Finding the Police Before the Police Find Them? Investigating How and Why Motorists Use Facebook for Knowledge of Roadside Drug Testing Locations

Abstract

Facebook groups and pages exist that expose the locations of roadside drug testing, potentially undermining police enforcement and enabling punishment avoidance. This study aimed to understand how and why these sites are used, with a focus on Queensland motorists who reported using illicit drugs and/or medical cannabis and used Facebook police location communities. Interviews with 30 participants were conducted. A thematic analysis revealed that participants used police location communities to avoid receiving a charge for driving under the influence of drugs. Upon observation of a relevant roadside drug-testing location on police location communities, participants reported (a) delaying their driving and/or (b) circumventing the operation. Avoidance of roadside drug-testing locations appeared driven by the perception that laws for driving under the influence of drugs were unfair and that a charge for driving under the influence of drugs would negatively impact their life. The findings provide important knowledge regarding police location communities and have implications for how roadside drug testing could be most effectively operated.

Keywords

avoidance deterrence drug driving Facebook policing

Introduction

Communities exist on Facebook where individuals can share and view the locations of police traffic operations, including random breath-testing and roadside drug-testing operations in Australia (Mills, Truelove, et al., 2022; Wood & Thompson, 2018) and traffic checkpoints in The Netherlands (Goldenbeld et al., 2022). While some of these Facebook police location communities have existed for over 12 years in Australia (Wood & Thompson, 2018), researchers have only recently begun to consider the threat these may pose to road safety (Mills, Truelove, et al., 2022; Oviedo-Trespalacios & Watson, 2021; Wood & Thompson, 2018). For instance, researchers have proposed that these online communities may assist those who offend to engage in dangerous behaviors with a reduced risk of being caught (Wood & Thompson, 2018) and reduce the deterrent effect of police traffic rule enforcement (Oviedo-Trespalacios & Watson, 2021). Although some preliminary investigation into these police location communities has taken place (Mills, Truelove, et al., 2022), there is yet to be an exploration of the perspectives of those who use these communities directly. This was the aim of the current study, with a focus on driving under the influence of drugs, to understand how and why police location communities are used, and the effect of these sites on driving behaviors.

Deterrence Theory

From the perspective of deterrence theory, individuals must perceive the certainty of apprehension as well as the severity and swiftness of punishment to be high to be deterred from offending (Piquero et al., 2011). Certainty has been considered the most influential of these concepts, as a severe and swift punishment is unlikely to deter offending if there is a low likelihood of being detected (Wright, 2010). To establish a high perception regarding the likelihood of detection, testing operations are intended to be frequent, unavoidable, and unpredictable (Homel, 1993). The effectiveness of this approach has been consistently demonstrated with random breath testing that detects drunk drivers (Ferris et al., 2013; Homel, 1993). However, the same effect is yet to be observed for driving under the influence of drugs and roadside drug-testing operations. In fact, recent studies have found a considerable proportion of drug takers report behaviors such as driving under the influence of drugs (Arkell et al., 2020; Love et al., 2024; Mills, Freeman, et al., 2022) and perceive the likelihood of detection for driving under the influence of drugs to be low (Love et al., 2024; Mills, Freeman, et al., 2022).

There are both theoretical perspectives and logistical aspects that may explain why drug testing has not reached the deterrent effect that has been observed with drunk driving. Due to the costs and resourcing required to conduct a drug test, considerably less drug testing occurs every year (324,428 in 2020 across Australia, Bureau of Infrastructure Transport and Regional Economics [BITRE], 2020b) than random breath testing (7,423,770 in 2020 across Australia, BITRE, 2020a). A study on Queensland (Australia) motorists found that many drug takers had never been drug tested or even seen roadside drug-testing operations occurring (Mills, Freeman, et al., 2022).

To maximize the costly resource, roadside drug testing may utilize a more “specific deterrence approach,” targeting those who offend based on indicators of impairment or a history of drug offending (Anderson et al., 2021). This is different to random breath testing which utilizes a “general deterrence approach” (Anderson et al., 2021), in an attempt to deter all motorists from drunk driving, not just specific individuals who may be more likely to drink and drive. The more specific deterrence approach used for drug testing has been successful in terms of detecting those who offend, with 14% of drug tests revealing a positive result in 2020, compared to 0.8% of breath tests in the same year (BITRE, 2020a, 2020b). However, targeted approaches can result in resources directed to those who meet the targeting criteria of police (e.g., prior convictions, appearance-related factors) while ignoring those who do not meet these criteria but may drive under the influence of drugs.

Punishment Avoidance

The low perceptions of certainty of apprehension found to be associated with driving under the influence of drugs may also stem from punishment avoidance. Each time a motorist offends without punishment, they are accumulating evidence that the risk of detection is unlikely (Stafford & Warr, 1993). Punishment avoidance experiences may occur organically (resulting from offenses committed where police enforcement is not present) or actively (deliberately trying to circumvent police operations, Bates & Anderson, 2021). One study demonstrated that police location communities were used by 11% of a sample of 890 Queensland motorists (who also reported consuming drugs in the previous 12 months) to avoid roadside drug testing (Mills, Truelove, et al., 2022). The use of these Facebook police location communities to avoid punishment for mobile phone use while driving has also been identified (Truelove et al., 2022). However, much remains unknown about how these sites are used to avoid punishment and reasons for their use.

Detecting an Offense of Driving Under the Influence of Drugs

There are two key offenses related to driving under the influence of drugs in Australia: One offense is related to driving with a relevant drug present in ones’ system, and the second is an offense for driving while impaired by a substance. Police assess the presence of drugs in ones’ system through oral fluid sampling devices that assess the presence of methamphetamine, cannabis, and 3,4-methylenedioxyemthamphetamine (MDMA; with some states also testing for cocaine). It is also an offense to drive with cocaine and other illicit drugs present in ones’ system; however, these would only be assessable via blood analysis. It is also worth noting that even those who use cannabis medicinally are subject to these laws. The state of Tasmania is one exception to this (Tasmanian Government, 2022). The current study was conducted in the state of Queensland, where at that time, oral fluid sampling devices were tested for detecting methamphetamine, cannabis, and MDMA, and a presence-based penalty included a fine of $2,167 and loss of license for a minimum of 1 month (Queensland Government, 2023).

It is also important to note that the current legislation in Queensland requires motorists to return a Blood Alocohol Concentration (BAC) reading below the legal limit before a drug test is administered. As such, roadside drug testing occurs within random breath-testing operations. These operations can occur as “static” and “mobile.” Static operations refer to visible operations set up on the roadside, often for several hours (e.g., 2.5–6 hours, Anderson et al., 2021). With mobile operations, police may patrol minor roads and randomly intercept vehicles for a breath test (and potentially obtain an oral fluid sample for a drug test) (Baldock et al., 2007). It has been stated that “every police car is a mobile RBT” as all police officers can randomly intercept a vehicle and conduct a breath test at any time, without needing to suspect impairment (New South Wales Government, 2024).

