This is absolutely accurate. I have been teaching DWI prevention for 25 years. Education sprang up all over and were organized primarily by alcohol/drug counselors. The focus was in the alcohol/drug component when in fact, the population in education would not be at that level of care if they had alcohol/drug problems. The primary issue is traffic safety with this population and the response is always positive with this as a focus because it's someone everyone understands. I very much appreciate this insight in this article.
Stephanie Tapper
Alert Programs (ABC's and BAC's of Safe Driving) St Paul, MN
Top politician's DUI casts doubts on alcohol education effectiveness
By: Dan Keegan
Date: Wednesday, 04. June 2008
A holiday evening with friends on the Hawaiian Island of Maui, a few drinks (maybe more), dinner, a few glasses of wine - and then a short drive home over a pleasant country road. It's just the kind of behavior MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) targets in its advertising campaigns against drinking and driving. What's remarkable in this case is the identity of the driver - Gordon Campbell, Premier of the Canadian province of British Columbia - and the fact that he got caught.
He was weaving across the road, according to Maui police, and when he was stopped and subjected to a breath test, he registered a damning 0.149 blood alcohol count (BAC), almost twice the legal limit in Hawaii.
The media storm that followed must surely have been an eye-opener on the effectiveness of anti-drinking-and-driving advertising for advocacy groups such as MADD. Campbell readily admitted his guilt, although his account of how much alcohol he consumed was questioned, based on his high BAC count. Later estimates put the figure at 0.16. But calls for his resignation were countered with some supportive comments that must have made MADD wince: "He was on holiday, for god's sakes," offered one prominent politician. "It's only a misdemeanor in Hawaii," said another supporter.
Coffee-shop talk indicated the same mix of views. "He hadn't had that much to drink," commented one patron, who indicated that he used to drink and drive a lot but didn't any more. A more telling observation from a discussion panelist on Canadian television sounded like a clarion call to MADD and other groups to re-evaluate their approach to their campaigns against drinking and driving. "There's a problem with drivers driving impaired and not knowing it," he said. "I was caught driving impaired - and lost my license. I've learned a lot more since then People don't realize it's a lot easier to be impaired behind the wheel than they think."
Premier Campbell's case is particularly striking, not just because of his high office, but because it was a classic example of the kind of situation targeted by anti-drinking-and-driving public service ads: a very ordinary social situation with both the opportunity to drink and the opportunity to drive. The driver himself could have decided not to do it, or the hosts could have been more proactive in preventing it.
Neither of these preventive options occurred. Why?
Dr. Herb Simpson might be able to offer some insights into the reasons, if not answers. He is one of the foremost experts on the topic of alcohol and driving, and heads the prestigious Traffic Injury Research Foundation, which has produced numerous studies on alcohol and driving for governments and private enterprise around the world.
"There's a problem with perception," says Simpson. "Many people seem to believe that if they feel okay, then it's okay to drive." And, he adds, they may be very poor estimators of the risks they are undertaking.
This, Dr. Simpson believes, might have a lot to do with simplistic perceptions about driving that have been encouraged over the years. It's seen as a simple task that requires little attention. "It's an over-learned skill," he says. Drivers have "spare capacity. They can drive and do other things as well. This can lead to the belief that "even if I'm a little impaired, I'll be okay."
The fact that driving is such an extremely familiar task for most people helps bolster this sense of overconfidence. "Familiarity breeds contempt," as the saying goes.
It's possible that, with all the best intentions, safety advocacy groups and governments add to this misplaced confidence. In a MADD, Canada advertisement, recently shown widely on Canadian television, drunk driving is depicted as blurred vision. With a clinking sound, one glass after another is superimposed on the driving scene. Each glass adds to the blurring of the scene. Another depiction of impaired driving involves goggles that distort vision, producing an almost nauseating effect.
The intent of the demonstrations is obvious, but perhaps there's a hidden, unintended message here as well. Does the driver who's had several drinks and is over the legal limit have blurred or distorted vision? Hardly. This potentially leads the drinking driver to some unfounded but understandable conclusions. "I feel okay," we can hear the driver saying. "Sure, drinking and driving is dangerous, but only for people who can't handle it and have blurred or distorted vision."
There are other hidden and unintended messages in our efforts to curb drinking and driving. Even the BAC laws convey the message that some drinking is okay. You might conclude that as long as you are under the 0.08 limit, it's all right for you to drive.
