Effective Impaired Driving Interventions

¶ … Impaired Driving on American Society Supporting Rationale: This topic was chosen because many impaired driving cases are reduced or dismissed because of the errors made by police officers as discussed further below. Today, there is increasing concern over the potential traffic safety risks that are associated with impaired driving (Owusu-Bempah, 2014). A growing body of evidence confirms that there is an inextricable interrelationship between higher levels of blood alcohol concentrations (BAC) an increased risk of motor vehicle accidents (Owusu-Bempah, 2014).

While the number of alcohol impaired driving incidents decreased by a hefty 30% from its peak in 2006 of 161 million to 112 million in 2010, alcohol-impaired driving is still responsible for thousands of American deaths each year (McNamara, 2011). Although there was an overall decline in the incidence rate for impaired driving since 2006, there are some geographic differences in the United States and some states continue to experience increased rates in 2010 (McNamara, 2011).

For instance, Midwestern drivers had substantially higher annual impaired driving rates compared to the national average, and four of the seven states that experienced higher rates than the national average in 2010 were in the Midwest (McNamara, 2011). The reasons for the overall decline in impaired driving since 2006 remain unclear; but some analysts cite the Great Recession of 2008 that reduced bar and restaurant patronage, a reduction that would have a corresponding impact on impaired driving rates (McNamara, 2011). The U.S.

Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reports that even with this modest progress in combating a public health risk, nearly 30 people die every day in the United States as a result of a motor vehicle collision that involved an alcohol-impaired driver, a rate that equals one fatality every 51 minutes (Impaired driving, 2015). This human toll is staggering of course, but the economic impact of impaired driving is also enormous, and has been estimated at more than $59 billion each year (Impaired driving, 2015).

According to McNamara, "In fact, alcohol-impaired driving is involved in about one-third of all motor vehicle crash fatalities. Therefore, continued and strengthened efforts to decrease drinking and driving are essential" (p. 4). Some of the key findings by the CDC concerning the impact of impaired driving on American society include the following: In 2013, 10,076 people were killed in alcohol-impaired driving crashes, accounting for nearly one-third (31%) of all traffic-related deaths in the United States. Of the 1,149 traffic deaths among children ages 0 to 14 years in 2013, 200 (17%) involved an alcohol-impaired driver.

Of the 200 child passengers ages 14 and younger who died in alcohol-impaired driving crashes in 2013, over half (121) were riding in the vehicle with the alcohol-impaired driver. In 2010, over 1.4 million drivers were arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol or narcotics, a rate that is equals one percent of the 112 million self-reported episodes of alcohol-impaired driving among U.S. adults each year. Drugs other than alcohol (e.g., marijuana and cocaine) are involved in about 18% of motor vehicle driver deaths.

These other drugs are often used in combination with alcohol (Impaired driving, 2015, para. 3). The drivers who are most currently at greatest risk for impaired driving include those set forth in Table 1 below. Table 1 Drivers at greatest risk for impaired driving Category Description Young people At all levels of blood alcohol concentration (BAC), the risk of being involved in a crash is greater for young people than for older people.

Among drivers with BAC levels of 0.08% or higher involved in fatal crashes in 2013, one out of every 3 were between 21 and 24 years of age (33%). The next two largest groups were ages 25 to 34 (29%) and 35 to 44 (24%) years of age. Motorcyclists Among motorcyclists killed in fatal crashes in 2013, 27% had BACs of 0.08% or greater.

Nearly half of the alcohol-impaired motorcyclists killed each year are age 40 or older, and motorcyclists ages 40-44 have the highest percentage of deaths with BACs of 0.08% or greater (44%) Drivers with prior driving while impaired (DWI) convictions Drivers with a BAC of 0.08% or higher involved in fatal crashes were six times more likely to have a prior conviction for DWI than were drivers with no alcohol in their system (6% and 1%, respectively).

Source: Adapted from Impaired driving, 2015 In response to these continuing impaired-driving offenses, there have been a number of tools introduced to facilitate the identification of impaired drivers by law enforcement authorities that are designed to measure BAC and attain criminal convictions for driving under the influence (DUI) (Owusu-Bempah, 2014). In this regard, Owusu-Bempah reports that, "Devices used to estimate BAC from a breath sample, such as the breathalyzer, have become increasingly sophisticated and reliable and are thus widely accepted by the courts" (2014, p. 220).

