Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Fatigue and beyond: Patterns of, and motivations for illicit drug use among long haul
truck drivers
Naomi Richards BPsych (Hons)
This thesis is submitted for the degree of Masters of Applied Science (Research) within
the Centre for Accident Research and Road Safety-Queensland (CARRS-Q), School of
Psychology and Counselling, Queensland University of Technology
2004
Key words Drug use Drug use career Illicit drug use Road safety Truck drivers
Abstract
Long distance truck drivers are considered a special interest group in terms of drug
driving research and policy due to high rates of use, involvement of drugs in truck
accidents and the link between drug use and work related fatigue. Qualitative interview
data was collected from 35 long haul truck drivers in South East Queensland and
analysed using NVivo 2.0. High rates of licit and illicit drug use (particularly
amphetamines) were reported. However, unlike previous studies which focus on fatigue,
this research found overlapping and changing motivations for drug use during individual
lifetimes. Using Becker’s model of a drug use ‘career’ it was revealed that some drivers
begin illicit drug use before they begin truck driving. As well as fatigue, powerful
motives such as peer pressure, wanting to fit the trucking ‘image’, socialisation,
relaxation and addiction were reported. These may need to be considered along side
fatigue in the development of effective drug prevention or cessation policies for truck
drivers.
Contents
Page
1. Introduction 1
2. Literature Review 5
2.1. Drugs of concern to road safety 5
2.1.1. Cannabis 6
2.1.1.1. Effects of cannabis on driving performance 7
2.1.2. Central Nervous System stimulants 9
2.1.2.1. Amphetamine/Methamphetamine (Speed) 9
2.1.2.2. Ecstasy 11
2.1.2.3 Cocaine 12
2.1.2.4. Stimulant pharmaceuticals (phentermine, ephedrine,
pseudoephedrine, modafinil) 12
2.1.2.5. Effects of CNS stimulants on driving performance 14
2.2. Prevalence of drug driving and the contribution of drug driving to
traffic accidents 15
2.3. Drug driving in the road transport industry: Prevalence and crash risk 18
2.4. Drug use as a fatigue countermeasure in the road transport industry 20
2.4.1. Fatigue and truck driving 20
2.4.2. Fatigue countermeasures in the road transport industry 23
2.4.3. Educational programs and behavioural fatigue countermeasures 24
2.4.4. Driving hours restrictions 25
2.5. Enforcement of driving hours and drug driving legislation 32
2.5.1. Chain of Responsibility 32
2.5.2. Drug testing of truck drivers 33
2.6. Why do people use drugs? Risk factors for drug use in the general
population 35
2.6.1. Risk factors for drug use in the workplace 36
2.6.2. Social and situational risk factors for illicit drug use 36
2.6.3. Personality types 37
2.6.4. Dependence 37
2.7. A theoretical stance - Becker (1963) 38
2.7.1. Deviant groups: ‘Outsiders’ 38
2.7.2. Becoming a drug user: Stages of a drug use career 40
2.7.2.1. Learning the technique 40
2.7.2.2. Learning to perceive the effects 40
2.7.2.3. Learning to enjoy the effects 41
2.7.3. Social control: 41
2.7.3.1. Supply 42
2.7.3.2. Secrecy 42
2.7.3.3. Morality 43
2.8. Aims 43
3. Method 45
3.1. Participants 45
3.2. Materials 48
3.2.1. Demographic items 48
3.2.2. Peer report drug usage 48
3.2.3. Self report drug usage 49
3.2.4. Career paths in drug use 49
3.3. Procedure 50
4. Results 52
4.1. Demographic items 52
4.2. Self report illicit drug use status 52
4.3. Self report licit drug use status 54
4.4. Peer report licit drug use 55
4.5. Peer report illicit drug use 59
4.6. Addressing the problem of illicit drug use in the road transport industry 67
4.7. Becker’s theory of a drug use career 75
4.7.1. Becoming a drug user - past users 75
4.7.2. Becoming a drug user - current users 77
4.7.3. Becoming a drug user - opinions of those that have never used 82
4.7.4. Supply 84
4.7.5. Secrecy 85
4.7.6. Morality 90
5. Discussion 95
5.1. Drug use prevalence and patterns 95
5.2. Drug use as a fatigue countermeasure 96
5.3. Drug use for reasons other than fatigue 97
5.4. Drug use careers (Becker) 99
5.4.1. Past users 99
5.4.2. Current users 99
5.5. Social controls 101
5.5.1. Supply 101
5.5.2. Secrecy 101
5.5.3. Morality 102
5.5. Addressing the problem of illicit drug use among long haul truck drivers 103
6. Conclusion 105
6.1. Implications of this research 105
6.2. Limitations of this research 106
6.3. Recommendations for future research 107
Glossary of terms 108
References 111
Appendix A. Recruitment advertisement 122
Appendix B. Interview format 123
Appendix C. Information and consent form 131
Tables
Page
Table 1: Drugs (other than alcohol) recognised as potential crash
risk (Drummer, 1995) 6
Table 2: Driving and rest schedules allowable under the Standard
Hours regime 26
Table 3: Self reported usage rates of illicit drug types 53
Table 4: Self reported usage rates of legal drug types 54
Table 5: Respondents who had never used illicit drugs (n=15):
Perceived reasons why truck drivers use illicit drugs 61
Table 6: Respondents who have used illicit drugs in the past (n=6):
Perceived reasons why truck drivers use illicit drugs 62
Table 7: Respondents who currently use illicit drugs (n=14):
Perceived reasons why truck drivers use illicit drugs 62
Statement of original ownership
The work as presented in this thesis is, to the best of my knowledge, original except as
acknowledged in the text. I hereby declare that I have not submitted this material - either
in whole or in part - for a degree at this or any other institution.
Naomi Richards
ii
Acknowledgements
I wish to thank CARRS-Q and in particular, Dr. Jeremy Davey for the opportunity to
undertake this project. Dr. Davey’s guidance, supervision and friendship has been
invaluable. Also, I am grateful to Queensland Police for the provision of my scholarship.
Finally, sincere thanks to all the truck drivers that were involved in this project. Their
willingness to give their time and divulge their personal stories is to be greatly admired.
1. Introduction
Whilst drink driving has long been considered a social problem worthy of
substantial research and campaign efforts, it is only relatively recently that increasing
attention has been given to the issue of drug driving. Statistics are emerging which
demonstrate the extent of the problem of drug driving within the community - including
the types of drugs used whilst driving, how these affect performance and the types of
people that are likely to be high risk.
Regarding this issue, long haul truck drivers are generally considered a special
interest group. There is considerable evidence of high rates of both illicit and licit
substance use among truck drivers both in Australia and internationally and a general
consensus that drug taking for truck drivers is a means of alleviating work related fatigue.
Whether or not this is the case, this behaviour has been linked to accident
culpability and consequently several legislative measures to combat the problem have
been enforced. Most notably, at the end of the 1980’s tighter controls were placed on
stimulant pharmaceuticals (such as the prescription amphetamine based weight loss drug
Duromine) that truck drivers were commonly obtaining illegally. However truck drivers
argued that at the same time the issue of fatigue was ignored, so many truck drivers
turned to illicitly manufactured stimulants (most notably speed) instead.
More recently, driving hours restrictions (such as the Fatigue Management
Program) have been enforced in order to reduce the problem of truck drivers working
whilst fatigued. This effort has been coupled with the introduction of drug testing and a
penalty structure for drug taking or breaches of driving hours that includes those in the
supply chain beyond the driver (the ‘Chain of Responsibility’). These policies have been
met with mixed responses, some industry representatives arguing that driving hours
restrictions are inappropriate or difficult to adhere to in the real world.
Most research on the issue of truck drivers and illicit drug use focuses on accident
culpability, drug usage rates and/or fatigue. Very little if any research to date allows the
drivers to tell their stories, to describe their motives for use and transitions from non-
users to users (and possibly addicts). In order to do just that, the current research used
qualitative interviews to provide a thorough insight into the lives of these men. It was
thought that a better understanding of their lifestyle may prove useful in promoting
abstinence or rehabilitation from drug use.
To structure the interviews, Becker’s (1963) theory of a ‘career path’ in drug use
was used. Drivers described their initiation, experiences as a beginner and motivations for
continued use over time. Becker (1963) described ‘Outsiders’ as deviant groups that are
somewhat removed from mainstream society - and the drug using truck drivers
interviewed conveyed this concept regarding their own lives.
Importantly, it was found that the theme of fatigue was interwoven with other
powerful motivations that have seemingly been overlooked in research on this problem.
The issues of social use, recreation and relaxation, peer pressure to use (fitting the
trucking image) and addiction were repeatedly mentioned. It was thought that many
social, biological and situational risk factors for drug use in the general population are
likely to apply to truck drivers as well. This research concludes that when addressing the
problem of illicit drug use by truck drivers, powerful motivating factors for use other than
(but as well as) fatigue must be addressed.
The following chapter (Chapter 2) is a review of the literature relevant to illicit
drug use by long haul truck drivers. Firstly, the types of drugs pertinent to road safety in
terms of prevalence among the driving (in particular, truck driving) population and
potentially skill impeding characteristics, are discussed with reference to empirical
findings.
Considerable attention is given in this chapter to the topic of work related fatigue
as a causal factor for drug driving in the road transport industry. The importance of this
issue is strongly established by previous studies. The significance of fatigue is also
demonstrated by intervention and prevention strategies that are researched, debated and
enforced. Such strategies (such as driving-hours reforms) and research and anecdotal
opinions of their effectiveness are outlined.
Social, biological and situational risk factors for drug taking in the general
population (and in workplaces more specifically) are examined - as this research aims to
explore the possibility and nature of motives beyond fatigue for truck drivers’ illicit drug
use. It is suggested that if further motivations are prevalent, measures to address the
problem must extend beyond fatigue reduction strategies. Becker’s (1963) theory of a
drug use career is described in this chapter as it is used in this research to tease out the
complex, overlapping reasons for substance use and continued use for the duration of a
individual’s ‘drug use career’.
Chapter 3 is a description of the qualitative methodology employed for this study.
It includes an overview of the recruitment, interview and data analysis processes, as well
as detail of the structure and contents of the interviews.
Chapter 4 details the findings of the focused interviews. There is extensive use of
direct quotations in this section due to the qualitative nature of the research and the value
of these in providing complex, in-depth information without suggestive response
categories that a quantitative survey would present. In short, the quotations are used to
graphically exhibit the experiences and opinions of the drivers in a way that a purely
quantitative (statistical) presentation of results could not. Subsections of the Results
chapter include demographic information, self report illicit and licit drug use patterns and
motivations, peer report licit and drug use patterns and motivations, addressing the
problem of illicit drug use in the road transport industry and thorough investigation of
individual ‘drug use careers’ as structured by Becker’s (1963) theoretical framework.
The results are discussed in Chapter 5, beginning with a summary of drug use
statistics, comments on these and comparisons with past research. Here, the influence of
fatigue and other factors (such as socialisation, recreation and dependency) on drug
taking by truck drivers is summarised using salient findings. The patterns that emerge in
the career paths are given particular focus and illustrate the importance of the co-existing
motivations. This is also evident in the discussion of truck drivers’ opinions of possible
means of addressing this problem.
Chapter 6 concludes this research by providing a summary of implications of the
work in terms of adding new information to the existing body of knowledge on this topic
as well as for practice in addressing the problem of illicit drug use in the road transport
industry. Limitations of the current study and suggestions for future research in the field
are also discussed.
2. Literature Review
Despite the technical and methodological difficulties of drug driving research and
policy, it is well documented that use of various types of drugs (other than alcohol) is
highly prevalent in the population (Victorian Parliamentary Road Safety Committee
(VPRSC), 1996). Also, the very nature of drug use is to deliberately alter physical and/or
mental function and hence such substances must be acknowledged as being capable of
impairing driving skill (Marowitz, 1995). This assumption is supported by controlled
studies which illustrate the contribution of drug use to physiological and mental
impairment of the driving task- as well as analyses of accident statistics (Drummer,
1995). Drugs that are of most concern to road safety are therefore those that have
debilitating effects on driving skills and behaviours and that are significantly prevalent in
the driving population (Austroads, 2000).
2.1. Drugs of concern to road safety Drummer (1995) described various drug categories
that may increase crash risk. These are shown in Table 1.
Table 1.
Drugs (other than alcohol) recognised as potential crash risk (Drummer, 1995).
Of particular interest to the current research are cannabis and the central nervous
system stimulants, as these are extensively reported as the drugs of choice of truck
drivers that drug drive (eg. Victoria Police State Highway Task Force (VPSHTF), 1995;
Hartley & Arnold, 1999; Swann 2002). The pharmacology of these drugs as well as
analyses of their effects on driver performance is described as follows.
2.1.1. Cannabis Cannabis (marijuana) is a widely used depressant drug that is
predominantly smoked (Australian Drug Foundation (ADF), 1999). The active
ingredient, delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), typically has a relaxing, euphoric effect
when ingested, which usually lasts two to three hours (ADF, 1999). For this reason,
marijuana is sometimes used to counter the effects of stimulants when the subject wants
to ‘come down’. This pattern of drug taking behaviour has been reported among truck
drivers (e.g. VPSHTF, 1995; Swann, 2002).
In the short term, cannabis can produce states of stimulation, depression or
hallucination, depending on dosage and individual factors (European Monitoring Centre
for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA), 1999). Larger doses of THC may effect
intellectual functioning causing confusion, anxiety, panic, paranoia, loss of memory or
lack of sense of time (Hunter, Lokan, Longo, White & White, 1998). Impaired brain
functioning, particularly the ability to learn and memorise information can result from
long term use (EMCDDA, 1999) and there is mounting evidence that heavy, regular
cannabis use can be linked to psychosis (ADF, 1999). Short term effects of cannabis
ingestion which are particularly worrisome in terms of driving are the slowing of reaction
time and decreasing balance and co-ordination due to depression of the central nervous
system (Drummer, 1995).
2.1.1.1. Effects of cannabis on driving performance Several laboratory and field
studies showing driver impairment after marijuana use were reviewed in the report Drugs
and driving in Australia by Austroads (2000). This research generally found driver
response time and concentration to be negatively affected by the drug. Also, visual
tracking skills and immediate decision making ability were significantly depleted
(Starmer & Mascord, 1994, Ward & Dye, 1999; cited in Austroads, 2000). Ogden and
colleagues found that when performing a simulated driving task, marijuana intoxication
caused subjects to have difficulty maintaining their position within lanes. Furthermore,
non-regular users showed a greater level of driving impairment: this group recording
many collisions and poor reactions to sudden stimuli Ogden, Papafotiou, Stough &
Sullivan, 2003). In a non-simulator study (where participants were required to drive a
vehicle on a closed road) Robbe (1995) found that marijuana smoking inhibited the
ability to drive within lanes. Whilst significant, this effect was found to be dose related
and was not dramatic. This research also reported that aspects of vehicle handling and the
ability to manoeuvre in traffic were unaffected by cannabis intoxication (Robbe, 1995)
In contrast to these findings, a German study by Kreuger and Vollrath (2000)
found no depletion of driving skills as a result of THC intoxication. This study involved
342 young people who were entering or leaving clubs and ‘rave’ parties late at night.
Respondents were questioned about their drug and alcohol consumption and then
performed a simulated driving task set up in a nearby van. Those that had ingested
cannabis recently (indicated by high THC levels in the blood) performed well at lane
keeping and no effect was noted in speed variation or other driving tasks. When cannabis
consumption was less recent (but THC still active in the bloodstream) lane keeping
improved further and speed was somewhat reduced (Kreuger & Vollrath, 2000).
An earlier American study by Dott (1972) also found that those intoxicated with
cannabis were less likely to take risks when driving (such as overtaking) and were also
more cautious, more passive and had no more accidents than control subjects (cited in
Marowitz, 1995). This trend can be explained by the notion of ‘risk homeostasis’-
whereby the level of risk is adjusted to the normal point (by being overly cautious) where
there is an external contribution to higher risk (intoxication) (Wilde, 1982; cited in
Soames Job, 1999).
Taking into account a large body of literature on field and laboratory studies
investigating the effects of cannabis on driving, the World Health Organisation’s (1996)
official statement on the matter is generally upheld:
“There is sufficient consistency and coherence in the evidence from experimental studies and studies of cannabinoid levels among accident
victims to conclude that there is an increased risk of motor vehicle accidents among persons who drive when intoxicated with cannabis…This risk is magnified when cannabis is combined with intoxicating doses of alcohol…” (WHO 1996, p. 15; cited in EMCDDA, 1999).
2.1.2. Central nervous system stimulants This group of drugs consists of illicit
amphetamines such as methamphetamine (speed) and methylenedioxy-methamphetamine
(ecstasy). Although it is not an amphetamine, cocaine is also included in this group. Licit
CNS stimulants include the ephedrines, and phentermine (Parliamentary Travelsafe
Committee (PTC), 1999). Much of the focus of the current research is stimulant drugs.
2.1.2.1. Amphetamine/Methamphetamine (speed) In Australia, amphetamines are
the second most commonly used illicit drugs after cannabis (Darke, Ross, Hando, Hall &
Degenhardt, 2000) and usage is increasing in most states (Australian Bureau of Criminal
Investigation (ABCI), 2002; cited in Topp, Kaye, Bruno, Hargreaves, Longo, Williams,
O’Reilly, Fry, Rose & Darke, 2002). There are strong indications that the manufacture of
illicit forms of amphetamine has increased significantly in this country in recent years.
For example, in 2002 the Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence reported increasing
incidence of detection of ‘backyard’ clandestine methamphetamine laboratories as well as
general seizures of the drug (cited in Topp et al., 2002). Seventy-seven laboratories were
detected in Queensland in 2001. This was the highest number detected in an Australian
state or territory in that year. Also pharmaceutical companies are reporting more and
more thefts of products such as Sudafed which are known to be used as a precursor in the
manufacture of methamphetamine (ABCI, 2002; cited in Topp et al., 2002).
Illicit amphetamines are reportedly the most widely used stimulants among truck
drivers, whereas prescription stimulants such as Duromine and ephedrine were once more
commonly used by this cohort (VPSHTF, 1995; Wardlaw, 1993, cited in Topp et al.,
2002). Restrictions on availability of these pharmaceuticals followed two accidents in
New South Wales in 1989 with multiple fatalities (Victorian Parliamentary Road Safety
Committee, 1996). These stimulant drugs were identified as a factor in both crashes
(VPRC, 1996) and hence legislative controls were introduced. Not only did trends
towards illicit amphetamine consumption by truck drivers change as a result, but the
nature of illicit amphetamine manufacture also changed during this period.
Amphetamine sulphate was the most common illicit form of the drug prior to 1990, but
the main precursor chemicals for manufacture became more difficult to obtain (Wardlaw,
1993; cited in Topp et al., 2001). Methamphetamine, which is stronger and arguably
more dangerous than amphetamine sulphate, has become the predominant illicit
amphetamine type as a result (ABCI, 2002; cited in Topp et al., 2002).
Powdered methamphetamine is generally less potent than liquid or crystal, as it
has been ‘cut’ to dilute the chemicals (ADF, 1999). All forms of this drug are commonly
known as ‘speed’, the more potent types are also known as ‘crystal meth’ and ‘base’
(ADF, 1999). Mabbott and Hartley (1999) reported that truck drivers also refer to an
illicit form of amphetamine as ‘ox blood’. Speed can be used intravenously; indeed this is
a worrying trend in Australia in terms of associated harms (Darke, Ross, Hando, Hall &
Denghart, 2000). Powdered speed is commonly snorted nasally or taken orally, often
mixed with drinks (Darke et al., 2000).
Speed has a physiological effect similar to that of adrenaline release in terms of
causing heart rate, blood pressure and metabolic rate to rise (PTC, 1999). The user
typically experiences feelings of alertness, wellbeing and increased energy (Kanieniecki,
Vincent, Allsop & Lintzeris, 1998). Self-confidence, talkativeness and inability to sleep
are also common effects of the drug in the short-term (Hunter et al., 1998).
Amphetamines have been accredited with improvement in performance of mental and
physical tasks, particularly where fatigue is otherwise inhibitive (Hunter et al., 1998),
however negative side effects are typical of use. These include mood swings, irritability,
aggression, unpredictable or irrational behaviour, paranoia and depression (Kanieniecki
et al., 1998). In some cases, brain damage and drug induced psychosis can occur from
long term use or high dosage (Drummer 1995; Hunter et al., 1998). As well as these
psychological and behavioural effects, poor physical health and severe malnutrition is
common with long term amphetamine use (Kanieniecki et al., 1998). Importantly, illicit
amphetamines are often cut with a range of substances, some of which are toxic.
Unpredictability of the extent of effect or accidental overdose may occur due to the
unknown purity of the drug when cut (ADF, 1999).
2.1.2.2. Ecstasy The designer amphetamine ecstasy is usually potent but shows
varying severity of effects from person to person (PTC, 1999). Low dosages can produce
feelings of wellbeing, affection, confidence and mild hallucinations (PTC, 1999).
Unwanted effects can include muscle spasms, convulsions, nausea and anxiety. There is
increasing evidence that in the long term ecstasy can cause brain damage which may
manifest in scattered thinking, memory loss, depression or anxiety (Kanieniecki et al.,
1998; Drummer, 1995). Ecstasy is usually taken in tablet form and there is a high risk of
inclusion of other substances in these tablets during manufacture (ADF, 1999). The
National Drug Strategy Household Survey (1999) indicates that there has been a rapid
increase in ecstasy use in Australia over the past decade, for example usage doubled
between 1995 and 1998 (cited in ADF, 1999).
2.1.2.3. Cocaine Cocaine hydrochloride is an odourless powder which is usually
snorted (ADF, 1999). Like the aforementioned stimulants, cocaine prolongs the action of
adrenaline, thus having similar effects as those of ecstasy and methamphetamine, with
emphasis on feelings of great strength and power of mind (Drummer, 1995; ADF, 1999).
Negative effects, both short and long term, are also similar to those of speed and ecstasy.
Cocaine is highly addictive and severe withdrawal effects can occur (ADF, 1999).
Cocaine use is relatively uncommon in Australia (Drummer, 1995).
2.1.2.4. Stimulant pharmaceuticals Phentermine is an anorexigenic (slimming)
drug usually prescribed to obese patients but it may also be useful in the treatment of
drug abuse (EMCDDA, 1999). Phentermine is the active ingredient in Duromine, a
weight loss medication available legally in Australia through prescription only
(allhealth.com.au). This drug has side effects including restlessness, insomnia and
nervousness. More severe side effects from overdose include cardiovascular and
gastrointestinal disturbances (allhealth.com.au). Inappropriate use of Duromine (when it
is obtained without legal prescription) is often due to a desire to exploit the anti-fatigue
side effects of the drug. This has been reported as a trend among long haul truck drivers
(e.g. Mabbott & Hartley, 1999; Drummer, 1995; VPSHTF, 1995; Hartley & Arnold,
1999). It is thought that among truck drivers, phentermine may be referred to as
“Shakers” (Mabbott & Hartley, 1999). This range of stimulants also includes Tenuate
Dospan (diethylpropion hydrochloride) which is referred to as “Briquettes” within this
cohort (Mabbott & Hartley, 1999).
Ephedrine hydrochloride and pseudoephedrine hydrochloride are the active
ingredients in a number of decongestant medications. Ephedrine is available legally
through prescription only (e.g. Fedrene), while several medications containing
pseudoephedrine are available without prescription, such as Sudafed and Demazin
(allhealth.com.au). Side effects of these drugs, particularly when recommended dosages
are exceeded, include palpitations, insomnia, tremors, seizures, anxiety, paranoia and
panic (allhealth.com.au). Dependence may develop (particularly with ephedrine) and
these drugs should not be taken with other stimulants (allhealth.com.au). Again,
ephedrine and pseudoephedrine are reportedly used by long haul truck drivers for the
stimulant effect rather than the intended medical purpose (e.g. Mabbott & Hartley, 1999;
Drummer, 1995; VPSHTF, 1995).
A relatively new licit product, modafinil, is worth mentioning as it has been
proposed as a safe and highly effective psychostimulant for use as an anti-fatigue agent
for truck drivers and pilots (Caldwell, 2000). Marketed under the names Provigil and
Modiodal, this is a eugeroic drug, meaning it is developed for its stimulatory action
specifically (Batejat & Lagarde, 1999), unlike the aforementioned pharmaceuticals.
