Research report No. 17

Chapter 3. Driving behaviour trends at 23-24 years of age (PDF 411 KB)

This chapter provides a description of the driving behaviour of the 23-24 year-olds participating in the ATP study, with a particular focus on their typical driving behaviours, their history of crash involvement and driving-related offences, and their engagement in a range of risky driving behaviours, including drink-driving. This is followed by an examination of trends for:

• young men and women:
• young people living in metropolitan and non-metropolitan localities;
• young people employed in low-, average- and high-status occupations; and
• young people with differing levels of education.

3.1 Total sample trends

Licensing

Young people were asked whether they had ever held a car or motorbike licence. As shown in Table 3, almost all 23-24 year olds (97%) had held a car licence, but only 6% had ever held a motorbike licence. Very few were learner drivers or had never held a licence or permit to drive a car or motorbike.

Table 3. Type of licence(s) ever held, at 23-24 years

	n	%
Has held a car licence	942	96.9
Has held a motorbike licence	62	6.4
Has a learner's permit	25	2.6
Has never held a licence or permit	27	2.7

Note: Percentages do not add to 100% as some individuals fit more than one category (e.g., has held both a motorbike and car licence).

The following discussion focuses on all study members except those who had never held a licence or permit (n = 974, 97%).²

Of those who had ever held a car or motorbike licence or permit, the vast majority reported holding a full licence (Table 4). Less than 1% were currently without a licence, and very few currently held a probationary licence or a learner's permit (about 3% in each category).

Table 4. Type of licence(s) currently held, at 23-24 years

	n	%
No licence	6	0.6
Learner's permit	31	3.2
Probationary licence	27	2.8
Full licence	910	94.0

Note: Percentages add to slightly more than 100% as respondents could select more than one response (e.g., holds both a full car licence and a probationary motorbike licence).

There was considerable diversity in the length of time licences had been held, with the average being 71.2 months (SD = 15.5), which equates to almost 6 years. Seven per cent (n = 67) had experienced the cancellation or suspension of their licence at some time.

Time spent driving

Weekday driving during daylight hours was the most common form of driving reported by young people, with the average length of time spent driving at these times being approximately 5 hours per week. Considerably less driving was undertaken at other times, with night-time driving at weekends being the least common type of driving (Table 5).

Table 5. Average number of hours spent driving, at weekdays and weekends and during daylight and night-time hours, at 23-24 years

Time of week	Time of day	n	M	SD
Monday to Friday	daylight hours	936	4.9	5.4
	night-time hours	869	2.1	3.2
Saturday and Sunday	daylight hours	919	2.4	1.9
	night-time hours	863	1.5	1.4

Nevertheless, there was considerable variability in the number of hours young people spent behind the wheel at different times of the day (daylight vs night-time hours) and week (weekdays vs weekends), as displayed in Figure 1. For instance, while half the sample spent three hours or less in weekday daytime driving, about 16% said that they usually drove for ten or more hours at these times. Similarly, while the majority drove for one hour or less at night on weekends (about 60%), a very small number (2%) spent six or more hours driving at this time. The range of driving hours was quite broad, ranging from 0 to 20 hours for night-time weekend driving, and from 0 to 60 hours at all other times.

Figure 1. Number of hours typically spent driving per week, at weekdays and weekends and during daylight and night-time hours, at 23-24 years

Crash involvement

Sixty per cent of young people (n = 576) had been involved in a crash when driving since gaining their licence. Table 6 shows the percentage of respondents who had been involved in differing numbers of crashes during their driving careers.

Table 6. Number of crashes experienced over driving careers, at 23-24 years

	n	%
0 crashes	392	40.3
1 crash	285	29.3
2 crashes	182	18.7
3 crashes	48	4.9
4 or more crashes	29	3.0

Note: Percentages do not add to 100% as some individuals who indicated that they had been involved in a crash did not provide information on the number of crashes in which they had been involved.

Close to a third of all drivers had been involved in only one crash, while one in five had been involved in two. Relatively few young drivers (less than 8%) had been involved in more than two crashes over the course of their driving careers, with the highest number reported being six crashes. The average number of crashes reported was 1.0 (SD = 1.1).

Young people were also asked about the circumstances in which the crash(es) had occurred, (e.g., whether or not passengers were present) and about crash outcomes (e.g., whether the crash had resulted in property damage only, or someone being injured or killed).³ About half (48%) of all drivers had been involved in a crash resulting in property damage when driving alone. Property damage crashes when young people were carrying passengers were also quite common, with more than one in five (22%) having been involved in a crash of this type. Very few had been involved in a crash in which someone had been injured or killed, irrespective of whether they had been driving alone (3%) or when passengers were present (less than 1%).

Few 23-24 year olds (n = 26, 3% of all drivers) had been fined or charged as a result of a crash. Most of these drivers (n = 24, 92%) had been fined or charged once. The remaining 8% (n = 2) had been fined or charged twice.

Detection for speeding and police contact for driving-related offences

Table 7 shows the number of times 23-24 year old study members had been detected speeding over their driving careers, according to self-reports.

