Effects of Washington State's alcohol ignition interlock laws on DUI recidivism: An update.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to examine the effects of changes to Washington State's alcohol ignition interlock laws: moving issuance of interlock orders from the courts to the driver licensing department (July 2003); extending the interlock order requirement to all persons convicted of driving under the influence (DUI; June 2004); allowing an interlock in lieu of an administrative driver's license suspension (January 2009); and requiring proof of interlock installation to reinstate the driver's license (January 2011). METHOD: Trends in conviction types, interlock installation rates, and 2-year cumulative recidivism rates were examined for first-time and repeat offenders with convictions stemming from DUI arrests during 1999-2012. Autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) models examined the association between law changes and installation rates, law changes and recidivism rates, and installation rates and recidivism rates. RESULTS: During the study period, there was a large increase in the proportion of first-time DUI arrests reduced to alcohol-related negligent/reckless driving convictions, offenses not requiring interlock orders. The interlock installation rate increased substantially and the recidivism rate declined substantially among both first and repeat offenders. Based on the ARIMA models for first offenders, the 2004 and 2009 law changes were associated with increased interlock installation rates and lower recidivism rates. For first offenders arrested during the last quarter of 2012, the model estimates a 26% reduction in the recidivism rate (from an expected 7.7% without the 4 laws to 5.6%). A 1 percentage point increase in the interlock installation rate was associated with a 0.06 percentage point decline in the recidivism rate among first offenders. If the association carried forward and if the installation rate had been 100% rather than 38% in the last quarter of 2012, the 2-year recidivism rate would have been reduced from 5.6 to 2%. Among repeat offenders, the 2003 and 2009 law changes were associated with increased interlock installation rates, and the 2009 law change was associated with a nonsignificant decline in recidivism. CONCLUSIONS: In Washington, rates of interlock installations increased as interlock laws were strengthened, and the increase was associated with reductions in recidivism among first DUI offenders. Washington's experience suggests that states can reduce DUI recidivism by requiring interlock orders for all offenders, allowing offenders to install interlocks in lieu of an administrative driver's license suspension, and closing statutory loopholes that allow plea reductions to convictions without interlock orders.

Washington State's alcohol ignition interlock law: effects on recidivism among first-time DUI offenders.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the effects of changes to Washington State's ignition interlock laws: moving issuance of interlock orders from courts to the driver licensing department in July 2003 and extending the interlock order requirement to first-time offenders with blood alcohol concentrations (BACs) below 0.15 percent ("first simple driving under the influence [DUI]") in June 2004. METHOD: Trends in conviction types, interlock installation rates, and 2-year cumulative recidivism rates were examined for first-time convictions (simple, high-BAC, test refusal DUI; deferred prosecution; alcohol-related negligent driving) stemming from DUI arrests between January 1999 and June 2006. Regression analyses examined recidivism effects of the law changes and interlock installation rates. To examine general deterrent effects, trends in single-vehicle late-night crashes in Washington were compared with trends in California and Oregon. RESULTS: After the 2004 law change, the proportion of simple DUIs declined somewhat, though the proportion of negligent driving convictions (no interlock order requirement) continued an upward trend. Interlock installation rates for first simple DUIs were 3 to 6 percent in the year before the law change and one third after. Recidivism declined by an estimated 12 percent (e.g., expected 10.6% without law change vs. 9.3% among offenders arrested between April and June 2006, the last study quarter) among first simple DUI offenders and an estimated 11 percent (expected 10.2% vs. 9.1%) among all first-time offenders. There was an estimated 0.06 percentage point decrease in the recidivism rate for each percentage point increase in the proportion of first simple DUI offenders with interlocks. If installation rates had been 100 vs. 34 percent for first simple DUI offenders arrested between April and June 2006, and if the linear relationship between rates of recidivism and installations continued, recidivism could have been reduced from 9.3 to 5.3 percent. With installation rates of 100 vs. 24 percent for all first offenders, their recidivism rate could have fallen from 9.1 to 3.2 percent. Although installation rates increased somewhat after the 2003 law change, recidivism rates were not significantly affected, perhaps due to the short follow-up period before the 2004 law change. The 2004 law change was associated with an 8.3 percent reduction in single-vehicle late-night crash risk. CONCLUSIONS: Mandating interlock orders for all first DUI convictions was associated with reductions in recidivism, even with low interlock use rates, and reductions in crashes. Additional gains are likely achievable with higher rates. Jurisdictions should seek to increase use rates and reconsider permitting reductions in DUI charges to other traffic offenses without interlock order requirements.

