Observational Study of the Extent of Driving While Suspended for Alcohol-Impaired Driving

McCartt, Anne Taylor; Nissen, W. J. · 2002 · ROSA P / United States. Department of Transportation. 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 addresses the prevalence and circumstances of driving while suspended among first-time alcohol-impaired driving offenders, a behavior previously documented primarily through self-reports or arrest data. The research aimed to determine the extent of driving during suspension compared to periods when licenses were valid, as well as the transportation patterns and motivations of offenders. The study was motivated by the need for objective, unobtrusive observational data to assess whether license suspensions effectively deter driving and to understand compliance behaviors in different legal contexts. The researchers conducted a systematic observational study in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and Bergen County, New Jersey, selecting sites with distinct alcohol-impaired driving laws. Milwaukee offered occupational licenses for many offenders, while New Jersey imposed "hard" suspensions with no occupational licenses and stricter penalties for driving while suspended. Surveillance professionals from Pinkerton Investigative Services observed 93 subjects (57 in Milwaukee, 36 in Bergen County) during two four-hour periods: one weekday morning and one weekend evening. Observations occurred during the final month of suspension and, for those reinstated, one to two months after reinstatement. Focus groups supplemented the observational data to gather qualitative insights on attitudes and perceived risks. The results revealed significant differences between the two sites. In Milwaukee, 53% of subjects drove while suspended, and among those observed traveling, 88% drove. In contrast, only 22% of Bergen County subjects drove while suspended, and among those traveling, only 36% drove; the majority used alternative transportation. License reinstatement rates also differed sharply, with only 5% of Milwaukee subjects reinstated compared to 78% in Bergen County. For Bergen County subjects who were reinstated, driving increased significantly after reinstatement (54% drove) compared to during suspension (25% drove), indicating the suspension impacted their behavior. Focus groups indicated that New Jersey offenders perceived a higher risk of apprehension and found the suspension more burdensome due to stricter laws and financial penalties, whereas Milwaukee offenders often obtained occupational licenses and made fewer lifestyle changes. The study concludes that the prevalence of driving while suspended is high but varies substantially based on jurisdictional laws and enforcement perceptions. The findings suggest that while many offenders disregard license sanctions, strong penalties and a high perceived risk of apprehension, as seen in New Jersey, can increase compliance. The research implies that the effectiveness of license suspension as a deterrent depends heavily on the severity of sanctions for driving while suspended and the enforcement mechanisms in place.

Key finding

88% of Milwaukee subjects drove while suspended compared to 36% of Bergen County subjects, with Bergen County offenders showing significantly higher compliance due to stricter sanctions and perceived risk.

Methodology

field_study

Sample size: 93

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