Table 7. Number of times detected speeding over driving career, at 23-24 years

	n	%
0 times	403	42.2
1 time	208	21.8
2 times	126	13.2
3 times	101	10.6
4 times	50	5.2
5 times	30	3.1
6 or more times	38	3.9

While 42% had never been detected speeding, about one in five had been detected once, and over a third had been detected multiple times, with the highest number being 15. The average number of times of being detected speeding among all drivers was 1.5 (SD = 2.3).

Young drivers were also asked how often in the past 12 months they had been in contact with police for a driving-related offence. While the great majority (n = 862, 86%) reported no contact, 12% (n = 122) had been in contact with police for a driving offence on one or two occasions in the past year. Only 1% (n = 13) reported this type of police contact on more than 2 occasions.

Risky driving

The percentage of 23-24 year olds who had engaged in differing unsafe driving practices during their last ten trips is shown in Table 8. Risky driving behaviours include speeding, driving without a seatbelt (or helmet if on a motorbike), driving when very tired, driving while under the influence of alcohol or illegal drugs, and using a mobile phone while driving. The average number of trips in which this sample of young people had engaged in each type of risky driving is also is shown.

Table 8. Risky driving behaviours during previous ten trips, at 23-24 years

	n	%	Average no. of trips	SD
Speeding
Drove up to 10 km/h over the limit	801	83.4	3.7	3.2
Drove between 11 and 25 km/h over the limit	430	44.8	1.3	2.1
Drove more than 25 km/h over the limit	131	13.7	0.3	1.1
Seatbelt/helmet use
Did not wear a seatbelt/helmet for part of the trip	130	13.5	0.4	1.5
Did not wear a seatbelt/helmet at all	50	5.2	0.2	1.1
Fatigue
Drove when very tired	602	62.5	1.5	1.8
Nearly fell asleep or fell asleep when driving	104	10.8	0.2	0.5
Alcohol and other drug use
Drove when affected by alcohol	218	22.6	0.4	0.9
Drove when affected by marijuana	50	5.0	0.2	1.0
Drove when affected by ecstasy	19	2.0	< 0.1	0.2
Drove when affected by amphetamines	22	2.3	< 0.1	0.5
Mobile phone use when driving
Talked on a hands-free mobile phone	420	43.7	1.6	2.5
Talked on a handheld mobile phone	526	54.7	1.4	1.9
Used a mobile function (e.g., received or sent an SMS message)	630	65.5	1.7	2.0

The most common type of risky driving was speeding by up to 10 km/h over the speed limit, with more than four out of five young people having done so at least once during their last ten trips. This behaviour had occurred on about a third of the past ten trips. Driving between 11 and 25 km/h over the limit was also quite common, with about 45% exceeding the speed limit by this margin at least once during their past ten trips. Across the sample, the average number of recent trips during which young people had exceeded the speed limit by 11 to 25 km/h was 1.3 (i.e., 13% of trips). Considerably fewer (14%) had exceeded the speed limit by more than 25 km/h. As might be expected, higher levels of speeding were less common than less extreme forms of speeding.

Mobile phone use while driving was also common. Two-thirds had used a mobile phone function (e.g., receiving or sending an SMS message) during at least one of their past ten driving trips, while over half had spoken on a handheld mobile phone on at least one trip. These behaviours occurred on about 15% of driving trips. More than four in ten young people (44%) had also spoken on a hands-free mobile phone while driving. On average, talking on a hands-free mobile phone occurred on about 16% of the last 10 trips.

Another common risky driving behaviour was driving when very tired, with close to two-thirds reporting this had occurred at least once in the past ten trips. On average, young people reported driving when tired on about 15% of their most recent trips. About one in ten 23-24 year olds had been so tired that they had fallen asleep or come close to falling asleep while driving. However, such instances were very infrequent, occurring on 2% of trips.

More than one in five 23-24 year olds had driven when affected by alcohol on at least one of their ten most recent trips. However, very few had driven while under the influence of marijuana (5%), ecstasy (2%) or amphetamines (2%). The average number of trips on which young people drove when affected by alcohol or other drugs was very low (ranging from less than 1% to 4% of trips).

Only 14% reported failing to wear a seatbelt or helmet for part of a trip, and very few (5%) reported failing to wear a seatbelt or helmet altogether. Such behaviours also tended to occur very infrequently (on less than 5% of trips).

Drink-driving

Occurrence of drink-driving

Young people were asked whether they had driven when they were near or over the legal alcohol limit during the past month, and on how many days this had occurred.

Twenty per cent of all drivers (n = 193) had driven when near or over the limit in the past month. For 13%, this had occurred on one day, for 4%, on two, while 3% had engaged in this behaviour on three or more days in the past month (Table 9). The highest number of days a young person had driven when near or over the legal limit was 15.

Table 9. Number of days in the past month of driving when near or over the legal alcohol limit, at 23-24 years

	n	(%)
0 days	780	80.0
1 day	126	13.0
2 days	42	4.3
3 days	16	1.6
4 or more days	9	0.9

Drink-driving behaviours of friends and romantic partners

Questions were also included about the drink-driving tendencies of friends and romantic partners (if in a romantic relationship).

