Scottish Government

CHAPTER SIX: WHAT DO PEOPLE THINK ABOUT DRINKING AND DRIVING?

Attitudes towards drinking and driving

6.1 Having looked at situational and circumstantial aspects of drink-driving, this chapter considers broader social attitudes towards drinking and driving.

6.2 In the survey, respondents were asked how much they agreed or disagreed with a series of 13 attitude statements ( see Annex A). This provided insight into the prevalence of different attitudes among drivers and enabled the extent of links between attitudes and behaviour to be examined. Further statistical analysis was undertaken on these answers to investigate whether drivers could be grouped together quantitatively into typologies, on the basis of the attitudes they held, to assist with developing and targeting communications. The attitudes expressed were prompted by particular statements; the way in which responses are provided during a survey means these attitudes were relatively unconsidered opinions, providing immediate reactions to the statements.

6.3 Attitudes were also explored in the focus group discussions, using a series of propositions which, in some cases were similar to those included in the survey ( see Annex E). Participants had a little more time to consider these propositions than survey respondents, and had the benefit of some discussion; however, reactions to them were still relatively unconsidered because of the limited time available to spend on each one.

Borderline drinking and driving

6.4 One more considered opinion about drink-driving that emerged during the qualitative research is that, generally, the concept of drinking and driving is associated with being significantly over the limit rather than borderline (i.e. at or around the legal limit) and is perceived to be irresponsible behaviour undertaken by those who realise they are drinking well over any reasonable, safe limit. This is important in the context of this study as a whole and helps explain apparent contradictions in some of the findings. The phrase drinking and driving is often linked to driving while well over the limit in people's minds, rather than everyday consumption of alcohol and car use.

"You don't say drinking and driving if you've just had a bottle of beer and you're under the limit. The only time you ever hear 'drinking and driving' is if somebody has been drunk behind the wheel and been caught." (Male, 17-20, B/C1, Rural)

6.5 Drink-driving, therefore, is not negatively associated with having one or two (or three) drinks and then driving, even if it may lead to drivers being on the verge of, or marginally over, the legal limit. This is an issue in the extent to which individuals may not identify with communications around 'drink-driving' if they do not themselves identify with this behaviour. It may also mean that the survey underestimates the true level of drink-driving, omitting these borderline cases, although it is difficult to judge the extent to which this has occurred.

6.6 Allied to this view was the fact that, generally, those who did drink and drive regarded the behaviour as a low risk activity, in relation to the quantity consumed (within their self-defined 'safe limit') and the potential for getting caught. The research found that, for many, the repeat practice of drinking and driving when nearing, or just over, their own perceived safe limit increased the individual's confidence in their own abilities, driving behaviour and their sense of impunity.

"I think there's quite a low risk of getting caught, unless it's a Saturday night in town. (Female, 25-34, B/C1, Urban)

"You'll do it once, not get caught and then think oh well, done it twice and the next thing you know you've done it every couple of weeks." (Male, 17-20, C1/C2, Urban)

"Each time you did it, you got away with it, so you thought you'd get away with it the next time… so the next time, it was easier to do and the more you do it, the easier it got." (Female, 35-49, C1/C2, Rural)

6.7 This assessment of risk is discussed further in Chapter 7.

Circumstances in which drink-driving is perceived to be understandable

6.8 Before going on to describe other attitudes and beliefs expressed in the survey and the qualitative research, the issue of whether or not drink-driving is understandable in particular circumstances, as described to survey respondents in 3 drink-drive situations, is considered.

6.9 In the survey, respondents were read a series of 3 scenarios ( see Annex A) in which a person is caught driving when over the limit and for each one asked how understandable they thought it was that the character in the scenario had driven on that occasion (see Figure 6.1). The scenarios were chosen to represent different stereotypes of the drink driver. Scenario One concerned 'John', a 22 year-old man who was twice the legal limit after a night out with friends. Scenario 2 concerned 'Jenny' a 27 year-old professional, who was marginally over the limit due to after-work drinks. Scenario 3 concerned 'Steven' a 35 year-old man with a young family who was just over the limit after eating dinner at a friend's house.

