Hardcore Drinking Drivers and Other Contributors to the Alcohol-Impaired Driving Problem: Need For a Comprehensive Approach

Abstract

Reductions in the alcohol-impaired driving problem require that attention be focused on all relevant target groups. Some benefits could accrue by recognizing that countermeasures developed for hardcore drinking drivers, such as alcohol ignition interlocks and vehicle or plate impoundment, might also be effective with more numerous first-time offenders. However, such strategies are likely to be most effective against recidivism (specific deterrence). Greater gains could be achieved through general deterrent efforts (increasing the real and perceived risk of arrest and punishment to all drinking drivers), along with application of public health measures designed to reduce overall consumption. Additional ways need to be found to separate drinking and driving, either through cultural changes in drinking and/or driving behavior or, in the future, with the use of technology that can make vehicles inoperable by drivers with illegal blood alcohol concentrations.

Alcohol-Impaired Driving in the United States: Contributors to the Problem and Effective Countermeasures

“…This makes sense not only because of the problems inherent in defining who should be classified as hardcore but, as noted above, because many countermeasures intended to address all drinking drivers can be effective with problem drinking drivers as well. Conversely, countermeasures that supposedly are targeted toward problem drinking drivers also can be effective among all drinking drivers (Williams et al 2007). …”

“…This would seem to be an appropriate target because in 2010, 58 percent of all drivers involved in fatal crashes who had been drinking had BACs of 0.15 g/dL or higher (NHTSA 2012). However, questions have been raised about the extent to which drivers that reach BACs of 0.15 g/dL or higher can truly be said to be chronic offenders resistant to change or whether they are moderate drinkers who on occasion drink to excess (Williams et al 2007). Based on self-reported data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, a health survey conducted by the CDC, 47 percent of binge-drinking episodes (defined as 5 or more drinks on any one occasion) occurred among selfdescribed moderate drinkers.…”

“…Focus on hardcore offenders garnered much support among those in the traffic safety field and was the subject of multiple papers and conferences, not to mention a considerable amount of targeted federal and state legislation. Groups such as the Century Council, the National Transportation Safety Board, and, to a lesser degree, MADD, all provided support to this movement (Williams et al 2007).…”

Effects of Alcohol on Fitness to Drive

“…Lowering the statutory blood alcohol limit from 0.8 to 0.5 g/L or even 0.2 g/L is not likely to deter hard-core offenders, because recidivism rates are high in these traffic delinquents (Schell et al 2006;Williams et al 2007). However, enforcement of lower alcohol limits for newly qualified drivers shows promise in reducing crashes in these individuals (Blackman et al 2001).…”

A Study of Alcohol Use by Designated Drivers Among College Students

“…7,12,13 Although DD use is intuitive and can be easily implemented, some researchers have argued that additional research is needed to evaluate its effectiveness as an intervention before it is considered the best way to prevent drunk driving. 7,14,15 Several strengths of the DD intervention have been substantiated by researchers. There is evidence that a significant proportion of the adult and college populations in the United States know about and support DD use.…”