drinking and driving essay research paper

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Int J Environ Res Public Health

The Effectiveness of Drinking and Driving Policies for Different Alcohol-Related Fatalities: A Quantile Regression Analysis

Yung-hsiang ying.

1 College of Management, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, 106, Taiwan; E-Mail: wt.ude.untn@gniyy

Chin-Chih Wu

2 Institute of China and Asia-Pacific Studies, National Sun Yat-sen University, 70 Lienhai Rd., Kaohsiung 804, Taiwan

Koyin Chang

3 Department of Healthcare Information and Management, Ming Chuan University, 250 Chung-Shan N. Rd., Taipei 111, Taiwan

To understand the impact of drinking and driving laws on drinking and driving fatality rates, this study explored the different effects these laws have on areas with varying severity rates for drinking and driving. Unlike previous studies, this study employed quantile regression analysis. Empirical results showed that policies based on local conditions must be used to effectively reduce drinking and driving fatality rates; that is, different measures should be adopted to target the specific conditions in various regions. For areas with low fatality rates (low quantiles), people’s habits and attitudes toward alcohol should be emphasized instead of transportation safety laws because “preemptive regulations” are more effective. For areas with high fatality rates (or high quantiles), “ ex-post regulations” are more effective, and impact these areas approximately 0.01% to 0.05% more than they do areas with low fatality rates.

1. Introduction

Driving under the influence of alcohol has long been a severe social problem in the United States. In 2009, a study by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) indicated that approximately 30 people died in alcohol-related collisions per day (approximately 11,000 deaths per year); that is, one person dies in an alcohol-related collision every 48 min. Additionally, this horrifying figure was the result of already improved traffic safety conditions (the data provided by the NHTSA showed that in approximately 1982, nearly 30,000 people died in alcohol-related collisions in the U.S. per year, which accounted for 60% of the overall traffic crashes. Today that percentage has dropped to 38%). In 1980, Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) was founded in the U.S., dedicating itself to urging state and federal governments to enact a series of drinking and driving policies that significantly reduced alcohol-related fatalities in the U.S. Since then, government officials and scholars have conducted numerous investigations and studies on the effectiveness of drinking and driving policies in reducing alcohol-related fatalities.

The data used in the studies on drunk driving consist of three categories: Cross-sectional data (e.g., Beck et al ., [ 1 ]; Paschall, [ 2 ]; Phelps, [ 3 ]), time-series data (e.g., Whetten-Goldstein et al ., [ 4 ]; Villaveces et al ., [ 5 ]), and panel data (e.g., Chang et al ., [ 6 ]; Lovenheim and Slemrod, [ 7 ]; Hingson et al ., [ 8 ]; Ruhm, [ 9 ]; Males, [ 10 ]; Cook & Tauchen, [ 11 ]; Saffer and Grossman, [ 12 ]). Two estimation methods were used in these traditional econometric studies: (1) the ordinary least square (OLS) method that estimates the conditional mean function of dependent variables; and (2) the least absolute deviation (LAD) method that estimates the conditional median function of dependent variables. These two estimation methods emphasize the central tendency distribution of dependent variables and they both address the data at a macro or comprehensive level instead of examining individual quantiles. However, an observation of the alcohol-related fatality data show that we must study the development tendency of the alcohol-related fatalities of individual quantiles in addition to the central tendency development of alcohol-related fatalities. The reasons are as follows:

1.1. High Consistency of the U.S. Alcohol-Related Fatalities

Figure 1 shows that although U.S. alcohol-related fatalities have declined significantly, the states with high rates of alcohol-related fatalities in 1982 had maintained comparatively high levels in 2009 (e.g., CA, TX, and FL); the opposite situation was also true (e.g., in UT, VT, and RI). Based on this phenomenon, we suspect that drinking and driving policies that showed mean effectiveness had different effects for varying quantiles or alcohol-related fatality rates, preventing the values for states in Quadrant 3 ( i.e. , the states that maintained high rates of alcohol-related fatalities) from moving toward Quadrant 1 ( i.e. , the states that had shown high alcohol-related fatalities transformed into states with low alcohol-related fatalities).

Alcohol-related fatalities in 2009 (horizontal axis) and 1982 (vertical axis).

1.2. Regional Difference in United States Alcohol-Related Fatalities

Figure 2 shows that the states with relatively high alcohol-related fatalities are situated in the west and the south, whereas the states with relatively low alcohol-related fatalities are situated in the northeast, indicating that U.S. alcohol-related fatality are regional. Chang et al . [ 6 ] indicated that the drinking and driving policies in different regions had varying effects (In Chang et al . [ 6 ], the U.S. was divided into Far West, Great Lakes, Mid East, New England, Plains, Rocky Mts., Southeast, and Southwest). We concluded that different drinking and driving policies had different effects depending on the level of alcohol-related fatalities.

Fatalities as a percentage of total fatalities in crashes involving at least one driver with a BAC=0.08+, 2006 (Source: NHTSA).

This finding provided strong motivation to examine the effectiveness of drinking and driving policies under different alcohol-related fatality rates. To effectively discuss the effects of various drinking and driving policies on alcohol-related fatalities in different quantiles, we used the quantile regression method proposed by Koenker and Bassett [ 13 ] for estimation. The simple concept of the advantage of quantile regression, relative to the ordinary least squares regression, is that the quantile regression estimates are more robust against outliers in the response measurements [ 14 ]. Other advantages of the quantile regression method include that it makes no distribution assumptions on the population; it supplements the insufficiency of the traditional regression methods, which focuses only on the mean value of alcohol-related fatalities to estimate and interpret drinking and driving policy parameters; and finally, in our study, it specifically identifies the differing effect levels of drinking and driving policies on alcohol-related fatalities in different quantiles. Thus, we believe that applying QR model has advantages over the traditional method.

The structure of this study is as follows: research motivation and objectives are introduced in Section 1 . In Section 2 , we provide background information for the alcohol control- and road safety-related policies and review empirical studies on drunk driving. In Section 3 , we explain the methodology and the quantile regression model. In Section 4 , we provide the results of the empirical study; we follow the steps provided in the research methodology to implement empirical research and introduce, interpret, and analyze the results from the conducted empirical study. Finally, in Section 5 , we present a conclusion in which the empirical results are integrated and conclusions and suggestions for future studies are provided.

2. Background and Literature Review

The establishment of MADD was significant in the history of U.S. drinking and driving policies. Although the first U.S. law against drunk driving was passed in New York in 1910, other state governments and the federal governments did not pass such laws until MADD was founded in 1980, when the organization launched a wave of lobbying and campaigns. This led to a gradual trend toward more complete U.S. drinking and driving laws and policies.

2.1. Minimum Legal Drinking Age

In 1933, after the U.S. prohibition of the manufacture and sale of alcoholic beverages was lifted, the states began to set minimum legal drinking ages (MLDA), most of which were 21 years of age. By the early 1970s, most states had lowered their MLDAs to between 18 and 20 years of age, resulting in numerous discussions and studies. Most of these studies showed that the rise and decline of teenage car crash fatalities were related to MLDA [ 15 ]. Therefore, in 1984, the U.S. Congress enacted legislation that set the MLDA, stipulating that states that failed to raise their MLDA to 21 would lose a portion of their federal highway construction funding. By 1988, all states had raised their MLDA to 21. MLDA has remained one of the most researched alcohol prevention policies. The studies by Saffer and Grossman [ 12 ], Wilkinson [ 16 ], Wagenaar [ 17 ], Dee [ 18 ], Voas et al . [ 19 ] and Fell et al . [ 20 ] indicated that raised MLDAs effectively reduced alcohol-related traffic collisions.

2.2. Blood Alcohol Concentration

In 1939, the State of Indiana first enacted a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) limit of less than 0.15. In 1983, Oregon and Utah lowered their BAC from 0.1 to 0.08. In a report to Congress in 1991, the NHTSA proposed lowering the BAC to 0.08, and the law limiting BAC was passed by Congress in the same year. In 1998, Congress established the National Mobile Incentive Grant Scheme to strictly enforce the BAC. In 2000, Congress encouraged states to implement BAC restrictions, stipulating that the states that failed to lower their BAC to 0.08 would lose a portion of their federal highway construction funding. By 2004, all states enacted a BAC limit of 0.08.

Hingson et al . [ 21 ], Fell and Voas [ 22 ], Tippetts et al . [ 23 ], Kaplan and Prato [ 24 ], and Wagenaar et al . [ 25 ] showed that lowering the BAC from 0.10 to 0.08 reduced alcohol-related fatalities by 5% to 16%, saving approximately 400 lives per year.

2.3. Zero Tolerance

Zero tolerance was a combination of MLDA and BAC. This act stipulated that drivers under the age of 21 should not demonstrate a BAC exceeding 0.02%. Maryland first passed the Zero Tolerance Law in 1990. In 1995, to encourage other states to enact the Zero Tolerance Law, Congress stipulated under the National Highway Systems Designation Act (NHSDA) that the states that failed to enact the Zero Tolerance Law would lose a portion of their federal highway construction funding. By 1998, all states had implemented the Zero Tolerance Law. Zwerling and Jones [ 26 ], Wagenaar et al . [ 27 ], Voas et al . [ 28 ], Carpenter et al . [ 29 ], and Liang and Huang [ 30 ] showed that the Zero Tolerance Act reduced alcohol-related fatalities by 4% to 24%.

2.4. Open Container Laws

The Open Container Laws regarding drinking and driving stipulated that the drivers would be fined if open containers of alcoholic beverages were found in the cabins of their vehicles. Because this was an interstate law instead of a federal law, the states had the right to decide whether they issued the law and they could also adjust the contents of this law. In 1988, to encourage states to pass the Open Contain Laws, Congress stipulated that states that failed to implement the Open Container Laws would lose a portion of their federal highway construction funding. Currently, only 43 states have enacted this law. Eisenberg [ 31 ] and Benson et al . [ 3 ] showed that this law had a negative correlation with alcohol-related fatalities.

2.5. Driving Under the Influence

The Driving Under the Influence (DUI) Law was constructed in the framework of BAC limits. The “Administrative License Revocation” (ALR) and DUI fine were articles of the DUI Law. Under the ALR law, licenses are immediately revoked whenever a driver either: (1) refuses to submit to BAC testing; or (2) submits to testing with results indicating a BAC over the legal limit of 0.08% (by 2011, 42 states had implemented the ALR, leaving eight states not yet adopting the law: Kentucky, Michigan, Montana, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, and Tennessee). Ruhm [ 9 ], Voas et al . [ 32 ], and Wagenaar and Maldonado-Molina [ 33 ] indicated that ALR had significant effects on reducing alcohol-related fatalities. The DUI fines varied among states, with the lowest fines for first-time offenders ranging from US$150 in Wisconsin to US$2,000 in Texas. The results of studies on DUI fines differed. Chaloupka et al . [ 34 ] and Wagenaar et al . [ 25 ] indicated that DUI fins had significant effects on reducing alcohol-related fatalities, whereas Sloan et al. [ 35 ] sowed that DUI fines had no significant effects on reducing alcohol-related fatalities, and Young and Likens [ 36 ] found a positive correlation between DUI fines and alcohol-related fatalities.

Based on the definition proposed by Becker and Posner [ 37 ], we classifed these drinking and driving policies into two categories: preventive and ex-postregulations. Preventive regulations were enacted to prevent drinking and driving, including the Beer tax, MLDA, and Open Container Laws, whereas ex-post regulations were enacted to penalize drivers under the influence of alcohol, including the 0.08 BAC limit, ALR, the Safety Belt Law, the Zero Tolerance Law, speed limits, and DUI fines. Although some laws such as the beer tax, speed limits, and the Safety Belt Law were not intended to reduce alcohol-related collisions, numerous studies have observed that these laws had direct and significant effects on alcohol-related fatalities. Specifically, the effects of the beer tax on alcohol-related fatalities were widely examined. For example, the empirical results of Chaloupka and Wechsler [ 38 ], Phelps [ 39 ], Kenkel [ 40 ], Saffer and Grossman [ 12 ], and Mann et al . [ 41 ] showed a significant negative correlation between the beer tax and alcohol-related fatalities, whereas the empirical results of Sloan and Githens [ 42 ], Dee [ 18 ], Mast et al . [ 43 ], and Young and Likens [ 36 ] indicated that the relationship between the beer tax and alcohol-related fatalities was neither significant nor necessarily negatively correlated.

3. Research Model and Methodology

3.1. panel data quantile regression model.

The quantile regression (QR) analysis was proposed in Koenker and Bassett [ 13 ] as an expansion of the least absolute deviation (LAD). QR can be used to detail the performance of explanatory variables under the influence of conditional medians. Additionally, it can be expanded to analyze the performance of variables under the influence of different conditional quantiles.

Based on the descriptions in the study by Koenker & Bassett (1978), we established a random variable cumulative distribution function, as shown in Equation (1):

where y it represents the dependent explanatory variable vector, and x it is the independent explanatory variable vector. β is the regression coefficient vector obtained through estimation satisfying (1) and varies according to different quantiles τ . Therefore, β ( τ ) represents the regression coefficient vector under the influence of the τth quartile.

where ε it ( τ ) represents the random error under quantile τ , and α i represents the regional fixed effects that are unaffected by quantile ( τ ) and capture unobserved time-invariant heterogeneity between regions [ 14 ]. Also included is the state-specific time fixed effect to guarantee that the results are not due to the trend of fatalities caused by drunk driving [ 9 ]. The conditional expectation value in traditional panel data analysis is a linear operator; thus, within group estimation is used to eliminate the α i in the model and prevent biased estimation. However, the conditional quantile in the QR analysis is not a linear estimator, and within group estimation cannot be used to eliminate the fixed effects. Therefore, Koenker [ 14 ] introduced an objective function with penalty terms to eliminate the fixed effects, as shown in Equation (2):

Based on the suggestions in Lamarche [ 44 ], we used the bootstrap method for sampling estimation. In this method, the re-sampling of samples was used to simulate the population distribution. We also relaxed the assumption limit that requires the conditional distribution of the errors to be homoscedastic [ 45 ]. Therefore, a variance matrix estimation equation with consistency was obtained, as shown in Equation (3).

The QR model can describe the performances of different quantile conditional distributions and therefore can more fully describe the characteristics of samples. This is different from the OLS model describes only the mean marginal effects of the explanatory variables on the explained variables.

