Potential Enforcement, Adjudication and Public Information Strategies for the General Deterrence of Driving While Intoxicated

Anderson, Theodore E.; Compton, Richard P.; Snyder, Monroe B.; Engle, Ron E. · 1983 · ROSA P / United States. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

archive: archived pipeline: cataloged verified

Get this paper ↗ (full text — opens at the source; we link to it, we don't host it)

Summary

This 1983 NHTSA technical note, authored by Anderson, Compton, Snyder, and Engle, outlines potential strategies for the general deterrence of driving while intoxicated (DWI). The research is motivated by the premise that general deterrence can reduce DWI-related deaths and injuries by influencing the behavior of the broad population of potential drinking drivers, rather than just those already apprehended. The core theoretical framework posits that deterrence relies on raising the public’s perception of risk across five specific factors: the risk of being observed by police, stopped, identified as impaired, punished, and the perceived severity of the penalty. The authors argue that effective programs must address all five components to prevent drivers from exploiting "weak links" in enforcement. The paper presents a review and classification of enforcement, adjudication, and public information techniques designed to be implemented without requiring excessive long-term resources. The authors developed an analytic framework to describe each technique based on its general deterrence objectives, critical use features, critical assumptions, special advantages, and public information and education (PI&E) tie-ins. The techniques are categorized into five groups: Deployment (e.g., highly visible or unobtrusive patrols at high DWI accident/incidence locations, drinking establishments, and roadblocks); Detection and Screening (e.g., improved detection procedures, psychomotor tests, preliminary breath tests, and citizen reporting); Improved Processing (e.g., audio/video tapes, four-hour lock-ups, and vehicle impoundment); Sanctioning (e.g., administrative per se laws, short-term license suspensions, mandatory minimum sentences, and victim restitution); and Additional Public Information Themes. The document details how each technique is expected to influence driver risk perception, using a rating system to indicate effectiveness. For instance, deployment strategies like roadblocks and visible patrols at high-accident locations are rated as highly effective for increasing the perceived risk of being stopped and observed. Detection methods, such as preliminary breath tests and improved psychomotor tests, are highlighted for increasing the perceived likelihood of being identified as impaired. Sanctioning strategies, including severe penalties and administrative license suspensions, are noted for enhancing the perceived severity of consequences. The report emphasizes that public information campaigns must accompany these enforcement actions to ensure the driving public is aware of the increased risks and specific procedures, thereby reinforcing the deterrent effect through media reports and community outreach. The significance of this work lies in its systematic approach to designing general deterrence programs that are both effective and sustainable. By linking specific enforcement and adjudication tactics to psychological risk perception factors, the paper provides a blueprint for policymakers and law enforcement agencies to select and implement strategies that maximize deterrence. The authors caution that implementation must consider legal, political, and civic constraints within specific jurisdictions. The report serves as a preliminary guide for field tests intended to evaluate the effectiveness of these combined enforcement and public information strategies in reducing drunk driving.

Key finding

The document provides a structured classification of enforcement and adjudication techniques based on their expected effectiveness in influencing specific components of driver risk perception rather than presenting empirical results from a completed field study.

Methodology

review

Provenance

The full processing record for this entry. Every stage of this paper's journey through the pipeline is logged — what ran, with which tool and model, how many attempts it took, and when it last completed. Discovered via bulk_ingest_rosap on 2026-05-23 (6 acquisition events logged).

Summary generated by qwen3.6-27b-prismaquant on 2026-06-10; verification: verified_with_issues.

Topics

Ranked by relevance to this paper. Hover a topic for its definition.

• dui enforcement
• public messaging
• drowsy as impairment

Information type

What kind of knowledge this paper contributes, grouped by family — independent of topic (what it is about) and method (how it was studied).

• Applied Guidance: countermeasure evaluation, policy recommendations