Trends are shown in Table 10 and Table 11. While the majority reported that none of their friends engaged in drink-driving, a sizeable minority (39%) reported that they had a few friends who did. Very few (less than 2%) reported that most of their friends were drink-drivers.

Table 10. Number of friends who drive after drinking, at 23-24 years

	n	%
None	563	58.3
A few	374	38.7
Most	16	1.7
Don't know	13	1.3

Young drivers were asked a similar question about partners (boyfriend, girlfriend, or spouse). Close to two-thirds (65%) were in a romantic relationship, and of this group, very few thought their partner drove after having too much to drink, although this was "somewhat true" for 12% (Table 11).

Table 11. Agreement that partner drives after drinking, at 23-24 years

	n	%
Not true	551	86.1
Somewhat true	77	12.0
Definitely true	7	1.1
Don't know	5	0.8

Actions taken to avoid drink-driving

Young people were asked how often they made plans to avoid drinking and driving. More than two-thirds "always" planned ahead to avoid drink-driving, while a further 17% made such plans "most of the time" (Figure 2). However, almost one in ten 23-24 year-olds (9%) "rarely" or "never" made plans to avoid drink-driving.

Figure 2. Frequency of making plans to avoid drink-driving, at 23-24 years

Those who made plans to avoid drink-driving (all except those who responded "never" in Figure 2) were then asked how often they ended up drink-driving anyway (Figure 3). Approximately 1% reported drink-driving anyway on a frequent basis (e.g., "most of the time" or "always"). The vast majority (76%) never engaged in drink-driving. However, almost one-quarter had gone on to drink and drive on rare occasions.

Figure 3. Frequency of drink-driving after making plans to avoid it, at 23-24 years

All 23-24 year old study members were also asked whether they had used various strategies to avoid drink-driving within the past month. Table 12 displays the number and percentage of young people who reported having taken each action to avoid drink-driving (listed in order from most common to least common).

Table 12. Use of strategies to avoid drink-driving in past month, at 23-24 years

	n	%
Planned ahead and got someone else to drive there	665	68.4
Planned ahead and took a taxi or public transport there	571	58.7
Didn't drink alcohol	513	52.8
Cut down the amount I drank	376	38.7
Planned ahead and found another way to get there	292	29.2
Stayed overnight	281	28.9
Counted or spaced my drinks	256	26.3
Drank more water or soft drink	248	25.5
Left my car there and arranged to be driven by someone else	195	20.1
Left my car there and used a taxi or public transport	188	19.3
Left my car there and found another way to get home	125	12.9
Drank low-alcohol beer	103	10.6
Limited the money I spent on alcohol	78	8.0
Used a breath-testing machine to check my level	39	4.0
Did nothing	37	3.8
Slept in my car	18	1.9
Never drink alcohol (teetotaller)a	15	1.5

Note: Percentages do not add to 100% as respondents were able to select multiple options. ^a While this was not one of the response options listed for this question, a number of individuals (n = 15) indicated that they did not need to use any of the listed strategies, as they did not drink alcohol.

Most 23-24 year olds had taken at least one action to avoid drink-driving within the past month, with only 4% reporting that they had done nothing at all. The most common actions taken were to plan ahead and arrange alternative transport to one's destination, or to alter drinking habits when at a location where alcohol was served. For instance, over two-thirds had arranged for someone to drive them to their destination to avoid drink-driving, while close to 60% had taken a taxi or public transport to their destination, and about 30% found an alternative way to get there.

Furthermore, more than half had abstained from drinking alcohol within the past month to avoid drink-driving, 40% had limited the amount of alcohol they had consumed, and about a quarter had counted or spaced their drinks, or consumed more water or soft drink. Staying overnight was another common strategy (29%). Between 13% and 20% had left their car behind and found alternative transport home, and about one in ten had consumed low-alcohol beer. Only 8% had limited the amount spent on alcohol and very few (less than 5%) had tested their alcohol level using a breath-testing machine or slept in a car.

Summary: Overall trends

Almost all young people (97%) had obtained their car licence by 23-24 years of age. The average length of time that licences had been held was 6 years. About 3% had had their licence cancelled or suspended since gaining their licence.

Turning to patterns of driving, most driving took place during the week, in daytime hours. The average time spent driving each week at such times was five hours. Considerably less driving was undertaken at night or at weekends, with night-time weekend driving being least common (an average of about 1½ hours per week).

Sixty per cent of the young people had been involved in a crash while driving a car or motorcycle since gaining their licence. Crashes resulting in property damage were the most common. Almost half of all drivers had experienced a crash of this type when driving alone (48%), and about one in five when carrying passengers (22%). Crashes resulting in injury or death were very uncommon.

More than half had been detected speeding during their driving careers, and about one in seven had come into police contact for a driving-related offence in the past 12 months.

