Category: Drunk Driving

Introduction

The issue of drunk driving became the key problem at the same time as the first automobiles and other vehicles came into day-to-day life. The Government puts a great amount of effort into the DUI policy to minimize the number of impaired drivers getting behind the wheel and mitigating the consequences of such conduct. Nonetheless, numerous individuals disregard the policy and break the law continuously. This is why the strategy should be carefully reviewed to justify all the parties involved in DUI cases (Strang et al., 2012). This paper assesses the current state of affairs and proposes ways to evaluate the factors that implicitly and explicitly affect the discretion.

Evaluation of the current policy

All across the US, it is unlawful for an individual to get behind the wheel when his or her BAC level is equal to or more than 0.08% (Sigona & Williams, 2014). The authority to regulate and enforce penalties on motorists who disrupt road traffic commandments belongs to the Government. On the whole, the smallest sentence for condemned drunk drivers is their driver’s licenses takeaway for a period set individually by each state. Furthermore, some states carry out small prison sentences for those who are convicted for the first time. The regulation in utmost states entails that lawbreakers complete some sort of treatment sequence.

Moreover, a great number of states have definite commandments that deal with several features of DUI behavior. For example, many states do not allow plea dealing. There is also the child risk policy, which levies a discrete responsibility or upsurges in the strictness of the sentence for driving under the influence with a kid in the car.

In fact, a zero-tolerance regulation is a guideline for juvenile alcohol consumption (Cooke, 2013). Zero tolerance law presupposes that law enforcement officers have the right to demand a breath test from motorists who are younger than 21 if the police officer has motives to be certain of the fact that the driver is impaired. The motorists who reject passing such a test or who list an illegitimate BAC level are answerable to lawful penalties.

Recommendations

The evaluation of the policy has shown that one of the limitations is probable corruption. This factor plays a big role in the apprehension of the policy and might be considered the key drawback. One of the recommendations, in this case, would be to toughen the punishment for driving under the influence (Isaksen & Nilsson, 2013). Basically, this should mean the loss of the driver’s license without the right to restore it. Implicitly, this might raise the probability of bribery, but explicitly this would minimize the number of drivers who exploit the drunk driving behavior (Strang et al., 2012). In this case, one of the possible variables to measure the effectiveness of the policy would be the number of driver’s licenses that were taken away throughout a definite period. The statistics would also include the gravity of the wrongdoing and take into consideration the additional factors (such as the presence of a child in the car or underage drunk driving) that would ubiquitously affect the sentence (Strang et al., 2012).

Conclusion

There is a limitation in the current DUI policy which should be recurrently evaluated. Even though the authority, in this case, belongs to the Government, police officers should pay close attention to the current trends in wrongdoings and adjust their practice to maximize the effectiveness of the policy. This is rather important because the lives of numerous people depend on the driver’s behavior, including passengers and pedestrians.

References

Cooke, P. (2013). Regional Innovation Systems and Regional Competitiveness. Innovation and Social Learning, 13(21), 177-203. Web.

Isaksen, A., & Nilsson, M. (2013). Combined Innovation Policy: Linking Scientific and Practical Knowledge in Innovation Systems. European Planning Studies, 21(12), 1919-1936. Web.

Sigona, N., & Williams, K. G. (2014). Driving Under the Influence, Public Policy, and Pharmacy Practice. Journal of Pharmacy Practice, 28(1), 119-123. Web.

Strang, J., Babor, T., Caulkins, J., Fischer, B., Foxcroft, D., & Humphreys, K. (2012). Drug Policy and the Public Good: Evidence for Effective Interventions. The Lancet, 379(9810), 71-83. Web.

Despites various legalizations in the prevention of repeat DUI offenses, research shows that the do little in the prevention of first time DUI offenses. Studies on the effectiveness of DUI laws and legislation produce a wide variety of results. Furthermore, some research relies on self-reporting, rather than the use of statistical data from courts, government agencies and other databases. To gain a better understanding of the effectiveness of DUI legislation, much research focuses on rates of recidivism, or repeat DUI offenses. A study of offenders in the Commonwealth of Virginia’s VASAP program indicates that those who failed to complete the program were more likely to receive a second DUI and have their license revoked, regardless of prior knowledge of consequences for subsequent DUIs (Williams, et al, 2000). The results of the study of VASAP indicate that interventions rather than legislation act as a greater deterrent in repeat DUI offenses.

