Child car control usage by 4-6 year old rural school children

The Buckle Up Child Car Regional Town Restraint Project designed, implemented and evaluated an intervention targeted at increasing appropriate child car restraint usage in 4-6 year old rural school children. Rewards were given to 298 children for using car restraints over one month, where they were given stickers in the school car parks by the research team and in-class rewards by the class teachers. In addition, vouchers for the free fitting and provision of child car seats and/or harnesses were provided to encourage appropriate use of child car restraints, and free fitting and checking clinics were provided by the RACWA. During the study, all parents at the participating schools were asked to complete a questionnaire about child car restraints and their usage.

Regulatory approach to fatigue in car drivers principles for designing better regulations

On the basis of their own research and other national and international research the expert group identified five critical factors or principles that should be incorporated in any regulatory options. The factors are:

• Minimum sleep periods, the opportunity for sleep and time of day influences
  A minimum sleep period in a 24-hour period is required to maintain alertness and performance levels. Continuous and undisturbed sleep is of higher quality and more restorative. The group concluded that the minimum sleep requirement in a single 24-hour period is six consecutive hours of sleep (although the average required on a sustained basis is about seven to eight hours).
  
  The group then considered the length of break that would enable the six-hour minimum which is necessarily longer than the six-hour sleep minimum period. Breaks need to take account of the activities of daily living including preparation for sleep and return to work. The impact of the circadian biological clock is critical in determining appropriate breaks in which sleep opportunity is possible. The group recommended the minimum sleep opportunity per 24 hours should be sufficient to allow for six consecutive hours of sleep.
  


• The cumulative nature of fatigue and sleep loss
  Minimum sleep opportunities have to be considered over longer periods because of the cumulative nature of sleep loss and fatigue. The expert group agreed that the six hour minimum sleep requirement is adequate on one day, but not sufficient on an ongoing basis.
  
  Recovery sleep after an accumulated sleep debt is usually deeper and more efficient, and the lost hours of sleep do not need to be recovered hour-for-hour. Repaying the debt, to restore normal waking function, usually requires two nights of unrestricted sleep.
  
  As a consequence the group recommended that schedules should permit two nights of unrestricted sleep on a regular basis (preferably weekly) to provide drivers with the opportunity to recuperate from the effects of accumulating sleep debt.
  


• Night work
  Driving at night was considered an important factor for the expert group as it brings together the elements that generate fatigue risks. Working at night produces an elevated risk of fatigue-related impairment, because it combines the daily low point in performance capacity with the greatest likelihood of inadequate sleep.
  
  The group concluded that the combination of risk factors associated with night driving should be recognised by ensuring that the length of breaks to enable sleep following night work are suitable and that opportunities for night sleep are available in a seven-day period. Additionally the group proposed a limitation to the number of hours (a limit of 18 hours) that could be driven in the 0000-0600 period after which two nights of unrestricted sleep should be available.
  


• Duration of working time
  The expert group concluded that a "safe" threshold for daily working time on a sustained basis will vary according to other factors like time of day, but the upper limit is in the 12-14 hours zone. There was evidence that longer trips could be undertaken on a one-off basis but that repeated long trips rapidly escalated fatigue risk factors. Whilst the group believed flexibility for these longer trips should be provided they needed to ensure that long trips were not combined with risks associated with night driving and circadian low points.
  
  To underpin this short term flexibility, the expert group recommended that any one-off long trips involving over 12 hours work should not extend into the 0000-0600 period and that during a seven-day period there should be no more than 70 hours of working time.


• Short breaks within working time
  The final factor noted by the expert group was making short breaks available as countermeasures to fatigue and the boredom and monotony associated with some driving tasks. These short breaks were not substitutes for the breaks to enable opportunity for minimum continuous sleep.
  
  Short breaks allow fatigue countermeasures like food, coffee and short naps to be utilised. The expert group agreed that breaks should be taken on a needs basis and that this discretion should be balanced by greater attention in scheduling to account for rest breaks.
  
  The expert group recommended that in a one-day period the driver should take non-work breaks equal to 10% of the total working time; these breaks should be taken at the discretion of the driver but they should not be accumulated to form long breaks. As a minimum, short rest breaks should include a non-work break of 15 minutes after every five hours work.
  
  A less flexible means of achieving non-work breaks equal to 10 per cent of total working time would be to require a 30 minute non-work break to be taken after every 5 hours of work.

Drink Driving Rehabilitation

Face-to-face interviews were conducted on a sample of 125 drink driving offenders at the time of their court appearance and again approximately 9 months later. The total sample consisted of 62 offenders who were undertaking the UTL drink driving program as part of their rehabilitation and 63 offenders who remained within the mainstream sentencing option and acted as a Control group. Participation in the study was voluntary and offenders were paid $25 for each interview for their assistance.

Of the 125 offenders who participated in this study, 24 (19.2%) had previously been convicted of a drink driving offence, with 4 (16.7%) of these offenders being convicted of more than one drink driving offence in the last 5 years. A significant difference was found between the UTL and Control groups for the number of prior drink driving offences (c2(1) = 5.36), with 27% of the UTL group (n = 17) and 11% of the Control group (n = 7) having prior drink driving convictions.

The interview schedule used in this study included a range of lifestyle factors that were seen as potentially contributing to recidivism:

* socio-demography
* mental health status
* social support and self-esteem support
* questions pertaining to knowledge, attitudes and drink driving behaviours
* measures of alcohol consumption and alcohol problems.

Socio-demographic characteristics of rural offenders

Offenders who participated in this study were mostly male, single and young. Few were educated beyond a Year 12 standard and many were unemployed and / or receiving a government pension. Offenders in the UTL group tended to have more prior drink driving convictions than offenders in the Control group and this difference was taken into account in all analyses.

