Scottish Government

Main Findings

• Almost all (94%) respondents drink alcohol either regularly or occasionally when socialising. Binge drinking occurs amongst both men and women and is more prevalent amongst men and in particular amongst men in the 17 - 29 year old age range.
• The majority (98%) of respondents agreed it would be better not to drink at all if driving and disagreed that it was acceptable to drink and drive if only going a short distance (91%). Drinking and driving was deemed acceptable amongst some respondents if certain caveats were applied. Discussions revealed that individuals will make a judgement on factors such as size, gender, body weight, and driving experience when considering whether to drive after drinking.
• A third (34%) of respondents had driven within a few hours of having a drink. Eighteen per cent of respondents had driven when they perceived themselves to be over the limit.
• The majority (92%) of respondents disagreed with the statement 'I would risk drinking and driving if I thought it was unlikely that I would be caught'. Two thirds (66%) of respondents agreed they would report someone who appeared over the limit and was going to drive. However qualitative research showed people were uncomfortable with the concept of reporting someone who appeared over the limit, this was particularly true in relation to friends or family.
• Being banned from driving or losing your licence was seen to be the most effective deterrent given the financial and personal implications. A majority (83%) of respondents agreed that penalties for drinking and driving should be more severe.
• Half (54%) of all respondents believed they had seen or heard something on the subject of drinking and driving. Radio commercials were remembered by 20% of all respondents with awareness higher amongst 17 - 29 year olds (31%). Prompted recognition was highest for the logo 'Drink Driving you have too much to lose' (23%).
• The majority (85%) of respondents agreed the campaign would make people think more about the risks before drinking and driving and make people think more about drinking anything at all and driving (81%). Two thirds (65%) of respondents believed the communication would deter drinking and driving as well as result in people reporting individuals to the police who drive whilst over the legal limit.

Background and Objectives

The Transport & Planning Research Team commissioned mruk on behalf of the Scottish Road Safety Campaign (SRSC) to undertake research to evaluate the 2003 drink drive festive campaign and the broader 'Don't risk it' drink drive campaign.

The main aim of the research was to evaluate the 2003 drink driving festive campaign; test awareness and understanding by drivers of the campaign, assess whether the campaign has had an impact on driving behaviour and inform further development of the campaign.

The 2003/2004 campaign was based on the 'Don't risk it' drink drive campaign and the 'Who's watching' campaign. A range of media was used including press, poster, radio and television.

There were two phases of research, a quantitative phase and a qualitative phase. The main aim of the quantitative research was to:

• Test awareness and understanding by young male drivers of the Wheel of Misfortune adverts, and assess whether this advert was appropriately targeted at this particular group
• Test awareness and understanding by the general driving public of the 'Who's Watching You?' festive campaign and whether this had any impact on their driving behaviour

• The concept of risk and whether this was an appropriate message for the target audience
• Attitudes and behaviour in respect of drinking and driving
• Attitudes of passengers towards drivers who had been drinking and driving
• Role of responsibility in relation to drinking and driving
• Attitudes to the concept underlying the 'Who's Watching You?' campaign

Methodology and Sample

Quantitative research was undertaken via home interviews and a total of 1000 interviews were conducted with car drivers.

Quota controls were used to achieve a broadly representative sample of the Scottish population. The sample was structured to take account of gender, age (including an up-weight of 17 - 29 year old male drivers) and region. Additional information was also gathered on car access, frequency of driving, reasons for driving and length of driving experience.

The questionnaire content covered:

• Attitudes and behaviour in relation to drinking and driving
• Spontaneous and prompted recall of the communication
• Prompted recognition of visual imagery
• Perceived message(s) associated with the communication
• Perceived impact of the communication on attitudes and driving behaviour

The qualitative research was conducted via a series of focus groups and depth interviews. The construction for these discussions took into account:

• Age
• Gender
• Dinking behaviour
• Location

A total of fourteen group discussions and ten in depth interviews were conducted. All discussions were conducted by a Project Executive and tape recorded for further analysis.

Main Findings

The Role of Social Drinking

Almost half (48%) of all respondents drink alcohol regularly when socialising and a similar proportion drink occasionally when socialising. Binge drinking occurs amongst both men and women. Binge drinking is more prevalent amongst men. A higher proportion of 17-29 year old males regularly binge drink, 45% compared to 32% of the sample as a whole and 29 % of 17 - 29 year old women.

