some reported that they had tried to prevent friends from driving

because they were drunk, few said that they had ever attempted to stop someone

who had been using illegal drugs from driving (Neale et al., 2000).

Reasons given for drug driving in the survey of 17–39-year-old drivers in Scotland

in 2005 fell into two groups: the lack of deterrents to dissuade them (most people do

not believe that their driving is adversely affected by taking drugs and the perceived

risk of being caught is generally low) and the positive incentives associated with the

convenience of using personal transport and being able to make social journeys.

Recreational drug users drive while they are impaired as part of their social

activities, while for problem drug users, driving enables them to collect drugs more

quickly and conveniently, and makes it easy to travel away from their home area to

do so (Myant et al., 2006).

In this study, those who had not driven while under the influence of drugs in the

previous 12 months were defined as having given up drug driving and they shed

some light on circumstances and reasons for drug driving. This group were more

likely to be with a partner than those who had been drug driving in the past year.

The main reasons given for stopping were increased responsibility, the desire to

62

avoid shame and the implications of getting caught. Giving up drug driving was not

associated with advancing age or maturity within this group of 17–39-year-olds.

According to the interviews with clubbers, the influence of both behavioural and

situational factors contributed to drug driving among men: men were perceived as

being more likely to take drugs, while, at the same time, being more susceptible to

pressure from their peers and more likely to believe that it is acceptable to drive

while under the influence of drugs (Neale et al., 2000).

7.4 Passengers

In the survey of 17–39-year-old drivers in Scotland in 2005, 13% reported that they

had ever been a passenger with someone who was under the influence of illicit

drugs. Passengers were more likely than drivers to be concerned about the driver

being able to drive safely (Myant et al., 2006).

The survey of people visiting clubs and dance venues found that it was extremely

common in this group to have been a passenger of a driver who had used illicit

drugs, generally many times (Neale et al., 2000). The reasons for being the

passenger of a drug driver were generally the convenience of a lift home (which, in

turn, was explained by not having money for, or access, to taxis, bad weather, being

a long way from home late at night, and thinking that there was no alternative

transport). Also, some were less careful and more likely to accept a lift after taking

drugs themselves. There was a high level of belief that drug use does not affect the

ability to drive (and some thought that drugs improve driving skills), but many

reported that they had, at some time, been anxious while travelling with a drug

driver. These bad experiences had generally been when the driver had used drugs

other than cannabis, but it did not appear to put people off accepting lifts when

convenient. (This links with the suggestion in Section 3 that it is easier to take a risk

than refuse a lift with a drink driver.) The risks of being a passenger with a driver

who has been using illegal drugs were believed to depend on the type and amount of

drugs, and the driver’s tolerance, among other factors.

7.5 Attitudes and beliefs


• There is a lack of concern with the effect of drugs on driving.

• Driving after using cannabis is seen as less dangerous than after using ecstasy,

cocaine, amphetamines or LSD.

• The risk of being ‘caught’driving under the influence of drugs is perceived to

be low.

• Knowledge on the laws and penalties relating to drug driving is poor.

63


A study of young drivers’ perspectives on good driving found that cannabis was

mentioned as something that reduced aggression and might make for better, calmer,

driving. It found that different drugs are used in different ways by young people and

that sensation, thrill-seeking, excitement and risk are not the only reasons why

young people consume drugs and alcohol (Christmas, 2007).

The study of 17–39-year-old drivers in Scotland analysed propensity for sensation

seeking and found that those who had ever, or in the past year, driven while under

the influence of illicit drugs, had significantly higher scores on a sensation-seeking

scale than those who had not done so and those who were not drug users (Myant et

al., 2006).

Most drug drivers in this study (63%) were not concerned about the effect of drugs

on driving and almost half thought that drugs did not affect their driving; a few

thought that drugs made their driving better (for example, because cannabis made

them drive more carefully). Some drug users thought that drugs were detrimental to

their concentration and reaction times even when driving slowly. Those interviewed

while attending clubs and dance events considered that driving under the influence

of cannabis was much less dangerous than driving after ecstasy, cocaine,

amphetamines or LSD, and a large proportion thought that cannabis might improve

or have no impact on driving skills (Neale et al., 2000). The effect of drugs on

driving was believed to depend on a range of factors, such as the quality and

quantity of drugs, the individual, and the drug driving circumstances, as well as the

type of drug; many said that they knew how their driving was impaired and

compensated for this (Myant et al., 2006).

The risk of being caught drug driving was perceived to be low because the effect on

driving was generally thought to be minimal and so would not attract the attention of

the police, and, even if caught, accurate testing was not considered to be possible.

Some of the problem drug users had been stopped and tested, but with negative

results, even after ‘heavy’ consumption (Myant et al., 2006).

Among clubbers, knowledge of the law on illegal drugs and driving was poor (Neale

et al., 2000). Paradoxically, illicit drug users in Scotland in 2005 agreed that there

should be laws against drug driving (Myant et al., 2006). This implies a lack of

connection in their minds between using these drugs (whether or not they are

driving) and breaking the law.

64

7.6 Drugs, alcohol and driving


• There is some association between drink driving and drug driving.

• But drink drivers and drug drivers are not necessarily the same people.

• Drug driving is perceived to be less dangerous than drink driving.

Two studies of the incidence of drugs in drink drivers, based on analysis of

evidential blood samples taken after a driver had been stopped on suspicion of

driving above the legal limit for alcohol, found that 18% (in 1996–2000 (Tunbridge

et al., 2000)) and 22% (in 1997–99 (Keigan et al., 2004)) of drivers tested positive

for illicit drugs. By comparison, in the 1996–2000 study, 20% of drivers tested

positive for alcohol above the legal limit. In both studies, cannabis was the most

common drug: 8% tested positive for cannabis in the 1996–2000 study and 17% in

the 1997–99 study.

The survey of drivers aged 17–39 in Scotland in 2005 found an association between

drug driving and drink driving, speeding and being involved in an accident in the

past five years, which suggested that there is a personality characteristic underlying

risky behaviour (Myant et al., 2006). Just over a third of those who had driven after

using drugs in the past 12 months had also driven under the influence of alcohol.

Among clubbers, driving after drinking alcohol over the legal limit was generally

perceived to be more dangerous than driving after using illegal drugs (Neale et al.,

2000).

One survey which asked 17–39-year-olds in Scotland about past drinking and

driving, as well as driving after using illegal drugs, found that drink drivers and drug

drivers are not necessarily the same people (Ingram et al., 2000).

65

8 IMPLICATIONS FOR THE QUALITATIVE RESEARCH

The literature review has produced wide-ranging insights into drink drivers and

those who drive after drinking, and where, when and how often they do so. These

provided a sound basis for developing the qualitative research in the second phase of

this project. The results of the literature review contributed to the design of the

qualitative research, particularly in relation to the sample selection and the coverage

of the interviews.

8.1 Sample selection

It was clear that, as well as the obvious groups of respondents (those who have been

caught driving over the limit and people who drive knowingly over the limit), it

would also be important to include people who drive thinking they are under the

limit.

The review indicated that, while the emphasis should be on men and younger

people, women and older people should also be included as these do make a

significant appearance in the drinking and driving statistics, and that all social

classes should be covered.

