CRICOS Provider No 00025B An examination of Random Breath Testing and alcohol-related traffic crash rates in Australia: 2000–2012 Jason Ferris and Madonna Devaney

CRICOS Provider No 00025B Acknowledgements QPS: Assistant Commissioners Peter Martin –Chief Superintendent Bob Gee –Road Safety/Traffic Support Manager Lisa-Marie O’Donnell Collaborations: All jurisdictions police service –All jurisdictions department of main roads (and equivalent) –AustRoads, South Australia Funding: Foundation for Alcohol Research and Education Research assistants: Gabrielle Davis and Michelle Sparkes-Carroll

CRICOS Provider No 00025B Overview of Presentation History of RBT in Australia Refresher ~ Deterrence theory and RBT By jurisdiction ~ graphical models contrasting RBT and ARTC rates after adjusting for the number of licensed drivers Comparison of UK to OZ on key areas

CRICOS Provider No 00025B History of RBTs Pre - RBT ~ 50% of drivers killed had BAC >0.05% g/mL RBT introduced in Victoria 1976 Short term reduction in fatalities 10-50% ~ 8m RBTs annually 2010 ~ 15m licenced drivers (pseudo-RBT 1980) 1988 (pseudo- RBT 1986)

CRICOS Provider No 00025B Current* RBT rate by jurisdiction 80K 1:1 390K 1:2 750K 1:3 3.2M 1:1 4.5M 1:1 3.8M 1:1 90K 1:3 620K 1.4:1

CRICOS Provider No 00025B Deterrence theory and RBTs Two types: General deterrence an intervention that conveys to the ‘general’ public that actions and behaviours are not acceptable Specific deterrence Actions taken against an individual (or group) that alters his or her future propensity to offend

CRICOS Provider No 00025B Deterrence theory and RBTs Is based on one’s decision-making processes – does the benefits of the crime outweigh the costs of getting caught

CRICOS Provider No 00025B Deterrence theory and RBTs Is based on one’s decision-making processes – does the benefits of the crime outweigh the costs of getting caught

CRICOS Provider No 00025B Deterrence theory and RBTs Is based on one’s decision-making processes – does the benefits of the crime outweigh the costs of getting caught From the communities perspective: –Perceived risk of getting caught – must be high –Punishment associated with getting caught – perceived as severe –Perceived certainty of punishment – ‘no gets off’ –Swiftness of punishment – fast and immediate

CRICOS Provider No 00025B Deterrence theory and RBTs From the procedural justice perspective: –RBTs must be highly visible –Unpredictable –Difficult to evade –Range of consequences –Considered a ‘high’ threat by community

CRICOS Provider No 00025B Queensland Jurisdiction characteristics State (population) † 4,476,778 Capital city (population) † 2,147,436 Geographical size # 1.7 million km2 Proportion urban * 60% Licensed drivers3,252,811 (2011) Current weekly drinkers ‡ 60% of population Drink-driving last 12 months ‡ 9.30% Current RBT: licensed driver ratio1:1

CRICOS Provider No 00025B Queensland

CRICOS Provider No 00025B New South Wales Jurisdiction characteristics State (population) † 7,218,529 Capital city (population) † 4,608,949 Geographical size # 0.8 million km 2 Proportion urban * 72.6% Licensed drivers4,893,688 (2011) Current weekly drinkers ‡ 60% of pop. Drink-driving last 12 months ‡ 8.38% Current RBT: licensed driver ratio≈ 1:1

CRICOS Provider No 00025B New South Wales

CRICOS Provider No 00025B Victoria Jurisdiction characteristics State (population) † 5,537,817 Capital city (population) † 4,169,366 Geographical size # km2 Proportion urban * 75% Licensed drivers3,252,811 (2011) Current weekly drinkers ‡ 58% of pop. Drink-driving last 12 months ‡ 9.50% Current RBT: licensed driver ratio1:1

CRICOS Provider No 00025B Victoria

CRICOS Provider No 00025B South Australia Jurisdiction characteristics State (population) † 1,639,614 Capital city (population) † 1,264,091 Geographical size # 0.98 million km 2 Proportion urban * 72.7% Licensed drivers1,141,912 (2011) Current weekly drinkers ‡ 58% of pop. Drink-driving last 12 months ‡ 13.00% Current RBT: licensed driver ratio1:2

