A Guide for Reducing Alcohol-Related Collisions (2005)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

III-1 SECTION III Type of Problem Being Addressed General Description of the Problem Alcohol-impaired driving has been a subject of great concern among traffic safety professionals in the United States for the past three decades. During this time, alcohol- related crashes have decreased substantially. In all likelihood, the decline in alcohol-related crashes has resulted from a combination of the myriad programs directed at reducing driving after drinking, broad shifts in societal values that resulted in more disapproving attitudes toward DWI, the pursuit of healthier lifestyles, engineering improvements in roadways and vehicles, substantially increased use of seatbelts, and the changing age composition of the population (there is a decreasing number of people in the age group most likely to drink heavily and to drive after doing so). The two fundamental methods to reduce alcohol-related crashes are (1) to reduce excessive drinking through policies and programs to control alcohol sales and inform drinkers of the dangers of excessive drinking and (2) to deter driving while impaired by alcohol. Each method includes several distinct strategies directed at different target populations. The DWI criminal justice system of laws, enforcement, prosecution, adjudication, sanctions, and offender monitoring is complex. All elements of this system must function well—both individually and cooperatively—to ensure that DWI offenders are (1) frequently detected, (2) routinely charged, (3) effectively prosecuted, (4) suitably punished when convicted, and (5) appropriately treated for alcohol abuse or dependency. If these enforcement efforts are to have a general deterrent effect on potential impaired drivers, as well as a specific deterrent effect on DWI offenders, the public needs to be regularly made aware of these activities. Strategies designed to prevent impaired driving before it occurs apply to the entire driving population. These strategies are referred to as general deterrence strategies. They hold the greatest potential to substantially reduce impaired driving and alcohol-related crashes. Strategies that focus on punishing and rehabilitating individuals who have been arrested for DWI to discourage a repeat of the behavior are known as specific deterrence strategies. Recent estimates suggest that, on average, individuals may make anywhere from 50 to 200 impaired trips before being arrested (Hedlund and McCartt, 2002), and about 30 percent of persons involved in an alcohol-related fatal crash have been previously convicted of DWI or a comparable alcohol-related offense (Tashima and Helander, 2000). Consequently, efforts to dissuade all drivers from driving after drinking are essential; focusing only on those who have been previously arrested—even though they are a particularly problematic group—will miss a large part of the problem. Moreover, the criminal justice system struggles to cope with the current load; efforts to deal with impaired drinking solely by attempting to arrest and impose sanctions on all impaired drivers is not logistically feasible without a massive infusion of additional resources at all levels of the criminal justice system.

To function well, all participating agencies in the DWI control system need readily available, up-to-date information about persons who have been arrested for impaired driving. In addition, these agencies need adequate resources. In view of the huge societal costs created by alcohol-related crashes and the demonstrated cost-efficiency of several countermeasures (NHTSA 2004a; http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/alcohol/impaired- drivingusa/US.pdf), additional resources applied to carefully selected programs are considered by many to be a wise investment of public resources. For further discussion on these issues, see Robertson et al. (2004) (http://www.trafficinjuryresearch.com/ publications/pub_details.cfm?intPubID=196.) Specific Attributes of the Problem Exhibit III-1 shows the BAC distribution for drinking drivers involved in fatal crashes. In 2003, 84 percent of drinking drivers who were involved in a fatal crash had a BAC above 0.08 percent; more than half were above 0.16 percent. This clearly illustrates that alcohol- related crashes involve a broad spectrum of drinkers, not merely those who have consumed very large amounts of alcohol. DWI Countermeasure System Inherently Interrelated The several distinct phases of the criminal justice process are closely interrelated. Consequently, the policies and practices in one part of the system can have unintended— and often undesirable—consequences elsewhere. One example of this interrelatedness is that severity of (threatened) sanctions is inversely related to the likelihood of a conviction. More severe potential sanctions increase the likelihood that individuals will mount a strong defense, which often results in a dismissal or acquittal on technical rather than substantive grounds. In addition, despite legal mandates, individuals who comprise the various aspects of the criminal justice system are able to use discretion and clearly do so. Officers who believe a sanction is inappropriate for a particular offense may be less inclined to charge an individual, prosecutors who consider a penalty too harsh may agree to a plea bargain to a lesser charge, juries may be less likely to convict when they believe the required punishment is inappropriate for the crime, and judges may refuse to apply a sanction they consider too harsh. Similar deleterious effects can result when, for example, an emphasis is placed simply on increasing arrests. In many instances, court and prosecutor case loads are already excessive and additional arrests result in further delays, which decrease the chances of conviction, or result in outright dismissals of cases that might otherwise have been pursued. The various participants in the DWI system also need to know what the others are doing, or have done, in specific cases. In all states, individual circumstances influence how cases should be handled. Thus, for example, officers need to be able to determine whether an individual they are arresting has a previous conviction to know how to proceed, judges need to know whether an individual has completed treatment that was ordered, and driver licensing agencies need to know the resolution of a case and what restrictions may have been imposed by a judge. It is widely recognized that a modern, integrated database information system is critical to the effective handling of DWI cases in the criminal justice system. Few, if any, states have an adequate system at present. SECTION III—TYPE OF PROBLEM BEING ADDRESSED III-2

SECTION III—TYPE OF PROBLEM BEING ADDRESSED In addition to the coordination afforded by a shared data system, states can reap substantial benefits from collaborative planning wherein representatives of all components of the DWI countermeasure system participate in planning for program or policy changes. By ensuring that all relevant parties are involved, states will develop more organized and efficient DWI countermeasure systems, and policy changes will be less likely to have unintended, possibly negative, effects. Other High-Risk Groups Unlike many behaviors that create traffic safety risks, driving after drinking is not always under the complete volitional control of drivers. About one quarter of all persons convicted for a first DWI offense are estimated to be alcohol dependent (Simpson et al., 1996). Efforts that rely on providing information or threatening punishments have little chance of affecting the behavior of these drivers. Several studies have demonstrated the increased risk of crashing at increased BAC levels. A noteworthy finding from further analyses is that drivers under the legal drinking age in the United States (i.e., age 21) are more likely than legal-age drinkers to crash at low-BAC levels (Phelps, 1990). Males, motorcyclists, and persons between the ages of 21 and 35 are also more likely than others to drive while impaired by alcohol. The guide to reducing motorcycle collisions contains some suggested approaches to alcohol-related motorcycle crashes. III-3 EXHIBIT III-1 Blood Alcohol Concentration of Drinking Drivers Involved in Fatal Crashes, 2003 Source: NHTSA, 2004d 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 1 0. 0 2 0. 0 3 0. 0 4 0. 0 5 0. 0 6 0. 0 7 0. 0 8 0. 0 9 0. 0 0 1. 0 1 1. 0 2 1. 0 3 1. 0 4 1. 0 5 1. 0 6 1 . 0 7 1. 0 8 1 . 0 9 1. 0 0 2. 0 1 2. 0 2 2. 0 3 2. 0 4 2. 0 5 2. 0 6 2. 0 7 2. 0 8 2. 0 9 2. 0 0 3. 0 1 3. 0 2 3. 0 3 3. 0 4 3. 0 5 3. 0 6 3. 0 7 3. 0 8 3. 0 9 3. 0 0 4. 0 1 4. 0 2 4. 0 3 4 . 0 4 4. 0 5 4. 0 5 4. 0 BAC Level (%) ^