3.2. Empirical Model

Because this model was comparatively suitable, we used the panel data QR model to explore and verify whether changes in the effectiveness of drinking and driving policies occur with varying levels of alcohol-related fatalities. Based on the framework in Koenker [ 14 ], we established an empirical model for panel data QR, as shown in Equation (4):

where ε it ( τ )and α i are explained in the paragraph following Equation (1.1). Annual data from the 48 contiguous states for the years 1982 to 2009 are employed. ARFR it represents the alcohol-related fatalities per 100,000 population (according to Chang et al . [ 6 ], a lowered ARFR indicates that the traffic conditions in a state were undergoing improvement, that is, improved traffic conditions were beneficial to reducing alcohol-related fatalities) obtained from the Fatal Accident Reporting System (FARS) of the NHTSA. CONTROL it represents geo-economic factors, such as population density (Pop. density it ), income (Income it ), unemployment rates (Unemp. rate it ), teenage/young driver ratio (Under24 it ), and U.S. administrative districts. L it represents the nine drinking and driving policies selected for this discussion: The beer tax (Beer tax it ), MLDA (MLDA it ), BAC (Bac08 it ), ALR (ALR it ), the Safety Belt Law (Belt it ), the Zero Tolerance Law (Zero tolerance it ), Open Container Laws (Open container it ), the speed limit (Speed limit it ), and DUI fines (DUI fine it ) (these policies have been passed and implemented in all states at different times). These policies were set as the dummy variables in this model except for the beer tax. If states had adopted a policy, it was marked as 1; if they had not, it was marked as 0. Please refer to Table 1 for the details of the variables.

Variable definition and statistics.

Note: 1. NHTSA represents National Highway Traffic Safety Administration; 2. The abbreviation of each state in the USA are explained in Table A1 .

Table 2 shows four characteristics: (1) In the areas with low rates of alcohol-related fatalities, increases in unemployment rates and the number of young drivers (licensed drivers aged between 16 and 24 years of age) correlated with significant increases in alcohol-related fatalities. In these areas, preventive regulations (such as MLDA and the beer tax) were relatively more effective in reducing alcohol-related fatalities than ex-post regulations; (2) In areas with high rates of alcohol-related fatalities, socio-economic factors such as employment rate, and the number of young drivers had no significant effects on fatalities. In these areas, ex-post regulations (such as BAC limit (0.08) and ALR) correlated with reductions in fatalities at 1% significance level; (3) In terms of regional fixed effect, all coefficients of three regions are negative, indicating that the omitted region, South, had the highest alcohol-related fatalities rate. Since the second highest region was West, our results appear to support the original finding described in Figure 2 ; (4) The effects of preventive regulations declined as the rate of alcohol-related fatalities increased, whereas the opposite was observed for ex-post regulations. This indicates that in areas with high rates of alcohol-related fatalities, ex-post regulations were more effective than preventive regulations. The only ineffective traffic law in reducing alcohol-related fatalities in all quantiles is the speed limit. In the following section, we detail the effectiveness of various drinking and driving policies and other control variables in areas with high, medium, and low rates of alcohol-related fatalities.

Panel data quantile regression analysis.

Notes : 1. The 25, 50, and 75 percentiles represent the areas with 25th, 50th, and 75th percentiles of the rate of alcohol-related fatality; 2. ARFR, Beer tax, income, unemployment rate, and population density are in natural logarithms; 3. The geographic area “South” is omitted for the comparison base; 4. ***, **, * represent significance levels of 1%, 5%, and 10%, respectively; 5. State-specific time dummies were also included in the regressions while their coefficients are not reported to reduce paper length.

4.1. Areas with Low Alcohol-Related Fatalities

Table 2 shows that all drinking and driving polices except for speed limit had significant effects on lowering rates of alcohol-related fatalities in these areas. Among all policies, the beer tax was the most effective in lowering fatalities. Assuming that other conditions remained constant, when the beer tax increased by 1%, the rate of alcohol-related fatalities declined by 0.41%. Additionally, zero tolerance, the Open Container Law, and BAC effectively reduced the rate of fatalities in these areas, showing decreases of 0.18%, 0.14%, and 0.06%, respectively.

Other economic and demographic variables, such as per capita income, unemployment rates, and the number of young drivers all had significant effects in these areas at 5% level. Unemployment rates and the number of young drivers have a significant positive correlation with alcohol-related fatalities, that is, increases in unemployment rates and the proportion of young drivers caused an increase in fatalities. In particular, when the number of young drivers increased 1%, the rate of fatalities increased 0.08% holding other conditions constant. Conversely, per capita income had a significant negative correlation with alcohol-related fatalities. Assuming that other conditions remained constant, when the per capita income increased 1%, the alcohol-related fatalities declined 0.036%.

From these analyses, we observed that in the areas with low alcohol-related fatalities, in addition to the increased fatalities caused by economic pressure from unemployment and low per capita income [ 46 ], the effects of young drivers on increased alcohol-related fatalities should not be overlooked. In summary, in these areas, alcohol abuse and poor attitudes toward alcohol had a more severe effect on alcohol-related fatalities than poor traffic conditions [ 6 ]. Therefore, preventive regulations that are intented to prevent drunk driving were more effective and important than ex-post regulations that are intended to penalize drunk driving offenders.

4.2. Areas with Medium Alcohol-Related Fatalities

In the areas with medium rates of alcohol-related fatalities, the effects of the speed limit were insignificant, that is, the speed limit in these areas failed to effectively reduce rates of alcohol-related fatalities. Other drinking and driving policies had significant effects on the rates of alcohol-related fatalities in these areas. The beer tax was still the most effective in reducing rates of alcohol-related fatalities. Assuming that other conditions remained constant, when the beer tax increased by 1%, fatalities declined by 0.31%. Additionally, the zero tolerance, open container, and BAC regulations in these areas effectively reduced the rates of alcohol-related fatalities, by 0.25%, 0.19%, and 0.07%, respectively.

In these areas, the number of young drivers had no significant effects on alcohol-related fatalities, indicating that young drivers were not the major cause or focus of alcohol-related fatalities in these areas. Other economic and demographic variables (such as per capita income, unemployment rates, and population density) had significant effects on fatalities at 10% significance level. In particular, per capita income and population density had significant negative correlations with alcohol-related fatalities, that is, when per capita income or population density increased, fatalities declined by 0.016% and 0.165%, respectively. Unemployment rates had a significant positive correlation with fatalities at 10% significance level. Assuming that other conditions remained constant, when unemployment rates increased by 1%, fatalities increased by 0.011%.

From these analyses we observed that in the areas with medium alcohol-related fatalities, traffic conditions should be improved and alcohol abuse and poor attitudes toward alcohol should be discouraged to reduce alcohol-related fatalities. In summary, preventive and ex-post regulations were both significant.

4.3. Areas with High Alcohol-Related Fatalities

Most of the included drinking and driving policies all had significant effects in the areas with high alcohol-related fatalities. In particular, the three most effective traffic laws for reducing fatalities were zero tolerance, open container, and BAC for reducing fatalities rates by 0.28%, 0.103%, and 0.101%, respectively. The only traffic law that showed insignificant result was speed limit. In these areas, fewer economic and demographic variables (only per capita income and population density) had significant effects on reducing alcohol-related fatalities, indicating that unemployment rates and the number of young drivers were not major causes of drunk driving in these areas. In summary, improving traffic conditions or creating safe traffic conditions is essential for reducing alcohol-related fatalities in these areas. Additionally, ex-post regulations such as zero tolerance and BAC were relatively more effective than preventive ones.

4.4. Comparisons across Quantiles

To test whether all three quantiles were statistically different from each other, Chow tests were performed and presented in Table 3 , which indicates that the QR results were significantly different at 5% level for each pair of QR comparison. For systemic comparisons between coefficients across quantiles, differences between coefficients for each variable were computed and the results are presented in Table 3 . For the laws that are more effective in the areas with low alcohol-related fatalities, negative numbers appear in the columns of coefficient difference throughout the three pairs of comparison were obtained, which were MLDA and speed limit. Beer tax also worked more effectively in the areas with low alcohol-related fatalities. BAC and zero tolerance, on the other hand, are more effective in the areas with high alcohol-related fatalities. Thus, the areas with different conditions of alcohol-related fatalities should focus on different policies when enforcing the laws. In short, compared with areas that had low fatalities, the effects of preventive regulations for suppressing alcohol-related fatalities had declined in the areas with high fatalities, whereas the effects of ex-post regulations for suppressing fatality rates had increased in general. (The changes of the effects of preventive regulations are as follows: MLDA declined from 0.012% to 0.004%, and the Open Container Law from 0.142% to 0.103%. The changes of the effects of ex-post regulations are as follows: Zero Tolerance increased from 0.184% to 0.283%, BAC (0.08) increased from 0.066% to 0.101%, ALR from 0.058% to 0.065%, and DUI fines from 0.034% to 0.042%.)

Comparison between coefficients from different quantile regressions.

Notes : 1. Each column presents the difference of coefficients between different quantile regressions; 2. ***, **, * represent significance levels of 1%, 5%, and 10%, respectively; 3. The differences in coefficients of state-specific time dummies and constants are not shown.

5. Discussion

It is important for the relevant authorities to gain area-specific understanding of laws when amending them in order to save more lives from drinking and driving. Thus, we used the results from the empirical study on relevant policies to verify the arguments and discourse described above. Comparing the effects of all traffic laws in the three different quantiles, the most effective ones are the same for all three quantiles in the same order—zero tolerance, open container, and BAC. However, some laws are more effective in the areas with high alcohol-related fatalities, some are more effective in the areas with low alcohol-related fatalities, and others may not show consistent patterns across quantiles. In the areas with low alcohol-related fatalities, preventive regulations (beer tax, MLDA, and open container) may be more effective than ex-post regulations (such as BAC and zero tolerance), whereas ex-post regulations were more effective in areas with high fatalities, with an increase in effectiveness of 0.04% to 0.10% compared with their influence in the areas with low fatalities. Beer tax is most effective for the areas with low rate of alcohol fatalities but zero tolerance is most effective for the areas with high alcohol fatalities. DUI fine laws are effective for the areas with high alcohol fatalities but not so effective for the medium and low rates of alcohol fatalities.

These analyses show that the effectiveness of drinking and driving policies differed in areas with different rates of alcohol-related fatalities. Our results of all the policy effectiveness were statistically significant at 10% level or higher, except for DUI and speed limit in the areas with medium or high rates of alcohol-related fatalities. Even though the results were statistically significant in general, they might not imply social significance given the fact that the effectiveness (the magnitude of coefficients) of the laws was small. The law with greatest impact was zero tolerance, which decreased the rate of alcohol-related fatalities by 0.184%, 0.248%, and 0.283% in the areas with low, medium, and high rates of alcohol-related fatalities, respectively (as shown in Table 2 ). However, these figures could be translated to 18.82, 25.36, and 28.94 lives saved, respectively, given that total 10,228 people were killed in alcohol-impaired driving crashes in 2012 (Dept of Transportation 2012). While this study did not intend to address the issue of social significance (To determine whether the results are socially significant, which can be referred to changes on measures that are important to society, some cut off points or thresholds need to be carefully defined [ 47 , 48 ], which is beyond the scope of this study.) and the implementation of each traffic law did not seem to save many lives, it is believed that each life counts and is of great importance to their family. Therefore, it is crucial for the relevant authorities to gain better understanding of traffic laws. When deciding on methods by which to lower alcohol-related fatalities, the U.S. states should consider the characteristics of drunk driving in their areas to effectively reduce fatality rates.

6. Conclusions

The statistics from the FARS of the NHTSA show that approximately 30,000 people were killed or injured in car crashes in the U.S. in 2009. Forty percent of these crashes occurred during weekends (approximately 12,000 casualties), possibly because people consume excessive quantities of alcohol at social engagements on weekends, causing severe alcohol-related crashes [ 37 ]. This indicates that drunk driving remains a severe social problem in the U.S. that motivates scholars and experts to identify factors that can reduce alcohol-related fatalities.

In this study, we used the alcohol-related fatalities per 100,000 people in the U.S. states between 1980 and 2009 for our analysis. The data show the following phenomena: (1) consistency: areas with high rates of alcohol-related fatalities in the 1980s remained so in 2009; and (2) regionality: areas with higher rates of alcohol-related fatalities were situated in the west and south, whereas areas with lower alcohol-related fatalities were situated in the northeast. These characteristics led us to question if drinking and driving policies had the same effects in areas with different rates of alcohol-related fatalities. Therefore, we used the QR method to discuss the effectiveness of various drinking and driving policies for different quantiles of alcohol-related fatalities.

The results from the empirical study show demographic factors such as income, unemployment rates, young driver ratio, and population density were all significant in areas with low rates of alcohol-related fatalities; while only income and population density were significant in areas with high rates of alcohol-related fatalities. Considering the numbers of coefficients, we also find that lower beer tax and declined economic conditions (such as decreased income or increased unemployment) are correlated with higher rate of alcohol-related fatalities with impact greater in areas with low alcohol-related fatalities than in high fatality areas. Additionally, increased numbers of young drivers in areas with low rates of alcohol-related fatalities result in increased fatalities, whereas they did not significantly affect the fatalities in the areas with higher rates of alcohol-related fatalities. This implies that in areas with low alcohol-related fatalities (as compared to high fatality areas), drinking habits and attitudes may be restrained more easily by stricter drinking and driving policies and these areas are influenced to a greater extent by economic and demographic conditions. On the other hand, drinking habits and attitudes may not be easily changed in the areas with high alcohol-related fatalities; ex-post regulations are thus important for discouraging drinking people driving on the road. As a result, ex-post regulations are more important in the areas with high fatalities whereas preventive regulations are intended to prevent alcohol abuse and thus decrease alcohol-related fatalities in the areas with low fatalities.

Abbreviation of the states in the USA (by alphabetic order).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

• Open access
• Published: 12 March 2015

Driving under the influence of alcohol: frequency, reasons, perceived risk and punishment

• Francisco Alonso 1 ,
• Juan C Pastor 1 ,
• Luis Montoro 2 &
• Cristina Esteban 1  

Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy volume  10 , Article number:  11 ( 2015 ) Cite this article

73k Accesses

40 Citations

9 Altmetric

Metrics details

The aim of this study was to gain information useful to improve traffic safety, concerning the following aspects for DUI (Driving Under the Influence): frequency, reasons, perceived risk, drivers' knowledge of the related penalties, perceived likelihood of being punished, drivers’ perception of the harshness of punitive measures and drivers’ perception of the probability of behavioral change after punishment for DUI.