The literature showed that the type of area in which people live affects their choices

and decisions in terms of making social journeys, the options and scope for planning

to avoid driving after drinking, and perceptions about police presence and the risks

of driving after drinking. Thus, sample areas were selected to represent different

kinds of area in terms of the degree of urbanisation so that interviews could include

people in very different kinds of geographical settings, with all that this implies in

terms of the availability of public transport, the distances people have to travel for

social purposes, and their perceptions of the likelihood of having an accident or

being caught.

The surveys identified that, while some people habitually drive after drinking, there

are many who do this only rarely. The research selected respondents who had driven

after drinking very recently, so that real occasions were fresh in their minds. This

was important because it enabled the study to take a detailed forensic approach to

understanding real occasions, providing the opportunity to delve beneath

conditioned responses and defences, and to obtain some fresh insights (see Section

8.2 below).

66

8.2 Interview coverage

The literature shows that behaviour is not strongly related to expressed attitudes to

drinking and driving. The disjunction between attitudes and behaviour was thought

to be interesting, but would probably require an oblique approach, especially to

ensure that the interviews penetrated barriers of denial and defensiveness. Drinking

and driving now has more stigma attached to it than it once had. To persist with the

practice in the face of years of campaigns and enforcement suggests people are

justifying what they do to themselves, and the interviews would need to try to

uncover how and why this is. The literature shows that people offer circumstantial

excuses; an important part of this project would be to try and map and unpack these

to see what sorts of circumstantial excuses are offered, their perceived ‘validity’ and

whether or not they seem open to a solution from the perspective of drivers

themselves.

The interviews should also examine how people talk about the occasions when they

drive after drinking. What detailed information and understanding of these

occasions can be obtained from the perspective of the driver? What can be

learned about how accounts are constructed and how people square what they do

with what they (think that they) believe or feel about driving after drinking?

The approach to the interviews was based heavily on getting detailed narrative

accounts and, to help in this, a journey sheet was used to get people involved and

thinking in advance about recent journeys. This set the tone for the interview itself,

where respondents were repeatedly asked for live and recent examples of driving

after drinking.

The literature demonstrates links between drinking behaviour and drinking and

driving behaviour, and the interviews were designed to obtain a better understanding

of these and this was a key feature of the interviews. This included drinking at pubs

and in other public settings, but also drinking in domestic settings – at home or

other people’s homes. The focus on the domestic settings was an important part of

the interviews, especially with upwards trends in drinking at home. How people

regard their drinking behaviour may affect how they construe their driving after

drinking behaviour, of which the interviews were also designed to gain a better

understanding.

67

9 REFERENCES

2CV (2008) Insight and Action to Help Reduce Levels of Hazardous and Harmful

Drinking. Qualitative Research Debrief. London: 2CV.

Anderson, S. and Ingram, D. (2001) Drinking and Driving: Prevalence, Decision

Making and Attitudes. Edinburgh: Central Research Unit, Scottish Executive.

Angle, H., Kirwan, S., Buckley, K. and Goddard, E. (2008) THINK! Road Safety

Campaign Evaluation Annual Survey 2008 Report. BMRB Social Research for the

Department for Transport. London: Department for Tranpsort.

Beirness, D. J., Clayton, A. and Vanlaar, W. (2008) An Investigation of the

Usefulness, the Acceptability and Impact on Lifestyle of Alcohol Ignition Interlocks

in Drink-Driving Offenders. Road Safety Research Report No. 88. London:

Department for Transport.

Boreham, R., Fuller, E., Hills, A. and Pudney, S. (2006) The Arrestee Survey Annual

Report: October 2003 – September 2004. Home Office Statistical Bulletin 04/06.

London: Home Office.

Brasnett, L. (2004) Drink Driving Prevalence and Attitudes in England and Wales:

2002. Home Office Report No. 258. London: Home Office.

Christmas, S. (2007) The Good, the Bad and the Talented: Young Drivers’

Perspectives on Good Driving and Learning to Drive. Road Safety Research Report

No. 74. London: Department for Transport.

Clayton, A. B. (no date) Drinking and Driving in Great Britain: Which Way

Forward? www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Misc/driving/s18p7.htm (accessed on 19

January 2010)

Collins, E., Eynon, C., MacLeod, P., Stradling, S., Crinson, L., Scoons, J. and

Broughton, J. (2008a) Rural Road Safety: Drivers and Driving. Edinburgh: Scottish

Government Social Research.

Collins, E., Dickson, N., Eynon, C., Kinver, A. and MacLeod, P. (2008b) Drinking

and Driving 2007: Prevalence, Decision Making and Attitudes. Edinburgh: Scottish

Government Social Research.

Cunliffe, J. and Shepherd, A. (2007) Re-offending of Adults: Results from the 2004

Cohort. Home Office Statistical Bulletin 06/07. London: Home Office.

Dalton, S., Orford, J., Webb, H. and Rolfe, A. (2004) Birmingham Untreated Heavy

Drinkers Project. Report on Wave 4. London: Department of Health.

Davies McKerr (2007) Anti-Drink Drive Adcept Research Debrief. London: Davies

McKer.

68

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Misc/driving/s18p7.htm

Department of the Environment Northern Ireland (2008) Northern Ireland Road

Safety Monitor 2008. Belfast: Department of the Environment Northern Ireland.

Department for Transport (2008) Road Safety Compliance Consultation. London:

Department for Transport.

Engineer, R., Phillips, A., Thompson, J. and Nicholls, J. (2003) Drunk and

Disorderly: A Qualitative Study of Binge Drinking Among 18–24-year-olds. Home

Office Research Study 262, Home Office Research Development and Statistics

Directorate. London: Home Office.

Ingram, D., Lancaster, B. and Hope, S. (2000) Recreational Drugs and Driving:

Prevalence Survey. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive Central Research Unit.

Institute of Alcohol Studies (2009) Drink Driving Fact Sheet. St Ives,

Cambridgeshire: Institute of Alcohol Studies.

Inwood, C., Buckle, G., Keigan, M. and Borrill, R. (2007) Extended Monitoring of

Drink Drive Rehabilitation Courses: Final Report 2007. TRL Report No. 662.

Wokingham: TRL Limited.

Jackson, P. (2008) A Review of Methodologies Employed in Roadside Surveys of

Drinking and Driving. Road Safety Research Report No. 90. London: Department

for Transport.

Johnson, F. W., Gruenewald, P. and Treno, A.J. (1998) Age-related differences in

risks of drinking and driving in gender and ethnic groups. Alcoholism: Clinical and

Exploratory Research h., 22(9), 2013–2022.

Keigan, M., Tunbridge, R. and James, F. (2004) The Incidence of Drugs in Drink

Drivers. Behavioural Studies Seminar. TRL Staff Paper. Crowthorne: Transport

Research Laboratory.

Lader, D. (2009) Drinking: Adults’ Behaviour and Knowledge in 2008. Opinions

(Omnibus) Survey Report No. 39. Newport: Office for National Statistics.

Lyle Baillie International (2005) Summary of scientific evidence behind ‘‘Just one

drink impairs driving’’. Report to Department of the Environment, Northern Ireland

and National Safety Council, Republic of Ireland.

Maycock, G. (1997) Review of Drinking and Driving. TRL Report No. 232.

Crowthorne: Transport Research Laboratory.

Myant, K. Hope, S., McIntosh, J., O’Brien, T., McKegany, N. and Stradling, S.

(2006) Illicit Drugs and Driving. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive Social Research.

