V. Conclusions and Recommendations

What Happened?

The data reported in Chapter III clearly demonstrate the changes in youth drinking, drinking and driving, and other related behaviors since 1982.

Youth Drinking and Driving Dropped Substantially

Youth drinking and driving dropped substantially, as measured by drinking drivers in fatal crashes and by self-reported drinking and driving behavior. At the same time, young sober driver fatal crash involvement increased.
Most of the decrease took place between 1982 and 1992.
The decrease was nationwide: most states had very substantial decreases. However, states with the largest declines tended to lie on the East and West coasts. This outcome generally parallels the pattern for overall reductions in alcohol-related fatalities.
Young drivers of all ages up to 21 reduced their drinking and driving by similar amounts. Drinking and driving decreases by high school and college age youth were similar.
Drinking and driving decreased substantially more among youth than among older drivers.

Youth Drinking Also Dropped, But Not as Much

Youth drinking also decreased during this period, but by less than half as much as youth drinking and driving. Youth drinking has increased gradually since about 1993, while drinking and driving has remained approximately constant.
The decrease in youth drinking also occurred fairly uniformly across the country. By 1998, youth drinking habits were similar in all regions.
Most youth still drink; a majority drink at least monthly; a substantial minority binge drink regularly

Youth Have Separated Drinking and Driving More Than Older Drivers

Youth have separated their drinking and their driving more than have drivers over 21.
Drinking and driving has become less socially acceptable among youth than it was in 1982. Youth have accepted the designated driver concept and often use designated drivers.

What Caused these Changes?

As Chapter IV shows, the causes of this decrease are not nearly as well documented or understood.

Demographic Changes - the Youth Population Decreased

Changes in the population distribution account for a portion of the effect. The number of youth aged 16-20 decreased during this time, while the number of older persons increased substantially. If fatal crash involvements per population are compared instead of total fatal crash involvements, the gap between young and older driver decreases since 1982 narrows.

Laws and Enforcement - MLDA 21 and Zero Tolerance

Minimum Legal Drinking Age increases caused some of the decrease. Thirty-six states raised their Minimum Legal Drinking Age to 21 since 1982. This reduced both youth drinking and youth drinking and driving.
Zero tolerance laws caused a portion of the decrease. All states enacted zero tolerance laws since 1990.

Programs in States and Communities

States and communities have conducted many, many activities directed at youth drinking and driving not involving laws and enforcement. But there is almost no direct evidence that these activities have affected youth drinking and driving.

Drinking and Driving Measures Directed at All Drivers

In general, states that reduced overall drinking and driving the most (as measured by the reduction in alcohol-related traffic fatalities) also reduced youth drinking driver involvements in fatal crashes the most.

Other factors

Economic and social changes may well have influenced youth drinking and driving substantially, but no direct evidence was found.

What Does This All Mean?

Three influences are well-documented and well-understood: population changes, drinking age increases, and zero tolerance laws. Influences from the remaining factors - youth programs, other drunk driving measures, and factors completely apart from driving or drinking - can only be inferred. While MLDA 21 and zero tolerance laws clearly had some effect, they equally clearly did not cause the entire decrease. Canada's decrease was identical, with no drinking age changes, and states whose drinking age was 21 before 1982 also shared in the decrease. Zero tolerance laws were implemented only in the 1990s, after most of the youth drinking and driving decrease had occurred.

The influence of drinking and driving measures directed at all drivers, not just youth, seems clear, both from the data of Chapter IVD and from common sense. However, youth drinking and driving decreased substantially more. Some of the difference may be due to the youth-directed measures of drinking age increases and zero tolerance laws. Another possibility is that some general measures may have a stronger effect on youth than on older drivers. For example, drinking and driving enforcement publicity may prompt parents to exert more control over their young drivers. Or the threat of a driver's license suspension may affect youth more than older drivers.

The effects of programs directed at youth are the most uncertain. These programs touched virtually all youth to some degree, through the schools, the media, and activities in their community. There is abundant anecdotal evidence that specific programs had some impact: students said they were affected by assembly programs featuring drunk driving victims or by "mock crash" events; no youth alcohol-related crashes occurred on Project Graduation weekends; virtually every student knows the dangers of drinking and driving. But there is little or no proof of any direct effect on youth drinking and driving. On the other hand, their cumulative effect may have been crucial in producing the youth attitude, behavior, and crash changes over the past 20 years. We simply do not know.

Recommendations

Lacking firm data and firm conclusions, it's difficult to make definitive recommendations. Those that follow come from the authors' experience and best judgment as well as the information presented in this report.

If It Ain't Broke, Don't Fix It

Something worked spectacularly well in reducing youth drinking and driving. Some causes are known; some are not. But none of the broad activities directed at youth drinking and driving over the past 20 years has been proven to be useless. So, carry on: continue enforcing the laws, continue the programs directed at youth, continue measures against all drinking and driving.

Improve Drinking Age and Zero Tolerance Law Enforcement

Both MLDA 21 and zero tolerance laws are poorly enforced, for several reasons: their enforcement may not be a priority; police may lack the necessary resources; enforcement procedures may pose obstacles; the laws themselves may have loopholes or unfortunate provisions. If enforcement improves, youth drinking and driving is likely to drop further.

Don't Be Complacent

Youth cultures change quickly. Programs and methods that affected last year's youth may be irrelevant to next year's. Continue the research, the experimentation, and the programs; inform, motivate, involve, and affect youth; reduce drinking and drinking and driving even further.