Best practice in random breath testing and cost-effective intensity levels

Sep 20, 2026

Uploaded by Noah

Random breath testing (RBT) for general deterrence reduces drink-driving crashes more effectively than targeted alcohol screening. Synthesizing research since RBT began in Victoria in July 1976, the paper identifies Australian operational characteristics that maximize effectiveness, including broad-area coverage, high visibility, and testing intensity of at least 20 hours per 100 square kilometres per week in urban areas. It also calibrates diminishing returns and shows cost-effective testing rates can reach at least 1.5 times per licensed driver per year.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages8

Reading Time20 min

AccessFree to download

Abstract

Background

Aim

Method

Results

Discussion and conclusions

Background and effectiveness of different methods of drink driving enforcement

Best practice in random breath testing

Best practice in random breath testing and cost-effective intensity levels Max Cameron Monash University Accident Research Centre Abstract Background Random breath testing (RBT) aimed at general deterrence of drink-driving has been shown tobe more effective than targeted alcohol screening from patrol cars aimed at apprehending drink-drivers. The European PEPPER study’s meta-analysis of 40 evaluations found that the largest crash reductions were achieved by Australian methods of RBT (involving use of highvisibility bus-based testing stations as well as car-based operations and supported by massmedia publicity) compared with other countries. Aim This paper aims to summarise the characteristics of Australian RBT that make it best practice. Method Extensive research has been conducted since RBT was first introduced in Victoria in July 1976 and subsequently in other States. Research linking the intensity of RBT with reductionsin serious alcohol-related crashes is summarised in the paper. Results General deterrence through the perceived risk of detection is maximised by operations that appear to cover broad areas and both minor and major roads, achieve at least 20 hours per 100 square kilometres per week in urban areas, are highly visible and test a substantial proportion of passing motorists. Car-based RBT should be preferred in rural areas, covering also minor roads that may be used in evasion strategies, and bus-based RBT stations should only be operated in conjunction with car-based RBT placed on alternative roads. Diminishing-returns type relationships between the intensity of RBT and reductions in serious alcohol-related crashes have been calibrated. It was found that breath testing rates per licensed driver could be increased to at least 1.5 per year before cost-effectiveness is in doubt. Discussion and conclusions RBT is remarkably effective in providing general deterrence of drink-driving and should be preferred over operations aimed principally at apprehending drink-drivers. Characteristics of RBT operations that maximise effectiveness have been identified. While labour-intensive, RBT is so effective that testing rates per licensed driver can be increased to high levels and still justify their cost by the savings in road trauma. Background and effectiveness of different methods of drink driving enforcement There are many studies indicating the effectiveness of random breath testing in reducing fatal and serious injury crashes, especially those crashes likely to involve illegal BAC. Erke et al (2009) conducted a meta-analysis of 40 good quality studies and found that crashes involving alcohol were reduced by 17% at a minimum and that all crashes, independent of alcohol involvement, were reduced by about 10–15% . Larger crash reductions were found due to Australian methods of RBT (involving use of high-visibility bus-based testing and supported by mass media publicity) compared with alcohol checkpoints in other countries. An alternative to random breath testing is alcohol screening testing by car-based operations upon interception of a driver and/or at targeted locations and times based on an intelligence strategy about the likelihood of encountering illegal drink-drivers. This type of operation can be contrasted with large-scale, wide-spread RBT, with many tests conducted from highvisibility, bus-based checkpoints. A comparative review of drink-driving enforcement measures conducted as part of the European PEPPER project (Erke et al 2008) considered the effectiveness of DUI (“Driving Under the Influence”) patrolling aimed at apprehending drink-drivers, and the effectiveness of DUI-checkpoints (of which Australian RBT is a classical type) . The subset of 11 evaluations with good study design showed that DUI patrolling reduced casualty crashes by 6% and there was no statistically significant reduction in fatal crashes. The same review found that 73 evaluations with good study design showed

FAQs

What does the paper conclude about random breath testing versus targeted alcohol screening?

RBT aimed at general deterrence is described as more effective than operations focused mainly on apprehending drink-drivers.

What intensity and visibility factors maximize deterrence under the paper’s recommendations?

Operations should appear to cover broad areas including minor and major roads, be highly visible, and in urban areas achieve at least 20 hours per 100 square kilometres per week while testing a substantial proportion of passing motorists.

How does the paper address cost-effectiveness and diminishing returns in RBT intensity?

It calibrates diminishing-returns relationships and finds breath testing rates per licensed driver can be increased to at least 1.5 per year before cost-effectiveness is in doubt.

Sep 20, 2026

Uploaded by Noah