Neale, J., McKeganey, N., Hay, G. and Oliver, J. (2000) Recreational Drug Use and

Driving: A Qualitative Study. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive Central Research Unit.

Ormston, R. and Webster, C. (2008) Scottish Social Attitudes Survey 2007:

Something to be Ashamed of or Part of Our Way of Life? Attitudes Towards Alcohol

in Scotland. Research Findings 66. Edinburgh: Scottish Government.

69


Riley, D. (1991) Drink Driving: The Effects of Enforcement. Home Office Research

Study 121. London: HMSO.

Robinson, S. and Lader, D. (2009) Smoking and Drinking Among Adults, 2007.

General Household Survey 2007. Newport: Office for National Statistics.

Rose, G. (2000) The Criminal Histories of Serious Traffic Offenders. Home Office

Research Study No. 206. Briefing Note 5/00. London: Home Office.

Smith, L. and Foxcroft, D. (2009) Drinking in the UK: An Exploration of Trends,

2009. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

Smith, L. R., Buckle, G., Keigan, M., Buttress, S. and Stone, J. (2004) The Drink/

Drive Rehabilitation Scheme: Evaluation and Monitoring. Final Report. TRL

Report No. 613. Crowthorne: Transport Research Limited.

Sykes, W., Groom, C., Kelly, J. and Hopkin, J. (2010) A Qualitative Study of

Drinking and Driving – Report of Findings. Road Safety Research Report No 114.

London: Department for Transport.

Tunbridge, R., Keigan, M. and James, F. (2001) The Incidence of Drugs and Alcohol

in Road Accident Fatalities. TRL Report No. 495. Crowthorne: Transport Research

Laboratory.

Xu, Y. (2009) Drinking and driving. Reported Road Casualties, Great Britain: 2008.

London: The Stationery Office.

70

APPENDIX 1

Documents reviewed – summary of scope and key points

71

A Q

ualita

tive S

tudy o

f Drin

king a

nd D

riving: R

eport o

n the L

iterature R

eview

Table A1.1: Documents included in the literature review

Reference Status of review/scope Information on characteristics Information on attitudes/

awareness

Information on behaviour Technical limitations

2CV (2008) Study of harmful drinkers to

inform the social marketing

strategy for the Department of

Health’s alcohol harm reduction,

includes observational study, in-depth interviews and monitoring

alcohol reduction exercise

Detailed qualitative segmentation

of hazardous and harmful

drinkers accounting for

discrepancies between claimed,

perceived and actual behaviour.

Understanding of attitudes and

motivations behind harmful

drinking.

Segmentation (mentioned in

reference 24 explained in detail

here)

Drinking diary Understanding

barriers

to reducing alcohol consumption.

Recommendations for strategies

Anderson and Ingram

(2001)

Nationally representative survey

of 1,004 drivers in Scotland, and

in-depth interviews and group

interviews. Includes explanation

of how dealt with the sensitivity

of the subject

6/10 drivers say they had ever

driven within a few hours of

having an alcoholic drink, 4/10 in

last year.

1/5 say have ever driven when

they might be over limit, 1/20 in

last year.

Age and gender differences

Perception of amount comprising own safe limit. Majority of drivers did not think alcohol had a

significant negative effect on their driving ability and were

unconcerned about the possibility of being stopped by

the police or being involved in an

accident

Information on strategies is more

detailed than in 2007 report.

Many plan to avoid driving when

likely to be drinking. Those who

drive, but try to stay within the

limit, are under pressure to drink

– young men feel excluded and

self-conscious. Little enthusiasm

for public transport; taxis and

shared minibuses more popular.

Reasons why people choose to

drink and drive, risk with next

day driving, justified with a

variety of reasons.

Information on a limited number

of drink-drive journeys. Identified

groups:

• chronic drink driver;

• lad’s night out;

• quiet back-road driver

• the ‘one-off’;

• 3 pints on an empty stomach;

• golf club dinner;

• truly drunk driver; and

• next day driving.

Perceptions of changes in their

own behaviour over time

( continued)

72

Table A1.1: (continued )


awareness


Angle et al. (2008) 2,009 interviews with people

aged 15+ in Great Britain in

October 2008, of which 1,227

were drivers; small sample of

motorcyclists also studied

5% of drivers 18+ had ever been

convicted for any driving offence,

5% had been banned.

51% had never had any driving

penalty

Drink driving is the most

commonly mentioned in the top

3 road safety issues most

important to address – 67% of

drivers and 75% non-drivers;

drug driving mentioned as one

of top 3 by 28% of drivers and

by 29% of non-drivers. Younger

drivers and those with less than

3 years’ driving experience were

more likely to mention drink drive

as top 3 issue. Agreement with

statements about road safety.

Agreement with statements

about powers the police should have for breath-testing

procedures.

Per cent of drivers and non-drivers who think driving after

taking drugs and after drinking

2 pints is unacceptable.


about the danger of drink and

drugs

Factors influencing how safely

you drive – visible police

presence thought to be most effective.

Prevalence of dangerous driving

(at all and in last year) – how

often dangerous behaviour and

how many people they know

behave in this way (hypothesis

that more socially acceptable if

perceive more people behaving

like this even if illegal):

drive when unsure if you are over

the legal alcohol limit;

• drive when over the legal

alcohol limit;

• drive after smoking cannabis;

and

• drive after taking class A

drugs.

Passenger experiences –travel

with driver under influence

Beirness et al. (2008) In-depth interviews with

convicted offenders

Demonstration used sample of

offenders from Driver and

Vehicle Licensing Authority (DVLA); mainly men, all ages, but

most aged 25–44, 41% single,

48% work part-time

Impact of conviction on

themselves and family.

Alcohol consumption last week

ranged from 2 to 200 units, mean

32

Response

rate to

invitation

was only

17%

Boreham et al. (2006) People arrested for drink driving

in 2003–04 (also includes other

offences)

Age distribution and whether or

not taken heroin, crack or

cocaine in the last 12 months

( continued)

73

A Q

ualita

tive S

tudy o

f Drin

king a

nd D

riving: R

eport o

n the L

iterature R

eview



awareness

Information on behaviour Technical

limitations

Brasnett (2004) Office for National Statistics

(ONS) omnibus results: 1,648

people 16+ interviewed of whom

1,083 had driven in previous year.

Crime and Justice (C&J) Survey

2003 source of data on

prevalence of self-reported drink

driving

17% of men drive over the limit,

6% of women. (C&J Survey 17%

and 10%.)

26% of 16–29-year-olds

admitted to driving over the limit

in past year.

Men 30–59 were most likely to

have driven after drinking what

they thought to be under the limit.

13% of all respondents had been

a passenger with a driver

thought to be over the limit in the

past year – these tended to be

drinkers.

More frequent drinkers more

likely to have driven after

drinking

Drink driving thought to be the

most common factor in road

accidents.

Attitudes to drink driving, risks,

enforcement and penalties were

similar regardless of how much alcohol people reported drinking before driving.

Half thought that even if someone drove over the limit

once a week for a year they were

unlikely to be caught by the

police.

Driving over the limit explained

by the following:

• felt safe to drive (49%);

• thought I was under limit

(27%);

• no other transport available

(12%);

• alternative transport too

inconvenient (4%); and

• did not think I would get

caught (1%).

