Alcohol and other drug use and the transition from riding to driving

Abstract

Poulin, Boudreau and Ashbridge [Addiction 2007;102(1):51-61.] provide an intriguing analysis of the problem of adolescents riding with drunk drivers. Their analysis, based on a survey of 13 000 students in grades 7-12 in the four Maritime Provinces of Canada, includes individual, school and province variables. Highlighted are the factors not within the student's direct control that determine the extent of riding with a drunk driver (RDD). They found that rural residence, single parent or no parents, socio-economic status (SES), prevalence of driving under the influence (DUI), lower licensure rate and lower educational attainment in the community were associated with RDD. Of particular interest was their finding that, once the impact of those factors was controlled, being licensed reduced the probability of RDD. Presumably, this is because youths with licenses have less need to ride with others and thus are less likely to ride with a drunk driver. The Poulin et al. results highlight the need to pay more attention to the risk that unlicensed youths will become riders in alcohol-related crashes. Sixteen-year-old drivers have crash rates that are three times greater than 17-year-olds and five times greater than 18-year-olds. The current official response to this problem is GDL, which extends the period of adult-supervised driving and provides for an intermediate period when the novice driver may not carry teenage passengers or drive late at night. This should reduce the opportunity for teenage passengers to be injured in crashes involving drinking novice drivers. There is substantial evidence that GDL programs are effective in reducing the crashes of novice drivers. However, there have been no studies of the impact of GDL on teenage passengers. Although imposing night-time restrictions on teenage driversand teenage passengers appears to effectively reduce novice-driver injuries, there is evidence that GDL laws achieve their primary impact through a delay in the licensing of 16- and 17-year-olds. If GDL laws are achieving their impact primarily by limiting the number of licensed 16- and 17-year-olds, then more teenagers in that age group will need rides. It is therefore important to study the limits on mobility (a potential economic burden on some families) and safety (if lack of a license increases RDD) if a teenager is unlicensed. The Poulin et al. paper challenges us to increase our knowledge about RDD as a signal for alcohol problems. It suggests a need to examine more closely the trade-off between discouraging early licensing versus reducing RDD by making licensing more available. It also suggests more research on programs that discourage RDD that go beyond current educational efforts. Language: en