Link between Roadblocks and More Alcohol-Related Fatalities

[scannerboy02]

New Data Show Link between Roadblocks and More Alcohol-Related Fatalities in California​

States Using Roving Patrols Averaged Fewer Alcohol-Related Fatalities than States Employing Sobriety Checkpoints​

Washington, D.C. – Responding to figures recently released from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), the American Beverage Institute (ABI) announced today that states diverting police resources to operate sobriety roadblocks have more alcohol-related fatalities on average than those focusing resources on roving patrols. California, which relies heavily on checkpoint programs, has seen a marked increase in alcohol-related fatalities over the last decade.
An analysis of the recently released 2006 data revealed the following:
States relying exclusively on roving patrols to catch drunk drivers averaged 7% fewer alcohol-related fatalities than those that used checkpoints.
More than 650,000 Californians were subjected to roadblocks that yielded an arrest rate of barely one-third of 1 percent.
Over the last ten years, the number of alcohol-related crashes in California has gone up by 32%.
These numbers reaffirm that roadblocks are a costly, ineffective tool for getting drunk drivers off our highways. Additionally, roadblocks are limited to a single, highly publicized area, so they fail to catch the reckless drivers who are stopped by patrols which cover a wide, undisclosed area.

This holiday season, the ABI is calling on law enforcement to focus its scarce resources on roving patrol units, which, according to testimony by a Pennsylvania Department of Transportation official, are nearly 10 times more successful than roadblocks at catching drunk drivers.

“We know that roving patrols are the most effective means of getting drunks off our roads,” said ABI spokeswoman Sarah Longwell, “so why does California insist on spending tax dollars on manpower and PR for less successful roadblock campaigns? These checkpoints harass responsible adults who drink legally and responsibly before driving and are all too easily avoided by the repeat offenders and chronic abusers who make up the overwhelming majority of today’s drunk driving problem.”

 

[scannerboy02]

Funny thing about this is that Folsom PD is holding a check point right now and I didn't get a 24 hour or 1 hour press release on it that's requited by state law.

 

[gmclam]

What I wonder is if these checkpoints cause an increase in accidents/fatalities in the general area of the checkpoints. In other words, if this is true, stay totally away from Folsom tonight.

 

[hoser147]

Go to Florida Ive seen them bring out a dozen Dot trucks and cones with the road construction signs and narrow it down from 3 or 4 lanes to one, as you go around the last line of Dot trucks there is the checkpoint just waiting, no road construction at all............Hoser

 

[mkewman]

That article makes a lot of sense. Maybe if they put more money into more officers instead of PR (let the USDOT take care of that, they seem to do a decent job) i think there'd be fewer fatalities and more arrests and convictions.

 

[SCPD]

I wouldn't jump the gun here and accept this item as fact. First it says the figures are for 2006 only. How does that year compare with others? It is also stated there was an analysis done on those 2006 data. Who did the analysis? What methodologies were used in the analysis? Finally, what was the collection method employed to gather these data? When a news report appears to be a news release of an industry group with direct financial interest in the subject I tend to ask more questions and look into something more critically.

The conclusions the ABI is making in this news release have not been subjected to the scientific process, in so far as the release states, as publication in a peer review journal is not cited. That is but one of about 5 steps in the scientific method. Until I see a conclusion based on that method, especially one that has to be based on mathematical calculations, I tend to file it in my head as anecdotal information at best. The ABI is a lobbyist organization and those organizations don't have the best record for releasing credible information and have been shown to, in many occasions in the past, cherry pick data that support a particular conclusion.

I'm not saying the conclusions are not correct. I'm not saying that the ABI lacks credibility. I'm just saying "show me the science" and when it comes to discerning information we need to remember "and hey, let's be careful out there."

Just an opinion, but I think the given figure of such a low number of arrests does not reflect the main purpose of DUI checkpoints. Those checkpoints, at least in California, are usually well publicized as to location and time. Could it be that the main purpose of these checkpoints is to raise awareness of the DUI problem?

 

[N_Jay]

It is simple.

With roadblock, there is something to point to when asked, with normal enforcement there is not.

Politicians like "visible" actions over effective actions.

 

[selgaran]

...and of course the people issuing this press release don't have their own ax to grind...

That 32% increase over the last decade would be a lot more meaningful if we knew how the overall number of vehicles and miles driven has changed in the same period of time.

Remember the quote: Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics.

Personally, from listening to the scanner and watching the published results locally, in this area, I think saturation patrols are more effective than checkpoints.

 

[Duster]

As a former LEO who worked DUI enforcement for several years, I would agree with this article just based upon personal experience. I worked for a Sacramento-area city who thought that the DUI checkpoints were great, so we would get grants every year to run so many checkpoints. Most of them were busts, or we would arrest one or two people all night. The nights we would do area saturation patrols (my personal favorite, involving several agencies and multiple cities) it would be like shooting fish in a barrel, simply because everything that moved got seen by at least one cop a night. Unfortunately, no one actually evaluated the efficiency, because the brass liked their checkpoints...