“A conviction for DUI and the incumbent penalties are not a deterrent from continued drinking and driving for some offenders” (LaBrie et al, 2007, p. 604). The authors suggest that tougher or harsher consequences for such offenders will do little to deter this group from future DUI offenses. Furthermore, those committing offenses, whose profiles fit specific criminal typologies, are generally more likely to commit crimes involving substance abuse. For these offenders, DUI is only one aspect of the criminal behavior, so they are less likely to be deterred by laws in general, regardless of the crimes they are intended to prevent.

Some individuals may argue that any attempt to get more drivers under the influence off the roadways is worth the effort. However, studies reveal such sanctions for offenders do not act as a deterrent for future DUI offenders. Groups such as MADD welcome sanctions that prohibit or restrict offenders from driving, even if for a limited period of time (Baker, 2004). Long terms efforts in reducing recidivism of DUI offenses appears to be elusive. It appears as though sanctions, fines, jail time and other efforts merely postpone or delay the next offense for many repeat offenders. It seems as though offenders with a specific number of DUI offenses should face more permanent sanctions, such as permanent license revocation, ongoing community service and the inability to own or purchase a motor vehicle. Florida revokes driver licenses upon the fourth DUI offense or in cases of Murder committed with a motor vehicle (NHTSA, 2009). Alaska, on the other hand, does not revoke the license for the fourth, fifth and even sixth offense. It does require a host of conditions to be met for license reinstatement, however.

There are many laws and legal sanctions in place to prevent repeat DUI offenses. Research shows that they do little to prevent first time DUI offenses. The success of sanctions and various forms of punishment in preventing subsequent DUIs may also be dependent upon coexisting education programs and programs that address specific behaviors. First, those underlying behaviors and risk factors must be identified. The type of intense evaluation the NHTSA suggests may prove too costly for all but the worst or most obvious offender behaviors.

Research studies reviewed here indicate the some of the most effective deterrents of future DUIs are those that restrict or prohibit driving. While making DUI laws more stringent may seem harsh, it may also serve as a further deterrent. Criminal behavior theory recognizes that” swift and sure consequences are most effective” (Sorrell, 2001) in deterring others from committing similar crimes. Therefore, efforts such as immediate license suspension, retribution and treatment should continue in jurisdictions where they are efficient. In jurisdictions where they occur more slowly, efforts should be made to speed up such processes.

There is no perfect solution in deterring or preventing DUI offenses. Current research recognizes the impact on human life, as a result of DUI offenses in the U.S. Legislation on the national level is limited to funding for states and has not been proven to deter incidence of DUI, such as with lowering the BAL limit. However, the lower limit may help to identify more potential repeat offenders. Sanctions such as license suspension have varying levels of success in different states. It appears that those jurisdictions that impose additional consequences and impose more severe consequences for more severe offenses are more effective than sanctions alone. The uses of devices such as ignition interlock are successful in preventing future DUI offenses for short periods of time, though this effect is better than not preventing the offenses at all.

Much of the literature examined suggests that intensive treatment programs in conjunction with sanctions are most effective. If such actions occur quickly, while the offender is required to use electronic devices, there is a window of opportunity to change underlying attitudes and behaviors that may lead to DUI.

Driving involves the mind of the driver; for safe driving, drivers should make the right decision when on road; they should follow traffic rules as required by the law. When driving under the influence of alcohol, the risk of causing an accident is high. When someone is intoxicated with alcohol to a state of high blood alcohol content (BAC), his or her decision making capacity is hampered.

Different states have different laws and legislations to legal drinking limit (blood alcohol content (BAC)), that someone can be allowed to drive. For instance some countries have blood alcohol content in excess of 0.05% or 0.08% defines the offense while others have higher levels. Despite the varying rates, the underlying principle is that drinking under the influence of alcohol is risky (Laurence & Gusfield, 1994). This paper discusses issues and consequences relating to drunk-driving.

Issues around drunk-driving

In all states of the United States, it is illegal to drive under the influence of alcohol beyond the set limit per state, according the countries legal definition, drunk driving is driving when one has taken alcohol to the extent that his or her mental and motor skills are impaired.

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), about 40% of death on road accidents in 2006 was as a result of drunk-driving; it estimated that 17,941 people died in 2006 in alcohol-related collisions. It is the realisation of such statistics that each state in the country has its own drunk-driving reinforcement measures and methods.

