An Analysis of Drink Drive/Ride Collisions

Transcription

1 An Analysis of Drink Drive/Ride Collisions 5 years (November 2006 to October 2011) Dorset County Council Prepared by Michael Potter Dorset County Council February 2012 m.potter@dorsetcc.gov.uk

2 CONTENTS Data overview 3 SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS 4 Background 5 Report structure 6 DRIVER/RIDER PROFILE 7-10 Age and Gender breakdown 7-9 Driver/Rider postcode area 9 Vehicle type of drink drivers/riders 10 COLLISION ANALYSIS Overview 11 Urban or Rural Month Day 15 Time Weekday/Weekend split Contributory factor analysis Contributory factor group analysis 18 Single vehicle 18 Drink drive/ride collision locations Summary 21 Conclusion

3 Data overview Figures detailed in this report are derived from the STATS 19 forms completed by Dorset Police. STATS 19 forms collect detailed data on individual road collisions, covering the circumstances of the accident and the casualties and vehicles involved. It is acknowledged that there are limitations with Stats 19 data, such as not providing how far drivers were above the drink drive limit(s); however, it is considered the best dataset available to the county council. The current Stats 19 form has two areas where suspected drink driving/riding can be recorded by a Police Officer: Breath test Contributory factor Driver/Rider impaired by alcohol It can be reasonably assumed that there will be a level of undercounting of drink drive/ride collisions. The breath test section will show a level of under reporting because it is not always possible for police officers to administer a breath test at the scene of every collision. The contributory factors will likely show a level of undercounting as not all police officers successfully complete this section of the Stats 19 form. Also, some collisions are reported over the counter at police stations after the event so it is not possible to administer a breath test or determine whether impaired by alcohol was a contributory factor for such collisions. It is likely that there are a greater number of collisions which involved a driver/rider being under the influence of alcohol but they are not identifiable from the available data. There are a number of road traffic collisions (RTCs) that have impaired by alcohol recorded as a contributory factor but the collision did not involve a driver/rider of a motor vehicle being impaired by alcohol ; it was either a vehicle passenger, the rider of a pedal cycle or a pedestrian. As this report is focused on drink driving/riding of motor vehicles these 13 collisions have not been included. This is not to say that these collisions are of any less importance to Dorset County Council, it is just that they are not relevant to this piece of analysis which focuses on drink drivers/riders of motor vehicles. For the purposes of this report, drink drive/ride collisions will be taken to mean those collisions where a positive breath test and/or at least one contributory factor was recorded as impaired by alcohol for a driver/rider of a motor vehicle. 3

4 SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS In total there were 244 personal injury collisions where at least one driver/rider of a motor vehicle was drink driving/riding between November 2006 and October 2011 within the Dorset County Council area 79% of drink drivers/riders were male Males across all age groups accounted for the majority of positive breath tests. The closest male/female split was for the year olds; 59% and 41% respectively year old males were the largest group of male drink drivers/riders, accounting for 22% Male drink drivers/riders aged 30 and under accounted for 50% of all male drink drivers/riders All drink drivers/riders aged 30 and under accounted for almost half (49%) of all drink drivers/riders The vast majority of drink drivers/riders, younger and older, involved in a collision on roads within the Dorset County Council area were Dorset residents (including Poole and Bournemouth Borough Council areas) Car drivers accounted for the vast majority of all drink drivers/riders involved in a personal injury collision; 91% of all drink drive/ride collisions A greater proportion of all fatal collisions were drink drive/ride related than all serious and slight collisions There is a 50/50 urban/rural split for all drink drive/ride collisions. However, drink drivers/riders are more likely to be involved in KSI collision on Dorset County Council s rural road network There is no one month which has a significantly higher number of drink drive/ride collisions December has the lowest proportion of KSI drink drive/ride collisions The peak two hour period for all drink drive/ride collisions was 17:00 to 18:59 More drink drive/ride collisions occur at the weekend than during the week. Saturday had more drink drive/ride collisions than Monday to Thursday combined More drink drive/ride collisions occurred between 06:00 to 12:59 at the weekend than during the week. This could be an indication of the morning after the night before Contributory factors loss of control and travelling too fast for conditions were recorded more frequently for drink drive/ride collisions than they were for all collisions Contributory factor groups injudicious action and behaviour and inexperience account for a greater proportion of drink drive/ride collisions than for all collisions Compared to all collisions a greater proportion of drink drive/ride collisions were single vehicle 4

