Content uploaded by Francisco Alonso
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Francisco Alonso on Nov 06, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
R E S E A R C H Open Access
Driving under the influence of alcohol: frequency,
reasons, perceived risk and punishment
Francisco Alonso
1*
, Juan C Pastor
1
, Luis Montoro
2
and Cristina Esteban
1
Abstract
Background: The aim of this study was to gain information useful to improve traffic safety, concerning the following
aspects for DUI (Driving Under the Influence): frequency, reasons, perceived risk, drivers' knowledge of the related
penalties, perceived likelihood of being punished, drivers’perception of the harshness of punitive measures and drivers’
perception of the probability of behavioral change after punishment for DUI.
Methods: A sample of 1100 Spanish drivers, 678 men and 422 women aged from 14 to 65 years old, took part in a
telephone survey using a questionnaire to gather sociodemographic and psychosocial information about drivers, as
well as information on enforcement, clustered in five related categories: “Knowledge and perception of traffic norms”;
“Opinions on sanctions”;“Opinions on policing”;“Opinions on laws”(in general and on traffic); and “Assessment of the
effectiveness of various punitive measures”.
Results: Results showed around 60% of respondents believe that driving under the influence of alcohol is maximum
risk behavior. Nevertheless, 90.2% of the sample said they never or almost never drove under the influence of alcohol.
In this case, the main reasons were to avoid accidents (28.3%) as opposed to avoiding sanctions (10.4%). On the
contrary, the remaining 9.7% acknowledged they had driven after consuming alcohol. It is noted that the main reasons
for doing so were “not having another way to return home”(24.5%) and alcohol consumption being associated with
meals (17.3%).
Another important finding is that the risk perception of traffic accident as a result of DUI is influenced by variables such
as sex and age. With regard to the type of sanctions, 90% think that DUI is punishable by a fine, 96.4% that it may result
in temporary or permanent suspension of driving license, and 70% that it can be punished with imprisonment.
Conclusions: Knowing how alcohol consumption impairs safe driving and skills, being aware of the associated risks,
knowing the traffic regulations concerning DUI, and penalizing it strongly are not enough. Additional efforts are
needed to better manage a problem with such important social and practical consequences.
Keywords: Drivers, Road safety, Driving while intoxicated, Driving under the influence, Alcohol
Background
In Europe, traffic accidents are one of the main causes
of mortality in people between 15 and 29 years old, and
driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) is a major
risk factor in most crashes [1,2].
In the year 2001 in Spain, 40,174 people were treated
in public hospitals for traffic injuries. Some 28% of these
injuries were serious or very serious and drinking was
involved in a high percentage of cases. According to the
Spanish Directorate General of Traffic (DGT), alcohol is
involved in 30-50% of fatal accidents and in 15 to 35% of
crashes causing serious injury, constituting a major risk
factor in traffic accidents. This problem is especially
important among young people and worsens on week-
end nights [3,4].
In more recent years, several studies have shown that
more than a third of adults and half of teenagers admit
they have driven drunk. We also know that most of
them were not detected. Generally, the rate of arrests
for driving under the influence is very low and even
those drivers who were arrested were mostly “first-time”
offenders [5].
* Correspondence: datspublications@gmail.com
1
DATS (Development and Advising in Traffic Safety) Research Group, INTRAS
(University Research Institute on Traffic and Road Safety), University of
Valencia, Serpis 29, 46022 Valencia, Spain
Full list of author information is available at the end of the article
© 2015 Alonso et al.; licensee BioMed Central. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and
reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain
Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article,
unless otherwise stated.
Alonso et al. Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy (2015) 10:11
DOI 10.1186/s13011-015-0007-4
Some studies show that many young people lack infor-
mation or knowledge about the legislation regulating
consumption of alcohol for drivers, as well as the effects
of this drug on the user [6-8].
There are also some widespread beliefs and miscon-
ceptions regarding the actions the driver can take in
order to neutralize the effects of alcohol before driving
(for instance drinking coffee, having a cold shower or
breathing fresh air). As suggested by Becker’s model of
health beliefs [9,10], preventive behavior is unlikely to
occur unless the subject considers the action necessary,
hence the importance of providing adequate information
and disproving false beliefs.
Drivers are not usually aware of the risk they assume
when they drive under the influence of alcohol, as they
do not suffer a traffic accident every time they drink and
drive. Hence they tend to think there is no danger in
driving under the influence of alcohol, incurring the
same risk behavior once and again.