Consequences of drunk-driving

When driving under the influence of alcohol, the driver ignores traffic signs, symbols, and lights; with the ignorance there is high chance that he will do the forbidden causing an accident.

In the United States for instance, the leading cause of deaths for people under the age of 24 years is motor vehicle wrecks, of which 40% are alcohol related. When driving, the driver is in control of the machine with the decisions that he will make, when someone is drunk, the decisions that he or she will make are likely to be triggered by the intoxication resulting to the wrong decision.

Some of the common forms of accidents that drunkenness leads to include getting into ditch, rolling, hitting another car (either stationary or otherwise), using the wrong lane resulting to head on collision, hitting pedestrians, and unnecessary hooting. When any form of above form of accidents occurs, the passengers/pedestrian risks the chance of dying or suffering from permanent disability (Buddy, 2007).

Accident related medical bills are a challenge to the authorities, they led to economic retardation and stretching of medical facilities. When someone is a victim of an accident, the paid and the psychological trauma is likely to affect his lifestyle thereafter, the rate at which he will be producing or contributing to personal economic development will be hampered; the United States is among those nations with high rates of drunk-driving.

The United States of America has enacted various laws and legislations to control drunk-drinking in the country. The policies include strict penalties on arrested offenders; the penalties include cancellation of one’s driving licence, imprisonment, and fine. Of the late, the country has enacted the Paradigm Developmental Model of Treatment (PDMT) which aims at rehabilitating drunk-driving drivers. To ensure that the laws are being followed, state governments’ works with traffic police to enforce the laws (Appel, 2009).

References

Appel, M. (2009). Must physicians report impaired driving? Rethinking a duty on a collision course with itself. The Journal of Clinical Ethics, 20 (2): 136–40.

Buddy, T. (2007). Drunk Driving – The Dangers. Retrieved from https://www.verywellmind.com/drunk-driving-the-dangers-63002

Laurence, R., & Gusfield, F. (1994). Confronting Drunk Driving. Yale: Yale University Press

In 1983, the public service advertisement (PSA) campaign against drunk driving was released. The commercial called “Friends Don’t Let Friends Drive Drunk” was aired to raise awareness about the deadly consequences of driving under the influence. The PSA includes the imagery of glasses filled with alcoholic drinks crashing against each other with the sound of a car accident in the background (Ad Council & U.S. Department of Transportation, 1983). The commercial was targeting young adults with the intent to address the possible negative outcome of allowing close people to drive after drinking. The NHTSA is using PSA to convey a relevant message of dangers from drunk driving by appealing to viewers’ feelings of guilt and responsibility by using narration, sound, and imagery.

The Ad Council and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) originated the PSA campaign against driving under the influence in 1983 (The ANA Educational Foundation, n.d.). Therefore, “Friends Don’t Let Friends Drive Drunk” was the first product of these organizations’ partnerships. The NHTSA was established in 1968, with one of the main goals to promote safety on the road (Rabin, 2017). The need for the creation of this organization was due to the alarming number of fatalities during auto accidents was 5.5 deaths per hundred vehicle miles traveled (Rabin, 2017). Moreover, the percent of deaths based on the highest concentration of alcohol in drivers’ blood in 1982 was 50% (Rabin, 2017). Furthermore, experts estimated that every two Americans might be a part of alcohol-related driving accidents (The ANA Educational Foundation, n.d.). Therefore, the statistics suggest a lack of regulations and awareness about the consequences of drunk driving in the 1980s.

Drunk driving was addressed previously by the NHTSA as the ad was part of a more significant campaign. The Drunk Driving Prevention Campaign was aimed at raising awareness about the magnitude of the issues (The ANA Educational Foundation, n.d.). Besides drinking while very drunk, overall, about 50% of fatal car accidents were due to drivers under the influence of alcoholic substances (The ANA Educational Foundation, n.d.). Therefore, the plan “Drinking & Driving Can Kill A Friendship” was established to reach the target audience of young adults between the age of 16 and 24 (The ANA Educational Foundation, n.d.). The appeal to this audience is also understandable from the context of the ad, targeting people that are heavily influenced by their peers or in the context of ad friends. Moreover, this demographic is reported to cause 42% of all drunk driving deaths (The ANA Educational Foundation, n.d.). Overall, the ad was a part of a more significant awareness campaign; it also targeted teenagers and young adults.