 

[RolnCode3]

Causation and correlation are NOT the same thing. Just because the statistics show that DUI checkpoint states had higher DUI fatality crashes does not necessarily mean that the checkpoints are the causes.

To be valid, in my mind, you could only compare the resources used on the checkpoint, during the ACTUAL time period they were not randomly patrolling, and compare that to what they statistically would have caught during that same time period. If the checkpoint isn't being run, they're out randomly patrolling, and contributing to the statistics.

Here in Sacramento, there's what: maybe a checkpoint a month? They last about 8 hours (being generous - say 7pm to 3am). We have 1.5 million people or so.

And to say that it's in a highly publicized location is false. The agency running the checkpoint is required, by law, to announce the checkpoint. They do NOT have to say where it's located. So if the City of Sacramento announced a checkpoint - but makes no specification as to where - what does it tell you? The City is quite large and you won't know where it is until you see the flashing lights. Rancho Cordova runs checkpoints regularly (a few a year). I have never seen them specify where in their city it would be.

Don't forget that the agencies are also checking for driver's licenses and towing cars for that as well. Those can be very efficiently run - tow trucks lined up, officers and CSOs doing 180's. I've seen double digit tow numbers during a single night - not bad IMO. Plus, you have a whole bunch of motors in the area picking off anyone that tries to avoid the checkpoint.

This just doesn't seem like THAT big of a factor. I would bet that there are other policies/practices in place that are affecting these stats more.

 

[karldotcom]

I bet there is a link between roadblocks and revenue too!

 

[SCPD]

Causation and correlation are NOT the same thing. Just because the statistics show that DUI checkpoint states had higher DUI fatality crashes does not necessarily mean that the checkpoints are the causes.

To be valid, in my mind, you could only compare the resources used on the checkpoint, during the ACTUAL time period they were not randomly patrolling, and compare that to what they statistically would have caught during that same time period. If the checkpoint isn't being run, they're out randomly patrolling, and contributing to the statistics.

Here in Sacramento, there's what: maybe a checkpoint a month? They last about 8 hours (being generous - say 7pm to 3am). We have 1.5 million people or so.

And to say that it's in a highly publicized location is false. The agency running the checkpoint is required, by law, to announce the checkpoint. They do NOT have to say where it's located. So if the City of Sacramento announced a checkpoint - but makes no specification as to where - what does it tell you? The City is quite large and you won't know where it is until you see the flashing lights. Rancho Cordova runs checkpoints regularly (a few a year). I have never seen them specify where in their city it would be.

Don't forget that the agencies are also checking for driver's licenses and towing cars for that as well. Those can be very efficiently run - tow trucks lined up, officers and CSOs doing 180's. I've seen double digit tow numbers during a single night - not bad IMO. Plus, you have a whole bunch of motors in the area picking off anyone that tries to avoid the checkpoint.

This just doesn't seem like THAT big of a factor. I would bet that there are other policies/practices in place that are affecting these stats more.

Good points. The establishment of a correlation and proof that a causal relationship exists are part of the scientific method. In most cases the establishment of a correlation must come prior to proving a cause/effect relationship.

In my portion of California very few DUI checkpoints are ever run and those that are have been publicized prior to their use. Your comments indicate that this is not the case in the remainder of California. As a result I'm adjusting my perspective.

DUI checkpoints are not used very often here in Mono County as the total number of sworn officers; federal, state, and local, is about 55 people including the Sheriff, one chief of police, the CHP lieutenant, investigators, bailiffs, state park rangers, game wardens, and two Forest Service LEO's. Inyo County is similar in numbers. The area covered is huge and to put several officers in the same location either means overtime or sacrificing coverage of other areas for all calls. Saturation patrols would require overtime also so that method is usually only employed by the CHP during statewide efforts or for New Year's Eve, if the agencies have enough in their budgets to do so.

We have so few officers in Mono County that at times, we may only have seven on duty for the entire county including the county (including the watch commander), CHP, and the incorporated Town of Mammoth Lakes. Last week a mini riot type event occurred in the parking lot of a local nightspot on the evening following the opening of skiing at Mammoth Mountain. It required the use of a bus to transport to Bridgeport, where the only jail in the county is located, those being booked. They must have borrowed a school bus or Mammoth Mountain bus as the county does not have anything larger than the one van the S.O. has for transporting prisoners. I was at a social gathering elsewhere in town and was not listening to the radio at the time. It was a first for Mammoth Lakes in the 21 year history of the police department.

I've lived in rural areas with a low population density for so long, about 30 years now, that I sometimes forget how the other 90% live, nearly 75% in urban areas, and more than half of the rural areas more densely populated than the largely public land counties I've been living in.