Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 29, 2024 Mon
Time: 11:10 pm
Time: 11:10 pm
Results for driving under the influence (australia)
4 results foundAuthor: Trimboli, Lily Title: Drink-driving and Recidivism in NSW Summary: This bulletin provides information on re-offending among drink-drivers in New South Wales. Overall, 15.5 percent of drink-drivers returned to court for another drink-driving offense within five years, and 14.3 percent returned to court within five years charged with a non-PAC driving offense, such as a registration, a roadworthiness or a driving license offense. Reconviction rates were found to be higher among men, Indigenous offenders, offenders aged less than 25 years, offenders who lived in areas with the highest level of socio-economic disadvantage, offenders that received a driver licence disqualification of between one and six months, and offenders with two or more convictions in the five-year period prior to their index offense. It is estimated that, within five years of their index offense, more than a third of drivers with these characteristics will be reconvicted of another drink-driving offense, and nearly half will be reconvicted for a driving licence, a motor vehicle registration or a motor vehicle roadworthiness offense. Details: Sydney: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, 2009. 16p. Source: Crime and Justice Bulletin; Contemporary Issues in Crime and Justice, No. 135 Year: 2009 Country: Australia URL: Shelf Number: 118547 Keywords: Driving Under the Influence (Australia)Drunk Driving (Australia)Recidivism |
Author: Owens, Katherine Papafotiou Title: Evaluating the deterrent effect of random breath testing (RBT) and random drug testing (RDT) - The driver's perspective Research Findings Summary: This report presents the findings from the project evaluation of the deterrent effect of Random Breath Testing (RBT) and Random Drug Testing (RDT)—The driver’s perspective undertaken by the Ipsos-Eureka Social Research Institute and Victoria Police in 2009. The project was funded by the National Drug Law Enforcement Research Fund (NDLERF). The project involved a mixed methodology, where review and a qualitative component guided the development of a survey to assess the deterrent effect of random breath testing (RBT) and random drug testing (RDT), and a quantitative component measured the influence of various law enforcement practices on a driver’s decision to drink/drug drive. In order to ascertain aspects of law enforcement practice that have the greatest deterrence value to drivers, analysis on Australia-wide data was performed. Australian jurisdictionspecific data is also presented, so that law enforcement agencies can assess the deterrence value of their current RBT and RDT practice to drivers. The project aims focused on identifying which law enforcement practices have the greatest deterrent effect on drivers who consume alcohol and/or drugs, and who indicate they are likely to drink drive and/or drug drive in the future. Importantly, the study focused on measuring RBT and RDT law enforcement practices, from the driver’s perspective, rather than from law enforcement activity reports. This aspect of the project is considered instrumental to the findings, since a driver’s perception of practice is more likely to influence their behaviour than law enforcement activities that may go unnoticed by drivers. The project involved a review component involving interviews with law enforcement agencies across Australia, a qualitative component involving interviews with alcohol and drugs users, and a quantitative component involving an Australia-wide survey of alcohol and drug users (drivers). In order to identify the most important aspects of RBT and RDT law enforcement practice, a review of law enforcement practices across Australia was performed. Law enforcement representatives from New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, Tasmania, South Australia and Western Australia agreed to participate in the review phase. Information from these interviews was used to direct in-depth discussions with alcohol and drugs users, in terms of their drink and drug driving behaviour, and their perspective on the value of RBT and RDT. Key aspects of RBT and RDT were identified for inclusion in the qualitative phase and quantitative phase. Considering the importance of maintaining confidentiality of law enforcement practices, the information gathered from the interviews with law enforcement representatives is not presented in this report. Information that was instrumental in guiding the development of the discussion guide for in-depth interviews with alcohol and drugs users, and the development of the survey that was administered Australia-wide, is represented within the results. Details: Canberra, Australia: National Drug Law Enforcement Research Fund (NDLERF), 2011. 171p. Source: Monograph Series No. 41: Internet Resource: Accessed August 1, 2012 at http://www.ndlerf.gov.au/pub/Monograph_41.pdf Year: 2011 Country: Australia URL: http://www.ndlerf.gov.au/pub/Monograph_41.pdf Shelf Number: 125822 Keywords: Breath Testing, Random (Australia)Deterrence (Australia)Driving Under the Influence (Australia)Drug Testing, Random (Australia)Drunk Driving (Australia)Policing Procedures (Australia) |