Perceived risk and other predictors and correlates of teenagers' safety belt use during the first year of licensure.

OBJECTIVES: Teenagers have the lowest rate of safety belt use and the highest crash rate compared to other age groups. Past studies on teenagers' belt use have mostly been cross-sectional. The first goals of this study were to examine, at licensure, teenagers' and parents' perceptions of risk of crash/injury for newly licensed teenagers when driving unbelted and teenagers' perceived and parents' intended consequences for safety belt rule violations. In addition, the comparability of these variables to other risky driving behaviors was explored. The second goal was to evaluate the importance of these variables in the prediction of teenagers' belt use during the first year of licensure, relative to other factors related to belt use, including demographics and substance use. METHODS: More than 2,000 parent-teenager dyads were interviewed by telephone, parents at permit and licensure and teenagers at permit, licensure, and 3, 6, and 12 months after licensure. RESULTS: Approximately a third of the teenagers reported at least once at 3, 6, or 12 months post-licensure not always using their safety belt in the past week. At licensure, participants' perceived risk of safety belt non-use was high and ranked among the behaviors most related to crash/injury for newly licensed teenagers, behind driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Parent-imposed consequences for safety belt rule violations were not as highly rated as parent-imposed consequences for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Sequential logistic regression modeled the relationship between safety belt use and perceived risk and consequences of non-use, as well as other prospective predictors assessed at permit and licensure, and driving correlates measured after licensure. Teenagers' extreme perceived risk and parents' intended sure consequences for non-use were significant prospective predictors of regular use during the first year of licensure. Other significant predictors and correlates were race (White), high school grade average of "A," not smoking cigarettes, driving a passenger vehicle, and never receiving a traffic citation or engaging in risky driving behaviors, including driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs and running a red light. CONCLUSIONS: While the effect size was small for perceived risk of non-use, it is a modifiable factor and focused intervention contrived to enhance perceived risk could increase teenagers' belt use. Perceived risk is discussed as a target for intervention in relation to the Protection Motivation Theory. This theory appears helpful in guiding future research into the modifiable factors studied here as well as other factors, including perceived rewards and costs associated with non-use.

Do recommended driving limits affect teen-reported traffic violations and crashes during the first 12 months of independent driving?

OBJECTIVES: Motor vehicle crashes are highly elevated among newly licensed teenage drivers. Limits on high-risk driving conditions by driver licensing policies and parents can protect novice teens from negative driving outcomes, while they experience and driving proficiency. The purpose of this research was to evaluate the effects of strict parent-imposed driving limits on driving outcomes during the first year of licensure. METHODS: A sample of 3,743 Connecticut teens was recruited and randomized to the Checkpoints Program or comparison condition. Assessments conducted at baseline, licensure, 3-, 6-, and 12-months postlicensure included parent-imposed driving limits, traffic violations, and crashes. Bivariate and multivariate analyses were conducted to assess the effects of strict parent limits on traffic violations and crashes during the first year of licensure. RESULTS: Thirty percent of teens reported at least one traffic violation and 40% reported at least one crash. More strict parent-imposed limits at licensure, 3-, 6-, and 12-months postlicensure, were associated with fewer violations and crashes in multivariate analyses. Notably, adherence to recommended night curfew was consistently associated with fewer violations and crashes. CONCLUSIONS: The findings indicate that strict parent-imposed limits may protect novice teen drivers from negative driving outcomes.

Parents' views of teen driving risks, the role of parents, and how they plan to manage the risks.

PROBLEM: There is limited information about how parents view teen driving risks and intend to handle these risks during the licensing process, and how they will respond to graduated licensing provisions. METHODS: Parents in Connecticut were interviewed when their teens got their learner's permit. The survey was undertaken when the state did not have a midnight restriction or a passenger restriction. RESULTS: Generally, parents were well aware of teen driving risks, thought parents should be thoroughly involved in the licensing process, and plan to be active participants themselves. DISCUSSION: Parents were concerned about the risk of driving after midnight and already restrict that behavior. However, parents do not seem to see or understand the risks of having even one teen passenger in the vehicle. IMPACT ON INDUSTRY: The views and existing practices of parents need to be taken into account in deciding on the provisions of graduated licensing legislation and how to best ensure acceptance and compliance.

The effect on teen driving outcomes of the Checkpoints Program in a state-wide trial.

