Review Provides Little Evidence That Sobriety Checkpoints Curb Drunk Driving Accidents
Despite the fact that police use of roadblocks and sobriety checkpoints has become increasingly prevalent in recent years, a recent study has found that there is not enough evidence to definitively say that the increased police efforts effectively cut down on the number of driving under the influence related accidents and fatalities. According to lead reviewer Cynthia Goss, of the Colorado Injury Control Research Center and the Colorado School of Public Health, "Increased police patrols might be effective, but we do not yet have enough evidence to prove that they are."
The review will appear in the current issue of The Cochrane Library, a publication of The Cochrane Collaboration, which is an international organization that evaluates research conducted on topics affecting health care. The review provided its' conclusion on the effectiveness of sobriety checkpoints after considering the content and quality of thirty-two existing studies on the topic. The studies were chosen based on strict selection criteria, which required, "Randomized controlled trials, controlled trials, controlled before and after studies, interrupted time series (ITS) studies, and controlled ITS studies evaluating increased police patrols...."
In a majority of the thirty-two studies, the specific intent of the police initiated checkpoints and roadblocks was to locate individuals suspected of driving under the influence, while also serving as a deterrent to individuals who may potentially choose to drink and drive. Some of the police interventions were also aimed at reducing other traffic violations, such as speeding or driving without a valid license.
Most of these studies revealed that increased police patrols reduced traffic crashes and fatalities, but evidence on the effect of traffic injuries was less consistent. The reviewers concluded that in most of the studies, the results may have been biased or unreliable due to their weak or unclear quality. "Methodological limitations included inadequate sample size, dissimilar baseline measures, contamination, and inadequate data analysis. Thus, existing evidence, although supportive, does not firmly establish whether increased police patrols, implemented with or without other intervention elements, reduce the adverse consequences of alcohol-impaired driving."
Goss explained The Cochrane Collaboration's rationale, stating, "Study quality cannot be separated from study results. A poor quality study can make the intervention look better- or worse- than it really is." Reviewers discovered that the detail provided on the methodology of included studies was uniformly poor, and the quality of the finalized reports was equally weak. Reviewers felt that studies assessing the cost-effectiveness of the sobriety checkpoints and roadblocks were necessary in order to truly determine effectiveness of heightened police intervention. No such studies were included in the review.
MADD national president, Laura Dean-Mooney contested The Cochrane Collaboration's findings, asserting that, "Federal research from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows that sobriety checkpoints reduce alcohol related crashes and fatalities by up to twenty-four percent. Checkpoints are one of the most effective tools we have to deter drunk driving." MADD officials have stated in the past that just because a sobriety checkpoint doesn't yield any arrests doesn't mean that the heightened police efforts are not working. Instead, MADD insists that a lack of arrests for DUI related violations during a police checkpoint illustrates the effective deterrent power police checkpoints have over individuals who may have otherwise chosen to drink and drive.
Please take some time to visit our websites:
San Francisco DUI Attorney
San Mateo DUI Lawyer
Marin County DUI Defense
Northern California DUI Defense Lawyers
San Francisco County DUI Defense Lawyers