Risky driving was common. Over 80% of 23-24 year-olds had exceeded the speed limit by up to 10 km/h on at least one of their ten most recent driving trips, and close to half by 11-25 km/h on at least one occasion. About two-thirds had driven when very tired or used a mobile phone function (such as receiving or sending an SMS) when driving, and around half had talked on a handheld (55%) or hands-free mobile (44%) when driving. Approximately one in five had driven when affected by alcohol on at least one of their ten most recent trips. Other types of risky driving, such as driving without a seatbelt (or helmet if on a motorbike) or driving when affected by illegal drugs, were less common and ranged in incidence from 2% to 14%.

Looking at drink-driving, one in five 23-24 year-olds had driven when near or over the legal limit during the previous month. Over 40% had friends who engaged in drink-driving, and about one in eight had a partner who had driven when over the legal limit. Two-thirds of young people reported that they "always" made plans to avoid drink-driving, and the majority who made plans to avoid drink-driving, "never" engaged in this behaviour. The most common strategies young people used to avoid drink-driving were to plan ahead and arrange alternative transport to their destination (e.g., getting someone else to drive, taking a taxi or public transport) or to alter their drinking habits when at a venue at which alcohol was served (e.g., not drinking, reducing the amount of alcohol consumed). Staying overnight was another common strategy used to avoid drink-driving. Very few (less than 5%) reported testing their alcohol level with a breath-testing machine or sleeping in their car in order to avoid drink-driving.

3.2 Gender differences

The young men (n = 390, 39%) and young women (n = 610, 61%) in this study significantly differed on many aspects of driving behaviour.

Licensing

Although there were no gender differences in the percentage who held a car licence, perhaps unsurprisingly, more males (13%) than females (2%) had obtained a motorbike licence.⁴ Males were also significantly more likely than females to have had their car or motorbike licence cancelled or suspended (13% compared with 3%, respectively).⁵

However, young men and women did not significantly differ in the types of licences currently held (no licence, learner's permit, probationary licence, or full licence) or the length of time they had held their licences.

Time spent driving

Young men tended to spend slightly more time behind the wheel than young women: a total of 11.5 hours (SD = 10.1) driving over the course of a week, of which 5.4 hours (SD = 6.0) was spent in weekday daytime driving. By comparison, females spent on average 10.0 hours (SD = 8.0) driving each week, and 4.6 hours (SD = 5.0) during weekday daytime hours. However, while there was a trend for differences, this did not reach the adjusted significance level.⁶

Males and females did not significantly differ in the amount of time spent driving at night (both on weekdays and weekends) or during daytime hours on weekends.

Crash involvement

No significant gender differences were found on any aspects of crash involvement (percentage involved in a crash when driving, number of crashes, crash characteristics, number fined/charged as a result of a crash).

Detection for speeding and police contact for driving-related offences

Males had been apprehended for driving-related offences significantly more often than females. Thus, males had been detected speeding 2.1 times (SD = 3.0) in their driving career on average, while females had been detected 1.2 times on average (SD = 1.6).⁷ Additionally, significantly more males (21%) than females (9%) had been in contact with the police for a driving-related offence in the past 12 months.⁸

Risky driving

Gender differences were also evident on risky driving (Figure 4). Males were more likely than females to have engaged in moderate- and high-level speeding (11-25 km/h and > 25 km/h over the limit) at least once during their ten most recent driving trips and to have driven when affected by alcohol.⁹ There were also trends for more young men than young women to have driven up to 10 km/h over the limit and to have not worn a seatbelt for part of the trip.¹⁰

Figure 4. Engagement in risky driving during previous ten trips, males and females, at 23-24 years

Females, on the other hand, were more likely to have driven when very tired on at least one of their ten most recent trips.¹¹ There was also a trend for them to have more often used a mobile phone function while driving.¹²

Drink-driving

Significantly more males than females reported drink-driving during the past month.¹³ Close to a third of young men (31%) had driven when over or near the limit, compared with 14% of young women.

While young men and young women had driven when over the limit on relatively few days in the past month, males had done so more often than females (males: M = 0.6 days, SD = 1.3; females: M = 0.2 days, SD = 0.5). ¹⁴

Significantly more males (51%) than females (34%) had friends who were drink-drivers, but females were significantly more likely to have a partner who drove after drinking (18% vs 6%).¹⁵

Gender differences were also found in the frequency with which young men and women made plans to avoid drink-driving (Figure 5).¹⁶

Figure 5. Frequency of plans being made to avoid drink-driving, males and females, at 23-24 years

Of the young people who made plans to avoid drink-driving (Figure 6), young men were more likely to drink-drive on rare occasions (28% vs 14%).¹⁷ In contrast, a higher percentage of young women "never" engaged in drink-driving after making such plans (82% vs 67%).

