Roving Patrols Are Effective
The 2004 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) alcohol-related fatality data shows an instructive pattern: the 11 states driving the national decline in alcohol related fatalities are roving patrol states, where roadblocks are not used.
Analysis of the NHTSA numbers shows:
- Every one of the 11 non-roadblock states saw a decline in alcohol-related fatalities, while almost half of roadblock states saw an increase in alcohol-related fatalities.
- Due to this increase, the 39 states (plus the District of Columbia) that do operate
roadblocks only accounted for a net 17 fewer alcohol-related fatalities.
The analysis of drunk driving deaths—those above the 0.08% blood alcohol content (BAC)
threshold—are even more significant, with the 11 roving patrol states showing a reduction of
308 deaths, while roadblock states saw 40 more drunk driving deaths.
Recent data from the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation
show that roving patrols catch up to 10 times as many drunk
drivers as roadblocks.
Roving Patrols Target Hardcore Drunk Drivers
The average BAC of a drunk driver in a fatal crash is .19%—more than double the legal limit. These criminals, many of
whom are repeat offenders, routinely reach extremely high
BACs and then drive, posing an extreme traffic safety risk
and accounting for a hugely disproportionate percentage
of fatalities.
Their intractable nature led Department of Transportation
research to conclude, "[S]pecific deterrence strategies like roving
patrols that ‘hunt down’ DWIs, may be the optimum means for
targeting the hard core drinking driver." These offenders must be
taken off the road, and roving patrols are the best way to do that.
And since federal funding treats roving patrols and roadblocks
identically, there is no excuse for pursuing public relations at the
expense of public safety by using roadblocks.
Roving Patrols Get Drunk Drivers Off the Road
Research going back over
a decade agrees that
roving patrols are far more
effective than roadblocks at
arresting drunk drivers. Unlike
roadblocks, which randomly
stop drivers (ensuring a very
low arrest rate), roving or "wolf
pack" patrols roam the streets
looking for dangerous driving
behavior. This suspicion-based
procedure not only respects
constitutional rights but also
vastly increases arrest rates,
since law enforcement are
tracking down offenders, not
waiting for drunk drivers to
drive through a stationary
roadblock.
A Department of Transportation
study compared roving patrols
with roadblocks, and found
"The number of DWI arrests
made by the roving patrol
program was nearly three
times the average number of
DWIs made by the checkpoint
programs" and concluded
"If making a large number of
DWI arrests is an objective of
a program, [the data] clearly
suggests that roving patrols
would be the preferred option."
The Experts Agree...
"[T]o effectively deter drunk drivers, the obvious remedy is to catch more
drunk drivers by utilizing routine police patrols and roving DUI patrols,
rather than using one pre-determined and pre-announced location."
—PA State Supreme Court Justice Nigro, 2005
"[R]oving patrols are difficult to avoid, and the drivers arrested are most
likely to be those at highest risk of crash involvement. Saturation patrols
combine the desirable features of spot checks and routine patrols to create
an efficient means of identifying the highest risk group of impaired drivers
—DWI repeat offenders."
—Herb Simpson, President and CEO of the Traffic Injury Research Foundation
and winner of the National Commission Against Drunk Driving's 2003
"Humanitarian of the Year" Award
"There has been a growing realization in recent years that a major portion of
the DWI problem is attributable to the ‘hard core drinking driver' ... Thus,
specific deterrence strategies like roving patrols that 'hunt down' DWIs, may
be the optimum means for targeting the hard core drinking driver."
—"Experimental Evaluation of Sobriety Checkpoints,"
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration