Posted by: Alina Comoreanu

Drunk driving takes a terrible toll on the United States – one measured not only in dollars, but also far more importantly, in lives lost. It was to blame for 29% of motor vehicle fatalities in 2015, according to the latest data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. It claims roughly 10,000 lives per year. And it costs Americans more than $44 billion annually.

There is good news, though. Drunk-driving fatalities dropped by 57% from 1982 to 2014, according to the NHTSA, as states have cracked down on the practice. As a result, motor vehicle crashes are no longer among America’s top 10 causes of death.

But which states are taking the most aggressive stance toward “driving under the influence” (DUI) and “driving while intoxicated” (DWI)? To find out, WalletHub compared the drunk driving penalties in all 50 states and D.C. You can find a complete breakdown below.

1. Overall Rankings
2. Key Findings
3. Detailed Findings
4. Ask The Experts
5. Methodology

Overall Rankings

1=Strictest Embed on your website<iframe src="//d2e70e9yced57e.cloudfront.net/wallethub/embed/13549/geochart.html" width="556" height="347" frameBorder="0" scrolling="no"></iframe> <div style="width:556px;font-size:12px;color:#888;">Source: <a href="http://ift.tt/2vpEQk8;

Overall Rank (1=Strictest)	State	Total Score	Criminal Penalties Rank	Prevention Rank
1	Arizona	84.09%	1	2
2	Georgia	70.45%	2	19
3	Alaska	65.00%	3	15
4	Kansas	64.09%	3	19
4	Oklahoma	64.09%	5	11
6	Nebraska	61.82%	6	16
7	Connecticut	60.91%	7	8
8	Utah	60.45%	11	2
9	Delaware	55.91%	10	11
10	West Virginia	54.55%	9	25
11	Colorado	54.09%	14	6
12	Virginia	52.27%	14	11
13	Texas	51.36%	8	36
14	Louisiana	50.91%	14	16
15	Washington	50.45%	20	6
16	Oregon	49.55%	18	19
17	Florida	48.64%	24	5
18	Nevada	46.82%	23	11
19	Illinois	46.36%	31	4
19	Tennessee	46.36%	14	34
21	California	45.45%	19	31
22	Arkansas	43.64%	48	1
22	Massachusetts	43.64%	13	44
24	Iowa	42.73%	11	46
25	Kentucky	42.27%	27	19
26	Hawaii	41.82%	35	9
27	Minnesota	40.45%	27	28
27	South Carolina	40.45%	21	36
29	New Mexico	39.55%	35	19
29	New York	39.55%	24	33
31	New Hampshire	38.64%	35	24
32	Alabama	38.18%	35	25
33	Rhode Island	37.27%	24	38
34	Missouri	36.82%	40	28
35	Maine	36.36%	48	16
35	North Carolina	36.36%	27	38
37	Indiana	35.45%	31	35
37	Wisconsin	35.45%	46	25
37	Wyoming	35.45%	40	32
40	Montana	35.00%	21	47
41	Mississippi	34.09%	48	28
42	Vermont	33.64%	31	41
43	Michigan	30.91%	40	43
43	Pennsylvania	30.91%	46	38
45	New Jersey	30.45%	45	42
46	Maryland	30.00%	51	9
47	Idaho	29.55%	27	49
47	North Dakota	29.55%	40	45
49	Ohio	28.64%	35	47
50	District of Columbia	22.27%	31	50
51	South Dakota	20.45%	40	50

Back To Top

Key Findings

 

Embed on your website<a href="http://ift.tt/2vHBYBV; <img src="//d2e70e9yced57e.cloudfront.net/wallethub/posts/38401/dui-2017.png" width="" height="" alt="DUI 2017" /> </a> <div style="width:px;font-size:12px;color:#888;">Source: <a href="http://ift.tt/2vpEQk8;

 