Figure 6. Frequency of engaging in drink-driving after making plans to avoid it, males and females, at 23-24 years

Differences were also found in the types of strategies that young men and women used to avoid drink-driving (Figure 7). Young men were more likely than young women to have: (a) reduced the amount of alcohol they had consumed, (b) counted or spaced their drinks, and (c) consumed low-alcohol beer.¹⁸ There was also a trend for them to leave their car behind and be driven home by others, or to stay overnight. Young women were more likely to report that they had abstained from drinking alcohol altogether as a strategy to avoid drink-driving.¹⁹

Figure 7. Strategies used to avoid drink-driving, males and females, at 23-24 years

Summary: Gender differences

Young men and women significantly differed on many aspects of driving behaviour. Unsurprisingly, more young men than women had held a motorcycle licence at some stage during their driving careers. Young men were also more likely to have had their car or motorbike licence cancelled or suspended.

There were no significant gender differences in the occurrence, circumstances or outcomes of crashes. However, young men were more likely to have been apprehended for a driving-related offence than young women. Additionally, young men were more likely to engage in several unsafe driving practices than young women (moderate- and high-level speeding, driving when affected by alcohol). Females, on the other hand, were more likely to have driven when fatigued.

Consistent with these findings, a higher percentage of young men than young women had driven when near or over the legal alcohol limit during the previous month, and had friends who engaged in drink-driving. Females, on the other hand, were more likely to have a romantic partner who drove after drinking.

While most young people reported regularly making plans to avoid drink-driving, young men were more likely than young women to be among the small group that rarely did so. Young men were also more likely than young women to report that on rare occasions they had ended up drink-driving despite making plans to avoid doing so.

Significant differences were also evident in the strategies that young men and women used to avoid drink-driving. Whereas young women more often abstained from drinking altogether, young men were more likely to alter their drinking habits (e.g., drink less, count or space their drinks, or drink low-alcohol beer).

3.3 Metropolitan and non-metropolitan differences

Young people's residence locality was classified into "met" and "ex-met" categories (capital city statistical division vs rest of state) using Australian Bureau of Statistics criteria. A number of significant differences were found in the driving experiences and behaviours of young people living in metropolitan (n = 682, 68% of sample) and non-metropolitan areas (n = 312, 31%).

Licensing

Young people living in metropolitan and non-metropolitan localities did not significantly differ in the types and lengths of time licences had been held, or rates of suspension or cancellation of a licence.

Time spent driving

While there were trends for young people living in metropolitan areas to spend a little longer on the road on weekdays (both during daytime and night-time hours) and more hours driving in total, these did not reach the adjusted significance level.²⁰ There were no differences in the amount of time spent driving on weekends (during daytime and night-time hours).

Crash involvement

More 23-24 year old drivers living in metropolitan areas had been involved in a crash when driving than those living in non-metropolitan areas (63% vs 52%).²¹ Metropolitan drivers had also been involved in more crashes on average (1.08 vs 0.79 crashes) and more crashes that resulted in property damage when driving alone (0.86 vs 0.55 crashes), while there was a trend for them to have been involved in these type of crashes when they were also carrying passengers.²² However, there were no significant differences on rates of crashes that resulted in injury or death, or the proportion who had been fined or charged as a result of a crash.

Detection for speeding and police contact for driving-related offences

There were no differences between young people from metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas on the number of times they had been detected speeding, or had police contact for driving-related offences.

Risky driving

Several differences were found between metropolitan and non-metropolitan drivers in their engagement in risky driving. A higher percentage of metropolitan drivers had talked on a hands-free mobile while driving on at least one of their ten most recent trips (49% vs 31%), whereas non-metropolitan drivers were more likely to have not worn a seatbelt or helmet for a part of a recent trip (18% vs 11%). There was also a similar trend for differences on failure to wear a seatbelt for the whole of a trip.²³

Drink-driving

Similar numbers of 23-24 year olds from metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas had engaged in drink-driving at least once in the past month. There was a trend for young people from non-metropolitan areas to drink-drive on more days than their metropolitan counterparts (non-metropolitan: M = 0.5 days, SD = 1.2; metropolitan: M = 0.3 days, SD = 0.7), but this did not reach the adjusted significance level.²⁴ There was also a trend for more young drivers living in non-metropolitan areas to have friends who engaged in drink-driving (46% vs 38%), but again, this did not reach the adjusted significance level.²⁵ Metropolitan and non-metropolitan drivers did not significantly differ in their likelihood of having a partner who drove after having too much to drink.

No significant differences were found between metropolitan and non-metropolitan young drivers on making plans to avoid drink-driving, or the frequency of drink-driving after making plans to avoid doing so. However, a number of significant differences were found in the types of strategies used to avoid drink-driving. As shown in Figure 8, non-metropolitan drivers were more likely to report that, to avoid drink-driving, they had left their car behind and (a) been driven home, (b) taken a taxi or public transport, and/or (c) found another way home.²⁶ In contrast, metropolitan drivers were more likely to report that they had (a) reduced the amount of alcohol they had consumed, (b) counted or spaced their drinks, or (c) consumed more water or soft drink.²⁷ Thus, young people from metropolitan areas were more likely to change their drinking habits to avoid drink-driving, while their counterparts from non-metropolitan areas were more likely to leave their car behind and arrange another way to get home.

