College Students and Safe Ride Programs:
Analysis of Student Drinking Behavior and Attitudes
Ramonsita M. Logan
Department of Sociology
Qualifying Review
Fall 2014
Abstract
The tendency on the college campuses of today is to utilize “safe ride” type
programs, supported by student fees to curb drinking and driving by university and
college students. This work seeks to study the efficacy of such programs, and examine
alcohol use of college students “sociologically;” not as a problem, pathology, or a type of
deviant behavior but as part of a socially constructed generational behavior. A qualitative
content analysis was accomplished using focus groups totaling 120 college students, their
drinking behaviors, and their attitudes toward safe ride programs.
Key words: Drinking and driving, college students, sociology of alcohol use
2
Introduction
In the early nineteen forties, sociologist Selden Bacon proposed studying drinking
behavior from a purely “sociological” point of view (Bacon 1943). However, what
developed during a post World War II, post prohibition era was instead a pathological
approach to the study of alcohol (deviant drinking). From this point on deviance and
criminology dominated the literature on alcohol use. However, Bacon’s view still holds
merit; alcohol and drinking should be studied as part of normal social life; with all the
behaviors, ideas, customs, mythologies, patterns, processes, traditions, and institutions
surrounding drinking open for inquiry and examination (Bacon 1943).
Bacon’s notion was that alcohol and drinking behaviors should be studied the
same way that a sociologist studies religion or the family; one does not just examine the
pathologies and deviancies, but all social aspects of the practice (Bacon 1943). This
research seeks to employ Bacon’s ideals, and hopes to uncover the practices of student
drinking behavior, and how this leads to drinking and driving; without viewing the
process as deviant, but as a distinct social practice within college campuses.
However, due to the complexity of what would seem a straight forward act
(drinking and driving), the terminologies (legal or otherwise) related to this issue can be
ambiguous, and are therefore in need of clarification before proceeding further. In a legal
sense the act of drinking and driving may be referred to as “driving under the influence”
(DUI), or “driving while intoxicated” (DWI). Other terms include “operating while
impaired” (OWI), or “operating a vehicle under the influence” (OVI). The “vehicles”
being driven or operated can include cars, motorcycles, trucks, farm machinery, boats,
aircraft, horse-drawn carriages, bicycles, and skateboards. Therefore, DWI and DUI can
3
be synonymous terms that represent the criminal offense of operating a vehicle while
being under the influence of alcohol or (to complicate things further) drugs or a
combination of each.
Confusingly in some jurisdictions DUI is a separate charge, which may or may
not include a DWI. For instance, Texas is a “zero tolerance” state meaning that minors
(anyone under 21 years of age) are not permitted to consume ANY alcohol and drive a
vehicle (Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code Section 106.041). Therefore, if an officer can
smell alcohol coming from a minor’s breath the officer will give a DUI citation to the
minor. However, if the officer feels that the minor is intoxicated, they then can be
arrested for DWI. So in Texas “intoxication” is not an element of DUI, and one can be
charged for two separate crimes, DUI and DWI.
Additionally, it should be noted that in some jurisdictions one can be charged with
a DUI-D, “driving under the influence- drugs”. This is an offense that has the same
consequences as driving while intoxicated. “It is unlawful for any person who is under
the influence of any alcoholic beverage/drug or be under the combined influence of any
alcoholic beverage and drug, to drive a vehicle” (California Vehicle Code section
23152a). The legal definition for the phrase under the influence- drugs is actually
identical to driving under the influence of alcohol- “Affecting the nervous system, brain,
or muscles of a person as to impair, to an appreciable degree, his ability to drive a vehicle
in the manner that any ordinarily prudent and cautious man, in full possession of his
faculties, using reasonable care, would drive a similar vehicle under like conditions”
(California Vehicle Code section 23152a).
4
Yet, one place where these two offenses differ is in the consequences. When a
suspect is charged with driving under the influence of alcohol they must have a bloodalcohol concentration, or BAC, at or above .08%. When charged with driving under the
influence of marijuana or driving under the influence of drugs, however, there is no
blood-alcohol level and therefore no offense to charge the suspect with. Because of this,
the California DMV cannot administratively suspend the suspect's license for driving
under the influence of drugs. This suspension is only administered when the suspect
refuses chemical testing or there is a BAC above .08%. As part of a criminal conviction,
however, the license can still be suspended (California Vehicle Code section 23152a).
So, while illicit drug use is not the focus of this research, it is hopelessly intertwined
within this work, the legal system, and for that matter the drinking practices of college
students. Therefore, for the sake of simplicity and uniformity the term DWI (driving
while intoxicated) will be used as opposed to all other terms previously covered.