Detailed Findings

Overall Rank	State	Min. Jail Time (1st conviction)	Min. Jail Time (2nd conviction)	DUI Is Automatic Felony	How Long Old DUI Factors Into Penalties	Administrative License Suspension	Vehicle Impound	Ignition Interlock Mandatory	Ignition Interlock Mandatory Period	Additional Penalties for High BAC	Mandatory Alcohol Assessment	Min. Fine (1st conviction)	Min. Fine (2nd conviction)	“No-Refusal” Sobriety Testing	Average Insurance Rate Increase After DUI	Child Endangerment Protection	Sobriety Checkpoints	Other Penalties	Total Score (See Methodology)
1	Arizona***	1 day	90 days	Third Offense	7 Years	90 days	Yes	1st conviction / BAC .08	12 months	above 0.15 BAC	Yes	$750	$1750	Yes	37%	Yes	Yes	Yes	84.09%
2	Georgia**	10 days	90 days	Fourth Offense	10 years	360 days	No	2nd conviction	12 months	above 0.15 BAC	Yes	$300	$600	Yes	47%	Yes	Yes	Yes	70.45%
3	Alaska	3 days	20 days	Third Offense	15 years	90 days	Yes	1st conviction / BAC .08	6 months	above 0.15 BAC	No	$1500	$3000	Yes	80%	Yes	No	No	65.00%
4	Kansas* ***	2 Days	90 days	Third Offense	10 years	30 days	No	1st conviction / BAC .08	6 months	above 0.15 BAC	Yes	$750	$1250	Yes	46%	Yes	Yes	Yes	64.09%
4	Oklahoma***	10 days	5 days	Second Offense	10 years	180 days	No	1st conviction / BAC .08	18 months	above 0.15 BAC	No	$0	$0	Yes	28%	Yes	Yes	Yes	64.09%
6	Nebraska	7 days	30 days	Fourth Offense	15 years	90 days	No	1st conviction / BAC .08	6 months	above 0.15 BAC	No	$500	$500	Yes	58%	Yes	Yes	Yes	61.82%
7	Connecticut*	2 days	120 days	Third Offense	10 years	90 days	No	1st conviction / BAC .08	12 months	above 0.16 BAC	Yes	$500	$1000	No	100%	Yes	Yes	Yes	60.91%
8	Utah***	2 days	10 days	Third Offense	10 years	120 days	Yes	1st conviction / BAC .08	18 months	above 0.16 BAC	Yes	$1370	$1560	Yes	39%	Yes	Yes	No	60.45%
9	Delaware***	No minimum sentence	60 days	Third Offense	10 years	90 days	No	1st conviction / BAC .08	14 months	above 0.16 BAC	Yes	$500	$750	Yes	31%	Yes	Yes	No	55.91%
10	West Virginia	No minimum sentence	180 days	Third Offense	10 years	180 days	No	1st conviction / BAC .15	4.17 months	above 0.15 BAC	Yes	$100	$1000	Yes	59%	Yes	Yes	No	54.55%
11	Colorado***	5 days	10 days	Fourth Offense	7 Years	90 days	No	1st conviction / BAC .08	8 months	above 0.15 BAC	Yes	$600	$600	Yes	34%	Yes	Yes	Yes	54.09%
12	Virginia	No minimum sentence	30 days	Third Offense	10 years	7 days	Yes	1st conviction / BAC .08	6 months	above 0.15 BAC	Yes	$250	$500	Yes	42%	Yes	Yes	No	52.27%
13	Texas*	3 days	30 days	Third Offense	For Life	90 days	Yes	2nd conviction	12 months	above 0.15 BAC	No	$0	$0	Yes	44%	Yes	No	No	51.36%
14	Louisiana* ***	2 days	30 days	Fourth Offense	10 years	45 days	No	1st conviction / BAC .08	12 months	above 0.15 BAC	Yes	$300	$750	Yes	62%	Yes	Yes	Yes	50.91%
15	Washington*	1 day	30 days	Fifth Offense	7 years	90 days	Yes	1st conviction / BAC .08	12 months	above 0.15 BAC	Yes	$940.5	$1195	Yes	28%	Yes	No	No	50.45%
16	Oregon* ***	2 days	8 days	Fourth Offense	10 years	90 days	No	1st conviction / BAC .08	12 months	above 0.15 BAC	Yes	$1000	$1500	No	26%	Yes	No	Yes	49.55%
17	Florida*	No minimum sentence	10 days	Third Offense	10 years	180 days	Yes	1st conviction / BAC .15	6 months	above 0.2 BAC	Yes	$500	$1000	Yes	40%	Yes	Yes	Yes	48.64%
18	Nevada***	2 days	10 days	Third Offense	7 years	90 days	No	1st conviction / BAC .08	3 months	above 0.18 BAC	Yes	$400	$750	Yes	29%	Yes	Yes	Yes	46.82%
19	Illinois	No minimum sentence	5 days	Third Offense	10 years	180 days	No	1st conviction / BAC .08	12 months	above 0.16 BAC	Yes	$0	$0	Yes	70%	Yes	Yes	Yes	46.36%
19	Tennessee	2 days	45 days	Fourth Offense	10 years	None	No	1st conviction / BAC .08	12 months	above 0.2 BAC	Yes	$350	$600	Yes	19%	Yes	Yes	No	46.36%
21	California	4 days	10 days	Fourth Offense	10 years	120 days	Yes	No	3 months	above 0.15 BAC	Yes	$390	$390	Yes	103%	Yes	Yes	No	45.45%
22	Arkansas***	1 day	7 days	Fourth Offense	5 years	180 days	Yes	1st conviction / BAC .08	12 months	above 0.15 BAC	Yes	$150	$400	No	68%	Yes	Yes	Yes	43.64%
22	Massachusetts	No minimum sentence	30 days	Third Offense	For Life	90 days	No	2nd conviction	24 months	above 0.2 BAC	No	$500	$600	No	67%	Yes	Yes	No	43.64%
24	Iowa**	2 Days	7 days	Third Offense	12 years	180 days	No	No	12 months	above 0.15 BAC	No	$625	$1875	No	60%	Yes	No	Yes	42.73%
