0

ON THE ROAD

Compulsory Breath Testing in New Zealand and Interviews with Drink

Drivers Gerald Waters 2012

Reducing Impaired Driving in New Zealand

1

Contents

Foreword………………………………………………………………..2

Glossary of abbreviations…………………………………………………3

Part 1

Impaired driving in New Zealand………………………………………...5

Compulsory breath testing……………………………………………..…8

Observations……………………………………………………………13

Amendments to the Land Transport Act……………………………,…19

Part 2

Interviews with suspected drink drivers………………………………...23

Conclusions.……………………………………………………………32

References………………………………………………………………35

Appendices……………………………………………………………..37

2

Foreword

Starting in September 2010 I accompanied the Auckland Metropolitan Traffic Alcohol Group (TAG) on their Compulsory Breath Testing (CBT) operations using ‘booze buses’ in the Auckland area. I went out on 11 shifts for a total of 88 hours. I was able to observe the police at work and to speak to those drivers who were stopped and suspected of driving with Excess Breath/Blood Alcohol (EBA).

This paper contains my observations on the procedures involved in CBT operations, and interviews with those suspected of driving with EBA.

The TAG perform their duties with professionalism and enthusiasm to protect us all from impaired drivers in New Zealand. They are to be commended for their hard work and the tough and sometimes dangerous conditions in which their work takes place.

I would like to thank Superintendent John Kelly for allowing me the opportunity to work alongside the police on their CBT operations and Senior Sergeant Grant Miller for his help and knowledge while out on operations. I would also like to thank all the officers and support crew that I met with, in particular Anton Estie whose experience and understanding of the problems of impaired driving in NZ was of great help in the compilation of this paper.

3

Glossary of abbreviations

BAC…....Blood/Breath Alcohol Content

CIT….Compulsory Impairment Test

CBT………Compulsory Breath Testing

EBA1……..Evidential Breath Alcohol

EBA2…..Excess Breath Alcohol

EBT….Evidential Breath Test

MBT…….Mobile Breath Testing

NZ……………..New Zealand

RBT….Random Breath Testing

TAG……Traffic Alcohol Group

THC……… Tetrahydrocannabinol

4

Part I

5

Impaired driving in New Zealand

Drink driving has been a serious problem in New Zealand for years, with high levels of injuries and crashes - and with alcohol-related fatalities reaching well over 300 every year by the late 1980’s.Through the 1990’s substantial progress was made in New Zealand in reducing these figures. The introduction of Compulsory Breath Testing, or CBT, in 1993 has played a vital role in deterrence and detection of drink driving. But since 2000 no further progress has been made and the level of deaths and serious injuries is now higher than it was in 2000.

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

Deat

hs a

nd s

erio

us i

njur

ies

Year

Deaths and serious injuries in crashes with alcohol/drugs as a contributing factor

Every year in New Zealand around 30-35,000 drivers are detected driving with Excess Breath/Blood Alcohol (EBA).

Table 1 Year Number of alcohol offenders

2007 30968 2008 34272 2009 34679

Source: Ministry of Transport

6

The majority of these drivers are first-time detected EBA drivers. From 2005-2007, 77 % of the drivers involved in fatal crashes involving alcohol had no previous drink-driving offences in the 5 years before the crash.

Table 2

Prior offending history period

Number of prior drink-driving offences within prior history period

Proportion of drivers involved in alcohol-related fatal crashes between 2005-2007

5 years None One Two Three or more

77% 15% 5% 3%

10 years None One Two Three or more

70% 17% 7% 6%

Lifetime None One Two Three or more

67% 13% 7% 13%

Source: Ministry of Transport

In 2001 it was reported that, in New Zealand, 1 in 375 crash-free drunk driving trips resulted in a drunk-driving conviction.1

So with around 112,000 convictions in a 5 year period of first-time- detected EBA drivers there will in all likelihood be another 112,000 first-time convictions in the following 5 years. That’s nearly a quarter of a million new offenders over a 10 year period. These of course are only those detected offenders. Although the number of drivers stopped at the roadside is not recorded, Compulsory and Mobile Breath Test (CBT/MBT) stops give some indication of the minimum number of stops initiated by Police each year. For the 2009/10 fiscal year this was 3,261,467. In May 2011 there were 3,264,378 licensed drivers in New Zealand. The number of offences issued for drink and drugged driving in 2009/10 was 34,640. This is 1.1% of the CBT/MBT stops. The number of repeat offenders in New Zealand reveals an upward trend.

1 Miller and Blewden, 2001.

7

Table 3

Year Number of recidivist offenders

2007 6639 2008 6999 2009 7206

Source: NZ Police

In 2009, alcohol-impaired driving alone contributed to 33% of fatal crashes and 21% of serious injury crashes. Crashes involving alcohol resulted in 137 deaths, 565 serious injuries, and 1725 minor injuries at an estimated social cost of $875 million.2

2 Waters, 2011.

8

Compulsory Breath Testing

History

On 1 April 1993 Random Breath Testing (RBT) was introduced in New Zealand. This followed just over eight years of random stopping. To distinguish the RBT programme from the random stopping programme it was called Compulsory Breath Testing (CBT). At the same time the legal blood alcohol limit was lowered from .08 for drivers under 20 years of age to .03.

CBT is a key drink driving enforcement activity in New Zealand. CBT is used as a deterrent to influence a driver’s choice to drink and drive through the threat of punishment. Well publicised media campaigns combined with CBT are integral to the overall deterrent effect of CBT enforcement targeted at both the general population and drink drivers.3

The Police operate CBT checkpoints at which all drivers stopped are supposed to be tested. Checkpoints were initially car-based operations, with a target of 1.5 million drivers stopped and tested each year. This translated to 7 in 10 licensed drivers.

In 1996 the Police started using ‘booze buses’ at their CBT checkpoints. These vehicles are used for administering blood-alcohol tests (to suspected EBA drivers), generally a mid-size bus converted or fitted out for this purpose. The vehicles contain Evidential Breath Analysis machines which establish the level of alcohol in the breath of a driver. They have on-board computers for checking vehicle and driver details, areas for processing, confidential phone booths for suspected offenders to speak to a lawyer as well as staff areas for refreshments and a toilet.

