Circumstances of Observed Travel

Cover Page

Technical Report

Technical Summary

Acknowledgements

List of Tables

Introduction

Study Sites

Observational Study

Focus Group Research

Conclusions

References

• Protocol
• Selection of Subjects
• Identification of Eligible Subjects
• Case Records
• Description of Subjects
• Subjects' Prior Driving Records
• Description of Current DWI/OWI Offense
• License Reinstatement and Subsequent Driving Record
• Results of Observations
• Travel During Suspension Period
• Travel During vs. After Suspension
• Factors Affecting Driving While Suspended
• Circumstances of Observed Travel'
• Case Examples

Milwaukee - Table 3.8 provides a more detailed account of the observed travel of the 57 Milwaukee subjects. The table summarizes travel during the weekday morning observation and the Friday/Saturday evening observation conducted during the suspension period. For the 3 subjects whose license was reinstated, the table also summarizes their travel during the observations conducted after reinstatement. After reinstatement, all 3 persons drove during the Friday/Saturday observation, and none were observed traveling during the weekday morning observation.

Table 3.8: Observed Travel During Daytime and Nighttime Observations Milwaukee
	During Suspension		After Reinstatement
	Weekday Morning	Fri/Sat Evening	Weekday Morning	Fri/Sat Evening
Drove
Returned Home	0	9	0	0
Work	5	0	0	0
School	3	0	0	0
Other Residence	1	3	0	1
Store/bank/gas station	4	2	0	1
Don’t Know	3	4	0	1
Subtotal Drove	16 (28.1%)	18 (31.6%)	0 (0.0%)	3 (100.0%)
Traveled but Did Not Drive
Returned Home	0	1	0	0
Work	3	0	0	0
School	1	0	0	0
Other Residence	0	1	0	0
Store/bank/gas station	0	1	0	0
Don’t Know	1	0	0	0
Subtotal Traveled/Didn’t Drive	5 (8.8%)	3 (5.3%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)
Travel Not Observed	36 (63.1%)	36 (63.1%)	3 (100.0%)	0 (0.0%)
TOTAL	57 (100.0%)	57 (100.0%)	3 (100.0%)	3 (100.0%)

For the during-suspension observations, the results for the weekday morning and the evening observations did not differ dramatically. During the weekday morning observations, 16 persons drove and 5 persons used other transportation; during the evening observations, 18 persons drove and 3 persons used alternative transportation (Table 3.8). The 8 trips made with alternative transportation included subjects walking (2) or riding as passengers (6).
Information was gathered on the presence of passengers when subjects drove. For the 34 during-suspension driving trips, 24 drivers had no passengers, 4 transported adult passengers, 2 transported child passengers, and 4 transported both adult and child passengers.

Overall, when both during-suspension observation periods are considered, the travel patterns for the 57 Milwaukee subjects were as follows:

• 23 subjects were not observed traveling during either observation period.
  
  
• 23 subjects drove during one observation period and were not observed during the other period.
  
  
• 4 subjects drove during both observation periods.
  
  
• 3 subjects drove during one observation period and used alternative transportation during the other.
  
  
• 3 subjects used alternative transportation during one observation period and did not travel during the other.
  
  
• 1 subject used alternative transportation during both observation periods.
  

As noted previously, of the three Milwaukee subjects whose license was reinstated, two subjects drove during one of the during-suspension observation periods and during one of the post-reinstatement observation periods. The third subject did not travel during either during-suspension observation but drove during one post-reinstatement observation.

Bergen County - The detailed results for observed travel in Bergen County are provided in Table 3.9. The results show different patterns of travel between weekday mornings and evenings for the during-suspension observations. Of the 12 persons observed traveling during the weekday morning observation, 2 drove and 10 used alternative transportation. In contrast, of the 14 persons observed traveling during the evening observation, 7 drove and 7 used alternative transportation. Thus, the driving observed for the during-suspension observations was more likely to occur during the evening observations. For the post-suspension observations, of the 12 persons traveling during the weekday morning observation, 9 drove and 3 used alternative transportation. Of the 11 persons traveling during the evening observation, 10 drove.

Table 3.9: Observed Travel During Daytime and Nighttime Observations Bergen County
	During Suspension		After Reinstatement
	Weekday Morning	Fri/Sat Evening	Weekday Morning	Fri/Sat Evening
Drove
Returned Home	0	5	1	6
Work	1	0	3	0
School	0	0	1	0
Other Residence	0	0	0	1
Store/Bank/Gas Station	1	0	1	1
Don’t Know	0	2	3	2
Sub-total Drove	2 (5.6%)	7 (19.4%)	9 (32.1%)	10 (35.7%)
Traveled but Did Not Drive
Returned Home	1	6	0	1
Work	6	0	0	0
Don’t Know	3	1	3	0
Sub-total Traveled/Didn’t Drive	10 (27.8%)	7 (19.4%)	3 (10.7%)	1 (3.6%)
Travel Not Observed	24 (66.6%)	22 (61.1%)	16 (57.1%)	17 (60.7%)
TOTAL	36 (100.0%)	36 (100.0%)	28 (100.0%)	28 (100.0%)

The 17 during-suspension trips that involved alternative transportation included subjects riding as passengers (11), walking (3), and walking and riding a bus or train (3). With regard to passengers transported, only 1 of the 9 during-suspension driving trips involved the transportation of a passenger.

When both during-suspension observation periods are considered, the travel patterns for the 36 subjects observed were as follows:

• 14 subjects were not observed traveling.
  
  
• 13 subjects used alternative transportation during one observation and were not observed during the other.
  
  
• 5 subjects drove during one observation and were not observed during the other.
  
  
• 2 subjects used alternative transportation during one observation and drove during the other.
  
  
• 1 subject used alternative transportation during both observations.
  
  
• 1 subject drove during both observation periods.

Subjects' travel patterns were compared for the during-suspension and post-suspension observations for the 28 Bergen County subjects whose license was reinstated. Nine subjects did not drive during either of the during-suspension observation periods but drove during at least one post-reinstatement observation period. Three drove during one of the during-suspension periods and during both periods after reinstatement. Only one subject was observed driving during one of the during-suspension periods but not after reinstatement. Of the 8 subjects who did not have their license reinstated, 5 did not travel during either of the during-suspension observations, and 1 walked, 1 rode as a passenger, and 1 drove during one of the observations.