25	Kentucky**	2 days	7 days	Fourth Offense	10 years	120 days	No	1st conviction / BAC .15	6 months	above 0.18 BAC	Yes	$200	$350	No	48%	Yes	Yes	Yes	42.27%
26	Hawaii	2 days	5 days	Fourth Offense	5 years	90 days	No	1st conviction / BAC .08	12 months	above 0.15 BAC	Yes	$150	$500	No	62%	Yes	Yes	Yes	41.82%
27	Minnesota***	No minimum sentence	2 days	Second Offense	10 years	90 days	No	1st conviction / BAC .15	12 months	above 0.16 BAC	Yes	$0	$0	Yes	37%	Yes	No	Yes	40.45%
27	South Carolina***	2 days	5 days	Fourth Offense	10 Years	30 days	No	1st conviction / BAC .15	6 months	above 0.15 BAC	Yes	$400	$2100	No	27%	Yes	Yes	Yes	40.45%
29	New Mexico	No minimum sentence	4 days	Fourth Offense	For Life	180 days	No	1st conviction / BAC .08	12 months	above 0.16 BAC	No	$0	$500	No	46%	No	Yes	Yes	39.55%
29	New York	No minimum sentence	5 days	Second Offense	10 years	30 days	No	1st conviction / BAC .08	6 months	above 0.18 BAC	Yes	$500	$1000	No	49%	Yes	Yes	No	39.55%
31	New Hampshire***	No minimum sentence	17 days	Fourth Offense	10 years	180 days	No	1st conviction / BAC .15	12 months	above 0.16 BAC	Yes	$500	$750	No	79%	Yes	Yes	No	38.64%
32	Alabama***	No minimum sentence	48 hours	Fourth Offense	5 years	90 days	No	2nd conviction	6 months	above 0.15 BAC	Yes	$600	$1100	Yes	54%	Yes	Yes	Yes	38.18%
33	Rhode Island	No minimum sentence	10 days	Third Offense	5 years	None	Yes	1st conviction / BAC .08	24 months	above 0.1 BAC	No	$100	$400	No	25%	Yes	No	Yes	37.27%
34	Missouri	No minimum sentence	No minimum sentence	Third Offense	5 years	90 days	No	2nd conviction	6 months	above 0.15 BAC	Yes	$0	$0	Yes	39%	Yes	Yes	Yes	36.82%
35	Maine	No minimum sentence	7 days	None Offense	10 years	90 days	No	1st conviction / BAC .08	5 months	above 0.15 BAC	Yes	$500	$700	Yes	56%	Yes	Yes	No	36.36%
35	North Carolina***	1 day	7 days	Fourth Offense	7 years	30 days	No	1st conviction / BAC .15	12 months	above 0.15 BAC	No	$200	$2000	Yes	112%	Yes	Yes	Yes	36.36%
37	Indiana	No minimum sentence	5 days	Second Offense	5 years	180 days	No	No	12 months	above 0.15 BAC	Yes	$0	$0	Yes	56%	Yes	Yes	No	35.45%
37	Wisconsin***	No minimum sentence	5 days	Fourth Offense	10 years	180 days	No	1st conviction / BAC .15	12 months	above 0.17 BAC	Yes	$150	$350	Yes	51%	Yes	No	No	35.45%
37	Wyoming	No minimum sentence	7 days	Fourth Offense	10 years	90 days	No	1st conviction / BAC .15	6 months	above 0.15 BAC	Yes	$0	$200	No	52%	Yes	No	Yes	35.45%
40	Montana	1 day	7 days	Fourth Offense	For Life	None	No	2nd conviction	6 months	above 0.16 BAC	Yes	$600	$1200	No	39%	Yes	No	Yes	35.00%
41	Mississippi	No minimum sentence	5 days	Third Offense	5 years	90 days	No	1st conviction / BAC .08	3 months	above 0 BAC	No	$250	$600	Yes	27%	Yes	Yes	Yes	34.09%
42	Vermont***	No minimum sentence	2.5 days	Third Offense	For Life	90 days	Yes	2nd conviction	0 months	above 0 BAC	Yes	$0	$0	No	67%	No	Yes	No	33.64%
43	Michigan	No minimum sentence	5 days	Third Offense	7 years	None	No	1st conviction / BAC .15	12 months	above 0.17 BAC	Yes	$100	$200	Yes	9%	Yes	No	Yes	30.91%
43	Pennsylvania*	No minimum sentence	5 days	None Offense	10 Years	None	No	1st conviction / BAC .10	12 months	above 0.1 BAC	Yes	$300	$300	Yes	25%	Yes	Yes	No	30.91%
45	New Jersey	No minimum sentence	2 days	None Offense	10 years	None	No	1st conviction / BAC .15	6 months	above 0.1 BAC	Yes	$250	$500	No	47%	Yes	Yes	Yes	30.45%
46	Maryland	No minimum sentence	5 days	None Offense	5 years	90 days	No	1st conviction / BAC .08	12 months	above 0 BAC	Yes	$0	$0	Yes	51%	Yes	Yes	No	30.00%
47	Idaho	No minimum sentence	10 days	Third Offense	10 years	90 days	No	No	12 months	above 0.2 BAC	No	$0	$0	Yes	43%	Yes	No	No	29.55%
47	North Dakota	No minimum sentence	10 days	Fourth Offense	7 years	91 days	No	No	1.1 months	above 0.18 BAC	Yes	$500	$1500	Yes	33%	Yes	Yes	Yes	29.55%
49	Ohio***	3 days	10 days	Fourth Offense	6 years	90 days	No	2nd conviction	1.1 months	above 0.17 BAC	No	$375	$525	Yes	31%	Yes	Yes	No	28.64%
50	District of Columbia	No minimum sentence	No minimum sentence	None Offense	15 years	90 days	No	No	0 months	above 0.2 BAC	No	$0	$2500	No	30%	Yes	Yes	No	22.27%
51	South Dakota	No minimum sentence	No minimum sentence	Third Offense	10 years	30 days	No	No	0 months	above 0.17 BAC	No	$0	$0	Yes	27%	No	Yes	Yes	20.45%

