Impaired Driving
Impaired Driving
Introduction
This essay discusses the extent of the problems caused by impaired driving – i.e. driving whilst affected by either alcohol or drugs. The seriousness of these problems can be gauged by a CDC statistic: “Every day, almost 30 people in the United States die in motor vehicle crashes that involve an alcohol-impaired driver. This amounts to one death every 51 minutes. The annual cost of alcohol-related crashes totals more than $59 billion.” (“Impaired Driving: Get the Facts” 2014). The essay also looks at preventative measures that are used.
Whilst any one of us may or may not know someone who has experienced this problem first hand – either as a driver or as a victim – statistics reveal the true scale of the problem in the US. For example, in 2012, more than 10,000 people died as a result of alcohol-impaired vehicle accidents, which equates to over 30 percent of all the nation’s traffic-related fatalities. And of the more than 1,100 children dying in traffic accidents in that same year, 20 percent of the cases involved a driver who was alcohol-impaired. When children were passengers in the motor vehicles involved, the statistics were even worse; over half of those child casualties mentioned were in the same vehicle as the driver affected by alcohol. Other than alcohol, other drugs involved (sometimes in combination with alcohol) included cocaine and marijuana, reportedly contributory factors in 18 percent – almost one in five – of fatalities of the vehicle drivers (“Impaired Driving: Get the Facts” 2014).
Those Most at Risk
According to the CDC, young people are at the greatest risk; statistics for 2012 show that almost a third of deaths were people aged between 21 and 24 years. Also, motorcyclists as a road user group are at heightened risk. Of those killed in road traffic accidents in 2012, almost 30 percent had raised alcohol levels in the blood. Interestingly, motorcyclists as a group tended to be older than average road users; motorcyclists in their early 40’s were the age group most likely to die in alcohol-related accidents (“Impaired Driving: Get the Facts” 2014).
Preventative Measures
One standard method of discouraging drink-driving, and thereby reducing the numbers of alcohol-related traffic accidents, is the use of randomly-established traffic checkpoints to test drivers for alcohol levels. Analysis has shown that this single measure can bring about a reduction in accidents involving alcohol by about nine percent. Another and more sophisticated method is the installation of a device in the vehicles driven by individuals previously convicted of alcohol-impaired driving. The device is an ignition system interlock, which prevents the engine being started if the driver has a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of more than a predetermined level. It has been found that when fitted, these devices result in a reduction of 70 percent of arrests for alcohol-impaired driving for that category of driver (“Impaired Driving: Get the Facts” 2014).
In a 2014 Report, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) noted that when Arizona introduced interlock legislation in 2007, it became only the second US state to include first time DUI offenders in the scope of the legislation. The other state was New Mexico. In both states, the result was to see a decrease in alcohol-impaired accidents. It was thought that the reduction was in part due to the threat of having an interlock fitted, deterring drivers from drinking and driving (Cheesman et al., 2014 p.1).
There are various other measures used to combat alcohol-impaired driving. Those include random roadside breath testing, publicity campaigns, and imposition of effective drink-driving penalties (including fines, disqualification and imprisonment, and rehabilitation programs (Terer & Brown 2014).
Roadside breath testing. Implemented in the form of sobriety checkpoints in the US, the idea originated in the 1970s in Scandinavia. In the US, the method is to test every driver passing through the checkpoint; in some other countries the testing is of a more random nature. The method is seen as effective, although the static checkpoints can sometimes be circumvented by drivers who are local and know of their locations. Furthermore the random approach is considered to be more of a deterrent (Terer & Brown 2014).
Publicity campaigns. These are seen as deterrents and are important additions to roadside breath testing. A study of such campaigns conducted in the US and in Australia found that paid media-based campaigns were most effective (Terer & Brown 2014).
Penalties for drink-driving. Although most agree that penalties for drink-driving should include both fines and disqualification (suspension of the driving licence), research has suggested that the threat of more severe punishment does not act as a deterrent, partly because the probability of being caught is generally low. Instead, suspension of the licence is seen as the most effective punishment, including in the US (Terer & Brown 2014).
Rehabilitation. Research indicates that these programs are most likely to be effective when used in conjunction with other sanctions such as licence suspension or ignition interlocks (Terer & Brown 2014).
Conclusions
Impaired driving is a major and expensive problem in the US and in many other countries. It costs many lives every year, in particular younger people, motorcyclists, and children – especially those who are passengers in vehicles driven by drivers under the influence of alcohol or other drugs. A range of preventative measures is employed to counter the problem, including media campaigns, fines, driver disqualification, roadside breath testing, and rehabilitation programs for convicted drivers. Because of the high numbers of fatalities and the cost to society, efforts to combat the problem must be maintained.
References:
Cheesman, Fred, Kleiman, Matthew, Lee, Cynthia, G., & Holt, Kathryn. (May 2014). “Ignition Interlock: An Investigation Into Rural Arizona Judges’ Perceptions.” National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Retrieved from: http://www.nhtsa.gov/Impaired/812025-Ignition-Interlock-Investigation-Rural-AZ-Judges
“Impaired Driving: Get the Facts.” (Oct. 2014). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Retrieved from: http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html
Terer, Kiptoo & Brown, Rick. (Feb. 2014). “Effective drink driving prevention and enforcement strategies: Approaches to improving practice.” Australian Institute of Criminology. Retrieved from: http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/tandi/461-480/tandi472.html