Without the intervention of booze buses in 1996, N.Z. drink-driving crashes would have cost an estimated $1.2 billion.4

Compulsory Breath Testing means the NZ Police try and stop every car and breath test every driver going through a checkpoint. They don't always succeed but that's the aim. As stated earlier, as of May 2011 there were 3,264,378 licensed drivers in New Zealand. The Police performance measure is to conduct 2 million CBT checks every year and conduct 700,000 mobile breath tests - nearly 75% of the licensed driving population. Mobile breath tests are conducted when a driver is stopped for a reason other than a CBT check (speed, driving fault, whatever) and is then breath tested. That means NZ Police are supposed to produce 2,700,000 breath tests every year. As of 30 April 2011 NZ Police had conducted 1,744,672 CBT tests (well on the way to the 2 million) and 802,066

3 Department of Transport and Main Roads, Queensland, 2010 4 Miller, et al, 2004

9

MBT so were already over-delivered on their target. The NZ Police like the philosophy of breath testing every driver they stop so it is no surprise the MBT target is exceeded.

The Police booze buses used for CBT operations come under the control of Traffic Alcohol Groups (TAGs). New Zealand has 14 TAGs operating in all major cities; they also serve the outer rural areas in their vicinity with a total of 18 booze buses in operation. Operations are run every day of the year.

Evidential Breath Alcohol (EBA) and Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC)

Evidential breath alcohol (EBA) means how much alcohol is in a person’s breath and is used as an initial guide of how much alcohol is in the blood. A breathalyser measures the amount of alcohol in the breath and gives an EBA reading, i.e. a number, such as 400, which means 400 micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath. A person with an EBA level of 400 has more alcohol in their breath than someone with an EBA of 200. Blood alcohol concentration (BAC) means how much alcohol is in a person’s blood and is measured in terms of milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood. A BAC reading of 0.08 translates as 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood and is the equivalent level of an EBA reading of 400. EBA and BAC are determined by how much a person drinks, how long they take to drink it, how much they weigh, how long since they’ve eaten, the state of their liver and whether they are a regular drinker. Women usually need to drink less than men to become intoxicated because they are generally smaller and have slower metabolic rates.

Procedure

CBT operations involve setting up a checkpoint on roads identified as being suitable for such operations. There has to be a balance between deterrence and detection. Factors taken into account are:

• Traffic flow

• Areas that have safe and suitable parking facilities for detained drivers

• Areas identified as commonly used by those who drink and drive

The booze bus acts as the command centre and is parked centrally to the contra flowed traffic. Either the traffic on the side of the road where the booze bus is parked is stopped and tested or the traffic on both sides is stopped and checked, depending on traffic flow and the number of officers available to carry out testing. While the TAG has their own officers to carry out CBT they are often joined by other area forces to have as many officers ‘on the line’ as is necessary.

10

The Passive Breath Test

Approaching traffic is signalled to stop by an officer and the driver asked to speak into a ‘sniffer’ device. This device detects trace alcohol to identify in the first instance whether the driver has been drinking at all. Those who pass the sniffer test are moved on while those that fail are signalled to pull over to a designated safe area for further testing.

Screening Test

Next the driver is required to undergo a breath screening test; this requires the driver to blow into the sniffer device through a tube. This testing will give a more accurate reading of the driver’s level of alcohol. A pass reading at this point allows the driver to continue his journey. Those who fail will now be required to give another test aboard the booze bus using an evidential breath test machine. All cars that are stopped for a further test have the vehicle registration checked against police records.

The Evidential Breath Test

The evidential breath test machine is an electronic device which measures conclusively the amount of alcohol in your breath. The EBA machine requires a minimum of two breaths and produces two readings (these being micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath), the lower of which is the driver’s result. If the reading is over 400 micrograms per litre of breath, the driver is over the legal limit and will be charged with EBA (excess breath alcohol). There is a zero alcohol limit for drivers under 20.

If the evidential breath test reading is 400 micrograms per litre of breath or less, the test is considered passed and the driver will then be free to go (unless they are youth drivers). It is however possible that the Police may still consider the driver incapable of driving and forbid them to do so for a certain timeframe (usually 12 hours). If the officer says that the driver must not continue to drive then the driver must comply with the officer’s direction. Even though they are under the legal limit it is an offence to fail to comply with an officer’s direction forbidding them to drive. I witnessed officers using their discretion with regards to a driver’s ability to drive.

The Blood Test

After the evidential breath test the driver is given the option of electing to have a blood test. They are given 10 minutes to think about this. If the driver refuses or cannot complete an evidential breath test they will be required to permit a blood specimen to be taken. The blood sample is taken by a medical practitioner or a medical officer. Drivers cannot refuse a blood test, even if they are afraid of

11

needles or have any other excuse for not consenting to a blood test. Refusing to permit blood to be taken is also a qualifying offence for indefinite disqualification.5 For an adult “the limit” is 80 milligrams or alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood and for drivers under 20 the limit is 0 milligrams of alcohol per 100 milligrams of blood. If the blood test is positive, you will be required to pay a fine which is about $200. 6

Drug Driving

The Land Transport Amendment Act 20097 created a new offence of driving while impaired and with evidence in the bloodstream of a qualifying drug. The presence of a qualifying drug alone is not sufficient for an offence; there must also first be impairment as demonstrated by unsatisfactory performance of the compulsory impairment test. The Act allows Police to test for the presence of qualifying drugs if a driver fails a compulsory impairment test. Qualifying drugs include controlled drugs that are set out in the specified schedules in the Misuse of Drugs Act 19758. The law also covers the family of drugs known as benzodiazepines (anti-anxiety, tranquilliser medication). A full list of prescription medicines that are included can be found in the Medicines Regulations 1984.9

In analysing the results of the blood test, Police will target the substances which pose the highest risk for road users and which are the most likely to be used by New Zealand drivers. Drugs targeted are likely to include opiates, amphetamines, cannabis, sedatives, antidepressants and methadone. The list will be reviewed from time to time in the light of research, and changes in New Zealanders’ drug- taking habits.

The law provides a defence for a person who can prove that they were using the qualifying drug in accordance with a current prescription and instructions from the manufacturer, the doctor who prescribed it or the pharmacist who dispensed it.

Where a Police officer has “good cause to suspect” that a driver has consumed a drug or drugs, the officer may require the driver to take a Compulsory Impairment Test (CIT).

Grounds for having ‘good cause to suspect’ include erratic driving or, if the driver has been stopped for another reason, appearing to be under the influence of drugs. An example of the latter is the

5 this being disqualification for a minimum of one year one day requiring anyone caught under this to re-sit and pass the practical driving test before they can drive again. 6 For more on the penalties involved for impaired driving visit: http://www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/factsheets/55/driving-offences.html 7 http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2009/0017/40.0/DLM2014902.html 8 http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1975/0116/latest/DLM436101.html 9 http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/1984/0143/latest/DLM95668.html

12

person stopped at an alcohol checkpoint that is behaving in an intoxicated manner but passes a breath alcohol test.