* These states offer Pre-Trial Diversion programs for first time offenders. The programs are often in the form of alcohol treatment/rehabilitation and are offered as an alternative to prosecution, eligibility may vary. ** In these states a judge can waive minimum sentence at his discretion. *** Minimum sentences can be reduced or waived by community service or drug / alcohol treatment / education.  

Ask The Experts: Combating Impaired Driving

The incidence of drunk driving has declined dramatically in the last three decades, but impaired drivers are still responsible for 10,000 deaths annually. Clearly more can be done to protect Americans from irresponsible motorists.

To find out how, we turned to panel of legal experts to help us understand the best options for keeping impaired drivers off the roads.

1. What are the major factors that are responsible for the decline in drunk driving fatalities since the 1980s?
2. What is the most effective policy that states should consider to reduce drunk driving rates further?
3. What steps can individuals take to prevent friends and loved ones from driving drunk?
4. Four states and D.C. have legalized the use of marijuana. Does marijuana impair driving, and how can law enforcement test for it?

< >

• Marisa E. Auguste Behavioral Analyst for the Connecticut Transportation Safety Research Center at the University of Connecticut
• Federico E. Vaca Professor of Emergency Medicine and in the Child Study Center at Yale School of Medicine
• Jonathan Adkins Executive Director of the Governors Highway Safety Association
• Maxwell Cameron Research Professor in the Monash University Accident Research Centre
• Samia Islam Associate Professor in the Department of Economics at Boise State University
• Ryan C. Smith Senior Research Associate in the Center for Vulnerable Road User Safety at Virginia Tech Transportation Institute