The operation of drug testing in Australia differs from that in countries like the United States of America and Canada where any motorist can be intercepted by police officers into a sobriety checkpoint but will only be tested for alcohol or drugs in their system if they are suspected to be impaired (Government of Canada, 2021). Another key point of difference is with regard to “per se” limits for cannabis. In Canada, and some states in America, there are thresholds or a “limit” which constitutes an offense of driving under the influence of drugs, similar to the laws for alcohol. However, recreational use of cannabis has been legalized in many of these jurisdictions, and for other illicit drugs, laws more closely align with those in Australia.

As noted earlier, unpredictable and unavoidable testing operations are key to maximizing the deterrent effect of operations. However, in some policing jurisdictions in the United States of America (e.g., Tennessee State Government, 2023), the specific locations of these checkpoints are also intentionally broadcasted. While there is some evidence to support the broad publicization of sobriety checkpoints (i.e., reminding drivers that police are conducting these checkpoints) (Beck & Moser, 2004; Bergen et al., 2014; Fell et al., 2008), investigations into motorists’ behaviors and perceptions in response to specific locations have yet to be conducted. Thus while the current investigation is focused on the use of Facebook police location communities, the findings have the potential to provide insight into how motorists may be responding to online broadcasts of police checkpoints in other jurisdictions around the world.

Rationale for Current Study

The overall aim of this research was to explore the perceptions and behaviors of those who consume drugs and use police location communities to know about roadside drug-testing operations. An interview methodology was considered important for allowing further and more direct exploration into the use of these online communities. The study had three main research objectives: (a) explore the reasons why individuals who consume illicit and legal (i.e., medical cannabis) drugs use police location communities, (b) investigate the extent to which roadside drug testing police location information influences driving behavior among those who consume drugs, and (c) understand the perceived accuracy of police location communities in posting all drug law enforcement occurring on the road and how these sites influence perceptions of certainty of apprehension for driving under the influence of drugs.

Method

Study Context: Facebook Police Location Groups and Pages

Police location information is shared on both groups and pages on Facebook (Mills, Truelove, et al., 2022; Wood & Thompson, 2018). Facebook groups are more “enclosed communities,” some requiring administrator approval to join, whereas Facebook pages are public. An important difference between these in the context of police location communities is that police location posts on pages are made by page moderators (who receive messages from those using Facebook), whereas in groups, individuals make a post about the police locations they see. Because a page moderator must see a message about a location and then make a post, so there may be a delay between the alert and the post. This may also occur in groups if the administrators have selected a setting to review all user posts before they are made public within the group.

Participants

One-on-one telephone and Zoom interviews with a total of 30 participants took place between February 2022 and May 2022. Participants were recruited through Facebook advertising and were required to meet the following eligibility criteria: (a) be aged 18 years or over, (b) drive on Queensland roads on a weekly basis, (c) use illegal drugs or have a prescription for medicinal cannabis, and (d) use police location pages or groups on Facebook for knowing about roadside drug-testing sites. Those who were interested in participating in the study were required to complete an online screening form to confirm their eligibility. Eligible individuals were shown the research participation information sheet, and if interested in proceeding, they were required to complete an online consent form and enter their email address so a researcher could contact them to organize an interview time.

Materials

Quantitative Questions

The interview contained two parts, the first comprising demographic items to assess participants’ age, sex, and whether they used a Facebook police location group, page, or both. Participants were also asked about the drugs they consumed in the past 12 months (cannabis, methamphetamines, ecstasy, cocaine, heroin, or other) and how often (never, a few times a year, monthly, weekly, daily) they drove within 4 hours of consuming this drug. A 4-hour time frame was used to assess how often participants drove when methamphetamine, MDMA, and cannabis may be most impairing (Cruickshank & Dyer, 2009; Marcotte et al., 2022; Morgan, 2000). While it is noted that impairment is dependent on factors including dose, tolerance, and method of ingestion, the 4-hour time period was used to be able to obtain an approximation of impaired driving behaviors among the sample and has been used in recent studies on driving under the influence of drugs (Mills, Freeman, et al., 2022; Truelove et al., 2022). Participants were also asked about the perceived likelihood of being caught for driving under the influence of drugs with their current use of Facebook police location communities, as well as the likelihood if they were not able to access them (scored 0%–100%). Participants were asked about the likelihood they would drive within 4 hours of consuming any illegal drug in the future. An item was also included to assess how long (hours or days) participants thought the drugs they used would be present in their system for and thus detectable via a roadside oral fluid-screening test.

Qualitative Questions

The second part of the interview involved structured, open-ended questions, developed by the first author (LM), along with two experienced road safety researchers (VT, JF). The questions were designed to explore participants’ use of police location communities, as well as their perspective of the laws for driving under the influence of drugs. This began with two general questions: “What do you think of the current law for drug driving?” and “For what purpose do you use police location pages and/or groups on Facebook?” Items followed that assessed driving behaviors associated with roadside drug-testing posts (e.g., When was the last time you changed your driving behavior due to seeing a roadside drug-testing post?) and an item assessing perceptions of accuracy of police location communities (e.g., How accurate do you perceive police location pages/groups are in posting all police drug testing locations, and what do you think makes them accurate/trustworthy?).

Procedure

Ethics approval for this project was obtained through the University of the Sunshine Coast Human Research Ethics Committee (#S211527). Interviews were conducted either on Zoom (n = 5) or over the phone (n = 25). All calls were audio only (no video). The researcher began each call by outlining the conditions of consent, providing a brief overview of the study, and verbally requesting the individuals’ consent to participate. While consent had been obtained through an online consent form, it was part of the ethical agreement that participants also provided consent verbally. Participants were made aware that their responses to interview questions would not be stored with any identifiable information (e.g., email address or phone number) to protect anonymity. Any contact information was deleted after the interview was complete. Due to the qualitative nature of this research, participants were informed that direct quotes from their responses may be used for research purposes; however, this would remain unidentifiable.

A recording device was used by the researcher so that transcripts of the interviews could be created. While the interviewer utilized a list of interview questions, a semi-structured approach was used to allow for some flexibility (e.g., to ask participants to go into further depth about something they have said) (Kallio et al., 2016). Interviews lasted 20 minutes on average, and all participants were reimbursed with a $50 voucher for their time (emailed at the end of each interview). A verbatim word document transcript of each interview was generated by an external company (GoTranscript). Upon data saturation, the transcripts were thematically analyzed (as explained in the following part of the article).

