Travel During vs. After Suspension

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

An objective of the study was to determine whether the suspension had an impact on the extent of driving, relative to the extent of driving when not suspended. A change in driving patterns during the suspension period, compared with driving patterns when not suspended, would suggest that the suspension had affected offenders' behaviors. Thus, for those subjects whose license was reinstated, a second set of observations was conducted from one to two months after the suspension ended, when subjects would have had an opportunity to have their license reinstated and resume their typical driving patterns. To provide a sound basis for comparison with the during-suspension observations, the second set of observations was conducted on the same days of the week and times of the day as the during-suspension observations.

Forty percent of the Milwaukee subjects were eligible for the reinstatement of their license. Three of these subjects had their license reinstated, and post-reinstatement observations were conducted for these subjects. Two of these subjects drove during one of the observations during their suspension and also during one of the observations conducted after reinstatement. The third subject did not travel during either during-suspension observation but drove during one post-reinstatement observation.

As shown in Table 3.7, 28 of the 36 Bergen County subjects had their license reinstated. For these subjects, the driving patterns during their suspension were significantly different than the driving patterns after reinstatement (p < .001). These findings indicate that the suspension had an impact on these subjects' driving patterns. One-quarter of these subjects drove and 43 percent used alternative transportation during the suspension, versus 54 percent and 7 percent, respectively, after reinstatement.

Table 3.7: Observed Travel During Suspension and After Reinstatement for Bergen County Subjects Whose License Was Reinstated
	During Suspension	After Reinstatement
Drove at Least Once	25.0% (7)	53.6% (15)
Did Not Drive and Used Alternative Travel	42.9% (12)	7.1% (2)
Travel Not Observed	32.1% (9)	39.3% (11)
TOTAL	100.0% (28)	100.0% (28)
	Χ = 10.3, p < .001, df = 2

Focusing solely on the 19 subjects who were observed traveling during either of the two during-suspension observations, 7 subjects (37 percent) drove and 12 subjects (63 percent) used an alternative method of travel. Of the 17 subjects who were observed traveling during either of the two observations conducted after reinstatement, 15 subjects (88 percent) drove and 2 subjects (12 percent) used another method of transportation. The proportion of subjects who were observed driving after reinstatement, compared to the proportion who were observed driving while suspended, was significantly different (? = 10.0, p =.002, df = 1).