Figure 6.1 How understandable it is that each character drove

Base: All respondents (1034)

6.10 Overall, respondents did not think it was understandable that any of the characters had driven when over the limit. This ranged from 83% thinking it was not understandable (61% not at all; 22% not very) in the case of Jenny to 90% (76% not at all, 14% not very) in the case of John.

6.11 The main factor that fed into these attitudes appears to have been the amount drunk. Respondents were told that John was twice the legal limit, whereas Steven and Jenny were just over the limit. The other factor may have been time of day. While respondents were told that Jenny had had a couple of drinks after work, Steven and John had both gone out at night to socialise.

6.12 Those in the youngest age group tended to feel that all the situations were more understandable than did those in older groups, although the majority still considered the behaviour not understandable. This was most prominent in the case of Jenny where 76% of 17 to 29 year-olds said that her behaviour was not understandable (47% not at all, 29% not very) compared to the older age groups in which between 82% and 84% said it was not understandable. In addition, older age groups had more polarised views, with greater proportions falling into the 'not at all' rather than 'not very' group.

6.13 Other factors that consistently influenced perceptions about how understandable the behaviour was were respondents' own drinking and driving behaviour, and respondents' knowledge about and opinions on drink-drive penalties.

Figure 6.2 How understandable are all scenarios by drink-driving behaviour

Base: All in who have drunk alcohol in the past year in each sub-group (see brackets)

6.14 As Figure 6.2 shows, the more a respondent said they engaged in driving after drinking, the more understandable they found the idea of driving over the limit and the more likely they are to express moderate rather than polarised views. Despite this a majority of all groups, regardless of whether they drive after drinking alcohol (at all or when over the limit) described the behaviour in the scenarios as 'not understandable'.

Figure 6.3 How understandable are all scenarios by opinions on drink-drive penalties

Base: All in each sub-group (see brackets)

6.15 Beliefs about the penalties that can be applied for drink-driving also influenced how understandable respondents felt that drink-driving was. Those who felt that the current penalties were too tough were more likely to say that it was understandable for each character to have driven in each scenario (21% saying it was quite or very understandable) compared with those who thought the current penalties were about right (15%) and those who thought the current penalties were too lenient (7%).

6.16 Knowledge about penalties also had an influence on opinions about how understandable the characters' actions were. Those who believed that every case of drink-driving (as described in the scenarios) would result in being disqualified from driving for a year were less likely to say that it was understandable that each character had driven (9% overall saying it was quite or very understandable) compared to those who thought that being caught over the limit did not always result in loss of licence (18%).

Figure 6.4 How understandable are all scenarios by knowledge about drink-drive penalties

Base: All in each sub-group (see brackets)

Attitudes and behaviour

6.17 Firstly in this section, drivers' attitudes to drinking and driving are explored, as evidenced by the answers provided in the quantitative survey. Differences in attitudes between groups of drivers are highlighted, including both the characteristics of drivers and their behaviour. The way in which the different attitude statements can be grouped based on the answers provided by respondents is then considered, followed by the way in which drivers themselves can be grouped according to their attitudes. Finally, the usefulness of these attitude-based groups of respondents (or typologies) in developing and enhancing the effectiveness of communications is discussed.

6.18 The key issue of interest in the way drivers responded to the attitude statements in the survey is the strong consensus among most drivers on most statements. In 10 of the statements, in each case, a sizeable majority gave similar answers, either agreeing with a statement or disagreeing with it. Only in 3 statements were the answers more diverse. Where there was consensus, a higher proportion of people overall gave the more definite answer (strongly agreeing rather than agreeing; strongly disagreeing rather than disagreeing).

6.19 The idea that drink-driving is seen as anti-social by the wider population is clearly reflected in the attitudes of drivers reported in the survey. At first sight it might be suggested that such attitudes are also reflected in drivers' reported behaviour; 95% of drivers said they have not driven when they suspected they might have been over the limit in the past 12 months. Some drivers in the qualitative research admitted to driving over the limit, though this usually involved higher levels of alcohol consumption. As a result, it is probable that more serious, rather than borderline, infringement was reported in the survey. Evidence from the qualitative research suggests that driving when on the verge of being over the limit is not always considered as such, which supports the view that there could be some under-reporting of this activity as drink-driving. If it is the case, then attitudes may not always be a useful indicator of behaviour. Instead, where strong social attitudes exist, it is likely that some people will down-play what they consider to be their marginally non-compliant behaviour.

