Characteristics of Road Safety Strategies  
The aim of this survey is to develop a list of community-perceived features of effective road safety strategies. The resulting strategy effectiveness scale items (strategy-rating statements) can help to improve existing road safety strategies and develop innovative, community-supported approaches for reducing road traffic trauma. For instances, from a process-oriented perspective, effectiveness tends to be associated with linkages between strategies and broad agendas, thus enabling joint work to occur. If strategies are too narrowly defined, they may not be as effective because they tend to deliver isolated results. This is known in the academia. However, is it appreciated to the same extent in the road safety community (i.e. road users)? What does the community (i.e. those outside the group of policy designers, strategists and analysts in road safety) perceive as being the main features of effective road traffic trauma prevention strategies? These and other related questions form part of the current study.

This survey acknowledges that the measurement of the effectiveness of a road safety strategy should be, as far as possible, objective. This means having scientific methods to do so. However, as Sir Robert Peel, the Father of modern Policing, once said, the work of the Police is effective when it enjoys community support. This support is perceptual. It can be shaped by facts. However, in the absence of comprehensive facts and widespread community engagement in policy design, community attitudes are shaped by anecdotes, personal experiences and the views of respected community members.

The survey participants are expected to have some knowledge of road traffic trauma prevention or simply road safety strategies. Please, invite others to complete this survey. Thank you, in advance, for your support in promoting this survey.

This survey is confidential. No participant will be identified in the publications resulting from it. The responses will be used as aggregate items. The results will form part of two academic studies, which will be available in peer-reviewed journals. Supporting institutions and survey participants will receive a report of the survey.  Survey participants can indicate their willingness to receive a copy of the report by contacting Dr Joao Canoquena through jcanoquena@hotmail.com or joao.canoquena1@nd.edu.au.


Sign in to Google to save your progress. Learn more
Email *
Part A: Attitudes towards Mobile Drug Testing
Mobile Drug Testing (MDT) is a road safety strategy which involves saliva tests conducted on the roadside. These tests detect the presence of illicit drugs such as "speed", "base", "ice", crystal meth, ecstasy etc. MDT may be used along with Standard Impairment Assessment (SIA).

For the next set of questions, Agree or Disagree with the statements listed below.
Source: Fairfax Media, 12/09/2015
MDT deserves wide support from the Australian public. *
MDT operations are combined with detailed information about the substances which are actually detected. *
MDT campaigns promote alternative road use other than being in control of a motor vehicle. *
Information about drug testing in Australia is widely available. *
The information about drug testing in Australia is accurate. *
Help for drug use dependency reaches out to all relevant members of the community. *
Promotional materials for convincing the community of the risks of drug use are developed in close cooperation with target road users. *
MDT discourages drug driving. *
MDT operations are tailored to the local circumstances where they are deployed. *
MDT increases road safety for the community. *
MDT has been developed with little or no involvement of the target road users with drug dependency. *
The merits of MDT are yet to be proven. *
MDT is based on flawed assumptions. *
MDT operations are unlikely to  reduce road crashes. *
MDT operations support your thoughts on how to reduce impaired road use. *
MDT reinforces the harm minimisation agenda, which stresses the need to focus on road death reduction rather than punishment. *
MDT represents a good start as it seems to be working in reducing the involvement of drugs in fatal crashes. *
MDT operations are too narrowly defined as Police operations only.   *
MDT discriminates between drug users and impaired drug users.   *
MDT fails to discriminate between drug users and impaired drug users.   *
MDT represents efficient use of resources for reducing impaired road use. *
MDT has a wide range of limitations. *
MDT should be widely implemented in Australia. *
MDT deters drug use. *
MDT focuses on the wrong risk factor such as the presence of illicit substance as opposed to road use impairment. *
MDT reassures the public that something is being done to reduce road deaths. *
MDT fails to deter drug use. *
MDT focuses on the right aspects of the risk of impaired road use. *
MDT lacks evidence to confirm its effectiveness. *
The penalties (e.g.court appearance, loss of licence, hefty fines etc.) for those who fail an MDT will deter future drug use. *
Driver education and counselling for those who fail an MDT will deter future drug use. *
Increasing the number of MDTs per year will deter future drug use. *
Increasing funding for support and education for "social/recreational", "regular" and all other drug users will reduce impaired road use. *
The drugs targeted by MDT (i.e. speed, base, ice, crystal meth and ecstasy) have been associated with road deaths. *
There is a safe amount of drug a road user can take. *
MDT discriminates between "regular" and "social" drug users. *
MDT is sensitive because it picks up contact with illicit substance rather than consumption only. *
MDT has been comprehensively designed to cater for all factors and circumstances. *
There is no such thing as a safe amount of drug a road user can take. *
The evidence of MDT's effectiveness in reducing impaired road use is questionable. *
The presence of illicit drugs in your body can limit your road use ability. *
MDT’s implementation elsewhere in the world has proven its ineffectiveness. *
MDT promotional activities have failed to persuade the community of MDT's ability to reduce impaired road use. *
MDT detects impaired road users fairly. *
MDT unfairly detects all drug users. *
MDT leaves out prescription drugs which can impair road use. *
The use of MDT is linked with referral services. *
Please, write some brief comments about the strengths and/or weaknesses of MDT deployment in Australia. Your comments may help to improve the use of MDT in Australia. *
Part B: About You
Please, tell us about yourself.
Please, indicate your age group. *
Please, indicate the licence type you currently hold. If you hold multiple licences, indicate the one you use with the most frequency. *
Please, indicate the length of time you have had your main licence or permit. *
Please, indicate your usual occupation. If unemployed, please, use your latest or most common occupation. *
Please, indicate your place of residence. *
Please, indicate the State or Territory you live in. *
Please, indicate your most common means of transport. *
Please, indicate the road user group you identify yourself mostly with. This is not the group you support or agree with. It is what you do when not commuting to and from work. *
Are you affiliated with a relevant road safety community group such as a riders' association, a car club etc.? *
Please, indicate if you have previously been adversely affected by random drug tests. *
Please, select the option below most relevant to your identity.   *
Please, indicate ONE feature of a road traffic injury prevention strategy which enhances  safety on the road. For instance, you may say, widespread use of MDT operations. NSW is increasing the use of MDT from 100,000 tests a year to 200,000. *
Rate the use of this strategy feature in Australia. Use a 1-7 scale. 1 means you somehow belief it  enhances road safety in Australia. 7 means you are most definitely certain that it enhances road safety in Australia. For example, you may rate the widespread use of MDT operations in Australia at 5 out of 7. *
Thank you very much for your participation. Should you wish to forward further comments to the survey author, please, contact: Dr Joao Canoquena, jcanoquena@hotmail.com or joao.canoquena1@my.nd.edu.au or 0417173442. *
MM
/
DD
/
YYYY
Submit
Clear form
Never submit passwords through Google Forms.
GoogleForms
This content is neither created nor endorsed by Google.