Young People Driving After Drinking and Riding with Drinking Drivers: Drinking Locations—What Do They Tell Us?
ABSTRACT The present study investigated the extent to which drinking in specific locations and heavy drinking mediated the effects of overall alcohol use on driving after drinking (DD) and riding with drinking drivers (RWDD) among young people. Additionally, this study examined the relationships among ethnicity, gender, drinking in specific locations, and DD and RWDD.
Using random-digit dialing procedures, participants were recruited to take part in a telephone survey in California, United States of America. Participants were 1,534 youth, ages 15-20 years (mean age = 17.6). Latinos, African Americans, and Asian Americans were over-sampled to allow cross-group comparisons. Along with background characteristics, overall alcohol use, heavy drinking, drinking in specific locations, DD, and RWDD were measured.
Latent variable structural equation modeling showed that European Americans, males, older adolescents, those who have a driver license, and those who drive more often were more likely to report drinking alcohol in the past year. Heavy episodic drinking and drinking in cars increased both DD and RWDD. Drinking in restaurants also increased DD. The effects of overall alcohol consumption on DD were entirely mediated through heavy episodic drinking and drinking in restaurants and cars. Alcohol consumption had both direct and indirect effects on RWDD. With the exception of being Latino and frequency of driving, the effects of the background variables on RWDD were all entirely mediated through alcohol consumption.
Heavy drinking and drinking in specific locations appeared to be important unique predictors of both DD and RWDD. In light of the relationship between drinking in restaurants and in cars, and DD, prevention programs and policies aimed at underage drinking should focus on developing more effective responsible beverage service programs, increasing compliance with laws limiting alcohol sales to youth, and enforcing graduated driver licensing and zero tolerance laws.
- SourceAvailable from: Ruth A Shults[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: This is the third update of research on graduated driver licensing (GDL) and related teenage driver issues. It briefly summarizes research published since or not included in the 2005 update (Hedlund, J., & Compton, R. (2005). Graduated driver licensing research in 2004 and 2005. Journal of Safety Research, 36(2), 109-119.), describes research in progress of which the authors are aware, and announces plans for a symposium on teenage driving and GDL to be held in February 2007. (c) 2006 National Safety Council and Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.Journal of Safety Research 01/2006; 37(2):107-21. DOI:10.1016/j.jsr.2006.02.001 · 1.29 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To examine the association between drink driving and the patterns and locations of usual drinking among New Zealand adolescents. This is a secondary analysis of data from a nationally representative youth health survey, the sampling frame for which was all New Zealand secondary schools with more than 50 students enrolled in years 9 to 13 (ages 12 to 18 years) in 2001. The analysis was restricted to the 3408 survey respondents aged 15 years or older who were current drinkers and drivers. In total, 17.3% of participants reported drink driving in the previous month. Drink driving was significantly associated with frequent (at least weekly) alcohol use, binge drinking and usually drinking away from home, that is in cars, outdoors, at bars or nightclubs, at parties, at school and at work. Students' perception that parents and schools care about them, parental monitoring, and high academic achievement was associated with a reduced risk of drink driving while having friends who drink alcohol increased this risk. These associations were similar among boys and girls. The findings support calls to address how and where young people drink, and indicate the potential gains to be made with family- and school-based interventions.Acta Paediatrica 08/2008; 97(10):1433-7. DOI:10.1111/j.1651-2227.2008.00929.x · 1.84 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To examine differences in risky driving behavior and likelihood of traffic crash according to the country of birth of recently licensed young drivers. The groups examined include those born in Australia, those born in Asia, and those born in other countries. The DRIVE study is a prospective cohort study of drivers aged 17-24 years holding their first-year provisional driver license in New South Wales, Australia. Information obtained from 20,822 participants who completed a baseline questionnaire was linked to police-reported traffic crashes. Self-reported risky driving behaviors and police-reported traffic crashes in young drivers. Young drivers who were born in Asian countries were less likely to report engaging in risky driving behaviors than their Australian-born counterparts. The proportion of participants reporting a high level of risky driving was 31.5 percent (95% confidence intervale [CI], 30.8-32.1) among Australian-born drivers compared to 25.6 percent (95% CI, 23.1-28.2) among Asian-born drivers and 30.4 percent (95% CI, 28.4-32.5) among those born in other regions. Asian-born participants had half the risk of a crash as a driver than their Australian-born counterparts (relative risk [RR] 0.55; 95% CI, 0.41-0.75) after adjusting for a number of demographic factors and driving and risk-taking behaviors. The comparative risk was even lower among those aged 17 years (RR 0.29; 95% CI, 0.29-0.75). Risk estimates for people born in other regions did not differ to those for Australian-born respondents. The study highlights the lower level of risky driving and significantly reduced crash risk for Australian drivers born in Asian countries relative to those born locally. Further research is needed to examine factors underlying this reduced risk and the impact of the length of residence in the host country.Traffic Injury Prevention 06/2010; 11(3):222-7. DOI:10.1080/15389581003614888 · 1.29 Impact Factor