Figure 8. Strategies used to avoid drink-driving, metropolitan and non-metropolitan young drivers, at 23-24 years

Summary: Metropolitan and non-metropolitan differences

Young people from metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas significantly differed on a number of aspects of their driving behaviour.

Those from metropolitan areas had more often been involved in a crash, and had experienced more crashes on average than non-metropolitan 23-24 year olds (particularly those resulting in property damage when driving alone).

The two groups did not significantly differ in their licensing status or the amount of contact they had with police for driving-related offences. However, they did differ on several aspects of risky driving. Rates of hands-free mobile phone use when driving were higher among young people residing in metropolitan areas, while non-metropolitan drivers were more likely to report that they had not worn a seatbelt (or helmet) when driving for part of a trip.

While there were no significant differences on rates of drink-driving, differences were found in the strategies the two groups used to avoid drink-driving. While non-metropolitan drivers were more likely to leave their car behind and find an alternative way home (e.g., be driven home, take a taxi or public transport, find another way home), metropolitan drivers were more likely to alter their drinking habits (e.g., drink less, count or space drinks, or drink more water or soft drink).

3.4 Occupational status differences

The ANU-4 Occupation Status scale (Jones & McMillan, 2001) was used to rank young people's occupations in order of relative prestige. The scale assigns a score, ranging from 0 to 100, to an individual's occupation. In devising the ranking, the ANU-4 takes into account the occupation's ranking on the Australian Bureau of Statistics' Classification of Occupations, and relationships between the occupation and Australian population educational attainment and income levels.

Young people were divided into three groups on the basis of their occupation status. These were:

• a low occupational status group (n = 220, the lowest 25% of the ATP sample in terms of occupational status);
• an average occupational status group (n = 449, the middle 51% of the ATP sample in terms of the status of their occupation); and
• a high occupational status group (n = 212, the highest 24% of the ATP sample in terms of their occupational status).

Licensing

Young people employed in low-, average- and high-status occupations did not significantly differ in the types and lengths of time licences had been held, or whether a licence had been cancelled or suspended.

Time spent driving

The three occupational status groups did not significantly differ in the amount of time spent driving each week (in total, during weekdays and weekends, or during daytime or night-time hours).

Crash involvement

Young people employed in low-, average- and high-status occupations did not significantly differ in their likelihood of involvement in a crash, the number and types of crashes experienced, or their receipt of a fine or charge as a result of a crash.

Detection for speeding and police contact for driving-related offences

No significant differences were found between the three occupational status groups in the number of times they had been detected speeding, or their level of police contact for driving-related offences.

Risky driving

A similar proportion of young people employed in low-, average- and high-status occupations had engaged in each type of risky driving behaviour.

Drink-driving

Young drivers in the low, average and high occupational status groups did not significantly differ in their likelihood of engaging in drink-driving, or the frequency with which they had driven when near or over the alcohol limit during the past month.

There were no significant differences in the drink-driving behaviour of their friends and romantic partners.

There were also no significant differences in how often young people in the three groups made plans to avoid drink-driving. However, those in the high occupational status group were less likely to engage in drink-driving after making such plans than other drivers (Figure 9).²⁸

Figure 9. Frequency of drink-driving after making plans to avoid it, low-, average- and high-status occupations, at 23-24 years

There were trends for differences in the types of strategies used to avoid drink-driving. For example, those in the low occupational status group were more likely to limit the amount of money spent on alcohol (low: 12%; average: 7%; high: 7%), and less likely to plan ahead and take a taxi or public transport to their destination (low: 52%; average: 63%; high: 64%), but these did not reach the adjusted significance level.²⁹

Summary: Occupational level differences

Overall, young people employed in low-, average- and high-status occupations did not differ in their driving behaviour. Thus, no significant differences were found in their licensing status, driving patterns, level of crash involvement or rate of apprehension for driving-related offences. The only difference found was on how often these groups engaged in drink-driving after making plans to avoid doing so (this was less likely to have occurred among those in high-status occupations).

3.5 Education level differences

Young people were classified into groups on the basis of the highest level of education they had completed. These were:

• secondary (n = 296, 30%): those who had completed some or all of their secondary education, but not engaged in any post-secondary education;
• other post-secondary (n = 258, 26%): those who had completed some form of post-secondary education other than a university degree (e.g., a TAFE diploma/certificate, an apprenticeship); and
• university (n = 440, 44%): those who had completed a university degree.

Comparisons of these groups revealed a number of significant differences.

Licensing

Some significant differences in the licensing status of the three educational attainment groups were found. As shown in Figure 10, fewer of those with secondary education held a driver's licence (90%) and more held a learner's permit (6%) than those in the other post-secondary group (98% of whom held a driver's licence and 1% a learner's permit).³⁰

Figure 10. Type of licence held by secondary, other post-secondary and university groups, at 23-24 years

Young people with a university qualification were less likely to have had their licence cancelled or suspended than those in the other post-secondary group (secondary: 9%; other post-secondary: 10%; university: 3%).³¹

Time spent driving

The group who had completed other post-secondary education spent close to 12 hours a week driving on average (M = 11.8, SD = 9.9), whereas those in the secondary education group spent about ten-and-a-half hours driving (M = 10.4, SD = 8.7), and those with a university degree, almost 10 hours per week behind the wheel (M = 9.9, SD = 8.4). While this represents a trend for differences, these did not reach the adjusted significance level.³² The three educational attainment groups did not significantly differ in the amount of time they spent driving at different times of the day (daytime, night-time) or week (weekdays, weekends).