Marisa E. Auguste Behavioral Analyst for the Connecticut Transportation Safety Research Center at the University of Connecticut What are the major factors that are responsible for the decline in drunk driving fatalities since the 1980s? There have been a great many advancements in transportation safety that have been made since the 1980s that have contributed to the decline in motor vehicle collisions. Car manufactures have implemented numerous safety features into vehicles, engineers have redesigned infrastructure to make it more functional for all road users, and legislation has been updated to try and deter risky driving behavior. All of these positive changes could, hopefully, result in decline in all fatalities, including DUI related. Increased awareness/education, updated legislation and enforcement efforts from the police are all factors that are correlated with reducing crash fatalities. More research is now available regarding the effects of alcohol on motorist’s ability to drive. In 1980, if someone was pulled over and found to be under the influence, the officer may have taken the keys and requested the person “sleep it off” before driving again. This would not be the case today, however. Now that police and the public are more informed about the dangers of drunk driving and legislation has changed to better support law enforcement in their efforts, great strides have been made. What is the most effective policy that states should consider to reduce drunk driving rates further? I don’t know that there is one policy that is the most effective, it’s more so multiple variables, such as legislation, enforcement and education, working in conjunction to reduce impaired driving. However, in my opinion, public education and enforcement can only do so much to change driver behavior. Legislation has to follow through on these cases and ensure the offenders are punished accordingly. Society has been conditioned for a long time under the ideology that driving drunk is acceptable. To change that behavior, the consequences that arise when the behavior is exhibited must be swift and consistent. The change in legislation in Connecticut in 2015 requiring first time DUI offenders to install an Ignition Interlock Device in their vehicles is a great example of this and has been effective in other states, according to recent research (Ullman, 2016). Now these offenders, who may be repeat offenders but haven’t been caught before, know they won’t be getting a slap on the wrist. What steps can individuals take to prevent friends and loved ones from driving drunk? Be a good example! People tend to adopt similar practices and behaviors of their peer groups simply because they are with them the majority of the time (this is especially true with younger adults and teens). Also, we usually align ourselves with likeminded individuals to begin with. If a person demonstrates safe driving practices, such as not driving impaired and always designating a sober driver when they do drink, their friends and family will be encouraged to do the same. Also, make sure to hold each other and yourself accountable for your behavior. Four states and D.C. have legalized the use of marijuana. Does marijuana impair driving, and how can law enforcement test for it? Absolutely, the THC in marijuana does have an impact on a motorist’s ability to safely operate their vehicle. Currently, in Connecticut we are experiencing a lot of incidents of poly-drug use, where motorists have several different drugs and/or alcohol in their system at the same time or instances of individuals believing they have received marijuana but it has been laced with another drug, such as PCP. If you don’t even know what drugs you are ingesting, how can you possibly know how they will affect you and your driving ability? In Connecticut, we have our Drug Recognition Experts among our law enforcement who are specifically trained to perform comprehensive physiological testing on motorists who are suspected of driving while impaired. Unfortunately, legislation has yet to really catch up with the legalization of marijuana. There is no national standard for determining impairment of drugs in motorists; many of the specifics and clarification in the law that are in place to determine alcohol impairment do not yet exist for marijuana impairment. Source: Ullman, D.F. (2016). Locked not loaded: First time offenders and state ignition interlock programs. International Review of Law and Economics, 45, p. 1-13. Federico E. Vaca Professor of Emergency Medicine and in the Child Study Center at Yale School of Medicine What are the major factors that are responsible for the decline in drunk driving fatalities since the 1980s? Multifactorial:

• Social norms have changed considerably;
• Policies – state and federal including those focused on adolescent and young adult drivers;
• Vehicle engineering  – massive improvements in safety and driver/occupant protection technologies – this continues to improve;
• Public education;
• Improvements in emergency medical services and emergency/trauma care systems.