Follow-up of offenders over the nine months showed that the UTL program did not impact on the most of the socio-demographic characteristics of the offenders. There was a significant difference between the UTL and control groups in terms of changes in relationship status, with more of the UTL group showing change.

Travelling Speed and Risk of Crash Involvement on Damage Roads

The main aim of this project was to quantify the relationship between free travelling speed and the relative risk of involvement in a casualty crash, for sober drivers of passenger vehicles in rural out of town 80 km/h and above speed limit zones in South Australia.

The secondary aim of the project was to examine the effect of various hypothetical speed reductions on rural casualty crash frequency.

Using a case control study design and logistic regression modelling, the speeds of passenger vehicles involved in casualty crashes (the cases) were compared with the speeds of passenger vehicles not involved in crashes but travelling in the same direction, at the same location, time of day, day of week, and time of year (the controls). The conditions imposed on the selection of case vehicles were designed to ensure that the study would yield valid estimates of the relative risk of a passenger vehicle travelling at a free speed on a rural road becoming involved in a casualty crash compared to the risk for a passenger vehicle travelling at the average speed of the control vehicles.

The pre-crash travelling speeds of the case vehicles were determined using computer-aided accident reconstruction techniques. This was made possible by the detailed investigation of each crash at the scene which provided the physical evidence needed for input to the computer reconstruction program (M-SMAC).

Additional information about the effects of travelling speed on casualty crash involvement was obtained by calculating the expected reduction in rural crashes due to various hypothetical reductions in vehicle travelling speeds in rural areas.

We found that the risk of a free travelling speed passenger vehicle being involved in a casualty crash, relative to the risk for a passenger vehicle travelling at an average speed, increased at greater than an exponential rate. No evidence was found of a U-shaped risk curve whereby slower vehicles were also at greater risk. We are aware of a number of matters which could have affected the validity of the risk estimates and they are discussed in the report. However, we are not aware of any consistent bias which would be likely to invalidate the general relationship between free travelling speed and the risk of involvement in a casualty crash that we present in this report.

Our results show that the risk of involvement in a casualty crash is more than twice as great when travelling 10 km/h above the average speed of non-crash involved vehicles and nearly six times as great when travelling 20 km/h above that average speed. The mechanisms explored for this increase in risk (where higher speeds are associated with longer stopping distances, increased crash energy and more likely loss of control) also suggest that a reduction in the absolute speed of traffic is much more important in reducing crash frequency than a reduction in traffic speed differences.

In order to explore the possible effect of changing vehicle travelling speeds on rural casualty crash frequency the risk curve was applied to the crashes investigated in this study under a number of hypothetical scenarios. It was found that a large proportion of the casualty crashes attended in this study would have been avoided had the free travelling speed vehicles been travelling at a slower speed. It was shown that even small reductions in travelling speeds have the potential to greatly reduce crash and injury frequency. For example, it is estimated that even a 5 km/h reduction in the speed of all the rural free travelling speed vehicles in this study would have led to a 31 per cent reduction in casualty crashes. This percentage applies to the total sample of casualty crashes investigated, including those for which the hypothetical speed reduction was deemed to be irrelevant (for example, crashes where no vehicle had a free travelling speed). It was also estimated that 24 per cent of all the casualty crashes investigated would have been avoided if none of the vehicles had been travelling above the speed limit and that lowering the maximum speed limit on undivided roads to 80 km/h could be expected to lower casualty crash frequency by 32 per cent.

Society Attitudes to Road Safety State and Territory Comparisons

The stratified sample adopted in this survey allows comparisons to be made across State and Territory borders. While to a certain extent jurisdictions follow the national trend, the research continues to show significant differences in opinion between States and Territories on major road safety issues of speed, drink driving and fatigue.

Residents of the Northern Territory are still clearly the most likely to mention drink driving as the one main factor leading to road crashes. However, CAS 14 has also shown an increased awareness in the Northern Territory about the effect of speed.

While approval of a 50 km/h limit in residential areas is again expressed by a majority of people in all States and Territories, it remains highest in Victoria (78%), NSW (74%) and Queensland (73%), with a significant increase evident in the ACT (72%). South Australia continues to be among the locations most inclined to agree that fines for speeding are mainly intended to raise revenue.

New South Wales residents (18%) again show the lowest exposure to Random Breath Testing (RBT) in the six months prior to the survey, with Tasmania (22%) and South Australia (23%) also below the national average of 25% in 2001. Closer to one in three in each of the remaining locations report being tested in the past six months.

Fatigue is again most likely to be suggested as a crash cause and at increased levels in the ACT and in Queensland. A significant increase in mentions of fatigue as one of the main crash causes has also occurred in the Northern Territory and Western Australia in 2001.

Residents in the Northern Territory (47%), consistent with their relatively high awareness of the dangers of drink driving, are now more likely than people elsewhere in Australia (37%) to say they do not drink when driving. This is a marked turnaround from CAS 13 when these people were more likely to say they restrict any alcohol intake rather than abstain. A similar trend is evident in South Australia. Northern Territory licence holders who drink express the greatest desire for a self-operated breath testing device, where 53% are very likely to use one if available compared to a national average of 34%.

The perception that RBT activity has increased over the past 2 years continues to decline across most States and Territories. South Australian residents most readily express the view that RBT activity has increased (45%). A perception of decreasing RBT activity is again evident most often in NSW, the ACT and Tasmania.

Most people across the States and Territories agree that a BAC of .05 would affect their ability as a pedestrian. A noticeable increase in the percentage of Northern Territory residents expressing this view has been noted in CAS 14. Opinion tends to be divided in Western Australia.

Although still below the national average, Northern Territory residents continue to demonstrate an increasing propensity to wear a rear seat restraint, now at a high of 83%.