Crash involvement

The three groups did not significantly differ in whether or not they had been involved in a crash, the total number of crashes experienced, or the type of property crashes experienced. However, there was a trend for those in the other post-secondary group to have been involved in more injury crashes when driving alone (M = 0.09, SD = 0.4) than those in the secondary (M = 0.03, SD = 0.2) and university (M = 0.03, SD = 0.2) groups (but note that rates of these types of crash were very low overall).³³

Young people with a secondary education had more often been fined or charged as a result of a crash than those with a university degree (secondary: M = 0.07, SD = 0.3; other post-secondary: M = 0.03, SD = 0.2; university: M = 0.01; SD = 0.1), although again it should be noted that this very rarely occurred in the ATP sample.³⁴

Detection for speeding and police contact for driving-related offences

Young people with a university degree had been detected speeding on fewer occasions (M = 1.2, SD = 1.6) than those with secondary (M = 1.7, SD = 2.1) and other post-secondary education (M = 1.8, SD = 3.2).³⁵

While those with a university degree were somewhat less likely to have been in contact with police for a driving-related offence than other drivers (11% vs 14% of the secondary and 18% of the other post-secondary groups), the differences found did not reach the adjusted significance level.³⁶

Risky driving

The three educational attainment groups did not significantly differ on their engagement in different risky driving behaviours, although there were some trends for differences (e.g., those with a university degree had less often been involved in moderate-level speeding (11-25 km/h over) or driven without a seatbelt or helmet for all or part of a recent driving trip).³⁷

Drink-driving

There were no differences between the secondary, other post-secondary and university groups in the proportion of young people who had engaged in drink-driving, or the number of days on which drink-driving had occurred.

Young people with a university degree were significantly less likely than those with a secondary education to have friends who engaged in drink-driving (secondary: 48%; other post-secondary: 43%; university: 35%).³⁸ However, the three groups did not significantly differ on the proportion whose partners were drink-drivers.

There were also no differences in the frequency with which the three groups made plans to avoid drink-driving. However, of the subset of young people who made plans to avoid drink-driving, fewer of the university group ended up drink-driving anyway (Figure 11).³⁹

Figure 11. Frequency of drink-driving after making plans to avoid it, secondary, other post-secondary and university groups, at 23-24 years

Several significant differences were found in the strategies that young people with differing levels of education used to avoid drink-driving (Figure 12). Those in the other post-secondary group were more likely to have abstained from drinking,⁴⁰ while young people with a university degree were significantly more likely than those in the secondary group to have planned ahead and been driven to their destination or taken a taxi or public transport, as a strategy to avoid drink-driving.⁴¹ Some other trends were also noted (e.g., those with a secondary education were more likely than those with a university degree to use a breath-testing machine or sleep in their car,⁴² and the other post-secondary group were more likely to drink water or soft drink than the secondary group).

Figure 12. Actions taken to avoid drink-driving, secondary, other post-secondary and university groups, at 23-24 years

Summary: Educational level differences

Young people with differing levels of education significantly differed in several aspects of their driving experiences and behaviours. For instance, 23-24 year-olds who had completed some or all of their secondary education but had no post-secondary education were more likely to hold a learner's permit, and less likely to hold a car licence than their counterparts with a university or other post-secondary qualification. Those with a university degree were less likely to have had their licence cancelled or suspended than those with another type of post-secondary education qualification.

No differences were evident on typical driving patterns and crash involvement. However, those with only secondary education were more likely to have been fined or charged as a result of involvement in a crash, although this was very rare overall.

Turning now to apprehension for driving-related offences, young people with a university degree had been detected speeding on fewer occasions.

Young people with a university degree were also less likely to have friends who were drink-drivers, and were less likely themselves to drink-drive after making plans to avoid doing so.

The three educational attainment groups differed somewhat in the strategies they used to avoid drink-driving. Those in the other post-secondary group were more likely to abstain from drinking, while young people in the university group were more likely to plan ahead and arrange alternative transport to their destination (e.g., be driven there, or take a taxi or public transport).

