Impaired driving has remained a dominant road safety priority and focus of concern in the United States during the past three decades. Strategies to reduce this problem have emerged along a continuum that has spanned prevention and education; legislation and enforcement; and penalties, supervision and rehabilitation for offenders. As a consequence, a 23% decline in impaired driving deaths in the past decade has been achieved and a new low of 10,076 deaths was reached in 2013. It must be underscored that the progress that has been achieved has not been uniform across or even within jurisdictions. Reductions in impaired driving fatalities have been more pronounced in urban centers as opposed to rural areas, although the magnitude of the problem in terms of sheer numbers remains considerable. A closer examination of impaired driving laws, programs and policies in the United States reveals that urban centers tend to be better equipped to implement proven strategies to reduce impaired driving as compared to their rural counterparts for a whole host of reasons. As such, while there is a tendency to focus on differences between individual states, the differences between rural and urban areas should not be overlooked as jurisdictions seek to achieve progress in tackling this problem. The objective of this report is to provide a comprehensive overview of the current status of impaired driving in rural jurisdictions-- not only to raise awareness about it, but also to provide a foundation for informed discussion. It is essential that this facet of the impaired driving problem becomes part of every conversation in which strategies to reduce impaired driving are proposed, developed and implemented. This report describes the context and features of the impaired driving problem in rural areas and highlights some of the barriers to progress. It also contains a summary of some of the diverse strategies that have been implemented by jurisdictions. Finally, this report provides practical guidance in relation to operational practices that can enhance impaired driving programs in rural areas, and describes some of the most salient research issues that need to be addressed in the next decade. In particular, the following questions are addressed: * How serious is the impaired driving problem in rural jurisdictions? * What are the characteristics and features of rural jurisdictions that must be considered during the implementation of impaired driving strategies? * What are examples of impaired driving strategies that have been developed for rural jurisdictions? * What lessons have been learned from existing impaired driving strategies? * What research is needed to inform future practice? A main challenge inhibiting the discussion of impaired driving in rural jurisdictions has been the inability to adequately define the term “rural jurisdiction.” The generally accepted definition of this term in fact describes what a rural jurisdiction is not. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, a rural area is defined as an area that “encompasses all population, housing, and territory not included within an urban area” (U.S. Census Bureau 2013). In other words, a rural area is any area that is not considered an urban area or that consists of “densely settled territory that contains 50,000 or more people, and at least 35,000 people in an urban area must live in an area that is not part of a military reservation”. As a consequence, the challenge associated with this definition has had important implications for our ability to define rural jurisdictions generally, and the magnitude of impaired driving in rural jurisdictions specifically. Results of the American Community Survey reveal that approximately 75 million Americans, or almost 25% of the population in the US, reside in rural areas. In this instance, “urban” is defined as urban areas and/or groups of urbanized areas having 50,000 or more people and urban clusters having at least 2,500 people but less than 50,000 people. Moreover, both of these areas should have a core area with a density of at least 1,000 people per square mile. Areas that do not fulfil these requirements are defined as rural, similar to the definition used by the US Census Bureau. At present, the Fatality Analysis Reporting Systems (FARS) made available by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) uses this US Census Bureau definition of “rural jurisdiction” for the purposes of analysing impaired driving fatality data, as described in more detail in the next section. These jurisdictions can be modified by states or counties based on their local alignments. Thus boundaries can be determined by state and local officials in cooperation with each other and approved by the Federal Highway Administration, leading to potential inconsistencies in how rural areas are defined by different states. (Author/publisher)
Abstract