Data Analysis

SPSS Version 27 was used to assess demographics, drug use, perceptions of the impairment window, and certainty of apprehension. This preliminary analysis was considered important for understanding the drug consumption behaviors of the sample and to have a quantitative understanding of participants’ likelihood of being detected (with and without police location communities). Following this, the reflexive thematic analysis methodology of Braun and Clarke (2021) was used for analyzing the qualitative data collected in this study. An inductive thematic approach was selected as it allows for data processing where new theories and concepts can emerge (Braun & Clarke, 2021). A deductive approach, on the other hand, is driven by a particular theory or framework. The former approach is considered useful when the topic is new or understudied (Braun & Clarke, 2021). Braun and Clarke (2021) noted that while theory does not guide inductive thematic analysis, researchers still have theoretical awareness that somewhat informs their interpretations, and thus, it is important to note any relevant theories to the analysis. As mentioned earlier, deterrence theory underpins legal enforcement for driving under the influence of drugs. Thus, when analyzing perceptions of law enforcement in the present study, deterrence theory was used to inform data analysis. The first author conducted all interviews and was involved in the subsequent familiarization with the data, which included reading through transcripts provided by the transcription service, amending transcript errors, and sorting the data for coding. Next, the data were coded by the first and second authors, and these codes were then sorted to find patterns and create themes. Braun and Clarke (2021) highlight that it is important to discuss different perspectives to ensure an accurate representation is provided. As such, each theme attempts to represent a range of perspectives. All authors were involved in reviewing, defining, and naming themes. Six themes were identified, and several discussions were had to ensure theme consensus and resolve any incongruities. Participants were randomly allocated a number to display differentiation of quotes from different participants.

Results

Participant Demographics, Drug Consumption, and Drug Driving

Participants were aged between 20 years and 71 years (M = 39.53, SD = 13.28). Further demographic information is displayed in Supplemental Table S1 (available in the online version of this article), along with the drug consumption and driving under the influence of drugs characteristics of the sample. A relevant piece of information, not provided in this table, is that one participant reported consuming heroin and driving within 4 hours of consuming this drug on a monthly basis. Of those who reported consuming cannabis, 10 participants held a prescription (38.4% of those who reported using cannabis). Sixteen (53%) participants reported using one drug only while the remaining 14 participants reported two or more drugs. The types of single and polydrug use are reported in more detail in Supplemental Table S2 (available in the online version of this article).

Perceptions of Drugs Being Present in One’s System

Fifteen participants reported thinking that cannabis would be present in their system for 48 hours or more. Nine participants reported thinking cannabis could be detected in their system between 5 and 24 hours after consumption (two participants who reported consuming cannabis did not answer this question). Among those using methamphetamine, the majority (n = 6) reported thinking the drug could be present in their system for 2–5 days. The remaining participants (n = 5) reported thinking it would be in their system for 7–24 hours. For ecstasy, participants reported a time frame between 5 and 48 hours, with three participants reporting it would last between 5 and 24 hours, and the remaining four participants reporting it would be present for more than 24 hours. For cocaine, responses ranged from 2 hours to 3 days. However, only three participants reported it would be present for less than 14 hours. The remaining six participants reported it would be present for at least 24 hours.

Perceptions of Certainty of Apprehension

Participants considered, on average, that the likelihood of being caught when using Facebook police location communities was 41% (SD = 32.6), with scores ranging between 0% and 100%. This percentage increased when asked how likely they thought they would be caught if they were not able to use police location communities (56.3%, SD = 31.36), with scores also ranging between 0% and 100%. There was a significant difference identified between these reported percentages, t(23) = −4.74, p < .001. The difference between scores, on average, was 15.33 (SD = 15.84) and ranged between 0% and 60%, indicating that perceptions of detection likelihood were lower when using police location communities.

Inductive Thematic Analytic Findings

The inductive thematic analysis of participants’ responses to interview questions revealed six overall themes detailed in the following part of the article. The first three themes provide an understanding of why those who consume drugs use police location communities on Facebook (Objective 1) while the subsequent two themes (4 and 5) provide context to the way that these sites influence participants’ driving behavior (Objective 2), and the final theme explores participants’ perception on the accuracy of these sites and certainty of apprehension (Objective 3).

Theme 1: Participants Reported Using Facebook Police Location Communities for Awareness of Roadside Drug Testing Locations

The first objective of this research was to understand why those who consume drugs use police location communities. When asked about this, most participants reported using these sites for awareness of roadside drug-testing locations with the intention of avoiding them. Some reported also avoiding random breath testing operations with the knowledge that roadside drug testing often occurred alongside it:

“To make sure that if I’m driving somewhere, I’m not likely to get tested at a roadside drug test” (Participant 17).

“Both breath testing and drug testing. I don’t drink but they go hand in hand these days” (Participant 27).

There were also participants who reported using police location communities to generate general knowledge of police drug-testing ‘behavior’:

“I guess it’s just to assess the risk of drug driving and to understand the pattern that there might be detection spots” (Participant 16).

Overall, participants’ responses suggest they not only look for specific drug-testing operations but also use the sites to anticipate testing locations. As acknowledged explicitly by two participants (Participants 6 and 27), posts about random breath testing are also relevant for those wanting to avoid drug testing as these operations occur together. It is important to note that some participants also reported using these sites for speed and mobile phone cameras and traffic updates too. However, avoiding drug testing appeared to be the main response from the sample.

Theme 2: Participants Perceived Drug Driving Laws to Be Unfair

Many participants in the present study reported thinking that the current penalty for driving under the influence of drugs was unfair. This perspective emerged across the sample regardless of the drug type used and whether one reported using cannabis medically or used drugs illicitly. Although it is noted that some participants’ perceptions of the penalty being unfair were indeed specific to laws regarding driving under the influence of cannabis (which is evident in some of the quotes given in the following part of the article).

Perceptions of unfairness came primarily from the idea that drug-testing methods were not accurate assessments of impairment, and instead they simply tested the presence of the drug. Some participants argued that someone could be unjustly prosecuted, not for driving in an impaired state but simply having the drug in their system. Participants’ views on how long drugs would be present in their system also varied. Two participants thought it was unfair that the drug could still be present the next day, while another two participants reported thinking it was unfair that the drug could be present weeks later. The following quotes provide examples of these perspectives:

“I don’t like the fact that it just picks up the presence of it in your system. It should be a test of impairment. If I have a joint or something 12 hours ago and it picks it up, I’m done for drug driving, whereas I’m not impaired 12 hours after taking it” (Participant 23).

“I think it’s a bit of a minefield because if it can show up up-to three weeks later, the impairing part of it’s long gone, but the fact that it shows up will result in a penalty that’s unfair” (Participant 5).