But the reality is quite different. Alcohol causes very
obvious alterations in behavior, as it affects almost all
the physical skills we need for safe driving. It can inter-
fere with attention, perceptual functioning and motor
skills, as well as in decision making while driving.
Drinking impairs the ability to drive and increases the
risk of causing an accident. The effects of alcohol con-
sumption on driving-related functions are modulated by
some factors, such as form of consumption (regular or
infrequent), expectations about their consumption,
expertise in driving and driver’sage.Theincreased
risk of accident starts at a lower blood alcohol level
when drivers are inexperienced or they are occasional
drinkers, and begins at a higher blood alcohol level
when these are more experienced drivers or regular
drinkers [11,12].
The BAC represents the volume of alcohol in the
blood and is measured in grams of alcohol per liter of
blood (g / l) or its equivalent in exhaled air.
Any amount of alcohol in blood, however small, can
impair driving, increasing the risk of accident. Therefore,
the trend internationally is to lower the maximum rates
allowed.
After drinking, the rate of alcohol in blood that a
driver is showing can vary widely due to numerous
modulating variables. Among them, some important
factors are the speed of drinking, the type of alcohol
(fermented drinks such as beer or wine, or distilled bev-
erages like rum or whisky) or the fact of having previ-
ously ingested some food, as well as the age, sex or body
weight. Ideally, if everyone drank alcohol responsibly
and never drove after drinking many deaths would be
avoided. Accurate information about how driving under
the influence effects traffic safety would be a positive
step towards this goal.
Study framework
Research on enforcement of traffic safety norms has a
long tradition. In 1979, a classic work [13] showed that
increasing enforcement and toughening sanctions can
reduce accidents as an initial effect, although the num-
ber of accidents tends to normalize later.
Justice in traffic is needed insofar as many innocent
people die on the roads unjustly. This is our starting
point and our central principle. In order to prevent traffic
accidents, a better understanding is needed of the driver’s
knowledge, perceptions and actions concerning traffic reg-
ulations. Drivers have to be aware of how important rules
are for safety. The present study comes from a broader
body of research on traffic enforcement, designed to de-
velop a more efficient sanctions system [5,14].
Our research used a questionnaire to gain sociodemo-
graphic and psychosocial information about drivers, as
well as additional information on enforcement clustered
in five related categories: “Knowledge and perception of
traffic norms”;“Opinions on sanctions”;“Opinions on
policing”;“Opinions on laws”(general ones and traffic
laws in particular); and “Assessment of the effectiveness
of various punitive measures”.
A number of additional factors were also explored,
including: driving too fast or at an improper speed for
the traffic conditions, not keeping a safe distance while
driving, screaming or verbal abuse while driving, driving
under the influence, smoking while driving, driving with-
out a seat belt and driving without insurance. For a more
complete review, see the original study [14].
Objective
The aim of this study was to gain useful information to
improve traffic safety, concerning the following aspects:
Frequency of driving under the influence of alcohol
(DUI).
Reasons for either driving or not driving under the
influence (DUI).
Perceived risk of DUI.
Drivers’knowledge of DUI-related penalties.
The perceived likelihood of being punished for DUI.
Drivers’perception of the harshness of punitive
measures for DUI.
Drivers’knowledge of the penalties for DUI.
Drivers’perception concerning the probability of
behavior change after punishment for DUI.
Sociodemographic and psychosocial factors related
with alcohol consumption and driving.
Methods
Participants
The sample consisted of 1100 Spanish drivers: 678 men
(61.64%) and 422 women (38.36%), between 14 and
Alonso et al. Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy (2015) 10:11 Page 2 of 9
65 years of age. The initial sample size was proportional
by quota to segments of Spanish population by gender
and age. The number of participants represents a margin
of error for the general data of ± 3 with a confidence
interval of 95% in the worst case of p = q = 50%; with a
significance level of 0.05.
Drivers completed a telephone survey. 1100 drivers
answered interviews, and the response rate was 98.5%;
as it was a survey on social issues, most people con-
sented to collaborate.
Procedure and design
The survey was conducted by telephone. A telephone
sample using random digit dialing was selected. Every
phone call was screened to determine the number of
drivers (aged 14 or older) in the household. The selec-
tion criteria were possession of any type of driving li-
cense for vehicles other than motorcycles and driving
frequently. Interviewers systematically selected one valid
driver per home. The survey was carried out using com-
puter assisted telephone interview (CATI) in order to re-
duce interview length and minimize recording errors,
ensuring the anonymity of the participants at all times and
emphasizing the fact that the data would be used only for
statistical and research purposes. The importance of an-
swering all the questions truthfully was also stressed.
