Amy Berning served as the project Contracting Officer's Technical Representative. The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) provided funding and support for the assessment of alcohol use disorders. The National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) provided funding for the assessment of drug use disorders. The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) provided support for querying participants about intervention with the Criminal Justice System. AbstractThis report describes the methodology for the 2007 U.S. national field study to estimate the prevalence of alcohol-, drug-, and alcohol-and-drug-involved driving, primarily among nighttime weekend drivers, but also daytime Friday drivers. This study involved randomly stopping drivers at 300 locations across the continental United States; sites were selected through a stratified random sampling procedure. Data were collected during a 2-hour Friday daytime session at 60 locations, and during four 2-hour nighttime periods (10 p.m. to midnight and 1 a.m. to 3 a.m. on both Friday and Saturday nights) at 240 locations. Both self-report and biological measures were taken. An objective was to obtain at least 7,500 oral fluid samples for analysis. Biological measures included breath alcohol measurements on 9,413 respondents, oral fluid samples from 7,719 respondents, and blood samples from 3,276 respondents. Oral fluid and blood samples were subjected to laboratory screening and LC/MS-MS and GC/MS confirmation respectively for both alcohol and 20 categories of drugs. These data are being analyzed to develop the first national prevalence estimate of alcohol-and drug-involved driving. This first report describes the field methods used to conduct this study, including data collection procedures. Overall response rates are also presented. Two other reports will present the results of the data collection and analyses; one will focus on alcohol use prevalence estimates among drivers and compare them with previous National Roadside Surveys conducted in 1973, 1986, and 1996; the other report will provide drug use prevalence estimates among drivers. AcknowledgementsThe authors would like to acknowledge the extensive assistance we received from State and local officials in the conduct of this project. Our data collection procedures were not routine by any means and the willingness of State officials to help us identify local police agencies and the agencies' willingness to participate in the project were essential to our success.

Amy Berning served as the project's Contracting Officer's Technical Representative. The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) provided funding and support for the assessment of alcohol use disorders. The National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) provided funding for the collection of additional blood samples and the administration of the drug use disorders assessment. The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) provided support for querying participants about interaction with the criminal justice system. AbstractThis report presents the first national prevalence estimates for drug-involved driving derived from the recently completed 2007 National Roadside Survey (NRS). The NRS is a national field survey of alcohol-and drug-involved driving conducted primarily among nighttime weekend drivers, but also daytime Friday drivers. The survey involved randomly stopping drivers at 300 locations across the continental United States; sites were selected through a stratified random sampling procedure. This included data that we collected during a two-hour Friday daytime session at 60 locations and during four 2-hour nighttime periods (10 p.m. to midnight and 1 a.m. to 3 a.m. on both Friday and Saturday) at 240 locations. Both self-report and biological measures were taken. Biological measures included breath alcohol measurements on 9,413 respondents, oral fluid from 7,719 respondents, and blood samples from 3,276 respondents. Oral fluid and blood samples were subjected to laboratory screening and LC/MS-MS and GC/MS confirmation for 75 drugs and metabolites, including illegal, prescription, and over-the-counter drugs. These data were analyzed to develop the first national prevalence estimate of alcohol-and drug-involved driving. Two prior reports on the 2007 NRS described: (1) the sampling plan and data collection methodology, summarizing the response patterns to the various stages of the multi-part survey; and (2) the prevalence estimates for alcohol-involved driving derived from the study, and comparing them with the three previous National Roadside Surveys (NRS). iii AcknowledgementsThe authors received extensive assistance from State and local officials in the conduct of this project. Our data collection procedures were not routine. The willingness of officials to help us identify cooperating local law enforcement agencies and the willingness of agencies to participate in the project were essential to our success. To all those who helped in conducting this study, the authors express their sincere gratitude. ) which presents the prevalence estimates for alcohol-involved driving derived from the study, and compares those estimates with data from the three previous National Roadside Surveys. MethodologyThree prior national roadside surveys of drivers to estimate prevalence of drinking and driving and determine changes over time have been conducted in the United States. These surveys, which included a brief interview and a breath sample to determine blood alcohol concentration (BAC), were conducted on a s...