High agreement statements

6.20 The attitude statements in the survey with which there were the highest levels of agreement were:

• People who drink and drive when they are over the limit are taking a serious risk
• The risk of losing my licence would make me less likely to drink and drive
• I would try to stop someone I was with if they wanted to drive themselves home after several drinks
• The risk of being involved in an accident would make me less likely to drink and drive
• I don't think people should be allowed to drink any alcohol before driving
• I would be ashamed if my friends and family knew I had been drinking alcohol and driving

6.21 Figure 6.5 shows the level of agreement with these statements, using a scale of agree strongly, agree, neither agree nor disagree, disagree and disagree strongly. Virtually every driver (98%) agreed that 'people who drink and drive when they are over the limit are taking a serious risk' and a large majority (78%) strongly agreed. High percentages of drivers (79% - 94%) agreed and the majority (51% - 67%) strongly agreed with the other statements in this group.

Figure 6.5 Level of agreement with attitude statements with which there was broad overall agreement

Base: all respondents (1034)

* Please note percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding

6.22 Given the very high levels of agreement with these statements among all drivers, it is not surprising that there is little variation in answers between different groups of drivers, either based on their characteristics or their reported behaviour. In particular, the 3 statements that explicitly mentioned risk were answered in a similar way by most people regardless of how they were categorised.

6.23 Where there were differences, these were in the strength of agreement expressed by particular groups. While over 90% of both men and women agreed, women were more likely to express strong agreement (73%) rather than simply agreeing (24%) that 'I would try to stop someone I was with if they wanted to drive home after several drinks' than men were (57% strongly agree; 35% agree).

6.24 Among drivers as a whole, 79% agreed with the statement 'I don't think people should be allowed to drink any alcohol before driving' and 12% disagreed. Although relatively small overall, disagreement was higher among male drivers (17%) than female drivers (9%) and decreased as social grade decreased (AB 17%; DE 6%).

6.25 There was also some variation according to reported behaviour. Agreement decreased with alcohol consumption, though this was not linear. Instead it changed in a series of steps: those who had not drunk alcohol in the last 12 months (92% including 78% strongly) or the last 7 days (90% including 70% strongly) expressed the highest levels of and strongest agreement; respondents who had consumed 1-3 units (81% including 50% strongly), or 4-7 units (76% including 47% strongly) in the past 7 days expressed the next highest and strongest levels; lowest levels and strength of agreement (albeit agreement was still the majority view) were expressed by those who had drunk 8 or more units in the past 7 days (67% including 37% strongly).

6.26 Agreement also varied according to whether people said they drink after driving. Drivers who drink, but have never done so after driving, expressed higher levels and strength of agreement (90% including 68% strongly) than those who have driven after drinking but not in the past 12 months (78% including 46% strongly). In turn the level and strength of agreement this group expressed was higher than that of drivers who said they had driven after drinking any amount of alcohol in the past 12 months (55% including 19% strongly).

6.27 Agreement with the statement 'I would be ashamed if my friends and family knew I had been drinking and driving' was stronger among those who had not consumed any alcohol in the last 12 months (93% agree including 60% strongly) than those who estimated they had consumed 8 or more units in the last 7 days (81% agree including 43% strongly). Those who admitted to having driven after drinking in the past 12 months (though not necessarily having been over the limit at the time) expressed lower levels of agreement than any other group of drivers on this statement albeit they were still high; 71% agreed in total and, within that, 33% strongly agreed, that they would be ashamed if their friends and relatives knew they had driven after drinking alcohol. A further 17% neither agreed nor disagreed with this statement. This is in contrast with those drinkers who had never driven after drinking, where 91% overall agreed with this statement and within that, 61% strongly agreed.