Driving under the limit:

• thought I was under the limit

(63%); and

• felt safe to drive (25%).

General attitudes towards

penalties harsher than in specific

scenarios

44% of drivers had driven after

drinking some alcohol in the

previous year.

12% of drivers had driven after

drinking what they believed to

be over the limit in the past year

(14% in C&J Survey), but most

had done so only once or twice,

with 1/5 of them once a month

or more.

Driving when perceived to be

under the limit more frequent:

31% 1 per month or more.

Amount of alcohol drunk before

driving on last occasion: average

2 units if believed to be under

the limit, 4 units if thought to be

over the limit

( continued)

74



awareness


limitations

Christmas (2007) Effect of young people’s attitudes

and mindsets on driving (17–25)

Good driving thought of as

mastering the physical activity,

the social activity (operating in a

shared space), the emotional

activity (preserving appropriate

frame of mind to drive well in the

face of distractions and

annoyances), being law abiding.

Alcohol thought by some to

reduce mental alertness and the

ability to process information or

increase aggression.

Varying uses of different drugs;

beware of older researchers

drawing wrong conclusions about young people’s use of drugs

Workshops

with 6

groups of

17–25year-olds

(55 total)

Clayton (no date) 293 interviews with male drink-drivers convicted in 1992 and

follow-ups with 15. Also group

discussions

Cluster analysis of behaviour,

demographics and attitudes – 5

groups:

• Persisters;

• Refuters;

• Devastated Professionals;

• Young Irresponsible; and

• One-Offs

1992

Collins et al. (2008a) Study of drivers on rural roads to

gain insights into tackling rural

road accidents. Omnibus survey

of 992 drivers aged 17+, face-toface interviews with 1,020 rural

road drivers;

6 focus groups of 17–34-yearold men driving on rural roads,

also accident data analysis

(Stats19)

20% of drivers on built-up roads

reported driving after drinking

compared with 16% on rural

roads.

Driving when thought to be over

the limit – 2% on built-up and

1% on rural roads

Perceived cause of rural road

accidents – 28% – relatively high

compared with Stats19

Little difference in the extent of

driving after drinking between

rural and urban roads

( continued)

75

A Q

ualita

tive S

tudy o

f Drin

king a

nd D

riving: R

eport o

n the L

iterature R

eview



awareness


limitations

Collins et al. (2008b) 1,034 drivers in Scotland and 6

focus groups and 6 in-depth

interviews with people admitting

to driving after drinking.

Comparisons with 2001 survey

(Anderson and Ingram, 2001).

Driving after drinking any alcohol

43% (ever) and 25% in last 12

months – 154 incidents per 100

drivers.

Greater proportion of men, those

aged 30–59 and in higher social

grades had driven after drinking.

Rural residents no more likely

than urban to drive after drinking

or drink drive, and incidents of

driving after drinking in past 12

months less in rural areas (139/

100 rural, 163/100 urban).

1/5 drink drivers aged 17–29

Covers the concept of drink

driving, attitudes, safe limits and

consequences.

Attitudes not strongly linked to

behaviour; instead, behaviour

linked to circumstances

17–29-year-olds less likely to

report driving after drinking any alcohol than others, also less incidents of driving after drinking

in the past 12 months. The over 60s have a lower

prevalence, but higher incidents

in the last 12 months than other

groups. Fewer women than men

have driven after drinking.

Timing of drinking, types of

journey, reasons also reported

Cunliffe and Shepherd

(2007)

Statistical study of re-offending

rates (any offence) of adults 18+

by age and gender – separates

drink drivers and other offences

Age and gender of convicted

drink drivers

Average number of days before

re-offending ,250 for drink

drivers

Dalton et al. (2004) Panel of 307 untreated heavy

drinkers interviewed in 4 waves

over 6 years; 2003 survey

compared with earlier waves.

Mean consumption in the week

before the interview was 79 units

in wave 1 and 67 in wave 4

Gender, age and ethnic origin of

heavy drinkers, employment

status, social class, income, drug

use – compared with the general

population more professionals/

employers and managers, more unemployed and more users of cannabis and other illegal drugs).

Life events associated with reduced drinking

No one considered drink driving

to be an acceptable risk; several

thought it most serious because

of the potential for killing others.

Some regretted past occasions.

The concept of responsible

drinking may explain the disparity

between attitude and behaviour.

Conceptualised responsible

drinking as a process of self-monitoring and ‘being sensible’

to make sure own drinking did

not have negative consequences

for others. Being sensible relied

on being aware of the potential

effects of drinking too much and

knowing own personal limits.

Own limits were personal

tolerance when they did not feel

intoxicated, not necessarily

under the legal limit

27% had in the past year driven

a car while intoxicated or after

consuming 2 or more units of

alcohol over the previous hour.

Some take steps to avoid drink

driving:

• limit amount;

• lower strength drinks;

• book taxi; and

• DIY breathalyser testing

( continued)

76



awareness


limitations

Davies McKerr (2007) Research to develop ideas for

the ‘THINK!’ drink-drive

campaign in 2007.

Qualitative research to inform the

communication strategy, focus

on men aged 17–29

25–29-year-old men more

intractable than older and

younger men.

30–39-year-old men more

mature and considered, and did

not consider themselves to be a

problem.

Younger people most easily

influenced

Campaigns viewed as being

aimed at drunk drivers; men

drinking 1–3 pints do not see it

as being aimed at them.

Personal consequences most

compelling (seen to be more

pertinent than claims of

increased risk to others and of

crashing).

Need to get under people’s skin – direct, almost personal,

communication to the drink driver.

Unintentional drinking just above the limit is not seen as

morally wrong.

Understanding of legal limit is

limited, confusion

The issue of limits comes down

to the second pint – the transition moment between what

is seen as safe driving and

pushing one’s luck.

Spontaneous occasions are

often where problem occurs

Department of the

Environment Northern

Ireland (2008)

Attitudes to road safety and

awareness of Just One

campaign

86% think the police should be

able to stop drivers for a random

breath test.

64% think penalties are not

harsh enough.

Perceived likelihood of being

stopped by police by age.

How many drinks can you have

without affecting your driving –

42% said none. By age and

gender.

Acceptable to drive after 1 drink/

2/3/.


about drinking and driving.

Knowledge of limits for drink

drive and units of alcohol in

different drinks

2 main occasions for driving after

1 drink – evening at a friend’s

house (42%) and night out with

friends (31%).

21% of motorists who drink

would normally drive after

1 drink.

34% of men and 28% of women

would normally drive the morning

after an evening of heavy

drinking.

61% would not travel in a car

with a driver who has had 1 drink

( continued) 77

A Q

ualita

tive S

tudy o

f Drin

king a

nd D

riving: R

eport o

n the L

iterature R

eview



awareness


limitations

Engineer et al. (2003) 16 focus group discussions in 8

locations across England and

Wales with 18–24-year-olds

having regular experience of

binge drinking; 123 participants.

10 groups had been involved in

offending or disorder after

drinking in the previous year

(victim or offender).

Focus on experience of crime

disorder and risk-taking, and

links with drinking patterns,

attitudes to drinking alcohol and

the effects of binge drinking.

No specific coverage of drink

driving

‘Binge’ drinking definitions

summarised.

Defined here subjectively: feeling

drunk either on a weekly basis or

at least once a month

Desire to push limits and

difficulty judging limits of

consumption.

Fun to lose control.