If the driver does not satisfactorily complete the compulsory impairment test10

Forbidding the person to drive deals with the immediate road safety risk presented by the impaired driver. It is likely that drivers who fail the impairment test would be forbidden to drive for 12 hours (the period of prohibition applied to a driver who is over the legal adult breath alcohol limit) but this may vary depending on the discretion of the Police officer.

, the Police officer may forbid the driver to drive, and require the driver to provide a blood sample.

The procedure for taking a blood sample is the same as for drink drivers who opt for a blood test. When the blood test results are known, Police make a decision on whether or not to charge the driver.

The compulsory test includes:

• An eye assessment – pupil size, reaction to light, lack of convergence, nystagmus (i.e. abnormal eye movement - irregular eye movement can be a marker for drug impairment)

• A walk and turn assessment

• A one-leg stand assessment

10 Paperwork on CIT available here http://ridnz.co.nz/research.html

13

Observations

Method

When on operations with the TAG I was required by the police to wear high visibility clothing and to at all times be in a position that would not compromise my or others’ safety or impede CBT operations. My rules of engagement were that I was in no way to initiate conversations with those drivers who were being dealt with by the police until the police had finished their processing and they were free to do so. I had been out on several CBT operations prior to the start of my research, to work out the best approach for gathering information from those drivers stopped by the police. The only opportunity available to me was when they were waiting to be picked up by a friend or family member, or for someone to arrive to drive them and their vehicle from the checkpoint if their vehicle had been required to be impounded by law. I found that it was best to use my judgment as to whether I should start a conversation but usually found that those waiting would either ask what I was doing or ask me for a cigarette, or just want to talk to someone while they were waiting. The weather played a part in my ability to engage drivers in conversation. If it was raining they would wait for their lifts on the bus which was out of bounds to me, and after two shifts in the rain I decided not to go out on any more wet weather operations.

When the opportunity arose to talk to the drivers, the conversation would get around to what I was doing and I found that most of the drivers were willing to talk to me. I also constructed a questionnaire with the help of CARRS-Q11

11 Centre for Accident Research and Road Safety - Queensland, located at Queensland University of Technology.

. I used my initial outings with the police to refine this, as some questions caused the drivers to be wary, or they found them confusing, or distracted the driver from the information I was seeking. I eventually constructed a questionnaire that gathered the most information in the shortest period of time (See Appendix 2). Initially I had the questionnaires printed out. I thought that if I gave them to drivers with a postage-paid envelope, they could post them back to me but I soon found that this did not work and that I was better to fill in the questionnaires at the checkpoint. Those who completed the questionnaires were told that the information would be used anonymously and they would in no way be identified by name. In fact, I never asked the driver’s name and only ever knew some drivers’ names when they introduced themselves to me. On busy operations there could be up to five or more drivers awaiting transport and this sometimes resulted in group discussions. I adopted an unbiased and non-judgmental approach to conversations and had to adapt regularly to the moods and levels of inebriation from the

14

drivers I was interviewing. My reasoning was that any driver who was capable of being processed by the police was also able to be engaged to gather information. Most of the drivers were wary of filling in the questionnaires but would freely talk on the topics in the questionnaires. This meant that a lot of the information I gathered was by conversation with only twenty complete questionnaires filled out after 10 months. This did not matter as the information I was seeking was for my own benefit and was qualitative field work12

and not part of a research that required a certain amount of filled-in questionnaires to prove or disprove anything. At the end of each operation we would return to the Auckland Harbour Bridge command centre where I would write up my notes and observations of the shift. My interviews and observations of the suspected EBA drivers can be found in part II of this paper.

A Routine TAG Operation

A usual TAG operation would commence with the booze bus arriving at the designated checkpoint site first. The driver situates the bus, or buses if there are more than one at the site, in a position that allows for safe and effective CBT. The driver is then joined by the officer in charge of operations (Site Safety Officer) and other officers who will be manning the checkpoint. Cones are then used to create the checkpoint (see Appendix 1) and divert traffic to testing areas. As soon as the other officers working the checkpoint (or “on the line”) arrive, operations can begin. A single bus operation will have between 5-8 officers working on the line. Police cars are parked facing the flow of traffic to pursue those attempting to avoid the checkpoint by doing U-turns or even fleeing the vehicles (see Appendix 1). As well as the marked police vehicles there is usually an unmarked car parked some distance from the checkpoint for the same purpose. As soon as the officers on the line detect a driver who fails the initial sniffer test they are directed to park their vehicle in a designated safe area not far from the bus. The driver is then asked to provide a further breath test. Those passing this test are allowed to continue on their journey whilst those who fail are required to accompany the officer to the bus for further testing. The vehicles of those stopped for further roadside testing also have their registration details checked by computer on the booze bus and the officer also checks the licence of the driver and Warrant of Fitness details etc. Sometimes those who pass the test are found to be in violation of the law in other matters such as being banned

12 The qualitative method investigates the why and how of decision-making, not just what, where, when. Hence, smaller but focused samples are more often needed than large samples.

15

or unlicensed drivers or having warrants out for their arrest or un-roadworthy vehicles etc. When this happens the drivers are required to undergo the due process involved in their particular violation of the law. This requires the officer involved to be taken off the line, thus reducing the effectiveness of the operation. Some are required to accompany the officer or officers to a police station, also reducing the effectiveness of operations. If several such offenders are detected this could reduce the operation to one or two officers on the line. In such instances, especially when traffic flow is heavy, the traffic is often waved through until the circumstances for stopping traffic are again safe and effective.

As well as those detected by way of the checkpoint, other suspected EBAs are brought to the bus by mobile units who have stopped and tested drivers away from the checkpoint.

Along with those drivers who would try to avoid the checkpoint by U-turning, on every operation I attended there would be a huge number of ‘turners’. These are drivers who would turn into cul-de- sacs, driveways or any road that allowed them to avoid the checkpoint. The officers I worked with were well aware of such tactics and any driver doing this would be confronted and tested by officers. I was amazed at the lengths drivers would go to avoid the checkpoint and witnessed drivers parking their vehicles and hiding in bushes or shrubbery, drivers blatantly getting out of their vehicles and swapping places with their passengers and once I witnessed a driver leaping from his moving vehicle and running away, leaving his car (with passenger) to roll to stop some distance from the checkpoint.

