OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess how 2 types of drinking-driving laws-permitting sobriety checkpoints and prohibiting open containers of alcohol in motor vehicles-are associated with drinking-driving and how enforcement efforts may affect these associations. METHODS: We obtained 2010 data on state-level drinking-driving laws and individual-level self-reported drinking-driving from archival sources (Alcohol Policy Information System, NHTSA, and Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System). We measured enforcement of the laws via a 2009 survey of state patrol agencies. We computed multilevel regression models (separate models for each type of law) that first examined how having the state law predicted drinking-driving, controlling for various state- and individual-level covariates; we then added the corresponding enforcement measure as another potential predictor. RESULTS: We found that states with a sobriety checkpoint law, compared with those without a law, had 18.2% lower drinking-driving; states that conducted sobriety checks at least monthly (vs. not conducting checks) had 40.6% lower drinking-driving (the state law variable was not significant when enforcement was added). We found no significant association between having an open container law and drinking-driving, but states that conducted open container enforcement, regardless of having a law, had 17.6% less drinking-driving. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that having a sobriety checkpoint law and conducting checkpoints as well as enforcement of open containers laws may be effective strategies for addressing drinking-driving.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess how 2 types of drinking-driving laws-permitting sobriety checkpoints and prohibiting open containers of alcohol in motor vehicles-are associated with drinking-driving and how enforcement efforts may affect these associations. METHODS: We obtained 2010 data on state-level drinking-driving laws and individual-level self-reported drinking-driving from archival sources (Alcohol Policy Information System, NHTSA, and Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System). We measured enforcement of the laws via a 2009 survey of state patrol agencies. We computed multilevel regression models (separate models for each type of law) that first examined how having the state law predicted drinking-driving, controlling for various state- and individual-level covariates; we then added the corresponding enforcement measure as another potential predictor. RESULTS: We found that states with a sobriety checkpoint law, compared with those without a law, had 18.2% lower drinking-driving; states that conducted sobriety checks at least monthly (vs. not conducting checks) had 40.6% lower drinking-driving (the state law variable was not significant when enforcement was added). We found no significant association between having an open container law and drinking-driving, but states that conducted open container enforcement, regardless of having a law, had 17.6% less drinking-driving. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that having a sobriety checkpoint law and conducting checkpoints as well as enforcement of open containers laws may be effective strategies for addressing drinking-driving.
Entities:
Keywords:
Alcohol; enforcement; impaired driving; open container; sobriety checkpoints
Authors: Andrés Villaveces; Peter Cummings; Thomas D Koepsell; Frederick P Rivara; Thomas Lumley; John Moffat Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2003-01-15 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Gwen Bergen; Adesola Pitan; Shuli Qu; Ruth A Shults; Sajal K Chattopadhyay; Randy W Elder; David A Sleet; Heidi L Coleman; Richard P Compton; James L Nichols; John M Clymer; William B Calvert Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2014-05 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Julia R Sanem; Darin J Erickson; Patricia C Rutledge; Kathleen M Lenk; Toben F Nelson; Rhonda Jones-Webb; Traci L Toomey Journal: Accid Anal Prev Date: 2015-03-07