High disagreement statements

6.28 Statements with which more than three-quarters of people disagreed included:

• Sometimes the police let you off with a warning if they stop you when you are slightly over the limit
• People in my social circle often encourage others to drink alcohol even if they are driving
• Good drivers can cope better with driving after they've had a drink than other drivers can
• I would be happy to be in a car as a passenger with someone who was driving after a few alcoholic drinks

6.29 Figure 6.6 shows the level of agreement with these statements. Over 9 in 10 people either strongly disagreed (68%) or disagreed (24%) that they would be 'happy to be a passenger in a car with someone who was driving after a few alcoholic drinks' and that 'good drivers can cope better with driving after they have had a drink than other drivers can' (64% strongly disagree; 27% disagree). More than 8 in 10 disagreed that 'people in my social circle often encourage others to drink alcohol even if they are driving' (51% strongly disagree; 33% agree), while a little over three-quarters of drivers did not agree with the statement that 'the police let you off with a warning if they stop you when you are slightly over the limit' (47% strongly disagree; 30% disagree).

Figure 6.6 Level of agreement with statements with which there was broad disagreement overall

Base: All respondents (1034)

* Please note percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding

6.30 Even more so than was the case with the previous set of statements, the great amount of similarity in answers (this time of disagreement) means that there were few differences of note between different groups of drivers. One that did exist was that, while most drivers disagreed they would be happy to be a passenger with a driver who had consumed a few alcoholic drinks, disagreement was stronger among those drinkers who had never driven after drinking (77% strongly disagree; 17% disagree) compared with those who had driven after drinking in the past 12 months (50% strongly disagree; 36% disagree).

6.31 Although a majority of all ages of drivers disagreed that 'people in my social circle often encourage others to drink alcohol even if they are driving', there was some evidence of the peer pressure a minority of young drivers might encounter (mentioned in the previous chapter) as 17-29 year-olds less often disagreed (73%) with this statement than did older people, especially those aged 30-59 (86%).

Statements with less concurrence

6.32 There was less concurrence of views among respondents for the last group of 3 statements, which were:

• I would think less of someone who has a conviction for drinking and driving
• Sometimes it is easy to end up over the limit without realising it.
• Even if you drive when you are over the limit there is not much chance of being stopped by the police

6.33 Figure 6.7 shows the level of agreement with these statements.

Figure 6.7 Level of agreement with statements with which there less concurrence overall

Base: All respondents (1034)

* Please note percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding

6.34 On balance, more people agreed than disagreed with the first 2 of these statements. Almost 6 in 10 (58%) agreed that they would think less of someone with a conviction for drink-driving and 15% disagreed. Over a quarter of drivers (27%) were undecided, neither agreeing nor disagreeing with that statement. When responding to the statement that 'sometimes it is easy to end up over the limit without realising it', again almost 6 in 10 (58%) agreed, while a third of drivers (34%) disagreed with that statement. 6.35 In contrast to the first 2 statements, more people disagreed (63%) that 'even if you drive when you are over the limit there is not much chance of being stopped by the police' than agreed (24%). These latter 2 statements were also included in the propositions tested in the qualitative research and the views of participants are discussed later in this chapter.

6.36 There was little variation according to either demographic characteristics or behaviour in opinions about whether 'I would think less of someone who has a conviction for drinking and driving'.

6.37 For the statement 'sometimes it is easy to end up over the limit without realising it', 67% of drivers aged 45-59 agreed with this statement and 30% disagreed. In comparison, a smaller proportion of 30-44 year-olds agreed with the statement (51%) and a larger proportion disagreed (40%). There was also variation in agreement with this statement between those who had not drunk alcohol in the past 12 months and those who had drunk 8-14 units. This latter group of drinkers more often agreed (63%) and less often disagreed with the statement (31%) than the former group who had not drunk alcohol (48% agreed; 42% disagreed). One might speculate that the fact that the drinkers who more often agree are what might be termed 'moderate', rather than 'heavy' drinkers might indicate that these are potentially 'borderline' drink-drivers (i.e. those who drive after drinking at or around the legal limit) although this is difficult to assess with the evidence available.

6.38 Agreement with the statement 'even if you drive when you are over the limit there is not much chance of being stopped by the police' varied by the gender of respondents. Males agreed more often than females (30% males; 19% females) and disagreed less often (57% males; 69% females).

Factor analysis

6.39 Having examined the simple relationships between attitudes and characteristics or behaviour, the next step was to consider whether the attitude statements answered in a similar way could be grouped together based on the answers given by respondents. To do this, a statistical analysis technique known as factor analysis was used on the data. This analysis was carried out for 2 reasons: firstly to identify whether different statements were measuring facets of the same broad aspects of attitudes (factors) and, if they were, to use this reduced set of factors as a basis on which to group individuals together according to their attitudes.