5 Background Nationally there were 63,110 people injured in a road traffic collision in Great Britain between 2006 and 2010 where one of the drivers/riders involved was drink driving/riding. This equated to 5% of all road casualties during this period. To give this figure some context the capacity of Arsenal Football Club s Emirates stadium is just over 60,000. During the 5 year period November 2006 to October 2011, a total of 353 people were injured as a result of being involved in a drink drive/ride collision within the Dorset County Council area; this equates to 4% of all road casualties during this period. Drink Driving remains a key priority for the Dorset Road Safe Partnership. Driving whilst under the influence of alcohol is against the law and it is widely acknowledged that the risk of being involved in a RTC is increased when alcohol is present within a driver/rider s system. An extensive literature review commissioned by the Department for Transport (DfT) and published by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) into the effects of alcohol and driving and in March 2010, showed that research consistently found that the risk of having an accident increases exponentially as more alcohol is consumed. The current legal drink drive/ride limit is 35mg of alcohol per 100ml of breath. This test can be administered at the roadside. Further tests can be completed at a police station if required, either a blood or urine test. The legal limit for a blood sample is 80mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood. The legal limit for a urine sample is 107mg of alcohol per 100ml of urine. The report completed by NICE suggested that there is strong evidence that drivers /riders ability is adversely affected if there is any alcohol in their blood. The report looked at drivers different levels of blood alcohol concentration (BAC) and assessed the risk of dying in an RTC against drivers with a BAC of 0 (zero). The findings were: Drivers with a BAC of between 20mg/100ml and 50mg/100ml have at least a three times greater risk of dying. Drivers with a BAC of between 50mg/100ml and 80mg/100ml have at least a six times greater risk of dying. Drivers with a BAC of between 80mg/100ml and 100mg/100ml have at least an 11 times greater risk of dying. The legal BAC limit is 80mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood The above evidence would suggest that it is likely that the actual number of collisions that involved at least one driver/rider involved being under the influence of alcohol is higher than those that are included within this report. Unfortunately it is not possible with the available data to estimate what the actual number of drink drive/ride collisions may be. 5

6 Report structure For the purposes of this analysis the data has been split into two areas: Driver/Rider profile drivers/riders who recorded a positive breath test and/or with impaired by alcohol recorded as a contributory factor 244 records. Collision analysis collisions with Impaired by alcohol recorded as at least one contributory factor and/or with at fault driver/rider recording a positive breath test 240 records. There is a small handful (4 of 244) of collisions that, from the available data, did not appear to be the fault of the drink driver/rider. The descriptions of these collisions are as follows: REAR NEASIDE TYRE OF VEHICLE 1 EXPLODED CAUSING INJURY TO PEDESTRIANS LEGS Positive breath test for driver of vehicle 1 (Severity = Slight) VEHICLE 1 OVERTOOK VEHICLE 2 THINKING ROAD WAS A DUAL CARRIAGEWAY VEHICLE 3 WAS ONCOMING HIT V1 - V1 HIT V2 Positive breath test for driver of vehicle 3 (Severity = Slight) VEHICLE 1 LOST CONTROL ON BEND AND COLLIDED WITH VEHICLE 2 TRAVELLING THE OPPOSITE WAY. Positive breath test for driver of vehicle 2 (Severity = Slight) VEHICLE 2 WAS WAITING TO TURN RIGHT AND WAS HIT IN REAR BY VEHICLE 1. Positive breath test for driver of vehicle 2 (Severity = Serious) VEHICLE 2 WAS WAITING AT THE JUNCTION TO TURN RIGHT ONTO MAIN ROAD WHEN VEHICLE 1 COLLIDED WITH REAR VEHICLE 2. Positive breath test for driver of vehicle 2 (Severity = Slight) Due to the wealth of evidence highlighting the increased risk of being involved in a RTC when alcohol is present within a driver s/rider s blood (NICE, 2010) each of the 244 drink drive/ride collision records will be considered for the Driver/Rider Profile section of this report. However the records for the above 4 collisions will not be included within the Collision Analysis section of this report as they are not a fair representation of drink drive/ride collisions. For the purposes of this report, drink drive/ride collisions will be taken to mean those collisions where a positive breath test and/or at least one contributory factor was recorded as impaired by alcohol for a driver/rider of a motor vehicle. 6

