Ernie Lang

Pseudo-drunk-patron evaluation of bar-staff compliance with Western Australian liquor law

Abstract: Compliance of bar staff with the Western Australian liquor law prohibiting service to drunk patrons was assessed through the deployment of actors trained to behave in a drunken manner. The serving practices of 23 licensed premises (19 hotels and four nightclubs) were examined. During 120 visits to hotel and nightclub bars, more than 350 drink orders were placed by pairs of pseudo‐drunk actors who ordered up to three drinks each on each visit. On placing these drink orders, pseudo‐drunks were refused service by bar staff on only 12 occasions. The rate of refusal of service across all premises was 10 per cent of visits. Partial interventions by servers, such as offering food or low‐alcohol or nonalcoholic drinks, occurred in only four instances of the 120 visits. Qualitative observations and results obtained from a separate study examining a subsample of the servers who trained in responsible service of alcohol are discussed.

DRINKING LOCATIONS OF DRINK-DRIVERS: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ACCIDENT AND NONACCIDENT CASES

This study utilizes data collected by the Perth (Australia) Traffic Police on the last drinking location of persons arrested for drink-driving either as a consequence of their being involved in a road traffic accident or as a result of failing a roadside breath test. A comparison of these data has found that significantly more persons involved in traffic accidents had been drinking at unlicensed locations, that is at private residences or in public places such as parks, than at licensed premises. It was also found that accident cases were more likely to involve males under 25 years; for those involved to have, on average, significantly higher blood alcohol levels than was the case for nonaccident drink-driving cases; and for most accidents to occur late at night and early morning. The significance of these findings were confirmed by logistic regression. A surprise incidental finding was that considerably more women had been arrested for drink-driving than had been previously reported in other studies, both in Australia and overseas.

Public support for the prevention of alcohol-related problems.

Support for a number of strategies and policies for the prevention of alcohol related harm was ascertained as part of a larger survey of public attitudes and behaviours in a representative sample of the Perth metropolitan area. Support for these policies varied, but was generally positive, with young male drinkers the least supportive. The greatest degree of support was found for a variety of training strategies for licensees and barstaff, while a number of restrictive practices, such as reduced trading hours and the banning of the sale of beer in jugs, were less popular. Those who had recently worked in the alcohol trade were less likely than the general population to be supportive of these policies. This effect could not be completely explained by their generally being younger and drinkers. It is concluded that governments generally have a mandate to introduce certain policies and practices into the licensed drinking environment, but that the resistance of the alcohol trade to such measures may need to be overcome if they are to be successfully introduced.

Server intervention: what chance in Australia?

There is some evidence from studies in the USA and Canada that server intervention programs are effective in reducing alcohol consumption on licensed premises which, it is claimed, will lead to a reduction in the incidence of drink driving and other alcohol-related problems. Unfortunately, due to the relative newness of server intervention programs, there is little or no evidence to support such claims. Given this fact, and given that there is an emerging interest in server intervention programs in Australia, it is pertinent to address the question of whether or not server intervention programs are likely to ever be a viable prevention strategy here. It is argued that until steps are taken to overcome a number of impediments-such as the existing licensing laws, some elements of the alcohol industry resistant to change, a lack of community awareness, and a lack of interest by researchers-then such programs are unlikely to eventuate here. The various impediments are discussed and it is suggested that to overcome them will require a coordinated approach involving policy makers, police, the alcohol industry, educators and researchers. Based on experience elsewhere it is argued that server intervention programs should be aimed at the level of the local community. It is concluded that server intervention programs have the potential to become a major prevention initiative in Australia, but only if the various impediments can be overcome, and if present and future legislative provisions are enforced.

Public perceptions of responsibility and liability in the licensed drinking environment

This study reports the results of a survey conducted in Perth (Western Australia) to assess public perceptions of the concepts of server responsibility and server liability. Eleven hundred and sixty persons aged 16 and over were asked if they thought licensees and barstaff should be held partly responsible when someone becomes intoxicated on licensed premises, or licensees and barstaff should be partly liable for injuries caused by an intoxicated person after leaving licensed premises. Results indicate that, on average, few people agreed to either proposition, despite an overwhelming majority believing that continuing to serve an intoxicated person increases the risk of an accident. However, when analysed by category of respondent, non-drinkers and persons aged over 30 were significantly more likely to agree with licensees and barstaff being partly responsible for someone becoming intoxicated, and for them to be partly liable in the case of an accident involving an intoxicated customer. The results of this survey indicate the need for education programmes to convince the public that excessive alcohol consumption and the resulting harm is not merely the responsibility of the individuals concerned, but is also the responsibility of those groups and individuals involved in the promotion, marketing and sale of alcohol. We suggest that such education campaigns might best be targeted at those groups where least support was found, young drinkers (18-24 years) and the servers of alcohol.