Narration plays a vital role in this advertisement, as the text conveys the message alongside imagery and sound. The text begins with, “When friends don’t stop friends from drinking and driving…friends die from drinking and driving” (Ad Council & U.S. Department of Transportation, 1983). Moreover, the phrase “Friends die from drinking and driving” is repeated, and the final message of the advertisement states, “Friends don’t let friends drive drunk” (Ad Council & U.S. Department of Transportation, 1983). The target audience is influenced by the text, as it appeals to pathos using vivid language. The advertisement repeats the phrase “friends die” multiple times to emphasize the fatal results of drunk driving. Moreover, the text targets the audience not directly, but by emphasizing the danger of driving under the influence poses to their loved ones. Therefore, the audience is feeling personally responsible for allowing dangerous behavior. Overall, the excellent use of narration supports the NHTSA’s campaign by appealing to the public’s feelings of guilt for letting their friends be in danger.

Furthermore, the use of sound plays an essential role in communicating the information of the PSA. Aside from the narrator’s voice, the advertisement’s main sound effect is the noise of a car crash when glasses full of alcohol hit one another (Ad Council & U.S. Department of Transportation, 1983). However, when one of the drinks stops striking the other glass, the sound change of an accident stops (Ad Council & U.S. Department of Transportation, 1983). The target audience hears the word “death” and the uncomfortable sound of the binding metal and shattered glass. Thus, the viewers are influenced by the background’s graphic sound effects, while all they see is broken glass and a spilled drink. This plays a crucial role in presenting the possibility of fatality while only consuming some alcohol with friends. Moreover, the sound appears more significant because the accident is not portrayed on a screen. Therefore, this enables the audience to imagine the accident happening with their loved ones. Thus, anonymity makes the advertisement more personal, as a lack of specific details on a screen enables the viewers to attach the possible fatalities to their own lives. Overall, the sound of a car accident is a useful tool of PSA produced by NHTSA because it appeals to the viewer’s feelings of obligation.

Lastly, the imagery of the PSA is conveying the message of the harmful result of drunk driving. In the advertisement, viewers can see two hands hitting together two glasses with various alcoholic substances in them (Ad Council & U.S. Department of Transportation, 1983). The advertisement shows that the possible fatality might occur while taking drinks that are considered less strong, such as beer or a glass of wine. Thus, the images help the audience to understand the dangers of driving after drinking different beverages. Moreover, the background of the scene is entirely white, making the viewer focus directly on the drinks. The targeted audience sees that typically a joyful activity of clinking a glass with friends is followed by a violate shattering of the aforementioned glass. The viewers are influenced by what they see, as going to a bar, and partying have positive connotations; however, the imagery presents the audience with the other side of the coin. All in all, the symbolism of broken glass and spilled drinks is essential in the advertisement by NHTSA. It promotes recognition of the drunk driving problem by appealing to the public’s feelings of responsibility.

To summarize, driving under the influence has been an essential topic in the United States since the 1980s. Since the nation was devastated by fatalities from drunk driving, the statistics were alarming. Therefore, the NHTSA collaborated with the Ad Council to develop an awareness campaign to improve the situation. The advertisement “Friends Don’t Let Friends Drive Drunk” was launched in 1983, which mainly targeted young adults. Since this group of individuals constituted a large percentage of drunk car accidents. Moreover, the PSA uses narration, sounds, and imageries, to appeal to the targeted audience’s emotions, including guilt and obligation, to protect their loved ones from dangerous situations. The narration reiterated the message of death for the audience to remember the main danger at the moment of drinking. The sound effect of a car crash makes the audience uncomfortable because they will be making connections between drinking and the sound of death. Lastly, the imagery reinforces the danger of alcohol consumption by graphically shattering the glass. From a modern perspective, the advertisement still looks impressive and convincing, because of the apparent appeal to pathos that is still influential to a contemporary audience.

References

Ad Council., U.S. Department of Transportation. (1983). Friends don’t let friends drive drunk [Advertisement]. YouTube. Web.

The ANA Educational Foundation. (n.d.). Drunk driving prevention (1983-present). Web.

Rabin, R. L., (2017). Pathways to auto safety: Assessing the role of the national highway traffic safety. Cambridge Univ. Press, pp. 297-321, Stanford Public Law Working Paper. Web.