Prueba de hipótesis especifica 4 Dimensión: Reflexión sobre lo desarrollado

Effectiveness:  Cost: $ Use: Medium Time: Short

Designated drivers are individuals who agree not to drink so they can drive their friends who have been drinking. Formal designated driver programs in drinking establishments provide incentives such as free soft drinks for people who agree to be designated drivers. Usually, though, designated driver arrangements are completely informal.

The designated driver concept has been questioned on two grounds: (1) designated drivers may still drink, though perhaps less than the passengers; and (2) it may encourage passengers to drink to excess. In a national roadside survey, Fell, Voas, and Lange (1997) found self-identified designated drivers were more likely to have a positive BAC in comparison to all drivers on the road. Also, some designated drivers had very high BACs, especially those coming from bars. Apparently some groups of drinkers had selected the designated driver near the end of a night of drinking. To be effective, Voas and Lacey (2011) argue the designated driver must be chosen before the drinking begins, and must be willing to abstain (or substantially limit) his or her drinking.

Use: The designated driver concept is widely understood and accepted. Surveys show that designated driver use is common. In NHTSA’s general population survey of 7,000 people, 44% said they had served as a designated driver during the past year, and 33% reported riding with a designated driver (Moulton et al., 2010).

Effectiveness: Because designated drivers are informally determined and somewhat imprecisely defined, it’s no surprise there is little data on the impact of designated drivers on crashes. CDC’s systematic review found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of designated driver programs (Ditter et al., 2005). A review from Australia concluded that designated driver

programs can successfully increase awareness and use of designated drivers, but evidence for changes in alcohol-related crashes is inconclusive (Nielson & Watson, 2009). However, the authors note the lack of supporting evidence “does not necessarily mean that such programs should be discouraged. On the contrary, it highlights the need for them to be better implemented and evaluated” (Nielson & Watson, 2009, p.36).

Costs: The only costs associated with informal designated driver programs are for publicity. Designated drivers can be promoted independently or can be included with other impaired driving publicity. Establishments that operate formal designated driver programs have minimal costs for the drinks provided and for publicity.

Time to implement: Designated driver promotion can be implemented in a few weeks and formal programs can be established equally quickly.

6. Underage Drinking and Alcohol-Impaired Driving

Teenagers drink and drive less often than adults, but they are more likely to crash when they do drink and drive (Williams, 2003). Teenagers are inexperienced with both driving and drinking. Consequently, they have a higher crash risk at all BAC levels than adult drivers (Mayhew et al., 1986; Zador, Krawchuck, & Voas, 2000). Alcohol-related crashes among teenagers are typically associated with driving at nighttime, on weekends, and with passengers (Bingham, Shope, Parow, & Raghunathan, 2009).

Many of the countermeasures described in previous sections of this chapter apply not only to adults, but to teenagers as well. However, there are some countermeasures to reduce drinking and alcohol-related crashes that are directed specifically to those under 21.

Since 1988, minimum-drinking-age laws in all States prohibit youth under 21 from purchasing alcohol or consuming it in public. These laws influence all youth impaired-driving strategies. For people 21 and older, drinking is legal but driving while impaired by alcohol is not. With a BAC limit of .08, drivers know they should not drive after drinking “too much,” but are faced with mixed messages at low levels of alcohol, because lower BAC’s are not illegal per se. The message for those under 21 is unambiguous: they should not be drinking at all, and certainly should not be driving after drinking.

Zero-tolerance laws in all States reinforce this message by setting a maximum BAC limit of .02 or less for drivers under 21. This effectively prohibits driving after drinking any amount of alcohol. Presently, zero-tolerance laws are not actively publicized or enforced by many States. In addition, compliance checks of alcohol vendors can reduce the availability of alcohol to those under 21, though again this strategy is not used as widely as it could be. There are many other policies and programs reinforcing the no-drinking message that are directed primarily at adults (beer keg registration, social host liability) or take place in schools or youth organizations

(Students Against Destructive Decisions clubs, alcohol-free prom and graduation parties). Youth receive education and information about alcohol and alcohol-impaired driving in schools and colleges, through licensing agencies, and through media directed to youth.

The minimum-drinking-age laws and the no-drinking message for youth mean that youth impaired-driving activities must work hand-in-hand with activities to control youth drinking. With the exception of zero-tolerance law enforcement and alcohol vendor compliance checks, many of the countermeasures discussed below require cooperative activities between traditional highway safety organizations, such as law enforcement and motor vehicle departments, and community, health, and educational organizations with a broader social agenda than traffic safety.