Eugeroics are designed to treat narcolepsy, hypersomnia and cataplexy (a condition of
sudden muscular weakness or fatigue) (Mason, 1986). Researchers claim modafinil is
“more like caffeine in terms of safety, and yet as effective as the amphetamines” (Mason,
1986). Unlike amphetamines, this drug stimulates only when required - meaning one can
sleep if one attempts to, thus normal sleeping patterns are not disturbed by use (Lagarde,
Batejat, Van Beers, Sarafian & Pradella, 1995). Also modafinal is non-addictive and has
shown relatively few, minor side effects in clinical trials (Lagarde et al. 1995; Caldwell,
2000).
2.1.2.5. Effects of CNS stimulants on driving performance Aitken, Kerger &
Crofts (2000) interviewed Victorian amphetamine users about their perceptions of their
driving skills when using the drug. Commonly, feelings of invulnerability,
overconfidence, aggression and impatience were described (Aitken et al., 2000). Hurst
(1987) conducted a review of experimental studies on the effects of amphetamines on
driver performance. Overall, performance was enhanced in terms of vigilance and
reaction time, particularly in fatigued subjects (Hurst, 1987; cited in Hunter et al., 1998);
however these studies generally tested effects of low amphetamine dosages (EMCDDA,
1999). Negative effects have also been reported in such studies, these include subjective
overestimation of skill level and propensity for risk taking (Hunter et al., 1998). It must
be considered that laboratory studies such as these may not reflect on actual performance
on driving tasks and real-life characteristics of the drugs, dosage and the driver
(EMCDDA, 1999).
A field study by Krueger and Vollrath (2000) measured aspects of simulated
driving skill of a sample of young people leaving nightclubs with reported recent drug
consumption. It was found that poly drug use was detrimental to performance, however
high concentrations of ecstasy or amphetamines had no impairing effects on performance.
Another simulator study by Brookhuis, DeWaard and Pernot (2000) found similar results
to that of Krueger and Vollrath (2000), with only slightly more propensity for risk taking
amongst ecstasy users.
Perhaps the most dangerous aspect of driving under the influence of
amphetamines is when the driver is also fatigued and the drug is used as a
countermeasure (PTC, 1999). In such cases, profound and sudden fatigue is highly likely
when the stimulant effects of the drugs wear off (EMCDDA, 1999) and there is no
question that driving in this state is extremely dangerous (Swann, 2002). The ‘coming
down’ phase was unanimously recognised as the most dangerous stage for driving by
amphetamine users surveyed by Aitken et al. (2000). This issue is particularly relevant to
drivers in the road transport industry and will be addressed in depth later in this document
(PTC, 1999).
With regard to the aforementioned stimulant pharmaceuticals, it is strongly
recommended (i.e. on the packet) that people taking ephedrine and pseudoephedrine do
not drive or operate machinery (allhealth.com.au). There is no suggestion that patients
should not drive when using modafinil, in fact it is recommended as a safety measure for
drivers who may experience fatigue (Caldwell, 2000). Laboratory studies have shown
excellent stimulatory effects of modafinil in terms of wakefulness and task vigilance
during and after excessive periods of sleep deprivation. This drug has proven far superior
on these variables than amphetamines or placebo (Batejat & Lagarde, 1999; Lagarde et
al., 1995) for example on sleep deprived aviators’ performance on flight simulation tasks
(Caldwell, 2000). With regard to truck drivers, Swann (2002) suggested modafinil, “once
proven and available, could be considered as a safer alternative to stimulant drug use.
However, any driver based (fatigue) countermeasure that does not involve sleep increases
the potential for sleep rebound and microsleep attack” (p. 68).
2.2. Prevalence of drug driving and the contribution of drug driving to traffic accidents
The prevalence of drug driving is reportedly widespread and has increased in recent years
both in Australia (PTC, 1999) and overseas (International Council on Alcohol, Drugs and
Traffic Safety, 2000). However accurate assessment of the prevalence and contribution to
accident rates is very difficult to find due to a number of confounds of this type of
research (Waller, Blow, Maio, Hill, Singer & Schaefer 1995).
In a study of police detainees arrested for traffic violations in three Australian
states, the Australian Institute of Criminology found a high rate of potentially impairing
drugs in urinalysis of this sample. Indeed, 71% tested positive to at least one of the
aforementioned drug classes and 47% of these tested positive to a drug other than
cannabis (Makkai, Poyser, Norman & Mills, in press). It must, however be noted that this
sample is not representative of the general driving population (Waller et al., 1995).
A more accurate estimate of the general prevalence of this behaviour is given in
the 1998 National Drug Strategy Household Survey of Australians, in which 6.1% of
drivers self-reported driving a vehicle under the influence of drugs in the preceding
twelve month period. The National Drug Strategy Household Survey (1998) data found
that Queensland had the lowest rate (5.3%) of self-reported drug-driving of all the states
and territories (Fitzsimmons & Cooper-Stanbury, 2000; cited in Makkai et al., in press).
Contrary to this finding, Hadley (1998) reported that Queensland had the highest
rate of drug presence in fatalities, with 61% of fatally injured drivers testing positive to
drugs or alcohol and 40% testing positive for at least one drug type other than alcohol
(Hadley, 1998; cited in PTC, 1999). Note that findings from studies that drug test fatality
injured or hospitalised drivers should not be seen as representative of the general drug
driving accident rate due to exclusion of those that have minor accidents (Waller et al.,
1995). Also problems exist with the drug testing method, for example THC can be
detectable in the blood when there is no longer an active effect. While the effect may last
hours, drug presence can be detected days after ingestion (Waller et al., 1995). To
attribute drugs to the accident, causality- not just drug presence- must be demonstrated.
Drummer (1994) studied the relative risk of accident following ingestion of
various drug types. Blood tests for alcohol and a range of drugs were taken from 1045
deceased drivers in Victoria, New South Wales and Western Australia. After analysis of
the accident to determine the extent of culpability, a ‘responsibility score’ was given to
each driver. This method was originally described by Robertson and Drummer (1994).
The responsibility of drivers is determined using “mitigating evidence among eight
factors: condition of the road, condition of the vehicle, driving conditions type of crash,
witnesses’ observations, road law obedience, difficulty of task and level of fatigue.”
(Drummer, Gerostamoulos, Batziris, Chu, Capelhorn, Robertson & Swann, 2003). A total
of scores given for each of the eight factors (using pre-determined scoring guidelines)
was given to each driver, allowing each to be categorised as culpable (culpability score
<13), contributory (>13 and <15) or non-culpable (>15) (Drummer et al., 2003). The
drivers who were deemed ‘not responsible’ were compared to those deemed ‘responsible’
in terms of the presence of drugs. Theoretically, if drugs were a causal factor in these
accidents, they would be more prevalent in the ‘responsible’ sample (Drummer, 1994).
It is interesting to note that while all drug types showed an increase in associated
crash risk, cannabis showed a corresponding decrease in relative risk (Drummer, 1994).
Drummer suggested that this may be due to the intoxicating effects of THC having worn
off long before the accident (which could not be determined), yet the metabolite
remaining detectable in the blood for up to weeks after ingestion (Drummer, 1994). It
was further suggested by Drummer (1994) that the protective effect of cannabis
intoxication that was demonstrated in this research may be due to the respondent’s
overestimation of their impairment leading to compensation in the form of more cautious
driving behaviour (Drummer, 1994). Indeed respondents in an experimental study by
Robbe (1995) believed their driving skills had been impaired by their state of cannabis
intoxication, when in actual fact they were not.
More recent work by Drummer and colleagues (2003) further examined the rates
of drugs in fatally injured drivers and their accident culpability. Of 3398 deceased drivers
in Victoria, Western Australia and New South Wales, a total of 907 tested drug positive
and 990 tested alcohol positive (Drummer et al., 2003) illustrating similarity in rates of
these behaviours. In this study, 13.5% of drivers tested positive for cannabinoids, 4.9%
for opioids and 4.1% for each of benzodiazepines and stimulants (Drummer et al., 2003).
A culpability analysis on this sample found that drivers who tested positive for
cannabinoids, psychoactive drugs or stimulants had a strong positive association with
culpability (Drummer et al., 2003). There were found to be non-significant, weakly
positive associations between benzodiazepines and opiates with culpability.
2.3. Drug driving in the road transport industry: Prevalence and crash risk There is
considerable evidence of a high rate of stimulant (particularly illicit amphetamine) use by
drivers in the road transport industry (VPSHTF, 1995). It is, however difficult to estimate
from the literature whether this problem is increasing or if legislative controls (such as
those implemented at the end of the 1980’s on stimulant pharmaceuticals (VPRSC, 1996)
and recent reforms to industry practice) have had any significant effects on drug driving
trends in this cohort (Hartley, Arnold, Hochstadt, Corry & Penna, 1997).
Self report data on drug use was collected from 236 truck drivers in Western
Australia by Mabbott and Hartley (1999). Of this sample, 27% admitted using stimulant
drugs, 6.8% used over the counter pharmaceutical stimulants, 11.9% used either one
prescription or one illicit stimulant and 8.9% reported using both prescription and illicit
stimulants (Mabbott & Hartley, 1999). On average, these drivers also reported that they
believed 28% of their peers used such drugs (Mabbott & Hartley, 1999). Earlier,
Williamson, Feyer, Coumarelos and Jenkins (1992) found 31% of surveyed drivers used
stimulant drugs to combat fatigue, and research assistants on the project reported
anecdotal opinion that this was an underestimation (cited in Mabbott & Hartley, 1999).
Underreporting of illegal behaviours is indeed recognised as a problem with self-report
data (PTC, 1999).
Studies where drug testing is performed on truck drivers give similar results in
terms of prevalence. Perl (1990) found of 90% of samples taken from drivers processed
under New South Wales drug legislation (for suspected driving under the influence of
drugs) were positive. Also 22% of the positive samples taken were for stimulant drugs
and half of these were taken from heavy vehicle drivers who had been detected for erratic
driving (Perl, 1990; cited in VPRSC, 1996). In a study more representative of the general
population than that of Perl (1990), Starmer, Mascord, Tattam & Zeleny (1994) analysed
saliva samples from truck and car drivers. It was found that 29% of truck drivers tested
positive to stimulants other than caffeine and cotinine, while 2% of the control sample (of
car drivers) tested positive for these. With the exclusion of caffeine and cotinine, 106 of
the 318 truck driver samples contained drugs including ephedrine (7.86%), phentermine
(7.55%), methamphetamine (5.03%) and amphetamine (5.03%).
The most recent evidence of drug use by truck drivers being a contribution to
crash risk is the aforementioned study testing culpability of deceased drivers by Drummer
and colleagues (2003). Of 139 truck drivers included in the sample, 23% tested positive
to stimulants, compared to 4.1% of other drivers. Truck drivers showed a particularly
strong association between stimulant use and culpability, their accident risk deemed as
high as a driver with a blood alcohol content of 0.1 to 0.15 percent (Drummer et al.,
2003). Also, the Victorian Institute of Forensic Pathology examined deceased truck
drivers since 1990 and found 36% to contain drugs other than alcohol (VPSHTF, 1995).
2.4. Drug use as a fatigue countermeasure in the road transport industry
2.4.1. Fatigue and truck driving Driver fatigue is receiving increasing recognition
as a serious and widespread problem behaviour that contributes significantly (if not
primarily) to road accidents and fatalities (Grunstein, 2001). In 2002, 49 fatalities on
Queensland roads were attributed to fatigue - a 29% increase since 2000 (Road Traffic
Crashes report; cited in ‘Tired drivers killing spree on the roads’, 2003). Extensive
research shows that driving when fatigued results in a range of physical and
psychological impairments that heighten the risk of crash (Hartley, 2001). “The main
effect of fatigue is a progressive withdrawal of attention from road and traffic demands
(which may be) involuntary and difficult, if not impossible, to resist” (Brown, 1994; cited
in McLean, p. 61). Indeed sleep experts have shown that when sleep deprived, subjects
perform as badly on cognitive tests as people with a BAC of 0.05 (‘Tired drivers to be
given a wake up call’, 2002).
Estimates of the scale of fatigue involvement in heavy vehicle crashes vary
considerably (due to the uncertainty in determining whether fatigue was a primary cause
of a crash) but there seems no doubt that this group is at disproportionate risk. Fatigue is
thought to be influential in 20 - 60% of truck accidents in Australia (Traffic Accident
Commission Victoria, 1994; cited in Grunstein, 2001) and as well as causing injuries and
fatalities, the financial toll of this type of accident is massive. Using mid-range estimates
from several research sources, the Bureau of Transport Economics reported the cost of
fatigue related heavy vehicle accidents to be $0.25 billion per year in Australia (cited in
National Road Transport Commission (NRTC), 2001). It is for these reasons that truck-
driver fatigue is the subject of considerable research attention, particularly in the
development of safety countermeasures (Williamson, Feyer, Friswell & Finlay-Brown,
2000).
Any research into drug driving in the road transport industry must consider
fatigue as an antecedent to this behaviour. Long-distance truck drivers are particularly
prone to driver fatigue due to exposure to environmental risk factors (e.g. monotonous
rural driving) as well as temporal risk factors (times of day spent driving and sleeping,
boredom, long hours behind the wheel and the accumulation of sleep debt) (Hartley &
Arnold, 1996; McCartt, Rohrbaugh, Hammer & Fuller, 2000; Austroads 2000b). In
addition, truck drivers often conform to unhealthy lifestyle practices (for example poor
nutrition, smoking and lack of exercise) which have been shown to promote fatigue
(Plowman, Arnold, Toft & Moxham, 1999; Hakkanen & Summala, 2000). Some
relatively common medical conditions among truck drivers are also noteworthy. These
include high blood pressure (VPRSC, 1996) and sleep apnoea (McCartt et al., 2000).
Sleep apnoea affects about 25% of middle aged men and is thought to be significantly
prevalent among truck drivers (Austroads 2000b). Disruptions to sleep as well as poor
quality of sleep characterise this condition, and these are likely to lead to excessive
daytime sleepiness (Austroads, 2000b).
Arguably, a highly influential underpinning factor of fatigue (and hence drug
taking) in this cohort is the industry pressure to drive for excessively long periods and
meet unrealistic delivery schedules (VPSHTF, 1995). Arnold and Hartley (2001; p. 2)
stated that “anecdotal evidence suggests that many transport companies place their
drivers’ safety on the road (and by extension public road safety) at a very poor second to
their concern for company profitability”. A report by Quinlan on safety in the industry
recently found “a shockingly dangerous environment” where intense competition and
unreasonably low rates had forced drivers to breach log books and take drugs to drive
excessively long hours (Quinlan, 2001). There is further evidence that some companies
threaten to terminate drivers’ employment should they not manage demand - and when
faced with this risk, truck drivers are reluctant to discuss fatigue with their bosses
(Arnold & Hartley, 2001).
Arboleda, Morrow, Crum & Shelley (2003) reported where companies promoted
a strong safety culture (eg. management commitment to safety, driver opportunities for
safety input and driver safety training) a positive impact on safety was indeed evident1.
Senior management should therefore “hold a realistic view of the short and long term
hazards entailed in their organisations’ activities…(and) rules and norms for dealing with
hazards should be known, endorsed and supported throughout the organisation” (Pidgeon,
1 This study found that complete driver autonomy in scheduling driving hours was not indicative of safety (i.e. accident rates showed no improvement when were allowed to determine their own schedules)
1991; cited in Arnold & Hartley, 2001, p. 3). Fundamental change towards such a safety
culture is necessary in order to tackle the problem of fatigue and drug taking by truck
drivers (Baas, Charlton & Bastin, 2000). However, there seems to be an established
culture within the transport industry of hard work and long hours and pressure to do this
is applied by a “complex array of stakeholders that directly or indirectly influence the
driver, including dispatchers, freight forwarders, transport managers and clients” (Baas et
al., 2000; p. 189).
Because of the high risk of fatigued driving, there appears to be a general
consensus of justification of taking stimulant drugs in the road transport industry- despite
the fact that consumption of amphetamines is illegal. To illustrate this cost/benefit
analysis, Starmer et al. (1994) found that 71% of surveyed truck drivers thought it was
more acceptable to use drugs to stay alert than to drive in a fatigued state. Mabbott and
Hartley (1999) also asked drivers if they thought it was more responsible to take
stimulant drugs as a fatigue countermeasure, rather than risk falling asleep. 45% percent
stated it was and 50% of drivers stated it was not. In this report, those drivers who
reportedly knew at least ten other drivers that used stimulants were more likely to say it
was responsible behaviour than those with few or no drug using peers. Similarly, the
latter group were less likely to report they would use a legally prescribed stimulant to
combat fatigue if one were available.
2.4.2. Fatigue countermeasures in the road transport industry In the literature,
drug use by truck drivers seems to be so wholly attributed to work conditions that it
would seem the implementation of proven fatigue countermeasures would eliminate the
perceived need to use stimulants (e.g. Swann, 2002). Currently, these countermeasures
include educational programs and various legislative approaches restricting driving hours
for commercial drivers.
2.4.3. Educational programs for behavioural fatigue countermeasures Detailed
educational programs have been developed to inform professional drivers on means to
recognise, counter and prevent fatigue. An example of research based guidelines for
drivers is A Driver’s Guide to Fatigue and Alertness (Hartley, 1998). This document
includes the following advice:
• Be aware of body clock patterns
• Stick to regular sleep patterns as much as possible
• Be aware of sleep debt. How to alleviate this
• Plan your trip to include rest time and food breaks
• Learn to recognise, acknowledge and act on signs of sleepiness
• Work out how much sleep you really need
• Develop techniques for staying alert in the cab
• Take advantage of every opportunity to nap
• Eat at regular times, avoid high calorie/fat foods
• Exercise
• Use mild stimulants2 only when you need them, avoid strong stimulants
• Get regular health checkups
Some of the guidelines proposed here may be problematic in practice. For
example, experimental evidence has shown that when fatigued, people tend to make
2 Drinking coffee in small doses is advised. E.g.: Horne & Rayner (1995) found sleep deprived drivers reduced lane deviations and other potential crash risks (using a simulator) for about one hour after caffeine consumption (cited in NCSDR/NHTSA, 1998).
inaccurate estimates of their level of ability and awareness (Haworth, 1998). It therefore
cannot be assumed that drivers are able to detect their own fatigue. Furthermore,
educational attempts such as this may have limited effectiveness in terms of the driver’s
adherence to recommendations, especially when the advice given is countered by strong
incentives to continue driving (Haworth, 1998).
2.4.4. Driving-hours restrictions Legislation exists to enforce restrictions on the length of
time truck drivers work and to combat compliance with unreasonable delivery schedules
(Hartley, Arnold, Penna, Hochstadt, Corry & Feyer, 1997). The onus to enforce and
encourage this safety culture (and accountability for non compliance) can now be put on
those in the supply chain other than the driver through the “Chain of Responsibility”
legislation. The rationale for such driving restrictions is clear, as is the need to enforce
these with legal penalties for those that breach protocol (NRTC, 2001). Comparable
regulatory approaches exist and are the subject of much review from researchers and
opinion from those affected by such legislation in the workplace.
The Australian Transport Council approved a national regulatory framework in
1999 which had the following three components:
1. Standard regulated (prescribed) driving hours regime
2. Transitional Fatigue Management Scheme (TFMS)
3. Full Fatigue Management Scheme (FMS)
(cited in Williamson, et al., 2000). The Standard prescribed driving hours regime is a
default system: It is to be used by drivers and operators who are not covered by the
TFMS or full FMS (Fatigue Expert Group (FEG), 2001). Western Australia and the
Northern Territory use an Occupational Health and Safety approved Code of Practice,
however the standard regime is utilised in other states. Table 2 illustrates the driving and
rest provisions under this scheme.
Table 2.
Driving and rest schedules allowable under the Standard Hours regime
Queensland Transport, (2000).
Hartley and colleagues (1997) compared actual driving hours and accident rates
between truck drivers in Western Australia (where driving hours are not regulated) and
the Eastern states where prescriptive hours existed. This study was done in the mid
1990s, so TFMS and full FMS were not yet in place in the Eastern states. There was
found to be little difference in the amount of hours driven and rate of fatigue related
accidents. It was further reported that WA drivers perceive fatigue as less of a problem
than drivers in the regulated states. Hartley et al., (1997) concluded that there was no
need to introduce regulated hours to Western Australia. This research contributed to the
call for an overhaul of the regulated hours policy, which later occurred in the form of the
TFMS and full FMP. These reforms were, however, also met with resistance.
The TFMS is an optional scheme that (whilst still prescriptive hours format)
rewards truck drivers for undertaking additional fatigue management measures by
providing increased flexibility in driving and rest schedules3 (NRTC manual). This
scheme is available in Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia. The
measures that must be undertaken to qualify include:
• Drivers must pass a medical examination
• Operational staff and drivers must undertake a training course in fatigue
management
• Employers must implement auditable processes relating to health,
rostering, training and driver fatigue management
• The Driver Certification Manual must be carried by the certified driver
while driving
Although it was originally based on research regarding the amount of sleep people
need in order to perform, the regulated hours approach (which includes the TFMS) has
been accused of not incorporating several more recent research findings identifying
factors beyond work and rest schedules that are highly influential on fatigue (NRTC,
2001). These include: time of day and circadian rhythms, cumulative sleep deprivation,
health, substance use and tiredness from tasks other than work (Todero & Moore, 2000).
Furthermore, regulated hours of service make no adjustment for different freight tasks
and environments (Todero & Moore, 2000). Also, it appears that these regulations may
3 Hours as shown in Table 2, except instead of 7 day period work/rest schedules, drivers are allowed 144 hours of work in any 14 day period, with rest period of no less than 192 hours, with two 24 hour periods
be too restrictive in some cases, for example a well-rested driver who must do a single
trip during the day may not experience fatigue (FEG, 2001). On the other hand, regulated
hours may be too permissive for a driver who must make over night runs several nights in
a row with limited or poor quality sleep during the day (FEG, 2001). It must also be
considered that regulated driving hours are difficult to enforce, and dishonest log book
keeping is likely to be prevalent (Todero & Moore, 2000).
An assessment of the TFMS was carried out after its pilot period. Assessors found
the TFMS has provided some improvements, notably greater flexibility. However, there
have been no significant gains in productivity, road safety or adoption of fatigue
management principles within the road transport industry (NRTC, 2002).
In contrast to the prescriptive hours approach is the full Fatigue Management
Program (FMP) which contained input from Queensland Transport and the Australian
Trucking Association (ATA) (NRTC, 2002). This began as a pilot program in 1994 and
was implemented at the end of 2001 in Queensland under the National Heavy Vehicles
Accreditation Scheme (NHVAS Fatigue Management Module, 2002). Under the full
FMP, operators are exempt from most driving hours regulations (core regulations remain)
if they can demonstrate adequate programs of their own (NHVAS Fatigue Management
Module, 2002). In other words, this scheme allows drivers and operators to develop more
suitable and flexible schedules as part of an accreditation agreement with Queensland
Transport (Mahon & Cross, 2000). Such schedules take into account fatigue influencing
factors other than just hours of work and rest, such as:
• “driver’s previous working time, schedule and roster
• safe driving time and adequate rest requirements
• non-driving time and work activities
• vehicle suitability and roadworthiness
• factors associated with freight task (type of load, night or city driving etc)
• driver readiness, health and competency on the day
• use of relief drivers and subcontractors” (Mahon & Cross, 2000, p. 3.).
According to Mahon and Cross (2000), when piloted, some of the benefits of the
FMP in comparison to the regulated hours approach included a decrease in fatigue and
the use of unsuitable countermeasures, including drug taking. Also there was increased
awareness of fatigue issues by drivers and management and improvements to drivers’
lifestyle (including social/family life).
The Heavy Vehicle Driver Fatigue Draft Policy Proposal (NRTC, 2002) outlined
and upheld the piloted full FMP. Also, the Global Institute of Learning and Development
Consortium, which independently evaluated the pilot FMS program concluded “The
overall pattern of results [from surveys of drivers] supports a conclusion that drivers
surveyed in 2001 and 2002 while working under the [FMP pilot] conditions are exposed
to significantly less fatigue related risk than those drivers surveyed in 1996/7” (Burgess-
Limerick & Bowen-Rotsaert, 2002).