Three sub-themes related to this overall theme of unfairness were found and are discussed in the following section.

Subtheme 1: Participants used police location pages and groups because they believed they could still test positive to drugs, even when not driving impaired

A perception of unfairness appeared to be a key reason for using police location communities for several participants. For instance, participants reported using these sites not because they were driving impaired but because they were attempting to avoid an unfair penalty. For example:

“Generally, I’m using it when I’m not, I believe, impaired. I’m under the understanding that a drug test regime will probably still pick it up in my system so I’m trying to avoid any run ins in that circumstance” (Participant 13).

Subtheme 2: Perception that medical cannabis could unfairly result in a charge for driving under the influence of drugs

There were participants who expressed thinking it was unfair that cannabis, when used as a prescription medication, could result in a drug charge. This made it difficult for participants to navigate the advantages of using their medication with the potential risk of being detected. Participants also reported that it was unfair that other prescription medications would not have the same consequence.

“I just find it so unfair that medication that I use to improve my life could have such horrible impacts on my life if I was to get caught drug-driving . . .. You could take two diazepam and go drive and it’s not an issue, but I can’t take my legally prescribed medication eight hours before I need to drive somewhere. What that also does is mean that I don’t optimise my medication” (Participant 17).

Subtheme 3: Drunk driving laws perceived as fairer than laws for driving under the influence of drugs

There were participants in the current study who made references to the laws for driving under the influence of alcohol, perceiving these to be fairer than the current laws for driving under the influence of drugs. More specifically, participants communicated that the guidelines of how much alcohol one can have before driving helps motorists to know what is legal and what is not. Drugs, on the other hand, are perceived to be in a gray area where motorists are uncertain about whether or not they are offending. Several participants in the current study also suggested that a breathalyzer-type device for drugs that assessed the amount of drug in ones’ system would be fairer. One participant referred to drug laws as “all or none,” thinking that whether they have a small amount of drugs or a large amount, the consequence for driving with them is the same:

“With alcohol, you know that you can have one or two standard drinks, and that’s about it, so you know what your guidelines are. With this stuff, it’s all or none. If you’ve got to use it, you might as well drive” (Participant 20).

Taken together, participants’ responses reveal a resistance to the current drug-testing regime and associated laws on driving under the influence of drugs which appeared to be an important reason behind their use of police location communities. It is important to note the varying perceptions regarding how long drugs can stay in ones’ system, with some participants thinking they may still be positive for drugs the day after consumption, while one participant reported earlier thinking it may show up weeks later (Participant 5). Thus, in part, perceptions of unfairness may be due to the lack of guidelines for motorists to know when they are and when they are not offending. While this “unfairness ideology” manifested across the majority of the sample, it is interesting to consider what this means for those whose drug use is legal (i.e., those using medical cannabis) and who used for managing illness or pain. Unfairness perceptions may originate, in part, from the awareness that motorists can drive after taking other prescription medications and not be fearful of the same consequences. As explored in the third subtheme, participants expressed wanting guidelines around drug taking and driving that would enable them to be able to decide safe driving times, similar to those with alcohol.

Theme 3: It Was Perceived That the Drug Driving Penalty Would Have Social and Financial Implications

To provide further context as to why participants may use police location communities to avoid roadside drug testing, they were asked about the impact a penalty would have on their lives, and thus what consequences they were trying to avoid in avoiding police detection. Most participants reported that the penalty for drug driving would impact their lives in some way. This reportedly ranged from financial impact (to pay for the fine) to experiencing shame in one’s community and even to end of their career. These different consequences are highlighted in the following quotes:

“In a rural community more so than a city. You are not just dealt with by the courts, you are publicly shamed, you are written up in papers, you are prevented from getting jobs” (Participant 3).

“If it was to result in me having a criminal history, so that it came on a background check or something to that regard . . . I would lose my career” (Participant 10).

“I’m on a pension and can barely make ends meet, especially running a car. I’d be very concerned about the fine. I’d probably have to put it on SPER. I hate paying things off” (Participant 5).

It was evident through the interviews that not all participants would experience the same consequences if they were caught, and not all had thought about the consequences of the penalty for driving under the influence of drugs to the same extent. This seemed to be dependent on a range of factors. For instance, for one participant on pension, the financial aspect of the penalty was reported to be of most concern, whereas for younger individuals starting out their career, a penalty from driving under the influence of drugs could mean they lose their job. Thus, age and career were influential factors in ones’ perception of the penalty and its consequences. Similarly, one participant reported that the experience of the penalty from driving under the influence of drugs was different for those who lived in the city compared with that for those in rural locations, as in rural areas, a person may be more likely to be known by the community and experience public shaming (Participant 3). It may be that individuals are more likely to use police location communities when they are (a) more cognizant of the consequences of the penalty from driving under the influence of drugs and (b) aware that these consequences would have considerable impact on their life. The penalty consequences discussed earlier also give context to why an individual may be more motivated to avoid detection, particularly when (as identified earlier) many participants see the penalty as unfair, as they believe they could be detected, even when not driving impaired.

Theme 4: Participants Changed Their Driving Behavior Upon Seeing a Drug-Testing Operation on Police Location Communities

Participants were asked about how often they saw a roadside drug-testing post that influenced their driving behavior. For some participants, this occurred infrequently (e.g., “Very rarely. I think it’s only ever been a handful of times”—Participant 23) or not at all (e.g., “Hasn’t happened”—Participant 19). One participant also reported that the operations did not seem to occur in their area (Participant 9). However, there were several participants who reported that their driving behavior had changed following exposure to a drug-testing location on Facebook. In some situations, and for some participants, this meant not driving at all. Some participants reported that they were deterred from driving upon seeing a high level of police activity on the police location communities. Thus, it was not one specific location that deterred driving but several locations in close proximity and duration that influenced participants’ perceptions of risk. It appeared that participants made situation-specific decisions regarding whether they would not drive, or take a different route, upon awareness of a police operation occurring. This is exemplified as:

“Generally, 99% of the time I will just try to find a different route unless I get some indication that there is a fairly wide blitz going on over the weekend or something and then I might be like, ‘It’s not worth it. I’ll just stay home today” (Participant 13).

One participant reported making a decision to drive based on not only the police location they observed online but also their perceived drug impairment.

“Maybe if it was something I had to do and it wasn’t affecting me, I would go out, but I’d avoid that area. If it was in my system and I could feel it, I just wouldn’t go out” (Participant 9).

Participants were asked to detail an experience of seeing a roadside drug-testing operation occurring (on Facebook) that changed their driving behavior. The majority of participants had at least one experience. In many of the examples provided by participants, the driving decision was to cancel ones’ commitment and drive the next day, as demonstrated in the following example:

“I was supposed to go up and look after an elder in my family. He needed me to go down and take him to a shopping centre. I got a notification, there was an RDT, just near that shopping centre on the road that we would’ve used, and so I rang him and arranged it for the next day” (Participant 15).

