Impaired driving can be prevented

1
Impaired driving can be prevented

• Impaired driving kills gt 16,000 and injures
  nearly 305,000 others every year.
• Every 32 minutes, someone in the United States
  dies in an impaired driving crash
• Every 2 minutes, someone is injured

2
Sobriety Check Points to reduce alcohol related
crashes
Public Expenditure Analysis, Spring 2006 Ruth
Salcedo Yolanda Martínez Jinxiang Liu
3
Sobriety Check Points to reduce alcohol related
crashes

• What are the costs?
• What are the benefits?
• How sensitive are our estimates?

4
Characteristics of the project

• Number of checkpoints 156 per year (3 per week)
  Small scale 8 officers
• Large scale 12 officers
• Checkpoints are conducted at non work hours
• Time spent per intervention 5 minutes

5
Costs

• Personnel
• Equipment
• Time spent by drivers
• Time spent by passengers
• Mobility Loss
• Trials
• Publicity

6
Personnel costs per checkpoint

• Hours per officer per checkpoint 11.5
• Police wages and fringe
• (annual salary 50,000) 39.06
• Overhead factor (1.5) 58.59

Small scale 5,391 Large scale 8,086
7
Equipment costs per checkpoint

• Equipment (5 year)
• Vehicle or trailer
• Equipment (1 year)
• Traffic vests
• Traffic cones
• Flares
• Breath testing devices
• Flashlights with chargers
• Sobriety Checkpoint Ahead sign
• Be Prepared To Stop sign

Small scale 67 Large scale 82

• Mini-cades
• Brooms and shovels
• Trash cans
• Portable generator
• Extension cords
• Multi-directional portable lighting

8
Mobility loss per checkpoint
9
Costs of Time Delay

• Time value per driver 90 of wage
• Time value per passenger 67.5 of wage
• Vehicle occupancy rate 1.5 people
• Hourly earnings 16.32
• Vehicles will be intervened per checkpoint
• 240 in Small Scale
• 384 in Large Scale
• intervened drivers charged with DUI 1

Small scale 514 Large scale 823
10
Other costs

• Cost per trials
• Small scale 864
• Large scale 1,382
• Publicity statewide 300,000

11
Total Costs
12
Crashes Density per County
13
Crashes Density per County
14
Other scenario
15
2. Benefit Analysis

• 2.1 Introduction and Summary of Findings
• 2.2 Economic Cost of alcohol-related crashes in
  PA in 2004
• 2.2.1 Methodology used in economic cost
  calculation
• 2.2.2 Estimate alcohol-related crashes in PA in
  2004
• 2.3 Benefit of checkpoint program
• 2.3.1 Our Detailed Methodology
• 2.3.2 Our calculation and findings

16
2.2.1 Findings alcohol-related crashes in PA in
2004
Go NPV
17
2.2.1 Methodology used in economic cost
calculation

• The crashes can be classified into three groups
• Fatalities
• Non-fatal injuries
• Property-Damage Only (PDO)
• Economic cost has five major components
• Medical care cost
• Public program cost
• Property cost
• Future earnings
• Quality of life

18
One example
19
The economic cost of alcohol-related crashes in
PA in 2004
20
A survey

• If you are fond of swimming, do you agree the
  policy of banning swimming because swimming could
  lead to death?
• No!
• Absolutely No!
• I will be very unhappy if I cannot swim.
• I know I could be drown if I swim.
• But I value the benefit of swimming higher than
  potential cost (death)
• If you ban swim to save my life, Im not willing
  to take that.
• I hate this policy.

21
So is the alcohol-related crash policy

• People make their traffic safety decisions by
  comparing their private benefits with their
  private costs.
• They value the drive during drinking more than
  the risks of having a crash.
• Private life-saving benefits for drunken
  drivers are at least offset by private costs

22
The majority of alcohol-related crashes involve
one car the car with drunk drivers
Most of crashes are intoxicated drivers having
single-vehicle crashes and intoxicated
pedestrians straying into traffic.
The proportion of the sober driver, the passenger
with sober driver and sober nonoccupant among the
total fatalities is low
2004 14.3 2003 13.7 2001 11.5 1996
11.7 1993 14.5
So 15
23
Benefit of Checkpoint program in PA in 2004
Comparison
24
NPV

• The costs in each future years are constant
• The estimated number of fatalities in
  alcohol-related crashes remained essentially
  unchanged in recent years.
• Persons Injured per year is also stable
• The unit cost is calculated by bringing future
  value back.
• We use 4 discount rate, from year 2007 to year
  2020,(10,296 checkpoint, 20)

25
In a state wide checkpoint program, the benefits
outweigh the costs
?
?
26
Our analysis used a weighted average reduction
rate
?
27
A 4 discount rate ensures consistency with our
literature review

• Cost and benefits of a community checkpoint
  program (Miller, Ted. 1995)
• Composing costs calculation used a discount rate
  of 4
• The Economic Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes,
  2000. U.S. DOT
• This rate was selected because most long-term
  cumulative rates of return on stocks cluster
  around that number. Investors appear to prefer
  the higher, riskier returns from stocks to the
  more conservative Treasury Bills by a significant
  margin

28
Investing in statewide checkpoint program

• Checkpoints have proved to be efficient in
  reducing Alcohol related crashes
• The program can be implemented in partnership
  with insurance companies.

19 Decrease Of single vehicle injury crashes
involving male drivers ages 21 to 40
British Columbia (July to December 1995)
Reduction in crash costs for the insurer
supporting the program was estimated to be 3.4
times greater than the costs of the program
29
Q A
30
Appendix Equipment sample
Portable breath testing devices 115.00 USD
Reflective safety traffic vests High-Visibility
Sweatshirt 50.00 USD
Rechargeable flashlights 18.00 USD
Razor-back shovel 20 USD