Methods Employed by ASAP Enforcement Countermeasures to Record the Behavior of Drinking Drivers
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 1975 report, prepared for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), evaluates the methods used by Alcohol Safety Action Projects (ASAPs) to record the behavior of drinking drivers. The study was motivated by the need to assess how law enforcement agencies documented violations to support judicial proceedings and achieve ASAP objectives: reducing alcohol-related accidents, lowering average blood-alcohol concentrations, and decreasing the number of drinking drivers. The research focused on the "recording configuration," defined as the period from initial detection through arrest and processing, aiming to determine the state of the art in evidence collection techniques. The methodology involved a 14-month empirical study conducted by Planning and Human Systems, Inc. Researchers visited 22 ASAP sites across the continental United States, surveying over 50 law enforcement agencies. The team, comprising former law enforcement officers, spent an average of 42 days per site conducting observations, interviews, and document collection. They utilized a comprehensive Field Survey Instrument to gather data on enforcement processes, from detection to incarceration. The study specifically examined three recording methods: written documentation (forms and reports), video tape recording (VTR), and audio recording. The findings revealed that written documentation was the universal recording method across all sites, typically utilizing modified versions of the National Safety Council’s Alcoholic Influence Report Form. In contrast, VTR was an experimental technology adopted by only 15 of the 22 sites (68%). Of these, four agencies had pre-existing equipment, while eleven purchased systems specifically for ASAPs. Despite this initial adoption, only two sites—Los Angeles County, California, and Hennepin County, Minnesota—continued using VTR at the time of the survey; the other 13 had abandoned the practice. The report details the high costs of VTR systems, ranging from approximately $7,650 to $10,425 per agency, and notes that while VTR offered objective visual and aural evidence of impairment and procedural compliance, its implementation faced significant operational challenges. Audio recording was also noted as an innovative but less widespread alternative. The significance of this report lies in its detailed documentation of early attempts to integrate technology into drunk driving enforcement. It highlights the tension between the theoretical benefits of objective recording methods and the practical realities of law enforcement operations, including cost, equipment reliability, and administrative willingness. The study underscores that while written records remained the standard, the failure of most sites to sustain VTR programs indicated substantial barriers to technological adoption in the mid-1970s. This analysis provides critical historical context for the evolution of DUI enforcement protocols and the eventual standardization of video evidence in modern traffic law.
Key finding
Video tape recording was available in 68% of the surveyed ASAP sites, but only two sites continued to use it at the time of the survey while the remaining 13 had abandoned the practice.
Methodology
field_study
Sample size: 22
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).
| Stage | Outcome | Tool | Model | Prompt | Attempts | Completed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| discover | success | rosap | — | — | 2 | 2026-05-23 |
| archive | success | — | — | — | 1 | 2026-05-23 |
| extract | success | cached | — | — | 2 | 2026-06-10 |
| clean | success | — | — | — | 1 | 2026-06-01 |
| chunk | success | — | — | — | 1 | 2026-06-01 |
| embed | success | — | — | — | 1 | 2026-06-02 |
| enrich | success | — | — | — | 1 | 2026-05-23 |
| promote | success | — | — | — | 1 | 2026-05-23 |
| summarize | success | llm | qwen3.6-27b-prismaquant | summ-v5 | 3 | 2026-06-10 |
| tag | success | vector_similarity | — | — | 19 | 2026-06-11 |
| verify | success | — | — | — | 2 | 2026-06-10 |
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.
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).
- Methodological Resource: measurement protocol