6.40 Table 6.1 shows the factors that were identified using this technique. The analysis identified 3 groups of statements (or factors) that were measuring broadly similar aspects of attitudes to drink-driving. The first group included 6 statements. In all of these, agreement indicated some aspect of disapproval (or in one case its opposite - approval) of drink-driving ( disapproval). The second group consisted of 2 statements both of which concern the deterrent effect of the possible consequences of drink-driving ( fear of consequences). The third group concerned possible erroneous beliefs people might have about drink-driving, and the reasons that might be given to excuse drink-driving ( myths and excuses).

Table 6.1 Factors and Groups of Statements

Cluster analysis

6.41 While factor analysis groups similar statements together, cluster analysis is a statistical analysis technique that, in contrast, groups together drivers who have similar attitudes. It is customary for factor analysis to be carried out before cluster analysis is undertaken. This is because, where 2 or more statements are closely linked, there is a likelihood of overstating their importance when developing the groups of respondents if they are included separately.

6.42 It is important to stress that there was a high level of concurrence on most attitude statements across all drivers, so that attitudinal groupings of drivers are likely to highlight relatively small differences in opinion. Accepting this, the analysis did identify 6 groups of respondents (outlined in Table 6.2) who shared similar attitudes, which, in combination, appeared to be relatively distinct from those of other groups. For example, those in Group 3 exhibited lower than average levels of agreement with statements indicating disapproval and fear of consequences, and higher than average levels of agreement with statements covering myths and excuses. In Group 2, respondents on average expressed high levels of agreement with statements indicating disapproval, and low level of agreement with statements covering fear of consequences and myths and excuses.

6.43 How the groups varied in attitude, based on the mean scores of each group on each underlying attitudinal factor, is shown below.

Table 6.2 Variation in opinion on underlying factors by attitude group¹²

6.44 The groups, the factor mean scores and the mean scores of each group for each attitude statement are included in Annex F.

6.45 Having identified the groups, the next step was to analyse demographic and behavioural characteristics by those groups of respondents. Ideally those respondents who admitted to driving when they thought they were over the limit would exhibit similar attitudes, distinct from those of other drivers, so that typologies of drivers could be provided to help in developing and targeting communications. For example, it might be expected that those in Group 3 who expressed lower than average disapproval and fear of consequences and higher than average agreement with statements expressing myths and excuses would principally include those who had driven while over the limit in the same period or, at least, those who had driven after drinking. While it is the case that there are higher than average levels of such drivers in the group, at the same time, almost half of Group 3 had never driven after drinking, or at least had not done so in the past year.

6.46 A key question in deciding whether the clusters provided useful typologies was: while different groups of drivers might hold different attitudes, how strongly were these attitudes linked to behavioural and other characteristics? Undertaking the factor and cluster analyses confirmed that attitudes were not linked to characteristics. Very few drivers (n=53) admitted to driving when possibly over the limit so it was, not surprisingly, difficult to detect common attitudes in such a small group. At the same time, it does appear from this analysis that opinions expressed quickly in response to attitude statements are not strongly linked to self-reported drinking and driving behaviour overall, nor to particular demographic characteristics. Instead, drink-driving appears often to be linked to situational factors, such as doing so for convenience or because a person does not want to leave their car.

Proposition statements

6.47 Attitudinal differences were also explored in the focus groups where a series of propositions, or statements, relating to drink-driving were shown to participants who were asked to discuss each one in turn. The groups had a little more time to think about their response than drivers in the survey, although they still worked through the statements quite quickly. This meant they still may have presented a more rational and immediate view compared with the general opinions and attitudes explored in the rest of the qualitative research.

6.48 Proposition statements were developed by The Union advertising agency for use with the focus groups. These included 2 statements that coincided with those used in the survey, and others that encapsulated different views people might express about drinking and driving, both positive and negative. Having considered the propositions, the groups were asked to come to a consensus view about whether or not they agreed or disagreed with it. Below is a summary of the different attitudes expressed towards each of the propositions.