Amy Berning served as the project's Contracting Officer's Technical Representative. The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) provided funding and support for the assessment of alcohol use disorders. The National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) provided funding for collection of additional blood samples and the administration of the drug use disorders assessment. The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) provided support for querying participants about interaction with the Criminal Justice System. AbstractThis report presents the prevalence estimates for alcohol-involved driving derived from the recently completed U.S. national field survey of alcohol-and drug-involved driving (primarily of nighttime weekend drivers, but also daytime Friday drivers) and compares those estimates with the three previous National Roadside Surveys. This survey involved randomly stopping drivers at 300 locations across the 48 contiguous United States. Data were collected during 2-hour Friday daytime sessions (9:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. or 1:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.) at 60 locations and during four 2-hour nighttime periods (10 p.m. to midnight and 1 a.m. to 3 a.m. on Fridays and Saturdays) at 240 locations. Both self-report and biological measures were taken. Biological measures included breath-alcohol measurements on 9,413 respondents, oral fluid samples from 7,719 respondents, and blood samples from 3,276 respondents. A prior report described the sampling plan and data collection methodology and summarized the response patterns to the various stages of the multipart survey. A third report, based on analyses of the oral fluid and blood specimens collected, will present the first national prevalence estimate of drug-involved driving and of alcohol-plus-drug-involved driving. This report focuses on the alcohol breath-test results and how they relate to previous national surveys. It also summarizes response patterns to survey questions and to an alcohol-use-disorder-screening instrument. The data indicate a continuing trend over the past three decades of fewer alcohol-involved drivers on the Nation's roads during weekend nights.

AcknowledgementsThe authors would like to acknowledge the extensive assistance we received from State and local officials in the conduct of this project. The data collection procedures we were developing and testing were not routine by any means and the willingness of State officials to help us identify cooperating local police agencies and the agencies' willingness to participate in the project were obviously essential to our success.Many individuals provided the assistance described above, but in each jurisdiction certain persons were pivotal to the process. They include: To all of the persons listed above, and to the many others who also helped, the authors express their sincere gratitude. AbstractThis study developed and tested procedures to enhance roadside survey procedures to include collecting and analyzing oral fluid and blood samples from the nighttime weekend driving population. Roadside surveys involve collecting information from a random sample of drivers. In the past, they have been used to measure the extent of alcohol use in the nighttime driving population in order to establish regular measures of that activity, which is a measure of progress in reducing impaired driving. This study developed and tested techniques to extend the scope of that measurement to drugs other than alcohol. Breath and oral fluid samples were successfully collected from over 600 drivers at 6 locations across the United States. Blood samples were obtained from approximately half of those subjects. Laboratory analyses for alcohol and other drugs were conducted on the oral fluid and blood samples. Procedures and results are described in this report. The findings indicate that this form of expanded roadside survey is practicable in the United States. The intent of this Pilot Test was to develop and test procedures that would be used in the next full-scale national roadside survey. It was not designed to yield a nationally-representative sample of the nighttime weekend driving population; thus the results are not representative of the United States as a whole.

This report summarizes a study of the implementation of drug per se laws in 15 States. These laws generally make it an impaired-driving offense to drive with a measurable amount of certain drugs in one's system. The specific prohibited drugs vary by State. The laws are generally integrated into the States' overall impaired-driving statute. Though all 15 States were studied to some degree, deeper study of the process was conducted in 6 States. This involved discussions with government officials and law enforcement officers, and a series of structured discussions with prosecutors. This study was not an impact evaluation of drug per se laws on crashes, but rather an attempt to gain an understanding of how the drug per se laws are implemented and perceptions about the law of those charged with implementing the law. It was initially intended that the study would also assess the effect of passing driving under the influence of drugs (DUID) per se laws on the volume of DUID arrests and on conviction patterns, but data to directly address those issues were not available. A general consensus among law enforcement officers we held discussions with was the adoption of drug per se laws did not necessarily make enforcement easier, but did have a positive effect on prosecution. This general perception was shared by prosecutors we interviewed. Because the drug per se laws have typically been adopted as a component of States' impaired-driving statutes, one difficulty of this study was obtaining accurate data on volume of arrests and conviction rates for the DUID component of the impaired-driving law was problematic. Recommendations include developing a procedure where impaired-driving citations indicate drugs, alcohol, or both, but also adopting procedures ensure information is integrated into computerized data systems of both law enforcement agencies and courts. Executive SummaryThis report provides the results of a study of driving under the influence of drugs (DUID) laws and how they have been implemented in the United States. The primary focus of the study was to assess the effects of adopting drugged driving per se laws. The basic approach was through document reviews, telephone conversations, and site visits to learn about implementation procedures in States with different configurations of DUID laws and enforcement training, and to assess whether there were differences in arrest and disposition patterns attributable to those configurations.Drug per se laws are not quite analogous to the alcohol impaired-driving per se laws now in effect in every State make it illegal to operate a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of .08 grams per deciliter or greater. Alcohol-impaired driving per se laws are based on evidence that all drivers are impaired at .08 BAC. Drug per se laws are more analogous to zero-tolerance laws that make it illegal to drive with certain drugs in the system.Currently, there are 15 States where it is illegal per se to operate a motor vehicle with certain drugs in one's syst...