Despite it’s usefulness in reducing the problem of fatigue, several industry
representatives and truck drivers have strongly criticised the full FMP4. For example, the
ATA has called for a re-evaluation of the NRTC Draft Policy Proposal claiming it
underestimates or overlooks serious consequences to the industry (‘Losing sleep over
rejected safety plan’, 2003). The ATA claimed “the proposals will disrupt essential
4 Feedback of opinions from the industry itself, particularly drivers, is difficult to find in the academic literature, but is reported occasionally in the general media
services, increase compliance costs and reduce income to contractors and subcontractors”
because consumer demand for freight delivery and pick up times will realistically not
change (‘Losing sleep over rejected safety plan’, 2003). ATA representatives further
stated that the lack of incentive for long haul drivers would mean companies would
employ inexperienced drivers out of desperation for employees. Concerns were also
raised over the estimated $2 billion in associated costs outlined in the Draft Regulatory
Impact Statement – a figure the ATA believes is an underestimation by about $ 1 billion
and may be absorbed by transport users and consumers (‘Losing sleep over rejected
safety plan’, 2003).
Similarly, NatRoad chief, Anderson, criticised all three regulatory options on the
grounds that the NRTC and associated researchers had little real life understanding of the
transport industry and of fatigue. Anderson emphasised that the proposed move away
from night driving was potentially dangerous as more trucks would be mixing with cars
on the road during the day, increasing chance of accidents (‘Hazy fatigue plan’, 2002). At
a recent truck drivers’ forum, the view was expressed that driving hours regulations
forced drivers to attempt to sleep in the heat of the day, which was not conductive of
quality sleep (‘Truckies ask for fair treatment’, 2003). Isuzu representative, Taylor,
stated that the NRTC reforms will make it harder for drivers to make ends meet due to
decreased productivity (‘Driver hours protest’, 2003).
A survey of drivers by Owner Driver magazine (2002) found overwhelming
opposition to the NRTC reforms. Night driving restrictions were rejected by 65% of
respondents and changes from six to seven minimum hours break in a 24 hour period was
opposed by 70% of surveyed drivers. Limiting driving and working to 12 hours was the
most strongly rejected proposal, with 93% opposition based on the unpredictability of
non-driving related work and unexpected delays (‘Lab rats say ‘no!’’, 2002). Paton,
representing Owner Driver stated “Nothing the NRTC has proposed will achieve
anything until it addresses the source of financial pressure which forces drivers to risk
their safety” (cited in ‘Lab rats say ‘no!’’, 2002). This document called for the scrapping
of the NRTC’s proposals and redirection of the funds into producing sustainable rates for
drivers and better education for all road users (‘Lab rats say ‘no!’’, 2002). Indeed the
accountability of other road users must be considered in accidents involving heavy
vehicles. Australian Transport Safety Bureau data indicates that in 60% of accidents
involving heavy vehicles, other road users were at fault (‘Safety plan to restore order’,
2003).
Reflecting the concerns expressed in the Owner Driver survey (2002), Transport
Workers Union Secretary, Allan, stated the reforms were sustainable only to large
companies and severely disadvantaged regionally based owner drivers who needed to
drive at night. Calls for flexibility in the reforms again highlighted the difficulty
experienced by drivers in trying to sleep during the day or when they did not feel they
needed to - as well as the lack of adequate rest areas (‘Lab rats say ‘no!’’, 2002;
‘Truckies ask for fair treatment’, 2003). Clearly, industry feedback and continual
modification and development of these systems are necessary to create a work
environment with minimal danger of fatigue, perceived need for drug taking and
dishonesty or inaccuracy in trip-record keeping and reporting.
2.5. Enforcement of driving hours and drug driving legislation Whether it works or not,
any research based program restricting driving hours can only have the chance to
demonstrate effectiveness if it is properly trialled and upheld. The problem of drivers
breaching driving hours regulations and falsifying or neglecting to use logbooks has been
reportedly widespread (Keogh, 2002). For example, in 1992 (when prescriptive hours
were in place) Williamson and colleagues (1992) found 50% of drivers broke hours of
service regulations on at least half of their trips (cited in Hartley, Penna, Corry & Feyer,
1997). Importantly, the perceived risk of detection is a significant determinant of whether
the law will be broken - and this is thought to be increased when there is a strong
enforcement presence (Aberg, 1997; Keogh, 2002). Aitken et al. (2000) found drug users
(none of whom were truck drivers) were not very concerned about the risk of being
caught by police drug driving. No such research was found specifically using truck
drivers, however it is thought that the perceived (and actual) risk of detection for driving
excessive hours is minimal among this cohort as this practice continues to be widespread
(Keogh, 2002).
2.5.1. Chain of Responsibility The Road Transport Reform (Driving Hours
Regulations) 1999 introduced the ‘Chain of Responsibility’ whereby culpability for drug
taking, speeding or breaches of driving hours or trip recording can lie with others in the
supply chain than the driver (NRTC, 2002). The underlying premise of this legislation is
that drivers who break the rules are more likely to fall asleep at the wheel (McCartt et al.,
2000) and the benefit of promoting a ‘safety culture’ within companies in the interest of
reducing heavy vehicle accidents (Arboleda et al., 2003). Those in the supply chain that
are liable under the Chain of Responsibility include directors and managers within
companies as well as consignors and customers who may set unreasonable demands
(NRTC website). Sanctions that apply include warnings and cautions, on the spot and
court fines, suspension or cancellation of licenses and registration, court orders requiring
companies to improve practice, commercial benefit penalties and banning of companies
from the industry (NRTC website). It seems the Australian Trucking Association upholds
this law, supporting it in its publication “Wake up call for users of the trucking industry”
(ATA website). Also, Victorian Transport Workers Union Secretary, Noonan welcomed
the changes, stating drivers should not have to undertake dangerous practices for the sake
of anyone else in the supply chain (‘More trucks mean more road deaths’, 2003).
Queensland has been the first state to prosecute under the Chain of Responsibility
laws (NRTC website). In 2003, charges were laid against a large Queensland based
company, the director and some drivers following a crash where two tourists were killed
(‘Truck company faces charges’, 2003). Another court case, where a truck driver was
killed, required a driver from the offending company to give evidence as to the
company’s safety culture (‘Death drugs and fatigue’, 2003). The witness said he was
required to falsify log books and not take prescribed breaks. This driver claimed that if he
refused to break these laws, he would lose his job and that falsifying logbooks was “an
occupational hazard. You have to do it, if you don’t, you don’t get the job done” (‘Death,
drugs and fatigue’, 2003). In this case the judge found it “untenable for an employer to
leave it to the employee to decide to what extent he would abide by safety laws” (‘Death,
drugs and fatigue’, 2003).
2.5.2. Drug testing of truck drivers Eradicating the problem of drug driving not
only depends on preventative measures, but also detection (VPRSC, 1996). Some current
methods, such as urine and saliva tests, pose problems in terms of appropriateness (for
example collecting urine roadside) and establishing a relationship between drug presence
and impairment (Buxton, Hartley & Sully, 2000).
Random testing roadside and within companies exists on a small scale. Currently,
carriers in the United States are required to administer random tests to 50% of their
drivers unless the overall illicit drug usage rate detected drops below 1% (Abt, 2002).
Feedback from American trucking organisations about mandatory testing by companies is
somewhat negative, claiming testing is highly expensive for companies to administer and
results are relatively insignificant, except where suspicion of impairment is present prior
to testing (non-random) (Abt, 2002). A similar mandatory drug testing system at
company level in Australia is warranted according to Swann (2002). One Australian
company that voluntarily conducted random tests on 13 otherwise eligible employees in
December 2002 found 11 of these tested positive to stimulant drugs (‘Truckies may be
tested”, 2003).
Roadside saliva testing (which has been trialled in Australia5) is ideally highly
accurate and should involve minimum delays to the driver (Swann, 2002). The
Queensland Police Service has conducted recent investigations into the presence of drugs
in the cabs of long haul trucks using ion scanners. These have found that approximately
30% (and in some instances up to 70%) of truck cabins tested positive for illicit drugs
(Personal correspondence of Superintendent Pitman to Davey, 2002). While
amphetamines were the dominant drugs identified, significant numbers of positive tests
also indicated the presence of heroin, cocaine and various other substances.
5 Currently, saliva testing is performed using the product: Cozart Rapiscan
2.6. Why do people use drugs? Risk factors for drug use in the general population Drug
use by long haul truck drivers as a work related fatigue countermeasure is well
documented. Indeed, Swann (2002; p. 65) stated “Truck drivers use stimulants for
occupational reasons and this behaviour is relatively easily changed compared to
addictive or recreational drug driving use”. Little (if any) research on the matter indicates
that truck drivers use illicit stimulant drugs for any other purpose than to stay awake
whilst driving for long periods. Mabbott and Hartley (1999) asked truck drivers why they
used stimulant drugs. Of 165 that answered the question, 161 indicated it was a necessary
fatigue countermeasure. However 66 drivers refused to answer the question.
The current research considers reasons recreational illicit drug use begins, and
that drug dependence occurs in the general population (including other work
environments). It is thought that these trends may exist in the transport industry alongside
that of drug taking as a perceived work related necessity. This seems likely due to the
prevalence of risk factors in this cohort as described in the following section. If this is the
case, preventing or stopping drug use by truck drivers may not be as simple as altering
work conditions.
2.6.1. Risk factors for drug use in the workplace Nicholas and Allsop (1996)
identified risk factors for illicit drug use in the workplace. These include:
• High degree of mobility (separating workers from the stabilisation of home) also
separation from normal social and sexual relationships
• Low skilled, blue collar work
• Boredom and under-utilisation of abilities
• Lack of job security
• Low job satisfaction
• Heavy responsibility
• Stress and exposure to other people’s stress
• Conflict with peers or supervisors
• Poor feedback on performance and lack of recognition
• Inconsistent performance standards
• Isolation from decision making
• Too much or too little supervision
• Workplace culture (eg drug using subculture)
• Availability of drugs at work.
Regardless of work related risk factors, Nicholas and Allsop (1996) further
suggested that drug use in a workplace may be due to the employment of people who are
already high risk for this behaviour and/or already using drugs. Also counselling and peer
support programs may be useful in the workplace as a means of assisting with drug
avoidance or rehabilitation (Zinkiewicz, Davey & Sheehan (2000).
2.6.2. Social and situational risk factors for illicit drug use Many interrelated
social, environmental, family and developmental risk factors contribute to the likelihood
an individual will use drugs. For example, Spooner (1999) cited the following:
• Genetic vulnerability and being male
• Single, separated or divorced marital status, or marriage problems
• Poor family relationships in childhood and adolescence
• Lack of social bonding and coping mechanisms
• Low socioeconomic status
• Low educational level and poor school performance
• Associating with substance abusing peers and being labelled as a substance user6
2.6.3. Personality types Ames, Zogg & Stacy (2002; p. 1056) describe sensation
seeking as “a neurochemically based personality trait characterised by a need for
stimulation, reflected in individuals likely to engage in risk taking behaviours”. This
statement is easily applicable to drug taking. Furthermore, those personality types that
actively seek sensation and risk are likely to do so in many facets of their lives. Tillman
and Hobbs (1949) theorised that “a man drives as he lives” (cited in Jonah, 1997). This
can be interpreted as meaning that if one takes risks generally (such as drug taking) one is
likely to also take driving risks (such as drug driving). Furthermore, sensation seeking
individuals are likely to underestimate the dangerousness of their behaviours because
they are motivated by the drive to increase arousal levels (Ames et al. (2002).
2.6.4. Dependence Continual use of substances such as amphetamines is likely to
lead to dependence due to physiological and psychological reliance on the drug to
achieve a state of wellbeing. Topp, Mattick and Lovibond (1995) described amphetamine
dependence syndrome. Note that the motivation for using the drug changes along this
continuum:
“…as the use pattern progresses from recreational to heavy, the euphoric, energising, confidence building effects of the drug remain important in motivating use. However, in heavy, more dependent users, other motivations, involving the drug’s capacity to remove some aversive physical or emotional state, are also important….It is as though… boredom, feeling ‘lousy’ or ‘strung out’ become superimposed over the original reasons for use (the ‘buzz’, the feeling of speeding, the energy), but these original reasons remain important” (Topp et al., 1995, p. 46; cited in Kanieniecki et al., 1998).
6 These concepts are further discussed in the following chapter, regarding Becker’s theories
It is thought that repeat experiences with a drug cause the formation of associative
memories between the drug taking and the cues to use - or the associated outcomes of use
(Ames et al., 2002). For example, if a truck driver’s cues to use stimulants are driving and
tiredness, it may be difficult to avoid drug taking when these cues are present and heavy
use has led to a level of dependence.
2.7. A theoretical stance- Becker (1963) It is widely recommended that the investigation
of social trends, as well as the planning and implementation of public health strategies, be
informed by theoretically developed models of behaviour (Wdowik, Kendall, Harris &
Auld, 2001). Illicit drug use by truck drivers will be explored in the current research in
terms of the development of a ‘career’ as a drug user as theorised by Becker (1963).
Becker (1963) described phases of marijuana use that composed a ‘drug use
career’. These were found to be typical, sequential changes in experience of, and attitude
towards the drug which led to one becoming a user. Becker’s research focussed on their
use of this drug for pleasure and the assertion that marijuana is a non-addictive
substance7. The current study largely focuses on stimulant drugs (which are addictive)
and may be used for benefit (i.e. a fatigue countermeasure) instead of (or as well as) for
pleasure by truck drivers. Despite these inconsistencies, Becker’s stage model provides a
good framework for understanding patterns of drug use by truck drivers. The influence of
a drug using peer group will be discussed firstly, as it is a strong theme in Becker’s
concept of a drug use career.
2.7.1. Deviant groups: ‘Outsiders’ Becker (1963) used the term ‘Outsiders’ to
describe ‘people who are judged by others to be deviant and thus to stand outside the
circle of “normal” members of the group’ (p. 15). Due to their common ‘fate’, members 7 Marijuana is acknowledged as potentially addictive (ADF, 1999)
of such groups become close knit and somewhat of a subculture, living outside the rules
of conventional society at least in some respects (Becker, 1963). Such a group is highly
reinforcing of deviant behaviour and being a member allows the individual to partake in
this with the minimum of trouble. This is largely due to the assistance of other members,
some of which may be more experienced and able to teach, for example, how to evade
the law (Becker, 1963).
A group may disagree with the rules made by others that lead to the
categorisation of their behaviour as deviant (particularly if they can justify their
behaviour). This subculture may in turn view the rule makers as “Outsiders”, giving a
second meaning to this label (Becker, 1963). With regard to truck drivers, Walton (1999,
p. 94) stated “despite competition between companies, truck drivers tend to regard other
drivers as members of their group and possess…a ‘consciousness of kind’” with the
existence of further sub-groups and high in-group cohesion. This of course does not mean
all truck drivers are drug users, but illustrates the existence of a subculture (with perhaps
drug using sub-groups) and the strength of this even before deviance in the form of drug
use is considered.
Becker (1963, p. 14) stated that “whether a given act is deviant or not depends in
part on the nature of the act (that is whether or not he violates some rule) and in part what
other people do about it”. The response of others is crucial to the subject being labelled as
a deviant. An act may be illegal, but if no one cares that it is undertaken, one who
partakes may not be condemned (Becker, 1963). For example, changes in publicity,
policing and awareness of truck drivers using stimulants (Mabbott & Hartley, 1999) may
have led to older stimulant using drivers finding themselves ‘Outsiders’, where once they
were not chastised for their behaviour. Such public attention and labelling may also lead
to a ‘self-fulfilling prophecy’. Where the general opinion is that a certain group commits
certain acts, members may surrender to these as their moral image is already damaged
due purely to their group membership and labelling by others (Becker, 1963). This will
be investigated in terms of stereotyping truck drivers as drug users and the concept of the
‘trucking image’ in relation to drug use.
2.7.2. Becoming a drug user: Stages of a drug use career Becker (1963) described
three stages a person experiences as they become a drug user. They must firstly learn the
technique, then learn to perceive the effects of the drug and finally, learn to enjoy the
effects.
2.7.2.1. Learning the technique In order for an individual to conceive that a drug
is a substance from which they can derive pleasure (or benefit) they must learn the proper
technique of drug administration (Becker, 1963). Should this not be achieved, the user
will not perceive use of the drug as meaningful, and will therefore discontinue use. It is
likely that learning the technique will occur as a result of an individual’s contact with
drug using peers from whom they may be taught directly or learn through imitation.
Learning through imitation (or modelling) may occur if one is reluctant to admit they are
ignorant about a drug to their peers (Becker, 1963).
2.7.2.2. Learning to perceive the effects Once drug intoxication is achieved
through learning the proper administration and dosage technique, a user must recognise
the symptoms they are experiencing and consciously attribute these to the drug (Becker,
1963). Becker stated that the novice marijuana user typically continues use for some time
until they experience the effects. This persistence is due to observation of the effect it has
on their peers and thus an expectation it will happen to them.
2.7.2.3. Learning to enjoy the effects Lastly, the user must decide that the effects
of a drug are enjoyable and/or beneficial in order to continue use (Becker, 1963). In the
case studies of marijuana smokers, Becker found that if a particularly frightening or
unpleasant episode occurred as a result of intoxication, the user would cease to use, but
was less likely to remain abstinent if there was a strong peer influence. Voluntary
cessation of use may of course be more difficult if one is using a more addictive drug,
such as methamphetamine.
2.7.3. Social Control Becker theorised that a person who has learned to enjoy or
benefit from the use of an illicit drug is likely to establish a stable pattern of use - but in
doing so must “contend with the powerful forces of social control that make the act seem
inexpedient, immoral or both” (Becker, 1963; p. 59). In other words, in committing the
deviant act of illicit drug use, one must deny certain rules of society and conform to those
of a smaller group. Social controls primarily involve punishment for law breaking;
therefore one must avoid detection by authorities. However, Becker stated fear of
punishment is not enough to maintain social control. Those engaging in deviant
behaviour must overcome their concept of the act as immoral, or else the perceived
immorality becomes an obstacle to continued use.
Becker (1963) described drug users as progressing through the stages of beginner
(first time use), occasional user (sporadic, chance usage), and regular user (routine use).
Social controls become less effective at preventing a person committing the deviant act of
drug use as their career path in that act progresses. Those social controls that must be
overcome to progress in a drug use career are as follows:
2.7.3.1. Control through limiting supply and access to the drug According to
Becker (1963), each stage of drug use has its typical mode of supply. Involvement with a
drug using peer group gives the beginner opportunistic initiation, then an occasional user
begins to make further connections to aid consistent supply rather than using just when
drugs are around. A regular user has an established supply and hence becomes more
engrained in the subculture as he is trusted and well known within the group (Becker,
1963).
Mabbott and Hartley (1999) asked truck drivers how stimulant drugs were
obtained within this subculture. While 14% of drivers refused to respond (illustrating the
importance of secrecy to this practice), the most frequent answer was that they were
obtained through a doctor, chemist or illegal prescription. It is assumed that this refers to
licit stimulants such as Duromine. More relevant to Becker’s description of supply of an
illicit substance, a further 30% of Mabbott and Hartley’s (1999) sample reported
stimulants were obtained through the black market or illegal dealers. Also, 26% reported
other drivers or mates provided these drugs, 8.1% stated the transport companies supplied
drugs and 3% said they were obtained at truck stops.
2.7.3.2. Secrecy Secrecy is important if punishment for a deviant act is to be
avoided. In keeping ones drug use secret from non-users, a person will not only avoid
punishment by authorities, but also by significant others - for example retribution by
family or other non-users whose respect is desired (Becker, 1963). Becker described
modes of secrecy as changing through the stages of the drug use career as one learns
‘tricks’ to continue their use without others noticing (and may disassociate from non-
users).
2.7.3.3. Morality Becker (1963) stated that at some point, the beginner has shared
the point of view of conventional society that illicit drug use is immoral. However,
association with drug using peers and observation of their use has served to sway this
opinion to the extent that they are willing to try the drug without the existence of this
control. As use progresses, a series of justifications of the act are formed. Rationalising
dangerous and illegal behaviour to oneself is important if the behaviour is to continue as
moral conflict is avoided. Becker gave examples of rationalisations of marijuana use
including: that it was less harmful than some other practices, that it remained completely
within the user’s control or the effects were actually beneficial rather than dangerous.
Research has shown that some truck drivers justify their illicit drug use by claiming (and
this is probably often true) that it is necessary as a job related fatigue countermeasure
(e.g. Mabbott & Hartley, 1999). Whether or not this justification is consistent with their
usage patterns will be investigated (for example did they start use for this reason? Do
they only use for this reason?).
In summary, one will feel free to use illicit drugs: “…to the degree that he comes to regard conventional conceptions of it as the uninformed views of outsiders and replaces those conceptions with the ‘inside’ view he has acquired through his experience with the drug in the company of other users” (Becker, 1963, p. 78).
2.8. Aims The aims of this study are to investigate patterns of illicit drug use (licit use
will also be considered) by long haul truck drivers in South East Queensland. Prevalence
of this behaviour, types of drugs used and opinions of costs and benefits will be examined
as well as the perceived effects of legislative controls (such as driving hours restrictions)
on drug taking in the industry.
This research will also investigate the circumstances surrounding the development
of a drug using ‘career’ by truck drivers based on Becker’s (1963) theory. This will
involve the following concepts:
• Stages of the career: circumstances surrounding initiation, motivations, learning
the technique, learning to perceive the effects and learning to benefit from the
effects as a beginner
• Usage patterns, changes in motivations and justifications
• Issues of supply, secrecy and morality
• Outsiders: Concepts of a drug using subculture in the road transport industry
As mentioned, previous research generally concludes that drug use by truck
drivers is a behaviour born of necessity to fight job related fatigue (Mabbott & Hartley,
1999), and therefore should be relatively simple to change compared to drug drivers in
wider society who use for recreational reasons or because they are dependent (Swann,
2002). Based on such studies, it is likely this research will find ‘careers’ will involve drug
use is motivated by the need for a work related fatigue countermeasure. However it is
thought that patterns of recreational and dependent use may become evident due to the
aforementioned social, biological and work related risk factors which may exist
independently of, or be interrelated to the justification of use due to perceived necessity.
If this is indeed the case, changing this behaviour on a large scale may prove highly
problematic.
3. Method
3.1. Participants Thirty five male truck drivers provided data through structured,
qualitative interviews for this research. All participants were employed as interstate
drivers at the time of interviewing, except one who had driven long haul until three years
prior and currently managed a small trucking company. Participants (except the retired
driver) drove heavy vehicles in the South East Queensland region regularly, but were not
required to live in this state for the purpose of the study. Ethical approval was obtained
through the Queensland University of Technology Human Research Ethics Committee
(Ethics approval number 2787H) and participants were paid $25.
Participants were initially sought by contacting trucking companies; however it
was thought that those organisations who volunteered drivers for research would select
employees with reputable habits in order to maintain a clean image. Many companies
declined to volunteer drivers and this method was abandoned. At the time, there was
extensive media coverage of the trial of a well known Queensland trucking company for
liability where a drug intoxicated driver was involved in a fatal accident (‘Truck
company faces charges’, 2003). The topic of drugs and truck drivers was generally given
much media attention at this time. It is possible that this may have caused companies (and
individual drivers) to be wary of involvement in research such as this.
Advertising for research participation was placed in truck stops (with the
permission of the managers) in the South East Queensland region including the Brisbane
area, as far north as Maroochydore, as far south as the New South Wales border and as
far west as Roma (including Laidley, Toowoomba and Dalby). A description of the study
was given including estimated interview length and how the research could benefit
drivers in terms of giving them a chance to ‘have their say’. These advertisements also
gave assurance of complete confidentiality which is imperative where the activity being
studied is illegal and trust and cooperation of participants must be gained (Spradley,
1979). Participants were also offered a payment of $25.
Advertisements were printed on CARRS-Q (Centre for Accident Research and
Road Safety, Queensland) letterhead paper (see Appendix A for the recruitment
advertisement). Drivers telephoned the researcher in response to these advertisements and
the researcher arranged to meet them in a public place (usually a truck stop) or else
conducted a telephone interview. Approximately half of respondents were obtained
through this method and despite a multitude of advertisements running several months;
responses were few and far between. Advertisements were often taken down (despite
management approval of them being there). One driver remarked that he overheard
several drug using drivers commenting on the advertisement in a Dalby truck stop, them
saying there was no way they would respond and indicating strong resentment to the
study.