In this article, we present the data on driving under
the influence of alcohol. The first question raised was:
How often do you currently drive after drinking any
alcoholic beverage? Possible responses were: Almost
always, Often, Sometimes, Rarely or Never.
If they answered either Almost always, Often or
Sometimes, they were asked: What is the reason that
leads you to drive under the influence? If they answered
Rarely or Never, they were asked: What is the reason you
rarely or never drive under the influence? In both cases,
respondents had the option of an open answer.
Later they were asked to rate from 0 to 10 the risk that
driving under the influence of alcohol can cause a traffic
accident in their opinion (0 being the minimum risk and
10 the maximum risk of crash).
Then they were asked to rate from 0 to 10 the harsh-
ness with which they thought DUI sanctions should be
administered.
They were also asked: Is driving exceeding alcohol
limits punishable? In this case, participants had the
chance of answering Yes or No. We would then compare
the correct answers with the standard to determine the
knowledge.
Drivers who were unaware that DUI is punishable
were asked about the probability of being sanctioned for
this reason using the following question: When driving
exceeding the limits of alcohol, out of 10 times, how
many times is it usually sanctioned?
Another question dealt with the type of penalties. The
participants were asked if the penalties for DUI con-
sisted of economic fines, imprisonment or license sus-
pension, either temporary or permanent. The question
raised was: Have you ever received any penalty for
driving under the influence? Possible answers were Yes
or No. Those drivers who answered affirmatively were
then asked about the harshness of punishment: How do
you consider the punishment for DUI? The response op-
tions were Hard enough, Insufficient or Excessive. Fur-
thermore, they were asked whether or not they changed
their behavior after the punishment.
The questionnaire was used to ascribe drivers to dif-
ferent groups according to demographic and psycho-
social characteristics, as well as to identify driving habits
and risk factors.
Demographic variables
Gender: male or female.
Age: 14-17, 18-24, 25-29, 30-44, 45-65 and over
65 years old.
Educational level.
Type of driver: professional or non-professional.
Employment status: currently employed, retired,
unemployed, unemployed looking for the first job,
homemaker or student.
Driving habits
Frequency: the frequency with which the participant
drive, the possible choices being Every day, Nearly
every day, Just weekends, A few days a week, or A
few days per month.
Mileage: the total distance in number of kilometers
driven or travelled weekly, monthly or annually.
Route: type of road used regularly, including street,
road, highway or motorway, and tollway.
Car use: motives for car use, for instance, to work,
to go to work and return home from work or study
centre, personal, family, recreational, leisure and
others.
Experience/risk
Experience: number of years the participant has held
a driver license, grouping them as 2 years or less,
3-6, 7-10, 11-15, 16-20, 21-25, 26-30 and over
30 years.
Traffic offenses. Number of sanctions in the past
three years (none, one, two, three or more).
Accidents. Number of accidents as driver throughout
life (none, one or more than one), and their
consequences (casualties or deaths, or minor damages).
Alonso et al. Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy (2015) 10:11 Page 3 of 9
Once data were collected, a number of statistical ana-
lyses were performed, using the Statistical Package for
the Social Sciences (SPSS), in order to obtain relevant
information according to the aims of the study.
Results
74.7% of the sample said that they had never driven
under the influence. 15.5% of drivers said they did it
almost never, and only the remaining 9.7% (sometimes
9,1%, often 0,2% or always 0,5%) acknowledged that they
had driven after consuming alcohol (Figure 1).
Regarding the main reasons that led the drivers to
act this way, expressed among drivers who admitted
to having driven under the influence of alcoholic
beverages, 24.5% of them indicated that it was un-
avoidable, as “Ihadtogohomeandcouldn’tdoany-
thing else”, while 17.3% claimed that the act of
drink-driving was an unintentional consequence or
“something associated with meals”, and only 16.4%
admitted having done it “intentionally”. In addition,
12.7% considered that “alcohol doesn’t impair driving”
anyway (Figure 2).
“In any case, 60% of the interviewees perceived driving
under the influence of alcohol as the highest risk factor
for traffic accidents.”
Among them, the perception of this risk (or dan-
gerousness of driving under the influence) is greater
in women [F (1, 1081) = 41.777 p <0.05], adults aged
between 18 and 44 [F (5, 1075) = 4.140 p <0.05],
drivers who have never been fined for this infraction
[F (2, 1080) = 29.650 p <0.05], drivers who had never
committed the offense [F (4, 1077) = 40.489 p <0.05],
and drivers who have never been involved in an accident
[F (1, 1081) = 12.296 p <0.05]. Table 1 shows the values for
this perception by gender and age.
