According to the American Automobile Association, while men remain to be the most frequent drunken drivers, there is an increasing number of young women who are being arrested for drunk driving.
Stephen Bloch, a researcher from AAA, says that DUI cases for women between the ages of 21 to 24 have doubled in the last 10 years. In San Diego County, the fatal incidents involving women with ages 18-24 increased by 124%, from 49 accidents to 110.
Bloch said that this unlikely increase may have been caused by the growing number of young female celebrities being arrested because of DUI. In 2007, Lindsay Lohan was arrested after running her vehicle up a curb. The actress failed the sobriety tests and was sentenced to 10 days of community service. Other high profile DUI arrests involve Nicole Ritchie and Paris Hilton.
Block noted that men’s involvement with drunken driving is not increasing while women’s statistics has risen significantly. He believes that among the factors that have affected this number are the number for women taking the wheel and logging more miles.
Block also blames the intense marketing of alcohol to females in the rise of drunken women-related accidents. He said that alcoholic beverages have become more appealing to the female demographic with the introduction of sweeter drinks.
When we look at alcohol-related statistics, specifically alcohol-related fatalities, we assume that these numbers mean that a drunk driver was involved. However, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA):
“A motor vehicle crash is considered to be alcohol-related if at least one driver or non-occupant (such as a pedestrian or pedalcyclist) involved in the crash is determined to have had a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of .01 gram per deciliter (g/dL) or higher. Thus, any fatality that occurs in an alcohol-related crash is considered an alcohol-related fatality. The term ‘alcohol-related’ does not indicate that a crash or fatality was caused by the presence of alcohol.”
So when we see these drunk driving statistics, we don’t even really know the “true” numbers. If a sober driver hits a drunk pedestrian, it is considered an alcohol-related death. Likewise, if a sober driver hits another sober driver who has a passenger that is drunk, that’s also consider an alcohol-related incident.
All of these incidents create highly inflated DUI fatality statistics. Isn’t it time to redefine what “DUI fatality” actually means? Or are these over-inflated numbers a way for the government to keep taking our constitutional rights?
First-time DUI offenders who were required to install ignition interlock devices in their vehicles were 60% less likely to be arrested for another DUI than those who didn’t use the interlock device (Source: Alcoholism Blog)
Drunk drivers who were involved in fatal crashes and registered a blood alcohol level of .08 or higher were eight times more likely to have a prior DUI conviction than were drivers with no alcohol – 8% and 1%, respectively (Source: Alcohol Alert)
Men between the ages of 18 to 20 reported drunk driving more often than any other age group (Shults et al. 2002, Quinlan et al. 2005)
Alcohol kills 6½ times more youth than all other illicit drugs combined (Source: Mothers Against Drunk Driving).
Alcohol-related traffic fatalities account for 41% of all traffic fatalities (Source: The Century Council).
These statistics will hopefully make you really think about the consequences of drunk driving. Is it really worth risking your life and the lives of others?
Drunk driving is an ongoing issue and various organizations have tried to reduce drunk driving incidences by implementing various initiatives to help solve the problem. Currently the penalties for drunk driving include fees, jail sentences, mandatory DUI classes, and driver’s license suspensions. Recently, however, technology has been introduced such as the ignition interlock device (IID). It is being used by some courts throughout the U.S. The question remains, though: Is the IID helping to solve this drunk driving issue? Do these devices indeed reduce the risk of DUIs in repeat drunk drivers?
The ignition interlock device is installed in the car and if the DUI offender has to drive anywhere, he/she provides a breath sample by blowing into the device. The car will not start if the IID detects alcohol on the breath.
IIDs have been around since the 1960s and researchers have been studying them ever since. However, it wasn’t until the last 20 years that IIDs have been used by the courts. California was the very first state to enact legislation that gave permission to judges to make it mandatory that DUI offenders install IIDs in their vehicles. California was also the first state in which the ignition interlock program was evaluated.
In September 2005 the California DMV created a series of studies centered around the ignition interlock device. These studies are periodically published in a report and are available to the public. What researchers found out is that IIDs have the potential to be effective in reducing drunk driving incidences. That’s all good and well, but judges in California were not consistent in ordering drunk driving offenders to install an IID. Technically, the IID is effective, but it’s the actual program that is not consistent and therefore, not effective.
Here’s a news clip about ignition interlock devices…