Hartley and Mabbott (1999) overcame this problem by giving the title “Fatigue
Management Questionnaire” to a structured interview designed “primarily at teasing out
information on stimulant drug taking behaviour” by truck drivers (p. 118). However, for
the current research, inaccuracy in describing the purpose was considered too deceptive
and advertisements did mention that drugs would be a topic of discussion. It was thought
that any deception would hinder the participant’s formation of trust and confidence in the
interviewer, which is important in terms of their willingness to give accurate information
(Spradley, 1979). There was, however, concern once again that this method of
recruitment would not provide a random sample, as drug using drivers may be reluctant
to respond, particularly as stimulant use is known to cause paranoia (Darke et al., 2000)
and the researcher was unknown and unseen and could not gain the trust of the drivers.
A third method of recruitment of respondents was to approach individual drivers
in truck stops and explain the researcher’s job and aims of the research (for example, this
was seen as a road safety issue and the researcher was not aiming to have drivers
prosecuted) as well as giving out advertisement leaflets (see Appendix A). It was thought
that this method would be most likely to draw a random sample. An interview was
accepted by approximately 10-15% of drivers approached.
A snowballing method of data collection was also employed, whereby participants
were asked to refer the researcher to their peers. All drivers interviewed were given three
of the researcher’s business cards with a short description of the study on the back,
assurance of confidentiality and offer of payment. The researcher asked the interviewee
to pass them on to other drivers. This method of data collection has been used by others
for accessing drug users for research (e.g. Carruthers, Loxley, Phillips & Bevan, 1996;
Davies, Davey, Hunter, Williams, Richards & Symonds, 2002). To demonstrate the
usefulness of this procedure, Atkinson and Flint (2001, p. 2.) wrote:
“Snowball sampling contradicts many of the assumptions underpinning conventional notions of sampling but has a number of advantages for sampling populations such as the deprived (and) the socially stigmatised… trust may be developed as referrals are made by acquaintances or peers… snowball sampling has found to be economical, effective and efficient in various studies”.
Despite the demonstrated usefulness of the snowballing method of participant
recruitment, only two interviewees in the current study learned of the research through
contact with peers.
3.2. Materials A structured, qualitative interview was conducted with each participant.
The format of this is provided in Appendix B. This interview was designed to initiate
discussion regarding opinions and observations of drug use in the transport industry by
other drivers as well as self-reported usage. Of particular interest was the formation of the
drug using career.
3.2.1. Demographic items Participants were asked their age, the state they
normally live in and how long they had been long haul driving. Participants were also
asked about their work schedule. This could determine whether or not they conformed to
legal work hours. This primary discussion allowed the interviewer a chance to gain
rapport with the interviewee.
3.2.2. Peer report drug usage Participant’s observations and opinions of drug use
by other drivers were expressed in a series of questions regarding both legal and illegal
substances. It was thought that discussing others’ drug use before discussing one’s own
would be more comfortable for the interviewee as it allowed the participant to be
somewhat expert without having to admit anything about their own behaviour. This
method was employed in quantitative studies on truck drivers and drug use by Mabbott
and Hartley (1999) and Hartley et al., (1997). These authors saw peer reporting as
valuable for forming an overall impression of this behaviour in the industry and
recommended comparing this type of reportage with self disclosed information for each
participant.
In this section, drivers were asked the prevalence of drug use in the industry, if
different types of drugs were used more or less than in the past (and why), the reasons
other drivers used drugs and whether they believed drivers’ drug use was justified.
Participants were also asked their opinions on driving ability and road safety of drivers
who use drugs and the risk of them being caught by police. Finally participants opinions
were sought on what is being done to deter truck drivers drug use, whether current
policies are effective and their ideas on what should be done (if anything) to address this
problem.
3.2.3. Self report drug use Drivers were asked if they had ever used legal or
illegal drugs at work and if so what types and if they currently used. This section allowed
the sample to be divided into groups of drivers that never used drugs, drivers that had
used drugs in the past and drivers that were current drug users.
Those that reported they had used drugs were asked for what reasons they did
this. Impressions of their own driving skills were also given. This is an example of a
question that is comparable to the aforementioned peer report section (where respondents
were asked about other drivers’ skills when intoxicated). Walton (1999) found truck
drivers demonstrated ‘self enhancement bias’, reporting their own skills as better than
those of other truck drivers1, it was thought that that may also be the case in the current
study.
3.2.4. Career paths in drug use Drivers were given a series of questions to
establish the nature of career paths in illicit drug use, based on Becker’s (1963) theory. 1 Here truck drivers also reported that truck drivers generally had better skills than other road users
Because not all drivers had used illicit drugs, those that had never used were questioned
on their impressions of the development of the career in drug use that is typical of other
drivers. Those that were current illicit drug users or had ever used illicit drugs were
questioned as to their own career path. It was thought that these two groups would
provide interesting comparisons regarding this matter. Also it was thought that risk
factors for drug use (apart from as a work related fatigue countermeasure) would be
revealed.
Drivers who had used illicit drugs were asked about how and why they started
using and the circumstances surrounding initiation (e.g. who taught them? Was it in the
transport industry? Did they buy the drugs or were they given them?). Further questions
also involved the learning of the technique, learning to recognise the benefits and
learning to enjoy or benefit from the effects. Participants were questioned about the
effects of the drugs over time (both positive and negative) and how the supply of drugs,
their efforts to keep their use secret and their moral impressions of their use change with
continued use.
Drivers who had never used illicit substances were asked similar questions to
these, but in the third person (e.g. “How does their drug use typically change over
time?”). Finally all drivers were asked about the existence and nature of sub-grouping of
drivers due to drug use or non-use: “What do drivers that use drugs think of those that
don’t?” And “What do non-using drivers think of drivers that use drugs?”
Note that results are not reported in the same order as the interview questions
were asked (and hence not the same as reported in this description).
3.3. Procedure Initial contact was made by participants either calling an advertised phone
number, following up information given by another driver (snowballing) or being
approached in a truck stop by the interviewer. The interviewer either arranged to meet the
participant in a public place or in some cases, the driver gave the interviewer their phone
number. The interviewer then called them and conducted a phone interview. When
interviewed by telephone, the payment was electronically transferred into the
participant’s bank account. Prior to the interview, all participants were given a brief
description of the research and its aims. They were further informed of the ethical
obligations of the researcher, in particular that they would be assured complete
anonymity and confidentiality. Participants were told they must verbally give informed
consent and could withdraw from the interview or decline to answer any question if they
so desired. Also participants were told they could obtain a copy of the finished project
and were given a phone number to do so on the information sheet. Once the participant
had received this information and had verbally agreed to the interview, the researcher
signed a consent form on their behalf (see Appendix C). All interviews were tape
recorded, but participants were given the option of having the researcher take written
notes if they were uncomfortable with having their voice recorded. No records were kept
of names, bank account details or phone numbers. Interviews ranged in duration from
approximately 20 to 90 minutes and were immediately transcribed and the tape reused or
erased.
Data was analysed using NVivo version 2.0 for qualitative research. The qualitative
methodology allowed for the extensive use of quotations from the interviews to provide
information on the issues at hand.
4. Results
4.1. Demographic items Thirty five male truck drivers were interviewed for this research.
The age range of the sample was 26 to 56 years, the mean age being 40 years. Most
drivers lived in Queensland (n=31), two lived in Victoria, one in New South Wales and
one reported having no fixed address. All respondents were currently employed as
interstate (long haul) drivers, with the exception of one, who drove interstate for 20 years,
retired three years ago and currently owns a small trucking company.
The mean duration of truck driving career was 18.69 years (range 6 to 42 years).
The mean duration of interstate (long haul) driving career was 17.71 years (range 3 to 40
years). Eight drivers had discrepancies between years spent truck diving and years spent
long haul driving, indicating most start long haul and continue with it1.
Eight of the 34 respondents currently employed as drivers did not usually drive
regulation hours. Of these, four typically worked over 100 hours per week. Note that this
is their current routine and some may have driven excessive hours in the past. Five of the
eight that currently drive excessive hours reportedly use illicit drugs at work. One of
these only uses marijuana, the rest use stimulants. Three have never used illicit drugs at
work.
4.2. Self report illicit drug use status Twenty respondents had, at some stage, used illicit
drugs at work. Of this group, 14 stated they currently use illicit drugs and six were past
users. Of the sample, 15 had never used illicit drugs at work, but one of these had been
1 It is noteworthy that one driver (aged 55 years) reported he had been driving trucks for 43 years (40 long haul). He stated: “My first job was at the age of 12 driving an ice truck” (Respondent 29). It would seem he was driving long haul at age 15 (which is obviously illegal). The respondent may have been giving a round figure or estimate of this duration, or else it may be true he was interstate driving as a 15 year old in 1963.
addicted to speed and rehabilitated before he entered the road transport industry. Four of
these 15 had used pharmaceutical stimulants prior to the government restricting
availability approximately 14 years ago. Anecdotal evidence from the sample suggests
that use of products like Duromine, ephedrine, Shakers and Briquettes was not viewed as
illegal before this time. Use of these drugs then was an accepted norm, rather than
deviant behaviour. Illicit drug types used are illustrated in Table 3.
Table 3
Self reported usage rates of illicit drug types
Illicit drug type
Ever used
Currently use
Any 20 14
Amphetamine (speed) 20 9
Ephedrine, Duromine, Briquettes or Shakers 9 3
Cocaine 3 3
Marijuana 6 4
“Unknown party things” 1 1
Benzedrine 1 --
Whether they used currently or just in the past, no respondent reported injecting
any type of drug. Speed was taken nasally or orally, pharmaceuticals taken orally and
marijuana smoked.
“I never stuck a needle in my arm, but I’ve eaten enough speed to look like Crusty the Clown” (Respondent 9).
Drugs were commonly consumed in the truck. Twenty drivers who
had used illicit drugs reported this behaviour always or nearly always.
4.3. Self report licit drug use status Twenty nine respondents reported they had, at some
stage, used legal drugs when driving for work or after finishing work and 17 reportedly
currently used such substances. Usage rates by licit drug type are illustrated in Table 4.
Table 4
Self reported usage rates of licit drug types
Licit drug type
Ever used
Currently use
Any 29 17
Pseudoephedrine (e.g. Sudafed) 17 8
Caffeine (e.g. cola, coffee, energy drinks) 12 10
Ephedrine, Duromine, Briquettes or Shakers 9 --
Cigarettes 4 3
Other medication 3 2
No-Doz 1 1
Some drivers reported Duromine, ephedrine, Shakers and Briquettes as legal,
some reported them as illegal and some reported them as both. It seems that due to their
past availability, drivers may have been unclear whether or not they were breaking the
law. In total, 15 drivers reported ever having used these drugs. For the subsequent
reporting of results, drivers who stopped using these drugs when the government made
use of these an offence (approximately 14 years ago) and never used any other illicit
substance will be considered as never having used illicit drugs.
All but two of the 29 respondents who had used licit drugs at work reported doing
so as a fatigue countermeasure.
“At some stages I needed an extra burst of energy to do the job and I didn’t want to take speed” (Respondent 16). “Used ephedrine and Duromine back when they were legal to stay awake. Truck driving can be very monotonous and the truth is you need something to avoid fatigue. Our bodies just aren’t designed to stay alert when there is so little stimulation. Back then we were probably doing more hours too, because it wasn’t regulated” (Respondent 17).
Six drivers said they used Sudafed when they could not get (preferred) speed.
“Mainly when I can’t get hold of any speed. It’s rare though and they’re not good enough to keep you going like speed” (Respondent 22).
One said he took Sudafed in conjunction with speed.
“I have a clout of speed then take five or six Sudafed because when it wears off, the Sudafed wears off gently, so it lets me know its time for a top up. Whereas if I just had the speed, I’d be dumped in a second and not prepared for it” (Respondent 21).
One respondent said he was prescribed Duromine for obesity and one stated he took cold
and flu medication (pseudoephedrine) for normal medical reasons.
4.4. Peer report licit drug use Respondents were aware of truck drivers using the
following legal substances whilst working:
• Ginseng, guarana and other herbal drugs.
• Coffee, tea, chocolate, No-Doz (all containing caffeine).
• Pharmaceuticals, including Neurofen, Sudafed, Demazin, codeine, prescription
medications and diet pills (when used with prescription)
• Cigarettes
• Energy drinks (may contain herbal stimulants, such as guarana and/or caffeine)
One driver said he is not aware of truck drivers using legal drugs whilst at work.
Ten respondents estimated that less than 50% of truck drivers would use some
kind of the aforementioned licit drugs whilst at work. Twenty estimated more than 50%
and four did not answer the question.
Of the 34 that said truck drivers use legal drugs whilst at work, 29 said the reason
for this was to counteract fatigue when driving.
“’Cos they’re tired. It’s a bit of security to know you’ve got that bit of extra help” (Respondent 12).
“Some drivers use these because they won’t touch illegal drugs on principle. So this is the option for them” (Respondent 20).
Of these 29, four specifically mentioned availability (indicating the sentiment that they
need a stimulant).
“These are the only legal alternatives these days, you can’t buy better legal drugs like you used to, so most blokes either use the legal drugs I’ve just mentioned or they turn to harder, illegal drugs” (Respondent 32).
Two respondents said truck drivers use the aforementioned legal drugs for the same
reasons as anyone else in society uses such substances. Similarly, an additional two stated
drivers use legal drugs for health problems.
“It’s a normal thing, there’s no greater incidence rate as anyone else” (Respondent 26).
One said truck drivers smoke cigarettes for something to do to counter boredom.
Respondents were asked whether they believe legal drugs are used by truck
drivers more or less than in the past (say, 10 years ago). More than half indicated that the
drug trends had changed over the past decade due to restrictions on availability of the
types of stimulants once commonly used (for example, Duromine and ephedrine). Aside
from two responses that were referring only to cigarettes, all responses were indicative of
the use of licit drugs as a fatigue countermeasure.
“Probably more [referring to Sudafed] for the same reason there’s probably more use of illegal drugs. Once upon a time you used to be able to buy better drugs to keep you awake. They banned ephedrine which was probably one of the best things you could use. It was cheap, safe to use, so that’s just turned people to harder things, because you need something” (Respondent 8).
“It’s harder to get hold of them [Duromine] these days. You’ve got to show I.D. and lots of places won’t sell it to you. Half the time you have to get legal stuff illegally, so you may as well get illegal stuff because either way you’re breaking the law and speed is always going to be stronger” (Respondent 22).
Nine respondents stated that they did not know if legal drugs were used more or less than
in the past and one did not answer the question. Two respondents said there was now less
legal drug use due to lesser need to use stimulants as a result of legislative changes to
working conditions.
“Because more and more now in the middle of the night the parking bays are full, whereas once they weren’t, you know, people weren’t using them, so more and more drivers are coming in line with driving log book hours” (Respondent 1).
One respondent believed there was less legal drug use among truck drivers because such
substances do not work effectively as stimulants. Two respondents referred to cigarettes
only - and stated that the perceived current lesser use was a result of effective health
campaigns.
All but one respondent believed truck drivers use of licit drugs whilst driving was
justifiable. The driver who said it was not, stated:
“Shouldn’t have to use drugs of any sort to do any job. It is no different to anyone else and no one else can really justify it” (Respondent 16).2
2 It was thought that this driver may have been confused by the question and was referring to illicit drugs
The reasons given for justification of licit drug use by truck drivers included that
they were not breaking the law by taking such substances, and these were accepted in
wider society.
“It’s not harming anyone” (Respondent 5). “Everyone uses these, not just drivers” (Respondent 1). “Doesn’t matter. You’ve got to do what you’ve got to do to get by. If you’ve got to take drugs to get by, well you take them. When I say “get by” that can mean to do your job, or to just get by in life…to cope day to day” (Respondent 28).
Respondents also generally stated that drivers needed a stimulant, so in the interest of
safety, legal drugs could be justified.
“If you’re tired no delivery is so important you should put your life on the line for it” (Respondent 10). “Safer than illegal drugs, the comedown is more predictable, whereas speed just dumps you” (Respondent 21).
Respondents were asked their opinions on how truck drivers’ driving skills and
road safety are affected by the legal drugs they mentioned. Most said their skills were
improved because of the stimulant effect, which is safer than driving in a fatigued state.
“Oh I don’t think they make you any worse, probably make you a little better ‘cos you’re that much more alert” (Respondent 5).
“It’s fine…no drama. The only problem is that they are at the stage of fatigue that they feel they need to take something, and that is not necessarily the truckie’s fault” (Respondent 31).
Six respondents said legal stimulants had no affect on driving skill.
“It doesn’t. If you’re tired, you’re tired, they don’t do anything” (Respondent 11).
One driver mentioned negative effects of legal drugs on driving ability.
“Well you’re not meant to drive on No-Doz; it says so on the packet. Caffeine makes you more alert to a certain point, then it makes you shaky and scattered if you have too much” (Respondent 28).
4.5. Peer report illicit drug use Respondents were asked what types of illicit drugs they
are aware of truck drivers using. Most gave multiple answers. Thirty-three respondents
said speed (including speed, methamphetamine and amphetamine). Sixteen mentioned
illegally obtained pharmaceuticals such as Duromine, ephedrine, ‘Shakers’ and
‘Briquettes’3.
“I’m aware of truck drivers using any drug you could name- just like other people. However its speed that they use mostly. A fair few smoke dope too I guess, but it’s speed they take to do the job. Also a lot of blokes take Duromine if they can get hold of it” (Respondent 22).
Eleven mentioned marijuana, six mentioned cocaine and five respondents suggested
anything truck drivers could get, they would use.
“Anything that’s out there. I know of blokes that have taken them acid trips. I know of blokes taking horse distemper tablets…anything that will keep them awake” (Respondent 21). “Just about anything. Speed, coke, ecstasy, pot…I don’t know many Smakkies [heroin users] in the industry- if they are they must be using it just before they go to bed…but speed is rampant” (Respondent 9). “Whatever they can get their hands on they’ll use it” (Respondent 7).
Four mentioned ‘Ox blood’, three respondents mentioned ecstasy, and two mentioned
‘Rocket fuel’. One respondent said he did not know of any types of illegal drugs used by
other drivers.
3Note that six mentioned these drug types in the previous section: ‘What type of legal drugs are you aware of truck drivers using?’
Respondents were asked to estimate a percentage of truck drivers that use illicit
drugs whilst driving. Three said less than 15% of drivers would use illegal drugs. All
these drivers had never used illicit drugs.
“I know a few blokes that do, and I’ve met some blokes on the road that do, but I’d say 90% of the blokes I know don’t use at all… maybe they have used, some of the older blokes will tell the stories that they have used 10 years ago, but they don’t do it anymore” (Respondent 4).
Nine estimated between 16 and 30% of truck drivers use illicit drugs at work.
“Oh 20% or so…. I think its mainly the overnight blokes, the blokes that do produce out of North Queensland, I think they probably do ‘cos there’s no cameras or no way of monitoring their hours whereas down south you’ve got cameras that you go through they can only drive so many hours anyway” (Respondent 1).
Eleven said between 31 and 60% of truck drivers use illicit drugs at work.
“Depends where you look. The overnight runs would have a lot of users- like capital to capital. Some companies are pretty cruisy to work for, others push their drivers. I guess as an average about 50%” (Respondent 32).
Seven estimated between 61-90% (one had never used illicit drugs, three were past users,
three were current users). One respondent said greater than 90%. This was the retired
driver, who now manages a small company (also currently a speed user).
“98% would use speed...It’s absolutely endemic. The driver that drives Brisbane to Sydney and does not take drugs would be the exception to the rule. As an owner of a company it is not practical for me to say I won’t employ any driver that uses drugs. If I did, I’d be driving three trucks myself” (Respondent 17).
Five said they could not estimate a percentage.
“I wouldn’t like to put a percentage on it. There’s a lot of blokes that don’t like to admit to taking it, but I don’t care” (Respondent 18).
Respondents were asked for what reasons they believe truck drivers use illicit
drugs at work. Some gave multiple answers to this question. Perceived reasons by drug
use status of are illustrated in Tables 5, 6 and 7.
Table 5
Respondents who had never used illicit drugs (n=15): Perceived reasons why truck
drivers use illicit drugs
Respondent number
Fatigue/earn money Socialisation Trucking
image Relax/
feel good Addiction
4 xx 5 x x x x 6 xx 7 xx
1(p) x x x 2(p) xx 10 x x x 11 x x x
14(p) x x x 15 xx 19 x x x 25 x x
29(p) x x x 33 x x 34 xx
x = reason given, xx = single reason given, p = used pharmaceuticals when accepted
Table 6
Respondents who have used illicit drugs in the past (n=6): Perceived reasons why truck
drivers use illicit drugs
Respondent number
Fatigue/earn money Socialisation Trucking
image Relax/
feel good Addiction
3 xx 9 x x 13 x x x 16 x x 24 x x 35 x x x
x = reason given, xx = single reason given
Table 7
Respondents who currently use illicit drugs (n=14): Perceived reasons why truck drivers
use illicit drugs
Respondent number
Fatigue/earn money Socialisation Trucking
image Relax,
feel good Addiction
8(p) x x 12 x x x
17(r) xx 18 x x 20 x x 21 x x 22 x x 23 x x
26(m) x x x 27(p) x x x 28(m) x x x
30 x x 31(m) x x x
32 x x x = reason given, xx = single reason given, (r) = retired driver, (m) = currently only uses marijuana, (p) = currently only uses pharmaceuticals illegally
Seven respondents reported that illicit drug use among truck drivers was solely as
a fatigue countermeasure due to the demands of the job. The only current user to state
this was the retired driver. All other current users mentioned this as a reason for drug use,
but also mentioned other motives.
“There’s a lot of pressure put on from the management side of things…Yeah, If you don’t do the job, if you’re going to pull up and have a sleep every night, well get out of the truck ‘cos here’s another fella that just walked in the door yesterday looking for a job, we’ll give him a go” (Respondent 3). “To do the long haul. I also know of blokes who have admitted using them basically as a last-ditch type thing. Like it might only be a couple of hours from home, they’re not feeling to good, they’ve still got hours left that they can travel on, but they’re not feeling so good, so rather than pull up and have six hours sleep, they just take a pill to get themselves home. I’m not saying it’s the right thing to do, but it’s better than chewing on a gum tree” (Respondent 2).
Similarly, some suggested rates are not adequate to make a living without breaking the
rules (therefore a fatigue countermeasure is needed to drive longer).
“In 1984 I used to get $700 to go [from Brisbane] to Sydney. It’s now 2003 and you still get $700 for the same load, same trip. That is the problem in the transport industry, there’s no regulation… that’s what causes drug use” (Respondent 17).
“The job situation must be taken into account. The industry is a whole different ball game to what it was in the old days. Drivers have to work long hours because the rates are too low for them to make a living. The exploitation of subcontractors is rife” (Respondent 29).
There was a very high level of suggestion that drug use was not necessary now,
whereas in the past working conditions were worse and it was necessary then. It has
remained as part of the ‘image’ of the industry, and is used for socialization, due to peer
pressure or addiction.
“I don’t care how they structure the driving hours, the fact is it is still tiring and most of the time you need something to kill that tiredness. It’s
very boring too, you see, so that adds to the tiredness. Having said that, you can’t claim that every time a driver takes drugs it’s because he is tired. Some blokes are addicted. I know plenty of blokes that are addicted and they take the gear at home or whenever. You’ve got to remember that truck drivers are a pretty rough bunch of blokes and the type of people that would probably use drugs anyway even if they were doing another job. There’s a fair bit of peer pressure too, especially for the younger blokes to use drugs because probably the bloke he works with that’s encouraging him to use drugs to get the job done is going to make a buck or two out of it” (Respondent 22).
“For some it’s just a thing, they don’t have any respect for their bodies. It’s part of the image of truck driving and there’s a perception in the public and the media that truck drivers are a menace, that they’re all criminals, so some blokes say “hey well if everyone thinks that about me, I may as well be”. Blokes do it because in some areas or companies it is the thing to do, it’s like a fashion, a peer group thing. Others do it because they can’t stay awake long enough to earn decent money and they can’t get anything cheaper or more available legally that does the trick. Sometimes it’s a combination of necessity and just liking the drugs. It can be like a vicious circle, they take drugs because they like to do it, then their body wears down so they need it to keep going then they can tell themselves: ‘Oh but I need drugs to do my job,’ whereas really if they didn’t do them in the first place their body would be fit enough to do the trip without help from drugs” (Respondent 27).