Crash rates among teenagers are highly elevated during the first months of licensure. Parent-imposed driving restrictions on initial driving privileges can reduce exposure to high-risk driving conditions, thus reducing crash risk while teens' driving proficiency develops. This report describes the effect of the Checkpoints Program on driving limits and outcomes. Connecticut teens who obtained a learners permit over a 9-month period were recruited, providing a final sample of 3743 who obtained driver licenses. Families were randomized to the intervention or comparison condition. Intervention families received by mail a series of persuasive communications related to high-risk teen driving and a parent-teen driving agreement, while comparison families received on the same schedule general information on driving and vehicle maintenance. Relative to the comparison group, teens and parents in the Checkpoints Program reported significantly greater limits on high-risk teen driving conditions at licensure, 3-, and 6-months post-licensure; and intervention teens reported significantly less risky driving at each reporting period. By the 12-month follow up teens in the intervention group were significantly less likely than those in the comparison group to have had a traffic violation. However, no treatment group effect was found for crashes. This is the first study to report significant effects on teen driving behavior and performance of education designed to increase parental-imposed teen driving limits.

The effects of the checkpoints program on parent-imposed driving limits and crash outcomes among Connecticut novice teen drivers at 6-months post-licensure.

INTRODUCTION: Because crash rates are highly elevated during the first months of licensure, it is advisable for parents to limit teen driving so that teens can gain independent driving experience under less dangerous driving conditions. This report describes the effect of the Checkpoints Program on parent limits on novice teen driving through six months post-licensure. METHODS: Nearly one-quarter of all Connecticut teens who obtained a learner's permit over a 9-month period were recruited, providing a final sample of 3,743 who obtained licenses within the next 16 months. Families were randomized to the intervention or comparison condition. Intervention families received by mail a series of persuasive communications related to high-risk teen driving and a parent-teen driving agreement, while on the same schedule comparison families received standard information on driver safety. RESULTS: Families who participated in the Checkpoints Program reported significantly greater limits on teen driving at licensure, 3-months, and 6-months post-licensure. However, there were no differences in reported risky driving behavior, violations, or crashes. CONCLUSION: This is the first statewide study testing the efficacy of the Checkpoints Program. The results indicate that it is possible to foster modest increases in parental restrictions on teen driving limits during the first six months of licensure using passive persuasive communications, but that the levels of restriction obtained were not sufficient to protect against violations and crashes.

Vehicles driven by teenagers in their first year of licensure.

OBJECTIVE: to determine access to vehicles, vehicle ownership and its correlates, and types of vehicles driven by teenagers during their first year of licensure. METHODS: About 3,500 Connecticut teenagers and their parents recruited at DMV offices participated in a study aimed at persuading parents to impose and maintain driving restrictions on their sons and daughters. Telephone interviews with teens and parents, which included questions on vehicles driven, were conducted upon licensure and at intervals throughout the year. RESULTS: The majority of both male and female teens owned vehicles immediately upon licensure. Family income and number of vehicles in the family were associated with early ownership. A year later 74% owned vehicles. Small cars, which provide inferior crash protection, were the most popular vehicle; the percent driving small cars increased from 36% to 42% over the year. About 25% were driving SUVs, pickups, or sports cars, which may increase crash risk for young beginners. One year after licensure, only 35% of teens were driving midsize or large passenger cars, the types of vehicles recommended for them, and about one-third of these vehicles were 10 or more years old. Owners were more likely than non-owners to drive older and smaller vehicles, to drive more miles, do more risky driving, and to have more traffic violations and crashes. DISCUSSION: Many teenagers in Connecticut were driving vehicles that rank low in crash protection or may increase crash risk. Attention to the young driver problem has been focused primarily on managing driving risks through graduated licensing systems. More attention needs to be given to the vehicles teens drive, and how decisions about vehicle type and ownership are made. Parents exert control over what vehicles their sons and daughters drive, and may benefit from information on how to make choices that better balance cost, safety, and other factors that go into these decisions.

Parent-imposed limits on high-risk adolescent driving: are they stricter with graduated driver licensing?