• ² Due to a small amount of missing data, the n varies very slightly across the items.>
• ³ A sizeable number of those who indicated that they had been involved in a crash did not provide data regarding the characteristics and outcomes of the crashes they had been involved in. Hence these figures may somewhat underestimate the rate of these different crash types in this sample.>
• ⁴ χ²(1) = 48.19, p < .001.>
• ⁵ χ²(1) = 35.35, p < .001.>
• ⁶ Time spent driving each week: t(648.75) = 2.43, p < .05 (trend); time spent driving during weekday, daylight hours: t(677.40) = 2.08, p < .05 (trend).>
• ⁷ t(499.69) = 5.26, p < .001.>
• ⁸ χ²(1) = 30.97, p < .001.>
• ⁹ Driven 11-25 km/h over speed limit: χ²(1) = 51.66, p < .001; driven > 25 km/h over speed limit: χ²(1) = 58.74, p < .001; driven when affected by alcohol: χ²(1) = 26.94, p < .001.>
• ¹⁰ Driven up to 10 km/h over the limit: χ²(1) = 5.82, p < .05 (trend); not worn a seatbelt/helmet for part of trip: χ²(1) = 4.68, p < .05 (trend).>
• ¹¹ χ²(1) = 6.76, p < .01.>
• ¹² χ²(1) = 3.92, p < .05 (trend).>
• ¹³ χ²(1) = 41.37, p < .001.>
• ¹⁴ t(438.24) = 5.32, p < .001.>
• ¹⁵ Have friends who are drink-drivers: χ²(1) = 26.83, p < .001; have a partner who drink-drives: χ²(1) = 18.60, p < .001.>
• ¹⁶ χ²(4) = 20.16, p < .001.>
• ¹⁷ χ²(2) = 28.58, p < .001.>
• ¹⁸ Reduced amount of alcohol consumed: χ²(1) = 17.97, p < .001; counted or spaced drinks: χ²(1) = 9.08, p < .01; consumed low alcohol beer: χ²(1) = 65.36, p < .001; left car behind and been driven home by others: χ²(1) = 5.26, p < .05 (trend); stayed overnight: χ²(1) = 6.40, p < .05 (trend).>
• ¹⁹ χ²(1) = 10.02, p < .01>
• ²⁰ Time spent driving during weekday, daytime hours: t(930) = 2.05, p < .05 (trend); time spent driving during weekday, night-time hours: t(863) = 2.17, p < .05 (trend); time spent driving each week: t(942) = 2.39, p < .05 (trend).>
• ²¹ χ²(1) = 11.53, p < .001.>
• ²² Total number of crashes: t(927) = 3.78, p < .001; crashes resulting in property damage, when driving alone: t(651.83) = 5.05, p < .001; crashes resulting in property damage, when carrying passengers: t(491.51) = 2.06, p < .05 (trend).>
• ²³ Talked on a hands-free mobile phone when driving: χ²(1) = 27.33, p < .001 = ; did not wear a seatbelt or helmet for part of a trip: χ²(1) = 8.40, p < .01; did not wear a seatbelt or helmet at all: χ²(1) = 3.97, p < .05 (trend).>
• ²⁴ t(388.66) = 2.05, p < .05 (trend).>
• ²⁵ χ²(1) = 5.28, p < .05 (trend).>
• ²⁶ Left car behind and been driven home: χ²(1) = 13.40, p < .001; left car behind and taken a taxi or public transport: χ²(1) = 21.38, p < .001; left car behind and found another way home: χ²(1) = 12.58, p < .001.>
• ²⁷ Reduced amount of alcohol consumed: χ²(1) = 13.71, p < .001; counted or spaced drinks: χ²(1) = 14.76, p < .001; consumed more water or soft drink: χ²(1) = 7.46, p < .01.>
• ²⁸ χ²(4) = 15.98, p < .01.>
• ²⁹ Limited amount of money spent on alcohol: χ²(2) = 6.41, p < .05 (trend); planned ahead and taken a taxi or public transport: χ²(2) = 8.80, p < .05 (trend).>
• ³⁰ Held a driver's licence: χ²(2) = 17.39, <em>p</em> = < .001; held a learner's permit: χ²(2) = 12.91, p < .01.>
• ³¹ χ²(2) = 14.76, <em>p</em> = < .001.>
• ³² F(2,940) = 3.82, p < .05 (trend).>
• ³³ F(2,658) = 3.13, p < .05.>
• ³⁴ F(2,776) = 5.62, p < .01.>
• ³⁵ F(2,947) = 6.44, p < .01.>
• ³⁶ χ²(2) = 7.90, p < .05 (trend).>
• ³⁷ Drove 11-25 km/h over the limit: χ²(2) = 9.08, p < .05; drove without a seatbelt or helmet at all: χ²(2) = 7.30, p < .05 (trend); drove without a seatbelt or helmet for part of a trip: χ²(2) = 6.48, p < .05 (trend).>
• ³⁸ χ²(4) = 16.05, p < .003.>
• ³⁹ χ²(4) = 14.39, p < .01.>
• ⁴⁰ Didn't drink alcohol: χ²(2) = 13.53, p < .001; drank more water or soft drink: χ²(2) = 7.67, p < .05 (trend).>
• ⁴¹ Planned ahead and got someone else to drive: χ²(2) = 9.44, p < .01; planned ahead and taken a taxi or public transport: χ²(2) = 15.62, p < .001.>
• ⁴² Used a breath-testing machine: χ²(2) = 7.65, p < .05 (trend); slept in their car: χ²(2) = 6.15, p < .05 (trend).>