Effects of Three Underage Drinking Laws on Youth Traffic Fatalities

Pacific Institute For Res And Evaluation, Beltsville MD

Investigators

Linked publications & trials

Abstract

DESCRIPTION (provided by applicant): The public generally assumes that the Minimum Legal Drinking Age of 21 (MDLA-21) is embodied in a single law, and therefore, all states have the same law. Actually, the MLDA-21 state laws consist of multiple provisions that support the core MLDA-21 laws and comprise a family of policies directed at controlling underage drinking. These MLDA-21 statutes vary considerably from state to state, and no state has all components advocated by the federal government. Thus, the current U.S. effort to control underage drinking involves a variable package of policies, many of which have not been evaluated for their effectiveness. The effective dates for each state statute of MLDA-21 law components have been documented. These include MLDA-21 law components that have been evaluated: illegal to possess or purchase alcohol if younger than 21, use alcohol and lose your driver's license, zero tolerance for driving (no alcohol), graduated driver licensing laws with night restrictions, and beer keg registration laws. In addition, many states have adopted social host laws concerning underage drinking parties, the use of fake identification (ID), retailer support for fake ID, transfer/production of fake identification laws, furnishing/selling, illegal to consume, state contol of alcohol, age for on-premise sellers/servers, age for off-premise sellers/servers, and responsible beverage service (RBS) training. Analyses of the effectiveness of the fake ID and social host laws on reducing underage drinking- driver rates in fatal crashes using structural equation modeling (SEM) is currently underway. The objective of this proposed research is to determine the effectiveness of three additional laws using SEM methods: (1) dram shop liability laws that expose outlet owners to third party liability and should affect service to underage as well as adult drivers; (2) state alcohol control laws because of a movement in some states to transition from state monopoly of certain aspects of alcohol distribution and/or retail sales to privatization (e.g., Pennsylvania and Virginia) and such transitions have been associated with increased alcohol availability, alcohol consumption and an increase in alcohol-related injuries; and (3) RBS training laws because some states have been strengthening their RBS training requirements in efforts to reduce overservice practices, particularly service to underage patrons.