Freedom or escape.

Some relieve stress or anger. Some planned their ‘big nights

out’, many had found a social

drink turn unexpectedly into a

drunken evening. Social and peer group norms

significant; some justified

misbehaviour, thinking

drunkenness to be an

acceptable excuse

Reasons for risk taking:

• perceived necessity; and

• alcohol makes people

become more reckless,

overconfident or determined

to do as they pleased.

Some had used illegal drugs, but

others were cautious.

Hard drugs enable them to keep

drinking for longer

Ingram et al. (2000). Household survey of 17–39-yearold drivers in Scotland,

computer-assisted self-interview

More males than females among drink drivers.

indication that people refrain

from drink driving as they get

older (and responsibilities

increase)

Some indication that those who

take risks in one area are more

likely to take them in another –

e.g. drink drive or drug drive and

excessive speeding or excessive

alcohol consumption

Prevalence of drink driving and

drug driving – 5% had driven

when they thought they were

over the alcohol limit in the last

year

( continued)

78



awareness


limitations

Institute of Alcohol Summary of statistics from a Convicted drink drivers: Prevalence of driving under the

Studies (2009) range of sources covering:

• the prevalence of drink

driving;

• other drugs; and

• blood alcohol levels in

casualties and fatalities

• 9/10 male.

High-risk offenders peak at age

27. 2 high-risk groups:

• young male manual/

unemployed; and

• older professional/

managerial men.

Of convicted drink drivers:

• 12% convicted of a second

offence within 10 years;

• 40% have previous

convictions for other types of

offence;

• twice as likely to have a

criminal record as others of

same age and gender; and

• highest rate of drink-drive

accidents per licence holder

is a man under 34, peak

20–24

influence of alcohol or drugs: 5%

of drivers aged 18+ admitted to

driving over the limit, 13% said

they had driven when unsure

whether they were over the limit

Inwood et al. (2007). Monitoring for a further 3 years.

Included postal survey of referred

offenders

Circumstances around offence. Attendees more likely than non-attendees to have been involved

in an accident

Alcohol-related knowledge and

perceived behavioural control

over drinking and driving.

Attitudes to drinking and driving

compared for attendees and

non-attendees.

Opinions on reducing drinking

and driving and motivations to

attend course

Reported driving style and drink-drive behaviour

Potential for

non-response

bias

Jackson (2008) Summarises the proportion of

drivers identified over the legal

limit in the past roadside surveys

In 1998, 1% of drivers on

weekend nights were over the

legal limit.

In 1999, 0.7% were over the limit

(thought to be under-reported)

( continued)

79

A Q

ualita

tive S

tudy o

f Drin

king a

nd D

riving: R

eport o

n the L

iterature R

eview



awareness


limitations

Keigan et al. (2004) Sample of 2,000 evidential blood

samples, 1997–99.

Drug use by age and gender,

compares illegal and medicinal.

Regional variations

23% of drink drivers tested

positive for one drug (illegal or medicinal) three-quarters of these were for cannabis. 4%

more than one drug. Shows the

association between drugs and

the level of alcohol

1997–99

Lader (2009) 2,243 home interviews with ages

16+ in Omnibus Survey

For key points see NHS

information centre report.

Additional points summarised

here.

Gives age, gender and social-economic group (SEG)

distribution of people buying

alcohol from different types of

outlet

Circumstances in which people

drank last week:

• home – 45% male, 60%

female;

• other home – 9% male, 11%

female; and

• pub/bar – 35% male, 17%

female.

Older people more at home;

variations with SEG and gender.

Drinking companions

Lyle Baillie Brief summary of evidence from Limited statistics on accident

International (2005) a wide range of studies on the

nature of alcohol impairment

relevant to driving at different

levels of consumption

involvement at different levels of

blood alcohol concentration (US)

Maycock (1997) Review of data sources and

research studies. Includes

roadside surveys

Drivers in more affluent areas and managerial and professional occupations tend to be under

represented in the High Risk

Offender scheme and those in

less well-off areas and in manual

occupations tend to be overrepresented. Information on age and gender.

Data from roadside surveys on

incidence of driving with and

without alcohol on weekend

evenings

1997

(continued)

80



awareness


limitations

Myant et al. (2006) Survey of 1,031 drivers aged

17–39. Qualitative interviews

with those who have driven

under the influence of drugs in

the past year, or longer, or have

been passengers

A third had ever used drugs,

estimate 16% in past 12 months,

more common among men than

women; tend to be infrequent

drivers.

Cannabis most common.

Differences with age and

whether they live with a partner.

Estimate 11% had ever driven

while likely to be impaired, 6% in

the past 12 months (estimates

take account of under-reporting).

Problem drug users were almost

always under the influence so

always drive under the influence

Explanations for drug driving – 2

key themes:

• positive incentives for drug

driving (convenience of own

transport and being able to

make social journeys); and

• a lack of deterrents to

dissuade (most people do

not believe they were driving adversely affected, and most

perceive that the risk of being

caught is low).

Used Arnett’s sensation-seeking

scale to place respondents on a

spectrum of sensation seeking to

develop explanatory framework

for drug use and driving. Score

higher for those reporting an

involvement in other types of

risky driving than among those

who did not.

Opinions on what would stop

people drug driving – advertising,

education and more police on

the roads

Association between drug driving

and drink driving, speeding,

being involved in an accident in

the past 5 years.

Circumstances of drug driving –

where going from and to.

Recreational drug users mainly

at weekends for short distances.

People who had given up drug

driving were more likely to be

with a partner. Increased

responsibility, desire to avoid

shame and implications of

getting caught were the main

reasons given for stopping

( continued)

81

A Q

ualita

tive S

tudy o

f Drin

king a

nd D

riving: R

eport o

n the L

iterature R

eview



awareness


Neale et al. (2000) Qual interviews 61 drug users

attending night clubs in Scotland.

Self-completion survey: 88

dance/nightclubs.

Survey on main toll bridges at

peak drug-driving times.

10 focus groups

Drug driving more common

among males than females and

less common as get older. Drug

driving more common than drink

driving among clubbers

Cannabis driving considered less

dangerous than driving after

ecstasy, cocaine, amphetamine

or LSD.

Common to report being anxious

while travelling with a drug driver

– but little evidence that this

prevented the acceptance of a

lift. Frightening experiences with

drugs other than cannabis.

Those who had drunk driven

were as willing as those who had

not to accept the higher level of

danger and stupidity involved, so cannot assume that people who have behaved in a particular way

are more likely to argue that it is

acceptable and safe. The role of friends and peers –

drug driving often socially

acceptable and normal within the

friendship groups of those who

drug drove. Poor knowledge about the legal

position on drugs and driving and

many confused on the laws of

alcohol use

Incidence of illegal drug taking

and driving afterwards –

widespread among clubbers and

dance survey, but low at toll bridges.

Most drug driving involved

cannabis and was not associated

with clubs or dance.

Passengers – reasons for being

a passenger with a drug driver

mostly related to the

convenience of a lift home

(several reasons). Some more

likely to accept a lift if intoxicated

themselves – they do not care.

Behavioural and situational

factors contribute to male drug

driving.

Many clubbers had arranged a

designated driver for drinking,

but not for drug taking.