A sample of 1100 Spanish drivers, 678 men and 422 women aged from 14 to 65 years old, took part in a telephone survey using a questionnaire to gather sociodemographic and psychosocial information about drivers, as well as information on enforcement, clustered in five related categories: “Knowledge and perception of traffic norms”; “Opinions on sanctions”; “Opinions on policing”; “Opinions on laws” (in general and on traffic); and “Assessment of the effectiveness of various punitive measures”.

Results showed around 60% of respondents believe that driving under the influence of alcohol is maximum risk behavior. Nevertheless, 90.2% of the sample said they never or almost never drove under the influence of alcohol. In this case, the main reasons were to avoid accidents (28.3%) as opposed to avoiding sanctions (10.4%). On the contrary, the remaining 9.7% acknowledged they had driven after consuming alcohol. It is noted that the main reasons for doing so were “not having another way to return home” (24.5%) and alcohol consumption being associated with meals (17.3%).

Another important finding is that the risk perception of traffic accident as a result of DUI is influenced by variables such as sex and age. With regard to the type of sanctions, 90% think that DUI is punishable by a fine, 96.4% that it may result in temporary or permanent suspension of driving license, and 70% that it can be punished with imprisonment.

Conclusions

Knowing how alcohol consumption impairs safe driving and skills, being aware of the associated risks, knowing the traffic regulations concerning DUI, and penalizing it strongly are not enough. Additional efforts are needed to better manage a problem with such important social and practical consequences.

In Europe, traffic accidents are one of the main causes of mortality in people between 15 and 29 years old, and driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) is a major risk factor in most crashes [ 1 , 2 ].

In the year 2001 in Spain, 40,174 people were treated in public hospitals for traffic injuries. Some 28% of these injuries were serious or very serious and drinking was involved in a high percentage of cases. According to the Spanish Directorate General of Traffic (DGT), alcohol is involved in 30-50% of fatal accidents and in 15 to 35% of crashes causing serious injury, constituting a major risk factor in traffic accidents. This problem is especially important among young people and worsens on weekend nights [ 3 , 4 ].

In more recent years, several studies have shown that more than a third of adults and half of teenagers admit they have driven drunk. We also know that most of them were not detected. Generally, the rate of arrests for driving under the influence is very low and even those drivers who were arrested were mostly “first-time” offenders [ 5 ].

Some studies show that many young people lack information or knowledge about the legislation regulating consumption of alcohol for drivers, as well as the effects of this drug on the user [ 6 - 8 ].

There are also some widespread beliefs and misconceptions regarding the actions the driver can take in order to neutralize the effects of alcohol before driving (for instance drinking coffee, having a cold shower or breathing fresh air). As suggested by Becker’s model of health beliefs [ 9 , 10 ], preventive behavior is unlikely to occur unless the subject considers the action necessary, hence the importance of providing adequate information and disproving false beliefs.

Drivers are not usually aware of the risk they assume when they drive under the influence of alcohol, as they do not suffer a traffic accident every time they drink and drive. Hence they tend to think there is no danger in driving under the influence of alcohol, incurring the same risk behavior once and again.

But the reality is quite different. Alcohol causes very obvious alterations in behavior, as it affects almost all the physical skills we need for safe driving. It can interfere with attention, perceptual functioning and motor skills, as well as in decision making while driving.

Drinking impairs the ability to drive and increases the risk of causing an accident. The effects of alcohol consumption on driving-related functions are modulated by some factors, such as form of consumption (regular or infrequent), expectations about their consumption, expertise in driving and driver’s age. The increased risk of accident starts at a lower blood alcohol level when drivers are inexperienced or they are occasional drinkers, and begins at a higher blood alcohol level when these are more experienced drivers or regular drinkers [ 11 , 12 ].

The BAC represents the volume of alcohol in the blood and is measured in grams of alcohol per liter of blood (g / l) or its equivalent in exhaled air.

Any amount of alcohol in blood, however small, can impair driving, increasing the risk of accident. Therefore, the trend internationally is to lower the maximum rates allowed.

After drinking, the rate of alcohol in blood that a driver is showing can vary widely due to numerous modulating variables. Among them, some important factors are the speed of drinking, the type of alcohol (fermented drinks such as beer or wine, or distilled beverages like rum or whisky) or the fact of having previously ingested some food, as well as the age, sex or body weight. Ideally, if everyone drank alcohol responsibly and never drove after drinking many deaths would be avoided. Accurate information about how driving under the influence effects traffic safety would be a positive step towards this goal.

Study framework

Research on enforcement of traffic safety norms has a long tradition. In 1979, a classic work [ 13 ] showed that increasing enforcement and toughening sanctions can reduce accidents as an initial effect, although the number of accidents tends to normalize later.

Justice in traffic is needed insofar as many innocent people die on the roads unjustly. This is our starting point and our central principle. In order to prevent traffic accidents, a better understanding is needed of the driver’s knowledge, perceptions and actions concerning traffic regulations. Drivers have to be aware of how important rules are for safety. The present study comes from a broader body of research on traffic enforcement, designed to develop a more efficient sanctions system [ 5 , 14 ].

Our research used a questionnaire to gain sociodemographic and psychosocial information about drivers, as well as additional information on enforcement clustered in five related categories: “Knowledge and perception of traffic norms”; “Opinions on sanctions”; “Opinions on policing”; “Opinions on laws” (general ones and traffic laws in particular); and “Assessment of the effectiveness of various punitive measures”.

A number of additional factors were also explored, including: driving too fast or at an improper speed for the traffic conditions, not keeping a safe distance while driving, screaming or verbal abuse while driving, driving under the influence, smoking while driving, driving without a seat belt and driving without insurance. For a more complete review, see the original study [ 14 ].

The aim of this study was to gain useful information to improve traffic safety, concerning the following aspects:

Frequency of driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI).

Reasons for either driving or not driving under the influence (DUI).

Perceived risk of DUI.

Drivers’ knowledge of DUI-related penalties.

The perceived likelihood of being punished for DUI.

Drivers’ perception of the harshness of punitive measures for DUI.

Drivers’ knowledge of the penalties for DUI.

Drivers’ perception concerning the probability of behavior change after punishment for DUI.

Sociodemographic and psychosocial factors related with alcohol consumption and driving.

Participants

The sample consisted of 1100 Spanish drivers: 678 men (61.64%) and 422 women (38.36%), between 14 and 65 years of age. The initial sample size was proportional by quota to segments of Spanish population by gender and age. The number of participants represents a margin of error for the general data of ± 3 with a confidence interval of 95% in the worst case of p = q = 50%; with a significance level of 0.05.

Drivers completed a telephone survey. 1100 drivers answered interviews, and the response rate was 98.5%; as it was a survey on social issues, most people consented to collaborate.

Procedure and design

The survey was conducted by telephone. A telephone sample using random digit dialing was selected. Every phone call was screened to determine the number of drivers (aged 14 or older) in the household. The selection criteria were possession of any type of driving license for vehicles other than motorcycles and driving frequently. Interviewers systematically selected one valid driver per home. The survey was carried out using computer assisted telephone interview (CATI) in order to reduce interview length and minimize recording errors, ensuring the anonymity of the participants at all times and emphasizing the fact that the data would be used only for statistical and research purposes. The importance of answering all the questions truthfully was also stressed.

In this article, we present the data on driving under the influence of alcohol. The first question raised was: How often do you currently drive after drinking any alcoholic beverage? Possible responses were: Almost always, Often, Sometimes, Rarely or Never.

If they answered either Almost always, Often or Sometimes, they were asked: What is the reason that leads you to drive under the influence? If they answered Rarely or Never, they were asked: What is the reason you rarely or never drive under the influence? In both cases, respondents had the option of an open answer.

Later they were asked to rate from 0 to 10 the risk that driving under the influence of alcohol can cause a traffic accident in their opinion (0 being the minimum risk and 10 the maximum risk of crash).

Then they were asked to rate from 0 to 10 the harshness with which they thought DUI sanctions should be administered.

They were also asked: Is driving exceeding alcohol limits punishable? In this case, participants had the chance of answering Yes or No . We would then compare the correct answers with the standard to determine the knowledge.

Drivers who were unaware that DUI is punishable were asked about the probability of being sanctioned for this reason using the following question: When driving exceeding the limits of alcohol, out of 10 times, how many times is it usually sanctioned?

Another question dealt with the type of penalties. The participants were asked if the penalties for DUI consisted of economic fines, imprisonment or license suspension, either temporary or permanent. The question raised was: Have you ever received any penalty for driving under the influence? Possible answers were Yes or No . Those drivers who answered affirmatively were then asked about the harshness of punishment: How do you consider the punishment for DUI? The response options were Hard enough, Insufficient or Excessive. Furthermore, they were asked whether or not they changed their behavior after the punishment.

The questionnaire was used to ascribe drivers to different groups according to demographic and psychosocial characteristics, as well as to identify driving habits and risk factors.

Demographic variables

Gender: male or female.

Age: 14-17, 18-24, 25-29, 30-44, 45-65 and over 65 years old.

Educational level.

Type of driver: professional or non-professional.

Employment status: currently employed, retired, unemployed, unemployed looking for the first job, homemaker or student.

Driving habits

Frequency: the frequency with which the participant drive, the possible choices being Every day, Nearly every day, Just weekends, A few days a week, or A few days per month.

Mileage: the total distance in number of kilometers driven or travelled weekly, monthly or annually.

Route: type of road used regularly, including street, road, highway or motorway, and tollway.

Car use: motives for car use, for instance, to work, to go to work and return home from work or study centre, personal, family, recreational, leisure and others.

Experience/risk

Experience: number of years the participant has held a driver license, grouping them as 2 years or less, 3-6, 7-10, 11-15, 16-20, 21-25, 26-30 and over 30 years.

Traffic offenses. Number of sanctions in the past three years (none, one, two, three or more).

Accidents. Number of accidents as driver throughout life (none, one or more than one), and their consequences (casualties or deaths, or minor damages).

Once data were collected, a number of statistical analyses were performed, using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS), in order to obtain relevant information according to the aims of the study.

74.7% of the sample said that they had never driven under the influence. 15.5% of drivers said they did it almost never, and only the remaining 9.7% (sometimes 9,1%, often 0,2% or always 0,5%) acknowledged that they had driven after consuming alcohol (Figure  1 ).

Frequency of DUI.

Regarding the main reasons that led the drivers to act this way, expressed among drivers who admitted to having driven under the influence of alcoholic beverages, 24.5% of them indicated that it was unavoidable, as “I had to go home and couldn’t do anything else”, while 17.3% claimed that the act of drink-driving was an unintentional consequence or “something associated with meals”, and only 16.4% admitted having done it “intentionally”. In addition, 12.7% considered that “alcohol doesn’t impair driving” anyway (Figure  2 ).

Reasons for DUI.

“In any case, 60% of the interviewees perceived driving under the influence of alcohol as the highest risk factor for traffic accidents.”

Among them, the perception of this risk (or dangerousness of driving under the influence) is greater in women [F (1, 1081) = 41.777 p <0.05], adults aged between 18 and 44 [F (5, 1075) = 4.140 p <0.05], drivers who have never been fined for this infraction [F (2, 1080) = 29.650 p <0.05], drivers who had never committed the offense [F (4, 1077) = 40.489 p <0.05], and drivers who have never been involved in an accident [F (1, 1081) = 12.296 p <0.05]. Table  1 shows the values for this perception by gender and age.

There appears to be no significant relationship between the perceived risk attributed to DUI and other variables such as educational level, type of driver, driving frequency, vehicle use and years of experience.

The main reasons put forward for not drinking and driving included not drinking in any circumstances (50,5%), to avoid accidents (28,3%) as opposed to avoiding sanctions (10,4%) - such as financial penalties (8,4%), withdrawal of driving license (1,8%) or jail (0,2%) - or other reasons related to attitudes to road safety (16,6%).

On a scale of 0-10, participants rated the risk of economic penalties when driving under the influence of the alcohol with an average of 5.2, in other words they estimate the probability of being fined as roughly half of the times one drives drunk.

The perception of this risk (penalty or financial punishment for driving under the influence) is also greater in women [F (1, 1095) = 30,966 p <0.05], drivers who have never been involved in an accident [F (1, 1095) = 8.479 p <0.05], and drivers who had never been fined for this infraction [F (2 1094) = 12.515 p <0.05].

There appears to be no significant relationship between the perceived risk of financial penalty and other variables such as educational level, employment, type of driver, driving frequency, vehicle use and years of experience.

Almost everyone (99.1%) thinks that DUI is punishable and only 0.9% of drivers think it is not.

On a scale of 0-10, participants assigned an average of 9.1 to the need to punish this traffic breach severely. The score is higher in women [F (1, 1086) = 29.474 p <0.05], adults aged 18 to 24 years [F (5, 1089) = 2.699 p <0.05], drivers who have never been involved in an accident [F (1, 1095) = 8.479 p <0.05], and people who had never been fined for this reason [F (2, 1085) = 26,745 p <0.05], which means that these groups are less tolerant of this kind of behavior. By age, college students are the least tolerant and retirees are the most tolerant.

There was no significant relationship between the perceived need to punish this behavior harshly and variables such as type of driver, driving frequency and vehicle use.

Regarding the type of sanctions, 89.5% of drivers think that driving under the influence is subject to an economic fine, almost 70% say it could even be punished by imprisonment, while 96.4% believe it can lead to a temporary or permanent suspension of the license (Figure  3 ).

Type of sanction the driver think DUI is subject to.

Among the drivers who had been fined for DUI, nearly 75% considered that the imposed punishment was adequate, while the remaining 25% saw it as excessive (Figure  4 ). Finally, 91.7% of this group found they had changed their behavior after punishment (Figure  5 ).

Perception of punishment harshness imposed for DUI.

Perception concerning behavior change after punishment for DUI.

Alcohol is a major risk factor in traffic accidents. From the objective standpoint, alcohol interferes with the skills needed to drive safely, as evidenced by numerous studies on driving under the influence of alcohol conducted to date. From the subjective point of view, drivers also perceive it as dangerous, as our study shows.