While multiple instances were reported where participants delayed driving, there were also several participants who reported taking an alternative route, as exemplified in the following excerpt:

“I think it was like a post there’s a random drug or alcohol test on a main street of where I was going home one night and then I just completely avoided that street, took a back street to get to my home destination” (Participant 29).

The aforementioned quotes suggest that there is some level of rationality behind participants’ decisions to drive upon seeing a drug-testing operation. Some participants explained that they would make driving decisions based on whether the reason they wanted to drive was worth the potential risk of being detected. If an appointment or event was cancellable, and the risk of detection was perceived to be high, participants were more likely to delay driving until the next day. There also appeared to be individual differences with regard to risk perceptions, with some participants more likely to “stay on the safe side” and delay driving if they perceived there to be any risk, whereas other participants chose a different route most of the time. These decisions are potentially influenced by one’s location (city vs. rural) and thus the option of back roads, police activity at the time, and as discussed earlier, the consequences one perceived in being detected. Finally, not all participants reported an occasion where they had changed their behavior following exposure to a drug-testing location online. Only one participant provided more detail into this, explaining that they believed testing occurred outside of the area they drove in or that they might not be using the right Facebook sites (Participant 9). Membership to a police location site thus does not equate to use or avoidance. A motorist who does not see locations relevant to them may not change their driving behavior consciously, but the potential effects of being exposed to drug-testing locations, even when not in one’s area, should be considered.

Theme 5: Participants’ Behavior If They Could Not Access Police Location Information

Participants were asked if and how their driving behavior would change if they were not able to access police location information. Some suggested they used police location information because it is available but were unsure they would change anything about their driving behavior without it. One participant felt they had formed an idea of where the police would be through using police location communities that would help them, even without being able to use the sites:

“I have the knowledge of where they’re likely to be, so I’d still rely on that knowledge” (Participant 16).

Other participants reported they would change the frequency of their driving behavior, with some expressing they would feel more anxious when driving if they were not able to have access to police location communities. One participant reported they would buy in bulk to limit their driving:

“It would probably mean that I would rarely go out. I’d probably only go out every five or six weeks and bulk buy” (Participant 3).

Although some participants reported their driving behavior would not change much without access to police location communities, there were several participants who reported that they would experience anxiety without these sites. It is likely that not being able to use these sites would generate a sense of uncertainty, which is precisely the intention of police operations like roadside drug testing, and is key to deterring offending. The aforementioned quotes suggest that police location communities may offer a feeling of certainty, which, for some participants, enables them to drive more regularly, and independently, than if they were not able to access them.

Theme 6: Participants Acknowledged That Police Location Communities Were Not Entirely Accurate in Posting All Testing Operations That Occur on the Roadside

Participants were asked about the extent to which they believed police location communities accurately posted all actual police locations occurring on the roadside. Perceptions of accuracy are important to understand as it is likely to reflect how much motorists rely on the information when making driving decisions. While responses were varied, participants generally accepted that the sites were susceptible to inaccuracies. Participants’ responses were suggestive of low, moderate, and high accuracy perceptions, with most participants reporting low to moderate perceptions. Examples are provided below:

High accuracy: “In all honesty, I would say they’re pretty accurate, but they can’t be a hundred percent accurate. Obviously, there are people on these pages who are affected by substances and because of that, they’re not in a sound frame of mind all the time” (Participant 25).

Moderate accuracy: “I would say it’s 70% accurate and I’m just leaving 30% leeway for people who get things confused or they’re posting things hours later or that kind of thing. Probably just people posting too late. People getting their roads and suburbs and things mixed up, just human error” (Participant 29).

Low accuracy: “Oh, not accurate at all. I guess those locations they’re only set-up for a certain period of time, like Queensland Police, aren’t stupid, as soon as they see that it’s been flagged online as a high likelihood that they’ll move the location or pack up, because they know that people are going to be avoiding that route if they are doing the wrong thing” (Participant 10).

The aforementioned quotes demonstrate that although participants expressed varying perceptions in the accuracy of the information, they remained cognizant of factors that may reduce their accuracy such as human error, substance impairment, and police awareness of police location communities. There were also participants who expressed that the locations were not always posted in a timely manner, which also contributed to perceptions of inaccuracy. One participant also mentioned that the size of the group influenced the number of locations that were shared, thus also contributing to their perception of accuracy (Participant 13). Two participants acknowledged that even when using police location communities, there was a chance they could still be caught for driving under the influence of drugs through being randomly intercepted by police. One participant even had experienced this, as demonstrated in the following quote:

“With the police location, 100%—Yes [likelihood of being caught]. There was this police car that pulled me over because they thought I went through an orange light, so no page or anything would have highlighted where they were” (Participant 22).

Overall, it appeared that participants use police location communities acknowledging that there may be locations that are unaccounted for or ways that they could be detected for driving under the influence of drugs that police location communities would not alert them to. Certain factors may foster greater perceptions of accuracy, such as greater group/page size and thus more eyes on the road. Other factors may decrease perceptions of accuracy. For instance, participants reported there were delays in posts being approved (by group/page administrators), and thus posts could share an outdated location. However, regardless of how accurate police location communities are perceived to be, they cannot reveal random intercepts, which, for two participants, lead to a high degree of certainty that they would eventually be detected.

Discussion

The overall aim of this research was to explore the perceptions and behaviors of those who consume drugs and use police location communities for knowing roadside drug-testing operations. A key finding was that while avoidance of drug-testing operations was a primary use of these sites, the reasons for this are not merely to avoid detection for driving under the influence of drugs. Rather, the results suggest that participants use these sites in an attempt to navigate the ambiguous nature of laws pertaining to driving under the influence of drugs and testing methods. The proceeding paragraphs explore these perspectives and implications of them, in more detail.

Objective 1: Explore the Reasons That Individuals Who Consume Illicit and Legal (i.e., Medical Cannabis) Drugs Use Police Location Communities

Consistent with previous research (Mills et al., 2023), the participants in the study thought they could be detected for drug driving several days to weeks after consuming the drug. Unsurprisingly, participants generally perceived the penalty for drug driving to be unfair, which similarly emerged in research on driving under the influence of drugs over a decade ago (Wilson, 2011). In both Wilsons’ (2011) study and the present study, participants suggested that limits for drugs, particularly for cannabis and similar to those for alcohol, would help drivers to know when they can and cannot drive. In the present study, the use of police location communities appeared largely driven by the ambiguity around when participants could “safely” drive and the perception that drug-testing procedures were not a fair assessment of impairment. This perception was evident among participants, regardless of whether their drug use was licit or illicit.