Some clubbers had tried to stop

someone from drink driving, but

hardly any had done so for drug

driving

Ormston and Webster

(2008)

1,500 face-to-face interviews

with self-completion

questionnaire in 2007. Focus on

attitudes, awareness and

knowledge among general

population.

Summary and main report

available

None – general population survey

Views on drinking in Scottish

culture, cause of problems, role

of alcohol in social events.

Attitudes to alcohol misuse using

scenarios to represent different

types of drinking behaviour.

Awareness of units and

consumption guidance.

Variations in views and attitudes

with age and gender, SEG, etc.

Frequency of drinking, who

people drink with

( continued)

82



awareness


limitations

Riley (1991) 1986 national survey of 1,700

drivers aged 17–60 in England

and Wales who sometimes

drove a car or van in leisure time

and who drank at least

occasionally away from home.

Beliefs, attitudes and behaviour

towards drinking and driving.

Are differences in drink driving

linked with local level of

enforcement and perceptions of

enforcement?

Little information on sample

characteristics

A third of drivers said it was

difficult to avoid some drinking

and driving if they were to have a

social life.

Less than half of young men

thought it likely that they would

drive at least once in the next

year when they were over the

legal limit.

Drivers in high enforcement

areas did not estimate a greater

likelihood of being caught than

those in low enforcement areas. High enforcement reinforces social pressures against drink

driving and increases awareness

of the greater accident risk for

alcohol-impaired drivers.

Drink driving associated with

five factors: • regard drinking and driving

as important for one’s social

life;

• beliefs about the increased

chance of being stopped by

the police and concern over

consequences;

• beliefs about the dangers of

drinking before driving;

• beliefs about the likelihood

that family or friends would

disapprove; and

• experienced effects of

alcohol on moods and

behaviour

Drinking away from home – most

drivers drank away from home at

least once a week.

Men most often gave the risk of

legal sanction as a reason for

cutting down on drinking before

driving, while women were most

frequently concerned with the

risk of being in an accident.

Drivers in high enforcement

areas were less likely to drink

than those in low enforcement

areas

1986

( continued)

83

A Q

ualita

tive S

tudy o

f Drin

king a

nd D

riving: R

eport o

n the L

iterature R

eview



awareness


limitations

Robinson and Lader

(2009)

Household survey in Great Britain

– alcohol consumption,

comparison with previous

surveys, drinking patterns

Decline in per cent of young

women (16–24) drinking heavily.

More frequent and heavy

drinking among higher income

and non-routine occupational

background than lower income

and routine occupation

background

72% of men and 57% of women had an alcoholic drink in the past

week; 24% of men and 15% of

women drank heavily on at least

1 day in the past week.

Over 65s had the highest per

cent not drinking in a week and

the highest per cent drinking

every day

Rose (2000) Compares convicted drink

drivers with those committing

other serous traffic offences –

main interest is in information on

previous criminality.

Interviews with police on how

incidents arise

Proportion with previous

convictions.

Twice as likely to have a criminal

record compared with the

general population of same age

and gender

Smith and Foxcroft

(2009)

(Summary and full

report available)

Systematic review of research on

trends in alcohol consumption

from general population surveys,

data on sales and spending and

national statistics.

Increase in drinking among

• Women

• Middle age and older age

groups

• Very young adolescents

Possible recent decrease in

drinking among 16-24 year olds. Trends in drinking at different levels discussed.

Possible reasons for main trends

discussed.

Smith et al. (2004) Drink drivers convicted in 2000–

02 in Great Britain who were

Age and ACORN category of

referred drink drivers, per cent

Reconviction rates – course

attendees and non-attendees,

(Note, TRL 662 referred to rehabilitation. of high risk offenders; course under and over 30, gender and

(Inwood et al., 2007) Investigation of course providers attendance rates by gender age, ACORN

longer-term and courts’ practices and views ACORN and High Risk Offender

monitoring of same status

group – up to 5 years)

( continued)

84



awareness


limitations

Tunbridge et al. (2001) Post-mortems of 1,184

casualties dying within 12 hours

of a road accident occurring

between 1996–2000

Of the 533 drivers, positive tests

for:

• medicinal drugs, 5%;

• illicit drugs, 18%;

• alcohol over the legal limit,

20%; and

• drugs and alcohol, 7.5%.

Details of the types of drugs are

given – cannabis most frequent.

For all road users (not just

drivers) shows differences with

age, region of Great Britain and

SEG:

• highest drug use among

unemployed

1/6 of all

cases

occurring –

possible

selection

bias, but

small effect

on level of

drug use

shown

Xu (2009) Statistics on drink-drive

accidents and casualties, trends

over time

Age and mode used by drink

drivers killed, rate per 100,000

population in different regions,

over the limit and over twice the

limit.

Car drivers in drink-drive

accidents per licence holder and

per mile driven.

Seasonal and time of day

variations in drink-drive

accidents.

Breath testing and failures by

age and gender

85

A Q

ualita

tive S

tudy o

f Drin

king a

nd D

riving: R

eport o

n the L

iterature R

eview

Table A1.2: Other references, not included in literature review

Reference Status of review/scope Information on

characteristics

Information on attitudes/

awareness


Alcohol Concern (2009)

Drinking Patterns Summary

Sheet

One-page summary of fact

sheet that is available to buy.

Sources of information not

listed

Alcohol Concern (2009)

Young People Summary Fact

Sheet

One-page summary of

published fact sheet. Sources

not listed

BOMEL Ltd (2004) Safety Study of relation between Driver attitude scoring for Includes survey based on the

Culture and Work-related organisation’s safety culture positive and negative Theory of Planned Behaviour

Road Accidents. Road Safety and attitudes of its drivers to attitudes to road safety to analyse driving attitudes

Research Report 51. London: safe driving. Survey of 7 and behaviour. Presented

Department for Transport companies – company car

drivers and HGV drivers

using semi-structured

interviews.

Reports review of literature

with 4 driving violation

scenarios (including drinking and driving), and rated on a 5point Lickert scale how they

feel about the consequences

of their behaviour, the

pressure they would feel to

carry out the behaviour and

belief about the ease or

difficulty with which the

behaviour can be performed

British drivers don’t know

drink drive limit. 4 News,

25 March 2009,

www.channel4.com

AXA survey of 800 drivers

(source not found on AXA

website)

Only 39% correctly stated

that the legal alcohol limit for

driving is the equivalent of

one pint of beer. However,

28% think the limit is higher,

with 13% believing that the

legal maximum is the

equivalent of a pint and a half

of beer. The survey revealed

that 13% of drivers think they

can down two pints of beer

and still drive legally. A

worrying 2% minority said the

limit was even higher than two

pints of beer

No information on

sample

(continued)

86

http://www.channel4.com



characteristics


awareness


limitations

British Medical Association

(2009) Drinking and Driving

Policy Paper, http://

www.bma.org.uk/

health_promotion_ethics/

alcohol/drinkdrive.jsp last

accessed 22 January 2010

Comment on government

policy – includes no new

information

Butcher, L. (2009) Driving:

drugs. House of Commons

Briefing note SN/BT/2884,

House of Commons Business

and Transport section

Summary of policy

developments and research

A 1998 study showed that,

compared with 10 years

previously, 5 times as many

people killed in road accidents

had a trace of an illegal drug.