Around 60% of respondents believe that driving under the influence of alcohol is maximum risk behavior. A smaller percentage compared to those reported by other studies in which the percentage of people that saw drink-driving as a major threat to safety reached 81% [ 15 ].

First, we note a clear correlation between perceived risk and avoidance behavior. In general the higher the perceived risk, the lower the probability of committing the offense, and vice versa: the lower the perceived risk, the greater the likelihood of driving after consuming alcohol.

Thus, drivers who do not commit this offense perceive that the risk of accidents associated with DUI is very high. When it comes to drivers who commit the offense occasionally, the perceived risk is lower, and when it comes to drivers who often drive under the influence of the alcohol, the perception of risk is clearly inferior. Thus, the frequency of DUI and risk perception seem to be inversely related.

These results are related to the hypothesis of optimistic bias, which states that drinkers are overly optimistic about probabilities of adverse consequences from drink. In a study [ 16 ] about overconfidence about consequences of high levels of alcohol consumption, the authors established an alternative to the optimism bias hypothesis that could explain our findings, affirming that persons who drink frequently and consume large amounts of alcohol daily could be more familiar with the risks of such behaviors.

Another important finding is that the risk perception of traffic accident as a result of DUI is influenced by variables such as sex and age. In relation to gender, the perception of risk seems to be higher in women than in men. In relation to age, risk perception is higher in adults between 18 and 44 years old.

The finding about the reason for not drinking and driving supports the already evident need for an integrative approach to developing sustainable interventions, combining a range of measures that can be implemented together. In this way, sustainable measures against alcohol and impaired driving should continue to include a mix of approaches, such as legislation, enforcement, risk reduction and education, but focus efforts more closely on strategies aimed at raising awareness and changing behavior and cultural views on alcohol and impaired driving.

Almost all the drivers surveyed are well aware that driving after drinking any alcoholic beverage is a criminal offense. They also consider that this is a type of infraction that should be punished harshly. In this respect, they assign nine points on a scale of ten possible.

Finally, with regard to the type of sanctions, 90% of drivers think that driving drunk is punishable by a fine. 96.4% consider that it may result in temporary or permanent suspension of driving license, and 70% believe that it can be punished with imprisonment.

In any case, there are several limitations of this study. This was a population-based study of Spanish drivers; there is possibly a lack of generalizability of this population to other settings.

Another possible limitation of this study is the use of self-report questionnaires to derive information rather than using structured interviews. Similarly, self-reported instruments may be less accurate than objective measures of adherence as a result of social desirability bias.

In Spain, various traffic accident prevention programs have been implemented in recent years. Some of them were alcohol-focused, designed to prevent driving under the influence and to inform the Spanish population about the dangers associated with this kind of risk behavior.

As a result, many Spanish drivers seem to be sensitized to the risk of driving drunk. As revealed in our survey, many Spanish drivers never drive under the influence of alcohol, and many of them identify DUI as maximum risk behavior. This shows that a high percentage of the Spanish population know and avoid the risks of DUI.

In any case, the reality is far from ideal, and one out of four drivers has committed this offense at least once. When asked why they did it, the two major risk factors of DUI we identified were the lack of an alternative means of transport and the influence of meals on alcohol consumption. Both situations, especially the latter, occur frequently, almost daily, while it is true that the amount of alcohol consumed in the former is considerably higher and therefore more dangerous.

In addition, most drivers are aware of the dangers of driving under the influence, and they tend to avoid the risk of accident or penalty for this reason. Some drivers never drive under the influence, to avoid a possible accident. To a lesser extent, some do not drive under the influence to avoid a possible fine. They usually think that the possibility of sanction in the event of DUI is so high that they will be fined every two times they risk driving drunk.

Moreover, drivers know the legislation regulating DUI and they believe that the current penalty for DUI is strong enough. Nevertheless, even though almost all the drivers that were fined for this reason say they changed their behavior after the event, nine out of ten drivers would penalize this kind of offense even more strongly.

Knowing how alcohol consumption impairs safety and driving skills, being aware of the associated risks, knowing the traffic regulations concerning DUI and penalizing it strongly are not enough. Many drivers habitually drive after consuming alcohol and this type of traffic infraction is still far from being definitively eradicated.

Additional efforts are needed for better management of a problem with such important social and practical consequences. Efforts should be focused on measures which are complementary to legislation and enforcement, increasing their effectiveness, such as education, awareness and community mobilization; Alcolock™; accessibility to alcohol or brief interventions.

Abbreviations

• Driving under the influence

Racioppi F, Eriksson L, Tingvall C, Villaveces A. Preventing Road Traffic Injury: a public health perspective for Europe. Copenhagen: World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe; 2004. Download from: http://www.euro.who.int/document/E82659.pdf . Accessed March 2009.

Google Scholar  

Fell JC. Repeat DWI, offenders involvement in fatal crashes in 2010. Traffic Inj Prev. 2014;15(5):431–3.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Pedragosa JL. Analisi dels accidents de transit a Catalunya i causes més rellevants. Anuario de Psicologia/Facultat de Psicologia, Universidad de Barcelona. 1995;65:205–13.

Summala H, Mikkola T. Fatal accidents among car and truck drivers: Effect of fatigue, age, and alcohol consumption. Ergonomics. 1994;36:315–26.

CAS   Google Scholar  

Alonso F, Esteban C, Calatayud C, Medina JE, Alamar B. La justicia en el tráfico: análisis del ciclo legislativo-ejecutivo a nivel internacional. Barcelona: Attitudes; 2005.

Reppetto E, Senra MP. Incidencia de algunos factores educativos, sociales y afectivos en el consumo de alcohol de los adolescentes. Rev Electron Investig Psicoeduc Psigopedag. 1997;15(1):31–42.

Turrisi R, Jaccard J, Kelly SQ, O’Mally CM. Social psychological factors involved in adolescents’ efforts to prevent their friends from driving while intoxicated. J Youth Adolesc. 1993;22(2):147–69.

Article   Google Scholar  

Weiss J. What do Israeli Jewish and Arab adolescents know about drinking and driving? Accid Anal Prev. 1996;28(6):765–9.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Becker MH, Maiman LA. Sociobehavioural determinants of compliance with health and medical care recommendations. Med Care. 1975;13(1):10–24.

Rodriguez-Marin J. Evaluación en prevención y promoción de la salud. In: Fernández R, editor. Evaluación conductural hoy. Madrid: Pirámide; 1994. p. 652–712.

Wall IF, Karch SB. Traffic Medicine. In: Stark MM, editor. Clinical Forensic Medicine. A Physician’s Guide. London: Humana Press; 2011. p. 423–58.

Peck RC, Gebers MA, Voas RB, Romano E. The relationship between blood alcohol concentration (BAC), age, and crash risk. J Safety Res. 2008;39(3):311–9.

Kaiser G. Delincuencia de tráfico y prevención general: Investigaciones sobre la criminología y el derecho penal del tráfico. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe; 1979.

Alonso F, Sanmartín J, Calatayud C, Esteban C, Alamar B, Ballestar ML. La justicia en el tráfico. Conocimiento y valoración de la población española. Barcelona: Attitudes; 2005.

Drew L, Royal D, Moulton B, Peterson A, Haddix D. National Survey of Drinking and Driving Attitudes and Behaviors. DOT HS 811-342. Washington, D.C: US Department of Transportation; 2010.

Sloan FA, Eldred LM, Guo T, Yu Y. Are people overoptimistic about the effects of heaving drinking? J Risk Uncertain. 2013;47(1):93–127.

Article   PubMed Central   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank the Audi Corporate Social Responsibility program, Attitudes, for sponsoring the basic research. Also thanks to Mayte Duce for the revisions.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

DATS (Development and Advising in Traffic Safety) Research Group, INTRAS (University Research Institute on Traffic and Road Safety), University of Valencia, Serpis 29, 46022, Valencia, Spain

Francisco Alonso, Juan C Pastor & Cristina Esteban

FACTHUM.lab (Human Factor and Road Safety), INTRAS (University Research Institute on Traffic and Road Safety), University of Valencia, Serpis 29, 46022, Valencia, Spain

Luis Montoro

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Francisco Alonso .

Additional information

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors’ contributions

All authors contributed to the design of the study and also wrote and approved the final manuscript. FA drew up the design of the study with the help of CE; the rest of the authors also contributed. JCP and LM were in charge of the data revision. JCP and CE also drafted the manuscript. FA performed the statistical analysis. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Rights and permissions

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Alonso, F., Pastor, J.C., Montoro, L. et al. Driving under the influence of alcohol: frequency, reasons, perceived risk and punishment. Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy 10 , 11 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13011-015-0007-4

Download citation

Received : 07 November 2014

Accepted : 02 March 2015

Published : 12 March 2015

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s13011-015-0007-4

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Road safety
• Driving while intoxicated

Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy

ISSN: 1747-597X

• General enquiries: [email protected]

Drinking and Driving Research Paper

View sample crime research paper on drinking and driving. Browse other research paper examples for more inspiration. If you need a thorough research paper written according to all the academic standards, you can always turn to our experienced writers for help. This is how your paper can get an A! Feel free to contact our writing service for professional assistance. We offer high-quality assignments for reasonable rates.

The automobile age brought with it unprecedented prosperity and freedom of movement, but motor vehicles have also caused the deaths and injuries of millions of people. From the beginning the abuse of alcohol has been universally viewed as one of the major causes of vehicular carnage, with severe punishments being deemed the best way of dealing with the self-indulgent reprobates responsible.

Academic Writing, Editing, Proofreading, And Problem Solving Services

Get 10% off with 24start discount code.

According to the sociologist Joseph Gusfield, noted for his work on alcohol in American society, behind all legislation aimed at curtailing drinking and driving is the image of ‘‘the killer drunk,’’ the morally flawed character who has committed more than an ordinary traffic violation. Unlike the social drinker, who knows his limits and respects the law, the drinking driver is a villain who threatens the lives of the innocent through indulgence in his own pleasure. In this legislation, unlike other kinds of traffic law, it is the behavior itself, the hostile, antisocial menace, which is singled out for special disapproval. From this perspective, the enforcement of drinking-driving legislation is as much a matter of public morality as it is of public convenience and safety (Gusfield).

The specter of the killer drunk is the key image that animates ‘‘the dominant paradigm,’’ to use the term coined by H. Laurence Ross, another American sociologist who has done more than any other scholar to elucidate, from an international perspective, the causes and prevention of drinking and driving (Ross, 1982, 1992). The dominant paradigm understands that there is a safe drinking level for the great mass of responsible drivers, differentiated from the levels regularly achieved by the small minority of reckless ‘‘drunken drivers.’’ The problem, in fact, is not ‘‘drinking and driving’’ at all, but ‘‘drunken driving.’’ The dominance of this paradigm in the United States is one reason why the term drunken driving is used so often there, in contrast to most European nations and Australia, where ‘‘drinking and driving’’ or ‘‘drink-driving’’ are the more popular terms.

How one defines the problem is fundamentally important in determining how one thinks about responses. The dominant paradigm calls for severe punishments administered through the criminal justice system. Not only are such punishments fitting, they are capable of deterring further offending, especially if they are backed by rigorous police enforcement. To the extent that the problem is construed in terms of the pathetic drunk rather than the cold-blooded killer, proponents of the dominant paradigm are also comfortable with offering treatment to offenders, provided such programs are not used to evade punishment.

Another way of viewing the problem is through what Laurence Ross calls ‘‘the challenging paradigm.’’ Those who think within this framework are uncomfortable about drawing a rigid line between dangerous drunks and social drinkers, although they recognize that heavy drinkers are a critical part of the problem. Their inspiration is the public health perspective, which is not primarily concerned with righting the moral balance of the world but with minimizing alcohol-related harms. Adherents of the challenging paradigm view alcohol-related accidents as the product of the conjunction of the social institutions of transportation and recreation, rather than as a manifestation of moral dereliction. All developed societies rely, to an increasing extent, on private vehicles for all daily functions including recreation, while the consumption of alcohol is accorded an honored place in afterwork camaraderie, weekend leisure, and business lunches. Large taverns with even larger car parks are built in the suburbs, and drinking to intoxication remains a core recreational activity for large numbers of people.

If the problem is institutions, perhaps the solutions lie in modifying the way these institutions operate. The challenging paradigm has a place for the criminal justice system, especially if the emphasis is on the general deterrence of the whole driving population. However, they also look beyond the criminal justice system to alcohol and transportation policy, exploring the utility of such measures as reducing alcohol availability or making vehicles or roadside hazards more ‘‘forgiving’’ of the errors of the drinking driver.

In the remainder of this discussion we explore many of the issues raised by the dominant and challenging paradigms, and assess the scientific evidence for the claims made.

The Role of Alcohol in Road Accidents

Around the middle of the twentieth century the technical means became available to measure the quantity of alcohol in a person’s blood (the blood alcohol concentration, or BAC, usually measured in terms of grams of alcohol per milliliter of blood). Laboratory research using this technology showed that at BAC levels much lower than those normally associated with intoxication, tasks related to driving performance (such as divided attention tasks) were noticeably affected. Although the effects of BAC depend on such factors as an individual’s weight, rate of drinking, and presence of food in the stomach, deterioration in performance becomes quite marked between BACs of .05 and .08. As a guide, the average man would attain a BAC of .05 or higher if he drank three ‘‘standard drinks’’ (e.g., three mid-size glasses of mid-strength beer) within one hour, without eating.

The alcohol-crash link was confirmed in a series of case-control studies that compared the BACs of drivers experiencing crashes with those of matched non-crash-involved drivers. These studies found that relative crash risks increase exponentially with BAC: at .05 the risk is double that for a zero-BAC driver, at .08 the risk is multiplied by ten, while at .15 or higher (the levels typically attained by drivers arrested for drinking and driving) the relative risk is in the hundreds. The curve is even steeper for serious and fatal crashes, for single-vehicle crashes, and for young people.

While it is likely that factors other than alcohol, such as a propensity to take risks, contribute both to the levels of drinking and to crash involvement, there is a near universal consensus that there is a direct and causal link between alcohol consumption and crashes, especially serious crashes. For example, eliminating alcohol would probably have prevented about 47 percent of fatal crashes in the United States in 1987 (Evans).