What is the most effective policy that states should consider to reduce drunk driving rates further? There are several policies that have been very effective. There is a great resource that is regularly published by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration of the US-DOT. These are evidence based countermeasures that do include policy components. What steps can individuals take to prevent friends and loved ones from driving drunk? Within your family and social groups, make it socially unacceptable to drink and drive (not even one drink is safe to get behind the wheel) and be vocal about it with family and friends in a caring and loving manner. If you know you are going to drink, don’t drive. Use a car device. Recently, MADD and Uber have partnered and reported on some of their results and the implications this could have/is having on impaired driving. Four states and D.C. have legalized the use of marijuana. Does marijuana impair driving, and how can law enforcement test for it? This is already a massive challenge on so many fronts and unfortunately, I am confident that this is only going to get more complicated on the public health and the state/federal policy side. Marijuana does impair driving and you also need to consider the combination of marijuana and alcohol, which is a major recipe for disaster. Jonathan Adkins Executive Director of the Governors Highway Safety Association What are the major factors that are responsible for the decline in drunk driving fatalities since the 1980s? With the combination of strong laws, education, and enforcement, the perception of alcohol-impaired driving shifted. It used to be seen as something that you probably shouldn’t do, but it’s ok if it happens. Strong advocacy and the message that alcohol-impaired driving is dangerous for everyone helped to change the cultural perception of getting behind the wheel of a car under the influence. What is the most effective policy that states should consider to reduce drunk driving rates further? There is no silver bullet when it comes to saving lives due to impaired driving. States need to have a combination of laws that are supported by enforcement and education efforts. Once an offender has been identified, it is important that they receive an appropriate level of assessment and treatment to help address any underlying issues that could cause them to re-offend. What steps can individuals take to prevent friends and loved ones from driving drunk? Whenever there is the possibility that someone may drive impaired, make sure to have a plan in place that includes a sober driver or using alternate transportation such as a taxi, Uber, or public transit. Open and honest communication about the dangers - personal, financial, social - associated with impaired driving will hopefully make someone think twice. Four states and D.C. have legalized the use of marijuana. Does marijuana impair driving, and how can law enforcement test for it? The purpose of a drug is to affect physical or mental conditions of an individual. Any drug can impair an individual’s ability to operate a motor vehicle and someone under the influence of a drug should be aware that they could be operating a vehicle in an unsafe manner. There are tests available to law enforcement that identify if an individual has any drugs in their system, but most of those are not available on the roadside. Many agencies across the country rely on specially trained law enforcement officers called Drug Recognition Experts (DRE). These DRE-certified officers have undergone intense training that allows them to recognize that an individual is impaired and is able to identify the categories of drugs causing the impairment. Maxwell Cameron Research Professor in the Monash University Accident Research Centre What are the major factors that are responsible for the decline in drunk driving fatalities since the 1980s? The major factor responsible for the decline in drunk driver fatalities in Australia was the introduction of random breath testing (RBT), initially in Victoria in July 1976 and in all other states during the next few years. There were also increased sanctions in 1978 and the introduction of "booze bus" testing stations for RBT in 1990, allowing many more passing drivers to be tested by a team of probationary constables. RBT is different from other forms of traffic enforcement in that it relies on general deterrence (raising the perceived risk of detection) rather than specific deterrence (apprehending and punishing offenders to deter re-offending). Thus it is not always well understood or accepted by traditional police managers. What steps can individuals take to prevent friends and loved ones from driving drunk? The most effective process to discourage drunk driving by a friend is to emphasize that there is a non-zero chance of being detected by the police (even in the absence of RBT) and that the sanctions are severe (license disqualification, alcohol interlock fitted to car when relicensed, social stigma of each of these). Research shows that the perceived risk of detection does not need to be high, only a perception that it exists, for drunk drivers to change their behavior. RBT and its visibility to other passing drivers magnifies that perception. Four states and D.C. have legalized the use of marijuana. Does marijuana impair driving, and how can law enforcement test for it? Methamphetamine ("ice") and MDMA ("ecstasy") appear to be associated with higher crash risks than THC. All states in Australia have now introduced roadside oral fluid testing for each of these three drugs, usually by selecting drivers at random as part of RBT, but also targeted operations. Early results suggest that random drug testing has similar deterrent effects as RBT, but the scale of testing is still much smaller due to the cost of the roadside tests and the time delay imposed on tested drivers (5-6 minutes compared with less than 1 minute for a RBT). Samia Islam Associate Professor in the Department of Economics at Boise State University What are the major factors that are responsible for the decline in drunk driving fatalities since the 1980s? There are a number of simultaneous policies and efforts that have contributed to a decline in drunk driving fatalities. When it comes to deterring impaired driving, the significant factors are likely to be the enforcement of impaired driving laws: raising of the BAC limit and zero tolerance for underage impaired driving. The 1980s was pivotal in raising concern over the social costs of impaired driving -- MADD gave prominence (and urgency) to drunk driving and its associated costs; ignition interlock devices were introduced in the late 1980s; National Minimum Drinking Age Act required raised the drinking age to 21 in 1984. In the 1990s, Zero Tolerance legislation was passed. Some studies find that this legislation is particularly effective as a deterrent to impaired driving, especially among young drivers. By 2004, BAC of 0.08 became the national limit for impaired driving. Perhaps the most significant factor is the number of DUI arrests, nationwide. According to DOJ, DUI arrests increased more than 200% between the 1970s and 1980s, and reached a peak in 1983. Fatalities in vehicle crashes have decreased in general, as have DUI fatalities, partly due to safer vehicles that are better equipped to withstand the impact of crashes. What is the most effective policy that states should consider to reduce drunk driving rates further?

• Zero tolerance and DUI laws, and enforcement of said laws may continue to be the most effective policy measures for states.
• Mass media campaigns have been found to be effective among younger drivers.
• Ignition interlock has been popular among some states since 2012.

