CHAPTER 9: KEY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Objectives
The main objective of this chapter is to outline the key findings and provide recommendations based on these findings.
Key findings and recommendations
Key finding 1: This research has highlighted that even after making some allowance for under-reporting of drug use, among the general driving population the prevalence of drug driving is relatively low and this has not changed to any measurable extent since the survey in 2000. Only 3.5% of respondents reported driving under the influence of drugs in the previous 12 months.
Recommendation: The likelihood that drug use has been under-reported is the first indication of a significant shift in perceptions of drug use either on its own or in the context of (a survey about) driving. It indicates that the increased stigma now attached to drug driving makes people unlikely to report their behaviour. Overall, this is a positive finding as it suggests that, while the prevalence may not have decreased since 2000, people are less likely to want to admit to it. The perception of a stigma presents something for campaigns to build on although there are still strong cultural aspects to drug use that make it widely accepted, normal and 'cool'.
Key finding 2: From the survey, it was established that drug drivers are most likely to be male, single, infrequent drivers.
Recommendation: It would make sense, therefore, to focus campaigns towards this group.
Key finding 3: One of the main explanations for drug driving was that it was more convenient than other forms of transport and therefore offered "positive incentives".
Recommendation: There is little that would combat this perspective, particularly in the problem drug users. It is undeniable that using a car is more convenient.
Key finding 4: The second explanation for drug driving was that there was a lack of clear deterrents to prevent people from drug driving. Two themes emerged here: people did not think their driving was adversely affected by drug use and they also believed there to be no risk of getting caught by the police.
Recommendation: Systematic research on the influence of cannabis on driving shows that it does indeed have an adverse effect on driving 16. This is a message that needs to be communicated effectively to the general public. If people were aware that they were indeed a danger to themselves and others, they may think twice about drug driving. However, it is believed that a more effective deterrent would be the risk of getting caught. This would be particularly effective in dissuading recreational users from drug driving as they would not want the embarrassment or shame of being convicted of what is becoming a socially unacceptable offence. Indeed, some of the drug drivers said that a greater police presence on the roads would make them more wary about being stopped. However, it was also apparent that drug drivers do not think the tests to detect drugs are sufficiently sensitive or accurate to catch them. A more reliable method for testing drivers is needed before more police presence would make any real impact on the prevalence of drug driving.
Key finding 5: Those who have drug driven were more likely to report other risky driving behaviours and violations and to have high sensation seeking scores.
Recommendation: This suggests that drug driving is part of a more general pattern of aberrant driving behaviour, that these violations might have a common root in a predisposition towards sensation seeking and that there would be benefit in linking the various campaigns about speed, drink driving and drug driving. It also indicates that random drug testing of people stopped for driving dangerously/erratically may pick up some drug drivers.
Key finding 6: Those who reported being passengers of a drug driver were also likely to have taken drugs themselves. There appeared to be a gap between the drivers' perceptions of their driving ability compared to the passengers' perceptions, with the passengers more concerned about driving.
Recommendation: In one sense this finding presents a slight obstacle for campaigns to overcome, in that there is no peer pressure against drug driving. Although drug use might be becoming less acceptable among the general public, it appears that drug drivers are part of a wider social circle that condones drug use and is indifferent to drug-impaired driving. It may be difficult to break into this social group and persuade them that drug driving is a dangerous offence. More promising is the gap between passengers and drivers regarding the issue of fitness to drive. One possibility would be to raise this as a question in the minds of passengers, perhaps along the lines of "he's stoned, would you trust him to make life or death decisions?" The evidence from the survey that passengers are more worried about the ability of the driver than drivers are about the comfort of their passengers represents the gap that campaigns would be aiming to prise open.
Key finding 7: The main difference between those who have desisted drug driving and those who have done so in the last year is that those who have desisted are more likely to be with a partner than single.
Recommendation: As people's personal circumstances change and they take on increased responsibilities they are likely to desist drug driving. Apparent among this group is the desire to avoid the shame that would come with being caught and convicted. This corresponds with the prevalent view that an increased risk of getting caught would prevent people from drug driving.
Key finding 8: Opinions on what would prevent people from drug driving were gathered and three main ideas arose: advertising, education and more police on roads.
Recommendation: In the past, advertising on drug driving was judged to have had limited impact. However, even after the passage of two or three years, the advert was well known among qualitative respondents. Their objection was that they had never seen it happen in practice and it did not tally with their experiences of drug driving. The most successful type of advertising campaign would therefore show drug driving in a more realistic light to allow drug users to identify with it. Many of those interviewed for this research felt that advertising campaigns had worked for increasing the stigma related to drunk driving and thought that this success could be transferred to drug driving.
Educating about drugs in school has had varying degrees of success in raising awareness of the dangers involved in drug use. However, one possible barrier for education is the effect of peer pressure related to drug use and drug driving.
A common feeling was that both advertising and education would be far more successful if they were teamed with an effort by the authorities to increase police presence and roadside testing. The only way to dissuade people from drug driving, it was argued, was to present a real possibility of being caught and convicted.
Overall, the survey shows that drug driving is uncommon, even among an age group - 17-39 years - that shows the highest levels of drug use. However, there remains a strong case for developing a focussed media campaign that would try to further reduce this level or, at the very least, ensure that its prevalence does not rise. While post-mortem analysis of traffic-related fatalities shows high levels of drug use and while the evidence from police stops is that those most impaired are using multiple drugs and particularly opiates, the most prevalent drug being used among the general driving population aged 17-39 is cannabis. The question therefore becomes whether campaigns against drug driving should focus on the most commonly used drug - cannabis - or those that appear to cause the greatest level of impairment (as measured by fatalities and police stops).
A focus on cannabis would involve targeting the judgements cannabis users make in believing that their capacity to drive safely is not adversely affected by their drug use. A successful campaign would need to attempt to change this view, perhaps by showing how potentially dangerous drug driving is. By this, we do not mean that the campaigns should focus on 'worst-case scenarios' i.e. fatal or near-fatal accidents. These events are not common and generally do not result from cannabis use. They are unlikely to be persuasive in showing drug drivers what is likely to happen. Therefore, there would be more merit in focussing on near misses, a far more common occurrence.
With regard to the heroin users who are driving, a national media campaign would be neither successful nor cost-effective, given the small numbers of problem drugs users. More effective would be to design material that could be circulated to drug users thought drug treatment agencies and other agencies in contact with drug users.