Prevalence and Patterns of Drinking and Driving

The most direct way of measuring the prevalence of drinking and driving is to take breath tests from a random sample of motorists. A number of countries carry out these surveys periodically, usually at nights and at weekends when drinking drivers are more numerous. Two groups of nations emerge in these studies. One group includes Scandinavia and Australia, where there are relatively few drinking drivers on the roads. Moderate to high BACs are found among less than 1 percent of drivers in these countries, even at peak leisure times. The second group includes the United States, Canada, France, and the Netherlands, where between 5 and 10 percent of drivers during nighttime leisure hours have moderate to high BACs. These patterns are broadly consistent with overall road fatality rates for different countries, and also with analyses of the BACs of drivers killed. However, in these latter studies even the Scandinavian countries have found that more than a quarter of drivers have positive BACs, despite the low numbers overall of drinking drivers on the road.

A second main way of estimating the prevalence of drinking and driving is to ask random samples of drivers about their behaviors in the recent past. For example, a 1988 study comparing Norwegian, Australian, and American drivers found that 28 percent of Australians, 24 percent of Americans, but only 2 percent of Norwegians admitted to driving in the past year after four or more drinks (Berger et al.). Despite their poor behaviors, 78 percent of the Australians agreed that it was morally wrong to drive after so many drinks, a higher figure than in the United States, but (again) lower than for the Norwegians, who scored a very high 98 percent. Overall, ‘‘general prevention,’’ defined as the influence of moral inhibitions and of social pressures, had taken greater hold in Norway than in the English-speaking countries, but general deterrence (behavior change in response to fear of the threat of legal sanctions) was a more potent force in Australia than in the other countries.

Using intoxication among drivers in fatal crashes as an indicator, dramatic reductions in drinking and driving were experienced in most developed countries in the 1980s. However, the indicators reversed direction in the early 1990s, but then continued in modest decline in the second half of the decade. Formal and informal controls on drinking and driving differ markedly from country to country, but nevertheless there appear to be some common influences. Levels of police enforcement (not the severity of penalties) stand out in all countries as an influence, together with a reduction in per capita alcohol consumption. Attention paid to the problem by political leaders, and the visibility of drinking and driving in the press, appear to be critical factors.

The deterrence of drinking and driving depends primarily on increasing the perceived probability of apprehension in the target population. One way of accomplishing this is to introduce laws that replace the vague offense of ‘‘driving under the influence’’ with the offence of driving with a BAC above a prescribed level (usually .08 or .05). Another way is to initiate a police crackdown on drinking and driving for a period of time. The experience of the United Kingdom in 1967, when it introduced for the first time a .08 BAC limit, illustrates well the usual impact of such interventions. The law was extremely controversial at the time, with the result that most drivers were aware of it and believed they would be caught if they drove after drinking. There was a marked decline in serious accidents at nights and weekends, but not at times when drinking and driving would not be expected. However, the deterrent impact wore off within a few years as drivers gradually became used to the new law, and realized that their chances of detection were in fact not very high.

This pattern of a sharp decline in drinking and driving coincident with a new law or with intensified police enforcement, followed by a gradual decline to pre-intervention levels, is commonly found. Deterrence is an unstable psychological process dependent on continuous publicity and on the perception of a credible police threat. However, random breath testing (RBT) is a major exception to the rule that enforcement effects are invariably temporary.

Under RBT as it is practiced in Australia and some Scandinavian countries, large numbers of motorists are pulled over at random by police and required to take a preliminary breath test, even if they are in no way suspected of having committed an offense or been involved in an accident. Thus RBT should be sharply distinguished from the U.S. practice of sobriety checkpoints, in which police must have reasonable suspicion of alcohol consumption before they can require a test. The RBT law has been very extensively advertised and vigorously enforced in Australia, with the result that 82 percent of motorists reported in 1999 having been stopped at some time (compared with 16 percent in the United Kingdom and 29 percent in the United States).

Time series analyses of accidents show that in Australia RBT had an immediate, substantial, and permanent impact, with every extra one thousand tests conducted each day by police resulting in a 6 percent decline in daily serious accidents (Henstridge et al.). The direct deterrent impact was enhanced by the fact that RBT gave heavy drinkers a legitimate excuse to drink less when drinking with friends. This is a good example of how formal sanctions can reinforce informal sanctions.

The same time series analyses show that a reduction in the legal BAC in some states from .08 to .05 resulted in an average 10 percent decline in serious accidents. This is consistent with experience in other countries where the BAC level has been reduced.

RBT and lower BAC levels concern certainty of detection. Administrative license revocation, the practice in some U.S. states where drivers who drink have their licenses revoked almost as soon as they fail a breath test, concerns swiftness of punishment. Research supports the potential of this procedure to reduce the recidivism of sanctioned drivers and to deter others. As a general rule, the only sanction applied to drivers who drink that reduces recidivism is loss of license. Although many drivers continue to drive while unlicensed, they tend to be more cautious and hence safer. Thus it seems that license loss has (to some extent) a physically incapacitating effect.

Other Countermeasures

License loss is effective for both alcoholrelated and non-alcohol-related accidents, but its impact on drinking and driving can be enhanced if combined with alcohol treatment. While treatment without license suspension is generally ineffective, suspension plus education, psychotherapy counseling, or follow-up contact probation (preferably in combination) produce an additional 7 to 9 percent reduction in recidivism and accidents (Wells-Parker et al.). Ignition interlock devices, which prevent a vehicle being started until the driver passes a breath test, have been shown to be very effective for many highrisk offenders. However, the effects tend to be limited to the period of the court order unless combined with treatment within a case management framework to deal with the underlying problems.

The problem with all countermeasures focused on apprehended offenders is that most serious alcohol-related crashes involve drivers with no prior drinking and driving convictions. Hardcore drivers who drink comprise about 1 percent of drivers on the road, but more than a quarter of drivers killed. Many of these drivers have a history of violence and serious antisocial behavior including crime, with alcohol abuse simply one facet of their deviant careers. It is likely that for this group a radically different approach is needed, involving early childhood interventions (Farrington).

Most accidents do not involve hard-core offenders, and there is therefore a continuing need for countermeasures directed at the general population. Promising measures include promotion of responsible beverage service for bar staff and managers of on-premise alcohol outlets combined with deterrence of drinking and driving through local enforcement; reduction in retail availability of alcohol to minors; and reductions in the number and density of alcohol outlets to limit general access to alcohol. Any measure that reduces per capita alcohol consumption, such as increases in price through taxation, will reduce alcohol-related accidents.

Reducing dependence on driving has similar promise. Successful measures include designated driver programs (someone in a group stays sober so that that person can drive home), safe rides programs, and increasing the age of driver licensing or restricting licenses to daytime use for young drivers. Promoting public transport would certainly be effective if it were ever evaluated for its impact on drinking and driving. Contrary to expectations, there is no evidence that driver education for young people reduces crash involvement. Indeed, the evidence suggests the reverse: by encouraging young people to gain their license at an earlier age, such training increases exposure to risk, and hence accidents.

Finally, making the vehicle and roadside environment more forgiving of the errors of drinking drivers will reduce deaths and injuries. Frangible poles that minimize damage to vehicles; improved response times and skills of emergency medical teams; more use of seatbelts and airbags; and brighter reflective road signs (so impaired drivers notice them) are but a few examples of effective environmental interventions.

Overall, the picture is one of steady progress, with some setbacks. The challenging paradigm, based on the principles of population health, continues to score successes through such strategies as reducing the legal blood alcohol concentration. General deterrence, especially utilizing random enforcement methods, has achieved permanent reductions in alcohol-related crashes, as has administrative license revocation. Treatment combined with license suspension and ignition interlocks reduce recidivism and accidents. Tougher penalties, the major emphasis of the dominant paradigm, show no promise at all.

The challenges include maintaining the deterrent impact of random enforcement; finding long-term ways of dealing with hard-core offenders; optimizing the use of alcohol and driving controls in politically acceptable ways; and maintaining political and media interest in the drinking and driving problem in the face of stiff competition from other social issues. The fact that drinking and driving declined in most countries in the latter part of the twentieth century, despite wide variations in prevention strategies, suggests that within the challenging paradigm there are many pathways to a safer motoring environment.

Bibliography:

• BERGER, DALE; SNORTUM, JOHN R.; HOMEL, ROSS J.; HAUGE, RAGNAR; and LOXLEY, WENDY. ‘‘Deterrence and Prevention of AlcoholImpaired Driving in Australia, the United States and Norway.’’ Justice Quarterly 7 (3) (1990): 453–465.
• EVANS, LEONARD. Traffic Safety and the Driver. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1991.
• FARRINGTON, DAVID. ‘‘Early Developmental Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency.’’ Criminal Behavior and Mental Health 4 (3) (1994): 209–227.
• GUSFIELD, JOSEPH The Culture of Public Problems: Drinking-Driving and the Symbolic Order. Chicago, Ill.: The University of Chicago Press, 1981.
• HAUGE, R., ed. Scandinavian Studies in Criminology. 6, Drinking and Driving in Scandinavia. Oslo, Norway: Universitetsforlaget, 1978.
• HENSTRIDGE, JOHN; HOMEL, ROSS; and MACKAY, PETA. The Long-Term Effects of Random Breath Testing in Four Australian States: A Time Series Analysis. Canberra, Australia: Federal Office of Road Safety, 1997.
• HINGSON, RALPH. ‘‘Prevention of Drinking and Driving.’’ Alcohol Health and Research World 20, no. 4 (1996): 219–226.
• HOMEL, ROSS. Policing and Punishing the Drinking Driver: A Study of General and Specific Deterrence. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1988.
• HOMEL, ROSS. ‘‘Drivers Who Drink and Rational Choice: Random Breath Testing and the Process of Deterrence.’’ In Routine Activity and Rational Choice. Edited by Ronald V. Clarke and Marcus Felson. Vol. 5 Advances in Criminological Theory. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers, 1993. Pages 59–84.
• LAURENCE, MICHAEL; SNORTUM, JOHN R.; and ZIMRING, FRANKLIN E., eds. Social Control of the Drinking Driver. Chicago, Ill.: The University of Chicago Press, 1988.
• MCCORD, JOAN. ‘‘Drunken Drivers in Longitudinal Perspective.’’ Journal of Studies on Alcohol 45 (1984): 316–320.
• ROSS, H. LAURENCE. Deterring the Drinking Driver: Legal Policy and Social Control. and updated ed. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books, 1984.
• ROSS, H. LAURENCE. Confronting Drunk Driving: Social Policy for Saving Lives. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1992.
• ROSS, H. LAURENCE. ‘‘Prevalence of Alcohol-Impaired Driving: An International Comparison.’’ Accident Analysis and Prevention 25(6) (1993): 777–779.
• WELLS-PARKER, ELIZABETH; BANGERT-DROWNS, ROBERT; MCMILLEN, ROBERT; and WILLIAMS, MARSHA. ‘‘Research Report: Final Results From a Meta-Analysis of Remedial Interventions with Drink/Drive Offenders.’’ Addiction 90 (7) (1995) 907–926.
• WILSON, R. JEAN, and MANN, ROBERT, eds. Drinking and Driving: Advances in Research and Prevention. New York: The Guilford Press, 1990.

ORDER HIGH QUALITY CUSTOM PAPER

Please wait while we process your request

Writing Essays On Drinking And Driving

Academic writing

Essay paper writing

Students often write papers on problems of public importance. Working on such a task helps them learn to reflect on serious issues, find ways out of difficult situations, and understand the significance of the problems under review. In particular, drinking and driving essays and research papers are a frequent task at schools and universities. If you are writing one, this article is for you. Here, we will tell you how to write an excellent drinking and driving essay or research paper on this issue and offer some great topic ideas.

Drunk driving essay topics

• Drinking while driving essay
• Effects of drinking and driving essay
• How to prevent drunk driving essay
• Mothers against drunk driving essay
• Risk factors and ways to prevent drunk driving essay
• Problems with drinking and driving essay
• Teenage drunk driving essay
• Drinking and driving essay: Free rides home for people under influence

Topics for argumentative essay on drunk driving

• Drinking and driving argumentative essay: Why should it be punished severely?
• Why not to drink and drive essay
• Everyone should receive jail time for driving under the influence essay
• Lowering the BAC will help fight DUI essay
• What is the best way to prevent deaths from drunk driving?

Drunk driving persuasive essay topics

• There are no excuses for drinking and driving persuasive essay
• It is important to report your friends if they are driving under influence
• Adding more sobriety checkpoints will help to reduce the number of DUI
• Better education is a key to having less DUI accidents
• Revoking licenses for first DUI’s

Useful tips for writing perfect paper about drunk driving

• Make an outline. It is really important to know how you will structure your paper and what ideas will go into each section before you start writing. Otherwise, it will be easy to lose the track of thoughts in the process and your paper may end up being inconsistent or incomprehensible.
• Always write drafts. Do not try to create the perfect paper at the first attempt as it will be hard to finish writing if you revise every single word you put down. In the first version, it is enough to pay attention to the content of your paper. Then you can work on the formatting and style of the text to make it sound more professional.
• Choose only credible and up-to-date sources. If search for facts online, always check the websites you take information from. Use Google Scholar to be on the safe side and find books or journal articles on the topic.
• Cite information properly. Follow the rules of the chosen formatting style to cite all the factual information in the paper. Otherwise, you may face plagiarism issues.
• Read a few samples. Find some examples of cause and effect of drinking and driving essays, as they will give you a better understanding of not only how a paper can be structured, but also what kind of arguments may be presented. If you liked certain points that the author has made, be sure to fact-check it and read more about it in general before considering including it in your own work.

Drunk driving essay outline

If you want to create a well-structured paper, make a drinking and driving essay outline before you start writing. Here is what it should include:

• Drinking and driving essay introduction.

The purpose of the intro is to interest your reader and inform him or her about the issue you are going to consider and why it is so serious. To do it, first, you will need to create a hook sentence, which will catch the attention of your readers. After that, add a few sentences describing the background of the problem using factual data where necessary. The most important part of your introduction is a drunk driving essay thesis. It will be the very last sentence of the paragraph which will go over the points you will discuss in the next parts of your paper.

• Main part (or body).