What steps can individuals take to prevent friends and loved ones from driving drunk? What is perhaps most critical in an individual’s decision to drive while intoxicated is the inaccurate assessment of the risks involved with that choice. This assessment can be improved through information sharing and raising awareness about the potential costs. Four states and D.C. have legalized the use of marijuana. Does marijuana impair driving, and how can law enforcement test for it? The 2010 Driving Under the Influence of Drugs, Alcohol and Medicines (DRUID) study of 9 European countries found that THC (from ingesting marijuana) does increase the likelihood of crashes over sober driving (1-3 times) but by a factor substantially lower than alcohol-related impairment (20 – 200 times higher risk). More recently, NHTSA conducted a study (2015) where they examined crash risk analyses incorporating adjustments for age, gender, ethnicity, and alcohol concentration level did not show a significant increase in levels of crash risk associated with the presence of (legal or illegal) drugs, leading the researchers to conclude that these demographic variables are highly correlated with drug use and thus contribute to the increased risk. A meta-analysis of other studies that have reported elevated risk of crashes for drivers testing positive for THC lead to a pooled risk of about 1.9 – 2 times that of sober drivers. It is important to note that the detection method for THC (whether it is from self-report; oral, blood or urine samples) can affect this assessment – one reason why some studies find a relatively elevated risk while some others don’t, not to mention any self-selection bias in the data used. Typically, oral specimens (saliva) is used to detect THC. It is not perfect (tends to get contaminated) but more reliable ‘breathalyzer’ type tests aren’t yet available. One important difference between alcohol and THC type drugs is that THC presence may not indicate current impairment. Ryan C. Smith Senior Research Associate in the Center for Vulnerable Road User Safety at Virginia Tech Transportation Institute What are the major factors that are responsible for the decline in drunk driving fatalities since the 1980s? It is true that alcohol-related and non-alcohol-related fatalities have decreased significantly since the 1980s. This can be attributed to a number of safety improvements including technological and safety advances in vehicles and roadways. For example, consider all of the safety features in vehicles today including better materials, anti-lock brakes, air bags, and crash mitigation technologies such as forward collision warning. Since all driving fatalities have decreased, the real question is if the percentage of fatalities that are alcohol related has decreased. Indeed, this was observed from 1982-1997. The percentage of traffic fatalities involving an impaired driver decreased from 48% in 1982 to 30% in 1997. Unfortunately, this percentage has not dropped significantly since 1997. Early progress between 1982 and 1997 has been attributed to a number of factors such as lower blood alcohol concentration (BAC) limits, administrative license revocation, raising the minimum drinking age to 21, and high visibility enforcement. Social factors such as increased public awareness and activism (e.g., Mothers Against Drunk Driving), reductions in per capita alcohol consumption, and socioeconomic conditions (e.g., unemployment rates, age of drivers, etc.) have also all played an important role. What is the most effective policy that states should consider to reduce drunk driving rates further? An expert panel was convened from members of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), Transportation Research Board (TRB), Alcohol, Other Drugs, and Transportation Committee (ANB50) to examine this very question. The panel voted to determine its top three strategies to resume progress in reducing drunk driving. First, we recommended imposing administrative sanctions for drivers with BACs ranging from 0.05 to 0.08 g/dL. Many countries around the world have a 0.05 g/dL legal limit (or lower), and the National Transportation Safety Board has even recommended all states reduce their legal limit to 0.05 g/dL. Second, require ignition interlocks for all alcohol-impaired offenders. Ignition interlocks have been consistently associated with lower rates of drunk driving while they are installed. Additional states need to enact sound ignition interlock policies. And, third, increase the frequency of sobriety checkpoints. Currently, 11 states prohibit sobriety checkpoints. Legislation should be adopted in these states to allow checkpoints; and checkpoints should be increased in jurisdictions where they are allowed. What steps can individuals take to prevent friends and loved ones from driving drunk? Our research at Virginia Tech found that nearly 1 in 3 self-reporting drivers over the legal limit to operate a motor vehicle (BAC ≥ .08 g/dL) believe their BAC is under this limit. Furthermore, the average BAC of a “designated driver” was 0.063 g/dL in our field study of more than 10,000 participants. This is a BAC where impairment is likely. Interestingly, out of designated drivers who consumed alcohol, females were significantly less likely to be impaired at a BAC of .05 g/dL or greater (40.8%) as compared to males (60.2%). The bottom line is that many well-intentioned individuals do not realize that they are over the legal limit to drive. You should encourage loved ones to find designated drivers who are fully committed to not consuming any alcoholic beverages. Our friends and loved ones need to understand that while we may feel safe to drive after drinking, we are often unaware of our level of intoxication. Smart drinking decisions should be made prior to the first drink and we should all consider not consuming any alcohol if we will be driving. Four states and D.C. have legalized the use of marijuana. Does marijuana impair driving, and how can law enforcement test for it? The relationship between marijuana and driving performance is complex and the limited research in this area is often misrepresented by advocates on both sides of marijuana legalization. The effects of marijuana undoubtedly impair driving. However, individuals high from marijuana will often overestimate their level impairment and compensate by engaging in protective driving behaviors. For example, drivers under the influence of marijuana will have slower reaction times. Yet, they will also tend to increase the following distance with the vehicle in front of them to compensate for their impairment. While drivers under the influence of marijuana will experience detriments to driving performance, it may not manifest as a greater crash risk because of these compensation techniques. Further research is desperately needed to understand the impacts of marijuana on driving performance and crash risk. This is particularly true when attempting to set per se legal limits for THC. The Virginia Tech Transportation Institute (VTTI) is currently conducting research in Colorado to better understand the effects of marijuana on actual driving performance. We are conducting the first naturalistic driving study of marijuana impairment, and it will provide desperately needed answers on the traffic safety effects of marijuana. The detection challenges for marijuana are numerous. Standardized Field Sobriety Tests (SFSTs) were designed to assess alcohol intoxication and are only minimally effective at detecting marijuana impairment. Drug Recognition Experts (DREs) provide one specialized mechanism for the detection of drugged drivers. DREs are police officers that go through intensive training and evaluation to become certified at identifying individuals impaired by drugs. This is a highly valuable training, but it is time and cost intensive for states. Many states do not have a sufficient number (if any) of trained DREs, and this is becoming a significant problem. There are a lot of misconceptions about drug tests for marijuana and how long marijuana can be detected in someone’s system. This is uniquely challenging because there is no marijuana equivalent for a breathalyzer and THC levels do not directly correspond to driver impairment. Many people are familiar with urine tests for detecting marijuana. However, urine tests only detect the non-psychoactive 11-nor-9-carboxy-THC (THCCOOH) which can be detected months after smoking or ingesting marijuana. Blood and oral fluid tests are able to detect the psychoactive Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). This is more directly associated with physiological impairment and can be detected anywhere from a few hours to, potentially, a few days after smoking or ingesting marijuana.