Cannabis was the most

common: 12%. Class A drugs

most likely to have an effect

on driving found in 6% of

cases

Central Office for Information Understanding of research Harmful drinkers found Awareness. Frequency of consumption is

(2007) Social Marketing and expert views on across all social groups. Broad comparison of a key factor in unit

Strategy for Harmful Drinkers. excessive drinking Tend to be older and, unlike attitudes, motivations and consumption.

Stage 1: Final Scoping Report binge drinkers, do not drink

to get drunk.

Uses stats from the General Household Survey (GHS) 2005

beliefs compared with more

moderate drinkers

Triggers and process of

reaching the point of harmful

drinking.

Discussion of how to

influence change and the

role of communication versus

social marketing

Cuppleditch, L. and Evans. W.

(2005) Re-offending of Adults:

Results from the 2002 Cohort.

Home Office Statistical

Bulletin 25/05. London: Home

Office.

Note. results from 2003 and

2004 cohorts in separate

reports

Convicted drink drivers

(custodial or community

sentence) and rate of re-offending during subsequent

2 years

Age and gender distribution

of convicted drink drivers.

Rate of re-offending in age

and gender groups

(continued)

87

http://www.bma.org.uk/

http://www.bma.org.uk/

A Q

ualita

tive S

tudy o

f Drin

king a

nd D

riving: R

eport o

n the L

iterature R

eview


Reference Status of review/scope Information on Information on attitudes/ Information on behaviour Technical

characteristics awareness limitations

Davies, G. P. and Broughton. Analysis of criminal and Offending background,

J. (2002) Criminal and motoring offences committed ACORN classification of area

Motoring Offences of Drink by drink driving offenders of residence, gender and age

Drivers who are High Risk before and after they became

Offenders. TRL Report No. High Risk Offenders

551. Crowthorne: TRL Ltd

Department for Transport Summary of 3 studies on the

(2000) The Attitudinal Theory of Planned Behaviour

Determinants of Driving and its application to driving

Violations. Roads Safety violations. Drink driving is one

Research Report 13. London: of the violations included in

Department for Transport scoring

Entec UK Limited (2002) The Assembly of international Higher scores on sensation- Differences in attitudes and Men 3 times more likely to International

Contribution of Individual literature on individual seeking scales, risk-taking, knowledge between drink- report driving after drinking literature – need

Factors to Driving Behaviour: differences that could be anger/hostility and low level drive offenders and non- to pick out UK-Implications for Managing applied in occupational road of risk perception are offenders. based findings

Work-related Road Safety. safety policies associated with drinking and Strong link between social

Research Report 20. London: driving. deviance and drink driving –

Health and Safety Executive Higher scores on

‘venturesomeness’ and

‘impulsivity’ associated with

violations suggested as one

manifestation of social

deviance

substance abuse.

More negative life events associated with drink driving

Everest, J. T, Banks, S., Level of alcohol in road Social background (marital Drinking habits of drivers and 1988–89

Hewer, P. A. and Mineiro, J. accident casualties attending status, SEG, annual mileage). motorcyclists – frequency of

(1991) Drinking Behaviour an A&E in 1988–89, and Distribution of accident time, drinking in pubs and at home,

and Breath Alcohol results of home interviews day and month for drivers distance travelled prior to

Concentrations of Road with a sample with different BrAC levels. accident, drinking in 12 hours

Accident Casualties. TRL Distribution of BrAC prior to accident

Report No. RR331. concentration drivers by

Crowthorne: TRL Ltd gender

(continued)

88



characteristics


awareness


limitations

Gwilliam, R. (2008) Behave Recommendations for policy Summarises long-term trends Discussion of THINK! Summary of theories about Yourself – Road Safety Policy interventions including drink in casualty reduction and campaign focus. Given behaviour change

in the 21st Century. London: driving. Review of evidence number of driving research showing perceived

Parliamentary Advisory includes drink-driving case disqualifications. risk of having accident or

Council for Transport Safety study Data on time of day of drink-drive accidents shows

‘morning after’ effect.

Important to target groups

other than young men

being caught drink driving is

low, suggests continuing to

match fear of detection with

fear of punishment.

Role of shame and

embarrassment.

Suggests understanding

more about fear, emotion and shame, and discovering the boundaries before an audience will switch off. Discussion of grey area on

limits. Elaboration of

Likelihood Model and Effortful

Deliberation. Provision of coping strategies

important, especially for

young drivers – e.g.

designated driver, but

evidence on efficacy in the

UK not yet sufficient

Hamilton, K. and Kennedy, J.

(2005) Rural Road Safety: A

Literature Review. Scottish

Executive Social Research.

Edinburgh: Scottish

Executive

Review of published literature

mainly from UK on

information relating to road

accidents on rural roads

No concrete evidence that

drink driving is more

prevalent in rural areas, but

public perception that it is

more of a problem (based on

Anderson and Ingram above)

(continued)

89

A Q

ualita

tive S

tudy o

f Drin

king a

nd D

riving: R

eport o

n the L

iterature R

eview


Reference Status of review/scope Information on Information on attitudes/ Information on behaviour Technical characteristics awareness limitations

Hope, S., McKeganey, N. and Planned study extending an Prevalence of illicit drug use Planning to assess extent to Four reasons to be examined:

Stradling, S. (2005) Illicit earlier study in Scotland in and driving which drivers contrive to • contrived compulsion;

drugs and driving: prevalence 1999. Survey of 1,000 drivers place themselves in situations • reward;

and attitudes. Behaviour aged 17–39, qualitative where it is likely that they will • absence of risk or

Research in Road Safety, interviews with those who use drugs and drive – by censure; and

15th Seminar. London: have driven under the studying the way that drug • low awareness of Department for Transport influence of drugs in the past

year, or longer, or have been

passengers

drivers construct their

accounts of drug driving.

Previous research indicates a

impairment.

Note, outcome not mentioned

in Myant et al. (2006)

Report of actual study is

Myant et al. (2006)

pattern to ways of recounting

experiences of road safety

violations which absolve them

of responsibility – suggest

that drivers set-up situations in which they are required to drink and drive, e.g. drive to a

friend’s house where drugs

will be part of the social

interaction and then for some

reason they must drive home;

presented as a ‘one-off’.

Analysis will look at unifying

themes among ‘one-off’

accounts of drug driving.

Hypothesis that sensation

may be primary explanation

for violations among young

people, contrived compulsion

may be a better explanation

among older drivers.

Note, analysis of these

aspects does not appear in

the actual report

Inwood, C. (2007) The drink Key findings of Smith et al. Includes comparisons with

drive rehabilitation project. (2004) attendees and non-attendees

Behavioural Research in

Road Safety 2007: 17th

Seminar. London: Department

for Transport

(continued)

90




Townshend, J. M. and Duka, Methodological study of ways

T. (2002) Patterns of alcohol of measuring alcohol

drinking in a population of consumption in study of

young social drinkers: a university students

comparison of questionnaire

and diary measures. Alcohol

and Alcoholism, 37( 2), 187–

192

Lancaster, B. and Dudleston, Qualitative research to Pivotal role that alcohol plays Main drinking place – pubs. Problem drinkers

A. (2001) Attitudes Towards explore views and in Scottish society, with many Drinking to get drunk

Alcohol: Views of Problem experiences of alcohol and people identifying alcohol as

Drinkers, Alcohol Service alcohol-related services, the main focus of their life

Users and their Families and perceptions of how far

Friends. Health and services meet needs and

Community Care Research ideas for other services.