“Mostly because they like it or because they’re addicted. Lot’s of blokes just enjoy taking drugs, they think it makes the trip more fun or whatever- maybe passes the time. Well often it’s part of the image…a lot of these guys are just cowboys, they think it’s part of the image and they have these flash trucks and they think it’s the way to go…they don’t really need to do it. Funnily enough a lot of it is that it’s their choice to do it. I mean these guys instead of getting in and doing the job, they sit around and wait for their mates, who might be 2 or 3 hours behind and they don’t go to sleep, they’d sooner sit in a truck stop and talk bullshit…and when their mates get there, it’s another hour talking with them then they have a line or whatever, then they travel for 12 hours together. And they’re egging each other on, saying ‘no, you’ll be right, keep going, keep going’. That is mainly younger drivers, the older drivers are either dead or they’ve woken up to themselves” (Respondent 5).
“A lot of blokes will tell you they’re doing it as a necessity. But that’s just their way of justifying it…truth is they want to party all night and drive all day and they just happen to be around people who say “oh look we’ll go down to the pub all night” and they do and then suddenly it’s time to go to work and they say “oh we’d better have a line”…peer group pressure has a
lot to do with it. Also there’s a lot of screwed up blokes out here on the road, and the best place to hide your feelings is in a bag of drugs. That’s why I used…it’s the Australian image to be a big tough bloke…don’t cry, don’t tell your mates you’ve got problems, but there’s no one to talk to. That’s the same with a lot of drug users, not just in this industry. There’s no other way to cope with your demons. I’ve been awake for more than 7 days in a row plenty of times” (Respondent 9).
Five respondents mentioned that drivers do illegal drugs because they can’t get hold of
strong legal ones anymore. This was never mentioned as the only reason.
“In the early days you could buy the ephedrine and the shakers and they were safe as houses. Two tablets and you got the job done. Now blokes are forced to buy the cut up shit and it’s destroying them from the inside out” (Respondent 18).
Respondents were asked whether they believe illegal drugs used more or less than
in the past (say 10 years ago). 11 said less, generally due to changes in the industry,
enforcement and legislation.
“I think the numbers have dropped dramatically. I think it’s mainly the owner drivers that are that far in debt they just push themselves all the time. I think the industry is starting to clean up but there’s always going to be that element there. Also the equipment is better, the roads are better, so you don’t have to push yourself so hard and their trying to take the onus off the drivers and throw it back on the forwarding agents” (Respondent 10).
“Because of the pressure put on them, the enforcement. A lot of the companies are waking up to the fact that it really doesn’t pay in the long term. I mean in more ways than one. There’s the chain of responsibility. I don’t know how much that’s enforced, but when you’re looking at directors and so forth that could be looking at $950,000 [fine]….now it’s starting to hit their hip pocket as well. So they realise there’s just no point in it” (Respondent 2).
Another twenty one respondents said there was more illicit drug use in the industry now
than 10 years ago. These respondents strongly indicated this trend was due to the non-
availability of legal stimulants that once were preferred as a fatigue countermeasure.
“The major turnaround as far as drugs in this industry happened in 1989. Two incidents in one week changed the whole transport industry. That was those two bus accidents we had at Grafton and Kempsey. I remember vividly Bruce Beard who was at the time the NSW minister of transport landed in the middle of the paddock when all these people are dead and obviously drugs were a factor. And Bruce Beard said ‘that’s it, no more ephedrine and Duromine, we will stop the element in the transport industry that’s taking drugs.’ And that was the biggest load of bullshit that’s ever come out of anyone’s mouth. And he did that. He actually effectively stopped ephedrine and Duromine which were the time tested ingredients that you needed to keep yourself awake. However he overlooked the fact that you actually needed to keep yourself awake. No one backs you up against the wall and says ‘you will take drugs to get this load here’ but the mere logistics of this country- this is a massive country with a very small population. So we have to get from capital city to capital city. To get there the competition is absolutely fierce” (Respondent 17). “A lot of the drivers my age, including myself, used to use ephedrine and shakers, which you could get over the counter. Now you can’t so we have to buy this crap” (Respondent 20).
There was also the suggestion by six respondents that the perceived trend towards more
illicit use followed a similar trend in wider society. These responses were less indicative
of drug use as a fatigue countermeasure, moreover for social or recreational reasons.
“Also I think more people in society are using drugs than ever before and that’s just the same if you look at any one part of the society, like truck drivers or factory workers or uni students or whoever” (Respondent 12). “Well the young blokes that come in to the industry are already using or else they pick it up within the first week (Respondent 22).
“Also there is just more drugs around these days, and if they take drugs before they start in the industry, or on their free time, it’s easy to let the habit slip into your work life…especially when you can justify it by telling yourself that you need it because of the sort of work conditions you’re dealt” (Respondent 29). “There is more crime in the industry. Also there is just more drugs everywhere” (Respondent 31).
One driver said “don’t know” and driver said “about the same”.
4.6. Addressing the problem of illicit drug use in the road transport industry Respondents
were asked their opinions and observations of what is being done to prevent or reduce
drug use in the road transport industry. Some mentioned more than one measure. Twelve
drivers said there was not much, or nothing being done about the problem.
“Nothing really. If they wanted to bust them they could, but they don’t because it costs too much” (Respondent 14). “I think it’s more up to the individual. I think a lot of blokes are jack-shit of it now and backed right off. So it is maybe not due to pressure to stop using, they just finish” (Respondent 6).
Fifteen drivers mentioned drug testing, including roadside (by police or RTA) or at a
company level.
“Every so often they’ll have a blitz, they’ll have sniffer-dogs that’ll go over the trucks and through the tool boxes… then there’s swabs, I’ve heard of people caught out with swabs. They swab the steering wheels and different parts of the truck, to test the sweat from your body. And the first thing if you’re involved in an accident- the first thing they do is take a blood sample, but I’ve never been involved, touch wood… But I’ve known several blokes who have. And they take the blood sample whether you’re conscious or unconscious. Then they split it, they give you a bottle and they keep a bottle and they seal them both up and then if you’ve got to go to court, well you’ve got your bottle as well…. Yeah, so there is that risk involved. And I have heard of a bloke who had a prang with drugs in his system and his insurance was going to be wiped” (Respondent 1). “The police and RTA try to bust you, not prevent you using. It’s revenue raising.” (Respondent 21)
Seventeen drivers mentioned workplace reforms, such as Fatigue Management, reduction
of hours and Chain of Responsibility.
“They’ve made it harder for the companies to push drivers as hard as they used to, with quick change-overs and that. They’ve made it easier on the driver so they shouldn’t need it” (Respondent 19). “The government is doing nothing. The companies are trying to give the drivers a larger levy window, so you’re not pushed. So if you’ve got 12 hours to get to Sydney, they might give you 13, so it gives you just a little
more leeway. I think that’s a pressure issue, through the unions, the companies and the drivers. I think the unions are pushing it and the drivers themselves are starting to stand up and say ‘the stuff will get there when it gets there…I’m not going to put mine or someone else’s lives on the line because I’m too tired’” (Respondent 10). “There was a program a few years ago- about five years ago that was trying to educate people…it was accepting the fact that some drivers were taking drugs- speed mainly- and it was telling how to live with it, how to come off it. It was in toilets and showers in roadhouses….but that’s gone by the looks of it” (Respondent 1).
Respondents were asked whether they believed the aforementioned measures
were effective at reducing illicit drug use in the road transport industry. Some referred to
more than one measure. Seven respondents did not answer the question or said “don’t
know”. Six thought measures were at least somewhat effective. Four of these six were
referring to driving hours/workplace reform. One was referring to drug testing by
companies).
“If the companies want to stop it with their drivers, I reckon they’re pretty effective but if they don’t they don’t” (Respondent 12).
One of these six was referring to both hours and testing.
“I reckon it’s made some blokes stop and some blokes would never start using, whereas they might of if there wasn’t the testing and the crackdown on hours. Still, if you want to use, you still will. I know a lot of blokes that get away with it” (Respondent 13).
Twenty-four drivers said measures were not effective in tackling the problem. Twelve
were referring to drug testing and this was due to tests being avoided by drug using
drivers.
“No matter what you do, people will work out ways to get around it. Unless you block every road in Australia you’re not going to get them. The guys who are on it or are transporting it just go around the road blocks. You’ve got to stop demand rather than punishing or trying to detect drug users. The guys the police are pulling up are doing the right thing. It’s victimisation. When the blitz is on the guys on drugs will go on
holiday for a week. They’re just victimising those that are trying to do the right thing. Fair enough they say ‘oh we found this and found that’ but what they’ve found is nothing, they’ve found it on the little guys, they’re not getting the real cowboys” (Respondent 11). “They’re not really effective because they might catch the first couple if they’re lucky, but it just means everyone else will pull up down the road and wait for them to go away. Prohibition never works…you can’t legislate something out of existence” (Respondent 26). “You see the same trucks every night, then all of a sudden you see a task force set up on the side of the road and you think ‘where are all those trucks?’ and they’re running a different route- they’ve gone a different road to avoid it. That tells me that their bosses are fully aware of it” (Respondent 5). “Oh not really. If you need to use to get the job done, you’ll work for a company that doesn’t test” (Respondent 18).
Of the 24 respondents that believed current measures were ineffective at reducing illicit
drug use in the industry, 14 were referring to legislative changes, particularly driving
hours regulations. Many of these drivers said the hours were inappropriate, or hard to
adhere to.
“Not really, no. A lot of times I’ll get to Melbourne and I’m out of log book hours, it might be ten or 11 in the day and I can’t drive til later that night. So I’ve got to sit around all day when I’m feeling awake and feeling good, then I’ve got to drive all night when I want to be asleep. At the end of the day I’m alright, I’m awake…you try and sleep in 40 degrees heat! It comes back to you. If they want to book me for log book I don’t care, it’s better than me driving when my body is telling me it wants to be asleep. I don’t want to kill myself. The other thing is the companies- not the trucking companies but the companies whose goods you’re running- don’t realise what you’ve done prior. So they might say “Its OK we are giving you 12 hours to do this trip, that’s plenty of time, but prior to that you might have just done 12 hours driving and a heap more hours awake” (Respondent 11). “The new log books are a joke too, because instead of you being allowed to drive 12 hours a day, it’s 12 hours in a 24 hour period. So if you go through the cameras you have to continue for 12 hours whether you’re tired or not or else it costs you time. See that sometimes forces blokes to use speed because they have to keep going. I don’t carry a log book cos if
I get caught with one that’s all filled out wrong they fine me $370 for every mistake. If I fail to carry, its just one off $370” (Respondent 16). “I haven’t had time to go sit in a classroom and do the fatigue management course so I’m only allowed to drive 12 hours a day, not 14. The only time I drive when I am so tired that I shouldn’t be driving, is to comply with the log book” (Respondent 29).
“No. They have to prevent you feeling the need. They just make us more secretive and it just stirs the driver up, makes him agro so he doesn’t give a shit. I’ve done Melbourne to Brisbane in 15 hours, and not one camera picked me up…I took all the light bulbs off the mirrors and roof of my truck and then not one camera got me- and believe me I was speeding the whole trip. The driving hours don’t work because you can’t choose your own schedule. If you take off at 7 o clock at night, they expect you to drive for 12 hours then sleep in the middle of the day in the heat and you just can’t do it” (Respondent 21).
Five of these drivers said that changing driving hours does not tackle the problem of
recreational or dependent drug users.
“As far as driving hours enforcement, well it’s good in theory, but if you’re using drugs as a social thing, rather than to stay awake, it doesn’t matter what restrictions are put on your hours, you’re still going to use. In fact if you cant keep driving that evening, you’re probably going to go out and socialise with the other blokes that have pulled up for the night, and they always give themselves a boot before they hit the pubs or whatever.” (Respondent 16). “Well the companies testing and working their drivers less is good in theory and it may have stopped some blokes needing to use, I don’t know. However if you’re a bloke who’s body is that used to relying on speed to keep it functioning, I don’t care what routine you’re given, you’re still going to need the shit to keep you going. What I’m saying is there’s a lot of truck drivers that have a habit, probably left over from when they used to have to drive bullshit hours. For those blokes better working conditions aren’t going to make you stop using. They may not like it- and then again they might, they might not want to stop using purely out of choice and that’s their business. But fact is habit is habit.” “No because stopping them driving long hours doesn’t stop them using drugs if they’re not necessarily using drugs to stay awake, if they’re just using them for fun” (Respondent 20).
Respondents were asked what, if anything, should be done to address the problem
of drugs in the road transport industry. Some gave multiple suggestions. Thirteen called
for the reintroduction of legal stimulants.
“Firstly there’s a lot to be said for making some sort of stimulant available legally. In America they do. Drivers each have a card that the government gives them and they use it in a thing that looks like an EFTPOS machine, they put it in and out comes the shakers or whatever they are. They’re only allowed one a day, it’s controlled, you see. In a month if they use more than the card allows, the card gets taken away” (Respondent 15).
“Simple: Provide us with a safe, legal alternative. It is the only way to cut down on speed in the industry. Having said that, you’d still get a percentage that use because they like the speed or they’re addicted to it, but I reckon it would cut out a huge percentage and the drug dealers would go broke” (Respondent 22).
Twelve drivers suggested various legislative changes they thought would impact on drug
use in the industry. Five of these spoke about rates.
“The answer is fat cats should be sharing some of the spoils of the industry with the men that are actually doing the transporting… the rates should be regulated. Drivers are not as appreciated as they should be, they’re scared that if they don’t do what they’re told, no matter how unreasonable, they’ll be thrown out and the company will put somebody else on” (Respondent 17). “They need to have a system like they do for taxi drivers, where you get paid a set rate per kilometre. There’s a vast percentage of the guys out there that want unrealistic trade rates- I don’t know whether they’re doing that because they know they’re never going to get it and they might get a happy medium. With regard to the group that take drugs just for recreation, for fun…well if you changed the rate system like that so guys didn’t have to do 7000k’s a week to make a living those guys aren’t going to be away as much…I would say it would have some effect on them too because their life would be more normal and less lonely” (Respondent 26).
Of these 12, four spoke about driving hours.
“Well they should let you drive more on your time, your schedule, because you’re the best judge of when you’re tired and when you’re fit to drive” (Respondent 30).
“You should be able to have your break when you want, it should be more up to the driver’s discretion. No matter how much you do it your body doesn’t adapt to being awake at certain times, it’s the way it is, we are not nocturnal, and we are forced to drive at night” (Respondent 11).
Seven spoke of reducing pressure from others in the supply chain, especially companies
and customers.
“That’s when you come into the old catch 22: Chain of command. The bloke who dispatches the trucks, the freight forwarder and the person who’s receiving- they’re the ones you should be looking at. The truck driver is only out there trying to do his job. These people are setting unreasonable ETA’s and the drivers just can’t make it” (Respondent 7).
Three said there needs to be more adequate rest areas.
“If you are lucky to find a bay why are RTA and police waking you up asking for your log book? Question them and they say they have the power to do so. Where is the safety in these actions? It is harassment...once again [the motive is] money” (Respondent 15).
One respondent called for the reintroduction of weighbridges.
“Bring back the weigh bridges. The weigh bridges where closed because 98% of drivers where doing the right thing. So it was money and not safety they where after” (Respondent 15).
Twelve drivers said a greater detection/prosecution effort should be employed to tackle
the problem of drugs in the road transport industry. Nine of these respondents said drivers
should be tested more by police at the roadside, or at a company level. These answers
generally indicated that this is the only way to stop drivers using drugs for
recreational/social reasons, rather than demand.
“More log book checks, random swab tests from within the company. The technology is there, but everyone turns a blind eye. See these guys are using because they like it and because of peer pressure, so there’s no use spending all that money on fiddling with the driving hours and that thinking it will stop them using drugs. Like I said before, it’s not because of the job, so the only way to stop it is to detect and penalize” (Respondent 14).
“For those that only use for fun or to fit in with their mates, they would choose to still use speed even if they could get ephedrine or whatever. For them, the only way you’re going to stop them is to catch them and penalise them and even that probably wouldn’t work. I don’t know how you would stop that group from actually wanting to use” (Respondent 27).
Four of these drivers suggested emphasising detection/prosecution of companies that
encourage drug taking.
“The government needs to tear through the companies. They’re corrupt, they’re feeding drugs to their workers, or they give it to one of their truckies to distribute then they go halves with him in the profits. They’re greedy and they’ve got no morals. Why can’t they be searched? Why can’t the police listen if a truckie tells them what’s going on? The cops ignore it when you tell them, what’s their vested interest in ignoring it? You tell me? Like I said, money buys everything, including silence, including protection from the law” (Respondent 9).
Six drivers suggested there should be social services available to truck drivers to help
them deal with drug addiction. Again, these replies emphasise the problem of drug use
beyond that as a fatigue countermeasure.
“Well they do all this to try and catch you, but there’s no help for drivers that can’t stop using. There’s no one to help them get off it and no one really tells you what it does to you. When I stopped I was that fucked up on the gear I’m lucky I didn’t kill myself or kill someone else or get thrown in jail. But when I needed help to get off the gear I couldn’t find that help in the transport industry, because you’re scared that if you admit you do it, you’ll get busted for it. I actually quit my job and went to rehab. They should have people in the industry there to help you, like a phone number you can ring for a start. You’re pretty much on your own if you want to stop using, and a lot of blokes can’t” (Respondent 13). “Well the conditions are generally good now, unless your company is not going by the book. But fact is any bloke can work for a company that goes by the rules. So the driving hours are fine. Some of the older blokes don’t know how to break their habit though, it’s all they know and a lot of them don’t have the support of family or friends to help them stop. They’d basically have no clues how to stop and perhaps the government can provide help to drivers through the companies or something, I tell you what, it’s bloody hard to stop using the gear if all your mates use it and your body is just fucked without it. Fucked with it, fucked without it…it’s a Catch-22” (Respondent 20).
“When we want to stop using drugs, there’s no one to turn to, there’s just no one for us. Anyone else that used drugs can get a social worker or whatever” (Respondent 21). “Also what they need is practical counsellors, someone who’s been there and been fucked up themselves. ‘Cos there’s the masculine image, blokes won’t talk to someone unless they’re on their level. There’s a lot of blokes that need someone to talk to, but they feel they can’t. It’s a rebellious thing. They’d say “what the fuck would you know…you’ve never tried it”. I really want to do it, but the government won’t let people like me help people. They don’t really give a fuck” (Respondent 9).
Two respondents said information should be distributed (e.g. pamphlets).
“If you guys used this research to make a booklet and put it in the road houses, that’d be the best thing that ever fucking happened. But half the fuckwits would look at it and laugh” (Respondent 9).
Similarly, one said:
“What ever they do for other drug users. It’s a social thing” (Respondent 16).
Two respondents said there is nothing more you can do to alleviate the problem.
“On the other hand there’s the blokes that use cos they just like drugs and they’re not necessarily tired or fatigued. Them it’s a harder problem because it’s the same as any other bloke in society that uses drugs and I suppose you got to solve it the same way. I don’t reckon you can really, it’s just a fact of life, really” (Respondent 12).
Two respondents said nothing should be done about stimulant use.
“Well they should only stop drivers using certain types of drugs, like heroin. It’s unsafe to drive using heroin. I don’t think drivers should be prevented from using speed because it makes them safer drivers” (Respondent 18).
Respondents were asked if they had ever received any information on the effects
of drugs on driving, and if so, from what source. Twenty-five had never come across drug
driving information. Eight respondents had received such information at some stage. Six
of those that had, had received information from seminars held at a company level.
“I have done a schooling course for a week and we were explained the effects and what happens…Yeah, at a company. Unfortunately they don’t do that anymore…they sent us away at their expense…about $2000, but it was really worthwhile, it made us more professional. Well the best part about it was that the guys who were the teachers were the guys from the old school, been there, done that…and did it to a really big extent but lucky enough they survived it. And they told us that it may seem like it’s working, you may think it’s working- but you don’t know when it’s going to wear off and everybody knows it only takes a split second and [motions a crash with hands]” (Respondent 5).
One respondent read about it in a trucking industry magazine and one did a course
through the courts, after prosecution for an offence. Two respondents did not answer the
question.
4.7. Becker’s theory of a drug use career
4.7.1. Becoming a drug user- past users Respondents who had used illicit drugs in
the past (n = 6) were asked their reasons for first use and circumstances surrounding
initiation. All of the six past drug users began their drug using careers on pharmaceuticals
(ephedrine, Duromine, Shakers and/or Briquettes). Five of these drivers were initially
offered these drugs by co-workers when there was a perceived need due to fatigue. The
fifth one was given these drugs by truck drivers before he started driving, but was
working on stations loading cattle on to trucks.
While all six mentioned fatigue, five also mentioned conformity to peers as
reason for starting use.
“Needed to, to get job done, it was the thing to do. I wasn’t going to be the odd one out” (Respondent 16). “Took speed to stay awake. And the pot- well that never gave me a high… I could be high on the gear I worked with, but I’d come home, have a joint and it would mellow me right out, and then within half an hour I could be asleep…Yeah it used to act as a real downer for me. I used to come home
and I’d still be high from the drugs, but before I’d come home I’d have a joint with the boys or on my own or whatever and then I’d get home and I’d be able to talk to my wife and kids cos I’d be back down there, but if I went home without it, I’d be that tired and cranky you’d just about throw the missus around and throw the kids around” (Respondent 3).
Drivers in this group turned to speed when the government tightened controls on
pharmaceuticals.
“I was complaining about being stuffed and a bloke I worked with gave me some tablets. They kept me going as long as I had to, so after that I’d get hold of them regularly. Started using speed the same sort of way, when the Shakers got harder to get hold of” (Respondent 24).
Four drivers said they learned the proper technique straight away, two said it took
some practice.
“A bit of practice to dose right, find the rhythm that suited me” (Respondent 16).
There was a strong theme among this group that years ago stimulant use was
accepted, was part of the lifestyle and was very much the norm. While every respondent
indicated perceived necessity to do the job, three of these six past users indicated their
usage motives changed with time (for example, the addition of peer conformity,
addiction).
“I started off using the Shakers but then you couldn’t get them any more and I started using speed for the same reasons as I was originally using the shakers. Well like I said, I had to do so many k’s and there was no way I was going to give up the job, so I just forced myself and the only way I could do it was with speed. Plus back then every bloke I knew did it, it was just the way it was, and I wasn’t about to be any different. A few years ago when I didn’t have to do so many hours cos my boss at that stage did it by the book, I still did the drugs cos I didn’t know anything else at that stage. I was addicted and I didn’t think it was possible to be a truckie and not do drugs. But again that’s not true, and it’s the drugs talking, its not rational it tricks you into thinking you need it to get by but you may in actual fact not need it” (Respondent 13).
“Firstly to do what they were asking me to do, huge trips. Then pretty soon I realised that when I was on it I didn’t think of all the bad shit that I always used to. So I kept using to deal with all the baggage from my childhood. I had a fucked up childhood and I didn’t like people, because everything bad that ever happened to me was from people. Eventually, all I needed was a bag of speed, a bag of pot and my dog. And if I started to run out of drugs Id get lonely. It seemed to solve everything. If I had a fight with my girlfriend I’d just bring out my bag, rack up on the table, tell her to fuck herself, go to work, rack up again. I was using her as an excuse to have 50 lines before I even left town. And if I have more lines I don’t have to think about how I just hit her, how I just smashed up my crockery that I worked hard to pay for, how I just punched holes in the walls. It makes you so gutless. I didn’t have the balls to turn around and say ‘Love, I’m drug-fucked, lets do something about it’. And a lot of blokes I know, they were far worse than me. They’ve got their missus so scared she’s got to have Valium before he gets home to calm her down so she doesn’t look like she’s shaking. They love them, but they just don’t know whether it’s Jekyll or Hyde coming home” (Respondent 9).
Three of the six past users had, at some stage, been addicted to illicit drugs.
Another one said it was possible he had been addicted.
This group was asked what percentage of the time they were driving under the
influence of illicit drugs. One said 50%, five said 96-100% or nearly all the time.
“Well I used to start Sunday; you’d do an all-nighter Sunday night, by the time you’ve finished, that’s unloading and getting to where you’ve got to load Monday morning so you wouldn’t take any then. Monday was always an easy day. You might take some Monday night. Then you’d just keep topping up. So you’d be basically under the influence of drugs Monday night through Thursday” (Respondent 3). “I hate to say it, but 100%, if not there’d be only a short time at the start of a trip when I hadn’t had the chance to have some yet, but I’d get it in to me as soon as I could. I got to the stage where I had no faith in myself or my driving unless I had some. It was a security thing I guess you could say. But I know now that that’s just the drugs talking, making you want more” (Respondent 13).
4.7.2. Becoming a drug user- current users Respondents who currently used illicit
drugs (n=14) were asked their reasons for first use and circumstances surrounding
initiation4. Four of the 14 current users reported they started using speed before they
entered the transport industry and were introduced to the drug by peers. These four never
used pharmaceuticals (Duromine etc.) for fatigue. Three of these drivers still currently
use speed, one also currently uses marijuana and one now only uses marijuana.
