Driving Under the Influence: Do Strict DUI Laws Really Work?
Year after year, statistics confirm that the single most dangerous thing a driver can do is get behind the wheel drunk. This is no surprise; after all, the more intoxicated a driver is, the more he or she becomes literally unable to drive safely. But compared with thirty years ago, today less than half as many people every year are dying in drunk driving collisions. Since Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) began their campaign against drunk driving in the early 1980s, supporting efforts to increase the legal drinking age and lower the BAC limit, the roads have become vastly safer for everyone.
In fact, while an incredible 58% of the 42,589 people who died in a collision in 1983 were killed in an alcohol-related collision, by 2013, only 31% of the 32,719 traffic deaths that year were related to alcohol. By comparison, the number of non-alcohol-related traffic deaths in 1983 was approximately 18,000, and almost 23,000 in 2013. This suggests that, while other factors (like new traffic laws and safety technologies) may have kept fatality rates from rising significantly as the roads have become more crowded, the major reduction in traffic fatalities that the past 30 years have seen can be almost entirely attributed to the drastic drop in deaths related to drunk driving.
Nevertheless, there are still far too many people dying each year because an intoxicated person got behind the wheel, and recent years have seen the number of alcohol-related traffic fatalities remain stagnant at about 10,000 deaths a year. Recently, the CDC also revealed that more than four million people may be driving while impaired by alcohol every month. As a result, it remains as important as ever to figure out what we can do to make sure that people get the message and stop getting on the road when they’ve been drinking.
In this post, we’re going to explore the effect that strict DUI laws have on alcohol-related crash fatality rates. There’s no doubt that major changes in policy, like the establishment of 0.08% as the legal per se limit for driving, have, when combined with more effective law enforcement, been responsible for preventing many deaths. However, a comparison of recent studies identifying, respectively, which states have the strictest DUI policies and which states have the highest alcohol-related fatality rates, can give us a better idea of the degree to which establishing stricter policies can actually prevent drunk-driving deaths.
Strict DUI Laws: What the Research Shows
Earlier this year, the personal finance website WalletHub released a study identifying the relative strictness of each state’s DUI policies. To arrive at these rankings, the researchers examined 15 different factors for each state, including the minimum jail time and fine associated with the offense, the presence of administrative license suspension and mandatory ignition interlock policies, and whether there were any additional penalties for more severe offenses. Among other things, they found that Arizona, Alaska, and Connecticut had the strictest policies and that Pennsylvania, South Dakota, and Washington, D.C. had the most lenient policies.
At the same time, a recent report on fatal alcohol-related crash rate in each state between 1995 and 2013, as well as annual NHTSA collision data for 2013, shows us which states drunk driving deaths are most common in. Because state populations can vary widely, this data measures the alcohol-related fatality rate relative to each state’s population. These results indicate that some of the most dangerous states are South Dakota, Wyoming, Montana, and Mississippi.
One thing you may notice right away is that South Dakota has some of the least strict DUI laws, as well as the single highest fatality rate for the period 1995-2013. In at least one place, then, it would seem that high fatality rates are associated with lenient laws. But looking closer at the data gives us a more complicated picture:
- South Dakota has very lenient laws and the highest fatality rate. South Dakota’s DUI penalties include no minimum jail time or fine for a first or second offense, no administrative license suspension, and no ignition interlock requirement. It had the number one fatality rate for 1995-2013 (22.4 fatalities for every 100,000 residents) and the number nine rate for 2013 alone (15.98 per 100,000 residents).
- High fatality rates were associated with lenient laws in several other states. Montana, which also had a low DUI strictness rating (#46 of 51), had the number one fatality rate for 2013 alone (22.56 per 100,000 residents) and the number 5 fatality rate for 1995-2013 (16.85 per 100,000 residents); Montana is one of only a few states to lack an administrative license suspension law. Other states with low DUI strictness and high fatality rates include North Dakota, Kentucky, Wyoming, and Mississippi.
- While Arizona has the strictest DUI policies, its fatality rate is about average. The state with the strictest DUI laws, Arizona, had the 17th highest DUI fatality rate in 2013 alone. Alaska and Connecticut, the states with the next strictest policies, had significantly lower fatality rates.
- West Virginia has the fourth most strict DUI laws, as well as the fourth highest fatality rate for 2013. It also had the 10th highest fatality rate between 1995 and 2013 (14.05 per 100,000 residents). West Virginia law requires no minimum jail term and a low minimum fine for a first DUI offense.
- In the biggest states, stricter laws don’t correlate with fewer deaths. The four most populous states in the country are California, Texas, Florida, and New York. In California and New York, DUI policies were slightly less strict than average (#31 and #30 in the rankings, respectively), and the DUI fatality rate in 2013 was relatively low in both states (#39 and #48, respectively). In Texas and Florida, DUI policies were slightly more strict than average (#18 and #21, respectively), while the DUI fatality rate in 2013 was above average in both states (18 and 21, respectively).