The police were often joined by other organizations at the checkpoint including court bailiffs, officials from the New Zealand Transport Agency and other organisations who use the checkpoint to check that road users are driving lawfully and safely.

After several hours at one location the entire operation would then usually move on to another designated site for the rest of the shift.

16

Aboard the Bus

I was never allowed to be aboard the bus during a suspect’s processing and all the information here, on these proceedings, is provided by the police and from interviews and conversations with TAG officers.

Once on the bus, the suspect goes through a process comprising of- being read their Bill of Rights, and the filling in of forms13

Those who do not pass the evidential breath test are then again read their Bill of Rights and given a ten minute period to decide whether or not they want to use the option of a blood test. If they do want a blood test, a medical professional is contacted and asked to attend the bus to take the test. This was usually done by nurses who were on call to do such work and once they were called out they usually stayed with the unit until the end of operations or until they were called to another booze bus. Those refusing both a blood or breath test are considered to be suspected of EBA (Excess Breath Alcohol) driving.

, and checks to ascertain that they are whom they claim to be. They are then asked to provide two breath samples using evidential breath test equipment. Those who pass this test are then allowed to go on their way if the officer feels that they are in a fit state to drive. Even if a driver is not above the legal limit an officer can require the driver not to continue driving if the officer feels they are in no fit state to do so. I observed officers using this discretion and also talked to drivers who fell into this category.

Once the offender has been processed they are free to go. If they can make arrangements for their vehicle to be taken from the operations site they are free to do so or, if not, the vehicle is parked and locked close by, with the driver able to pick up the keys from the police the next day. They are required not to drive for the next 12 hours.

Any time that an officer is away from the testing line reduces the effectiveness of the CBT operation so any initiatives that reduce time away from testing would be advantageous.

13 Blood test form available at http://ridnz.co.nz/research.html

17

The re-reading of the Bill of Rights seems excessive and surely one reading would save time. The option of the blood test may need to be reviewed as evidence suggests that the correlation between blood and breath tests seems conclusive14. Although there are concerns that abolishment of the blood test option may result in more appeals questioning the effectiveness and reliability of the Evidential Breath Test equipment, none to date have been successful (and even with the blood option are still contested and appealed15) and this in my opinion strengthens the case for the removal of the blood test option completely and a charge being based solely on the breath test?. The 'blood option' is now looked upon as being obsolete as evidential breath testing machines have been proven to be both reliable and accurate.16 Defendants who are able to use the statutory option may actually benefit from the inevitable delay between requesting to provide an alternative sample of blood for analysis and the time at which they actually do this. This is because BAC levels decrease over time. I feel that it would also preclude matters that lawyers may use for argument in court later. Blood tests could be reserved for those who are close to the legal limit as they were previously17, or for special

circumstances such as refusal to provide a breath test, or at a hospital. This would speed up the process considerably as it wouldn't require a 10 minute wait, nor a wait to get a nurse to the site which, depending on the distance to the bus, the road conditions, weather, etc could take up to 40 minutes. It would also have substantial financial benefits as the police would not have to pay for the sampling kits, ESR18 analysis or nurse/doctor’s fees. From

Official Information Act requests I have made on any information relating to discussion on the right to a blood test, there appears to be much debate concerning the removal of the statutory right to request evidential blood tests. I know that there exists a police interim report on these matters but have so far been unable to obtain a copy. More recently CBT operations have received another blow in the form of a court ruling19

14 North. 2010.

which means that all booze buses must now be fitted with stabilizers

15 For examples see (list of appeals) http://ridnz.co.nz/research.html 16 North 2010 17 The Land Transport (Road Safety Enforcement) Amendment Act 2001 removed legal Impediments to the operation of breath testing devices and urban speed cameras. Under the Act, no matter what the result of a breath test, a driver has the right to request a blood sample. Previously this right was limited to drivers with a breath alcohol level of 600μg/l or below. 18 ESR, the Institute of Environmental Science and Research, is a government-owned New Zealand Crown Research Institute and the sole provider of forensic services to the New Zealand Police 19 Court ruling McGrath available here http://ridnz.co.nz/research.html

18

and, further, allows those suspected of EBA driving to request to be taken to a police station or equally suitable premises for the taking of the blood sample, thus requiring officers to be taken off the line and reducing the effectiveness of the operation. Reducing Impaired Driving in New Zealand will be researching in more detail the pros and cons of the right to request an evidential blood test and this information will be available at a later date.

The ten minute period given to those who fail the Evidential Breath Test (EBT) (to decide on whether or not they want to have a blood test) can cause ambiguities, and lead to challenges in court. This happened recently when a suspect used this period to call his boss, and his lawyer later used this information to successfully challenge the EBA charge20

• Filling your mouth with coins or ice to fool the breath test equipment

. I witnessed drivers using this time to try and expel alcohol from their bloodstream by running or doing vigorous activities in the hope that this would reduce their blood alcohol level. I also witnessed drivers disappearing during this period, and returning up to 30 minutes or later for their blood test. Drivers would often seek advice from others awaiting the nurse’s arrival or from passengers who were waiting for their drivers to be tested aboard the bus. I heard many ‘strategies’ from these conversations eagerly digested by those trying to reduce their BAC level, and also many other urban myths relating to the possibility of fooling the testing equipment. These included

• Drinking vast quantities of water

• Extreme physical exertion

• Hyperventilating

The 10 minute period seems to cause confusion among the desperate, and in my opinion reduces the effectiveness of CBT operations by allowing those suspected impaired drivers to be encouraged by others on the scene who are hardly experts on the subject.

20 Court ruling Mead available here http://ridnz.co.nz/research.html

19

Amendments to the Land Transport Act

Repeat drink drive offenders are a notable part of New Zealand’s drink drive problem. The total number of convicted drink drive offenders comprises about 1 percent of New Zealand’s driving population, and repeat offenders comprise about 0.3 percent. However, between 2005 and 2007, repeat drink drive offenders were involved in around 23 percent of the serious and fatal alcohol-related crashes.

To address these problems the Government has recently introduced, or will be introducing soon, the following measures:

• A zero BAC allowance for youth (i.e. drivers under the age of 20) which came into effect in August 2011.

• The maximum penalties for causing death or injury by drink driving will be raised. The maximum sentence for causing death will be increased from 5 to 10 years.