“Just did it with a group of mates. Some of them had already used so they started me on the shit. Only used recreationally then, but when I started driving trucks I used more often” (Respondent 22). “My older brother and some of his mates used all the time, so I guess I started with them, just recreationally. I was already smoking pot, so it was the next step. I was already used to it when I started in the transport industry, so I kept using it, both recreationally and sometimes when I thought it was necessary because I was driving tired” (Respondent 30).
These four all learned the proper technique for speed use straight away. The
benefits they reported expecting at the initial use were confidence and feelings of
wellbeing.
“Made me feel good, feel like partying. Made me confident” (Respondent 30). “Confidence, made me feel good… we used to party on it so it was pretty wild. Also it made me one of the boys if you know what I mean. It’s a peer thing, drugs” (Respondent 22).
All four did not really know what to expect at initiation, if anything they expected
to experience what they had observed peers experiencing.
“Just to be in the state I’d seen other blokes in, but you don’t really know what a drug is going to feel like until you do it” (Respondent 31).
Use continued and escalated when they began driving trucks but social motives
were still present.
“Sometimes it’s good too if you pull up for the night and you’ve still got that bit of energy you can gasbag with you mates at the truck stop. It’s a
4 One current user (Respondent 28) has only ever used marijuana. This driver did not answer questions regarding the development of a career path in drug use.
pretty lonely job, so it’s good to have a yak when you can. Everyone needs a social life and you just can’t do it if all you do is drive-sleep-drive-sleep” (Respondent 22). “Sometimes because I needed that extra kick to keep me going when I’m really tired. Sometimes just because I feel like it. I try to only do it in moderation, but I can’t deny I like it. It makes you feel good, makes the hours go faster” (Respondent 30).
As far as the benefits changing over time, they mentioned a lessening of benefits
due to tolerance, poor health and the added benefit of assisting with fatigue when driving.
“Well it gets harder to get the benefits ‘cos you work up a tolerance, see. But the benefit to me now is I stay awake when I’m driving. Back when I started using speed I wasn’t trying to do that, I wasn’t working” (Respondent 12).
In terms of negative effects over time, three mentioned extreme health
consequences and dependency. The fourth said at times a dirty batch can make you sick.
“Yeah because I got hooked for a couple of years and I was pretty rat shit. My teeth are pretty fucked from it. I get real scattered, I used to be full-on scattered when I was using more” (Respondent 12).
These four reported driving under the influence 20, 40, 80 and 90% of the time.
Nine of the 14 current drug users began stimulant use when they were in the
transport industry. All started using pharmaceuticals and then used speed because it
became difficult to get hold of pharmaceuticals (two now only use Duromine
occasionally, two now only use marijuana).
“I had done a couple of trips and I was stuffed, I could hardly keep awake and a couple of blokes I was working with said “here, take a couple of these” and they were Shakers. So after that I’d take them whenever I got tired, and it made the trips easy, I could always get the job done. Back then Duromine and the others were easy to buy, but then it got harder and harder, so me like thousands of other drivers turned to speed” (Respondent 21).
“When they stopped the chemists selling ephedrine, me and a group of drivers I worked with got hold of speed from this other bloke and the rest is history” (Respondent 27).
All5 were introduced and shown how to use by others in the industry. Only one
driver said he learned the proper technique straight away, the others said it took some
time/practice to dose right.
“It took some practice. I’d dip my finger in and then give it half an hour and if it wasn’t working I’d have some more. In the end you’d know how much you’d need for the next spell of driving. Unfortunately speed is always a bit of trial and error though because you don’t know how strong the batch is” (Respondent 21). “They taught me, but they taught me the wrong way. They taught me to do lines but pretty soon I had no tissue left on the inside of my nose and I was getting nose bleeds for no reason” (Respondent 18).
All said they expected the benefits to be alertness, and that was indeed what they
experienced. This group got the desired effects first time they used.
“Well the shakers kept me going, when I was working pretty much non stop. I would have been out of a job without them. Same with the speed down the track” (Respondent 23).
As drug use continued, the positive effects were there, but were harder to achieve due to
tolerance.
“Over time it didn’t so much make me feel good as I just felt terrible without it, so when I took it I guess I’d be at a normal level in terms of feeling OK, rather than feeling awake. It always kept me awake” (Respondent 27).
There were no negative effects at initial use, but all experienced them over time.
“When I was using the cut stuff and snorting… no lining left on my nose and you should see my back, the scarred effects from the shit I’ve been taking, it blisters out. Also definite psychological effects, which are determined by the way you use it, how much, what it’s cut with” (Respondent 18).
5Note: The following results do not include the company owner (Respondent 17) as he did not answer these questions.
“Yes…addiction, general poor health, mental problems, paranoia, lost about 20 kilos” (Respondent 27). “Yeah, I’m not the healthiest bloke. My teeth are bad and my stomach is pretty crook” (Respondent 20).
Nine of the 14 current users also reported using use illicit drugs outside of work.
Two others stated that they did not, however that did not mean they had a break from
drug taking, because they had such little time off:
“No, but that’s not a lot of time when you work as many hours as I do” (Respondent 23). In this group of current illicit users who started use when employed as a truck
driver, only one driver mentioned personal drug use for socialization reasons as well as a
fatigue countermeasure. This driver only currently uses marijuana, and was referring to
his past speed use.
“As a precautionary thing towards the end of a trip when I was concerned about getting tired. It progressed because of the predictability of it…you knew you’d have to have another taste in 4 hours or you’d fall asleep. It progressed into being part of my social scene because when you got home you were even more tired that you otherwise would have been, so you take it so you can have some sort of a social life as well” (Respondent 26).
Eleven of the 14 current users reported they had at some stage been addicted to
drugs. A further two said it was possible, or they were not sure if they had been addicted.
“I smoke pot because it relaxes me and helps me wind down after a trip. When I was using speed it was a combination of necessity (because I did get tired doing the trips I was doing) and just something to do. I liked the way it made me feel, helped me get by. Like I said before, you get to a stage where you can’t tell if you’re taking it for necessity or just because you like it or your body craves it. It’s easiest and least stressful to just tell yourself you need it to do the miles” (Respondent 31). “Started off I needed it to do my job, then I was just an addict I guess” (Respondent 21).
When asked what percentage of the time they spent driving they were under the
influence of drugs, the two that currently use Duromine said 50 and 80%. The three that
currently only use marijuana said 10, 25 and 60%. Of the remainder, one said 5% and
five said 95-100%.
4.7.3. Becoming a drug user- opinions of those that have never used Respondents
who had never used illicit drugs (n = 15) were asked how, in their opinion, drug using
truck drivers begin use. Four thought that it triggered purely out of necessity to do the
job.
“Probably they need it to do the job, they’re too tired, they can’t cope with the demands” (Respondent 34).
These four thought that they started use when in the industry, they were introduced to
stimulants and shown how to use them by other drivers and at the time of initiation they
were expecting the benefits of the drug to be that they could stay awake, do longer hours.
Another two non-users thought that the influences on truck drivers to begin illicit drug
use were not fatigue related at all. Both thought it was image and/or peer pressure motive,
one also thought it was to make them feel better.
“Probably to deal with stress, to relax. It is a stressful job. There’s so many idiots on the road. I don’t think it’s necessarily to fight fatigue. I think it’s to relax. Also I think the younger drivers think it’s an image thing. They listen to the older truckies telling tales of how they got from point A to point B in such a quick time and they try to live up to that. It’s all just talk” (Respondent 10).
Both of these respondents thought truck drivers probably started use before entering the
industry. Subsequently, neither of these two thought they were introduced to drugs by
other truck drivers.
“I think they’re usually using before they get in the industry. Maybe they go for jobs in the industry because they think it will be accepted…Well
they probably have their contacts already before they start in the transport industry, but that network would widen as they mingle with more using drivers, then they might score from others in the industry” (Respondent 10).
Six non-users thought there was a combination of reasons why drivers start using drugs
(i.e. fatigue or peer/image reasons or they start before entering the industry). One driver
did not respond to this question.
“Either they start before they come in the industry- and in that case it would be just the same as anyone else who starts using drugs or they start when they’re in a situation where they can’t do what’s required of them because they’re too tired, or it’s unreasonable”(Respondent 11). “Just as part of a peer group, as an image thing often…to be in with a crowd. Others may start to cope with the stress of the job or of their lives. There’s a lot of unhappy blokes driving trucks. Some may start simply because they can’t conform to the crazy rules and regulations in this industry without drugs” (Respondent 29). “Oh the pressure for sure. I guess you get blokes that say ‘come work over here, this is what goes on over here’ and they choose to work there and therefore choose that lifestyle- the drugs and all- cos it’s the go, you know” (Respondent 5).
There was a general consensus among this group that if they were using before
the industry, they were introduced by peers out of the industry. If they began use when in
the industry, they were introduced by drivers.
When asked what benefits drivers expected when starting drug use, four drivers
said anti-fatigue/money earning benefits,
“Keep going longer, earn decent money. It’s just so hard to earn money in this industry” (Respondent 25).
Three said pleasure related benefits.
“Just the high” (Respondent 7).
One said both pleasure and job related benefits.
“Makes them feel happier, allows them to earn more money” (Respondent 29).
One said the benefit of fitting in with the peer group and one did not answer the question.
With regard to the effects/benefits changing over time, four mentioned addiction
or tolerance.
“They get dependent really quickly; spend more and more money on it and they turn into idiots. Some of them see the light and give it away, but most of them once they start it just gets more and more and they’re a slave to it but they just can’t get ahead in life and make any money…it all goes up their nose” (Respondent 11).
Four mentioned serious health consequences.
“Well I’ve buried 4 of my mates from drug use. Their kidneys have collapsed, their liver…everything goes and they get into really bad health. They lose massive amounts of weight and before they know it they’re 10 toes up” (Respondent 7).
Some gave more than one answer to this question, two did not answer.
4.7.4. Supply Whether or not they had used illicit drugs themselves, all said
scoring for truck drivers was easy and that they did it from others in the industry. Two
non users thought they might also score from peers outside of the industry.
“It was ridiculously easy, but at the start it wasn’t so easy because not so many drivers used speed, we all went to the local chemist instead. So we had to seek the contacts initially, but then the market boomed out of demand for it. See the government didn’t think that they were creating a huge illicit drug economy by stopping the chemists giving truck drivers ephedrine. The drug dealers must love the government for that move- best thing that ever happened to them” (Respondent 27). “It sounds funny but if you walk into a truck stop and you know that there’s a bit of gear going around, all you have to do it sit there and scratch your nose like this [motions] and someone will come over and say ‘what do you want, you want a bit of gear do ya?’” (Respondent 5). “The Duromine from the Melbourne markets. You can get anything there” (Respondent 8).
“It got easier as I met more blokes in the industry that did it. I could score just about anywhere” (Respondent 31).
4.7.5. Secrecy Past users were asked who else knew they used drugs at the time
were using. Four said workmates, one of these also said his girlfriend. One said everyone
they knew was aware and one did not answer. Most of the people who knew were drug
users themselves. Three drivers said they did not hide their drug use from others because
they got to a stage where they did not care about consequences. Two said they only hid
their use from non-users and one did not answer the question.
“Well not round the company, ‘cos all the blokes did it, it wasn’t a big deal. But yeah you wouldn’t just talk about it to anyone, and you had to be careful of the cops and that. You don’t know who is a cop these days, could be any bloke. I wouldn’t go home wired either. I’d have a joint or whatever so I wasn’t off my face” (Respondent 3).
Current users were asked: ‘Who knows you use drugs?’ Three said just their
workmates who also use (a further three said workmates plus others). Four said their
wives/girlfriends or family knew and these people did not use themselves.
“My ex wife knew, because she suffered because of it. The blokes in my company know” (Respondent 23).
Two said just about everyone they knew was aware.
Current users were asked: Do you make much of an effort to hide your use to
others? Four said no. Three said yes and four said they made an effort to hide their drug
use from non-users, but not from users.
“Only from people that don’t use. There’s no point hiding it from other drivers that use. They use more than me anyway” (Respondent 32).
Respondents were asked to estimate a percentage of drivers they associate with
that use illicit drugs. Current users mean estimate of peers that use illicit drugs was 63%.
Those that had never used generally gave a very small estimate. Three said ‘don’t know’
two answered the question incorrectly and were excluded from results6. One said 80%
and the mean estimate for the rest was 14.5%.
“Very, very small. I’ve never actually seen it, I’ve just heard about it” (Respondent 10).
Respondents were asked, ‘What do non using drivers think of those that use
drugs?’ Of the six past users, five said non users would generally look down on users
and/or think they are foolish. Two added that while this may be the general consensus,
they personally don’t feel that way towards users, because they understand their motives.
One past user did not answer the question.
“Probably disapprove or think they’re weak or something. See because I’ve been there, I don’t think of them like that because I understand sometimes you just have to. I kind of pity them I guess, makes me glad I got out” (Respondent 13).
Of the 14 current users, eleven said non users look down on users, or
strongly disapprove of their behaviour.
“Scorn on them. Those that don’t depend on it can’t see why others should have to” depend on it” (Respondent 8).
One added that sympathy is felt for drug users. This driver was referring to speed
users, whereas he currently uses Duromine. Two non users did not answer and
one said ‘don’t know’.
Of those that had never used, five said only that non using drivers think those that
use illicit drugs are foolish or that they disapprove of drug taking by other drivers.
“It’s frowned upon, they don’t like it. On speed you drive like a maniac, it’s scary when these cowboys are coming towards you. We are trying to do the right thing and there’s blokes out there doing the wrong thing. It all comes down to whether you make it through the night or not” (Respondent 5).
6 These respondents did not give a current estimate, they estimated how many peers were using drugs when they themselves were using pharmaceuticals more than a decade ago
Four non users thought drug using truck drivers were foolish for using, but at the same
time they held sympathy for them.
“You feel sorry for them in a way. They’re creating a monster for themselves. They can only drive so many hours anyway, then they’ve got to stop, then they can’t sleep. Yeah they’re not socially accepted, they’re really not. If you went to a roadhouse it would be frowned upon, whereas in the old days it was always part of conversation…it was always spoken about. But nowadays not many of the older drivers would want that type of lifestyle anyway?” (Respondent 1).
Five drivers said they did not care or did not concern themselves with the issue.
One said he thought it was preferable to a truck driver driving tired, but if they
used for recreation, he disapproved. One did not answer.
Respondents were asked: ‘What do drivers that use drugs think of those that
don’t?’ Of the past users, two said at the time they were using, they thought non-users
were ‘crazy’ for missing the opportunity to do extra hours. Two said there is a lot of
social separation and mistrust between users and non users.
“Oh well we used to call them ‘girls’ it was like the good guys and the tough guys…And we never trusted the blokes who didn’t. You see if you can do those extra miles, you’re going to earn more money than the bloke that sticks to the rules. So he’s going to have a chip on his shoulder, isn’t he? ‘Cos he is doing the right thing, but he is not getting the reward, you see. But in the early days we thought they were mad for not doing it, for not getting the extra bucks, yeah we used to call them girls and pussies and all of that” (Respondent 3).
One said they don’t care, one said at the time he was using he did not realise there were
non-using truck drivers and one did not answer.
Of the current users, four said there was social separation of the two groups, due
largely to illicit drug using truck driver’s paranoia of non-users.
They steer clear of them because they’re paranoid of they just see them as so different they’re not going to have anything in common and get along with them (Respondent 27).
Three said they were jealous of non users, two said they don’t care, another three said
mostly they don’t care, but sometimes users are wary of non using drivers due to paranoia
or they think non-using drivers feel superior. Two said they thought non-using truck
drivers were dangerous as they were more prone to fatigue. Three did not answer.
Of the drivers that had never used illicit drugs at work, six said there is a lot of
social separation between users and non-users in the industry, two said there was not.
Four don’t know how users feel about non users, three said non users are teased or put
down. One said users are jealous of non users and one said users don’t care.
“Probably think their nerds or something. The companies that employ the drivers that are on speed don’t like the professional companies. There is definitely a separation there, particularly at the company level” (Respondent 5). Respondents were asked their perception of the level of risk illicit drug using
truck drivers have of being caught by police with drugs in their system or in possession of
drugs. Twelve stated there was a high level of risk of being caught. Eight of these had
never used illicit drugs, one was a past user and three were current users. These responses
were generally based on personal observation of police presence including searching of
trucks and drug testing.
“I’ve been busted with five-and-a-half grams of speed on me. It’s funny, when other people are searched for drugs- or their houses are searched they need a warrant and there’s outrage about it being an invasion of privacy. But when they pull us up and our trucks are like our homes- they just pull everything out all over the road and nothing is ever said. The relationship between the truck drivers, the RTA and the police is getting worse and it’s not long before someone’s going to get hurt out of it. Someone’s going to get pulled up one too many times, pride will get in the way when they’re getting hassled and bang- they’ll shoot the copper” (Respondent 21). “Because the cops are on to it. They know what is going on and they like to target truck drivers and hassle them” (Respondent 32).
Twenty drivers said there was not much risk of detection. Ten of these were
current users, four were past users and six had never used illicit drugs at work. Again,
this was often based on their own observations of police presence.
“Because there is not that much testing. I hardly ever see it. If you’re going to get busted anywhere, it’s NSW. Queensland is pretty slack” (Respondent 23). “Well I never got caught, and I was as bad as it gets” (Respondent 9).
Four of these said drug using drivers avoided tests.
“No matter what you do, people will work out ways to get around it. Unless you block every road in Australia you’re not going to get them. The guys who are on it or are transporting it just go around the road blocks. You’ve got to stop demand rather than punishing or trying to detect drug users. The guys the police are pulling up are doing the right thing, it’s victimisation. When the blitz is on the guys on drugs will go on holiday for a week. They’re just victimising those that are trying to do the right thing. Fair enough they say ‘oh we found this and found that’ but what they’ve found is nothing, they’ve found it on the little guys, they’re not getting the real cowboys” (Respondent 11). “The only way you’re going to get caught is if there’s roadblocks and they search you and swab test your wheel or whatever. And if you’re carrying drugs or if you’ve used drugs you hear about it on the grapevine and you just don’t go there. 9 times out of 10 if you’re using goee or whatever, your boss knows about it (in fact he’s probably sold the shit to you) and he’s not going to mind one bit if you lose some hours because you are avoiding a blitz. These days he gets in the shit too, you see if his driver is nabbed” (Respondent 12).
A few drivers mentioned that there was little effort by police.
“It’s kind of accepted by the police, they know it’s making you safer and as long as you do things within the line they leave you alone” (Respondent 18). “We know how to avoid being busted. Also the cops aren’t really that intent on busting truckies with drugs. The roadside blitzes are really a token gesture to keep the public happy. The cops know we need to take drugs so they turn a blind eye to an extent. They know that if the got rid of all the speed, they’d be spending their time mopping up the carnage that
would happen from truckies falling asleep at the wheel every day” (Respondent 22).
One replied “Don’t know”, one did not answer the question (this was the retired driver).
4.7.6. Morality Past users were asked if they believe it is morally OK for truck
drivers to use illicit drugs. Three said yes, at least at the time they thought this.
“Any bloke who is using would be able to justify it to himself. That’s the nature of drugs; they convince you they’re your friend, that you need them” (Respondent 9).
One past user said it was not morally OK.
“No I didn’t think it was right, I reluctantly did it” (Respondent 16).
And one gave a mixed response.
“Yeah and no. I mean it is breaking the law, but sometimes it’s like, well, you just don’t have any choice in the matter. Like I said, if I could still buy the Shakers and that, I would…but that’s the way it is. Which is more dangerous…falling asleep at the wheel or being full of goee? ‘Cos sometimes you’ve got to do the hours or you can’t put food on the table or whatever” (Respondent 3).
One past user did not answer the question.
Current users were asked if they believe it is ‘morally OK’ for truck drivers to use
illicit drugs. The retired driver and the one that has only ever used marijuana did not
answer. Nine of the remaining 12 respondents said it was morally OK in their opinion.
“At the time [of speed initiation] I didn’t have a problem with it because I was already smoking a bit of pot, which made me a criminal. I was already driving outside the log book hours, which made me a criminal- or a law breaker- so to progress to another illegal drug didn’t seem like a big step in terms of morals…it’s a self fulfilling prophecy. If you tell people they’re bad for long enough, they start to believe it” (Respondent 26).
Two gave mixed responses.
“I use speed but I’m against it. I can’t get anything else and I’ve got to get something to stay awake” (Respondent 21).
“When I need it to keep me going when I’m driving, yes. When I use it for partying or recreation- I guess you could say it’s not moral- but I don’t have a problem with that” (Respondent 30).
Respondents that had never used illicit drugs at work generally thought that drug
use by truck drivers could not be justified. Ten of the 15 non-users held this sentiment.
“You’ve got a lot of responsibility just driving a heavy vehicle, and if you’re under the influence of drugs or alcohol you could wipe someone’s family out…they have a choice, they can say ‘I won’t do it’” (Respondent 10).
Three gave mixed responses.
“I can’t see the sense in working your arse off, week in week out and spending all that money on drugs, I just can’t see the advantage of it. You may as well have a 9 to 5 job. While I don’t see it as justified in the trucking industry, I also believe that truck drivers are targeted unfairly and people in other industries, or other drivers are overlooked when it comes to drug use. Why aren’t they tested for drugs? Why aren’t other drivers tested? I’m sure there’s just as much car drivers out there that are driving under the influence as truck drivers. It’s such a stereotype” (Respondent 19).
One non-user thought drug use by truck drivers could be justified.
“Well I think they should legalise some sort of prescription drug, like the shakers, then they wouldn’t need the illegal stuff. But that’s up to the government isn’t it?” (Respondent 6).
Of this group, one did not answer.
Respondents were asked: How do illegal drugs affect truck drivers’ driving ability
and road safety? Seventeen gave a mixed answer, citing it was good at some stages of
use, and bad for driving skills at other stages of use, or it is better than fatigue. Nine of
these were current users, three were past users and five had never used illicit drugs at
work.
“The first day they probably feel great, the second day not too bad…by the third day they’re burnt out, their body is just…there’s no alertness, they
don’t know what they’re doing…it’s like a Jekyll and Hyde effect sort of thing” (Respondent 4).
“Well speed can be good or bad. That’s whey they should bring in something safe for drivers to use. It makes you more alert, but the come down is pretty sudden and if you’re not ready for it, you can be really out of it” (Respondent 30). “Well speed generally makes you a better driver because there is nothing more dangerous than falling asleep. However if you get a bad batch you can be pretty out of it or it can drop you on your arse, then is dangerous. On the whole I don’t thing it makes you a bad driver unless you’re off your guts or you take too much and you turn into a freak. I reckon driving stoned is worse because you’re in slow motion, you haven’t got the awareness” (Respondent 22).
Eleven respondents mentioned only negative effects of speed on driving, especially the
unpredictability of the drug. Seven of these had never used illicit drugs at work, two were
past users and two were current users.
“It’s got to make your senses slower, your reaction time slower. You can’t be completely switched on, ‘cos you’re not” (Respondent 7). “Well I’ve taken speed as a younger bloke, but never driven on it. I can’t imagine you’d be a better driver on it…You don’t know when that drug is going to wear off and when it wears off you’re going to be 10 times more tired than you were. Also it makes them aggressive and overconfident. It makes them 10 foot tall and bullet-proof” (Respondent 5).
Four only mentioned positive effects of speed on driving skill and road safety (two
current users, one each past and never used).
“Makes you more alert, I wouldn’t drive without speed. I am a far safer driver on it” (Respondent 18).
Two respondents said “don’t know”, one did not answer.
Past illicit dug users were asked their opinion of their own driving skills when
under the influence of illicit substances. Most gave a mixed response, saying it was better
than when fatigued, but problematic in some respects. This was generally consistent with
their reported views on other truck drivers’ skills and safety when driving on drugs.
“Well considering I wasn’t sleeping, my driving was better with drugs. Still it was pretty fucked up, you’ve got no patience, you don’t think anything bad can happen ‘cos you’re over confident” (Respondent 13).
“Initially, better. I’d be more alert and could concentrate better. Down the track when I was more fucked up on the drugs I drove like a maniac, real aggressive, I didn’t give a fuck and half the time I didn’t know what I was doing” (Respondent 9)
All past users reported bad driving in the ‘coming down’ phase of drug use.