There appears to be no significant relationship be-
tween the perceived risk attributed to DUI and other
variables such as educational level, type of driver, driving
frequency, vehicle use and years of experience.
The main reasons put forward for not drinking and
driving included not drinking in any circumstances
(50,5%), to avoid accidents (28,3%) as opposed to
avoiding sanctions (10,4%) - such as financial penal-
ties (8,4%), withdrawal of driving license (1,8%) or
Figure 1 Frequency of DUI.
Alonso et al. Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy (2015) 10:11 Page 4 of 9
jail (0,2%) - or other reasons related to attitudes to
road safety (16,6%).
On a scale of 0-10, participants rated the risk of eco-
nomic penalties when driving under the influence of the
alcohol with an average of 5.2, in other words they esti-
mate the probability of being fined as roughly half of the
times one drives drunk.
The perception of this risk (penalty or financial punish-
ment for driving under the influence) is also greater in
women [F (1, 1095) = 30,966 p <0.05], drivers who have
never been involved in an accident [F (1, 1095) = 8.479
p <0.05], and drivers who had never been fined for
this infraction [F (2 1094) = 12.515 p <0.05].
There appears to be no significant relationship be-
tween the perceived risk of financial penalty and other
variables such as educational level, employment, type
of driver, driving frequency, vehicle use and years of
experience.
Almost everyone (99.1%) thinks that DUI is punishable
and only 0.9% of drivers think it is not.
On a scale of 0-10, participants assigned an average of
9.1 to the need to punish this traffic breach severely.
The score is higher in women [F (1, 1086) = 29.474
p <0.05], adults aged 18 to 24 years [F (5, 1089) = 2.699
p <0.05], drivers who have never been involved in an
accident [F (1, 1095) = 8.479 p <0.05], and people who
had never been fined for this reason [F (2, 1085) = 26,745
p <0.05], which means that these groups are less tolerant
of this kind of behavior. By age, college students are the
least tolerant and retirees are the most tolerant.
There was no significant relationship between the per-
ceived need to punish this behavior harshly and variables
such as type of driver, driving frequency and vehicle use.
Figure 2 Reasons for DUI.
Table 1 Perception of risk of DUI-related traffic accident,
by drivers’gender and age
N Mean SD gl F Sig
Gender Women 416 9.45 1.120 1.0 41.78 0.000
Men 667 8.84 1.728
Age 18-25 12 9.08 0.900 5.0 4.14 0.001
26-35 111 9.22 1.516
36-45 136 9.21 1.388
46-65 361 8.94 1.683
>65 88 8.51 1.965
Alonso et al. Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy (2015) 10:11 Page 5 of 9
Regarding the type of sanctions, 89.5% of drivers think
that driving under the influence is subject to an
economic fine, almost 70% say it could even be punished
by imprisonment, while 96.4% believe it can lead to a
temporary or permanent suspension of the license
(Figure 3).
Among the drivers who had been fined for DUI, nearly
75% considered that the imposed punishment was
adequate, while the remaining 25% saw it as excessive
(Figure 4). Finally, 91.7% of this group found they had
changed their behavior after punishment (Figure 5).
Discussion
Alcohol is a major risk factor in traffic accidents. From
the objective standpoint, alcohol interferes with the skills
needed to drive safely, as evidenced by numerous studies
on driving under the influence of alcohol conducted to
date. From the subjective point of view, drivers also per-
ceive it as dangerous, as our study shows.
Around 60% of respondents believe that driving under
the influence of alcohol is maximum risk behavior.
A smaller percentage compared to those reported by
other studies in which the percentage of people that
saw drink-driving as a major threat to safety reached
81% [15].
First, we note a clear correlation between perceived
risk and avoidance behavior. In general the higher the
perceived risk, the lower the probability of committing
the offense, and vice versa: the lower the perceived risk,
the greater the likelihood of driving after consuming
alcohol.
Thus, drivers who do not commit this offense perceive
that the risk of accidents associated with DUI is very
high. When it comes to drivers who commit the offense
occasionally, the perceived risk is lower, and when it
comes to drivers who often drive under the influence of
the alcohol, the perception of risk is clearly inferior.
Thus, the frequency of DUI and risk perception seem to
be inversely related.