This is the biggest section of your work where you have to present the arguments to support the points you made in a thesis. Start each paragraph by introducing the point you are planning to review, show what you have found when researching it, and analyze these findings. Do not forget to make a small conclusion and smoothly transition into the next paragraph.

• Drinking and driving essay conclusion.

Here, your main task is to restate your thesis statement and go over the arguments you have presented in the body. Apart from that, you will also need to create a clincher phrase, which is a final sentence that calls for further reflections and gives your audience some food for thought.

Drinking and driving research papers topics

• Drivers ed research paper
• Research paper on drunk driving laws in the country of choice
• What is zero tolerance law?
• Underage drinking laws in the US
• DUI statistics in the country of choice and how it can be improved
• The dangers of drunk driving
• US law & drunk driving research paper
• What measures have proven to be effective when dealing with DUI?

Outline for a research paper on drinking and driving

• Abstract page (if required)
• Introduction
• Methodology
• Literature review
• Findings & Discussion
• Limitations/Ethical Considerations
• List of references
• Appendices (optional)

Maximum alcohol level in different countries

There are two methods for determining the level of alcohol in the human body: BrAC (breath alcohol content) and BAC (blood alcohol content). Both indicators are measured in milligrams of ethyl per liter of air or blood. The BAC is more common as it is easier to check in the field by using a breathalyzer.

• Zero level of alcohol, or, as it is also called, “zero tolerance” is valid in many countries of the world. For example, all drivers in Brazil and Egypt should be absolutely sober when they get behind the wheel.
• In the countries where alcohol level is slightly higher (Germany, Italy, Thailand, Turkey, and Australia), there is still a zero threshold for special categories of drivers: newcomers with less than 2-3 years of driving experience, taxi drivers, as well as professional drivers of trucks and buses.
• Alcohol level of 0.2 mg/l corresponds to one glass of wine (150 ml). It is officially authorized in China. The driver will not be punished for such a dose.
• The maximum blood alcohol level of 0.3 mg/l (which is equal to a glass of liqueur (50 ml), a glass of whiskey (50 ml), or a 0.5-liter bottle of beer) is allowed in Russia and Japan.
• A dose 0.5 mg/l is equal to two bottles of beer or 100 grams of vodka. You can consume such amounts of alcohol and still drive in Germany, France, Italy, Thailand, Turkey, Greece, Spain, and Australia.
• 0.8 mg/l is the world’s highest level of alcohol in the blood allowed by law. It is used in the USA. Americans can drink a bottle of wine (750 ml) and get behind the wheel.

Comparison of penalties for drunk driving essay or research paper

When writing research works or essays on drunk driving, you may want to compare laws and penalties for DUIs in different countries. Here are some of the most interesting ones for your review:

• Thailand. In this kingdom, drunk drivers are fined 1,000 baht (about $30) for DUI. In addition, they can be sentenced to imprisonment for up to 3 months.
• France. For driving in a state of intoxication (above 0.5 mg/l), French drivers may get a fine of 135 euro. In addition, they lose 6 points (a point system is used in the country). If the driver loses 12 points within two years, he or she is deprived of their drivers’ license. If the alcohol content in blood is more than 0.8 mg/l, the punishment increases dramatically: a fine of 4,500 euros, revocation of a driver’s license for three years, and up to two years in prison.
• Egypt. There is a fine of 500-3000 Egyptian pounds ($28-168) for drunk driving in the country. In addition, by court order, citizens can be deprived of driving license or imprisoned.
• Greece. A fine of 200 euro will be applied if you were intoxicated when driving. Those drivers who exceeded the norm of 0.8 mg/l pay 700 euros and are deprived of driving license for 3 months. If more than 1.1 mg/l is found in the blood, the offender is fined 2,000 euros and deprived of driver’s license for six months with 2 months of imprisonment.
• China. In this country, drunk drivers are fined 1,000-2,000 yuan ($140-280) and deprived of driver’s licenses for six months. Violators who have over 0.8 mg/l of alcohol in their blood are deprived of driver’s licenses for 5 years and imprisoned for up to 3 years. But the Chinese Themis is especially merciless in relation to drunk drivers who caused the accidents with victims. By court order, they can be sentenced to death.
• Brazil. The country fights DUIs with fines of 300-1200 Brazilian reais ($80-320) and deprivation of driving license for a year. Although Brazil has zero tolerance to drunk driving, citizens are fined when the alcohol content in the blood is above 0.2 mg/l. The reason is the permissible error of the measuring equipment.
• Australia. For driving under the influence of alcohol, a fine of $600 or $440 AUD is imposed. Persons who have more than 0.8 mg/l of alcohol in their system are deprived of drivers’ license for six months and must install ignition interlock device for 5 years (to start the engine, one needs to breathe into a tube to prove sobriety). In addition, the court may decide to impound the violator’s car.
• Turkey. The country punishes drunk drivers with a fine of 700-2000 TL ($140-400) and deprives them of a driver’s license for six months.
• Germany. The largest automobile country in Europe punishes drivers under the influence with a fine of 500 euros and a deprivation of driver’s license for a year. Persons with any alcohol content other than zero are perceived as potential initiators of an accident. Moreover, in Germany, one cannot drive a bicycle when intoxicated.
• Spain. A fine of 500 euros is applied to individuals driving under the influence of alcohol. In case of a significant excess of the norm (over 1.2 mg/l), they are deprived of the driver’s license for 12 months and can be imprisoned for up to six months.
• Italy. This country has one of the highest fines for DUIs, which are around 500 to 2000 euros. Also, an offender will get their license suspended for 3-6 months.
• Japan. The driver faces a fine of 1 million Japanese yen (about $9000), a suspension of driver’s license for 5 years, and a prison sentence of up to 5 years. In addition, all passengers who were in the car or bus at the time of the violation are also fined.

US laws on drunk driving

• If the driver refuses to pass the test for determining the level of alcohol in their system, their license is automatically suspended for 1 year. A fine for the first offense is $500, and $750 for the second one.
• The first arrest: a fine of $500-1000 and/or up to 1 year in prison; a driver’s license can be suspended for a period of 6 months.
• The second arrest within 10 years from the first arrest: a fine of $1,000-5,000 and a minimum of 10 days in jail along with 60 days of community service. According to the decision of the judge, the prison time can be extended for any period up to 7 years. Driver’s license is withdrawn for a period of 1 year, and after its restoration, ignition interlock device is installed in the car at the driver’s expense.
• The third arrest in the state of intoxication: a fine of $2,000-10,000 and a minimum of 10 days in prison (up to 7 years depending on a court order). An ignition interlock device is installed and a driver’s license is suspended for a year.
• If there was a child under 15 years old in a car with a drunk driver, the offender can receive a sentence of up to 4 years and pay a fine of $5,000.

Your email address will not be published / Required fields are marked *

Try it now!

Calculate your price

Number of pages:

Order an essay!

Fill out the order form

Make a secure payment

Receive your order by email

Compare And Contrast Essay Topics

Many students have surely written compare and contrast essays during their studies. Most of the time, our teachers gave us a task with the specific instructions to follow, so it was not a very…

4th Sep 2018

Genetic Engineering Essay Writing Guide

Genetic engineering, being one of the main lines of scientific and technological progress, actively contributes to speeding up the solution of many problems concerning food, agriculture, energy, and…

14th May 2019

Writing Papers About Marijuana Legalization

One of the most hotly debated topics in the world right now is marijuana legalization. This issue is discussed in different circles, and more and more people speak out about it. Consequently, there…

9th Jul 2020

Get your project done perfectly

Professional writing service

Reset password

We’ve sent you an email containing a link that will allow you to reset your password for the next 24 hours.

Please check your spam folder if the email doesn’t appear within a few minutes.

Prevalence of alcohol-impaired driving: a systematic review with a gender-driven approach and meta-analysis of gender differences

• Published: 26 July 2024

Cite this article

• Guido Pelletti 1   na1 ,
• Rafael Boscolo-Berto 2   na1 ,
• Laura Anniballi 1 ,
• Arianna Giorgetti 1 ,
• Filippo Pirani 1 ,
• Mara Cavallaro 1 ,
• Luca Giorgini 1 ,
• Paolo Fais   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2270-9956 1 ,
• Jennifer Paola Pascali 1 &
• Susi Pelotti 1  

34 Accesses

Explore all metrics

A growing number of studies investigated the factors that contribute to driving under the influence (DUI) of alcohol in relation to gender. However, a gendered approach of the scientific evidence is missing in the literature. To fill this gap, a gender-driven systematic review on real case studies of the last two decades was performed. In addition to the gender of the drivers involved, major independent variables such as the period of recruitment, the type of drivers recruited, and the geographical area where the study was conducted, were examined. Afterwards, a meta-analysis was performed comparing alcohol-positive rates (APR) between male and female drivers in three subgroups of drivers: those involved in road traffic accidents, those randomly tested on the road, and volunteers.

Three databases were searched for eligible studies in October 2023. Real-case studies reporting APR in man and women convicted for DUI of alcohol worldwide were included. Univariate analysis by ANOVA with post-hoc tests identified the independent variables with a significant impact on the dependent variable APR, according to a relationship subsequently investigated by standard multiple linear regression. The meta-analysis of random effects estimates was performed to investigate the change in overall effect size (measured by Cohen’s d standardized mean difference test) and 95% confidence interval (CI).

Among papers addressing driver gender, univariate analysis of independent variables revealed a higher Alcohol Positive Rate (APR) in men, particularly in drivers involved in crashes, with a noticeable decrease over time. Analyzing the gender of drivers involved in crashes, the meta-analysis showed that men had a significantly higher APR (30.7%; 95%CI 26.8–35.0) compared to women (13.2%; 95%CI 10.7–16.1). However, in drivers randomly tested, there was no significant difference in APR between genders (2.1% for men and 1.4% for women), while in volunteers, there was a statistically significant difference in APR with 3.4% (95%CI 1.5–7.6) for men and 1.1% (95%CI 0.5–2.7) for women.

Despite a progressive decrease in the epidemiological prevalence of alcohol-related DUI over time, this phenomenon remains at worryingly high levels among drivers involved in road traffic accidents in both genders, with a higher prevalence in men. It’s important for policymakers, professionals, and scientists to consider gender when planning research, analysis, interventions, and policies related to psychoactive substances, such as alcohol or other licit drugs. Forensic sciences can play a vital role in this regard, enabling a thorough analysis of gender gaps in different populations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

A pooled analysis of on-the-road highway driving studies in actual traffic measuring standard deviation of lateral position (i.e., “weaving”) while driving at a blood alcohol concentration of 0.5 g/l.

A Real Case-Based Study Exploring Influence of Human Age and Gender on Drivers’ Behavior and Traffic Safety

The hazardous (mis)perception of Self-estimated Alcohol intoxication and Fitness to drivE—an avoidable health risk: the SAFE randomised trial

Data availability.

Not applicable.

Mauvais-Jarvis F, Bairey Merz N, Barnes PJ, Brinton RD, Carrero J-J, DeMeo DL, De Vries GJ, Epperson CN, Govindan R, Klein SL, Lonardo A, Maki PM, McCullough LD, Regitz-Zagrosek V, Regensteiner JG, Rubin JB, Sandberg K, Suzuki A (2020) Sex and gender: modifiers of health, disease, and medicine. Lancet 396:565–582. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31561-0

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Steingrímsson S, Carlsen HK, Sigfússon S, Magnússon A (2012) The changing gender gap in substance use disorder: a total population-based study of psychiatric in-patients. Addiction 107:1957–1962. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2012.03954.x

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Barone R, Pelletti G, Garagnani M, Giusti A, Marzi M, Rossi F, Roffi R, Fais P, Pelotti S (2019) Alcohol and illicit drugs in drivers involved in road traffic crashes in Italy. An 8-year retrospective study. Forensic Sci Int 305:110004. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2019.110004

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Marinelli S, Basile G, Manfredini R, Zaami S (2023) Sex- and gender-specific drug abuse dynamics: the need for tailored therapeutic approaches. J Pers Med 13:965. https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm13060965

Buccelli C, Della Casa E, Paternoster M, Niola M, Pieri M (2016) Gender differences in drug abuse in the forensic toxicological approach. Forensic Sci Int 265:89–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2016.01.014

Gjerde H, Ramaekers JG, Mørland JG (2020) Methodologies for Establishing the Relationship between Alcohol/Drug Use and Driving Impairment: Differences between Epidemiological, Experimental, and Real-Case Studies, in: A. Wayne Jones, J. Morland, R.H. Liu (Eds.), Alcohol, Drugs, and Impaired Driving, Taylor and Francis, : pp. 581–610. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003030799

Pelletti G, Verstraete AG, Reyns T, Barone R, Rossi F, Garagnani M, Pelotti S (2019) Prevalence of therapeutic drugs in blood of drivers involved in traffic crashes in the area of Bologna, Italy. Forensic Sci Int 302:109914. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2019.109914

Robertson AA, Liew H, Gardner S (2011) An evaluation of the narrowing gender gap in DUI arrests. Accid Anal Prev 43:1414–1420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2011.02.017

Schwartz J, Beltz L (2018) Trends in female and male drunken driving prevalence over thirty years: triangulating diverse sources of evidence (1985–2015). Addict Behav 84:7–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2018.03.024

McMurran M, Riemsma R, Manning N, Misso K, Kleijnen J (2011) Interventions for alcohol-related offending by women: a systematic review. Clin Psychol Rev 31:909–922. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2011.04.005

Pelletti G, Boscolo-Berto R, Barone R, Giorgetti A, Fiorentini C, Pascali JP, Fais P, Pelotti S (2022) Gender differences in driving under the influence of psychoactive drugs: evidence mapping of real case studies and meta-analysis. Forensic Sci Int 341:111479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2022.111479

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group PRISMA (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 6:e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097

McInnes MDF, Moher D, Thombs BD, McGrath TA, Bossuyt PM, and the, PRISMA-DTA Group T, Clifford JF, Cohen JJ, Deeks C, Gatsonis L, Hooft HA, Hunt CJ, Hyde DA, Korevaar MMG, Leeflang P, Macaskill JB, Reitsma R, Rodin AWS, Rutjes J-P, Salameh A, Stevens Y, Takwoingi M, Tonelli L, Weeks P, Whiting BH, Willis (2018) Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies: The PRISMA-DTA Statement, JAMA 319 388–396. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2017.19163

