Introduction: There is a need for improved drug driving enforcement to promote greater driver compliance with drug driving laws. In Australia, Roadside Drug Testing (RDT) suffers from operational challenges that undermine its effectiveness in reducing drug driving.

Objective: To identify potential improvements to RDT, this study investigated the extent to which drivers perceive RDT to be procedurally just and that the policing of drug driving and the associated laws are legitimate. These perceptions were then compared with those applying to Random Breath Testing (RBT) and examined in relation to their respective influence on intentions to drug and drink drive in the future.

Method: A sample of 1,483 licensed drivers from three Australian states completed an online survey.

Results: Those participants who reported engaging in drug driving perceived RDT to be less procedurally just than non-drug drivers. Similarly, drug drivers perceived the police and associated drug driving laws to be less legitimate than non-drug drivers. Furthermore, drug drivers who had been tested at an RDT operation in the past perceived RDT to be less procedurally just and considered drug driving policing and laws to be less legitimate, compared with the corresponding perceptions of drink drivers who had been tested at an RBT operation. A regression analysis indicated that stronger intentions to drug drive in the future were associated with lower perceptions of police legitimacy and the legitimacy of drug driving laws, but not with the elements of procedural justice. However, follow-up analyses indicated that the influence of procedural justice on intentions was mediated by the two legitimacy variables, thus weakening its direct impact on intentions.

Practical applications: The results highlight the need for road safety authorities to enhance the perceived legitimacy of drug driving enforcement and associated laws. Changes to current police practices and/or drug-driving laws may also be needed to enhance the effectiveness of RDT.

Keywords: Drink driving; Drug driving; Drunk driving; RBT; RDT; Random breath testing; Roadside drug testing.

Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.

引言： 为了促进驾驶员更遵守药物驾驶法律，需要加强药物驾驶执法。在澳大利亚，路边药物检测（RDT）面临操作挑战，这些挑战削弱了其减少药物驾驶的有效性。

目的： 本研究旨在识别改进RDT的潜在方法，并调查驾驶员认为RDT在程序上是否公正以及对药物驾驶执法和相关法律的看法。然后将这些看法与随机酒精测试（RBT）的相关情况进行了比较，并探讨它们对未来意图进行药物驾驶或酒后驾车的影响。

方法： 来自澳大利亚三个州的1,483名持照驾驶员完成了在线调查。

结果： 那些报告自己有过药物驾驶行为的参与者认为RDT比没有过药物驾驶行为的人更不公正。同样，有过药物驾驶行为的人认为警方和相关药物驾驶法律不如无药物驾驶经历的人认为合法。此外，过去曾接受过RDT检测的药物驾驶员比接受过RBT检测的酒后驾车者认为RDT更不公平，并且认为药物驾驶执法和法律更不合法。回归分析表明，未来有更强意图进行药物驾驶与较低的警察合法性感知及药物驾驶法律合法性感知有关，但与程序公正性要素无关。然而，后续分析显示，程序公正性对意图的影响通过两个合法性变量进行了中介作用，从而削弱了其直接效果。

实践应用： 结果强调道路安全机构需要提高公众对药物驾驶执法及相关法律合法性的感知度。可能还需要改变当前的警察做法或/及药物驾驶法律以增强RDT的有效性。

关键词： 酒后驾车；药物驾驶；醉酒驾车；RBT；RDT；随机酒精测试；路边药物检测