Author: Stough, Con Title: An evaluation of the Standardised Field Sobriety Tests for the detection of impairment associated with cannabis with and without alcohol Summary: Reports indicate that in Victoria, New South Wales and Western Australia, 23.5% of drivers in fatal accidents had consumed drugs other than alcohol, and that 29.1% of drivers had a Blood alcohol contentration (BAC) level of 0.05% or higher. Alcohol has been detected in combination with drugs in almost 10% of cases. Cannabis was most prevalent among drugs other than alcohol detected in specimens (13.5%) (Drummer et al., 2003). The combination of drugs as an influence on road traffic accidents is becoming a growing concern and research has been conducted to identify how these drugs impair performance. Krueger & Vollrath (2000) reported that recent consumption of cannabis improved lane positioning; however, when combined with alcohol, lane position deviated, and participants drove faster. The consumption of low dose and high dose cannabis alone has also been associated with an increase in vehicle lane weaving (straddling solid and barrier lines) (Papafotiou, 2004b). Furthermore, a trend towards greater braking latency after consumption of higher doses of cannabis has been reported (Ligouri et al., 1998). Generally, alcohol has been reported to increase hazardous simulated driving, and cannabis has been reported to slow a driver’s speed (Stein et al., 1983). The findings of several studies have directly suggested that the effect of Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) consumption on driving performance may be greater for nonregular cannabis users than for regular cannabis users (Marks & MacAvoy, 1989; Wright and Terry, 2002; Papafotiou, 2004c). Wright and Terry (2002) also provide evidence to suggest that regular cannabis users may develop cross-tolerance to the effects of drugs and alcohol. In Victoria, Australia, Standardised Field Sobriety Tests (SFSTs) have been introduced as means of testing for impairment in drivers who have consumed drugs other than alcohol. The use of SFSTs, although designed for the detection of alcohol-intoxicated drivers (up to 0.08%), has been implemented in programs for the detection of drugs other than alcohol. To date, one study exists that has evaluated the sensitivity of the SFST battery to predict drug intoxication and driving impairment. This project assessed the relationship between each individual sobriety test (Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus, Walk and Turn, and One Leg Stand test) and individual scored signs of the SFSTs with the administration of cannabis (Papafotiou et al., 2004a). Papafotiou et al. (2004a) found that, unlike in the case of alcohol where the HGN test is reported to be the best test for impairment associated with the administration of alcohol, in the case of cannabis the test best related to impairment is the One Leg Stand test. This finding highlights the need for additional research into the relationship between performance on the SFST battery and drug intoxication (drugs other than alcohol). The present study had several aims: to examine the effects of cannabis and cannabis together with alcohol on driving performance; to examine the effects of cannabis and alcohol on Standardised Field Sobriety Tests (SFSTs) performance; to examine the efficiency of SFSTs to predict driving performance associated with the administration of cannabis and alcohol; to examine any differences between the effects of cannabis and alcohol on performance in regular cannabis users and non-regular cannabis users; and to examine any differences between SFSTs ratings by researchers (Swinburne University) and SFSTs ratings by police officers (Victoria Police) in order to identify the inter-rater reliability of SFSTs. Details: Payneham, Australia: National Drug Law Enforcement Research Fund (NDLERF), 2006. 126p. Source: NDLERF Monography Series No. 17: Internet Resource: Accessed August 30, 2012 at http://www.ndlerf.gov.au/pub/Monograph_17.pdf http://www.ndlerf.gov.au/pub/Monograph_17.pdf Year: 2006 Country: Australia URL: http://www.ndlerf.gov.au/pub/Monograph_17.pdf http://www.ndlerf.gov.au/pub/Monograph_17.pdf Shelf Number: 126174 Keywords: Alcohol Related Crime, Disorder (Australia)Driving Under the Influence (Australia)Driving Under the Influence of Drugs, Cannabis (AuDrug-Impaired Driving, Cannabis (Australia)Drugs and Driving, Cannabis (Australia)Drunk Driving (Australia)Sobriety Checkpoints, Tests (Australia) |
Author: Taussig, Isabel Title: Penalties and Reconviction Risk Among Offenders Convicted of Drug Driving Summary: The aims of this study was to investigate: 1) penalties for drug driving; 2) risk of reconviction among drug drivers; and 3) how penalties and reconviction risk vary according to offender characteristics. Information for 3,770 offenders with proven drug driving offences (2007 - 2011) was extracted from the NSW re-offending database. Aims (1) and (2) were addressed by identifying the most serious penalties for drug driving and the number of convictions accumulated over 12 and 24 months. Aim (3) was addressed by building logistic regression models identifying independent predictors of penalty and recidivism. The results showed that the most common principal penalty for drug driving was a fine (60.2% received a fine and the average fine was $581). While 17.2 per cent of offenders had their matters dismissed without conviction, most dismissals (84%) also included a good behaviour bond. Offenders were less likely to have their matters dismissed if they were younger, had concurrent charges or a prior criminal record. One-third (35.3%) had been convicted for a new offence within 24 months. Recidivism was higher for offenders who had a prior criminal record, were not on bail and/or were Indigenous. Conclusion: The most common outcomes for drug driving are fines and dismissals. Those who have their matters dismissed tend to share characteristics with those at lower risk of recidivism. Details: Sydney: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, 2012. 11p. Source: Internet Resource: Bureau Brief, Issue Paper No. 79: Accessed September 18, 2012 at: http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/BB79.pdf/$file/BB79.pdf Year: 2012 Country: Australia URL: http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/BB79.pdf/$file/BB79.pdf Shelf Number: 126370 Keywords: Driving Under the Influence (Australia)Drugged DrivingDrugs and DrivingRecidivismReoffendingSentence LengthSentencing |