This research: http://www.jsad.com/jsad/article/Identification_of_the_Motor_Vehicle_Accident_Victim_Who_Abuses_Alcohol_An_/372.html

seems to indicate that some drivers are prone to have several accidents over time correlated with drug or alcohol use. They suggest that a better methodology for acident prevention may be to target those who have had an alcohol or drug-related incident, rather than the general populace. I quote:"treatment for alcoholism might reduce vehicular trauma".

At present, there is a "scattergun" approach, in which the 99.5% of unimpaired drivers are inconvenienced in order to prevent the 0.5% from offending. Surely it makes more sense to target those in the risk group, rather than the general populace?

An anlalogous example is something like the new cervical cancer vaccine, which is most effective in young women and much less so in older ones. Quite sensibly, there is a targetted approach, rather than a blanket vaccination program covering all people, including old women and males, who are not at risk.

If the aim is genuinely to reduce the risk of alcohol/drug related road trauma, rather than to advertise the presence of police and allow them greater intrusive powers, why do we persist with the "scattergun"?

Furthermore, it seems we have reached something of a plateau in our efforts to reduce road trauma. where do we go to reduce the level further, or have we already reached the minimum possible under the current model of individual self-directed transport?

Antiseptic I have driven as a passenger with someone under the influence of marijuana a number of times (in my youth) and I cannot agree that there is no effect. Perhaps it affects some more than others. The biggest difficulty was the lack of perceptive ability to judge speed and distance.

As another poster said earlier the RBT is really a deterrent and it seems to be working. If the program is legitimately saving lives it could be considered worth the resources.

Pelican, what the testing showed was that drug-affected drivers were not affected in that way, but instead "perceived" that they were, it was illusory, and so acted, and drove, more cautiously. There was none of the aggression and risk-taking behaviour associated with alcohol.
It's quite possible that some are affected adversely, that's humanity, but since there's no proof whatsoever of detrimental effects on driving skills or behaviour, why random-test for it?
As I said, I totally support RBT, and would happily see more of it, drunks are KILLERS.
There was an article in the local rag here, stating the Vic police were "shocked" that they had caught ten people(I forget the precise number, but it was low)well over the limit in one swoop, yet up here a Fri/Sat blitz regularly nets over 50!
And we have less than 10% of Melb's population!
I confront drunk, unlicensed, un-registered drivers here every single time I hit the road, it's endemic, and bloody scary to boot!

pelican:"the RBT is really a deterrent "

It's the PERCEPTION of RBT that's working. As I said, if 50,000 people were tested out of a driving population of perhaps 1,000,000 in Qld, then the vast majority of people are not encountering one. Therefore, it's not the actuality, but the perception, which is easily manipulated via the media.

Maximillion:"I confront drunk, unlicensed, un-registered drivers here every single time I hit the road, "

So your perception is that RBT isn't working? The paper I referenced above claims that most drink-drivers who get involved in accidents are actually repeat offenders, who are simply not deterred in any significant way by RBT. If that is the case, why do we waste our time and money? Why do you see RBT as the best possible solution, given you perceive it not to be effective in preventing "drunk, unlicensed, un-registered drivers"?

To one or two of the posters here. Do they really think that abolishing RBT for any of the reasons mentioned would not tempt or increase the incidents of drivers to get behind the wheel either under the influence of drugs or alcohol ?

Surely you must realise it is the threat of being caught that is the deterent. Abolish that and we are back to drink driving

snake:"the threat of being caught that is the deterent"

Yes, so just reduce the total number of actual RBTs, while not reducing the media. Same result, less cost and inconvenience for people doing the right thing.

What do you think of targetting drivers with a known record of drink-driving? It seems that the best predictor of future drink-driving is past behaviour according to the paper I cited above.

The police already target locales that are likely to have drink or drug-affected drivers. Is there a difference between that and targetting individuals with a history?