Propositions with unanimous agreement

"It's just so easy to end up over the limit when you're having a drink"

6.49 All groups agreed with this statement, because of the uncertainty of the legal limit and the different physical factors which affect the impact of alcohol on the body. One participant in the young Glasgow group reasoned:

"We don't know what the limit is… all the different strengths out there… You can't really specify for every single person and they don't specify at all, because none of us even know what the limit is." (Male, 17-20, C1/C2, Urban)

6.50 Respondents to the survey were asked how much they agreed or disagreed with a similar statement to this proposition, which generated a more immediate view rather than this slightly more considered one. A broader spectrum of opinion was expressed as to whether 'sometimes it is easy to end up over the limit without realising it' although, on balance, more people agreed (58%) than disagreed (34%), with moderate drinkers (8-14 units) more often agreeing than other groups.

"I'm a safe driver and I always take extra care if I've been drinking"

6.51 All groups agreed with this statement. The consensus view was that people instinctively drove more carefully once they consumed any alcohol because they did not want to cause an accident or get stopped by the police.

Propositions with unanimous disagreement

"There's no safe limit for drinking and driving"

6.52 There was unanimous disagreement with this statement across the focus groups. The majority argued that there is a safe limit because the government allows a certain amount of alcohol to be legally consumed before driving. There was a general consensus that a safe amount would probably be one alcoholic drink, such as a pint of lager or beer or a glass of wine. In the focus groups people made a distinction between their own self-imposed safe limits and the legal limits. When reacting to this proposition they are clearly demonstrating the ambiguity surrounding this issue ¹³.

"Drinking and driving is only risky if you're not a good driver and can't handle your drink or your car"

6.53 All the groups disagreed with this statement, with the majority stating the rational viewpoint that drinking and driving always carried a risk, regardless of what kind of driver you believe yourself to be.

"Usually the roads are quiet when I have been out and had a drink, so it's not a problem driving home"

6.54 All groups disagreed with this statement. The majority felt that this might be the case in more rural areas where the roads have a less visible police presence or where there was less traffic. In contrast with these perceptions, in the survey, when talking about the last occasion drivers had driven after drinking, the majority said they had mainly driven on quiet roads, regardless of whether they lived in urban or rural areas, though the percentage driving on quiet roads was higher among those living in rural areas than it was among urban residents.

"It's younger drivers who get drunk and drive who are the real problem, not older experienced drivers who have only one or 2 over the limit"

6.55 There was unanimous disagreement with this statement across the groups. It was felt that drivers of all ages drink and drive, and that driving over the limit was over the limit, regardless of a driver's age, experience or amount over. This was not an issue reserved for younger drivers drinking to excess.

Propositions with majority disagreement

"The police should be focusing on those drivers who are drunk and dangerous on the roads, not drivers who have had just a few drinks"

6.56 The majority of participants disagreed with this statement, stating that the police should focus on all drink-drivers, not just the drunk and dangerous ones. This appears contradictory to the views expressed in groups in other parts of the discussion where people made a distinction between drinking when at or slightly over the limit, which they might do themselves, and drink-driving when well over the limit. However, we have discussed elsewhere in this section that the term drink-driving is itself associated for most people with drinking more than just over the limit. This indicates that the meaning of 'a few drinks' may have been interpreted as more than the 2 or 3 that many drivers say is their safe limit taking them to, or marginally over, the legal limit.

"It wouldn't feel right to go out socially and not to drink at all, even if I have the car"

6.57 Only the 17 to 20 year-old urban males agreed with this statement, indicating it would be 'torture' to go out socially and not have an alcoholic drink. All the other groups were in disagreement with the statement; the 17 to 20 year-old rural males and older, 35 to 49 year-old, urban males stated they would go without alcohol (but would not necessary enjoy the experience), and the 25 to 34 year-old urban males and females indicated that they were happy to go without alcohol, and often used the car as an excuse so as not to have to drink alcohol when out.

"I always take my car when I'm going out socially as I want to be sure I can get home okay"

6.58 All groups except one disagreed with this statement. The 17 to 20 year-old rural males, who as described earlier had said they would go out without drinking alcohol, agreed with the statement, arguing that 'going out socially' did not explicitly mean drinking alcohol, and so they would take their car in order to get home. However, the other groups interpreted the statement as drinking alcohol when out socially, and the majority argued that they would not consciously decide to take the car when attending a social occasion.