• There will be a zero BAC allowance for repeat and high level BAC offenders. ‘High level’ means offenders who are twice the legal limit or over. This will be coming into effect at the same time as the introduction of Alcohol Ignition Interlocks21

• Repeat and high level BAC offenders will be subject to a zero BAC licence for 3 years after which they are eligible to hold a normal licence again, or for 3 years after the removal of an interlock if required by a judge to fit one. Interlock licences will identify interlock- required drivers who will be allowed to drive nominated interlock-fitted vehicles only.

.

Currently the police do not check a driver’s licence at a CBT checkpoint unless the traffic flow is low and they have time to do so. With the introduction of interlocks and the zero BAC licence the police will now have to check all licences at the CBT checkpoints. There are other issues with the three year zero BAC licence which I voiced in a letter to the Minister of Transport. The letter, on the following page, highlights my concerns.

21 An alcohol ignition interlock is a device fitted to a vehicle that requires the driver to blow a sample of breath that is clear of alcohol to enable them to start their vehicle.

20

Dear Sir.

I am writing with regards to the 3 year zero BAC allowance for repeat and high level drink drivers either after a period of alcohol interlock use or a disqualification period. I have concerns regarding the impact on Police Traffic Alcohol Groups and their Compulsory Breath Test Operations. I note that in the Regulatory Impact Statement: ‘Completing the actions to address alcohol-impaired driving’, the Ministry of Transport recognizes that:

‘Research suggests that a significant number of repeat drink drivers are alcohol dependent. By itself a zero limit may not be effective for people with alcohol addiction issues. As a consequence we would expect there to be a relatively high level of non-compliance with the zero limit.’ Through my own research, I too have come to the same conclusion. Unless the intention is for all of these drivers to be screened, assessed, and either coerced into treatment or other interventions for their problems (which I hope it is) a zero BAC licence alone will do little to address a driver’s alcohol problems. I have for the last 10 months regularly accompanied the Auckland Traffic Alcohol Group on Compulsory Breath Testing operations. If the police will now be processing zero BAC licence holders for any amount of alcohol detected, even levels that are considered ‘safe’ by current New Zealand law, I believe this will impact greatly on their ability to detect and stop offenders who will be driving with illegal BAC levels. There will be an estimated 7500 repeat drink drivers that will be eligible for a zero BAC licence and figures from the Yearly Report 2010 ‘Motor Vehicle Crashes in New Zealand 2009’, suggest that this figure could double when adding those who are twice the limit and over. The police will be very busy processing drivers under 0.08 BAC, many of whom, as the Ministry of Transport also recognizes, may ask for a blood test as well as other delaying tactics. Officers usually take about 25 minutes to process a driver who has only had an Evidential Breath Test but I have seen officers come off screening duties for nearly 2 hours when a blood test is required. This could see officers tied up with low level BAC offenders, shutting down CBT operations, with the police unable to screen those who could later go on cause death or injury. I have witnessed officers detecting drivers who anyone would recognize as probably going to crash later in their journey. Each year through Compulsory and Mobile breath testing the police manage to breath test around 3.2 million drivers. The licensed driving population of New Zealand is around the same figure, roughly equating to 1 chance of being stopped every year. A reduction in this figure would be a backward step for general deterrence as it would lower the perception of being caught. While I understand the intention of a zero BAC limit licence surely it would make more sense for there to be an infringement penalty for those drivers under 0.08 BAC and definitely for those under 0.05 BAC. Tying up the police and courts with offenders who do not pose as much of a threat as those over the current BAC limit, does not I feel serve the best interests of the public or their safety on New Zealands roads. It does not make economic sense either, unlike the infringement model.22

22 Letter to Minister of Transport from author, 2011

21

The minister’s reply appeared to share my concerns and he reported that:

“It is possible that the zero limit licence may create operational issues for Police at compulsory breath test checkpoints – in terms of tying up police resources processing low level alcohol offenders. However, this issue will be monitored as part of an on-going review of the legislation. If it proves to be a problem for the police, then options for resolving it can be considered at the appropriate time.”23

The Minister also reported that:

“The Government is progressing a new approach to reduce offending and victimization called addressing the Drivers of Crime.24

RIDNZ will also be watching closely the impact of the zero BAC legislation.

One of the four priority areas is to reduce harm from alcohol and improve access to treatment. The Ministers of Justice and Health recently announced an additional $10 million funding package for alcohol and drug treatment. Of this, $1 million has been specifically allocated to support programmes for drink-drivers.”

23 Letter to author, 2011 24 http://www.justice.govt.nz/justice-sector/drivers-of-crime

22

Part II

23

Interviews with Suspected Impaired Drivers

Part of my observations on CBT involved talking with those suspected of EBA driving. Many topics were covered, including:

• Perceptions of the likelihood of getting stopped or caught

• Alcohol and or drug problems

• Possible initiatives to reduce impaired driving including the use of alcohol ignition interlocks

Suspected EBA drivers came from all backgrounds and were of all ages, and whilst I was on operations there seemed to be no unevenness between males or females. There seemed to be no apparent link between these drivers apart from the fact that they had all decided to drive whilst over the legal limit. In my opinion, all those stopped were impaired enough to have been very likely to have caused harm to themselves or others if they had continued their journeys.

As I mentioned in Part One of this paper, the technique I adopted was to be approached and engaged in conversation by those suspected of EBA driving. The drivers’ moods ranged from anger to apathy, with a myriad of other emotions. I spoke with repeat offenders who told me that alcohol and other drug use affected many aspects of their lives. Many of the first-time detected offenders reported the same ‘alcohol and/or drug’ problems and stated that, whilst this was the first time they had been detected EBA driving, they believed it was not the first time they had driven whilst over the legal limit or while impaired.25

There were drivers that didn’t care about the dangers of drink driving and for whom getting stopped and tested was a “Waste of police time”. Many drivers reported that they had only had “one drink” and were amazed that they had failed the Evidential Breath Test, even those with readings well over 400 micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath.

25 Miller et al 2003

24

With those who appeared to be incapable of discussion, I broke off contact. They would slur their words and forget what they were saying and often digress into stories unrelated to our discussion, unable it appeared to be able to concentrate. I was amazed that they could drive at all.

There were two types of driver that scared me the most:

• Those that were travelling with their children whilst impaired

• Those who reported to me that they felt impaired, but once passing the Evidential Breath Test, felt it was okay to continue driving

When I asked the drivers who felt impaired but still chose to drive, why they did so, the usual response was similar to this driver’s reply:

“Well, I’ve never been stopped before”

One driver I spoke to could hardly believe he passed the EBT, reporting to me that he didn’t know whether he’d make it home, or would have to sleep in his car if he felt he couldn’t continue his journey.

