Sobriety checkpoint and open container laws in the United States: Associations with reported drinking-driving

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: The objective of this study was to assess how 2 types of drinking-driving laws—permitting sobriety checkpoints and prohibiting open containers of alcohol in motor vehicles—are associated with drinking-driving and how enforcement efforts may affect these associations. Methods: We obtained 2010 data on state-level drinking-driving laws and individual-level self-reported drinking-driving from archival sources (Alcohol Policy Information System, NHTSA, and Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System). We measured enforcement of the laws via a 2009 survey of state patrol agencies. We computed multilevel regression models (separate models for each type of law) that first examined how having the state law predicted drinking-driving, controlling for various state- and individual-level covariates; we then added the corresponding enforcement measure as another potential predictor. Results: We found that states with a sobriety checkpoint law, compared with those without a law, had 18.2% lower drinking-driving; states that conducted sobriety checks at least monthly (vs. not conducting checks) had 40.6% lower drinking-driving (the state law variable was not significant when enforcement was added). We found no significant association between having an open container law and drinking-driving, but states that conducted open container enforcement, regardless of having a law, had 17.6% less drinking-driving. Conclusion: Our results suggest that having a sobriety checkpoint law and conducting checkpoints as well as enforcement of open containers laws may be effective strategies for addressing drinking-driving.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)782-787
Number of pages6
JournalTraffic Injury Prevention
Volume17
Issue number8
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 16 2016

Fingerprint

Containers
Law
Alcohols
state law
Information systems
alcohol
Driving Under the Influence
Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System
Law Enforcement
Information Systems
surveillance
information system
regression

Keywords

  • Alcohol
  • enforcement
  • impaired driving
  • open container
  • sobriety checkpoints

Cite this

@article{64c139a70578451d81ebb9d48dfc8d31,
title = "Sobriety checkpoint and open container laws in the United States: Associations with reported drinking-driving",
abstract = "Objective: The objective of this study was to assess how 2 types of drinking-driving laws—permitting sobriety checkpoints and prohibiting open containers of alcohol in motor vehicles—are associated with drinking-driving and how enforcement efforts may affect these associations. Methods: We obtained 2010 data on state-level drinking-driving laws and individual-level self-reported drinking-driving from archival sources (Alcohol Policy Information System, NHTSA, and Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System). We measured enforcement of the laws via a 2009 survey of state patrol agencies. We computed multilevel regression models (separate models for each type of law) that first examined how having the state law predicted drinking-driving, controlling for various state- and individual-level covariates; we then added the corresponding enforcement measure as another potential predictor. Results: We found that states with a sobriety checkpoint law, compared with those without a law, had 18.2{\%} lower drinking-driving; states that conducted sobriety checks at least monthly (vs. not conducting checks) had 40.6{\%} lower drinking-driving (the state law variable was not significant when enforcement was added). We found no significant association between having an open container law and drinking-driving, but states that conducted open container enforcement, regardless of having a law, had 17.6{\%} less drinking-driving. Conclusion: Our results suggest that having a sobriety checkpoint law and conducting checkpoints as well as enforcement of open containers laws may be effective strategies for addressing drinking-driving.",
keywords = "Alcohol, enforcement, impaired driving, open container, sobriety checkpoints",
author = "Lenk, {Kathleen M.} and Nelson, {Toben F.} and Toomey, {Traci L.} and Rhonda Jones-Webb and Erickson, {Darin J.}",
year = "2016",
month = "11",
day = "16",
doi = "10.1080/15389588.2016.1161759",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "17",
pages = "782--787",
journal = "Traffic Injury Prevention",
issn = "1538-9588",
publisher = "Taylor and Francis Ltd.",
number = "8",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Sobriety checkpoint and open container laws in the United States

T2 - Associations with reported drinking-driving

AU - Lenk, Kathleen M.

AU - Nelson, Toben F.

AU - Toomey, Traci L.

AU - Jones-Webb, Rhonda

AU - Erickson, Darin J.

PY - 2016/11/16

Y1 - 2016/11/16

N2 - Objective: The objective of this study was to assess how 2 types of drinking-driving laws—permitting sobriety checkpoints and prohibiting open containers of alcohol in motor vehicles—are associated with drinking-driving and how enforcement efforts may affect these associations. Methods: We obtained 2010 data on state-level drinking-driving laws and individual-level self-reported drinking-driving from archival sources (Alcohol Policy Information System, NHTSA, and Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System). We measured enforcement of the laws via a 2009 survey of state patrol agencies. We computed multilevel regression models (separate models for each type of law) that first examined how having the state law predicted drinking-driving, controlling for various state- and individual-level covariates; we then added the corresponding enforcement measure as another potential predictor. Results: We found that states with a sobriety checkpoint law, compared with those without a law, had 18.2% lower drinking-driving; states that conducted sobriety checks at least monthly (vs. not conducting checks) had 40.6% lower drinking-driving (the state law variable was not significant when enforcement was added). We found no significant association between having an open container law and drinking-driving, but states that conducted open container enforcement, regardless of having a law, had 17.6% less drinking-driving. Conclusion: Our results suggest that having a sobriety checkpoint law and conducting checkpoints as well as enforcement of open containers laws may be effective strategies for addressing drinking-driving.

AB - Objective: The objective of this study was to assess how 2 types of drinking-driving laws—permitting sobriety checkpoints and prohibiting open containers of alcohol in motor vehicles—are associated with drinking-driving and how enforcement efforts may affect these associations. Methods: We obtained 2010 data on state-level drinking-driving laws and individual-level self-reported drinking-driving from archival sources (Alcohol Policy Information System, NHTSA, and Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System). We measured enforcement of the laws via a 2009 survey of state patrol agencies. We computed multilevel regression models (separate models for each type of law) that first examined how having the state law predicted drinking-driving, controlling for various state- and individual-level covariates; we then added the corresponding enforcement measure as another potential predictor. Results: We found that states with a sobriety checkpoint law, compared with those without a law, had 18.2% lower drinking-driving; states that conducted sobriety checks at least monthly (vs. not conducting checks) had 40.6% lower drinking-driving (the state law variable was not significant when enforcement was added). We found no significant association between having an open container law and drinking-driving, but states that conducted open container enforcement, regardless of having a law, had 17.6% less drinking-driving. Conclusion: Our results suggest that having a sobriety checkpoint law and conducting checkpoints as well as enforcement of open containers laws may be effective strategies for addressing drinking-driving.

KW - Alcohol

KW - enforcement

KW - impaired driving

KW - open container

KW - sobriety checkpoints

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84986184256&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84986184256&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/15389588.2016.1161759

DO - 10.1080/15389588.2016.1161759

M3 - Article

VL - 17

SP - 782

EP - 787

JO - Traffic Injury Prevention

JF - Traffic Injury Prevention

SN - 1538-9588

IS - 8

ER -