Methodology

WalletHub examined 15 key metrics to identify the strictest and most lenient states for DUI offenses.

The metrics we used and our weighting of them are detailed below. Please note that in considering minimum penalties for DUI conviction, we did not take into account a judge’s potential ability to reduce or suspend the sentence at his or her own discretion, as doing so would reflect unreliable subjectivity, especially given the lack of data on the frequency with which judges exercise this option.

Criminal Penalties:

1. A) Minimum jail time (for 1st conviction, minimum sentence only)
   • 10 days and over (10 points)
   • 8 - 9 days (8 points)
   • 6 -7 days (6 points)
   • 4 - 5 days (4 points)
   • 2 – 3 days (2 points)
   • 0 - 1 day (0 points)

   B) Minimum jail time (for 2nd conviction, minimum sentence only)

   • 60 days and over (7 points)
   • 50 - 59 days (6 points)
   • 40 - 49 days (5 points)
   • 30 - 39 days (4 points)
   • 20 - 29 days (3 points)
   • 10 - 19 days (1 point)
   • Under 10 days (0 points)

    

2. When is DUI automatically considered a felony?
   • 2nd offense (5 points)
   • 3rd offense (4 points)
   • 4th offense (2 points)
   • 5th offense (1 point)
   • Never (0 points)

    

3. How long does a previous DUI factor into penalties for a new DUI?
   • More than 12 years (4 points)
   • 12 years (3 points)
   • 10 years (2 points)
   • 7 years (1 point)
   • Under 7 years (0 points)

    

4. Are there additional penalties for high BAC?
   • Over 0.10 (3 points)
   • Over 0.15 (2 points)
   • Over 0.16 or higher (1 point)
   • No (0 points)

    

5. A) Minimum fine (for 1st conviction, minimum sentence only)
   • $1000 and over (3 points)
   • $600 - $999 (2 points)
   • $200 - $599 (1 point)
   • Under $200 (0 points)

   B) Minimum fine (for 2nd conviction, minimum sentence only)

   • $2000 and over (2 points)
   • $1200 - $1999 (1 point)
   • $400 - $1199 (0.5 points)
   • Under $400 (0 points)

    

6. Protection against child endangerment
   • Yes (1 point)
   • No (0 points)

Prevention:

1. When is an ignition interlock mandatory?
   • 1st conviction with 0.08 BAC (5 points)
   • 1st conviction with 0.10 BAC (4 points)
   • 1st conviction with 0.15 BAC (3 points)
   • 2nd conviction (2 points)
   • Not mandatory (0 points)

    

2. Is there an “administrative” license suspension after arrest (and before conviction)?
   • 120 days or more (4 points)
   • 90-120 days (3 points)
   • Less than 90 days (1 point)
   • No (0 points)

    

3. How long is ignition interlock mandatory?
   • 6 months or more (3 points)
   • 3-6 months (2 points)
   • Ignition interlock period determined by court (1 point)

    

4. Is alcohol abuse assessment and/or treatment mandatory?
   • Yes (2 points)
   • No (0 points)

    

5. Vehicle Impound After Arrest
   • Yes (2 points)
   • No (0 points)

    

6. Average insurance rate increase after DUI.
   • 100% or more increased cost (1 point)
   • Above 75% increase in cost (0.75 points)
   • Above 50% increase in cost (0.50 points)
   • Above 25% increase in cost (0.25 points)
   • Under 25% increase in cost (0 points)

    

7. “No-refusal” initiative for rapid search warrants for sobriety testing
   • Yes (1 point)
   • No (0 points)

    

8. Sobriety checkpoints
   • Yes (1 point)
   • No (0 points)

    

9. Other penalties
   • If a state has any other penalties (1 point)
   • No other penalties (0 points)

Total: 55 points

The final rankings were determined based on the total number of points each state accumulated. The highest score, correlating to the strictest state, was ranked first. Point totals were ultimately converted to percentages for comparison purposes.

from Wallet HubWallet Hub


via Finance Xpress