Introduction: There is a need for improved drug driving enforcement to promote greater driver compliance with drug driving laws. In Australia, Roadside Drug Testing (RDT) suffers from operational challenges that undermine its effectiveness in reducing drug driving. Objective: To identify potential improvements to RDT, this study investigated the extent to which drivers perceive RDT to be procedurally just and that the policing of drug driving and the associated laws are legitimate. These perceptions were then compared with those applying to Random Breath Testing (RBT) and examined in relation to their respective influence on intentions to drug and drink drive in the future. Method: A sample of 1,483 licensed drivers from three Australian states completed an online survey. Results: Those participants who reported engaging in drug driving perceived RDT to be less procedurally just than non-drug drivers. Similarly, drug drivers perceived the police and associated drug driving laws to be less legitimate than non-drug drivers. Furthermore, drug drivers who had been tested at an RDT operation in the past perceived RDT to be less procedurally just and considered drug driving policing and laws to be less legitimate, compared with the corresponding perceptions of drink drivers who had been tested at an RBT operation. A regression analysis indicated that stronger intentions to drug drive in the future were associated with lower perceptions of police legitimacy and the legitimacy of drug driving laws, but not with the elements of procedural justice. However, follow-up analyses indicated that the influence of procedural justice on intentions was mediated by the two legitimacy variables, thus weakening its direct impact on intentions. Practical applications: The results highlight the need for road safety authorities to enhance the perceived legitimacy of drug driving enforcement and associated laws. Changes to current police practices and/or drug-driving laws may also be needed to enhance the effectiveness of RDT.

@en

Road corridors contain countless sources of distraction, each carrying the potential to draw drivers’ eyes and minds off roads, thus increasing the risk of a crash. While the impact of billboards on driver distraction has received considerable attention, empirical data for other types of roadside advertising signs is very limited. Furthermore, the existing research examining other potential external sources of distraction is fragmentary, which makes it difficult to develop evidence-based road safety policies to mitigate risk. Therefore, the aim of this study was to conduct an exploratory review to ascertain and synthesise the available distraction-related literature for various types of roadside advertising signs (excluding billboards) and other potential external sources of distraction in the road corridor. Based on distraction-related theory and existing literature, 58 predefined categories of potential distraction sources were developed to guide an exploratory literature search using the Scopus database. Fourteen documents relating to external distraction sources were identified in the database search with a further five studies found using a backwards citation chaining search (N=19). However, no studies for non-billboard types of roadside advertising signs were found. Studies included those that investigated driver distraction in relation to construction zones, commercial logos contained within official traffic management Dynamic Message Signs (DMS) and service (logo) signs, drones, murals, roadside memorials and wind turbines. While one study investigated whether an external source of distraction can have a positive effect on driver behaviour, the remainder focused on the potential negative impacts on road safety of these sources of distraction. A key finding of the review is that crash risk increases when drivers continue to visually and cognitively engage with a source of distraction. Overall, the studies provide insights into the types of distractions that can be encountered in road corridors and the impact they can have on driver behaviour. However, more research is required before the mechanisms and pathways involved in these types of distractions can be effectively conceptualised, and thereby mitigated to reduce the burden of distraction risk and road trauma.@en

Drug driving is recognised as a major road safety problem in many countries. In Australia, the primary response to this problem involved the adoption of roadside drug testing (RDT), which was modelled on the policies and practices used to conduct random breath testing (RBT) for alcohol. However, there remain important differences in the way that RDT and RBT are conducted, which might produce differential effects on drug and drink driving behaviour. In addition, various psychosocial factors are known to influence the two behaviours. Thus, there is a need to investigate the relative influence of legal and psychosocial factors on drug driving and explore how they may be similar or different to drink driving. Accordingly, this study utilised Deterrence Theory and Akers' Social Learning Theory, augmented by measures of dependence and a range of psychosocial factors, to examine the factors associated with self-reported drink and drug driving. An online survey was completed by 1394 licensed drivers from the three most populous states in Australia: Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria. Self-reported drink and drug driving became more likely as level of dependence increased. In relation to legal factors, direct experience of avoiding detection was the strongest predictor of self-reported drink and drug driving. Among the psychosocial factors, a significant positive relationship was found between holding favourable attitudes toward both drink driving and drug driving and self-reported behaviours. The findings suggest that applying legal sanctions in isolation without addressing the psychosocial rewards and punishments for the behaviours is not sufficient to reduce drug or drink driving. Future research should identify countermeasures that integrate deterrence and psychosocial principles in order to reduce these risky driving behaviours.@en

