The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

• While much progress has been made in the field of drink-driving, road safety statistics and conviction statistics show that the area still requires further work. In 2007, the Scottish Government commissioned research from TNS System Three into this issue. This followed on from research on this topic carried out on 2001 ( NFO, 2001) and was designed to allow comparisons to be made over time.
• Both quantitative research, in the form of a survey of a representative sample of 1034 current drivers in Scotland, and qualitative research, in the form of 6 focus groups and 6 depth interviews with those who admitted to driving after consuming alcohol, was undertaken. The purpose of the research was to measure prevalence of driving after consuming alcohol, both within and above the legal limit, and to provide insight into attitudes to drink-driving and the thought process behind the decision either to do or not to do so.

Prevalence of drinking and driving

• Measures of prevalence from this survey, compared with the 2001 research, showed that there had been positive movement in the interim in the levels of driving after consuming any quantity of alcohol and in driving after consuming alcohol beyond the legal limit ¹ (hereafter referred to as drink-driving).
• Prevalence of driving after drinking any alcohol decreased since 2001 both in terms of ever having driven after drinking (down from 55% in 2001 to 43% in 2007) and in terms of having done so in the past twelve months (down from 37% in 2001 to 25% in 2007). Incidence of driving after drinking alcohol in the past 12 months also decreased from 229 to 154 incidents per 100 drivers.
• As in 2001, the current research showed that a greater proportion of men, those aged 30 to 59 and those in higher social grades ² had driven after drinking, both ever and in the past 12 months. Men had driven more frequently after a drink in the past 12 months than women. Incidence increased by age despite the lower prevalence in older age groups. So, older people drove after drinking more often, although a smaller proportion of them actually did so at all. Those in social grade AB had the highest incidence of driving after drinking of any demographic group (255 incidents per 100 drivers) and those in social grade DE the lowest (86 in 100).
• Prevalence of ever drink-driving decreased from 22% in 2001 to 18% in 2007 and, while prevalence of having done so in the past 12 months remained constant at 5%, incidence decreased from 19 to 11 incidents per 100 drivers.
• As with driving over the limit, men had the highest life-time prevalence of drink-driving. Prevalence had fallen in men and across all age groups, though it remained constant in women and the drop among the youngest age group (17 to 29) was very small. This is likely to reflect the low levels of prevalence in these groups at the baseline measurement.
• The largest recorded drop in prevalence of ever drink-driving was among 30-44 year olds, reducing to similar levels as younger (17-29) and older (60+) drivers and widening the gap between them and 45-59 year olds. This latter group had a higher prevalence than any other age group in both 2001 and 2007.
• Certain demographic groups were identified as being of key interest for the research, namely people living in rural areas, young drivers (particularly males) and older drivers, because they are perceived to drink-drive more often than other groups. Women aged 25 and over were also of key interest because the rate of convictions amongst this group increased disproportionately to the overall rate between 1998 and 2002. The research was useful in providing further information on these groups.
• Those living in rural areas, in line with previous research on the subject, were no more likely to have driven after drinking any alcohol than those living in urban areas both ever (45% of those in rural areas compared with 42% of those in urban areas) and in the last 12 months (24% of those in rural areas compared with 25% of those in urban areas). This was also true of ever driving when over the limit (17% of drivers in rural areas compared with 18% of drivers in urban areas). Indeed, the incidence of driving after consuming alcohol in the past 12 months was actually lower in rural areas (139 incidents per 100 drivers in rural areas compared with 163 per 100 drivers in urban areas) meaning that drivers who live in those areas drive after drinking alcohol less often than other drivers.
• Reported prevalence of ever driving after drinking any alcohol was lower among young people aged 17 to 29 years than other age groups (33% of those aged 17 to 29 years, 45% of 30 to 44 year olds, 49% of 45 to 59 year olds and 40% of those aged 60 and over). In the past 12 months, around one in five of younger drivers had driven after drinking alcohol. This was similar to those aged 60 and over, and less than other age groups. Incidence of driving after consuming alcohol in the past 12 months, at 106 incidents per 100 drivers, is also lower for young people than any other age group. However, a higher proportion of young drivers (17-29 year olds) have driven while over the limit in the past 12 months than other ages. It is important to note that the fact that young people are a relatively small proportion of all drivers means it would be misleading to suggest that they are the biggest group among drink-drivers - only one in 5 drink-drivers (driven while suspected over the limit in the past 12 months) was aged 17-29.
• The evidence from this research is mixed with regards to those aged 60 years and over. As mentioned above, prevalence among older people is lower than for those in their middle years (30 to 59), although their incidence of driving after drinking alcohol in the past 12 months, at 177 incidents per 100 drivers, is higher than for any other age group. While few older people drink alcohol before driving, and drink-drive, those who do drive after drinking alcohol appear to do so more frequently than other age groups.
• The proportion of women who have ever driven after drinking alcohol is smaller than the proportion of men who have done so (37% compared with 49%). The same is true for the proportion of women compared with men who suspect they have ever driven while over the limit (11% compared with 23%). Since the previous study in 2001, there has been a larger decrease (from a higher base) in the prevalence of driving after drinking alcohol in the past twelve months among men (from 43% in 2001 to 28% in 2007) than among women (from 30% to 21%) so the gap between the genders is reducing.