Boscolo-Berto R, Viel G, Cecchi R, Terranova C, Vogliardi S, Bajanowski T, Ferrara SD (2012) Journals publishing bio-medicolegal research in Europe. Int J Legal Med 126:129–137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00414-011-0620-3

Viel G, Boscolo-Berto R, Cecchi R, Bajanowski T, Vieira ND, Ferrara SD (2011) Bio-medicolegal scientific research in Europe. A country-based analysis. Int J Legal Med 125:717–725. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00414-011-0576-3

Daglioglu N, Efeoglu Ozseker P, Dengiz H, Kekec Z (2022) Determination of phosphatidyl ethanol (PEth) 16:0/18:1 in dried blood samples of drivers involved in traffic accidents: a pilot study. Leg Med (Tokyo) 58:102091. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.legalmed.2022.102091

Oyono Y, Gjerde H, Acha Asongalem E, Kouomogne Nteungue BA, Bamuh E, Deuwa Ngako A, Kelley-Baker T, Ramaekers JG, Lontsi L, Sonwa G, Enow-Orock E (2021) Achidi Akum, Roadside surveys of drinking and driving in Cameroon. Traffic Inj Prev 22:349–354. https://doi.org/10.1080/15389588.2021.1922682

Huang C-Y, Chou S-E, Su W-T, Liu H-T, Hsieh T-M, Hsu S-Y, Hsieh H-Y, Hsieh C-H (2020) Effect of lowering the blood alcohol concentration limit to 0.03 among hospitalized trauma patients in Southern Taiwan: a cross-sectional analysis. Risk Manag Healthc Policy 13:571–581. https://doi.org/10.2147/RMHP.S250734

Jamt REG, Gjerde H, Furuhaugen H, Romeo G, Vindenes V, Ramaekers JG, Bogstrand ST (2020) Associations between psychoactive substance use and sensation seeking behavior among drivers in Norway. BMC Public Health 20:23. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-019-8087-0

Papalimperi AH, Athanaselis SA, Mina AD, Papoutsis II, Spiliopoulou CA, Papadodima SA (2019) Incidence of fatalities of road traffic accidents associated with alcohol consumption and the use of psychoactive drugs: a 7-year survey (2011–2017). Exp Ther Med 18:2299–2306. https://doi.org/10.3892/etm.2019.7787

Valen A, Bogstrand ST, Vindenes V, Frost J, Larsson M, Holtan A, Gjerde H (2019) Fatally injured drivers in Norway 2005-2015-Trends in substance use and crash characteristics. Traffic Inj Prev 20:460–466. https://doi.org/10.1080/15389588.2019.1616700

Pešić D, Antić B, Smailović E, Marković N (2019) Driving under the influence of alcohol and the effects of alcohol prohibition-case study in Serbia. Traffic Inj Prev 20:467–471. https://doi.org/10.1080/15389588.2019.1612058

Romano E, Kelley-Baker T, Hoff S, Eichelberger A, Ramírez A (2019) Use of Alcohol and Cannabis among adults driving children in Washington State. J Stud Alcohol Drugs 80:196–200. https://doi.org/10.15288/jsad.2019.80.196

Seesen M, Siviroj P, Sapbamrer R, Morarit S (2019) High blood alcohol concentration associated with traumatic brain injury among traffic injury patients during New Year festivals in Thailand. Traffic Inj Prev 20:115–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/15389588.2018.1547379

Jørgenrud B, Bogstrand ST, Furuhaugen H, Jamt REG, Vindenes V, Gjerde H (2018) Association between speeding and use of alcohol and medicinal and illegal drugs and involvement in road traffic crashes among motor vehicle drivers. Traffic Inj Prev 19:779–785. https://doi.org/10.1080/15389588.2018.1518577

Kalsi J, Selander T, Tervo T (2018) Alcohol policy and fatal alcohol-related crashes in Finland 2000–2016. Traffic Inj Prev 19:476–479. https://doi.org/10.1080/15389588.2018.1443325

Ferrari D, Manca M, Banfi G, Locatelli M (2018) Alcohol and illicit drugs in drivers involved in road traffic crashes in the Milan area. A comparison with normal traffic reveals the possible inadequacy of current cut-off limits. Forensic Sci Int 282:127–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2017.11.005

Santoyo-Castillo D, Pérez-Núñez R, Borges G, Híjar M (2018) Estimating the drink driving attributable fraction of road traffic deaths in Mexico. Addiction 113:828–835. https://doi.org/10.1111/add.14153

Martin J-L, Gadegbeku B, Wu D, Viallon V, Laumon B (2017) Cannabis, alcohol and fatal road accidents. PLoS ONE 12:e0187320. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0187320

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Domingo-Salvany A, Herrero MJ, Fernandez B, Perez J, Del Real P, González-Luque JC, de la Torre R (2017) Prevalence of psychoactive substances, alcohol and illicit drugs, in Spanish drivers: a roadside study in 2015. Forensic Sci Int 278:253–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2017.07.005

Kirsch B, Birngruber CG, Dettmeyer R (2017) Senior driving under the influence: a five-year retrospective study of alcoholized road-users aged 70 and over. Forensic Sci Int 277:10–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2017.05.002

Cittadini F, De Giovanni N, Caradonna L, Vetrugno G, Oliva A, Fucci N, Zuppi C, Pascali VL, Covino M (2017) Prevalence of alcohol and other drugs in injured drivers and their association with clinical outcomes. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 21:2008–2014

CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Jamt REG, Gjerde H, Normann PT, Bogstrand ST (2017) Roadside survey on alcohol and drug use among drivers in the Arctic county of Finnmark (Norway). Traffic Inj Prev 18:681–687. https://doi.org/10.1080/15389588.2017.1283027

Sobngwi-Tambekou JL, Brown TG, Bhatti JA (2016) Driving under the influence of alcohol in professional drivers in Cameroon, Traffic Inj Prev 17 suppl 1. 73–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/15389588.2016.1199867

Petković S, Palić K, Samojlik I (2016) Blood alcohol concentration in fatally injured drivers and the efficacy of alcohol policies of the new law on road traffic safety: a retrospective 10-year study in autonomous province of Vojvodina, Republic of Serbia. Traffic Inj Prev 17:553–557. https://doi.org/10.1080/15389588.2015.1125479

Jomar RT, de Ramos D, Abreu ÂMM (2016) Breathalyzer test: results and refusals to take the test of drivers intercepted under the DUI spot-check campaign in Rio De Janeiro. Cien Saude Colet 21:3787–3792. https://doi.org/10.1590/1413-812320152112.20572015

Bonilla-Escobar FJ, Herrera-López ML, Ortega-Lenis D, Medina-Murillo JJ, Fandiño-Losada A, Jaramillo-Molina C, Naranjo-Lujan S, Izquierdo EP, Vanlaar W (2016) Gutiérrez-Martínez, driving under the influence of alcohol in Cali, Colombia: prevalence and consumption patterns, 2013. Int J Inj Contr Saf Promot 23:179–188. https://doi.org/10.1080/17457300.2014.966120

Legrand S-A, Silverans P, de Paepe P, Buylaert W, Verstraete AG (2013) Presence of psychoactive substances in injured Belgian drivers. Traffic Inj Prev 14:461–468. https://doi.org/10.1080/15389588.2012.716881

Yuan A, Li Y, Zhang J (2013) The result of a baseline survey on drink driving in Nanning and Liuzhou of Guangxi Province, China. Traffic Inj Prev 14:230–236. https://doi.org/10.1080/15389588.2012.701785

Kelley-Baker T, Lacey JH, Voas RB, Romano E, Yao J, Berning A (2013) Drinking and driving in the United States: comparing results from the 2007 and 1996 National Roadside surveys. Traffic Inj Prev 14. https://doi.org/10.1080/15389588.2012.697229

Institóris L, Tóth AR, Molnár A, Arok Z, Kereszty E, Varga T (2013) The frequency of alcohol, illicit and licit drug consumption in the general driving population in South-East Hungary. Forensic Sci Int 224:37–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2012.10.022

Palmentier J-PFP, Warren R, Gorczynski LY (2009) Alcohol and drugs in suspected impaired drivers in Ontario from 2001 to 2005. J Forensic Leg Med 16:444–448. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jflm.2009.05.002

Tsai Y-C, Wu S-C, Huang J-F, Kuo SCH, Rau C-S, Chien P-C, Hsieh H-Y, Hsieh C-H (2019) The effect of lowering the legal blood alcohol concentration limit on driving under the influence (DUI) in southern Taiwan: a cross-sectional retrospective analysis. BMJ Open 9:e026481. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026481

Zador PL, Krawchuk SA, Voas RB (2000) Alcohol-related relative risk of driver fatalities and driver involvement in fatal crashes in relation to driver age and gender: an update using 1996 data. J Stud Alcohol 61:387–395. https://doi.org/10.15288/jsa.2000.61.387

Hamnett HJ, Ilett M, Izzati F, Smith SS, Watson KH (2017) Toxicological findings in driver and motorcyclist fatalities in Scotland 2012–2015. Forensic Sci Int 274:22–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2016.12.034

du Plessis M, Hlaise KK, Blumenthal R (2016) Ethanol-related death in Ga-Rankuwa road-users, South Africa: a five-year analysis. J Forensic Leg Med 44:5–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jflm.2016.08.006

Brubacher JR, Chan H, Martz W, Schreiber W, Asbridge M, Eppler J, Lund A, Macdonald S, Drummer O, Purssell R, Andolfatto G, Mann R, Brant R (2016) Prevalence of alcohol and drug use in injured british Columbia drivers. BMJ Open 6:e009278. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009278

Liu C, Huang Y, Pressley JC (2016) Restraint use and risky driving behaviors across drug types and drug and alcohol combinations for drivers involved in a fatal motor vehicle collision on U.S. roadways. Inj Epidemiol 3:9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40621-016-0074-7

Legrand S-A, Gjerde H, Isalberti C, Van der Linden T, Lillsunde P, Dias MJ, Gustafsson S, Ceder G, Verstraete AG (2014) Prevalence of alcohol, illicit drugs and psychoactive medicines in killed drivers in four European countries. Int J Inj Contr Saf Promot 21:17–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/17457300.2012.748809

Brady JE, Li G (2014) Trends in alcohol and other drugs detected in fatally injured drivers in the United States, 1999–2010. Am J Epidemiol 179:692–699. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwt327

Brady JE, Li G (2013) Prevalence of alcohol and other drugs in fatally injured drivers. Addiction 108:104–114. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2012.03993.x

Rao Y, Zhao Z, Zhang Y, Ye Y, Zhang R, Liang C, Wang R, Sun Y, Jiang Y (2013) Prevalence of blood alcohol in fatal traffic crashes in Shanghai. Forensic Sci Int 224:117–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2012.11.011

Kuypers KPC, Legrand S-A, Ramaekers JG, Verstraete AG (2012) A case-control study estimating accident risk for alcohol, medicines and illegal drugs. PLoS ONE 7:e43496. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0043496

Stübig T, Petri M, Zeckey C, Brand S, Müller C, Otte D, Krettek C, Haasper C (2012) Alcohol intoxication in road traffic accidents leads to higher impact speed difference, higher ISS and MAIS, and higher preclinical mortality. Alcohol 46:681–686. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.alcohol.2012.07.002

Costa N, Silva R, Mendonça MC, Real FC, Vieira DN, Teixeira HM (2012) Prevalence of ethanol and illicit drugs in road traffic accidents in the centre of Portugal: an eighteen-year update. Forensic Sci Int 216:37–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2011.08.013

Gómez-Talegón T, Fierro I, González-Luque JC, Colás M, López-Rivadulla M, Javier F, Álvarez (2012) Prevalence of psychoactive substances, alcohol, illicit drugs, and medicines, in Spanish drivers: a roadside study. Forensic Sci Int 223:106–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2012.08.012

Poulsen H, Moar R, Troncoso C (2012) The incidence of alcohol and other drugs in drivers killed in New Zealand road crashes 2004–2009. Forensic Sci Int 223:364–370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2012.10.026

Legrand S-A, Isalberti C, der Linden TV, Bernhoft IM, Hels T, Simonsen KW, Favretto D, Ferrara SD, Caplinskiene M, Minkuviene Z, Pauliukevicius A, Houwing S, Mathijssen R, Lillsunde P, Langel K, Blencowe T, Verstraete AG (2013) Alcohol and drugs in seriously injured drivers in six European countries. Drug Test Anal 5:156–165. https://doi.org/10.1002/dta.1393

İdi̇z N, Karakuş A, Dalgiç M, Meseri̇ R, Akgür SA (2011) The Alcohol Levels in Fatal & Nonfatal Traffic Accidents in İzmir. Turkiye Klinikleri J Foren Sci Leg Med 8:6–11

Google Scholar  

Gjerde H, Normann PT, Pettersen BS, Assum T, Aldrin M, Johansen U, Kristoffersen L, Øiestad EL, Christophersen AS, Mørland J (2008) Prevalence of alcohol and drugs among Norwegian motor vehicle drivers: a roadside survey. Accid Anal Prev 40:1765–1772. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2008.06.015

Plurad D, Demetriades D, Gruzinski G, Preston C, Chan L, Gaspard D, Margulies D, Cryer G (2010) Motor vehicle crashes: the association of alcohol consumption with the type and severity of injuries and outcomes. J Emerg Med 38:12–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jemermed.2007.09.048

Jones AW, Kugelberg FC, Holmgren A, Ahlner J (2009) Five-year update on the occurrence of alcohol and other drugs in blood samples from drivers killed in road-traffic crashes in Sweden. Forensic Sci Int 186:56–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2009.01.014

Santamariña-Rubio E, Pérez K, Ricart I, Rodríguez-Sanz M, Rodríguez-Martos A, Brugal MT, Borrell C, Ariza C, Díez E, Beneyto VM, Nebot M, Ramos P, Suelves JM (2009) Substance use among road traffic casualties admitted to emergency departments. Inj Prev 15:87–94. https://doi.org/10.1136/ip.2008.019679

Gjerde H, Christophersen AS, Normann PT, Mørland J (2011) Toxicological investigations of drivers killed in road traffic accidents in Norway during 2006–2008. Forensic Sci Int 212:102–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2011.05.021

Peck RC, Gebers MA, Voas RB, Romano E (2008) The relationship between blood alcohol concentration (BAC), age, and crash risk. J Saf Res 39:311–319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2008.02.030