- In states with low fatality rates, laws range from very strict to very lenient. The ten states with the lowest DUI fatality rates in 2013 ranged in DUI strictness from #2 (Alaska) to #50 (DC). These states differ in many ways, including whether there is a minimum sentence or fine for a first DUI conviction, whether an administrative license suspension law is in effect, and what the ignition interlock requirements are. The only element all states have in common is the use of additional penalties for DUI Child Endangerment.
- In states with high fatality rates, laws ranges from very strict to very lenient, too. The ten states with the highest DUI fatality rates in 2013 ranged in DUI strictness from #4 (West Virginia) to #51 (South Dakota). Like the other end of the list, there is no consistency in the factors associated with a high fatality rate.
These facts suggest that, while lenient DUI laws do seem to be associated with higher fatality rates in some states, for the most part there is no consistent relationship between these two measures. However, one factor that does seem to have an impact is population density (number of people per square mile). On average, the 10 states with the lowest fatality rates have a population density almost 600% higher than the 10 states with the highest fatality rates. (This doesn’t even count Washington, D.C., as its population density is so high that it skews the results.) By contrast, when these same sets of states are compared based on their DUI strictness points, laws in low fatality states are only 14% more strict than those in high fatality states.
These findings line up neatly with what we know about differences in urban and rural driving; according to the NHTSA, even though “an estimated 19 percent of the U.S. population lived in rural areas” in 2013, “rural fatalities accounted for 54 percent of all traffic fatalities” that year. It would seem, then, that in places with more dense urban areas, where there are more regions with low speed limits, heavily-regulated driving environments, and more immediate access to medical care, people are less likely to die in drunk driving crashes. In places that are primarily rural and more made up of empty, undivided roads, however, the mix of high speeds and alcohol is particularly likely to be deadly.
Making Sense of These Results
So, it would seem, strict state DUI laws are not reliably associated with low fatal DUI crash rates. Indeed, according to one study, a state’s decision to establish new DUI laws isn’t related to the number of deaths drunk driving is associated with or even the political leanings of the state’s government. Rather, the factors most likely to lead a state to adopt new DUI policies were large populations of young people and neighboring states with similar driving laws.
But if making laws stricter doesn’t work, what can states do to reduce their fatal alcohol-related crash rates? The answer, it turns out, may lie more in how the laws are enforced than what the laws are. According to Professor Adam Gerschowitz, the three factors most likely to deter a behavior are “(1) the certainty that the person will be caught and punished; (2) the speed between the time they commit the crime and the time of punishment; and (3) the severity (harshness) of the punishment;” but, he adds, “a large number of social science studies have found that the harshness or severity of the punishment is the least effective deterrent…As such, states should adopt [DUI] policies that are more likely to result in drunk drivers being caught and convicted, not policies that simply punish drunk drivers harshly.”
Indeed, one of MADD’s great successes wasn’t simply convincing the government to change the law, but convincing the public at large—and the law enforcement community in particular—that drunk driving was so dangerous that it should be considered criminal. When police more aggressively pursue drunk drivers and more drunk driving arrests are made, the most dangerous offenders are taken off the road while other drivers have a greater incentive to avoid getting behind the wheel intoxicated.
One thing states can do is pursue public awareness campaigns to further shift attitudes against drunk driving and to invest more in making sure existing DUI laws are enforced. Another thing to consider is increasing the price of alcohol with a tax: the higher price of alcohol will discourage excessive drinking, and the funds collected through the tax can be used to fund the increase in law enforcement.
Of course, this isn’t to say that state governments shouldn’t pursue new DUI laws, such as lowering the legal BAC limit to 0.05% or requiring all first time DUI offenders to install an ignition interlock device, as such policies can play some role in lowering DUI fatality rates. However, by now it should be clear that simply adopting new policies isn’t enough, as the existing culture in a state, as well as the state’s geography, can influence how it is affected by drunk driving.
Thus, it’s crucial that governments pursue sincere and comprehensive campaigns against drunk driving, targeting public attitudes, improving law enforcement, making punishment quicker and more predictable, and making alcohol costlier to obtain. Ultimately, it’s the responsibility of each state to understand, and then craft a holistic response that’s appropriate for, the habits of alcohol use and drunk driving within it.
And remember, no matter where you live, it’s your responsibility as a driver never to get behind the wheel when you’ve been drinking. Moreover, our findings suggest, it’s a good idea to be especially cautious on open rural roads, where high speeds are common, medical care is farther away, and collisions are more likely to be fatal. By driving sober, you make the roads safer for yourself and everyone else—and make yourself more capable of driving defensively and keeping yourself safe if you encounter another driver who isn’t.