Programme Research Interviews with people with

Findings No. 12. Edinburgh: alcohol problems, families

Scottish Executive Central and friends

Research Unit

Morning After drivers targeted Central Scotland Police study More than 80% of drivers Too brief

– BBC News, http:// questioned in research by the

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/ police admitted to driving the

scotland/tayside_and_ morning after a night-time

central/7802853.stm last drinking session accessed 22 January 2010

(continued)

91

http://questioned

A Q

ualita

tive S

tudy o

f Drin

king a

nd D

riving: R

eport o

n the L

iterature R

eview



characteristics


awareness


limitations

NHS Information Centre

Model-based Estimates of

Binge Drinking for Local

Authorities in England http://

www.ic.nhs.uk/statistics-anddata-collections/populationand-geography/

neighbourhood-statistics/

neighbourhood-statistics:model-based-estimates-ofhealthy-lifestyle-behavioursat-pco-level-2003-05

accessed 22 January 2010

Indicates variations in binge

drinking between areas

Model-based

estimate

RAC (2008) Report on

Motoring 2008: Report One –

20 Years of Motoring 1988/

2008. Norwich: RAC.

Survey of 1,116 motorists

(with valid licence and drive

at least once a month) shared

views on motoring in 2008

and how it has changed since

1968 – online survey.

Nationally representative in

terms of age, gender, SEG

and region

Three-quarters of drivers support a reduction in the

legal limit for drink driving.

Three-quarters say random

breath testing would be

acceptable, and

7/10 say the drink-drive limit

should be reduced to no

alcohol at all

Register of drug and alcohol Includes brief summaries of

research in Northern Ireland. studies

Anti-drink driving strategy

development research, 2000.

Attitudes and behaviour of

young adult drinkers in

Northern Ireland, 2003.

Continuous household survey

biannual to 2003, includes

information on drink driving

and driving and drinking, and also attitudes.

Courses for drink-driving offenders annual since 2000

(continued)

92

http://www.ic.nhs.uk/statistics-and�data-collections/population�and-geography/









Royal Society for the

Prevention of Accidents (2007)

Drinking and Driving Policy

Paper. Birmingham: RoSPA.

Discussion of policy options –

lowering legal limit for BrAC,

wider police powers to

require tests, random breath-testing, sobriety checkpoints,

penalties and sentencing,

Summarises statistics on

breath testing, including hour

of day, casualty statistics, age

of drink drivers, drink-drive

accidents per licensed driver

by age group

rehabilitation, education and

publicity.

Includes examples of policy

measures in other countries

Stead, M., Gordon, R., Holme, Initiatives successfully used in

I., Moodie, C. Hastings, G. other fields which can help

and Angus, K. (2009) inform new strategies for

Changing Attitudes, alcohol-related harm

Knowledge and Behaviour: A

Review of Successful

Initiatives. York: Joseph

Rowntree Foundation

Stone, J., Buttress, S. and Summarised in TRL 662

Davies, G. P. (2003) Drink/ (Inwood et al., 2007)

drive Rehabilitation Courses:

Survey of Non-attenders. TRL

Report No. 575. Crowthorne:

TRL Ltd

Tancock, N. Risky business. Focus on harmful drinkers On the surface, harmful Defined 9 different types of

How the alcohol social over 35. Qualitative drinkers are no different from drinker in segments fitting

marketing strategy for research – included days people drinking at lower risk into ‘social’ and ‘individual’

England can help harmful observing the life of harmful levels, but they are deeply dimension; any one individual

drinkers help themselves. drinkers attached to alcohol – some can move through all groups

Presentation. saw it as part of the national in a day or a week

Note, for an explanation of identity

the segments see also

2CV (2008)

(continued) 93

A Q

ualita

tive S

tudy o

f Drin

king a

nd D

riving: R

eport o

n the L

iterature R

eview



characteristics


awareness


limitations

The NHS Information Centre, Compilation of statistical In 2007, 73% of men and Knowledge of units and Drinking patterns, alcohol lifestyles statistics, 2009. information on drinking 57% of women reported recommended maximum. buying

Statistics on alcohol England, habits, knowledge and drinking alcohol on at least 1 Attitudes to own drinking by

2009. The Health and Social attitudes towards drinking day in the previous week; age and gender (from Health

Care Information Centre and health-related effects of

alcohol misuse (Main sources

GHS and ONS survey)

13% of men and 7% of

women drank every day.

Includes per cent drinking

heavily on at least 1 day and

per cent drinking more than

the recommended number

of units per week.


women classed as hazardous

drinkers.

Drink in last week most

common among

professionals/manager (80%

of men, 60% of females);

heavy drinking also – 43%

professionals/manager, 32%

routine-manual.

Among those of working age, those employed were more likely to drink in the past week

than unemployed/inactive –

heavy drinking also. Drinking associated with

higher income, married/cohabiting more than single.

Regional variations – heavy

drinking more in North West

and Yorkshire and

Humberside, least in West

Midlands

survey for England, 2007):


women who had drunk in last

year would like to drink less

(continued)

94



characteristics


awareness


Valentine, G., Holloway, S. L., Telephone interviews with Drinking cultures vary Men drank heavily and alone

Jayne, M. and Knell, C. 1,000 adults, in-depth between different parts of the more than women.

(2007) Drinking Places. Where interviews with key country, embedded in Young men often have a

People Drink and Why. York: stakeholders. Inter- historical, socio-economic culture of ‘showing off’,

Joseph Rowntree Foundation generational interviews with

10 families. Observations of

behaviour. Investigation of

cultures of alcohol

consumption in two areas –

urban and rural – and a

range of drinking practices

from abstinence to binging

and cultural contexts.

Young people ignored health

implications of binge drinking

and justified it as a phase

without recognising the

potential long-term risks.

Women’s drinking viewed

more negatively than the

same behaviour in men.

Public drinking less

respectable than drinking at home.

Some men changed drinking

patterns on becoming a

father (less money and time),

while women focus on the

conflict between drinking and

maternal responsibilities

(especially young and lone

mothers).

Home drinkers, even those

with excessive consumption,

regarded this as

unremarkable and felt

insulated from public health

messages. Some tried to

justify why public health

concerns were irrelevant to

them

competing in the amount and

speed of drinking; buying

rounds and all drinking the

same.

Women usually focus on the

social side of drinking, less

concerned about showing off,

skip drinks and buy different

drinks, enabling them to

control their drinking.

Significant consumption in

the Muslim community –

mainly men –starting to drink

in mid to late teens in informal

locations through peer

pressure and curiosity, but

not continuing once married.

Domestic drinking:

three-quarters of all sample

regularly drank at home and

two-thirds at family and

friends’ homes

Walen, A. and McKenna, F.

(2002) Cradle Attitudes: Grave

Consequences. Basingstoke:

AA Foundation for Road

Safety Research.

Summary report of work to

trace developmental pathway

from young pedestrians

through people too young to drive, but aware of driving process, to drivers.

Internet survey of 350 drivers

Risk-taking behaviour more

common in males than

females.

Many of the attitudes and

behaviours associated with

risky drivers also present

among 11–16-year-olds

Risky attitudes and

behaviours associated with

age, gender and to some

extent SEG

Anti-social behaviour predicts

violational behaviour such as

jumping red lights and drink

driving.

Competitiveness found to be

a better predictor of violations

than sensation seeking

95