There seemed to be no recognition of the dangers of impaired driving only the perceived danger or risk of getting caught. Amazingly none of the drivers I spoke to believed they were doing anything dangerous at all.

Many drivers seemed to know the law and the penalties involved in being detected driving whilst over the limit. The loss of their licence was of great concern to those drivers that had one. Several I spoke to did not hold a current licence or were already forbidden or disallowed to drive. There were many arguments and recriminations from partners, family members or workmates who had to be telephoned to come and collect the drivers or their vehicles at all hours of the night. Some partners even had to bring the children along, on one occasion at 2am. Whenever possible though, the police, much to their credit, would arrange a ride home for those whom they believed would be in danger or their families hugely inconvenienced if they had to make their own way.

Most of the drivers I spoke to were sorry that they had decided to drive after drinking and were aware of the hardships that may result from a conviction and disqualification from driving. There

25

was however a small number of drivers who said they would continue to drive even if disqualified, with one driver reporting:

“Yeah I’ll still drive if I’m banned; this is the first time I’ve been stopped.”

The Blood Test

I was asked many questions about the blood test. Mostly it was relating to the correlation between the breath test and the blood test and how likely it would be that the blood test would be lower than the breath reading.26

Many drivers took the option of the blood test because it was offered, and they were of the mind that it couldn’t do any harm and that if there was a delay before they got the test, then just maybe they would fall under the limit. None of the drivers I spoke to realized that they would be paying the cost of the test and associated costs if the test did not reveal them to be under the limit.

My only commentary on the blood test option to the drivers I spoke to was that if their EBA reading was close to 400 then it may be an option, but if it was high then they would only, in my opinion, be adding extra costs to the ones they may have to pay if convicted of drink driving.

Discussions on Reducing Impaired Driving

Of all the responses to my questions on initiatives that could reduce impaired driving there was one which I believe best captures the essence of the problem. It was:

“If drinking and driving is so dangerous, why is it allowed?“

This was incidentally the first question that I had asked the Minister of Transport at the start of my correspondence with the Ministry. As I am of the view that all levels of alcohol impair one’s ability to drive, this seemed an obvious question. The Minister’s response was:

“I understand the sentiment you express in your question. Drink driving is one of the key causes of road crashes, in 2008 crashes involving alcohol resulted in 119 deaths and 2308 injuries.

However, in practice, drink driving limits represent a balance between increasing road safety on one hand, and allowing people the choice of enjoying a moderate level of alcohol and still being able to drive on the other.

A zero drink drive limit for all drivers is unlikely to be welcomed by the majority of New Zealanders at this time. To be effective in reducing death and injury, a drink drive limit, like any other road safety measure, needs to be supported by road users.” 27

26 For further information read Stowell et al, 2008 and Gainsford et al, 2006

26

Often there was the opportunity to have group discussions with several drivers awaiting a ride home. The attitude amongst these drivers was, in the main, jovial and one of shared misery. The drivers felt more relaxed in the company of those who shared their fate, and on one occasion a driver went to his vehicle and returned with cans of beer for the other drivers.

The majority of drivers I talked to hadn’t thought they would be stopped on their journeys and most reported that their drinking and driving habits had been consistent. There appeared to be an attitude of drink driving not being dangerous, with one driver reporting:

“I’ve been doing it for years and I’ve never crashed.”

Others believed that they drove better after a few28

“Once you’ve started drinking you are having a good time with your mates and you don’t think how drunk you’ll be when you’ve got to drive home.”

drinks. It was during the group discussions that I started to realize that not only did alcohol affect the drivers’ ability to drive but also their decision making. On more than one occasion a driver would say something similar to this driver:

A lot of drivers I talked to were unsure of the legal limit and reported that sometimes they could have several drinks and feel okay to drive, but on other occasions one drink could make them feel drunk. This, I believe, is an interesting point as the legal limit in New Zealand does not actually measure a driver’s level of impairment.

Interlocks

None of the drivers I talked to knew what an Alcohol Ignition Interlock Device was. After I had explained to them how the device worked, the first response usually involved ideas of how to circumvent or fool the device. I explained the technology and way in which the data stored by the device was used to identify such attempts. I also explained their intended use in New Zealand.29

The majority of drivers I discussed interlocks with thought they were a great idea, with many agreeing with me that they would be an ideal response to those detected driving over the limit. There were concerns expressed over the cost of the device and the inconvenience of having the device checked every month

30

27 Letter to author 10th May 2010

. All the drivers I spoke to regarding interlocks recognized the obvious fact that they would encourage good and safe driving practice if used in the intended manner. I was asked how long the device would stay on the vehicle, and what happens after it is removed? I

28 Nobody quantified what a few drinks were. 29 For information on interlocks and their intended use in NZ see: http://www.transport.govt.nz/about/functions/Documents/RIS-alcohol-impaired-driving.pdf 30 ibid

27

explained that research has shown that following removal of interlocks, re-arrest rates reverted to levels similar to those for comparison groups. 31

One driver I spoke to thought the interlock would be a great mandatory response to those first-time detected EBA drivers, and we also discussed the possibility of there being no criminal conviction attached to this first-time detection, as a way of ensuring compliance with the requirements of the interlock.

The drivers I spoke to had come from clubs, bars, parties or from a friend or family member’s house. They talked of poor public transport and high costs of taxi services as reasons for their drink driving.

Drug Drivers

During my time on operations with the TAG, I never witnessed the undertaking of a CIT although I was shown what it involved and how long it took32. Several of the drivers I spoke to, though, admitted that they had smoked cannabis before being stopped at the checkpoint, and of concern to some of these drivers was whether or not the blood test would be used to check for this.33

I told drivers who revealed illegal driving through the use of prescribed or illicit drugs that in other countries

34 they used dedicated roadside testing for drugs such as cannabis, Methamphetamine, benzodiazepines and opiates through the use of a saliva sample.35 Drivers asked me how effective they were36

and whether they were going to be used in New Zealand.

31 Elder et al, 2011 32 My test took 15 minutes with paperwork 33 It is not 34 Australia 35 A device is put into the mouth and tests the saliva for drugs. 36 For research on the effectiveness of roadside drug testing go to: http://eprints.qut.edu.au/13752/

28

Perceptions of being Detected

CBT operations are the frontline for detecting impaired drivers, and I felt it was important to understand whether or not the drivers who were stopped were aware of this.