Attitudes to Drinking and Driving

The majority of respondents (89%) agreed it would be better not to have anything at all to drink if you are going to drive. Similarly 91% disagreed that it was acceptable to drink and drive if only going a short distance. Nevertheless, for some respondents, drinking and driving is acceptable with certain caveats applied. One in five (22%) agreed that 'Driving after drinking is acceptable as long as it is within the legal limit'. A similar proportion (21%) agreed 'Drinking and driving depends on the individual, some people shouldn't drink at all if they are driving, other people are more able to drink without it affecting them'. A slightly higher proportion (30%) agreed that they would be able to drive, competently after a small amount of alcohol (within the acceptable legal limit).

There was some support for these findings in the qualitative research. Generally individuals claimed that the ability to drive safely after drinking depended on:

• How good a driver someone is; this was based on subjective judgement.
• Driving experience
• Gender; for some, women were perceived to be able to drink less than men
• Weight & height; taller, heavier people were perceived to be able to drink more without being affected

There was also commentary on the impact of alcohol being minimised if you:

• Consume alcohol during the course of a meal
• Intersperse alcohol with non alcoholic drinks

Drinking and Driving Behaviour

The quantitative assessment of drinking and driving behaviour revealed that around a third (31%) of respondents have driven once/twice or occasionally within a few hours of having a drink. Only a small minority (3%) have done this fairly often and a majority (66%) have never driven after drinking.

However, amongst respondents who reported ever having driven after drinking, the time elapsed between the last drink and driving varied. Almost a fifth (17%) had waited less than half an hour with a further 20% indicating up to a maximum of one hour. The largest proportion of respondents (30%) claimed to have waited between one and two hours. Over the two hour timespan it was found that 19% waited between 3 and 4 hours and a minority (14%) waited longer than this.

Respondents who had driven after drinking were then asked how often they perceived themselves to have been over the limit. Around half (52%) reported they had driven over the limit either once/twice or occasionally. Only a minority thought they had driven while over the legal limit fairly often (2%) or very often (1%). Almost two fifths (40%) claimed they had never driven whilst over the legal limit.

The perceived likelihood of not being caught did not appear to predispose people to taking a chance on drinking and driving. The majority (92%) disagreed with the statement 'I would risk drinking and driving if I thought it was unlikely that I would be caught'.

However, there were signs within the qualitative phase of research of a perception that people who drink and drive do so because of a belief that they won't be caught.

It is worth noting that in this phase those respondents who had been caught drinking and driving or had been banned claimed they would never again drink and drive.

Perceived Responsibility for Drinking and Driving

The quantitative phase of research found that around two thirds (66%) of respondents agreed that they would report someone who appeared over the limit and was going to drive. Around a fifth disagreed (18%) and a similar proportion indicated they were not sure.

Just over half (54%) of the 17-29 year old males said they would report someone. A higher proportion of this audience disagreed they would report someone, 28% compared to 18% of all respondents.

The qualitative discussions revealed a feeling that reporting someone who was observed drinking and driving was deemed inappropriate and not something most individuals thought they would do. This was particularly true if it was a friend/member of the family and it seemed there was not any instance in which a relative would be reported. Generally people believed they would try and persuade a family member or friend who was under the influence of alcohol not to drive. If this behaviour was repeated they would then try and discuss the issue. For individuals unknown to respondents there was a sense that they would not be able to judge whether someone was over the limit, and as such could not realistically report someone unless they were actually showing physical signs of being drunk.

Perceived Consequences For Drinking and Driving and Appropriateness of Penalties

There was reasonable awareness of the range of penalties which could be imposed on an individual for drinking and driving. Most top of mind tended to be:

• Lose your licence
• Ban from driving
• Pay a fine
• Penalty points on your licence

Across all respondents the consequences which are most likely to act as a deterrent to drinking and driving are those which will impose some kind of restriction on an individual's lifestyle. These restrictions could be financial or in some way impede the quality of the person's daily lifestyle.

Thus being banned from driving and/or losing your licence were found to have the most impact. These penalties have both financial and personal implications.

A majority of respondents (83%) agreed that penalties for drinking and driving should be more severe. This opinion was less strong amongst men aged 17-29, where 78% agreed with this statement.