In considering this, research suggests that students are aware of risks involved in
DWI, however, this knowledge does not alter their behavior (Blair et al. 2001). Much of
the research to date examines DWI and the persistency of DWI, the increased focus,
penalties, and public awareness (Rabow and Duncan- Schill 1995; Gastil 2000; Houston
et al. 2004; Cyders et al. 2009). Additionally, further research focuses on behavior and
attitudes of the individual and how their attitudes affect their behavior (Rabow and
Duncan- Schill 1995; Gastil 2000; Houston et al. 2004; Cyders et al. 2009). Still other
research examines ethnicity (race) and drinking behaviors of college students (Conners,
Maisto, and Watson, 1989; Ford, and Carr 1990; Hanson, and Engs, 1990; Maddox, and
Williams 1968).
5
This work seeks to bring all these elements together and examine college
students’ attitudes toward DWI, the factors that are involved in the decision process to
drive while intoxicated and if the presence of a safe ride program curbs drinking and
driving. With inductive reasoning the following research question is posed, “what are the
factors that influence student’s decisions and subsequent actions that lead to driving
while intoxicated?” Using prior research as a guide this work explores theories related to
drinking and driving, risk taking behavior, TRA (Theory of Reasoned Action), and
related topics to provide some explanations for drinking and driving within the target
group.
However, it is not the intent of this work to test the leading theories. The purpose
of this qualitative research study is to ultimately identify and understand college student
drinking behavior. Another goal of this project is to gain insight about perspectives on
the reasons for drinking, the availability of alternate transportation, and attitudes toward
drinking and driving. The anticipated result of this study is to apply these exposed
drinking attitudes and the reasoning behind them to the broader population. Further with
an understanding of drinking and driving attitudes among college students, it is
anticipated that this study will help inform the shortcomings of Safe Ride Programs and
in turn promote improvement to existing programs. This understanding or mechanism
could then be used as a tool for solving the detrimental effects of alcoholism, and
problems associated with it, such as drinking and driving.
The most heavily cited and influential research suggests that people who engage
in drinking and driving are more likely to conduct a cost analysis (think about the
likelihood of getting caught) before drinking and driving. However, this is done at the
6
point of intoxication when the person is less likely to make sound decisions (Gastil 2000;
Houston 2004; Sarker 2005). On the other hand the fact that the drunk driver is thinking
about the costs of drinking and driving suggests that they are aware of the consequences
and are trying to decide on how they can minimize or evade such consequences. It is true
that this analysis is taking place at the point of intoxication but if one questions whether it
is true that they are less likely to make sound decisions (Gastil 2000; Houston 2004;
Sarker 2005).
In order to alter these behaviors one first must discover whether or not current
programs and policies are preventing DWI. Further, do these programs reduce recidivism
and/or reduce alcohol related fatalities? To accomplish this, existing literature on the
topic is used as a guide.
Literature Review
History of Safe Ride Programs
Safe ride programs evolved from the concept termed “the designated driver”
which first surfaced in Scandinavia in the 1920’s and became a program in the 1980’s.
The concept then became popular in the United States in 1988 from the inventiveness of
Jay Winsten of the Harvard School of Public Health Center for Health Communication
(Winsten 2000). The media coupled with the U.S. Department of Transportation
launched catchy phrases designed to motivate public awareness, public responsibility,
and public participation in the designated driver program. Additionally, President Bill
7
Clinton participated by campaigning and advertising the designated driver program at the
request of the Harvard Alcohol Project (Solomon-Schwartz 1999; Sarkar et al. 2005).
The program was considered highly successful and was credited for the decline in
alcohol related traffic fatalities from 1988 to 1994 (Solomon-Schwartz 1999; Sarkar et al.
2005). The history of the designated driver program is clear and well preserved;
however, it eventually evolved into what it is termed today as the safe ride program
(Solomon-Schwartz 1999; Sarkar et al. 2005). The designated driver program focused on
designating a driver before consuming alcohol, as one person from the group would
ultimately decide to sustain from drinking and at the end of the evening the sober person
would drive everyone home safely (Solomon-Schwartz 1999; Sarkar et al. 2005).
Drinking establishments would award the designated driver with free soda or water in
recognition of their sacrifice to stay sober (Solomon-Schwartz 1999; Sarkar et al. 2005).
However, more often than not, the designated driver began drinking. In this case,
a new designated driver would then emerge from the group. This individual was either
elected by all, or by themselves, as the one whom drank the least amount of alcohol,
considered less drunk, or able to handle drunkenness the best (Solomon-Schwartz 1999;
Sarkar et al. 2005). The inherent weaknesses of the program lead to the Safe ride
program. These Safe ride type programs begin to pop up on college campuses around
1995, and used student fees as funding.
The idea is that instead of groups designating someone to drive, the entire group
could engage in the social process of drinking. Then the students would be able to depend
on a university sanctioned, and student funded service that they could call to deliver them
home safely (Solomon-Schwartz 1999; Sarkar et al. 2005). There are various spin offs of
8
this idea, but the basic premise is the same. Indeed, in some communities, the safe ride is
provided by the city or county, and not just reserved for college students. Graph 1, shown
on (page 8), illustrates the historical evolution of DWI to the present safe ride programs.