It is important to consider the current laws for those with a medical prescription for cannabis in Australia. At the time of this study, and in all Australian states apart from Tasmania, it is considered an offense for a motorist to be found driving with a detectable amount of Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in their system. In Tasmania, those with a prescription for medical cannabis are exempt from present laws on driving under the influence of drugs; however, impairment laws still apply (Tasmanian Government, 2022). In contrast, those with a medical prescription for cannabis in Queensland are susceptible to the same drug-testing procedures and laws as those who use drugs illicitly. This should be kept in mind when considering why those using cannabis with a medical prescription may be motivated to use police-avoidance strategies given a positive drug test result in another Australian state (assuming they are not driving impaired) would not incur the same consequence. It has been previously argued that when a penalty is perceived as unfair, individuals tend to resort to defiance and resistance (Sherman, 1993) rather than abidance.

Another key finding was that the perceived consequences of the sanction for driving under the influence of drugs appeared to translate into one’s efforts and anxiety around avoiding detection, and thus their use of police location communities. Importantly, participants perceived the penalty for driving under the influence of drugs differently depending on a range of factors. This finding reflects the concept of “differential deterrence” which refers to the dynamic, changing nature of sanctions and assumes that there are individual, social, emotional, and situational factors influencing one’s sanction response (Piquero et al., 2011). For instance, those who fear loss to their social investments (e.g., education, career) may be more strongly deterred from acting criminally. In this study, the fear of loss to one’s job and career was found to be a concern among some participants and fuelled their use of police location communities to avoid detection, rather than influencing their offending behavior. Sanction response may also change situationally depending on one’s emotional state and with the use of drugs or alcohol (Piquero et al., 2011). The former was evidenced in this study and may be best demonstrated by participants’ responses regarding specific situations they would choose to not drive over taking a different route (e.g., availability of alternative routes, higher police presence). Regarding the effects of drugs, some participants reported they would not risk driving impaired, but as discussed earlier, they acknowledged this did not always mean they would avoid a positive drug test. Social factors were also found to influence sanction perceptions. Some participants anticipated they would experience shame and judgment from those in their social circle upon being detected for driving under the influence of drugs. This reinforces the work of Homel (1988) who proposed the anticipated disapproval of friends and family can act as a deterrent on offending behavior, which he referred to as “social loss.” However, the extent of social loss is proportionate to one’s social ties, as well as the attitudes of those people (Piquero et al., 2011), and thus, not all individuals will respond to social sanctions in the same way.

Objective 2: Investigate the Extent to Which Roadside Drug-Testing Police Location Information Influences Driving Behavior Among Those Who Consume Drugs

It has been proposed that the publicity of police location information could have a negative impact on road safety, resulting in drivers believing they can engage in dangerous driving behaviors with reduced risk of detection (Oviedo-Trespalacios & Watson, 2021). However, participants’ decisions following exposure to a roadside drug-testing location on police location communities were not always to avoid it but sometimes to delay driving. These decisions appeared to be a deliberation based on their need to drive (e.g., if the event is cancellable), a greater sense of police presence on the road, and the persons’ knowledge of and availability of routes they could take to circumvent the operation. It was also not just one specific operation that deterred or influenced behavior but also a greater level of police activity on the road.

These findings illuminate two key points: (a) These sites may have a positive effect upon the driving under the influence of drugs behavior, in that some participants are delaying driving upon exposure to roadside drug-testing posts (discussed further in the following part), and (b) there appears to be a level of rationality among this cohort of individuals who are potentially interested in driving after drug consumption, or at least at a time they may test positive to the presence of drugs. The second point suggests that despite the potential use of drugs, participants contemplated the potential costs of driving when knowing police were conducting roadside drug testing nearby or when there was greater police presence on the road. Subsequently, they made a decision to drive or not drive in consideration of this information. In contrast, drunk driving decisions have been linked to motorists seeking to avoid the guaranteed loss associated with not driving home (i.e., taking a taxi, leaving their car until the next day) as opposed to the potential loss of crashing/losing one’s license if they were to drive home (Homel, 1993). In the present study, the guaranteed loss of having to cancel one’s appointment or wait to drive was considered with the potential loss of encountering the police, with the former sometimes being chosen over the latter.

Objective 3: Understand the Perceived Accuracy of Police Location Communities in Posting All Drug Enforcement Occurring on the Road, and How These Sites Influence Perceptions of Certainty of Apprehension for Drug Driving

While participants generally perceived they were less likely to be detected when using these sites (and reported instances where they saw an operation and took another route), they still acknowledged there was a chance they could be caught when using police location communities. Participants recognized the sites were not entirely accurate, as similarly identified in a quantitative survey-based study on these sites by Mills, Truelove, and colleagues (2022). Participants also recognized they could still be intercepted by police and drug tested through a “random stop,” which, in Australia, refers to police being able to randomly intercept a vehicle, outside of a random alcohol or drug-testing operation, and test the driver without suspicion of impairment (Anderson et al., 2021). This differs from other countries where vehicles can only be intercepted through checkpoints, and motorists selected for testing relies on an indication of impairment, such as observing the car weaving all over the road (Fell et al., 2003). A random stop, due to its nature, cannot be exposed by police location communities. However, resources are typically geared toward high-visibility roadside operations, as these are more likely to create a general deterrent effect (Anderson et al., 2021).

Participants’ interview responses also suggest that police location communities may support the deterrent effect of drug-testing operations by exposing individuals to a greater number of operations than they would see when driving. In other words, rather than direct exposure to an operation (i.e., by driving past one), motorists are indirectly exposed to enforcement which changes their behavior. This reflects the ideologies of researchers Stafford and Warr, who reconceptualized classical deterrence theory, asserting that punishment did not necessarily have to be experienced directly to influence offending. Specifically, exposure to enforcement indirectly is suggested to increase an individuals’ perceived certainty of being caught (Stafford & Warr, 1993). Awareness of others’ punishment experiences (i.e., experiencing punishment indirectly), whether that be friends, family, or observing others be punished through a television show (Surette, 1998), could also influence one’s own offending behavior. In a similar way, police location communities may provide motorists with “indirect” exposure to police enforcement.

Implications: Practice

The information on Facebook communities may assist some motorists to make different driving decisions, including abstaining from driving during periods of high police activity. This finding could be used to the advantage of police officers to deter drivers beyond those who use police location Facebook groups and pages. For instance, Facebook advertisements during high-volume drug testing may help to inform motorists of when this is occurring. Advertisements may be targeted to specific regions where this is occurring but need to be reinforced with actual high levels of enforcement to maximize the deterrent effect. Relatedly, and as identified in previous studies, greater signage is needed when roadside drug testing is occurring to communicate to motorists that the threat of detection for driving under the influence of drugs exists (Mills, Freeman, et al., 2022). Such initiatives will be able to increase the general deterrent effect of roadside drug-testing operations.