Communication Evaluation and Conclusions

The research findings show that the festive drink driving campaign 2003/2004 achieved its aims to some extent. Just over half (54%) of all survey respondents reported they definitely remembered seeing or hearing something on this topic.

In addition, the findings suggest that there has been some engagement with the campaign as it generated recall of both the media used and the specific content. In particular, prompted media recall was highest for advertising on television (45%), press (23%), and radio (21%). Content recall was highest for 'Don't risk drinking and driving' (52%), 'You could kill someone if you drink and drive' (45%), and 'You have too much to lose if you drink and drive' (40%). This communication out-take reflects some of the messages contained in the different strands of the campaign.

Logically, recall for both the media and the elements of the content tended to be higher amongst those who claimed they were definitely aware of the communication subject as a whole, showing that individuals have engaged with the campaign.

Positively, the most prevalent message perceived was 'You shouldn't drink and drive', which was recalled by around three quarters (76%) of those who remembered seeing or hearing something related to drink driving.

Prompted recognition of specific imagery was not particularly high, and the logo 'Drink driving, you have too much to lose' received the highest level at 23%. Amongst those who recognised the imagery, the key messages being taken from the material related to elements of 'Don't risk it', 'Wheel of Misfortune' and 'Who's watching'.

Radio commercials generated higher awareness amongst 17 - 29 year olds at 31% compared to 20% for the sample as a whole. As with other findings key messages for radio related to 'risks' and 'dangers' of drinking and driving.

The research findings show that there has been recall of and engagement with the drink driving campaign. Also the perceived communication out-take reflects messages from different strands of the campaign. This indicates that the festive 2003/2004 drink driving campaign has raised awareness and understanding of the risks and consequences of drinking and driving.

A core objective of the campaign was to influence attitudes and behaviour on drink driving. Encouragingly the majority of respondents agreed that the campaign would make people think about the potential risks which could happen if they adopted this behaviour. There was also agreement with the statement 'It would make people think more about drinking anything at all and driving'. Furthermore, two thirds believed the communication would deter drinking and driving behaviour, as well as result in people reporting individuals who drive whilst appearing to be over the legal limit.

Recommendations for Future Campaign Development

Evaluation of the campaign has shown that drink driving behaviour does still occur. In particular, this behaviour tends to be more prevalent amongst men especially in the 17 - 29 age range. This group therefore remains a key target for future campaigns.

The concept of the 'risk' and possible consequences as a result of drinking and driving was perceived to be an appropriate and relevant sentiment to be used as a basis for promoting a deterrent message amongst the driving population as a whole.

However, there are two significant challenges for future campaign development.

• Firstly, there is a lack of acceptance related to the amount of alcohol which will impact on an individual's ability to drive competently. This was apparent in the qualitative discussions with factors such as height, gender, weight, length of driving experience and perceived driving ability also considered in conjunction with amount of alcohol consumed. These issues are not being addressed in the current campaign. Although there may be logic in not attempting to address a highly complex issue where there is no single 'black or white' message, it has to be kept in mind that the lack of certainty or clarity allows individuals to justify their behaviour or attitudes to themselves and their peers, in relation to drink driving
• Secondly, there were clear indications within the qualitative research that people many consider that they will not be caught if/when they do drink and drive. This stems from a lack of visible evidence of enforcement of Drink Driving within local communities / geographic areas, and lack of knowledge of individuals who have been caught and convicted.
• Combined, these two factors undermine the effectiveness of the concept of 'risk', therefore if any effort can be made on the above two issues, the effectiveness of the 'risk' approach will be substantially increased.

The messages used in the campaign were appropriate and appeared to engage and hold relevance for people. However messages most likely to influence behaviour are those where the consequences for drinking and driving would have financial and/or lifestyle implications for the individual. Therefore, the main focus should be on:

• Losing your driving licence
• Being banned from driving

On the 'Wheel of Misfortune' advertising campaign the sentiment 'Lose your pulling power' should be excluded as it was described as irrelevant across all respondent groups.

Although injury or loss of life as a result of a drink drive incident is understood to be an emotive image, it does not have a role to play in preventing drink driving behaviour.

In relation to media used for the campaign, television activity would substantially increase the effectiveness of the campaign if used in sufficient weight. However budget factors require a much more tactical approach to be taken and as such future campaigns should build on the media platforms being used currently. Increased targeting of young males via radio has good potential for increased use with appropriately produced commercials.