Circumstances of drinking and driving

• Information was also gathered about the situations in which respondents were most likely to drink alcohol and then drive. In terms of timing, the last occasion on which survey participants reported driving after drinking was more often in the evening at the weekend. Somewhat in contrast, focus group participants said they did so on casual nights out, often on weekdays rather than weekends. Driving after drinking with a meal was said to be relatively common, as the effects of alcohol taken in combination with food was thought to be reduced. Few drivers in the survey said they drove the morning after drinking. Focus group members did recognise this happens although it is not always thought of as drink-driving. On consideration it was acknowledged to be a risk and there was confusion about how quickly and when alcohol left the system.
• In terms of type of journey, most who reported driving after drinking alcohol were driving home from someone's house or a pub, club or restaurant. They generally drove short distances in cities, towns or villages, and mainly on quiet roads in well lit areas. Drivers in rural areas tended to drive longer distances after drinking alcohol than those in urban areas.
• Various reasons were given for driving after drinking alcohol. In the survey, drivers said they did so because they thought they were under the legal limit and they did not think their driving ability was affected. The law allowing driving after some alcohol consumption was given as reason for drinking and driving by focus group participants. Other reasons given in the qualitative research for drinking and driving included: to ensure their cars' security; for reasons related to convenient transport options and, for younger drivers, because of peer pressure. The survey showed that drivers in rural areas more often thought they were under the legal limit when they drove and reported waiting a few hours after drinking before driving. Driving after drinking was very closely linked to the need for a car the next day and lack of alternative transport. It was commonly thought to be less risky to drink and drive in rural areas although opinion was divided on whether it is more socially acceptable to drink and drive in those areas.

Attitudes to driving after drinking alcohol

• An important finding was that, generally, the concept of drink-driving and the phrase 'drinking and driving' were associated with being significantly, rather than marginally over the limit.
• The predominant social view in both the focus groups and survey was that drinking and driving is anti-social and there was a consensus on most of the attitudes towards drinking and driving that were explored. There was less concurrence of view that ending up over the limit without realising is easy; one reason for this was the uncertainty around the legal limit, particularly about whether an individual had reached that legal limit.
• While there did appear to be differences between groups of individuals according to their attitudes, these differences were small. Similar views were shared between those who drive after drinking at all or over the limit, and those who have not driven after drinking at all or in the past 12 months. There was little evidence that attitudes towards drinking and driving are strongly linked to behaviour. Instead it appeared that behaviour was strongly linked to circumstance.