Many of the repeat offenders I spoke to had been detected by such checkpoints previously but for many of the first time detected offenders it was also the first time they had encountered CBT operations, though most knew of their existence. Knowledge of CBT seemed to come from word of mouth or newspaper reports of intense operations over a holiday period, as opposed to having previously seen or having been stopped at a checkpoint. I asked the drivers if they had seen any of the televised adverting of CBT operations or the roadside signage. None had and this is hardly surprising as none exists,37 though this seems at odds with roadside testing in other countries where advertising is an integral part of its effectiveness.38

Roadside testing operations are meant to be highly visible, raising the perception that if you are contemplating driving over the limit, the chances are that you will be stopped and tested.

Final Thoughts

Whilst I do not try to prove or disprove anything about impaired driving in New Zealand through my discussions, observations and conversations with those suspected EBA drivers, it was of great help to me to understand the reasoning behind the decision-making process (itself impaired by alcohol or other drugs) that enabled the drivers to come to the decision to drive whilst over the limit or feeling impaired.

There were those who thought they were under the limit and those who believed they were over the limit but chanced being caught: this being the worst that could happen in many drivers’ opinions.

None of the drivers I spoke to believed they would be involved in an accident or believed that their actions would cause harm to themselves or others.

37 With the exception of media advertising on holiday periods or for large scale operations 38 Department of Transport and Main Roads, Queensland, 2010

29

The Drink Drivers

The following are eight interviews with drivers I spoke to and which I believe is a good representation of the non-homogenous nature of the suspected offenders.

Driver A

51 years old, white NZ/ European, male

Driver A had been drinking at a friend’s house and was on his way home when he was stopped and tested. He failed the test and did not elect to have a blood test done. He initially reported to me that he did not believe he was over the limit when he started his journey and that he never drove when he thought he was over the limit. He thought that the interlock device would be of benefit to him as he believed that he had a problem with alcohol. As was usually the case with other drivers after talking for some time, he relaxed and opened up to me. He told me that he had three previous convictions for drink driving and one for driving whilst disqualified (he initially told me that he would not drive if disqualified). He reported that he had never been ordered to have an alcohol assessment done at any of his appearances at court.

Driver B

19 years old, Pacific Islander, male

This driver was one of the most honest offenders I met. He had two previous convictions for drink driving and had only recently got his licence back. He had been drinking at home when he got a telephone call from his sister who had had a fight with her boyfriend and wanted to be picked up. Driver B reported that he had a problem with alcohol and concern had been expressed by friends and family who, he reported, had their own problems with drugs and alcohol. The TAG carries literature and pamphlets supplied by ALAC39 and ADANZ40

for those who need help with their drinking or drug problems. Whenever possible I gave these out to drivers who reported that they needed help with their problems. Driver B however reported to me that they would be of no use to him as he could not read. He told me that he needed help with his drink problem and had received no alcohol assessments at his previous court appearances. He did not elect to have a blood test.

39 Alcohol advisory Council 40 Alcohol Drug Association New Zealand

30

Driver C

28 years old, Pacific Islander, female

Driver C knew that she was over the limit when she started her journey. She reported that she thought she may be stopped but did not worry about it as drinking and driving was something that she did on a regular basis. Driver C reported that she believed she had an alcohol problem but appeared to be at ease with this and said she did not want any help. She thought that an interlock would be of great use to her and reported that:

“The only thing that would stop me from drink driving is if I was disabled”

She did not elaborate on whether she meant physically or technologically. Driver C did not elect to have a blood test as she:

“Just wanted to get home to have a drink”

Driver D

21 years old, white/ European, male

Driver D had been at a wedding party and had been drinking all day. He and some friends were on their way to join others to continue drinking at a different location. Driver D did not think that he was going to be stopped and reported that this was the first time he had driven whilst he believed he was over the limit. He reported that:

“It was the only way to get to the others - there are no buses and we had to use my car”

Driver D thought that if he was ordered to fit an interlock it would be an appropriate penalty but reported that he would never drink and drive again. He reported no alcohol problems and that this was a “one off” event. He did not elect to have a blood test.

Driver E

32 years old, Pacific Islander, female

Driver E was travelling with her two young children in the vehicle. She reported that she did not think she was over the limit, but told me that she did drive after she had been drinking and that it was a habit she would like to break. She believed that the interlock would be of good use to her as it would disallow this habit. Driver E told me that this was the first time she had been stopped at a CBT checkpoint. She also reported that she did not believe she had a problem with alcohol. She

31

took the option of a blood test as she believed her breath reading was close enough to 400 that maybe by the time of the blood test it would be lower.

Driver F

25 years old, white/European, female

Driver F was quite distraught and believed that she was not over the limit. She opted for a blood test and spoke to a lawyer. She believed that a conviction would lead to the loss of her job. She told me that this was the first time she had been out drinking in 6 months and that she had only had a few glasses of wine. She was aware of CBT operations but to me seemed genuinely convinced that she was not impaired enough to have been unable to drive.

Driver G

40 years old, white/European, male

Driver G had been out for the evening with friends. He reported that he thought he was over the limit but did not believe he would be stopped and tested. He told me that he often would drive after drinking and believed the limit was no indicator of one’s ability to drive. He thought that there should be a zero limit:

“You should be allowed to drink and drive or not, how are you able to tell if you’ve had too much?”

Driver G thought that the interlock device was too intrusive. He did not opt for a blood test and told me that he would continue in his habit of drink driving and also that he didn’t believe he had a problem with alcohol.

Driver H

24 years old, Maori, male

Driver H reported that he had one previous conviction for drink driving and was aware that there was a chance he might be stopped and tested on his journey. He did not believe he was over the limit. He told me that his family had expressed concerns about his drinking habits but had not spoken to anyone about this:

“Because I haven’t got a problem. If I wanted to talk to someone about my driving it would mean that I have a problem.”

Driver H did not elect to have a blood test. Driver H also reported that if a family member was hurt as a result of his or others’ drink driving then this would probably stop him from drink driving.

32

Conclusions

33

I believe that CBT operations are highly effective at detecting those who are driving above the legal limit and stopping them from causing harm to themselves or others. It is obvious that more CBT operations and TAG staff would be of great benefit to the effectiveness of CBT, in turn reducing the harm caused by impaired driving in New Zealand. The officers and support staff I worked alongside were all highly trained, diligent and hugely motivated in their efforts to detect those who were driving over the limit or driving whilst impaired.

