Experimental Testing of Designated Driver Cues

Lange, James E.; Baker, Tara Kelley; Johnson, Mark · 2000 · 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 study investigates the efficacy of cueing individuals to identify a designated driver as a method to reduce drunk driving, specifically addressing the psychological impediment of "mindlessness." While the designated-driver concept is theoretically promising for harm reduction, previous research indicates that implementation is often flawed due to factors such as post-consumption designation, permissive nonabstinence, and tolerance-based selection. The authors hypothesized that travelers often approach drinking locations with automated routines that fail to activate conscious consideration of safe driving alternatives. Consequently, this pilot study tested whether an external cue—asking participants to identify their designated driver upon arrival at a drinking location—could counteract this mindlessness and promote proper implementation of the concept. The experiment was conducted at the San Ysidro border crossing, where thousands of young San Diegans cross into Tijuana for weekend binge drinking. Researchers sampled groups of crossers as they arrived on the Mexico side and offered incentives for them to check in upon departure. Participants were randomly assigned to either a cue condition or a neutral condition. In the cue condition, groups were asked, "Who will be your designated driver tonight?" upon arrival. All participants underwent alcohol breath tests upon both arrival and departure. The study included 404 participants who checked in upon return, comprising 65 groups in the cue condition and 56 groups in the neutral condition. This design allowed for the analysis of blood alcohol concentration (BAC) levels and the assessment of whether the cue influenced drinking behavior or driver selection. The results indicated that merely cueing subjects about the use of a designated driver was insufficient to change drinking behavior or significantly alter BAC levels. While 87.8% of cued groups identified a designated driver without discussion, suggesting prior determination, there was no significant difference in the drinking patterns or returning BACs between cued and noncued drivers. Furthermore, 33 designated drivers across both conditions had consumed alcohol, with average returning BACs ranging from 0.04 to 0.06. Notably, participants who were initially assigned the role of designated driver but failed to act as such upon return had significantly higher BACs than those who maintained the role. The study also found that male passengers had significantly higher returning BACs than female passengers, but the cue itself did not mitigate this disparity. The study concludes that simple awareness cues are inadequate for ensuring the proper implementation of the designated-driver concept. The findings highlight persistent flaws in application, such as drivers consuming alcohol and groups failing to designate abstinent drivers before drinking. The authors suggest that future interventions must address deeper rational and nonrational impediments, including behavioral inertia, normative pressure, and reactance. Potential strategies include cueing at the point of drinking, changing attitudes toward drunk driving, altering the attractiveness of alternatives, and leveraging normative pressure through attitude change. The research underscores the complexity of modifying drinking-related behaviors and the need for more robust interventions beyond simple reminders.

Key finding

Cueing participants to identify a designated driver did not significantly reduce blood alcohol concentrations for drivers or passengers compared to a neutral control group.

Methodology

field_study

Sample size: 404

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.

Topics

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

• dui enforcement