Preventative Measures - Preventive measures are precautionary efforts taken to reduce and/or eliminate causes of traffic accidents, traffic offenses, and traffic injuries. Some examples of preventive measures include avoiding alcohol before driving, using seat belts and child restraints, following speed limits, and impaired driving campaigns.
Screening for Risk and Needs Using the Impaired Driving Assessment, NHTSA, (May 2014). Under a cooperative agreement with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the American Probation and Parole Association (APPA) prepared this report on their development of a screening tool, Impaired Driving Assessment (IDA) to identify a DWI offender’s risk of engaging in future conduct of impaired driving, and to help determine the most effective community supervision that will reduce such risk.
Intensive DWI Supervision in Urban Areas – Feasibility Study, NHTSA, (November 2013). To date, 24/7 sobriety programs have been used in rural States and communities; however, the program model is being considered for implementation in additional locales. The purpose of this project was to conduct a feasibility study to gather data on whether the 24/7 program model can be applied in urban locales, and if so, what changes might be necessary.
Preventing First-Time DWI Offenses (First-Time DWI Offenders in California, New York, and Florida), NHTSA, (2009). This report details a study that determined if there were common prior offenses among first-time DWI offenders, and to identify strategies that are used to address the identified offenses to determine if there are potential opportunities to expand those efforts to prevent impaired driving.
Van Duizend, Richard. “Arizona DUI Summit: Background Paper on the Effectiveness of Sanctions in DUI
Cases: Executive Summary.” National Center for State Courts, (2006). This executive summary distills a background paper reviewing the effectiveness of sanctions in Driving Under the Influence (DUI) cases, prepared for the summit by the National Center for State Courts. Please see the paper for a full description of the history of DUI sanctions in Arizona and greater detail on research on sanctions nationally.
Evaluation of Pueblo County, Colorado’s Smart Roads Project, NHTSA, (2005). This is the final report of a project that evaluated the effectiveness of a program aimed at reducing alcohol-related crashes involving drivers age 21-34. The subject program was the Smart Roads program in Pueblo County, Colorado, and the evaluation involved a descriptive analysis of the program and an impact evaluation of the program’s effect on alcohol-related crashes. The evaluation found that the program likely reduced nighttime injury crashes (a surrogate of alcohol related crashes) involving 21– 34 year old drivers in Pueblo County and in eight small surrounding counties as well. Both reductions were statistically significant.
Public Perceptions of the July 2003 You Drink & Drive. You Lose. Crackdown: Telephone Surveys Show the Media Campaign Reaches Target Audience, NHTSA, (2004). The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Office of Research & Technology is evaluating the July 2003 impaired driving You Drink and Drive You Lose crackdown (campaign). This Research Note reports the results of surveys conducted to measure public perceptions of the crackdown.
Cheesman, Fred L. “An Examination of Recidivism of Offenders Receiving Services from the Virginia
Alcohol Safety Action Program,” National Center for State Courts, (2004). There are 24 Alcohol Safety Action Program (ASAP) District Offices operating throughout Virginia. The following provides an assessment of their success in reducing the incidence of driving under the influence of alcohol or other drugs.
An Impact Evaluation of Underage Drinking Prevention Projects, NHTSA, (2003). This report presents the results of an impact evaluation of four community-based underage drinking prevention projects stimulated by technical assistance coordinated by the National Association of Governor’s Highway Safety Representatives (now called the Governors Highway Safety Association) with funding provided by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The four programs which were studied were located in: Chesterfield County, Virginia; Omaha, Nebraska; Salt Lake County, Utah; and Travis County, Texas. The impact evaluation focused on the effect of the programs on proxy measures of alcohol-related crashes among youth.
Effectiveness of Ohio Vehicle Action and Administrative Suspension Laws, NHTSA, (2001). This report evaluates the impact of the administrative license suspension laws on DUI and moving traffic offenses and crashes of first and multiple DUI offenders.
Evaluation of a Full-Time Ride Service Program: Aspen, Colorado's Tipsy Taxi Service, NHTSA, (2000).
Aspen’s Tipsy Taxi is administered through the Pitkin County Sheriff’s Office as a crime prevention program with assistance from Aspen and Snowmass Police Departments and the local restaurant association. It is one part of a three-pronged approach to DUI prevention, along with education and enforcement. Tipsy Taxi is operated within an environment described by the Sheriff’s Office as "enlightened, humanistic enforcement," instituted in the 1970s by then-Sheriff Dick Kienast and continued by current Sheriff Bob Braudis and Aspen Police Chief Tom Stephenson. The fundamental philosophy is that there should be a partnership of law enforcement with the community to encourage residents and tourists to make correct choices.
Addressing Alcohol-Impaired Driving: Training Physicians to Detect and Counsel Their Patients Who Drink Heavily, NHTSA, (2000). Few trauma centers or primary care physicians routinely screen for alcohol problems. The goal of this project was to decrease the risk of driving while intoxicated and the risk of alcohol related crashes by encouraging health care providers to address alcohol abuse at the individual patient level and at the community level.
Pennsylvania Impaired Driving Programs - This webpage details some of the tools used to educate young drivers in Pennsylvania about the effects of impaired driving.
Munsterman, G. Thomas. “DWI Outreach Program, Phase 1: Final Report,” National Center for State Courts, (1992). This report provides the overviews and recommendations made after Phase I of a NHTSA program for the development and implementation of a curriculum guide to instruct judges and court administrators on national highway and traffic safety issues, programs, and policy incentives.
NCSC Library Resources:
Available from the NCSC Library by contacting email@example.com.
Simpson, Herb M. DWI System Improvements for Dealing with Hard Core Drinking Drivers: Enforcement.
Ottawa, Ont.: Traffic Injury Research Foundation, 2001. (Available in the NCSC library: HE5620 D7 S57 2001).
Strategies for Success: Combating Juvenile DUI. Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1999. (Available in the NCSC library: HE5630 D72 S77 1999).
Beyond the Bench [videorecording]: You Can Help Reduce Juvenile DUI and Alcohol Violations.
Washington, D.C.: United States Department of Justice, 1996. (Available in the NCSC library: HE5620 D7 B48 1996).
Strategies for Dealing with the Persistent Drinking Driver. Washington, D.C.: National Research Council
Transportation Research Board, Committee on Alcohol, Other Drugs and Transportation, 1995. (Available in the NCSC library: TA1001.5 T68 no. 437 1995).
Ross, H. Laurence. The New Philadelphia Story: The Effects of Severe Penalties for Drunk Driving.
Washington, D.C.: AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, 1989. (Available in the NCSC library: KF2231 R6 1989).