One participant reported being caught for driving under the influence of drugs through a random patrol police vehicle (i.e., mobile enforcement). Notably, such enforcement cannot be undermined by posts on these Facebook communities. An increase in this enforcement strategy may be necessary to detect those attempting to circumvent static drug-testing locations and may be complemented with advertisements that remind drivers of the possibility they could be intercepted at any time. Participants also reported that they used these communities to develop a sense of police behavior, including the locations, days, and times they would conduct testing. Limitations currently exist in relation to the locations that police can set up testing on the road, due to safety issues, which can result in the recycling of the same or similar locations. To reinforce the “random” nature of testing, police may need to set up testing in a variety of locations and direct random patrol vehicles to places they cannot set up a site. Such initiatives would be useful in maximizing drivers’ perceptions of the certainty of being caught, which has been identified as the most important component of deterrence (Wright, 2010).

There may also be a more specific implication of this study for medical cannabis users. Participants perceived alcohol laws to be fairer than laws on driving under the influence of drugs, as they allow individuals to make judgments of when they should and should not drive. A key barrier to adopting this for drugs is the different way they interact with one’s physiology and psychology. Participants suggested a breathalyzer-type device for cannabis would be ideal. While such technologies may not be currently feasible, the underlying need expressed by these participants appears to be for an impairment-based test. Some states in Australia are currently reviewing driving laws for those with a prescription for cannabis.

Implications: Future Research and Theory

While this study provides important insights into the factors influencing the use of police location communities, there remains need for further research to validate the findings in a greater sample size. Future studies may investigate the proportion of individuals who use these sites while driving impaired, compared to the proportion who do not think they are impaired but are trying to avoid a charge for driving under the influence of drugs. Relatedly, there is need to quantify decisions to take back roads compared with delaying driving after exposure to a location on police location communities and understand what is more common. Such information has the potential to illustrate the level of harm or benefit these sites may have for road safety. The current sample expressed some degree of rationality when using these sites and attempting to avoid being detected while driving under the influence of drugs. This may reflect the sample recruited in this study and their drug use and may not be representative of how these sites are used more broadly. Future studies may consider whether the use of these sites changes based on one’s level of drug impairment.

Stafford and Warr (1993) proposed, over 30 years ago, that friends, family, and television could act as “indirect” sources of punishment or punishment avoidance. However, a further reconceptualization is needed to acknowledge the role of technology and social media as an indirect source of information regarding punishment. It was identified that exposure to police location communities may heighten perceptions of deterrence for some, while promoting punishment avoidance for others. Thus, this theory could also be expanded to consider the competing forces of general deterrence (incorporating exposure to enforcement and indirect punishment) and punishment avoidance when acknowledging the role of technology on offending behavior. Finally, there is evidence that participants were cognizant of the range of consequences that a penalty on driving under the influence of drugs would have on their life (e.g., newspaper shaming, the financial penalty, and the loss of their job). It may be that those using these sites have a greater awareness of the penalty for driving under the influence of drugs and its procedures and consequently perceive it to be more severe. However, exploration of this through quantitative measures is necessary.

Limitations

There are limitations to this study that need to be considered. First, the extent to which this sample is representative of the broader community of those who use Facebook police location sites is unknown. A particular type of user may have been interested in participating in this study, and as noted earlier, a quantitative study will be important to assess the validity of the different perspectives identified in this study, in a larger population. Finally, the extent to which participants (a) drove and (b) used these sites while impaired by drugs and while not being impaired (but drugs could still be in their system) could not be understood in this study. While both currently constitute an offense of driving under the influence of drugs, insights into these behaviors could clarify the extent to which these sites are used because motorists perceive laws to be unfair as opposed to the degree of dangerous and impaired driving these sites may promote.

Conclusion

This study provides important insights into an understudied issue within road safety. It is an important step to establish the relevance of such findings quantitatively with a greater sample size. Nonetheless, the insight gained through this research has implications for road safety, including a better understanding of driving under the influence of drugs, how drug takers perceive the penalty for driving under the influence of drugs, and the varying reasons individuals choose to use police location communities. The implications of this will ideally assist police to design police enforcement that maximizes the deterrent effect of operations. The findings also highlight the need for clearer driving laws and guidelines for drug takers and will hopefully be considered in future research and policy. Continued research into this area is also needed to further understand the effect police location communities have on road safety, not just for driving under the influence of drugs but also for a range of traffic offenses.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-cjb-10.1177_00938548241240064 – Supplemental material for Finding the Police Before the Police Find Them? Investigating How and Why Motorists Use Facebook for Knowledge of Roadside Drug Testing Locations

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-cjb-10.1177_00938548241240064 for Finding the Police Before the Police Find Them? Investigating How and Why Motorists Use Facebook for Knowledge of Roadside Drug Testing Locations by Laura Mills, James Freeman and Verity Truelove in Criminal Justice and Behavior

Footnotes

Author’s Note:

The authors wish to acknowledge the funder of this research, the Motor Accident Insurance Commission.

ORCID iD

Laura Mills

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material is available in the online version of this article at .

Laura Mills completed her PhD at the MAIC/UniSC Road Safety Research Collaboration in February 2024. Her PhD investigated how Facebook police location communities are used among those who consume drugs, and she has also published a number of articles related to driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol and speeding.

James Freeman is a registered psychologist with the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) and is a full member of the Australian Psychological Society (APS) with forensic psychology endorsement. He has over 130 peer-reviewed publications and has been awarded a range of competitive national grants over the course of his career.

Verity Truelove is a senior research fellow at the MAIC/University of the Sunshine Coast Road Safety Research Collaboration. Her research focuses on road rule compliance and behavior change.

References

Anderson

Love

S. P.

Freeman

J. E.

Davey

J. D.

(2021). Hit and miss: A comparison of targeted and randomised roadside drug testing (RDTRDT). Policing: An International Journal, 44(6), 1154–1167. https://doi.org/10.1108/pijpsm-07-2021-0090

Arkell

T. R.

Lintzeris

Mills

Suraev

Arnold

J. C.

McGregor

I. S.

(2020). Driving-related behaviours, attitudes and perceptions among Australian medical cannabis users: Results from the CAMS 18-19 survey. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 148, 105784. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2020.105784

Baldock

M. R. J.

Wundersitz

L. N.

McLean

(2007, August 26-30). Mobile random breath testing in South Australia. In T2007 international council for alcohol, drugs and traffic safety conference. Seattle, Washington, United States.