CRICOS Provider No 00025B South Australia

CRICOS Provider No 00025B Western Australia Jurisdiction characteristics State (population) † 2,353,409 Capital city (population) † 1,833,567 Geographical size # 2.5 million km2 Proportion urban * 71.5% Licensed drivers1,456,480 (2011) Current weekly drinkers ‡ 62% Drink-driving last 12 months ‡ 13.87% Current RBT: licensed driver ratio1:3

CRICOS Provider No 00025B Western Australia

CRICOS Provider No 00025B Tasmania Jurisdiction characteristics State (population) † 511,483 Capital city (population) † Geographical size # km2 Proportion urban * Unknown Licensed drivers367,489 (2011) Current weekly drinkers ‡ 55% of pop. Drink-driving last 12 months ‡ 12.49% Current RBT: licensed driver ratio1.4:1

CRICOS Provider No 00025B Tasmania

CRICOS Provider No 00025B Northern Territory Jurisdiction characteristics State (population) † 231,292 Capital city (population) † 129,106 Geographical size # 1,349,129 km2 Proportion urban * 0 (all regional) Licensed drivers175,383 (2012) Current weekly drinkers ‡ 62% of pop Drink-driving last 12 months ‡ 14.95% Current RBT: licensed driver ratio1:1 #

CRICOS Provider No 00025B Northern Territory

CRICOS Provider No 00025B Australian Capital Territory Jurisdiction characteristics State (population) † 383,375 Capital city (population) † 367,752 Geographical size # 2358 km 2 Proportion urban * 99.8% Licensed drivers314,866 (2012) Current weekly drinkers ‡ 59% of pop. Drink-driving last 12 months ‡ 14.56% Current RBT: licensed driver ratio1:3

CRICOS Provider No 00025B Australian Capital Territory

CRICOS Provider No 00025B RBT and ARTCs

CRICOS Provider No 00025B Summary JurisdictionCurrent RBT ratio ARTC trendDrink-driving (%)ARTC rate for last 6 months per 100,000 LD New South Wales1:1Decreasing (Jul 2007) Queensland1:1Stable Victoria1:1Decreasing (Oct 2005) Tasmania1.4:1Decreasing (Jan 2009) Northern Territory1:1Decreasing (Aug 2009) South Australia1:2Decreasing (Dec 2007) Australian Capital Territory 1:3Decreasing Western Australia1:3Decreasing (Nov 2008)

CRICOS Provider No 00025B Summary: Australia vs UK Australia: –Breath testing – ability to test for alcohol (or drugs) WITHOUT cause –BAC: Legal limit 50 mg of alcohol per 100 ml of blood (0.05%) –RBT:LD ratio range from 1:3 to 1:1 –ARTC:LD ratio 1.2 to 5.7* –ARTC rates stable/decreasing except where RBTs rates decreasing –Population drinking at least once per week: ~60% –Population self-report drink-driving % –Self-reported drinking driving is lower in places where RBT ratios are closer to 1:1

CRICOS Provider No 00025B Summary: Australia vs UK UK: –Breath testing – ability to test for alcohol (or drugs) WITH cause –BAC: Legal limit 80 mg of alcohol per 100 ml of blood (0.08%) –BT:LD data appears only associated with accidents –ARTC:LD ratio 17.9* (6,730*/37,567,461*) –ARTC rates appear decreasing but not adjusted for LD –Population drinking at least once per week: ~58% –Population knowing someone else who drinks and drives 25%*

CRICOS Provider No 00025B

Summary Smaller jurisdictions - RBT ratios between 1:4 to 1:1 to maintain low rates of ARTCs - high visibility in highly populated areas. However higher levels of drink-driving reported Possible dilution of risk of general deterrence? Larger jurisdictions - higher RBT ratios (1:1 or greater) to maintain high RBT exposure due to the size and the geographical spread of the population.

CRICOS Provider No 00025B Summary New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland - good examples of flat to declining ARTC trends, stable to increasing RBT ratios and lower percentages of the population drink-driving.

CRICOS Provider No 00025B Limitations & Future research There may be jurisdictional differences in reporting of ARTC numbers & differences for taking blood and breath alcohol tests from drivers that may not be directly comparable between jurisdictions which could potentially bias the results. What are other influential factors: police operations, geography, local attitudes towards drink-driving

CRICOS Provider No 00025B Limitations & Future research Why do smaller sized jurisdictions with lower RBT ratios and ARTC rates also report higher percentage of drink- driving behaviour? Are these jurisdiction drink-drivers avoiding RBT operations and not crashing? Or is there an under- reporting of ARTC in these jurisdictions?