Personal and situational influences on drink driving and sober driving among a cohort of young adults

Abstract

Objectives: To compare personal and situational influences on incidents involving drink driving with those involving sober driving. Methods: Information on a range of road safety practices was sought in face to face interviews conducted with 969 members of the Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study cohort at age 26 years. A total of 750 study members reported an incident that involved the opportunity to consume alcohol and also travel by motor vehicle. Of these, 87 were classified as "drink drive incidents" and 663 as "sober drive incidents". Results: Study members who were male, of lower socioeconomic status, had no school qualifications, or were dependent on alcohol or marijuana at age 21 were significantly more likely to report a drink drive incident at age 26. Compared with the sober drive incidents, the drink drive incidents were more commonly associated with driving alone, drinking at bars, and no advanced planning. For drink drive incidents the amount of alcohol consumed was influenced by the conviviality of the occasion, whereas for sober drive incidents it was the need to drive. One quarter of those reporting drink drive incidents stated they had used marijuana and/or LSD at the event at which they drank. Conclusions: Drink drive and sober drive incidents differed, particularly with regard to decisions made before the event. Prevention efforts could usefully be targeted toward these decisions.

Adolescent exposure to drink driving as a predictor of young adults’ drink driving

“…These findings suggest that adolescent exposure to others’ drink driving is highly associated with the social contextual factors of family history of antisocial behaviour, poor family management and peer drug use, as well as individual behaviours of binge drinking and rebelliousness. The finding that higher family SES is associated with increased DUI is in contrast to some previous reports (Morrison et al , 2002; Vaez and Laflamme, 2005). It is possible that the observed positive relationship with SES relates to increased access to alcohol and motor vehicles and less vigilance from police in the form of random breath testing (RBT) in high SES areas.…”

“…Earlier alcohol initiation has also been shown to increase the likelihood of DUI (Hingson et al , 2009; Tomas Dols et al , 2010). Demographic risk factors include being male (Beck et al , 2010; Bina et al , 2006; LaBrie et al , 2011; Vassallo et al , 2007)and lower socio-economic status (Morrison et al , 2002); (Vaez and Laflamme, 2005). Other individual characteristics associated with DUI include greater levels of aggression (Bingham et al , 2007), delinquency (Bingham et al , 2007), impulsivity (Pedersen and McCarthy, 2008) and sensation seeking (Fernandes et al , 2007; Jonah et al , 2001; Pedersen and McCarthy, 2008; Zakletskaia et al , 2009).…”

Prevalence and Pattern of Substance Abuse Among Drivers in Punjab and Himachal Pradesh

“…16 Another study conducted by L Morrison et al on personal and situational influences on drink driving showed that drivers with lower socioeconomic status or with no school qualification or those who were dependent on alcohol or marijuana at age 21 were significantly more likely to report drunken driving incidence at age 26. 17 In our study, the prevalence of substance abuse increased as the age group advances. Drivers from both rural and urban sectors took part in the study; however, the substance abuse was higher in the rural background.…”

The characteristics of young Indigenous drink drivers in Queensland, Australia

“…While most drink drivers are not likely to be re-arrested, for high income countries, estimates of the proportion of drink drivers who go on to re-offend range between approximately 20 and 30 per cent (ATC 2011;Møller et al 2015;Warren-Kigenyi et al 2014;). For the general driving population, recidivism reportedly varies with, gender, age, ethnicity, education, employment status, and blood alcohol concentrations (BAC) (with those having very high BAC convictions, 0.15mg and above being more likely to reoffend) (Chou et al 2005;Morrison et al 2002;Rahkonen et al 2009). Drivers with previous drink driving convictions have found to have a history of including alcoholism and substance abuse (LaPlante et al 2008), mental health concerns (Nelson et al 2015;Shaffer et al 2007), volatility (DeMichele et al 2014), and involvement in crime (LaBrie et al 2007).…”