"If I've had a meal as well as some drinks over the course of the evening, I think that means I am safe to drive"

6.59 This statement caused much debate and it was difficult for the respondents to definitively agree or disagree because the number of alcoholic drinks was given as 'some', and the size of the meal was not specified. Following discussion, the majority disagreed with the statement because of the unclear measurements.

Propositions where opinion was split

"Even if you are over the limit there's not much risk of being stopped by the police"

6.60 Three groups agreed with this statement and 3 disagreed. Those that agreed argued that police presence was usually minimal and unless there was something specifically wrong with a person's car or their driving, they were unlikely to be stopped. Those that disagreed included the 2 female groups (25 to 34 urban and 35 to 49 rural) and the 17 to 20 rural male group. These groups argued that there was always a risk, particularly during seasonal campaigns such as Christmas and New Year. This same statement was also included in the survey. In this case although still split, the balance of opinion was to disagree with the statement (63% disagreed; 25% agreed). Opinion in the survey varied by gender, with females disagreeing more often than males.

"You don't really plan to drink and drive, it just happens"

6.61 The participants in the 4 male focus groups agreed with this statement, with those in the 17 to 20 rural male group summarising "you don't really plan… you just get a taste for it". The female focus group participants were less convinced by this statement, and argued that if driving, you should be in control or not risk drinking alcohol.

"The dangerous drink-drivers are those who don't know their safe limit"

6.62 This statement generated discussion on what the participants understood by the phrase 'safe limit', with some arguing that people can over-estimate their safe limit and, therefore, become dangerous drink-drivers, and others agreeing that, if the safe limit is limited to one, then there would be fewer dangerous drink-drivers. In the end, the groups were equally split with 3 groups agreeing and 3 disagreeing with this statement.

"I feel bad if I drive over the limit, but I know that I probably won't get caught"

6.63 As this statement was in 2 parts, many participants in the groups found it difficult to state their agreement/disagreement. Of the 3 groups that disagreed with the statement, the 17 to 20 year-old rural males argued that they would not necessarily feel bad if they had driven when slightly over the limit, and the other 2 (female) groups argued that there was always a chance of being caught.

"Drinking and driving is for losers"

6.64 This statement caused some debate in the groups because of the 'loser' terminology, which was considered by many to be adolescent and patronising, and because drinking and driving is an acceptable behaviour, as long as within the legal limits, and so not something to judge others for doing. As one participant in the 17 to 20 year-old urban male group stated, "Basically we'd be calling ourselves losers". However, some participants felt that the statement could be modified to 'drunk-drivers are losers', as that would generate greater agreement in the groups.

Key Points
Attitudes towards drinking and driving were explored in both the survey and focus groups. This provided insight into the prevalence of different attitudes amongst drivers and enabled analysis into the links between attitudes and behaviours.

• The concept of drink-driving and the phrase 'drinking and driving' were generally associated with being significantly over the limit, rather than marginally so.
• Driving when marginally over the limit was seen as a low risk activity, in terms of the effects of the quantity consumed and the risk of getting caught. For some this view was confirmed by the fact that they had driven when they suspected they were marginally over the limit without incident. Views were spilt across drivers as to the risk of being stopped by the police.
• The predominant social view was that drinking and driving is anti-social. There was a consensus on most attitudes towards drinking and driving (e.g. risks, shame and stigma associated with drink-driving, social pressures). Any differences in attitudes between groups were small. Similar views were shared between those who drive after drinking, and those who have not driven after drinking.
• There was less agreement on the view that 'it is easy to end up over the limit without realising it'. One reason for this was the uncertainty around the legal limit and about whether an individual had reached that legal limit.
• There was unanimous disagreement across the focus groups to the statement 'there's no safe limit for drinking and driving'. The majority argued that there is a safe limit because the government allows a certain amount of alcohol to be legally consumed before driving. There was a general consensus that a safe amount would be one alcoholic drink, such as a pint of lager or a glass of wine. People made a distinction between their own self-imposed safe limits and the legal limits. This demonstrates the ambiguity surrounding this issue.
• There was little evidence that attitudes towards drinking and driving were strongly linked to behaviour (i.e. if a person would drink and drive). Instead, it appeared that behaviour was strongly linked to circumstance, such as needing the car for transportation home or not wanting to leave the car somewhere overnight.