To date, though, there have not been any corresponding limits or tools available to police officers that can identify cannabis-impaired drivers (Owusu-Bempah, 2014). This is an important constraint because after alcohol, cannabis is the most widely used drug in North America (Owusu-Bempah, 2014). Other interventions that have been identified as being effective in reducing impaired driving rates include the following: 1. Actively enforcing existing 0.08% BAC laws, minimum legal drinking age laws, and zero tolerance laws for drivers younger than 21 years old in all states. 1.

Promptly taking away the driver's licenses of people who drive while intoxicated. 1. Using sobriety checkpoints (these are traffic stops where law enforcement officers assess drivers' level of alcohol impairment; these checkpoints consistently reduce alcohol-related crashes, typically by 9%). 1. Putting health promotion efforts into practice that influence economic, organizational, policy, and school/community action. 1. Using community-based approaches to alcohol control and DWI prevention. 1. Requiring mandatory substance abuse assessment and treatment, if needed, for DWI offenders. 1. Raising the unit price of alcohol by increasing taxes. 1.

Ignition interlocks (these are devices that are installed in the vehicles of people who have been convicted of driving while impaired that prevent operation of the vehicle by anyone with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) above a specified safe level (usually 0.02% -- 0.04%); when installed, interlocks are associated with about a 70% reduction in arrest rates for impaired driving) (Impaired driving, 2015, para. 4).

Notwithstanding the availability of these tools with proven efficacy in reducing impaired driving rates, there are some fundamental obstacles that prevent police officers from removing these dangerous drivers from the roadways because of sloppy work habits and unprofessional approaches to impaired driving offenses. These constraints include officers failing to appear in court to testify against impaired driving defendants and failing to perform the standardized field sobriety tests correctly.

The Standard Field Sobriety Test (SFST) is comprised of a series of three tests that are intended to be performed during a traffic stop in order to identify alcohol-impaired drivers (Standard field sobriety test, 2015). The three tests that comprise the SFST are described in Table 2 below. Table 2 Standard field sobriety test Test Description Horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN) test Horizontal gaze nystagmus is an involuntary jerking of the eyeball which occurs naturally as the eyes gaze to the side.

Under normal circumstances, nystagmus occurs when the eyes are rotated at high peripheral angles; however, when a person is impaired by alcohol, nystagmus is exaggerated and may occur at lesser angles. An impaired person will also often have difficulty smoothly tracking a moving object. In the HGN test, the officer observes the eyes of a suspect as the suspect follows a slowly moving object such as a pen or small flashlight, horizontally with his eyes.

The officer looks for three indicators of impairment in each eye: (1) if the eye cannot follow a moving object smoothly, (2) if jerking is distinct when the eye is at maximum deviation, and (3) if the angle of onset of jerking is within 45 degrees of center. The subject is likely to have a BAC of 0.10 or greater if, between the two eyes, four or more clues appear. NHTSA research indicates that this test allows proper classification of approximately 77% of subjects.

HGN may also indicate consumption of seizure medications, phencyclidine, a variety of inhalants, barbiturates, and other depressants. The walk-and-turn test The subject is directed to take nine steps, heel-to-toe, along a straight line. After taking the steps, the suspect must turn on one foot and return in the same manner in the opposite direction.

The examiner looks for seven indicators of impairment: if the suspect cannot keep balance while listening to the instructions, begins before the instructions are finished, stops while walking to regain balance, does not touch heel-to-toe, uses arms to balance, loses balance while turning, or takes an incorrect number of steps. Research shows that 68% of individuals who exhibit two or more indicators in the performance of the test will have a BAC of 0.10 or greater.

The one-leg stand test The subject is instructed to stand with one foot approximately six inches off the ground and count aloud by ones beginning with one thousand (one thousand-one, one thousand-two, etc.) until told to put the foot down. The officer times the subject for about 30 seconds. The officer looks for four indicators of impairment including: swaying while balancing, using arms to balance, hopping to maintain balance, and putting the foot down.

Research indicates that 65% of individuals who exhibit two or more such indicators in the performance of the test will have a BAC of 0.10 of greater. Source: Adapted from Standard field sobriety test, 2015 Taken together, it is clear that the three-stage field sobriety test is a valuable interdiction tool for impaired driving offenses, but in far too many cases these tests are not being performed properly or are not being used at all, a problem.