Fell et al. (2014), for example, reported that a 10% increase in the DWI arrest rate corresponded to a 1% reduction in alcohol-involved accidents. The greater decline in alcohol-related traffic deaths among 16- to 20-year-olds is in part attributable to the adoption of age 21 as the legal drinking age, which occurred in all States by 1988. A review of more than 49 studies of changes in the legal drinking age revealed that in the 1980s and 1990s when many States lowered the legal drinking age, alcohol-related traffic crashes involving drivers under 21 increased 10 percent. In contrast, when States increased the legal drinking age to 21, alcohol-related crashes among people under 21 decreased an average of 16 percent (Shults et al. 2001).
According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), approximately 11,654 Americans were killed in alcohol-impaired driving crashes in 2020; deaths like these were 30% of all total motor vehicle traffic fatalities in the United States. It is also estimated that 1.5 million people are arrested each year for driving under the influence of alcohol. Impaired driving continues to be a serious traffic safety and public health issue for the entire country. The percentage of traffic deaths that are alcohol related also varies depending on the role of the person killed in the crash (i.e., whether the person killed was the driver, passenger, or pedestrian) and by the type of vehicle involved. In 2002, 41 percent of the drivers killed in crashes were killed in alcohol-related crashes, compared with 37 percent of passenger deaths and 47 percent of pedestrian deaths.
More Jail Time Might Be in Your Future
It also provides a state by state breakdown of alcohol-impaired driving laws. With 28 people dying every day in America due to drunk driving, it’s essential that our country increases the education and awareness for drinking and driving. Wisconsin is the only state where driving while intoxicated is not a misdemeanor – or even a “crime” –for the first offense (unless a passenger in the vehicle is under 16).
If so, the parameter estimates on the risk perception covariates would be negatively biased. By contrast, the second analysis examined how an individual’s estimated probability of his or her future alcohol-impaired driving changed when we varied legal consequences. This analysis was based on within-person variation in risk perceptions and behavior. To the extent this is so, the parameter estimates would be biased toward zero.
The Dangers of Drunk Driving
This wave elicited information on socio-demographic characteristics, alcohol-related behaviors, health, cognition, impulsivity, and other types of information. The second and third waves were conducted by Computer Assisted Self-Administered Interviews (CASI). The second wave (CASI-I) elicited subjective beliefs about respondents’ future alcohol-impaired driving and current legal consequences for DWI. This wave repeated selected batteries of questions from CASI-I and also asked respondents to report their number of actual alcohol-impaired driving episodes since the CASI-I interview.