The main objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a reexamination for drivers who accumulate two "major violations" within a 3-year period, but who were not otherwise treated by the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). Major violations comprise the most serious violations, including driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs (DUI) and reckless driving violations. Because major violations often involve alcohol even when the conviction is for a non-DUI offense, the reexamination was designed to evaluate the role of alcohol and to deter subsequent impaired driving through the diagnostic reexamination process and imposition of license control actions. The sample consisted of approximately 12,000 drivers, half of whom were randomly assigned to the reexamination, the other half of whom had treatment withheld (control condition). Results indicated that the information gathered at the reexamination was moderately predictive of subsequent alcohol-involved violations, slightly more so than driving record information alone. Among drivers attending the reexamination, the two most frequent outcomes were no action and license probation; license suspension or revocation was rarely used. A substantial and statistically significant reduction in traffic convictions was attributable to the reexamination. The reexamination group had a lower rate of injury accidents and total accidents, but this latter difference did not reach statistical significance. There was no evidence that the effect of treatment was greater on alcohol-related accidents or convictions than on those not obviously alcohol-related. Based on the sample estimate of accidents prevented, the reexamination was projected to be more likely cost-beneficial than not. Comparisons of drivers for whom no action, probation, or suspension was imposed suggest that license suspension would be a more effective countermeasure than the license probation commonly used in the reexamination. Regarding the diagnostic function of the reexamination, those major convictions without evidence of alcohol involvement were associated with as high an accident risk level as those majors with evidence of alcohol involvement. This equivalence of risk levels is an argument for a blanket countermeasure program rather than for countermeasures tailored on the basis of a diagnosis of alcohol involvement. It was recommended that mandatory license suspension be used in place of the reexamination for drivers with two major convictions, regardless of alcohol involvement. (Author/publisher)
Abstract