The effectiveness of drink driving countermeasures (such as sanctions) to deter motorists from driving over the legal limit is extremely important when considering the impact the offending behavior has on the community. However, questions remain regarding the extent that both legal and non-legal factors influence drink driving behaviors. This is of particular concern given that both factors are widely used as either sanctioning outcomes or in media campaigns designed to deter drivers (e.g., highlighting the physical risk of crashing).
This paper reports on an examination of 1,253 Queensland motorists' perceptions of legal and non-legal drink driving sanctions and the corresponding deterrent impact of such perceptions on self-reported offending behavior. Participants volunteered to complete either an online or paper version of the questionnaire.
Encouragingly, quantitative analysis of the data revealed that participants' perceptions of both legal sanctions (e.g., certainty, severity and swiftness) as well as non-legal sanctions (e.g., fear of social, internal or physical harm) were relatively high, with perceptual certainty being the highest. Despite this, a key theme to emerge from the study was that approximately 25% of the sample admitted to drink driving at some point in time. Multivariate analyses revealed six significant predictors of drink driving, being: males, younger drivers, lower perceptions of the severity of sanctions, and less concern about the social, internal, and physical harms associated with the offense. However, a closer examination of the data revealed that the combined deterrence model was not very accurate at predicting drink driving behaviors (e.g., 21% of variance).
A range of non-legal deterrent factors have the potential to reduce the prevalence of drink driving although further research is required to determine how much exposure is required to produce a strong effect.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 January 2017.
All research outputs
#4,763,652
of 28,829,220 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Safety Research
#258
of 1,119 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#63,956
of 315,947 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Safety Research
#3
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 28,829,220 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,119 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 315,947 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
