Alcohol & drug use among drivers : British Columbia roadside survey 2008

Beirness, Douglas J.; Beasley, Erin E. · 2009 · ROSA P / Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse

archive: archived pipeline: cataloged verified

Get this paper ↗ (full text — opens at the source; we link to it, we don't host it)

Summary

This report presents the findings of the 2008 British Columbia Roadside Survey, a study designed to assess the prevalence of alcohol and drug use among nighttime drivers. The research was motivated by a growing public safety concern regarding drug-impaired driving, which had received less attention than alcohol-impaired driving despite being a criminal offense in Canada. The study aimed to provide objective data on the magnitude of the problem, establish a benchmark for evaluating new enforcement legislation (Bill C-2), and examine trends in drinking and driving compared to previous surveys. The study employed a random roadside survey methodology conducted in June 2008 across three British Columbia communities: Vancouver, Saanich, and Abbotsford. Drivers were randomly selected from traffic flow at pre-selected sites during four time periods (21:00–03:00) on Wednesday through Saturday nights. Of the 1,533 vehicles selected, 89% provided breath samples for alcohol analysis using Intoxilyzer 400D devices, and 78% provided oral fluid samples for drug testing. Oral fluid samples were analyzed for cannabis, cocaine, opiates, amphetamines, methamphetamine, and benzodiazepines using enzyme immunoassay screening and gas chromatography/mass spectrometry confirmation. The survey also collected demographic data and observed vehicle characteristics. Key findings revealed that drug use was more prevalent than alcohol use among the surveyed drivers. Specifically, 10.4% of drivers tested positive for drugs, while 8.1% had been drinking (BAC ≥ 5 mg%). Overall, 15.5% of drivers tested positive for alcohol, drugs, or both. Cannabis and cocaine were the most frequently detected substances. Alcohol use was concentrated among drivers aged 19–34 and peaked on weekends and during late-night hours. In contrast, drug use was more evenly distributed across age groups and survey times. Notably, no drivers aged 16–18 were found to have been drinking, though previous self-report surveys indicated high rates of cannabis use in this demographic. Additionally, while the overall rate of driving after drinking had decreased compared to past surveys, the proportion of drivers with elevated alcohol levels (BAC > 80 mg%) was higher than in previous years. The significance of these findings lies in the shift from alcohol to drugs as the more common impairment factor among nighttime drivers. The authors argue that this highlights the need for a societal response to drug-impaired driving comparable to the efforts directed at drinking and driving over the past three decades. The data support the implementation of comprehensive strategies including enforcement, public education, and research. Furthermore, the study validates oral fluid collection as a viable method for roadside drug detection, providing a foundation for assessing the impact of new Canadian legislation that grants police authority to test for drug impairment.

Key finding

Drug use was more common than alcohol use among drivers, with 10.4% testing positive for drugs compared to 8.1% for alcohol.

Methodology

naturalistic

Sample size: 1533

Provenance

The full processing record for this entry. Every stage of this paper's journey through the pipeline is logged — what ran, with which tool and model, how many attempts it took, and when it last completed. Discovered via bulk_ingest_rosap on 2026-05-23 (6 acquisition events logged).

Summary generated by qwen3.6-27b-prismaquant on 2026-06-10; verification: verified.

Topics

Ranked by relevance to this paper. Hover a topic for its definition.

• dui enforcement
• polydrug
• illicit drugs
• alcohol
• cannabis
• drowsy as impairment

Information type

What kind of knowledge this paper contributes, grouped by family — independent of topic (what it is about) and method (how it was studied).

• Empirical Findings: observational prevalence