Search

The aim of the present study was to define the profile of a drunk driver and to determine risk factors for drunk driving by analyzing data on both sober and drunk drivers. Systematic roadside surveys have been carried out in Southern Finland for over 18 years, with 20,000-30,000 drivers breath tested annually. During the study period, 1241 drunk drivers were caught (legal blood alcohol limit 0.50%). The comparison material consisted of 3407 sober drivers. The surveys were designed to further investigate demographic features and driving habits of drivers. The prevalence of drunk driving has been 0.2% over the time period, with only random variations. According to the data, a typical drunk driver is a man aged 40-49 who has a valid driving license and drives his own car, usually alone, with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 1.0%. He has a job and is married or cohabiting. The profile remained consistent throughout the study period. The risk of drunk driving was found to be five times higher for men than for women. Divorcees and widow(er)s had a substantially higher risk factor for being caught drunk driving than married drivers. Drunk drivers are most likely to be caught by roadside testing on Saturday mornings. During the study period the blood alcohol limit for aggravated drunk driving was lowered in 1994 from 1.5 to 1.2%. In 2004 the taxation of alcohol beverages was reduced by 30%. Neither of these measures affected the prevalence of drunk driving or the mean BAC of drunk drivers (p = 0.63). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: For various reasons, many people suspected of driving under the influence of alcohol (DUIA) are not apprehended sitting behind the wheel, but some time after the driving. This gives them the opportunity to claim they drank alcohol after the time of driving or after they were involved in a road-traffic crash. Alleged post-offence drinking is not easy for the prosecution to disprove, which often means that the DUIA charge is dropped or the person is acquitted if the case goes to trial. The routine practice of sampling and measuring the concentration of alcohol in blood (BAC) and urine (UAC) and calculating urine/blood ratios (UAC/BAC) and the changes in UAC between two successive voids furnishes useful information to support or challenge alleged drinking after driving. We present here a retrospective case series of DUIA offenders (N =40) in half of which there was supporting evidence of an after-drink (eye witness or police reports) and in the other half no such evidence existed apart from the suspect''s admission. When there was supporting evidence of an after-drink, the UAC/BAC ratio for the first void was close to or less than unity (mean 1.04, median 1.08, range 0.54–1.21) and the UAC increased by 0.21g/L (range 0.02–0.57) between the two voids. Without any supporting evidence of post-offence drinking the mean UAC/BAC ratio was 1.46 (range 1.35–1.93) for the first void, verifying that absorption and distribution of alcohol in all body fluids and tissues was complete. In these cases, the UAC between successive voids decreased by 0.25g/L on average (range 0.10–0.49), indicating the post-absorptive phase of the BAC curve. Long experience from investigating claims of post-offence drinking leads us to conclude that in the vast majority of cases this lacks any substance and is simply a last resort by DUIA offenders to evade justice. Unless supporting evidence exists (eye witness, police reports, etc.) of post-offence drinking the courts are encouraged to ignore this defence argument. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]