Article   Google Scholar  

Keall MD, Frith WJ, Patterson TL (2004) The influence of alcohol, age and number of passengers on the night-time risk of driver fatal injury in New Zealand. Accid Anal Prev 36:49–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0001-4575(02)00114-8

Shih H-C, Hu S-C, Yang C-C, Ko T-J, Wu J-K, Lee C-H (2003) Alcohol intoxication increases morbidity in drivers involved in motor vehicle accidents. Am J Emerg Med 21:91–94. https://doi.org/10.1053/ajem.2003.50025

Fabbri A, Marchesini G, Morselli-Labate AM, Rossi F, Cicognani A, Dente M, Iervese T, Ruggeri S, Mengozzi U, Vandelli A (2002) Positive blood alcohol concentration and road accidents. A prospective study in an Italian emergency department. Emerg Med J 19:210–214. https://doi.org/10.1136/emj.19.3.210

Whiting PF, Rutjes AWS, Westwood ME, Mallett S, Deeks JJ, Reitsma JB, Leeflang MMG, Sterne JAC, Bossuyt PMM (2011) QUADAS-2 Group, QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med 155:529–536. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00009

Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, Shamseer L, Tetzlaff JM, Akl EA, Brennan SE, Chou R, Glanville J, Grimshaw JM, Hróbjartsson A, Lalu MM, Li T, Loder EW, Mayo-Wilson E, McDonald S, McGuinness LA, Stewart LA, Thomas J, Tricco AC, Welch VA, Whiting P, Moher D (2021) The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 372:n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71

Boscolo-Berto R, Favretto D, Cecchetto G, Vincenti M, Kronstrand R, Ferrara SD, Viel G (2014) Sensitivity and specificity of EtG in hair as a marker of chronic excessive drinking: pooled analysis of raw data and meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ther Drug Monit 36:560–575. https://doi.org/10.1097/FTD.0000000000000063

Begg CB, Mazumdar M (1994) Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics 50:1088–1101

Berghaus G (2007) Meta-analyses in research in forensic medicine: Alcohol, drugs, diseases and traffic safety. Forensic Sci Int 165:108–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2006.05.011

Giorgetti A, Pascali JP, Pelletti G, Garagnani M, Roffi R, Grech M, Fais P (2024) Optimizing screening cutoffs for drugs of abuse in hair using immunoassay for forensic applications. Adv Clin Exp Med. https://doi.org/10.17219/acem/183124

Boscolo-Berto R (2024) Challenges and future trends of forensic toxicology to keep a cut above the rest. Adv Clin Exp Med. https://doi.org/10.17219/acem/185730

Chin JM, Growns B, Sebastian J, Page MJ, Nakagawa S (2022) The transparency and reproducibility of systematic reviews in forensic science. Forensic Sci Int 340:111472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2022.111472

Driving Under the Influence of Drugs (2024) Alcohol and Medicines in Europe — findings from the DRUID project | ( www.emcdda.europa.eu , (n.d.). https://www.emcdda.europa.eu/publications/thematic-papers/druid_en

Cheng W-C, Dao K-L (2017) The occurrence of alcohol/drugs by toxicological examination of selected drivers in Hong Kong. Forensic Sci Int 275:242–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2017.03.022

Papa P, Rocchi L, Rolandi LM, Di Tuccio M, Biffi M, Valli A (2017) Illicit drugs in Emergency Department patients injured in road traffic accidents. Annali Dell’Istituto Superiore Di Sanita 53:35–39. https://doi.org/10.4415/ANN_17_01_08

Reilly K, Woodruff SI, Hohman M, Barker M (2019) Gender differences in driving under the influence (DUI) program client characteristics: implications for treatment delivery. Women Health 59:132–144. https://doi.org/10.1080/03630242.2018.1434589

Fell JC (2019) Approaches for reducing alcohol-impaired driving: evidence-based legislation, law enforcement strategies, sanctions, and alcohol-control policies. Forensic Sci Rev 31:161–184

Terranova C, Cestonaro C, Cinquetti A, Trevissoi F, Favretto D, Viel G, AnnaAprile (2024) Sex differences and driving impairment related to psychoactive substances. Traffic Injury Prev DOI. https://doi.org/10.1080/15389588.2024.2325607

Download references

Author information

Guido Pelletti and Rafael Boscolo-Berto equally contributed to this paper.

Authors and Affiliations

Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, Unit of Legal Medicine, University of Bologna, Via Irnerio 49, Bologna, 40126, Italy

Guido Pelletti, Laura Anniballi, Arianna Giorgetti, Filippo Pirani, Mara Cavallaro, Luca Giorgini, Paolo Fais, Jennifer Paola Pascali & Susi Pelotti

Institute of Human Anatomy, Department of Neurosciences, University of Padova, Via A. Gabelli 65, Padua, 35127, Italy

Rafael Boscolo-Berto

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

GP: conceptualization; writing-original draft; RBB: methodology; formal analysis; LA: data curation; visualization; AG: data curation; formal analysis; FP: data curation; formal analysis; MC data curation; visualization;: LG data curation; visualization;: PF data curation; visualization;: JPP: SP: conceptualization; supervision. All authors have read and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paolo Fais .

Ethics declarations

Competing interest.

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Compliance with ethical standards

No approval of an ethical committee is needed for this type of study.

Human ethics and consent to participate

Not applicable

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Supplementary material 2, rights and permissions.

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Pelletti, G., Boscolo-Berto, R., Anniballi, L. et al. Prevalence of alcohol-impaired driving: a systematic review with a gender-driven approach and meta-analysis of gender differences. Int J Legal Med (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00414-024-03291-3

Download citation

Received : 19 April 2024

Accepted : 09 July 2024

Published : 26 July 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s00414-024-03291-3

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Forensic Toxicology
• Traffic medicine
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Presentations made painless

• Get Premium

111 Drunk Driving Essay Topic Ideas & Examples

Inside This Article

Drunk driving is a serious issue that affects thousands of people each year. Whether it’s a drunk driver causing a fatal accident or someone getting a DUI, the consequences of driving under the influence can be devastating. If you have been tasked with writing an essay on drunk driving, it’s important to choose a compelling topic that will engage your readers.

To help you get started, here are 111 drunk driving essay topic ideas and examples:

• The impact of drunk driving on society
• The legal consequences of drunk driving
• The emotional toll of losing a loved one to a drunk driver
• The effectiveness of DUI checkpoints
• The role of alcohol education programs in preventing drunk driving
• The relationship between alcohol advertising and drunk driving
• The effects of alcohol on driving abilities
• The prevalence of drunk driving among college students
• The dangers of buzzed driving
• The impact of technology on preventing drunk driving
• The relationship between alcoholism and drunk driving
• The cost of drunk driving accidents to society
• The role of law enforcement in preventing drunk driving
• The effectiveness of ignition interlock devices in reducing drunk driving
• The impact of media coverage on public perceptions of drunk driving
• The role of peer pressure in drunk driving incidents
• The relationship between alcohol consumption and risky driving behaviors
• The consequences of a DUI conviction on a person’s life
• The impact of drunk driving on insurance rates
• The role of parents in preventing underage drinking and driving
• The dangers of driving the morning after drinking alcohol
• The relationship between alcohol availability and drunk driving rates
• The effectiveness of sobriety checkpoints in deterring drunk driving
• The impact of stricter drunk driving laws on reducing incidents
• The role of alcohol addiction treatment in preventing repeat DUI offenses
• The dangers of driving under the influence of drugs
• The effectiveness of public awareness campaigns in reducing drunk driving
• The impact of peer intervention programs on preventing drunk driving
• The relationship between alcohol abuse and mental health issues
• The consequences of drunk driving for victims and their families
• The role of bartenders and servers in preventing drunk driving
• The effectiveness of designated driver programs in reducing drunk driving incidents
• The impact of social norms on drunk driving behaviors
• The relationship between alcohol consumption and risky driving decisions
• The consequences of drunk driving for professional drivers
• The role of technology in detecting drunk drivers
• The effectiveness of mandatory alcohol education programs for DUI offenders
• The impact of alcohol addiction on a person’s ability to make responsible decisions
• The relationship between alcohol availability and drunk driving rates in different countries
• The consequences of drunk driving for underage offenders
• The role of friends and family in preventing loved ones from driving drunk
• The effectiveness of community-based prevention programs in reducing drunk driving
• The impact of alcohol-related injuries on healthcare costs
• The relationship between alcohol consumption and aggressive driving behaviors
• The consequences of drunk driving for commercial drivers
• The role of peer pressure in influencing drunk driving behaviors
• The effectiveness of alcohol treatment programs for DUI offenders
• The impact of drunk driving on workplace safety
• The relationship between alcohol use and impaired decision-making abilities
• The consequences of drunk driving for first-time offenders
• The role of alcohol abuse in causing repeat DUI offenses
• The effectiveness of school-based prevention programs in reducing underage drinking and driving
• The impact of alcohol availability on drunk driving rates in rural areas
• The relationship between alcohol consumption and fatal car accidents
• The consequences of drunk driving for military personnel
• The role of law enforcement in enforcing drunk driving laws
• The effectiveness of zero-tolerance policies for underage drinking and driving
• The impact of alcohol-related incidents on college campuses
• The relationship between alcohol use and risky sexual behaviors
• The consequences of drunk driving for professional athletes
• The role of social media in raising awareness about the dangers of drunk driving
• The effectiveness of peer education programs in preventing drunk driving
• The impact of alcohol-related incidents on academic performance
• The relationship between alcohol consumption and domestic violence
• The consequences of drunk driving for individuals with prior DUI convictions
• The role of alcohol abuse in causing impaired driving skills
• The effectiveness of community service programs for DUI offenders
• The impact of alcohol-related incidents on family relationships
• The relationship between alcohol use and criminal behavior
• The consequences of drunk driving for individuals with substance abuse issues
• The role of public transportation in reducing drunk driving rates
• The effectiveness of breathalyzer tests in deterring drunk driving
• The impact of alcohol abuse on a person’s

Want to research companies faster?

Instantly access industry insights

Let PitchGrade do this for me

Leverage powerful AI research capabilities

We will create your text and designs for you. Sit back and relax while we do the work.

Explore More Content

• Privacy Policy
• Terms of Service

© 2024 Pitchgrade

Drunk Driving and Its Consequences Essay

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

Issues around drunk-driving

Consequences of drunk-driving.

Driving involves the mind of the driver; for safe driving, drivers should make the right decision when on road; they should follow traffic rules as required by the law. When driving under the influence of alcohol, the risk of causing an accident is high. When someone is intoxicated with alcohol to a state of high blood alcohol content (BAC), his or her decision making capacity is hampered.

Different states have different laws and legislations to legal drinking limit (blood alcohol content (BAC)), that someone can be allowed to drive. For instance some countries have blood alcohol content in excess of 0.05% or 0.08% defines the offense while others have higher levels. Despite the varying rates, the underlying principle is that drinking under the influence of alcohol is risky (Laurence & Gusfield, 1994). This paper discusses issues and consequences relating to drunk-driving.

In all states of the United States, it is illegal to drive under the influence of alcohol beyond the set limit per state, according the countries legal definition, drunk driving is driving when one has taken alcohol to the extent that his or her mental and motor skills are impaired.

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), about 40% of death on road accidents in 2006 was as a result of drunk-driving; it estimated that 17,941 people died in 2006 in alcohol-related collisions. It is the realization of such statistics that each state in the country has its own drunk-driving reinforcement measures and methods.

When driving under the influence of alcohol, the driver ignores traffic signs, symbols, and lights; with the ignorance there is high chance that he will do the forbidden causing an accident. In the United States, for instance, the leading cause of deaths for people under the age of 24 years is motor vehicle wrecks, of which 40% are alcohol related. When driving, the driver is in control of the machine with the decisions that he will make, when someone is drunk, the decisions that he or she will make are likely to be triggered by the intoxication resulting to the wrong decision.

Some of the common forms of accidents that drunkenness leads to include getting into ditch, rolling, hitting another car (either stationary or otherwise), using the wrong lane resulting to head on collision, hitting pedestrians, and unnecessary hooting. When any form of above form of accidents occurs, the passengers/pedestrian risks the chance of dying or suffering from permanent disability (Buddy, 2023).

Accident related medical bills are a challenge to the authorities, they led to economic retardation and stretching of medical facilities. When someone is a victim of an accident, the paid and the psychological trauma is likely to affect his lifestyle thereafter, the rate at which he will be producing or contributing to personal economic development will be hampered; the United States is among those nations with high rates of drunk-driving.

The United States of America has enacted various laws and legislations to control drunk-drinking in the country. The policies include strict penalties on arrested offenders; the penalties include cancellation of one’s driving licence, imprisonment, and fine. Of the late, the country has enacted the Paradigm Developmental Model of Treatment (PDMT) which aims at rehabilitating drunk-driving drivers. To ensure that the laws are being followed, state governments’ works with traffic police to enforce the laws (Appel, 2009).

Appel, M. (2009). Must physicians report impaired driving? Rethinking a duty on a collision course with itself. The Journal of Clinical Ethics , 20 (2): 136–40.

Buddy, T. (2023). What Happens When You Get a DUI . Web.

Laurence, R., & Gusfield, F. (1994). Confronting Drunk Driving . Yale: Yale University Press

• U.S. Supreme Court Operation
• Military Commercial Driver's License Act of 2012
• Drunk Drivers Should Be Imprisoned on the First Offense
• Drunk Driving Issue Analysis
• Tougher Laws Against Drunk Driving
• Road Rage and the Possibilities of Slow Driving
• Should States Raise Speed Limits
• Limitation of Speed Limits
• No child left behind
• A Critical Analysis of the Fair Labour Standards Act
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2018, October 25). Drunk Driving and Its Consequences. https://ivypanda.com/essays/drunk-driving/

"Drunk Driving and Its Consequences." IvyPanda , 25 Oct. 2018, ivypanda.com/essays/drunk-driving/.

IvyPanda . (2018) 'Drunk Driving and Its Consequences'. 25 October.

IvyPanda . 2018. "Drunk Driving and Its Consequences." October 25, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/drunk-driving/.

1. IvyPanda . "Drunk Driving and Its Consequences." October 25, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/drunk-driving/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Drunk Driving and Its Consequences." October 25, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/drunk-driving/.