Despite a strong reliance on enforcement approaches to prevent drug driving in Australia, this behaviour is still prevalent. The objective of this study was to investigate the influence of problematic drug use (i.e., showing indications of addiction), exposure to roadside drug testing, the use of detection avoidance strategies, and perceptions relating to alternative transport options on drug driving among illicit drug users. A total of 1,541 licensed drivers from the states of Queensland, New South Wales, and Victoria completed an online survey. The survey collected demographic and problematic substance use information, as well as items assessing drug driving behaviour. Cannabis was reported to be the most commonly used drug (36.0%); the most common drug of problematic use (27.9%), and the drug most often taken prior to driving (43.5%). Observing police operating Roadside Drug Tests (RDT) was more common among the participants than being tested by RDT (35.7% vs 23%). The results indicated a significant association between being a drug driver and observing or being tested by RDT. The drug drivers were significantly more likely to report using a range of strategies to avoid police detection than the non-drug drivers. Similarly, the drug drivers reported that it was more difficult for them to use various alternative transport options than the non-drug drivers. Decision tree analyses found that significant predictors of self-reported drug driving were problematic drug use, holding a provisional or probationary licence, earning a low- or middle-income, and using detection avoidance strategies like remaining watchful for police vehicles and taking back streets. The findings of this study suggest that ongoing improvements to drug driving enforcement will need to be complemented by health-based approaches designed to reduce drug abuse and dependence, and improvements to public transport, in order to achieve a sustainable reduction in drug driving.@en

Drug driving is a serious problem worldwide that can increase the risk of road crashes. This systematic review seeks to identify factors associated with drug driving (i.e., driving after consuming drugs other than alcohol) to highlight gaps in existing knowledge and inform the design of more effective countermeasures. A search of the literature was conducted for the period January 1, 2005 to July 31, 2021 using six different databases. The search protocol followed PRISMA guidelines and was registered in PROSPERO (#CRD42021234616). Studies that met inclusion criteria compared drug drivers with either non-drug drivers, alcohol-only drivers or drug drivers from an earlier time period, to identify factors specifically associated with drug driving, rather than common to all drivers. Two hundred and nineteen publications met the inclusion criteria and were included within the review. Based on the findings, a logic model was developed that presents the factors associated with drug driving. Various sociodemographic, psychosocial and legal factors emerged as the main factors associated with illegal drug driving. At the sociodemographic and psychological levels, drug drivers were more likely to be single, young males who often drive after using cannabis and who score high on sensation-seeking and impulsivity scales. The key social factor found to be associated with drug driving was peer acceptance/disapproval of the behaviour. At the legal level, the review suggested that the effectiveness of current enforcement approaches to drug driving vary among jurisdictions around the world due to differences in the level of perceived certainty of apprehension and the chances of punishment avoidance. Future research into the anticipated and actual rewards for drug driving is needed to inform the development of more effective countermeasures.@en

This paper proposes a conceptual framework to understand the relationship between roadside advertising signs, driver behaviour, and road safety outcomes. Roadside advertising signs are external distractions that may take a driver's attention away from safety-critical driving tasks, potentially increasing crash risk through driver distraction and inattention. Although studies report safety concerns, as a whole, the body of research in the field is inconclusive with inconsistent quality, making it difficult to draw firm conclusions. Definitive links between roadside advertising and road trauma are not yet evident, which has major consequences for road regulators' capacity to develop evidence-based policy to safely administer public roads. However, a lack of consistent evidence does not indicate an absence of risk but underscores its complexity. To address this problem, the Driver Behaviour and Roadside Advertising Conceptual Framework (DBRA framework) was developed to strategically investigate and conceptualise the phenomena of roadside advertising. A new term – “extended engagement” – has also been proposed to account for situations of prolonged attentional engagement with a roadside advertising sign. Further, it is posited that important variations in driving performance may be associated with a driver's extended engagement with a roadside advertising sign. Built on extant theories of driver behaviour and empirical research, the DBRA framework is designed to be a robust tool that encourages a common agenda for future roadside advertising research.@en

Driver inattention and distraction are recognised as two of the most critical factors for road safety worldwide. While roadside advertising is often identified as a potential source of distraction, it has received less attention compared to other types of distractions such as texting or calling while driving. Therefore, this study focused on the impact of roadside advertising signs on driver behaviour and road safety. To examine this, a theory-driven systematic literature review was undertaken. In total, 90 unique documents were identified and reviewed using the Task-Capability Interface (TCI) Model to explain the potential safety impact of roadside advertising. The findings confirmed that the TCI model is a useful tool for describing the relationship between roadside advertising and driver behaviour. From this perspective, roadside advertising signs can be considered environmental clutter, which adds additional demands to the driving task. In particular, roadside advertising signs impaired eye movement patterns of drivers. Additionally, it was demonstrated that the impact of roadside advertising on driving behaviour is greatly moderated by individual differences among drivers. Of great importance was that young drivers invest more attentional resources in interacting with roadside advertising, which suggests a lower capacity to discriminate between relevant and irrelevant driving information. Based on the available evidence, however, it is not possible to definitively conclude that there is a direct relationship between the driving behaviour changes attributed to roadside advertising and road crashes. Nonetheless, while most studies remain inconclusive, there is an emerging trend in the literature suggesting that roadside advertising can increase crash risk, particularly for those signs that have the capacity to frequently change (often referred to as digital billboards). Lastly, it is important to mention that most of the empirical studies undertaken to date feature strong methodological limitations. Consequently, there is an urgent need for more research in this area, given that roadside technology and the transport system are changing rapidly.@en