7 DRIVER/RIDER PROFILE It is routine for Police Officers to administer a breath test to each driver/rider involved in a RTC where possible. However, it is not always possible for Police officers to administer a breath test at the scene of a collision, for example if a driver/rider has sustained serious injuries it may not be possible to conduct a breath test. In total 177 positive breath tests were recorded for drivers/riders involved in a personal injury collision between November 2006 and October It can be reasonably assumed that there were more driver/riders who would have recorded a positive breath test as there was a total of 244 personal injury collisions with either at least one positive breath test recorded and/or impaired by alcohol recorded as at least one contributory factor. These 244 drink drive/ride records will be used to build a profile of drink drivers/riders who were involved in a personal injury collision irrespective of whether they were at fault. Age and gender breakdown There are 7 records which did not have gender recorded therefore this section only includes 237 records. Of the 237 drink drivers/riders who were involved in a personal injury collision, 188 were male (79%) year old males were the largest group of male drink drivers/riders with 41 (22%). Males, across all age groups accounted for the majority of drink drivers/riders. The closest split was for year olds where the split was 13 (59%) male and 9 (41%) female. The table below gives a breakdown of drink drivers/riders involved in a personal injury collision by age group and gender: Male drink drivers/riders aged between 16 and 30 accounted for 81% of all drink drivers/riders aged between 16 and 30. Male drink drivers/riders aged 31 and over accounted for 78% of all drink drivers/riders aged 31 and over. 7

8 The following chart shows the percentage breakdown of drink drivers/riders involved in a personal injury collision by gender and age group: The gender difference in the number of drink drivers/riders involved in a collision may be a reflection of the difference in perception of risk. One reason for males accounting for the majority of drink drivers/riders involved in a collision could be that they do not see driving whilst under the influence of alcohol as a significant risk. The DfT Attitudes to Road Safety: Analysis of Driver Behaviour Module 2010 found the following gender differences in attitudes towards driving after drinking alcohol: Women were more likely than men to disagree that one or two drinks does not make drivers more likely to crash (62% and 50%, respectively). Women were also more likely to advocate abstinence from alcohol prior to driving (81% agreeing that drivers should not drink any alcohol before driving compared with 67% of men) 21 to 25 year old drink drivers/riders were the largest 5 year age group accounting for 21% of all drink drivers/riders. Drink drivers/riders aged 30 and under accounted for almost half (49%) of all drink drivers/riders involved in a personal injury collision. Drivers/riders aged 30 and under also accounted for the majority of drink drive offences detected by Dorset Police as part of the national 2011 Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) drink drive campaign. This could suggest that driving/riding whilst under the influence of alcohol is more common amongst drivers/riders aged 30 and under which may be an indication of why this driving/riding age group are overrepresented in drink drive/ride collisions. Information gathered in the DfT Think! 2010 Annual Survey found that men under 30 were amongst the groups most likely to acknowledge that they had driven without being sure if they were over the legal alcohol limit or had driven whilst in the knowledge that they were over the legal alcohol limit. The combination of this information can be used as evidence for focusing any future drink drive campaigns towards younger drivers. This does not mean that drivers/riders aged over 30 are not a problem. Driving whilst under the influence of alcohol is against the law regardless of the age of the driver/rider. 8

9 The following chart shows the percentage breakdown of drink drivers/riders involved in a personal injury collision by age group: Driver/Rider post code area Postcode areas which fall within Dorset are BH, DT and SP. It is acknowledged that there are some areas of overlap with neighbouring authorities however the vast majority of drink drivers/riders involved in a collision that occurred within the Dorset County Council area were Dorset residents; including Poole and Bournemouth Borough Council areas. The chart below shows the breakdown of drink drivers/riders by postcode area: 9

10 Vehicle type of drink drivers/riders The vast majority of drink drivers/riders who were involved in a personal injury collision were car drivers. Car drivers accounted for 90% of all drink drive/ride records. This would suggest that any drink drive initiatives should focus mainly on car drivers. The following table shows the breakdown of drink drivers/riders by vehicle type and severity: Although the overwhelming majority of drink drivers/riders involved in a personal injury collision were car drivers it does not mean that motorcycle riders or goods vehicle drivers are at less risk if driving/riding whilst under the influence of alcohol. It can be reasonably assumed that any driver/rider of any vehicle under the influence of alcohol will be at a significantly greater risk of being involved in a collision than a driver/rider not under that influence of alcohol. A similar proportion of car drivers and motorcycle riders involved in a personal injury collision were drink driving/riding. This would suggest that car drivers and motorcycle riders are at equal risk when driving/riding whilst under the influence of alcohol. The following table shows the total number of motor vehicles involved in a personal injury collision and the proportion of those that were being driven/ridden by someone who was drink driving/riding: 10

11 COLLISION ANALYSIS Overview In total there were 240 drink drive/ride collisions within the Dorset County Council area between November 2006 to October 2011 which resulted in personal injury that, from the available data, were alcohol related and were solely or partly the fault of a drink driver/rider. These collisions accounted for 4% of all recorded personal injury collisions. A greater proportion of all fatal collisions were drink drive/ride related than all serious and slight collisions; the breakdown by severity is shown below: The available data suggests that the drink driver/rider was at fault in each fatal collision. Descriptions of each drink drive/ride fatal collision are detailed below: VEHICLE 1 LEFT ROAD COLLIDED WITH TREE Vehicle 1 Impaired by alcohol SINGLE VEHICLE LOST CONTROL HIT TREE AND CAUGHT FIRE Vehicle 1 Impaired by alcohol VEHICLE 1 TRAVELLING ON THE WRONG SIDE OF THE ROAD COLLIDED WITH VEHICLE 2 HEAD ON. VEHICLE 1 FOUND TO BE 3 TIMES OVER ALCOHOL LIMIT Vehicle 1 Impaired by alcohol V1 LEFT CARRIAGEWAY TO NEARSIDE AND COLLIDED WITH FENCE Vehicle 1 Impaired by alcohol VEHICLE 1 LEAVES ROAD NEARSIDE COLLIDES WITH TREE Vehicle 1 Impaired by alcohol VEHICLE 1 BULK TANKER COLLIDED WITH REAR OF VEHICLE 2 ON DUAL CARRIAGEWAY Driver of vehicle 1 positive breath test and contributory factor Impaired by drugs (illicit or medicinal) VEHICLE 1 OVERTOOK VEHICLE 2 AND VEHICLE 1 THEN LOST CONTROL. DRIVER OF VEHICHLE 1 THROWN FROM VEHICLE INTO VEGITATION Vehicle 1 Impaired by alcohol PEDAL CYCLIST WAS STRUCK BY VEHICLE 2 - Vehicle 2 Impaired by alcohol VEHICLE 1 CROSSED TO OFFSIDE OF ROAD AND COLLIDED WITH VEHICLE 2 Vehicle 1 Impaired by alcohol VEHICLE 1 LOST CONTROL ON GRADUAL RIGHT HAND BEND ON BROW OF HILL, CROSSED CARRIAGWAY, MOUNTED OFFSIDE VERGE AND ROLLED BEFORE COMING TO REST ON ITS WHEELS ON NEARSIDE VERGE Vehicle 1 Impaired by alcohol VEHICLE 1 COLLIDES WITH VEHICLE 2 WHICH WAS PARKED AND UNATTENDED Vehicle 1 Impaired by alcohol VEHICLE 1 VEERS TO OPPOSITE CARRIAGE WAY AND COLLIDES WITH VEHICLE 2 TRAVELLING IN OPPOSITE DIRECTION Vehicle 1 Impaired by alcohol 11

12 Urban or Rural For the purposes of this report urban speed limits are those that are 40mph or less and rural limits are those that are 50mph and over. There is a 50/50 split between urban and rural speed limits for all drink drive/ride collisions which would suggest that a drink driver/rider is just as likely to be involved in a personal injury collision irrespective of whether they are on an urban or a rural road. However, it is important to note that the breakdown by severity shows that drink drivers/riders are more likely to be involved in a fatal or serious injury collision when on a rural road than on an urban road. The table below shows the breakdown of drink drive/ride collisions by urban/rural roads and by severity: A greater proportion of all drink drive/ride KSI collisions occurred on Dorset County Council s rural road network; 67% (47) compared to 33% (23) that occurred on the urban road network. A greater proportion of all drink drive/ride slight collisions occurred on Dorset County Council s urban road network; 57% (97) compared to 43% (73) that occurred on the rural road network. The severity breakdown for urban drink drive/ride collisions is not significantly different to all urban collisions. However, there is a notable difference between the severity breakdown of rural drink drive/ride collisions and all rural collisions. 39% of rural drink drive/ride collisions resulted in someone being killed or seriously injured, this compares to 22% of all rural collisions. This suggests that drivers/riders who are impaired by alcohol have a greater likelihood of being involved in a KSI collision whilst on a rural road than those who are not. 12

13 The following chart shows the severity breakdown of collisions for drink drive/ride collisions and all collisions for the 5 year period November 2006 to October 2011: It would perhaps have been expected that rural roads would have a greater proportion of drink drive/ride KSI collisions given that the speed limits are higher than urban roads coupled with the wealth of evidence that driver/rider reaction times are significantly increased and the ability to effectively control a motor vehicle is diminished with the presence of alcohol. However, this information can be used to support enforcement across Dorset County Council s rural road network alongside other traffic enforcement initiatives. This information can also be used as evidence for focusing any drink drive/ride publicity campaigns on rural driving/riding. Month It is not possible to establish from the available data whether or not the time of year is a factor in the occurrence of drink drive/ride collisions. What the data does show is that drink drive/ride collisions occur across the year and not just over the festive period which may be the general assumption. It is important to note that December has the smallest proportion of KSI collisions of all months. December is the month of the year when drink drive/ride campaigns are generally at their peak both nationally and locally with a combination of publicity and enforcement. It is not possible to say that such campaigns are the sole reason for this lower level of KSI drink drive/ride collisions but it is nevertheless encouraging. This information could be used to support similar large scale drink drive initiatives to take place at other times of the year as well as at Christmas. 13

14 The following chart shows drink drive/ride collisions by month: The following chart shows the percentage breakdown of drink drive/ride collisions by severity for each month: 14

15 Day As would have perhaps been assumed more drink drive/ride collisions occur at the weekend than during the week. More drink drive/ride collisions occurred on Saturday than Monday to Thursday combined. This information can be used to justify the increased use of police resource for drink drive/ride enforcement during weekends. The following chart shows drink drive collisions by day for all drink drivers/riders: Time Drink drive/ride collisions peak between 17:00 and 18:59 accounting for 17% of all drink drive/ride collisions. The next highest two hour period was 23:00 to 00:59 accounting for 15%. As would have perhaps been assumed drink drive/ride collisions are more likely to occur between the evening and the early hours of the morning. This is likely to be a reflection of a greater number of people driving/riding whilst under the influence of alcohol at these times. However, it may also be due in part to the affects of alcohol being increased due to fatigue. Further research and analysis would need to be completed in order to work out whether the affects of alcohol on driving/riding are increased due to tiredness. It is not clear from the available data whether any of the drink drive/ride collisions which took place in the morning took place the morning after the night before. 15

16 The following chart shows drink drive/ride collisions by hour: Weekday/Weekend split For the purposes of this section the weekend begins at midday (12:00) on Friday finishing at midday (12:00) on Monday 69% (161 of 234) of all drink drive/ride collisions occurred at the weekend. Drink drive/ride collisions generally follow the same time pattern during the week as they do at the weekend. There are however a couple of subtle noteworthy differences. There is a notable drop in the number of drink drive/ride collisions between 01:00 and 03:59 for weekday drink drive/ride collisions whereas weekend drink drive/ride collision remain at a similar level between the same times. It is likely that this is a reflection on lifestyle, with more people drinking alcohol and drinking alcohol later into the night. However, this cannot be substantiated from the available data. Making the assumption that greater levels of alcohol are consumed and consumed later into the night, at weekends the higher level of drink drive/ride collisions between the hours of 06:00 and 12:59 could be an indication of drivers/riders getting behind the wheel or in the saddle whilst still being under the influence of alcohol the morning after the night before. However, this cannot be substantiated with the available data. 16

17 The following chart compares the time of weekend drink drive/ride collisions against the time of weekday drink drive/ride collisions. For the purposes of this chart weekend begins at midday (12:00) on Friday finishing at midday (12:00) on Monday: Contributory factor analysis This section will look at the contributory factors other than impaired by alcohol for drink drive/ride collisions. Loss of control and travelling too fast for conditions were recorded more frequently for drink drive/ride collisions than they were for all collisions. This could be further evidence that driver/rider vehicle control is negatively affected by the presence of alcohol i.e. drink drivers/riders are more likely to lose control of their vehicle than drivers/riders who are not under the influence of alcohol. However, it is recommended that this information be cited alongside the research commissioned by the DfT and published by NICE into the effects of alcohol and driving. The following table shows the top 5 contributory factors that were recorded against the drink drive/ride vehicle other than impaired by alcohol : 17