Bates

Anderson

(2021). Young drivers, deterrence theory, and punishment avoidance: A qualitative exploration. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 15(2), 784–797. https://doi.org/10.1093/police/paz075

Beck

K. H.

Moser

M. L.

(2004). Exposure to the sobriety “checkpoint strikeforce” campaign in Maryland: Impact on driver perceptions of vulnerability and behavior. Traffic Injury Prevention, 5(2), 101–106.

Bergen

Pitan

Shults

R. A.

Chattopadhyay

S. K.

Elder

R. W.

Sleet

D. A.

Coleman

H. L.

Compton

R. P.

Nichols

J. L.

Clymer

J. M.

, & Community Preventive Services Task Force. (2014). Publicized sobriety checkpoint programs: A community guide systematic review. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 46(5), 529–539.

Braun

Clarke

(2021). Thematic analysis: A practical guide. Sage.

Bureau of Infrastructure Transport and Regional Economics. (2020a). Random breath testing in 2020 Australia. https://www.bitre.gov.au/dashboards

Bureau of Infrastructure Transport and Regional Economics. (2020b). Roadside drug testing in 2020 Australia. https://www.bitre.gov.au/dashboards

10.

Cruickshank

C. C.

Dyer

K. R.

(2009). A review of the clinical pharmacology of methamphetamine. Addiction, 104(7), 1085–1099. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2009.02564.x

11.

Fell

J. C.

Ferguson

S. A.

Williams

A. F.

Fields

(2003). Why are sobriety checkpoints not widely adopted as an enforcement strategy in the United States? Accident Analysis & Prevention, 35(6), 897–902. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0001-4575(02)00097-0

12.

Fell

J. C.

Tippetts

A. S.

Levy

(2008). Evaluation of seven publicized enforcement demonstration programs to reduce impaired driving: Georgia, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Indiana, and Michigan. Annals of Advances in Automotive Medicine/Annual Scientific Conference, 52, 23–38.

13.

Ferris

Mazerolle

King

Bates

Bennett

Devaney

(2013). Random breath testing in Queensland and Western Australia: Examination of how the random breath testing rate influences alcohol related traffic crash rates. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 60, 181–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2013.08.018

14.

Goldenbeld

Stelling

van der Kint

S. T.

(2022). Measuring alcohol and drug use in traffic during regular police surveillance: Pilot study in three police regions. https://swov.nl/system/files/publication-downloads/R-2021-30_0.pdf

15.

Government of Canada. (2021). Frequently asked questions—Drug-impaired driving laws. https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/cj-jp/sidl-rlcfa/qa2-qr2.html

16.

Homel

(1988). Policing and punishing the drinking driver. Springer Science & Business Media.

17.

Homel

(1993). Drivers who drink and rational choice: Random breath testing and the process of deterrence. In Clarke

R.V.

Felson

(Eds.), Routine activity and rational choice (pp. 59–84). Routledge.

18.

Kallio

Pietilä

A.-M.

Johnson

Kangasniemi

(2016). Systematic methodological review: Developing a framework for a qualitative semi-structured interview guide. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 72(12), 2954–2965. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.13031

19.

Love

Rowland

Stefanidis

K. B.

Davey

(2024). Are current drug driving enforcement strategies achieving the desired effect? Drug users’ perceptions of drug driving legislation and enforcement in Queensland. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 39, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-022-09542-6

20.

Marcotte

T. D.

Umlauf

Grelotti

D. J.

Sones

E. G.

Sobolesky

P. M.

Smith

B. E.

Hoffman

M. A.

Hubbard

J. A.

Severson

Huestis

M. A.

Grant

Fitzgerald

R. L.

(2022). Driving performance and cannabis users’ perception of safety: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Psychiatry, 79, 201–209. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2021.4037

21.

Mills

Freeman

Parkes

Davey

(2022). Do they need to be tested to be deterred? Exploring the impact of exposure to roadside drug testing on drug driving. Journal of Safety Research, 80, 362–370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2021.12.017

22.

Mills

Truelove

Freeman

(2023). Facebook and drug driving: Does online sharing work against road safety countermeasures? Journal of Safety Research, 85, 86–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2023.01.008

23.

Mills

Truelove

Freeman

Davey

(2022). Police location pages and groups on Facebook: Does knowing where the police are influence perceptions of certainty and drug driving behaviour? Safety Science, 147, 105601. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2021.105601

24.

Morgan

M. J.

(2000). Ecstasy (MDMA): A review of its possible persistent psychological effects. Psychopharmacology, 152(3), 230–248. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002130000545

25.

New South Wales Government. (2024). Alcohol & driving. https://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/roadsafety/topics-tips/alcohol#Random_breath_testing

26.

Oviedo-Trespalacios

Watson

(2021). Navigation apps are becoming a threat to road safety (beyond distraction). Injury Prevention, 27(2), 103–103. https://doi.org/10.1136/injuryprev-2020-044012

27.

Piquero

A. R.

Paternoster

Pogarsky

Loughran

(2011). Elaborating the individual difference component in deterrence theory. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 7(1), 335–360. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-102510-105404

28.

Queensland Government. (2023). Drugs and driving. https://www.qld.gov.au/transport/safety/road-safety/drink-driving/drugs

29.

Sherman

L. W.

(1993). Defiance, deterrence, and irrelevance: A theory of the criminal sanction. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30(4), 445–473. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427893030004006

30.

Stafford

M. C.

Warr

(1993). A reconceptualization of general and specific deterrence. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30(2), 123–135. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427893030002001

31.

Surette

(1998). Media, crime, and criminal justice: Images and realities. Wadsworth Publishing Company.

32.

Tasmanian Government. (2022). Medicinal cannabis information for patients and the general public. https://www.health.tas.gov.au/health-topics/medicines-and-poisons-regulation/medicinal-cannabis

33.

Tennesse State Government. (2023). Checkpoint enforcement. https://www.tn.gov/safety/tnhp/checkpoints.html

34.

Truelove

Davey

Watson-Brown

(2022). Examining the differences in perceived legal and non-legal factors between drink driving and drug driving. Journal of Criminology, 56(1), 59–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/26338076221114481

35.

Wilson

L. A.

(2011). Perceptions of legitimacy and strategies of resistance: Melbourne illicit drug users and random roadside drug testing. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 23(2), 183–201. https://doi.org/10.1080/10345329.2011.12035918

36.

Wood

M. A.

Thompson

(2018). Crowdsourced countersurveillance: A countersurveillant assemblage? Surveillance & Society, 16(1), 20–38. https://doi.org/10.24908/ss.v16i1.6402

37.

Wright

(2010). Deterrence in criminal justice: Evaluating certainty vs. severity of punishment. Sentencing Project.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.05 MB