The introduction of dedicated drug testing units would be of great benefit as the CIT currently used is not as fast and exact as current oral testing technology used in other countries such as Australia. There are however several issues surrounding levels of impairment of drugs and therefore the relationship to road safety. There does exist analysis that offers an empirical basis for a per se limit for THC (Tetrahydrocannabinol), which is the principal psychoactive constituent of the cannabis plant, that allows identification of drivers impaired by cannabis.41 Indeed as of February 2012, legal limits for twenty illegal drugs (including cannabis) and medicines with an abuse potential have been introduced by the Norwegian government. Norway is the first country to define both impairment-based legislative limits and limits for graded sanctions for drugs other than alcohol.42

For while it is illegal to use illicit substances and a considerable number of road deaths do involve drugs

43

There should in my opinion be more discussion and debate concerning the statutory right for a driver to elect to have a blood test and as I mentioned in the paper, RIDNZ will be researching this in more depth. The 10 minute wait period is a minefield and to my mind is completely unnecessary and does nothing to improve CBT operations - in fact the opposite is true. The repeated reading of the Bill of Rights, while only a small point, also seems excessive and a waste of time.

, whether processing and charging drivers for the presence of ‘any’ amount of drugs would improve road safety is a cause for discussion. I, however, believe that roadside testing for drugs would have a great deterrent value.

From my conversations with those suspected of EBA driving, it appears that hardly any of them thought it was likely that they would be stopped at a CBT checkpoint. None of them had seen any televised advertising of CBT operations or roadside signage. Advertising is a vital component of effective roadside testing operations. Advertising and its cost effectiveness has also been an area of mixed concern.44

41 Grotenhermen. 2007

But evidence suggests that for the most part evaluations of advertising campaigns should be based on before and after comparison of behaviours or variables that can be objectively

42http://www.fhi.no/eway/default.aspx?pid=238&trg=MainLeft_5895&MainArea_5811=5895:0:15,5123:1:0:0:::0:0&MainLeft_5895=5825:95784::1:5896:1:::0:0 43 Alcohol and other drug use in New Zealand drivers, 2004-2009 44 Lewis, T. 2001.

34

observed and are closely linked to safety.45

The drivers I spoke to seemed unaware or incapable of perceiving driving over the limit or impaired driving as being dangerous. Many drivers thought that interlocks would be a good response to all those detected driving over the limit and would encourage good driving practice. I am an advocate of interlocks for all detected EBA offenders and believe that interlock should be the mandatoryresponse to drink driving.

I do feel however that the advertising and publicity I have seen to deter drivers from impaired driving is aimed at rational people. I don’t know if the majority of drivers I spoke to would be considered rational.

46

Recommendations

I attempted to pick as many holes as possible in the CBT operations I attended but found that there wasn’t much to pick at. However I believe the following should be discussed and reviewed:

• More dedicated TAG staffing for current CBT operations

• Review of the statutory right to elect a blood test

• Review of the need to read the Bill of Rights more than once

• Abolition of the 10 minute wait period

• Media, televised, and roadside signage of CBT operations

• Investigate use of oral testing for drugs at the roadside

45 Wundersitz et al 2009 46 Waters 2010

35

References

Department of Transport and Main Roads, Queensland Drink Driving Discussion Paper, 2010 page 19

Elder RW, Voas R, Beirness D, et al. Effectiveness of ignition interlocks for preventing alcohol-impaired driving and alcohol-related crashes a community guide systematic review. Am J Prev Med. 2011; 40(3):362–76 Gainsford AR, Fernando DM, Lea RA et al. (2006) A large-scale study of the relationship between blood and breath alcohol concentrations in New Zealand drinking drivers. J Forensic Sci 51:173–8. Grotenhermen F, Leson G, Berghaus G, et al. Developing limits for driving under cannabis. Addiction 2007; 102: 1910–17. Lewis, T. (2001). Same data, different conclusions: Analysis of the New Zealand drink-driving campaign data. Every picture tells a different story. Marketing Bulletin, 12, Commentary 1. Miller, T.R., & Blewden, M. (2001). Costs of Alcohol-Related Crashes in NZ. Page 2 Miller T, Blewden M, Zhang J. Cost savings from a sustained compulsory breath testing and media campaign in New Zealand. Accid Anal Prev. 2004 Poulsen H, Alcohol and other drug use in New Zealand drivers, 2004-2009, Environmental Science and Research Ltd (ESR), 2010

North, P. (2010). Report of the Review of Drink and Drug Driving Law. Department of Transport, London. Stowell, A. R.; Gainsford, A. R.; Gullberg, R. G. Forensic Sci. Int. 2008, 178 (2-3), 83–92. Waters, G, “The Case for Alcohol and Other Drug Treatment Courts in New Zealand” (2011)

Waters, G. V. (2010). Submission to the Transport and Industrial Relations Select Committee Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. Submitted by Gerald Waters on behalf of the friends and family of Katherine Kennedy.

Wundersitz L, Hutchinson TP, Woolley JE. Best practice in road safety mass media campaigns: A literature review. Adelaide: Centre for Automotive Safety Research; 2009.

36

Appendices

37

Appendix 1

CBT Checkpoint layouts

38

39

40

41

42

43

Appendix 2

Suspected EBA questionnaire

44

Male /female Age: Ethnicity: White NZ/ EuropeanMaori Pacific Islander Other Marital Status: Married Single Defacto Divorced Separated Widowed

Occupation: Government assistance/pension Education: Secondary/ Tertiary

DRINK DRIVE QUESTIONNAIRE

Thank you for taking part in this questionnaire

1. Did you think that you may have been over the limit when you set out today?

Yes No Unsure

2. Did you think it was likely that you would be stopped?

Yes No Unsure

3. Did you worry that you could get caught drink driving today?

Yes No Unsure

4. Do you worry that you might lose your licence for drink driving?

Yes No Unsure

45

5. Do you often drive after drinking when you could be over the limit?

Often Sometimes Never

6. Do you know the penalties for drink driving offences?

Yes No Unsure

7. Is drink driving a habit you would like to break?

Yes No Unsure

8. Do you think that you might drive even if you were disqualified?

Yes No Unsure

9. Do you think you might drink and drive in the future?

Yes No Unsure

10. What do you think would stop you from drink driving?

11. Do you think having a device fitted to your car that doesn’t allow drink driving would be of use to you?

Yes No Unsure

12. Do you think you have a problem with alcohol?

Yes No Unsure

13. Has a doctor, friend or family member ever expressed concern about your drinking habits?

Yes No

14. Would you like to talk to someone about help with your drinking? Yes No Unsure

46

Reducing Impaired Driving in New Zealand