“When they wear off you feel like shit. When I say shit I mean I reckon a three year old kid was a better operator than what I was. That’s no word of a lie, I’d be all over the road, I’d be missing gears…when you start coming down off the ‘goee’ you’re slowing down…when fatigue’s here [showing with hands] and you’re here, the quality of driving…well a three year old kid would be a better driver than what I was” (Respondent 3).
Regarding driving when ‘hanging out’ for illicit drugs, three past users reported very
dangerous driving behaviour. Two did not answer the question and one stated he never
hung out for drugs.
“You can’t think of anything else, if you’re as bad as what I was. Your body hurts, your head hurts, you’ve got to have more” (Respondent 13).
Current users were consistently positive about their diving skills whilst under the
influence of illicit drugs. All said their skills were improved due to lesser fatigue.
Generally, they said that when they were ‘coming down’ driving skills were worse, but
they avoided this by taking more drugs. If they did get to the stage where they were
‘hanging out’ for drugs (most said they never let this happen), current users said they
were not concentrating on driving.
If you use a lot, then all you can think about at this stage is how shit you feel and how to get more speed” (Respondent 32).
Two respondents had had an accident whilst under the influence of illicit drugs.
“Yes, but no injuries. It would have happened whether or not I had drugs in my system. It was unavoidable, so you can’t say it was the drugs” (Respondent 22).
5. Discussion
5.1. Drug use prevalence and patterns The current study found a high level of licit and
illicit drug use experience. However, this research used a small sample (35 respondents)
and therefore there is no claim of statistical significance of these findings, nor can
assumptions be drawn regarding the relevance of these drug use rates to the wider, truck
driving population.
In this sample, 14 of 35 drivers (40%) currently use illicit drugs at work and a
further six have past experience with illicits. Substances used were mainly stimulant
types, that is: illicit amphetamines and amphetamine based pharmaceuticals (refer to
Table 3). Previous research has consistently indicated that these types of drugs are
preferred among this cohort, so therefore the findings relating to substance types were to
be expected.
In comparison to previous research, the rate of drug use among this sample was
high. For example, Mabbott and Hartley (1999) found 27% of 236 Western Australian
truck drivers admitted using licit and/or illicit stimulants. Starmer et al., (1994) found that
106 of 318 truck driver samples contained drugs including ephedrine (7.86%),
phentermine (7.55%), methamphetamine (5.03%) and amphetamine (5.03%).
Peer report estimates of prevalence illicit drug use among truck drivers was also
found to be high, with greater estimates given by those who personally had illicit drug
use experience. Mabbott and Hartley (1999) also reported this trend and found the
average estimate of peer drug use was 28%.
Reasons for drug use were explored in depth - both as self report and peer report
data. This information is arguably most important when planning anti-drug strategies.
The current study found that drug use among truck drivers is likely to be a fatigue
countermeasure, as well as being a behaviour that incorporates several other motivating
factors.
5.2. Drug use as a fatigue countermeasure Work related fatigue was strongly linked with
both peer report and self report stimulant drug use among this sample. This was an
expected finding, particularly due to consistent reporting of this issue in previous studies
on truck drivers’ drug taking (e.g. Starmer et al., 1994; Mabbott & Hartley, 1999) as well
as the importance given to the reduction of fatigue in legislation designed to also tackle
the problem of drugs in this industry (e.g. limitations on driving hours).
There were several noteworthy findings in the current study that demonstrate
stimulant drug use as a fatigue countermeasure. Firstly, nearly all of the drivers
interviewed had used licit (legal) drugs at work and there was consistent reporting that
this was purely a fatigue countermeasure. Peer report usage of licit drugs purely as a
fatigue countermeasure was also very high: Most respondents cited this as the norm.
Also, subjective observations of trends in prevalence of licit drug taking assumed this
practice was fatigue related (e.g. Lesser presence now than in the past due to driving
hours restrictions, greater presence due to restrictions on other anti-fatigue substances). It
was also found that drivers generally believed use of licit stimulants was justified due to
mainly for the need for anti-fatigue drugs but also because of the legality of these
substances and the (perceived) absence of a negative impact of these on driving skill.
The emphasis given to fatigue as a motive for drug taking was also evident in
discussions of illicit drug taking. Indeed a high rate of self report illicit drug use as a
fatigue countermeasure (particularly at the time of initiation) was found. Peer reportage
responses were also suggestive of fatigue being a reason for truck drivers to take illicit
drugs. However, despite nearly all drivers voicing this opinion, only seven stated fatigue
was the sole reason for illicit drug use. As well as opinions on reasons for peer drug use,
observations of trends in prevalence of illicit drug taking generally assumed this practice
was largely fatigue related (e.g. Lesser presence now than in the past due to legislative
changes such as driving hours restrictions, greater presence due to restrictions on other
anti-fatigue substances). However this belief was not as consistently held with regard to
illicit drugs as it was for licit substances (e.g. six respondents thought illicit drug trends
among truck drivers simply reflected wider societal trends).
The importance of fatigue was again demonstrated by the call for the
decriminalisation of drugs such as Duromine and ephedrine for fatigue prevention - or the
availability of other strong, legal drugs that can be used by truck drivers for this purpose.
Thirteen drivers suggested this as a means of reducing the rate of illicit drug taking in the
industry, twenty one suggested the restrictions of these substances more than a decade
ago had directly led to an increase in illicit drug taking among this cohort. Similarly,
there was a very high level of moral justification of illicit drug use by both past and
present users with fatigue cited as the reason for this attitude. Note that Mabbott &
Hartley (1999) found those truck drivers with many drug using peers more likely to
justify use as fatigue countermeasure. This was also the case in the current sample.
5.3. Drug use for reasons other than fatigue Arguably the most salient findings of the
current study relate to illicit drug use by truck drivers for reasons other than fatigue, or at
least not solely for anti-fatigue purposes. Past research on the matter has tended not to
explore these more complex motives for drug use, nor general risk factors for this
behaviour beyond fatigue that may apply to members of this cohort. The most relevant
comparison that can be drawn is research by Mabbott and Hartley (1999) in which truck
drivers were asked why they use stimulant drugs. Of 165 that responded to the question,
161 justified it as a necessary fatigue countermeasure. However 66 drivers refused to
answer the question. It is worth re-quoting Swann (2002) at this stage to emphasise the
exclusion of other motivating factors for illicit drug use by truck drivers in prior research:
“Truck drivers use stimulants for occupational reasons and this behaviour is relatively
easily changed compared to addictive or recreational drug driving use.” (p.100)
Many findings of the current study demonstrate that illicit drug use by truck
drivers may be for reasons other than as a fatigue countermeasure. For example, only
seven of the 35 respondents reported that illicit drug use among truck drivers was purely
a fatigue countermeasure due to the demands of the job. The only current user to state
this was the retired driver (ironically, he started use for work purposes and now despite
not working as a driver, he still uses speed recreationally on a weekly basis). There was,
however, a high rate of opinion (regardless of respondent’s own drug use experience) that
truck drivers use illicit drugs due to reasons such as socialization, recreation (to relax/feel
good), to conform to a perceived ‘trucking’ image and addiction (refer to Tables 5, 6 and
7) as well as to combat fatigue1. An interesting finding that would seem to add weight to
the argument that motives for drug use beyond fatigue exist, was that of 14 current illicit
drug users, most (nine) do not drive excessive hours (this of course does not assume that
1 It is worth noting here that the qualitative format of the interviews offered no suggestion of possible responses, so the constancy of reporting of these motives was surprisingly high
driving the regulation hours is not tiring). Of the five that do drive excessive hours and
use drugs, one only uses marijuana which has no anti-fatigue properties.
The complexity and integration of all motives for illicit drug use is best
demonstrated by Becker’s stage model.
5.4. Drug use careers (Becker) Investigation of the drug use ‘career paths’ of drivers in
this study revealed distinct patterns with changing (and often co-existing) motivations for
individual use at various stages of their lives. To summarise the patterns found:
5.4.1. Past users All past users (n = 6) began using pharmaceuticals such as
Duromine as a fatigue countermeasure before tightening of restrictions of these drugs
(one was not yet driving, but working in the trucking industry). This practice was very
much normalised and not viewed as deviant at the time by drivers. All but one mentioned
peer conformity as important at time of initiation. This was also important later on in the
drug use career. All past users began illicit amphetamine use when the government
tightened controls on stimulant pharmaceuticals and four of the six thought at some stage
they had been addicted.
5.4.2. Current users Four current users began illicit amphetamine use before they
entered the road transport industry. These drivers began use for recreation/socialisation
purposes but later also used to counter fatigue when driving (social motives remained).
This group never used pharmaceuticals such as Duromine and ephedrine. This is a
particularly interesting finding as a risk factor for drug use in the workplace is indeed
employment of individuals who are already using drugs and may enter a particular
industry presuming their deviant lifestyle may be accepted or at least overlooked
(Zinkiewicz, Davey & Sheehan, 2000).
Nine current users began using pharmaceuticals (Duromine etc) when truck
driving, then, like the past users, turned to speed when they could no longer obtain these
pharmaceuticals. All began use to counter fatigue and all but one stated this remained the
only motive. However, thirteen of the 14 current users admitted addiction at some stage.
Drug addiction is arguably a powerful motivation for repeated drug use
and is highly prevalent within the sample. Based on the data, nearly all of the past
and current drug users would have, at some stage exhibited amphetamine
dependence syndrome (as described by Topp et al., 1995; cited in Kanieniecki et
al., 1998). This observation is based on the self-reported frequency of use (e.g.
time spent driving whilst on drugs, duration of drug use career and usage rates
outside of work) and self reported dependence status. Drug addiction (and
specifically amphetamine addiction) is extremely difficult to overcome, it is
therefore proposed that for drug addicted drivers, anti-fatigue measures will not
impact on drug use.
Again, it is clear that work related fatigue is a primary motivation for drug use for
most of these drivers; however it is also evident from examining the career paths of drug
use that other factors are often present. Past users spoke of peer conformity, while current
users did not. The opinions given by those that had never used implied they thought other
motives (such as recreation, peer acceptance) existed for their colleagues drug use. Only
four of the 15 drivers that had never used thought drug use was purely fatigue related
behaviour.
5.5. Social controls. Becker (1968) described how various social controls (supply,
secrecy and morality) become less effective in preventing individual drug use as usage
progresses. This was strongly evident in the current data.
5.5.1. Supply Obtaining drugs was universally reported as easy, both at the time of
opportunistic initiation and during the drug use career as more and more contacts were
formed within the subculture. Illicit drugs were generally obtained from others within the
industry (a finding also reported by Mabbott and Hartley, 1999). A notable supply issue
is the rapid rise in availability of illicit amphetamines once access to prescription
pharmaceuticals was restricted. To summarise: Availability of stimulant drugs is (and
always has been) consistently sufficient within this cohort as to provide no significant
restrictions on individual drug taking.
5.5.2. Secrecy Becker (1963) theorised that drug use can only continue if one feels
they maintain an adequate level of secrecy about their behaviour to avoid retribution by
authorities and significant others. Among drug using truck drivers in the current study,
there was a low level of perceived risk of being caught by authorities. Those that had
never used drugs were more likely to state there was a high risk of detection. Drug users
therefore generally thought an adequate level of secrecy from authorities existed.
Predictably, both past and current users tended not to make much effort to keep
their drug use secret from their drug-using workmates. However, half of the past users
and most current users reported that other people (such as partners) who were not drug
users themselves also knew about them using drugs. It would seem this finding is not
consistent with Becker’s statement; however it is not known whether the drivers feared
retribution for their drug use by these people – in other words whether secrecy from these
particular people was important. Also, because nearly every drug using respondent
reported addiction at some stage, keeping their use secret from these significant others
may have been too difficult.
The discussion of secrecy with drivers further revealed the existence of a
subculture of drug users within the industry. This is evident in the high rate of drug using
peers reported by drivers that use drugs compared to the reportage of those that have
never used. Also there was a general consensus that social separation occurred between
drug using non-using truck drivers stemming from scrutiny and disapproval by non-users
and mistrust by users. This is consistent with Becker’s concept of ‘Outsiders’ whereby a
peer group of users can be highly reinforcing for deviant behaviour - and within the
group the behaviour is normalised.
5.5.3. Morality Becker (1963) stated that in order for drug use to continue and
escalate, the drug user forms rationalisations of the behaviour to provide to others and to
avoid personal moral conflict. The current research found overwhelming justification for
illicit drug taking by current users, the reason being the perceived necessity of
counteracting fatigue. This opinion was less likely to be held by past users and even less
likely to be held by those that had never used such substances. Mabbott and Hartley
(1999) also found truck drivers provided this moral rationalisation for drug taking and it
certainly was an expected result in the current study.
Current users were generally more positive about their own driving skills when
under the influence of illicit drugs than they were about other truck drivers’ skills in this
situation. Similarly, while current users stated other drivers used drugs for reasons other
than (but including) fatigue, they did not state this about themselves. It is possible that
one may feel moral conflict if they perceive their drug taking as more than just a
necessity (e.g. a pleasure) and/or as making them a more dangerous driver.
To summarise: Whether it is true or not, driver fatigue is perceived as a strong
justification for illicit drug use and subsequently may (at least somewhat, often wholly)
remove personal perception of moral responsibility from the individual.
5.5. Addressing the problem of illicit drug use among long haul truck drivers Opinions
given of current measures implemented to tackle the problem of drug use in the road
transport industry were generally negative in terms of appropriateness and effectiveness.
For example, 12 of the 35 respondents stated there was not much, or nothing being done
at a company or government level - and very few thought current measures such as
driving hours reforms and drug testing were at least somewhat effective.
Twenty four drivers thought current measures were not effective in addressing the
problem of illicit drug use. Generally, drivers thought that roadside testing was too easily
avoided by drug users and that driving hours reforms were inappropriate and misguided.
Criticisms of driving hours policies are consistent with those of industry representatives
and truck drivers reported in the literature review (e.g. ‘Losing sleep over rejected safety
plan’, 2003; ‘Hazy fatigue plan’, 2002; ‘Truckies ask for fair treatment’, 2003; ‘Driver
hours protest’, 2003; ‘Lab rats say ‘no’’, 2002).
When asked what should be done about the problem of illicit drug use by truck
drivers, most offered suggestions that were directly related to fatigue reduction. As well
as thirteen calls for the introduction of strong, legal stimulants, twelve drivers suggested
various legislative changes that would potentially reduce fatigue (e.g. increasing rates to
eliminate the need to drive excessively, further, alternative changes to driving hours,
alleviating pressure on drivers).
Many responses to this question again demonstrated that drug taking by truck
drivers is not entirely about fatigue reduction. Twelve drivers stated that greater detection
and prosecution measures should be employed to reduce the level of drug taking, as
fatigue related measures will have no impact on drivers that are using for reasons other
than just fatigue (e.g. if they are addicted to drugs or using recreationally). Also, it was
suggested that social services or information be made available, indicating that for some
drivers, stopping drug use is beyond personal control and certainly reducing fatigue is no
simple solution for them. Interestingly, very few drivers said they had ever been exposed
to drug driving information.
This data prompts the following suggestion: If the self report and peer report
levels of social, recreational and dependent drug use given by drivers in this study are any
indication of that of the general truck driving population, then the amount of drug users
that may not be able to change their behaviour if they are simply less fatigued is likely to
be considerable.
6. Conclusion
6.1. Implications of this research Although this study was small in terms of sample size
and demographic area covered, it adds to the ever increasing (but somewhat meagre)
body of literature on the topic of illicit drug use by truck drivers and poses some
interesting novel findings which may be more thoroughly investigated in larger, future
studies.
This study is consistent with previous research in its exposure of the significant
problem of illicit drug use in the road transport industry and indeed the existence of a
drug using subculture fitting of Becker’s (1963) description of “Outsiders’. Drug use is
common and seemingly disproportionate among this cohort compared to in the wider
community. This research also supports previous findings in terms of prevalent drug
types, having found the most common substance of abuse is illicit amphetamines.
Previous research has described drug use by truck drivers as a behaviour borne of
the need to fight fatigue and have implied that reducing or eliminating work related
fatigue is the primary preventative approach that must be taken to impact on drug use
(e.g. Swann, 2002). Fatigue was indeed cited as a motivation (and a justification) for drug
use by drivers in the current sample and clearly there is a need to continue research and
practice of anti-fatigue measures for truck drivers as a primary means of addressing the
issue of drug taking. However, thorough, qualitative interviews allowed an in depth
exploration of the drug use careers of these drivers and exposed the existence of different
or co-existing motivations for drug use during individual lifetimes. As well as fatigue,
these included social motives and peer acceptance, relaxation and to feel good, to fit the
‘trucking image’ and use motivated by addiction.
The most salient implication of this exploratory research is that when addressing
this problem, it must be considered that anti fatigue measures are likely to have little
effect on truck drivers that are using illicit drugs because of other social, psychological
and physical motives. Furthermore there is likely to be a considerable amount of drivers
using because of these reasons, particularly due to addiction. While truck drivers cited
detection and prosecution as anti-drug measures that potentially target recreational and/or
dependent users, this research revealed the ease by which testing is avoided and that
drivers generally have little or no fear of detection.
Truck drivers’ opinions on the effectiveness of current anti-drug measures and
their suggestions of what should be done about the problem (such as providing social
services for those that are addicted) may also have implications for practice, or at least for
further research.
6.2. Limitations of this research Due to resource constraints, this study used a small
sample of truck drivers - an obvious limitation due to the enormity of the relevant
population in this country. Also, a random sample from this population was not recruited
and this must be kept in mind when interpreting findings.
The accuracy of self report data on illegal behaviour is thought to be questionable
(PTC, 1999) and this was likely to be the case in the current research. Williamson et al.,
1992) gave the anecdotal opinion that truck drivers were underreporting such behaviours
in their study (cited in Mabbott & Hartley, 1999). In the current study, some
contradictions that occurred during two interviews led the interviewer to believe the
respondent was not admitting drug use. For example, a driver that said he no longer used
drugs but had been addicted in the past stated later in the interview that he ‘carried some
around’. Also one driver who denied ever using illicit drugs was seen snorting a
substance in the cab of a truck after the interview.
6.3. Recommendations for future research This exploratory study was intended as a pilot
to a larger investigation of illicit drug use in Queensland’s road transport industry which
is likely to employ both qualitative and quantitative methodology. The current study
provides information for structuring future research that may otherwise not have been
considered. For example, previous research has not indicated the presence of motives for
drug use beyond fatigue by truck drivers. Because of the high incidence of reportage of
this in the current study (and implications for practice), in depth, broader investigation of
these issues seems warranted in the future. Other issues this research suggests are worthy
of investigation include: The in depth exploration of risk factors for drug use (e.g. what
social, environmental, familial, personality risk factors existed before use began), also
factors that have triggered past illicit drug users to cease use.
Clearly a future investigation based on this study should utilise a much larger
sample of drivers and ideally recruit drivers in more locations across the state,
particularly central, western and far north Queensland.
Glossary of terms
Amphetamine/Methamphetamine – An illicit stimulant drug produced in powder or
crystalline form. Powdered methamphetamine is generally less potent than liquid or
crystal, as it has been ‘cut’ to dilute the chemicals.
Base – Slang term for a potent form of illicit methamphetamine.
Briquettes – Slang term for Tenuate Dospan (diethylpropion hydrochloride) a
prescription central nervous system stimulant often obtained illegally for its stimulant
effect.
Cannabis (marijuana) - A widely used, illicit, depressant drug that is predominantly
smoked. The active ingredient is delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol (THC).
Central nervous system stimulants – A group of drugs consisting of illicit amphetamines
such as methamphetamine (speed) and methylenedioxy-methamphetamine (ecstasy).
Although it is not an amphetamine, cocaine is also included in this group. Licit CNS
stimulants include the ephedrines, and phentermine.
Chain of Responsibility - Relatively new Australian legislation whereby culpability for
drug taking, speeding or breaches of driving hours or trip recording can lie with others in
the supply chain than the truck driver.
Cocaine (Coke) - Cocaine hydrochloride is an odourless powder which is usually snorted.
It is illegal and highly addictive.
Crystal meth – Slang term for potent forms of illicit methamphetamine.
Dope - Slang term for cannabis (marijuana).
Duromine- See ‘Phentermine’.
Ecstasy – An illicit central nervous system stimulant drug most commonly produced in
tablet form. The active ingredient is MDMA (methylenedioxy-methamphetamine).
Ephedrine hydrochloride and pseudoephedrine hydrochloride -The active ingredients in a
number of decongestant medications (e.g. Sudafed, Demazin).
Marijuana – See ‘Cannabis’.
Modafinil – A legal psychostimulant for use as an anti-fatigue agent for truck drivers and
pilots. Marketed under the names Provigil and Modiodal, this is a eugeroic drug, meaning
it is developed for its stimulatory action specifically. Modafinil is not yet available in
Australia.
Ox blood – Slang term for an illicit form of amphetamine.
Phentermine - An anorexigenic (slimming) drug usually prescribed to obese patients but
it may also be useful in the treatment of drug abuse. Phentermine is the active ingredient
in Duromine.
Rocket fuel - Slang term for illicit form of amphetamine.
Shakers – Slang term for Phentermine (Duromine).
Snowballing – A method of data collection whereby participants are asked to refer the
researcher to their peers in order to access more participants.
Speed – Slang term for illicit amphetamine and methamphetamine.
THC – See ‘Cannabis’.
References
Aberg, L. (1997). The role of perceived risk of detection. In Rothengatter, T. & Vaya, E.
C. (eds.). Traffic and transport psychology: Theory and application. Amsterdam:
Pergamon.
Abt, N. (2002). Trucking leaders seek reductions in random drug testing of drivers.
Transport topics, 3514, 2-3.
Aitken, C., Kerger, M. & Crofts, N. (2000). Drivers who use illicit drugs: Behaviour and
perceived risks. Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy, 7(1), 39-50.
allhealth.com.au. [Online] Available:
http://healthanswers.telstra.com/drugdata/appco/00010016.asp
Atkinson, R. & Flint, J. (2001). Accessing hidden and hard-to-reach populations:
Snowball research strategies. Social Research Update, (Issue Brief No.1360-7898)
University of Surrey, Department of Sociology.
Ames, S. L., Zogg, J. B. & Stacy, A.W. (2002). Implicit cognition, sensation seeking,
marijuana use and driving behaviour among drug offenders. Personality and
Individual Differences, 33, 1055-1072.
Arnold, P. K. & Hartley, L. R. (2001). Policies and practices of transport companies that
promote or hinder the management of driver fatigue. Transportation Research, Part
F4, 1-17.
Arboleda, A., Morrow, P. C., Crum, M. & Shelley, M. (2003). Management practices as
antecedents of safety culture within the trucking industry: Similarities and
differences by hierarchical level. Journal of Safety Research, 34, 189-197.
Australian Drug Foundation (1999). How drugs affect you. (brochure) Human Services
Victoria, December.
Australian Trucking Association [online] Wake up call for users of the trucking
industry: The Chain of Responsibility. [Online] Available:
www.trucknbus.com.au/ata
Austroads (2000) Drugs and Driving in Australia. Report of the Austroads Working
Group on Drugs and Driving. Report no. AP-R172/00. Sydney,
Australia.
Austroads (2000b). Heavy vehicle driver health and sleep disorders. Austroads
Publication Number AP148-00, ISBN 0 85588 536 X. National Library of
Australia.
Baas, P. H., Charlton, S. G. & Bastin, G. T. (2000). Survey of New Zealand truck driver
fatigue and fitness for duty. Transportation Research, F3, 185-193.
Batejat, D. M. & Lagarde, D. P. (1999). Naps and modafinil as countermeasures for the
effects of sleep deprivation on cognitive performance. Aviation, Space,
Environment and Medicine, 70(5), 493-498.
Becker, H. S. (1963). Outsiders. Studies in the sociology of deviance. New York:
MacMillan.
Brisbane, G. & Sochon, P. (2001). Driver fatigue management in fleets. Paper presented
at the National Roads and Motorists Association conference: Driver fatigue:
Issues, causes and countermeasures, NSW.
Brookhuis, K. A., DeWaard, D. & Pernot, L. M. C. (2000). A driving simulator study on
driving performance and traffic safety after multiple drug use, consisting of MDMA
(Ecstasy) and various other psychoactive compounds. University of Groningen,
Centre for Environmental and Traffic Psychology. Groningen: The Netherlands.
Burgess-Limerick, R. & Bowen-Rotsaert, D. (2002). Fatigue Management Program pilot
evaluation: Phase 2 Wave 3 report. Global Institute of Learning and Development
Consortium. June.
