As we head into another holiday weekend, there is an aggressive media campaign to prevent drunk driving and emphasize aggressive enforcement efforts. But do these efforts significantly reduce incidents of drunk driving? Are they an effective way to promote public safely?
Drunk Driving. Over the Limit. Under Arrest.
The federally funded campaign “Drunk Driving. Over the Limit. Under Arrest.” is now in it’s fourth year. The National Highway and Traffic Administration has allocated $38 million nationally, just for the period around the labor day holiday this year. The money is spend both on advertising and grants to police departments nationwide for additional patrols and enforcement.
As as the money arrives at local police departments, the press releases are flying from Rhode Island to Wisconsin.
There’s little doubt that this funding is popular with politicians who vote for it. Drunk driving enforcement, and any police spending in general is popular with constituents. And well connected lobbying groups like MADD can be helpful political allies.
Certainly police departments are always in favor of extra budget dollars and overtime for officers.
But is it effective?
It is easy to make self-serving arguments based on data either way. Drunk driving prevention activists have been known to simultaneously argue any statistical increases or decreases.
Drunk driving arrests are down? Our efforts are working! We’re stopping drunk driving, need to keep it up.
Drunk driving arrests are up? Our efforts are working! The police are getting more drunk drivers off the road.
Police enforcement efforts like DUI roadblocks are popular, but are they just window dressing? Especially on an opportunity cost basis, there are strong arguments to be made that roadblocks are a poor use of police manpower. Stopping people randomly may well be less effective that actively patrolling, looking out for dangerously drunk and impaired drivers.
Of course, this is the argument made by alcoholic beverage industry groups like the American Beverage Institute, run by Rick Berman, a powerful and notorious lobbyist for a number of unpopular corporate interests.
So there is plenty of reason to question all the data, as well as everyone’s motives here.
Serious, pragmatic analysis of this type of spending is seriously lacking. While it would be fantastic to see a Nate Silver style statistical study of law enforcement funding, and the effectiveness of drunk driving enforcement, I know it’s not going to happen.
And even if it did, it wouldn’t matter. If these campaigns are considered politically effective, they will continue, regardless of whether or not they are actually effective or efficient public safety policy.
About David Matson