18 The following table shows the top 5 contributory factors recorded for all collisions (excluding driver/rider impaired by alcohol ): Contributory factor group analysis Injudicious action accounts for a greater proportion of drink drive/ride collisions than for all collisions. This could be an indication that driver/riders under the influence have a greater propensity to taking risks than drivers/riders who are not under the influence of alcohol. However, this cannot be substantiated by the available data. Behaviour and inexperience also accounts for a greater proportion of drink drive/ride collisions than for all collisions. This could be an indication that poor behaviours and any inexperience of a driver/rider are exaggerated with the presence of alcohol. The following table shows the breakdown of contributory factor groups for drink drive/ride collisions and all collisions (excluding driver/rider impaired by alcohol for both drink drive/ride and all collisions): Single vehicle The proportion of all collisions that involved only 1 vehicle was 28%. The proportion of all drink drive/ride collisions that involved only one vehicle was 51%. This is likely to be further evidence of driver/rider vehicle control being negatively affected by alcohol; a greater proportion of drink drivers/riders are involved in a collision with no interaction with another vehicle than for all collisions. This information coupled with loss of control being the most commonly reported contributory factor other than impaired by alcohol is further evidence suggesting that drink drivers/riders are at greater risk of losing control of their vehicle than drivers/riders who are not under the influence of alcohol. It is recommended that this information be cited alongside the research published by NICE into the effects of alcohol and driving. 18

19 Drink drive/ride collision location Included below is a map which shows the location of all drink drive/ride collisions that occurred within the Dorset County Council area between November 2006 and October The map highlights that there is a slightly higher concentration of drink drive/ride collisions in and around Dorset s urban areas but this is to be expected given that there is a greater concentration of people living in such areas. However the map also shows that drink drive/ride collisions on the whole are widespread across the Dorset County Council area. 19

20

21 Summary It is not clear from the available data whether there is a typical drink driver/rider who should or could be specifically targeted. However, the overwhelming majority of drink drivers/riders involved in a personal injury collision were car drivers. Of these car drivers, the majority were male, with half being aged 30 and under. This would suggest that any drink drive/ride initiatives should focus on male car drivers aged 30 and under as they are involved in more drink drive/ride collision than their older and female counterparts. It is important to note that the 30yrs and under age group is made of 3 very distinct age groups, 16-20yrs, 21-25yrs and 26-30yrs. Efforts to target all three groups are likely to need to make use of different methods of engagement. A single message/initiative may be interpreted differently by each of these 3 age groups and therefore not have the desired impact. There is no notable geographic pattern to drink drive/ride collisions. Drink drive/ride collisions occur throughout the Dorset County Council area, the only commonality between each collision is that they involved a driver or rider being under the influence of alcohol. There is a slightly higher concentration of drink drive/ride collisions in and around urban areas but this is to be expected given that there is a greater concentration of people living in such areas. There is a 50/50 split between urban and rural speed limits for all drink drive/ride collisions which would suggest that a drink driver/rider is just as likely to be involved in a personal injury collision irrespective of whether they are on an urban or a rural road. However, a greater proportion of rural drink drive/ride collisions resulted in a fatal or serious injury; 67% compared to 33% of urban drink drive/ride collisions. Generally drink drive/ride collisions follow the social norms of alcohol consumption. Drink drive/ride collisions happen more at the weekend than during the week. More drink drive/ride collisions happen in the early hours of the morning at the weekend. Also, more drink drive/ride collisions occur between 06:00 and 12:59 at the weekend than during the week. This could be an indication of drivers/riders getting behind the wheel or in the saddle whilst still being under the influence of alcohol the morning after the night before. However, this cannot be substantiated with the available data. Conclusion Although this report has shown that there are some general trends in drink drive/ride collisions it is important to remember that the only commonality for each drink drive/ride collision is that at least one of the driver/riders involved was under the influence of alcohol. This report does not suggest that drink drivers/riders are at any greater risk of being involved in a personal injury collision at a particular time or because they are a particular gender. Driving whilst under the influence of alcohol has been extensively proven to increase the likelihood of being involved in a collision regardless of gender or time. What this report does show is that male car drivers aged 30 and under are involved in a greater proportion of drink drive/ride collisions than their older and female counterparts. Male car drivers aged 30 and under account for almost half of all drink drivers/riders involved in a personal injury collision. This would suggest that male car drivers aged 30 and under should be a key target group for drink drive/ride initiatives either through enforcement or education, training and publicity (ETP) programmes. This does not suggest that other drivers/riders should not be targeted.

22 In addition to this report an analysis will be completed comparing drink drive/ride collisions involving drink drivers/riders aged 30 and under (younger) against drink drives/riders aged over 30 (older). This analysis will look to identify whether there are any differences in the nature of drink drive/ride collisions for the two age groups. Any differences identified will be able to be used to tailor any drink drive/ride initiatives to better suit the relevant target audience.

23 End of document