Buxton, S., Hartley, L. & Sully, M. (2000). Testing drivers for drugs: A review of
methods and results. Institute for Research in Safety & Transport, Murdoch
University.
Caldwell, J. A. (2001). Efficacy of stimulants for fatigue management: The effects of
Provigil and Dexedrine on sleep-deprived aviators. Transportation Research, Part
F4, 19-37.
Carruthers, S. J., Loxley, W. M., Phillips, M & Bevan, J. S. (1996, March). The longer
the use, the greater the risk – Hepatitis C and hepatitis B among Australian IDU.
Paper presented at the 7th International Conference on Drug Related Harm, Hobart,
Tas.
Darke, S., Ross, J., Hando, J., Hall, W., & Denghart, L. (2000). Illicit drug use in
Australia: Patterns and associated harm. National Drug and Alcohol Research
Centre, University of New South Wales.
Davies, A., Davey, J., Hunter, A., Williams, M., Richards, N. & Symonds, T. (2003). The
role of amphetamine injection in hepatitis C and drug use risk behaviours.
Queensland Health Publication ISBN: 0 7345 2962 7.
Death, drugs and fatigue: Truckies get day in court (2003, June 19). Sydney Morning
Herald, p. 1.
Driver hours protest (2003, Mar 15). Daily Telegraph, p. 43.
Drug drive test call. Springborg attacks delay (2003, Jun 15). Sunday Mail, p. 37.
Drummer, O. H. (1994). Drugs and drivers killed in Australian road traffic accidents:
The use of responsibility analysis to investigate the contribution of drugs to fatal
accidents. Report number 6954, Victorian Institute of Forensic Pathology.
Drummer, O. H. (1995). A review of the contribution of drugs in drivers to road
accidents. The effects of drugs (other than alcohol) on road safety. (First report).
Road Safety Committee Parliament of Victoria. Melbourne, L. V. North
Government Printer: 3-28.
Drummer, O. H., Gerostamoulos, J., Batziris, H., Chu, M., Capelhorn, J., Robertson, M.
D. & Swann, P. (2003). The involvement of drugs in drivers of motor vehicles
killed in Australian road crashes. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 943, 1-10.
European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (1999). An Inventory of
literature on the relation between drug use, impaired driving and traffic accidents.
(CT.97.E14) Lisbon: EMCDDA, February.
Fatigue Expert Group, (2001) Options for regulatory approach to fatigue in drivers of
heavy vehicles in Australia and New Zealand. Sponsored by the National Road
Transport Commission, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau and the New
Zealand Land Transport Safety Authority.
Fletcher, A., McCulloch, K., Mitchell, K. & Dawson, D. (2001). Fatigue
countermeasures for use in non-commercial drivers: Literature review and
strategic suggestions for Transport SA. The Centre for Sleep Research, University
of South Australia.
Freight operators warned: Truck drivers’ safety your call. (2001, Dec 5). Sydney
Morning Herald, p. 4.
Gibson, J., Mascord, D. J. & Starmer, G. A. (1995). The effects of caffeine on the
development of fatigue in a prolonged driving-related task. Paper given at the
Thirteenth International Conference on alcohol, drugs and traffic safety, Adelaide,
SA.
Grunstein, R. (2001). Medical and physiological factors. Paper presented at the National
Roads and Motorists Association conference: Driver fatigue: Issues, causes and
countermeasures, NSW.
Hakkanen, H. & Summala, H. (2000). Fatal traffic accidents among trailer truck drivers
and accident causes as viewed by other truck drivers. Accident Analysis and
Prevention, 33, 187-196.
Hartley (1998) Driver alert: A driver’s guide to fatigue and alertness. Institute for
Research in Safety in Transport, Murdoch University.
Hartley, L. (2001). Economic, social and organizational factors in fatigue. Paper
presented at the National Roads and Motorists Association conference: Driver
fatigue: Issues, causes and countermeasures, NSW.
Hartley, L. R. & Arnold, P. K. (1996). Management of fatigue in the road transport
industry. Recommendations from the Second International Conference on Fatigue
in Transportation, Fremantle, WA.
Hartley, L. R., Penna, F., Corry, A. & Feyer, A, M. (1997). Comprehensive review of
fatigue research. Institute for Research in Safety & Transport Report Number 116,
ISBN: 0-86905-539-9.
Hartley, L. R., Arnold, P.K., Penna, F., Hochstadt, D., Corry, A. & Penna, A. M. (1997).
Fatigue in the Western Australian transport industy. (1997) Part 1: The principle
and comparative findings. Institute for Research in Safety and Transport. Report
Number 117 ISBN 086905-534-8. West Australian Department of Transport.
Haworth, N. (1998). Fatigue and fatigue research: The Australian experience. Paper
presented at the Seventh Biennial Australasian Traffic Education Conference,
Speed, Alcohol, Fatigue, Effects. Brisbane, Qld.
Hazy fatigue plan (2002, Nov 30). Courier Mail, p. 64.
Hunter, C. E., Lokan, R. J. Longo, M. C., White, J. M. & White, M. A. (1998). The
prevalence and role of alcohol, cannabinoids, benzodiazepines and stimulants in
non-fatal crashes. Forensic Science Department of Administrative and Information
Services South Australia: Adelaide.
International Council on Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety (ICADTS), (2000). Illegal
drugs and driving. ISBN: 90-802908-2-3.
Jonah, B. A. (1997). Sensation seeking and risky driving. In Rothengatter, T. &
Vaya, E. C. (eds.). Traffic and transport psychology: Theory and application.
Amsterdam: Pergamon.
Kanieniecki, G., Vincent, N., Allsop, S. & Lintzeris, N. (1998). Models of intervention
and care for psychostimulant users (Monograph No. 32) National Centre for
Education and Training on Addiction, Department of Health and Family Services,
Canberra, ACT.
Keogh, P. (2002). The role of enforcement. Paper presented at The National Heavy
Vehicle Safety Seminar, Melbourne: October.
Kreuger, H. P. & Vollrath, M. (2000). Effects of cannabis and amphetamines on driving
simulator performance of recreational drug users in the natural field. Centre for
Traffic Sciences: Roentgenring 11, D-97070 Wuerzberg, Germany.
Lab rats say ‘no!’ Australia’s truck drivers reject proposed driving hours reforms
(2002, Dec). Owner Driver, p. 1.
Lagarde, D., Batejat, D., Van Beers, P., Sarafian, D. & Pradella, S. (1995). Interest in
modafinil, a new psychostimulant, during a sixty hour sleep deprivation
experiment. Fundamental Clinical Pharmacology, 9(3), 271-279.
Losing sleep over rejected safety report. (2003). Paradise, Daily Telegraph, 1/2/03.
Mabbott, N. A. & Hartley, L. R. (1999). Patterns of stimulant drug use on Western
Australian heavy transport routes. Transportation Research, Part F2, 115-130.
Mahon, G. & Cross, T. (2000). The Fatigue Management Program – Alternatives to
prescription. Queensland Transport publication. [Online] Available:
www.transport.qld.gov.au.
Makkai, T., Poyser, C., Norman, L. & Mills, L. (in press). Drug driving among police
detainees in three states of Australia (Draft final report). Australian Institute of
Criminology and Queensland Police Force.
Marowitz, L. (1995). Drug arrests and driving risk. Alcohol, drugs and driving, 11(1), 1-
22.
Mason, R. (1986). Modafinil, the ultimate stimulant? Journal of Pharmacology, 17(1),
37-52.
McCartt, A. T., Rohrbaugh, J. W., Hammer, M. C. & Fuller, S. Z. (2000). Factors
associated with falling asleep at the wheel among long-distance truck drivers.
Accident Analysis and Prevention, 32, 493-504.
McLean, J. (2001). Driver fatigue: Current and emerging issues. Paper presented at the
National Roads and Motorists Association conference: Driver fatigue: Issues,
causes and countermeasures, NSW.
More trucks mean more road deaths (2003, July 2). The Age, p. 3.
National Heavy Vehicle Accreditation Scheme (NHVAS), (2002). Fatigue Management
Module. Draft Regulatory Impact Statement. Queensland Transport, Brisbane,
September.
National Road Transport Commission [Online]. Available: http://www.nrtc.gov.au
National Road Transport Commission (2001). Heavy vehicle driver fatigue: Review of
regulatory approach. Discussion paper. Melbourne, Vic.
National Road Transport Commission (2002). Heavy vehicle driver fatigue: Draft policy
proposal. ISBN: 1 877093 16 5. September.
Nicholas, R. & Allsop, S. (1996). Alcohol and drugs in the workplace: Issues trends and
practices. Perth: The Chamber of Mines and Energy of West Australia.
NCDR/NHTSA Expert Panel on Driver Fatigue and Sleepiness (1998). Drowsy driving
and automobile crashes. Washington DC, National Center for Sleep Disorders
Research, National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute and National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration [Online] Available:
www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/perform/human/drowsy.html
Ogden, E., Papafotiou, K., Stough, C. & Sullivan, D. (2003). Field sobriety testing, drugs
other than alcohol and driving performance: A model for validation of SFST. Drugs
And Driving Research Unit, Centre for Neuropsychology, Swinbourne University
of Technology, Australia.
Parliamentary Travelsafe Committee, (1999). Drug driving in Queensland. Report
number 29, October.
Plowman, B., Arnold, T., Toft, Y. & Moxham, L. (1999). Shaping up to ship it out: An
examination of heavy vehicle drivers’ health and lifestyle. Australian
Transportation News, January 29.
Police act over drug and drink driving law. (2003, Apr 1). Courier Mail, p. 3.
Qualitative Solutions for Research (QSR), NVivo 2.0 (software for qualitative research),
Melbourne.
Queensland Transport, (2000). Fatigue Management: National Fatigue Management
regulation. (2000). [Online] Available: www.legislation.qld.gov.au.
Quinlan, M. (2001). Report of Inquiry into Safety in the Long Haul Trucking Industry,
Motor Accidents Authority of New South Wales, Sydney.
Rolling Stoned? Don’t, say researchers. (2003, May 20). The Age, p. 5.
Robbe (1994). Influence of marijuana on driving. Maastricht: Institute for Human
Psychopharmacology, University of Limburg.
Safety plan to restore order (2003, Jun 14). Courier Mail, p. 68.
Spooner, C. (1999). Causes and correlates of adolescent drug abuse and implications for
treatment. Drug and Alcohol Review, 18(4), 453-464.
Starmer, G.A., Mascord, D., Tattam, B. & Zeleny, R. (1994). Analysis for drugs in saliva.
Report No. C141, Federal Office of Road Safety. Department of Transport:
Canberra.
Soames Job, R. F. (1999). The road user: The psychology of road safety. In Clark, J. R.
(ed.) Safe and mobile: Introductory studies in traffic safety. Armidale: EMU Press.
Spradley, J. P. (1979). The ethnographic interview. New York: Holt, Reinhart and
Winston.
Swann, P. (2002). The major issues of drugs, alcohol and fatigue in heavy vehicle safety.
National Heavy Vehicle Safety Seminar, Melbourne, October.
Tired drivers to be given a wake up call (2002, Nov 25) Sydney Morning Herald, p. 3.
Tired drivers killing spree on the roads (2003, Mar 2) Sunday mail, p. 7.
Todero, K. & Moore, B (2000). Heavy Vehicle Driver Fatigue – Review of Regulatory
Approach. 2000 Road Safety, Research, Policing and Education Conference,
[Online] Available:
http://www.transport.qld.gov.au/qt/driver.nsf/index/conference_heavy
Topp, L., Kaye, S., Bruno, R., Hargreaves, K., Longo, M., Williams, P., O’Reilly, B.,
Fry, C., Rose, G. & Darke, S. (2002). Australian Drug Trends: Findings of the
Illicit Drug Reporting System. National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre.
Truck company faces charges (2003, Feb 26). Courier Mail, p. 6.
Truckies ask for fair treatment (2003, May 24). Courier Mail, p. 67.
Vespa, S. (1998). Trip report: Fremantle fatigue conference & FMP-related field visits
and meetings. Transportation Development Centre: Montreal, Quebec.
Victorian Parliamentary Road Safety Committee (1996). Effects of drugs (other than
alcohol) on road safety in Victoria. Final Report Vol. 1 & 2. Parliament of
Victoria: Melbourne.
Victoria Police State Highway Task Force. (1995). Four case studies and results of
Operation Tall Poppies- Inquiry into the effects of drugs (other than alcohol) on
road safety in Victoria. Parliamentary Road Safety Committee: Melbourne.
Victorian Parliamentary Road Safety Committee (1996), Effects of drugs (other than
alcohol) on road safety in Victoria. (Final report: Volumes 1 and 2). Parliament of
Victoria: Melbourne.
Waller, P. F., Blow, F. C., Maio , R. F., Hill, E. M., Singer, K. & Schaefer, N.(1995)
Crash characteristics and injuries of victims impaired by alcohol versus illicit
drugs. 39th Conference of the Association for the Advancement of Automotive
Medicine, Chicago, Illinois. University of Michigan Transportation Research
Institute: Michigan USA.
Walton, D. (1999). Examining the self-enhancement bias: professional truck drivers’
perceptions of speed, safety, skill and consideration. Transportation Research, Part
F2, 91-113.
Wdowak, M. J., Kendall, P. A., Harris, M. A. & Auld, G. (2001). Expanded health belief
model predicts diabetes self-management in college students. Journal of Nutrition
Education, 33(1), 17-23.
Williamson, A., Feyer, A., Friswell, R. & Finlay-Brown, S. (2000). Demonstration
project for fatigue management in the road transport industry: Summary of
findings. Consultant Report CR192, Australian Transport Safety Bureau,
Canberra, ACT.
Zinkiewicz, L. Davey, J. & Sheehan, M. (2000). Queensland Rail Alcohol and Drugs
Implementation Policy. School of Psychology and Counselling, Queensland
University of Technology.
Appendix A: Recruitment advertisement
Truck drivers needed for research! Researchers at the Centre for Accident Research and Road Safety (part of Queensland University of Technology) are looking for truck drivers to interview about drug use in the trucking industry. We are interested in the driver’s perspective- and would like to collect stories to help us draft a more detailed questionnaire which will be made available to all drivers across the state.
We are hoping this research can be used to improve road safety, as well as health and working conditions for drivers.
If you are a truck driver, we would like to hear what you have to say
A researcher will meet with you at a convenient time and place, or you can be interviewed over the phone. Interviews will take approximately 20 minutes
You will be paid $25 for your involvement
The interviewer will not ask for your name or any type of identifying information
Everything you say will be completely confidential and can never be traced to you
---------------------------------------------------------------- For more information or to arrange for an interview, please contact Naomi Richards on 0438) 170 616 or
email [email protected]
Appendicies A, B & Crivers 2
Appendix B. Interview format
Section A
Your age:
Gender:
Which state/territory do you live in?
How long have you been a truck driver?
How long have you been involved in long-haul driving?
How many hours per week do you normally drive?
How many hours per week do you normally work altogether (i.e. Not just driving)
Section B
Are you aware of truck drivers using legal drugs?
If yes, what types of legal drugs are you aware of truck drivers using? (list)
What percentage of Queensland long haul drivers do you think use these legal drugs when on the job?
Why do you think truck drivers choose to use these legal drugs?
Appendicies A, B & Crivers 3
Do you believe truck drivers are using these legal drugs more or less than in the past (say, 10 years ago)?
Why do you believe truck drivers are using these legal drugs (more or less) than in the past?
Do you believe use of these legal drugs is justified in the trucking industry? (In other words, is it fair enough that truck drivers use these drugs?)
Why or why not?
Describe how you think using these legal types of drugs affects truck drivers driving ability and safety.
Section C
Are you aware of truck drivers using illegal drugs when on the job?
If yes, what types of illegal drugs are you aware of truck drivers using? (list)
What percentage of Queensland long haul drivers do you think use each of these illegal drugs? (please estimate for each)
Why do you think truck drivers choose to use these illegal drugs? Please describe the reasons you believe truck drivers use each of the drugs you just mentioned (list)
Do you believe truck drivers are using each of these illegal drugs more or less than in the past (say, 10 years ago)?
Why do you believe truck drivers are using these illegal drugs (more or less) than in the past?
Appendicies A, B & Crivers 4
Do you believe use of these illegal drugs is justified in the trucking industry? (In other words, is it fair enough that truck drivers use these drugs?)
Why or why not?
Describe how you think use of these types of drugs affects truck drivers driving ability and safety:
How do you think using these drugs and driving affects safety in comparison to drink driving? (In other words, which do you think is more dangerous and why?)
Do you think there is much of a risk of truck drivers being caught by police in possession of illegal drugs or with drugs in their system?
Why
What do you think is being done to deter truck drivers from using drugs on the job (for example, what are governments, employers etc. doing about it in terms of prevention, detection etc?)
Do you think these measures are effective in preventing, reducing or stopping truck drivers using illegal drugs? Describe:
What do you think should be done to stop truck drivers using drugs or feeling the need to use?
Section D
Have you ever used legal drugs (including alcohol) when you’re driving for work?
If yes, what types of legal drugs have you used whilst on the job?
Do you currently use any legal drugs when driving for work?
Appendicies A, B & Crivers 5
If yes, what types of legal drugs do you currently use whilst on the job?
For what reasons did you/do you use each of the drugs mentioned?
Section E
Have you ever used illegal drugs whilst driving for work or after you’ve finished a trip?
If yes, what types of illegal drugs have you used whilst driving for work or after you’ve finished a trip?
Please estimate when you first used each of the drugs you mentioned:
Do you currently use any illegal drugs when driving for work or after you’ve finished a trip?
If yes, what types of illegal drugs do you currently use whilst driving for work or after you’ve finished a trip? (list)
Please estimate when you last used each of the drugs you mentioned:
How often do you (or did you used to) use each of these drugs? (eg. every trip, only longer trips, very rarely etc)
Please estimate what percentage of the time you spend driving that you are under the influence of any illegal drug (or used to spend if only used drugs in the past)
How do you (or did you used to) usually take each of these drugs? (eg. smoke, inject)
Where do you (or did you used to) usually take each of these drugs? (eg. rest stop, home, truck)
Appendicies A, B & Crivers 6
For what reasons did you/do you use the drugs mentioned? (list)risk utility
Please estimate the percentage of drivers you associate with that you believe use these types of drugs
When would you (currently, or when you used to use drugs) most commonly use each of these drugs (eg start of trip, during trip, after finishing trip, when feeling tired etc)
Please describe the scenario last time you used illicit drugs for work.
Do you believe you are (or have been) dependent on (in other words, addicted to) any of the drugs you have mentioned?
Do you use any illicit drugs when you’re not at work?
Generally, how do you believe your driving skills (are/were) affected by the drugs you take at work? Optimism bias if report self better than general drivers (better than B14)
How do you believe your driving skills are affected at any of the following stages of drug use:
Whilst high/intoxicated (i.e. shortly after use)
Whilst coming down (i.e. effect of drugs wearing off)
Whilst hanging out (i.e. effect worn off from last use and now craving drugs)
Have you ever had an accident whilst illicit drugs were in your system?
Have you ever been told or given information on the effects drugs could have on your driving? Describe (source, what type of info etc):
Appendicies A, B & Crivers 7
Section F
OK, so you don’t use yourself, but I’d like to know what you know about the guys that do.
Why do you think they start using?
How do they get started?
Who introduces them and shows them how to use? Do they seek drugs or are they offered?
What benefits do you think they expect when they decide to start using?
How does their drug use typically change over time (eg frequency of use, effect, side effects)?
Do you think its easy or hard for them to score? Describe
Do you think they score from others in the industry?
Do drivers that use make much of an effort to hide their use from others? Who?
What do non-using drivers think of drivers that use drugs?
What do drivers that use drugs think of those that don’t?
Section G
Why did you start using?
Appendicies A, B & Crivers 8
How did you get started?
Who taught you how to use the drugs you use at work? (no names, just association eg. workmate, friend, family)
Was any equipment used theirs or yours?
Did you learn the proper technique straight away, or did it take some time/practice? Describe:
What effects/benefits did you get from the drug the first time you used?
What effects/benefits were you expecting?
How many times did you use before you got the desired effects? (e.g. 1st time, a few times)
How have the effects/benefits changed since you started using
Did you experience any negative effects the first time you used?
Did you experience any negative effects at any stage?
How are they different from when you were first using?
So can you give me an overview of your drug use, like how and why you got into it, how things have changed since you were a beginner, how you feel about it….
Since you started using, has it become easier or harder to score? Describe:
Appendicies A, B & Crivers 9
How easy is it for you to score
Do you score from others in the trucking industry?
Who else knows that you use drugs? (no names, just association eg. wife, friends, workmates)
Do these people use drugs themselves?
Do you make an effort to keep you drug use from others? Describe:
Do you believe it is morally OK for you to use these drugs?
Who else you know would agree with you
Did you have this same opinion before you started using these drugs?
What do non-using drivers think of drivers that use drugs?
What do drivers that use drugs think of those that don’t?
Is there any other information you think I might find useful? Or anything you’d like to say?
Appendicies A, B & Crivers 10
Appendix C. Information and consent form
Illicit drug use by truck drivers in the Queensland road transport
industry Information sheet
Contact details: Mr. Jeremy Davey: Centre for Accident Research and Road Safety – Queensland (CARRS-Q), School of Psychology and Counselling, Queensland University of Technology: phone: 3864 4574 email: [email protected] Ms. Naomi Richards: CARRS-Q, School of Psychology and Counselling, Queensland University of Technology: ph) 0438 170 616 email: [email protected] Would you like to take part in an interview as part of a study on drug use in the trucking industry? About the study This study is trying to find out about patterns of illegal drug use in the trucking industry. We want to investigate how much drug use goes on, what types of drugs are used by drivers and the reasons drivers give for using drugs. We are hoping this research can be used to improve road safety, in terms of reducing crashes where drugs and heavy vehicles are involved. This may involve modification of job conditions and workplace practices to the employee’s advantage. Who is being asked to respond? If you are a truck driver in South East Queensland we would like you to be involved. How participants are selected You were selected as a possible participant because you contacted us through information you received through a friend or contact- or from a poster or advertisement you made enquiries about. What we would like you to do If you decide to participate, an interviewer will ask you questions about your own drug use, your knowledge of drug use in the industry and the reasons truckies use drugs. The interview will be tape recorded and will take about 20 minutes to complete. You will then receive a one-off payment of $25.
Appendicies A, B & Crivers 11
Anonymity and consent The interviews are completely anonymous and confidential. No names or identifying marks will be recorded. Participation in the study is entirely voluntary. You have the right not to participate. You can withdraw from the study at any time without giving a reason and without penalty. If you do not want to answer a particular question you can tell the interviewer that you wish to skip to the next question. Any information that is obtained in connection with this study will remain anonymous and confidential. Only the researchers (Jeremy Davey and Naomi Richards) will have access to the information collected. Information will either be presented in statistical format (eg. 30% of the sample stated they had used marijuana) or by using anonymous quotations or statements (eg: Respondent 34 said that “a mate taught me how to inject amphetamines”). Feedback Feedback about the results of the study will be provided through a report available in mid 2003. If you would like a copy forwarded to you, you can contact Jeremy Davey or Naomi Richards, whose details are at the top of this sheet. Enquiries If you have any questions, please feel free to ask the interviewer. If you have any additional questions later you may contact the researchers listed at the top of this document. Researchers will be happy to answer any questions at any time. You will be given a copy of this information form to keep. Please note: Free drug information and counselling is available through Queensland Health’s Drug Information Help Line: 1800 177 833 Consent script: “Are there any further questions you have about your participation in the research project? Do you understand that you can withdraw from the interview at any time? Do you agree that you have verbally consented to participate in the research project and that you will not be asked for a signature?” The interviewer will sign a consent form as evidence that verbal consent from the participant has been obtained
Appendicies A, B & Crivers 12
Illicit drug use by truck drivers in the Queensland road transport industry:
Consent Form
This form is to be signed by the interviewer before the commencement of interviewing any participant. The interviewer’s signature is to confirm the participant has given verbal acknowledgement of the following conditions and has given verbal consent to the interview:
• The participant has read (or been read) the information sheet regarding this study and has been given a copy of this
• The participant understands that they may withdraw from the
interview at any time
• The participant understands that they may choose not to answer any given question
• The participant gives verbal consent to the interview
Signature of interviewer: __________________ Date: __________________ Signed by Naomi Richards on behalf of participant # _______
