Bishop Caitlin A, Liu Sara, Stephens Amanda N, Fitzharris Michael
Accident Research Centre, Monash University, Australia.
Accident Research Centre, Monash University, Australia.
Accid Anal Prev. 2017 Nov;108:83-90. doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2017.08.021. Epub 2017 Sep 6.
Drink-driving and alcohol-related crashes are a significant problem globally. Alcohol interlocks are used to prevent drivers with a blood alcohol concentration above a pre-determined level from starting their vehicle, making the technology highly effective in preventing drink-drive episodes. While alcohol interlocks are commonly used in drink-drive offender groups, their broader use as a preventative road safety strategy is considered increasingly feasible. In this context it is important to understand attitudes towards the technology, and to investigate whether these attitudes vary according to alcohol consumption patterns as this influences the acceptability of a broad-based preventative alcohol interlock program.
A representative sample of 2994 Australian drivers participated in an online cross-sectional survey. Participants reported their alcohol consumption, drink-drive behaviour and attitudes towards the use of alcohol interlocks for personal use and for drink-drive offenders.
Half of the sample stated that alcohol interlocks would be of use personally. Seventy-four percent of high-risk drinkers (defined by an AUDIT score ≥20) stated they would find the technology personally useful when compared to 49% of low-risk drinkers (AUDIT ≤7). Overwhelmingly, more than 80% of participants agreed with the mandatory instalment of alcohol interlocks and compulsory clinical interventions for drink-drive offenders, with more low-risk drinkers supporting this than the high-risk drinkers.
While there were mixed opinions regarding the perceived personal usefulness of alcohol interlocks, higher-risk drinkers were most likely to perceive interlocks as being of use for themselves. This high-risk group however, was less likely to provide support for clinical interventions and additional re-licensing requirements aimed at eliciting changes in drinking behaviour. These findings have important implications for drink-drive offender relicensing and the likely success of drink-driver education, and interventions aimed at curbing risky alcohol consumption.
酒后驾车及与酒精相关的撞车事故是全球范围内的一个重大问题。酒精联锁装置用于防止血液酒精浓度高于预定水平的驾驶员启动车辆，这使得该技术在预防酒后驾车事件方面非常有效。虽然酒精联锁装置常用于酒后驾车违法者群体，但将其作为一种预防性道路安全策略更广泛地应用被认为越来越可行。在这种背景下，了解人们对该技术的态度，并调查这些态度是否因饮酒模式而异很重要，因为这会影响广泛的预防性酒精联锁计划的可接受性。
2994名澳大利亚驾驶员的代表性样本参与了一项在线横断面调查。参与者报告了他们的饮酒情况、酒后驾车行为以及对个人使用和酒后驾车违法者使用酒精联锁装置的态度。
一半的样本表示酒精联锁装置对个人有用。74%的高风险饮酒者（由酒精使用障碍识别测试评分≥20定义）表示他们会发现该技术对个人有用，相比之下，低风险饮酒者（酒精使用障碍识别测试≤7）这一比例为49%。绝大多数超过80%的参与者同意对酒后驾车违法者强制安装酒精联锁装置和进行强制性临床干预，支持这一点的低风险饮酒者比高风险饮酒者更多。
虽然对于酒精联锁装置在个人层面的有用性存在不同意见，但高风险饮酒者最有可能认为联锁装置对自己有用。然而，这个高风险群体不太可能支持旨在促使饮酒行为改变的临床干预和额外的重新获得驾照要求。这些发现对酒后驾车违法者重新获得驾照以及酒后驾车者教育和旨在遏制危险饮酒行为的干预措施的可能成功具有重要意义。