In Herb Simpson's view, there are some intrinsic problems with current efforts to curb drinking and driving. One is the overconfidence fostered by simplistic ideas about driving, impairment and alcohol. Another is the low probability of getting caught. Yet another is poor information on how much alcohol it takes to become impaired, or exceed legal BAC limits.
Perhaps an even more devastating obstacle to coaxing drivers to be more responsible is the experience of driving itself. The reality of drinking and driving, says Simpson, is that it's very easy to get away with it. The chances of getting caught are minimal. The chances of crashing are not that great, either.
It might be accurate, says Simpson, to tell drivers that a BAC of 0.08 increases their risk of fatal collision by tenfold, and that very high BACs (for example, 0.20) increase risk as much as 200 times, but this increase is relative to the risk of a fatal collision in the first place, which is very low, because the driving environment is very forgiving. Drivers make mistakes every day and don't crash. The probability of a fatal road crash in North America is something like 2 for every 100 million miles traveled.
This is not much comfort to the family that is devastated by a death caused by drunk driving, but it's the reality of driving experience. Drivers can get away with mistake after mistake and not crash. Worse yet, each time they make a mistake without consequences, it reinforces their belief that the problem is not really all that bad.
Driving is an activity that is based very much on habit. Habits are formed through experience. The catch is that experience is a two-sided coin!
Experience teaches us caution. Mistakes are punished, sometimes severely. But not all mistakes are punished, and not all mistakes are perceived as mistakes. Drivers who speed, for example, are rewarded by earlier arrival at their destination, as well as other "benefits" such as excitement and feelings of power. Rewards reinforce habits. Speeding can become a reinforced routine of everyday driving. The negative risks of speeding such as crashing or being fined - may not manifest themselves for quite a while, if ever.
Similarly, says Dr. Simpson, the real risks of drinking and driving may be offset by positive experiences. After all, countless drivers drink and drive every day and don't crash or get caught. In other words, he points out, "Drivers operate in a system that tells them it's okay, because they're getting away with it."
A large part of this "getting away with it" experience may stem from the fact that drivers are poorly educated about the task of driving itself. "They don't see their mistakes," says Simpson.
Others have pointed to this two-sided coin of experience and habit-building. Some years ago, German researcher Hanns-Christian Heinrich described it in relation to how novice drivers learn.* "As well as forming models of good driving behavior from observing others," wrote Heinrich, "the novice is also experiencing what works and what doesn't in his or her own behavior. In addition to good behaviors learned in this way, the novice may also be indulging in behavior that isn't good but seems to work and is thus reinforced. Undesirable habits are then formed."
Better-educated drivers might develop more appropriate habits. In safety terms, the fact that crashes are rare events tends to confound this approach. Telling drivers that they will crash if they drink and drive, or speed or tailgate, just doesn't gibe with the average driver's everyday experience. For Mister or Ms Average Driver, success is getting away with behaviors that have accumulated over time, and in response to real-world circumstances.
How do we knock drivers out of this complacency? It's not so easy, Simpson reckons. "Indeed, it has often been suggested that drivers would begin to recognize their own fallibility if they experienced near misses, or even collisions. Unfortunately it does not work that way. Avoiding a collision can simply reinforce the belief that a driver is, in fact, very skilled. Being involved in a collision does not necessarily suggest to drivers that they lack skills - most drivers believe that if they are involved in a collision, it is the other person's fault."
All of this may be disheartening to the ranks of those leading the fight against driving after drinking. But Simpson is not discouraged. "I still believe we can get through to people," he says, "but it will likely require a different approach to educating about driving and educating about alcohol."
Simpson points out that some surveys have indicated that about 80% of drivers feel they're above average. "If this is the case, then it's a tough veneer to break through. We have to get past superficial statements of concern and simplistic ideas about changing behavior. We need to find out what's going on in the public mind, how people really feel about these behaviors."
"We need to educate about driving, find out where people are in their thinking and develop new strategies." Otherwise, says Dr. Simpson, we may wind up pushing ahead with ever more draconian measures against problem driving without getting a payoff. A better option, he believes, is to convince the public that "we have met the enemy and he is us."
That, he feels, is a necessary first step in changing behavior. "In the past, we went for a passive approach to changing behavior." Researchers and policymakers gave up on changing the driver and aligned their efforts more towards measures that are independent of the driver, such as safer cars and more forgiving environments.
These measures are fine, but it's time to bring the driving public into the game - as partners. To do this, we need to know more about them and make them more knowledgeable about the complexities and dangers of driving.
Further comments to this article have been disabled.
All Comments (1)
Showing 1 - 1 comments
Stephanie,
