New Anti Drug Driving Ad-But Will it Make a Difference?

The anti drink driving message is an industry success story, as it’s one which has been pervasively beaten into the public- what with clever advertising designed to shock, the campaign has succeeded in encouraging drinkers to think twice before buckling up and driving off. Much like driving without a seatbelt (which twenty years ago was the norm), drink driving is now universally acknowledged as anti-social and dangerous.

With the Dynamic Advertising Group having published research revealing that 85% of clubbers in the North East of England had drug-driven at some point, attention has now turned to tackling a driving danger which has previously fallen through the cracks of the public’s attention: driving under the influence of drugs.

To this end, a new £2.3 million advertising campaign aired for the first time before ITV1’s Coronation Street hopes to communicate the dangers of driving under the influence of drugs to drivers. With research by the Department for Transport reporting one in 10 young male drivers have been under the influence of drugs while driving, the campaign is looking to change the behaviour of a traditionally harder-to-reach audience.

However, there are doubts in some circles whether this new advert will have much of an effect. Certainly the light-touch makes viewers much more inclined to think ‘it could happen to me’, but the crux of the 30 second ad is the fact the police spot the enlarged pupils of a passenger- at night, in the dark.

Comments left on the YouTube site of the DFT video flag several faults here. The first is pure skepticism- the likelihood of a police officer spotting the size of someone’s pupils in a moving vehicle from another car is very small. Other comments highlight the unrealistic take on how drug driving is policed and criticize the advert for failing to draw attention to the dangers of drug-driving.

A recent report from the Australian Drugs Foundation found that cannabis decreased the relative risk of having an accident, while all other drugs heightened the risk. Despite this, the government’s campaign has been attacked by the shadow transport secretary, Theresa Villiers as “inadequate”. “It is hugely worrying that the test still used at the roadside is no more sophisticated than asking suspected drug-drivers to walk in a straight line,” she continues.
“It is vital that Labour step up efforts to get a reliable roadside testing method in place as soon as possible if really effective action is to be taken against drug driving.”

The footage of this particular campaign is deliberately not shocking and it’s easy to pick holes in the messages- regular drug users, those most likely to get behind the wheel while under the influence, will know that not all drugs cause hugely dilated or even constricted pupils. And of course, the approach taken by the government is anti drug driving rather than getting to the heart of the problem, such as taking a strong anti-drug stance.

The campaign does have its strengths; noticeably its emphasis on the punishments drug drivers could face- the same penalties as those drivers over the alcohol limit. Anyone convicted of driving while unfit through drugs will get a minimum 12-month driving ban, a criminal record and a large fine.

That, at the very least, should help persuade the intended audience that driving under the influence of drugs isn’t so smart an idea, but whether it’s convinced anyone of the ability of police to spot drug-driving remains under debate.