The purpose of this study was to determine whether parent-imposed limits on 16-year-old high-risk driving are stricter in Maryland (MD), a state with graduated driver licensing (GDL) than in Connecticut (CT), a non-GDL state. In both states, parents and adolescents completed telephone surveys about the restrictions that parents placed on their adolescents' driving at night, with adolescent passengers, and at high speeds. In Maryland, surveys took place 1 month (294 parent-adolescent pairs) and 4 months (292 parent-adolescent pairs) after provisional licensure. In Connecticut, surveys took place the first month (132 pairs) and the third month (108 pairs) after adolescent licensure. The findings indicated that after controlling for demographic characteristics, Maryland parents and adolescents reported stricter parent-imposed limits for adolescent passengers, high-speed roads, weekend night driving, and overall limits. Parents in GDL states appear better able to establish and enforce adolescent driving restrictions when the licensing state stipulates, favors, and supports regulated adolescent driving.

Persistence of effects of the Checkpoints program on parental restrictions of teen driving privileges.

OBJECTIVES: We describe intervention effects on parent limits on novice teenage driving. METHODS: We recruited parents and their 16-year-old children (n = 469) with learner's permits and randomized them from August 2000 to March 2003. Intervention families received persuasive newsletters related to high-risk teenage driving and a parent-teenager driving agreement; comparison families received standard information on driver safety. We conducted interviews when the adolescents obtained a learner's permit, upon licensure, and at 3, 6, and 12 months postlicensure. RESULTS: Intervention parents and teenagers reported stricter limits on teen driving compared with the comparison group at 12 months, with direct effects through 3 months and indirect effects through 12 months postlicensure. CONCLUSIONS: A simple behavioral intervention was efficacious in increasing parental restriction of high-risk teen driving conditions among newly licensed drivers.

Driving experience, crashes and traffic citations of teenage beginning drivers.

Teenagers were surveyed by telephone every 6 months from their freshman to senior high school years (N=911). Self-reported crash involvements and citations were examined for each teenager's first year of licensure and first 3500 miles driven. Based on survival analysis, the risk of a first crash during the first month of licensure (0.053) was substantially higher than during any of the next 11 months (mean risk per month: 0.025). The likelihood of a first citation during the first month of licensure (0.023) also was higher than during any of the subsequent 11 months (mean risk per month: 0.012). Similarly, when viewed as a function of cumulative miles driven, the risk of a first crash or citation was highest during the first 500 miles driven after licensure. Fewer parental restrictions (e.g. no nighttime curfew) and a lower grade point average (GPA) were associated with a higher crash risk. Male gender, a lower GPA and living in a rural area were associated with a higher citation rate.

Provisional license.

The Provisional or Intermediate license is the central phase in a comprehensive Graduated Licensing System. Young drivers qualify for a Provisional license by completing their Learners phase, reaching a specified age, and passing a road test. Provisional license holders are allowed to drive unsupervised subject to various restrictions. Typical restrictions include prohibitions against night driving, passengers and alcohol. The goal is to limit teen exposure to risky driving situations during their first few months of licensure, a time when their crash rates are extremely high. States with such restrictions have been shown to have lower teen crash rates than states without. Parents indicate strong support both for Graduated Licensing Systems and for the specific restrictions.

Responses of teenagers and their parents to California's graduated licensing system.

In 1998, California adopted a strong graduated licensing system that lengthened the learner's permit stage from 1 month to a mandatory 6 months and introduced passenger and nighttime restrictions for initial license holders. The passenger restriction (no passengers younger than 20 for the first 6 months) is stronger than such restrictions in any other state; the nighttime ban is relatively weak, not beginning until midnight. Surveys were undertaken to learn what teenagers and their parents thought about the new requirements and how they responded to them. Two groups of beginning California license holders were surveyed three times during the first year of licensure; their parents were interviewed twice. One group (n = 543) was subject to the graduated licensing requirements, the other (n = 814) was not. Parents strongly endorsed the new system. The vast majority approved of the new permit requirements and the nighttime and passenger restrictions. Among parents whose children were subject to the new requirements, 79% were strongly in favor of the new system and only 4% were neutral or opposed. Teenagers were less favorable toward the new requirements. Most approved of the new learner's permit rules, and the majority of teenagers favored the night restriction, but only about one-third endorsed the passenger restriction. Compliance with the new rules was not close to universal, but the new licensing system resulted in young people holding their learner's permits longer, accumulating more practice driving prior to licensure and decreased the amount of reported driving after midnight and transportation of teenagers when initially licensed. Most teenagers subject to the new rules said they were able to do the activities they wanted despite the changes; almost three-quarters said they were not affected much by either the nighttime or passenger restriction. Overall the results indicate that the new licensing system is accepted favorably by teenagers and their parents and has substantially increased the types of behaviors that collectively should lead to crash and injury reductions.