|
pF I)fC
<br /> 0. Guidepost
<br /> Public Education and Programs
<br /> Alcohol and Drugs
<br /> Education revolving around alcohol and drug use while operating vehicles should be a priority for the City. Impaired
<br /> driving crash rates and severity were disproportionately high when compared to cities with a similar population
<br /> makeup. Due to the high amount and severity of these crashes this should be a top priority for the City. The crashes
<br /> involved both driver and/or pedestrian intoxication. Creating campaigns that promote safer forms of travel for
<br /> intoxicated patrons such as ridesharing would improve safety. The Tavern League of Wisconsin implemented a
<br /> program paying for an intoxicated patron's ride home. After this program was implemented, Wisconsin saw a 44%
<br /> decrease in Operating While Intoxicated (OWI) convictions and nearly a 50% decline in alcohol-related fatalities. The
<br /> nearly $1 million cost of the program is shared by Tavern League members and funds generated by surcharges on
<br /> OWI convictions. In 1999, Wisconsin Act 109 established a surcharge on every Wisconsin OWI conviction to be used
<br /> for alternative transportation from Class B licensed establishments to a customer's home. The Tavern League office
<br /> administers this program with the Department of Transportation oversight.
<br /> Established by Illinois Public Act 101-0196, the Driving Under the Influence (DUI) Prevention and Education
<br /> Commission is composed of five members, each representing one of the following agencies:the Illinois Department
<br /> of Human Services,the Illinois Department of Transportation,the Illinois State Police,the Office of the Illinois State's
<br /> Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor, and the Office of the Illinois Secretary of State. The Commission convenes
<br /> periodically as needed to assess and implement effective impaired driving countermeasure programs. These
<br /> programs are funded by a portion of DUI fines from the DUI Prevention and Education Fund,with the goal of reducing
<br /> the incidence of impaired driving on Illinois roads and minimizing related crashes, injuries, and fatalities by funding
<br /> grant opportunities to local groups.
<br /> Another education campaign that could help reduce impaired driving in the younger population is performing a mock
<br /> drunk driving car crash for high school and college students. Many schools in the United States perform these mock
<br /> crashes to show students the consequences of impaired driving. These are often performed before nights that would
<br /> have increased student drinking such as prom, homecoming,or graduation night. A study reviewed and confirmed by
<br /> the Institutional Review Board of the University of Illinois College of Medicines showed that students were 1.39 times
<br /> less likely to report drinking and driving in the future or that they would get into a car with someone who would drive
<br /> drunk. Students were 1.7 times more likely to report thinking about the risks associated with drinking and driving after
<br /> participating in the program.
<br /> Lastly,sobriety checkpoints are a highly effective but costly countermeasure to decrease impaired driving.The CDC's
<br /> systematic review of 15 high-quality studies found that checkpoints reduce alcohol-related fatal crashes by 9°%o.6
<br /> Another analysis found that checkpoints reduce alcohol-related crashes by 17%.'A California study8 suggests that
<br /> high-visibility sobriety checkpoints deter drinking and driving in a community for approximately one week, but these
<br /> effects do not persist past that interval. It is also important that the implementation of checkpoints must be highly
<br /> visible and intensively publicized so that the population who may not directly encounter the checkpoints are still aware
<br /> Hafner, John W et al. "The effect of a community crash reenactment program on teen alcohol awareness and behavior."
<br /> Adolescent health, medicine and therapeutics vol. 10 83-90. 10 Jul. 2019,doi:10.2147/AHMT.S191079
<br /> 6 Bergen, G., Pitan, A., Qu, S., Shults, R. A., Chattopadhyay, S. K., Elder, R. W., Sleet, D. A., Coleman, H. L., Compton, R. P.,
<br /> Nichols, J. L., Clymer, J. M., Calvert, W. B., & the Community Preventive Services Task Force. (2014). Publicized sobriety
<br /> checkpoint programs:A community guide systematic review.American Journal of Preventive Medicine,46(5),529-539.
<br /> Erke, A., Goldenbeld, C., &Vaa, T. (2009). The effects of drink-driving checkpoints on crashes—A meta-analysis. Accident
<br /> Analysis& Prevention,41(5),914-923.
<br /> 8 Morrison,C.N.,Ferris,J.,Wiebe,D.J., Peek-Asa,C.,&Branas,C.C.(2019).Sobriety checkpoints and alcohol-involved motor
<br /> vehicle crashes at different temporal scales.American Journal of Preventive Medicine,56(6),795-802.
<br /> Kapur Page 37 of 81
<br /> all in
<br />
|