Relationship of Impaired‐Driving Enforcement Intensity to Drinking and Driving on the Roads

Abstract

Background It is principally the area of enforcement that offers the greatest opportunity for reducing alcohol-impaired driving in the near future. How much of a reduction in drinking and driving would be achieved by how much improvement in enforcement intensity? Methods We developed logistic regression models to explore how enforcement intensity (six different measures) related to the prevalence of weekend, nighttime drivers in the 2007 National Roadside Survey (NRS) who had been drinking (blood alcohol concentration [BAC]>.00 g/dL), who had BACs>.05 g/dL, and who were driving with an illegal BAC>.08 g/dL. Results Drivers on the roads in our sample of 30 communities who were exposed to fewer than 228 traffic stops per 10,000 population aged 18 and older had 2.4 times the odds of being BAC positive, 3.6 times the odds of driving with a BAC>0.05, and 3.8 times the odds of driving with a BAC>0.08 compared to those drivers on the roads in communities with more than 1,275 traffic stops per 10,000 population. Drivers on the roads in communities with fewer than 3.7 driving-under-the-influence (DUI) arrests per 10,000 population had 2.7 times the odds of BAC-positive drivers on the roads compared to communities with the highest intensity of DUI arrest activity (>38 DUI arrests per 10,000 population). Conclusion The number of traffic stops and DUI arrests per capita were significantly associated with the odds of drinking and driving on the roads in these communities. This might reflect traffic enforcement visibility. The findings in this study may help law enforcement agencies around the country adjust their traffic enforcement intensity to reduce impaired driving in their community.

Effects of enforcement intensity on alcohol impaired driving crashes

“…Total traffic stops may be a good measure of the level of visibility of enforcement. In our prior study on the impact of enforcement on the prevalence of drinking and driving using data from the 2007 NRS (Fell et al, 2014, under review), in communities with the lowest rates of traffic stops per capita, drivers had 3.6 times the odds of being impaired (BAC>.05) and 3.8 times the odds of being intoxicated (BAC>.08) on their roads. In this current study, where the prevalence of drinking drivers was controlled, the direction of the effect of traffic stops, though in the expected direction, was not significant.…”

“…To address that issue we took advantage of nationwide data on the local prevalence of impaired driving from the 2007 National Roadside Survey (NRS) and measures of DUI enforcement activity provided by the police departments that participated in the 2007 NRS (police cooperation was intrinsic to the success of the 2007 NRS). We conducted an exploratory study (Fell et al, 2014, under review) of the relationship between the intensity of enforcement and the prevalence of drivers with positive BACs on the road. That study related three measured BACs of drivers in the 2007 NRS (BAC>.01; BAC>.05; BAC>.08) with six measures of enforcement intensity collected from 41 out of 71 police departments operating in the 60 communities of the NRS.…”

Enforcement uniquely predicts reductions in alcohol‐impaired crash fatalities

“…Most studies and reviews in this area have focused upon specific enforcement strategies that can reduce impaired driving in communities [17][18][19][20][21] and have not yet quantified the relationship between enforcement intensity levels and impaired driving outcomes (regardless of enforcement type). Recent studies by Fell and colleagues [22,23] have attempted to address this gap, by relating driving under the influence (DUI) arrest rates to the likelihood of drivers being intoxicated on the road using data from the 2007 National Roadside Survey [24]. The results indicated that higher DUI arrest rates were associated with significantly lower rates of alcohol-impaired driving.…”

“…Both the researches by Fell et al [22,23] and Dula et al [25] were limited; the former used data from only 1 year and the latter used data from only one state. The research described herein estimated the potential effect of enforcement activity on alcohol-impaired crashes using a broader brush-examining data from 30 states collected during 6-10 years.…”

Bridging a historical gap: can changes in perceptions of law enforcement and social deterrence accelerate the prevention of drunk driving in low and middle-income countries?

“…[24][25][26][27][28] A useful conceptualization is provided by Lapham & Todd, 29 quoting Gibbs, 30 who defined general deterrence as ''the effect of law enforcement on the behavior of those in the general driving public who have not been punished for a crime, including those who have engaged in illegal behavior and those who have not.'' Arguably, there are specific circumstances preventing the application of this general concept to all drivers, because the implication that awareness results in changes in behavior may not operate in extreme cases.…”