'Safe' limits and the decision to drive after drinking alcohol

• In the survey, around 6 in 10 drivers said they would not consume any alcohol before driving (63%). Males, those in social grade AB and those living in urban areas were more likely to consume alcohol before driving, though for each group fewer than half said they did so. Using an alcohol unit calculator provided in the survey, drivers who would drink something before driving most often said 2 units (57%) or 1 unit (30%) was a safe amount to drink.
• Of course, most drivers do not have a unit calculator available. The most commonly accepted 'rule-of-thumb' maximum amount to consume before driving, according to drivers in the focus groups who drink and drive, was 2 drinks, regardless of the type of drink, the strength of the drink or the size of glass. It was acknowledged that this could on occasion lead to drivers being on the borderline or slightly over the limit. Also this limit could sometimes be stretched to more than 2 drinks in particular circumstances. Despite this, the majority were convinced their drinking before driving was measured and controlled and rarely resulted in them being more than a little over the limit.
• Focus group participants were aware that a number of factors made personal safe limits vary, between both people and occasions, but they expressed uncertainty about how this related to legal limits and how such limits could be measured practically.
• It might be expected that all those who have never drunk any alcohol before driving would think drinking before driving should not be allowed. In reality this was the view of only half of this group in the survey. Focus group respondents, who did drink and drive, considered the option of the legal alcohol limit being changed to zero. Opinion was mixed on this. Some said this would remove confusion. This linked to the view highlighted earlier that some drivers drink and drive because the law allows them to do so. If the law no longer allowed it, some at least would not do it. At the same time, others argued it would be impractical to enforce a zero limit. There was some discussion that lowering the legal limit to an amount where two drinks would definitely be above the limit would remove ambiguity.

The consequences of drink-driving

• The focus groups explored the perceived consequences of drink-driving in detail. Those who drink-drive believed it to be a low-risk activity. While killing someone was the most serious consequence, it was considered so unlikely that it was effectively dismissed. Getting caught was a bigger fear although it was still seen as highly unlikely. This assessment of the low level of likelihood of being caught was reinforced for some, who have driven after drinking at or over the legal limit on at least a few occasions, by their experience.
• Knowledge of penalties given to drink-drivers was mixed; around half of drivers in the survey knew of the year's loss of licence though fewer thought this happened in all cases, particular when drivers were just above the limit. Few knew of the criminal record or conviction appearing on a licence. This lack of knowledge undoubtedly leads some who drink and drive to underestimate the penalties and consequences. Once the penalties were explained to drivers in the survey, around 15% thought they were too tough, while the majority (61%) thought they were about right.
• It was apparent that a number of those who drink and drive had never seriously imagined the consequences of being caught nor the associated penalties. When asked to think about it, among the consequences they did recognise were loss of job, lack of mobility (especially in rural areas) and the social stigma. The most powerful images for them were evoked when thinking about how they would feel at the actual point of arrest or disqualification. Drivers who had been disqualified provided compelling accounts of the trauma of being arrested and held in a police cell and the embarrassing, inconvenient or costly consequences of being disqualified and having a conviction for drink-driving on their licence.

Recommendations for the future

• Specific groups of drink-drivers need to be targeted with communications tailored to their particular group. Groups such as those who drive habitually when well above the limit, those who drive when they are borderline on the limit and do not recognise themselves as 'drink-drivers' and those who drive the morning after drinking alcohol when still over the limit would all be legitimate targets for tailored campaigns. Differing messages would also be appropriate for use with different sub-groups such as those in different ages. Targeting is made harder in this case because the numbers drink-driving are relatively low and are spread across most types of drivers: there is no one clear target that will make the most impact on reducing this activity. To some extent, targeting might be determined by which groups, if any, have the most, or most serious, drink-drive related accidents.
• The research showed that, while drivers recognised that being caught drinking and driving would have a very high impact on their lives, this tended to be dismissed as being very unlikely to happen. Additionally, the impact is underestimated due to a lack of knowledge about penalties and lack of thought about emotional and practical consequences of being arrested, charged and convicted. Communications should emphasise the implications of being caught, including strengthening the association of drink-driving as a criminal act, resulting in a criminal record and associated long term consequences. These include the need to disclose this on job application forms; the impact on car insurance; the impact on ability to hire a car or van after the ban finishes; and on potential difficulties entering certain countries with a criminal record.
• The research suggests that drink-drivers do not take their actions seriously enough. Communications and other activities need to be employed that increase the perceived level of risk and challenge behaviour. If perceptions of increased risk grow then this might change the attitude that those who are caught are unlucky. This can be done in a number of ways, including:
• • Publicising the number of drivers who are breathalysed, rather than the number caught and charged by the police
  • Communicating the numbers caught as a success rather than a failure of campaigns
  • Introducing random testing ³ of any driver, which would significantly increase the perceived risk and influence behaviours
  • Lowering the legal drink-driving limit to a less ambiguous level.

« Previous | Contents | Next »