These results are related to the hypothesis of optimis-
tic bias, which states that drinkers are overly optimistic
about probabilities of adverse consequences from drink.
In a study [16] about overconfidence about conse-
quences of high levels of alcohol consumption, the
Figure 3 Type of sanction the driver think DUI is subject to.
Alonso et al. Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy (2015) 10:11 Page 6 of 9
authors established an alternative to the optimism bias
hypothesis that could explain our findings, affirming that
persons who drink frequently and consume large
amounts of alcohol daily could be more familiar with
the risks of such behaviors.
Another important finding is that the risk perception
of traffic accident as a result of DUI is influenced by var-
iables such as sex and age. In relation to gender, the per-
ception of risk seems to be higher in women than in
men. In relation to age, risk perception is higher in
adults between 18 and 44 years old.
The finding about the reason for not drinking and
driving supports the already evident need for an integra-
tive approach to developing sustainable interventions,
combining a range of measures that can be implemented
together. In this way, sustainable measures against alcohol
and impaired driving should continue to include a mix of
approaches, such as legislation, enforcement, risk reduction
and education, but focus efforts more closely on strategies
aimed at raising awareness and changing behavior and cul-
tural views on alcohol and impaired driving.
Almost all the drivers surveyed are well aware that
driving after drinking any alcoholic beverage is a
criminal offense. They also consider that this is a type of
infraction that should be punished harshly. In this respect,
they assign nine points on a scale of ten possible.
Finally, with regard to the type of sanctions, 90% of
drivers think that driving drunk is punishable by a fine.
96.4% consider that it may result in temporary or per-
manent suspension of driving license, and 70% believe
that it can be punished with imprisonment.
In any case, there are several limitations of this study.
This was a population-based study of Spanish drivers;
there is possibly a lack of generalizability of this popula-
tion to other settings.
Another possible limitation of this study is the use of
self-report questionnaires to derive information rather
than using structured interviews. Similarly, self-reported
instruments may be less accurate than objective mea-
sures of adherence as a result of social desirability bias.
Conclusions
In Spain, various traffic accident prevention programs
have been implemented in recent years. Some of them
were alcohol-focused, designed to prevent driving under
the influence and to inform the Spanish population
Figure 4 Perception of punishment harshness imposed for DUI.
Alonso et al. Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy (2015) 10:11 Page 7 of 9
about the dangers associated with this kind of risk
behavior.
As a result, many Spanish drivers seem to be sensi-
tized to the risk of driving drunk. As revealed in our
survey, many Spanish drivers never drive under the in-
fluence of alcohol, and many of them identify DUI as
maximum risk behavior. This shows that a high percent-
age of the Spanish population know and avoid the risks
of DUI.
In any case, the reality is far from ideal, and one out of
four drivers has committed this offense at least once.
When asked why they did it, the two major risk factors
of DUI we identified were the lack of an alternative
means of transport and the influence of meals on alco-
hol consumption. Both situations, especially the latter,
occur frequently, almost daily, while it is true that the
amount of alcohol consumed in the former is consider-
ably higher and therefore more dangerous.
In addition, most drivers are aware of the dangers of
driving under the influence, and they tend to avoid the
risk of accident or penalty for this reason. Some drivers
never drive under the influence, to avoid a possible acci-
dent. To a lesser extent, some do not drive under the
influence to avoid a possible fine. They usually think that
the possibility of sanction in the event of DUI is so high
that they will be fined every two times they risk driving
drunk.
Moreover, drivers know the legislation regulating DUI
and they believe that the current penalty for DUI is
strong enough. Nevertheless, even though almost all the
drivers that were fined for this reason say they changed
their behavior after the event, nine out of ten drivers
would penalize this kind of offense even more strongly.
Knowing how alcohol consumption impairs safety and
driving skills, being aware of the associated risks, know-
ing the traffic regulations concerning DUI and penaliz-
ing it strongly are not enough. Many drivers habitually
drive after consuming alcohol and this type of traffic in-
fraction is still far from being definitively eradicated.
Additional efforts are needed for better management
of a problem with such important social and practical
consequences. Efforts should be focused on measures
which are complementary to legislation and enforce-
ment, increasing their effectiveness, such as education,
awareness and community mobilization; Alcolock™;
accessibility to alcohol or brief interventions.
Figure 5 Perception concerning behavior change after punishment for DUI.
Alonso et al. Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy (2015) 10:11 Page 8 of 9
Abbreviation
DUI: Driving under the influence.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Authors’contributions
All authors contributed to the design of the study and also wrote and approved
the final manuscript. FA drew up the design of the study with the help of CE; the
rest of the authors also contributed. JCP and LM were in charge of the data
revision. JCP and CE also drafted the manuscript. FA performed the statistical
analysis. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank the Audi Corporate Social Responsibility program,
Attitudes, for sponsoring the basic research. Also thanks to Mayte Duce for
the revisions.
Author details
1
DATS (Development and Advising in Traffic Safety) Research Group, INTRAS
(University Research Institute on Traffic and Road Safety), University of
Valencia, Serpis 29, 46022 Valencia, Spain.
2
FACTHUM.lab (Human Factor and
Road Safety), INTRAS (University Research Institute on Traffic and Road
Safety), University of Valencia, Serpis 29, 46022 Valencia, Spain.
Received: 7 November 2014 Accepted: 2 March 2015
References
1. Racioppi F, Eriksson L, Tingvall C, Villaveces A. Preventing Road Traffic Injury:
a public health perspective for Europe. Copenhagen: World Health
Organization Regional Office for Europe; 2004. Download from: http://www.
euro.who.int/document/E82659.pdf. Accessed March 2009.
2. Fell JC. Repeat DWI, offenders involvement in fatal crashes in 2010. Traffic
Inj Prev. 2014;15(5):431–3.
3. Pedragosa JL. Analisi dels accidents de transit a Catalunya i causes més
rellevants. Anuario de Psicologia/Facultat de Psicologia, Universidad de
Barcelona. 1995;65:205–13.
4. Summala H, Mikkola T. Fatal accidents among car and truck drivers: Effect of
fatigue, age, and alcohol consumption. Ergonomics. 1994;36:315–26.
5. Alonso F, Esteban C, Calatayud C, Medina JE, Alamar B. La justicia en el
tráfico: análisis del ciclo legislativo-ejecutivo a nivel internacional. Barcelona:
Attitudes; 2005.
6. Reppetto E, Senra MP. Incidencia de algunos factores educativos, sociales y
afectivos en el consumo de alcohol de los adolescentes. Rev Electron
Investig Psicoeduc Psigopedag. 1997;15(1):31–42.
7. Turrisi R, Jaccard J, Kelly SQ, O’Mally CM. Social psychological factors
involved in adolescents’efforts to prevent their friends from driving while
intoxicated. J Youth Adolesc. 1993;22(2):147–69.
8. Weiss J. What do Israeli Jewish and Arab adolescents know about drinking
and driving? Accid Anal Prev. 1996;28(6):765–9.
9. Becker MH, Maiman LA. Sociobehavioural determinants of compliance with
health and medical care recommendations. Med Care. 1975;13(1):10–24.
10. Rodriguez-Marin J. Evaluación en prevención y promoción de la salud. In:
Fernández R, editor. Evaluación conductural hoy. Madrid: Pirámide; 1994.
p. 652–712.
11. Wall IF, Karch SB. Traffic Medicine. In: Stark MM, editor. Clinical Forensic
Medicine. A Physician’s Guide. London: Humana Press; 2011. p. 423–58.
12. Peck RC, Gebers MA, Voas RB, Romano E. The relationship between
blood alcohol concentration (BAC), age, and crash risk. J Safety Res.
2008;39(3):311–9.
13. Kaiser G. Delincuencia de tráfico y prevención general: Investigaciones sobre la
criminología y el derecho penal del tráfico. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe; 1979.
14. Alonso F, Sanmartín J, Calatayud C, Esteban C, Alamar B, Ballestar ML. La
justicia en el tráfico. Conocimiento y valoración de la población española.
Barcelona: Attitudes; 2005.
15. Drew L, Royal D, Moulton B, Peterson A, Haddix D. National Survey of
Drinking and Driving Attitudes and Behaviors. DOT HS 811-342. Washington,
D.C: US Department of Transportation; 2010.
16. Sloan FA, Eldred LM, Guo T, Yu Y. Are people overoptimistic about the
effects of heaving drinking? J Risk Uncertain. 2013;47(1):93–127.
Submit your next manuscript to BioMed Central
and take full advantage of:
• Convenient online submission
• Thorough peer review
• No space constraints or color figure charges
• Immediate publication on acceptance
• Inclusion in PubMed, CAS, Scopus and Google Scholar
• Research which is freely available for redistribution
Submit your manuscript at
www.biomedcentral.com/submit
Alonso et al. Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy (2015) 10:11 Page 9 of 9