9
10
Safe Ride Programs
Author’s Sarkar et al. in 2002 conducted a survey that included a total of 1,985
participants. The study was designed to determine “who uses safe ride programs?” The
results indicated that “632 participants (44%) reported that they would have driven
themselves home had there not been a safe ride program (Sarkar et al. 2005). 582
participants (40%) have used back roads in the past to evade being stopped by the police;
on average they used back roads 3.4 times in the past month” (Sarkar et al. 2005).
What was most telling of the results is that, “when questioned about having
control over not drinking and driving 455 (32%) participants didn’t feel they had control
over their choice to avoid drinking and driving (Sarkar et al. 2005). Participants who
reported having driven back roads in the past to avoid confrontation with the police after
drinking had significantly higher estimated BAC levels than those who said they had
never done so” (Sarkar et al. 2005).
This study was significant in identifying the history of DWI safe ride programs
and their link to the designated driver campaign, and it provided insight into drinking and
driving attitudes and behaviors. It also was highly successful in indicating that people
drove drunk and with one concern of having a confrontation with police and yet, where
willing to risk driving under the influence. Lastly, the study was very telling of the fact
that the individuals having decided to drink and drive did not feel they had the choice
over their decisions.
11
Modern Theory- Drinking and Driving
Author’s Blair and Hyatt devised a hypothetical scenario where a student from a
university and the students’ friends while celebrating the students’ birthday drank at a bar
to the point of intoxication (Blair et al. 2001). The student then drove drunk and was the
cause of a DWI accident (Blair et al. 2001). The results yield that the students were
hesitant to blame the bar and the primary blame was placed on the drunk driver (student
whose birthday it was) because they felt that the driver should have been aware of his/
her actions (Blair et al. 2001). The author’s theorize and conclude that college students
realize the impact of DWI yet ignore the potential consequences and will continue to
engage in the exact scenario the study set out to test (Blair et al. 2001). The college
students’ behavior and attitudes are beneficial in understanding the correlation between
drinking attitudes, drinking behavior, and drinking and driving (Blair et al. 2001).
Author Cyders et al. focus on US college students drinking and they explain that
there are “enormous risks to health, safety, and productivity” (Cyders et al. 2009). They
theorize that there are recent advances in personality research that could shed light on
understanding risky behavior and how personality contributes to risk and its correlation to
college student drinking (Cyders et al. 2009).
The authors found that risk taking was “related to increases in the frequency with
which college students drank alcohol, positive urgency predicted increases in (i) the
quantity of alcohol students consumed at any given drinking episode and (ii) negative
outcomes experienced from drinking” (Cyders et al. 2009). They concluded that it
appears that although risky behaviors (sensation seeking) are possible factors in
participation in drinking behaviors. Therefore the “risk” for increased quantity of
12
consumption and its negative outcomes may be a function of dyscontrol stemming from a
high positive mood (Cyders et al. 2009).
However, author John Gastil theorizes and argues that TRA (Theory of Reasoned
Action) is the key to understanding DWI offenders. Gastil found that the perceived
severity of the penalties was a deciding factor on whether or not a person perceived the
threat to be important enough as a deterrent (Gastil 2000). Gastil’s article establishes
understanding to the logic and reasoning behind DWI and understanding DWI offenders
and proved helpful to this study.
Authors David J. Houston and Lilliard E. Richardson Jr. examined perceptions of
punishment costs, the importance of individual versus societal costs, and policy
preferences related to drink- driving” (Houston et al. 2004). In explaining the research
findings the authors related the idea of DWI as being a sin and they mentioned three
types of sinners (the non sinner, the occasional sinner, and the frequent sinner) (Houston
et al. 2004). The authors theorize that the more vested the person is to society the more
likely they will not engage in drinking and driving and visa versa (Houston et al. 2004).
This article provides a glimpse into the psyche of the DWI offender and is helpful in
understanding what factors lead to Drinking and Driving.
Authors Rabow and Duncan- Schill look at early and contemporary theories
addressing college drinking with this they theorize and explain that quantity, frequency,
and problems associated with drinking are unable to develop a direct link to gender,
religion, parental social class, etc. (Rabow et al. 1995). Yet, what they find is that college
student drinking is highly social and it develops into a common college culture (Rabow et
al. 1995).
13
The article is important in the realization of the role of alcohol on the daily
socialization and the college culture it represents (Rabow et al. 1995). It provides insight
into the reasons college students drink and their thoughts on what role alcohol plays in
their daily lives (Rabow et al. 1995). Understanding that alcohol and drinking are part of
the college student’s culture and identity, helps us understand that drinking occurrences
are just as common and likely as the possibility of drinking and driving incidences within
this sub-culture.
Authors Zackletskaia et al., investigated the effect of sensation-seeking on selfreported alcohol-impaired driving behavior in a college student population (Zackletskaia
et al. 2009). Student demographics, living situation, most common drinking location,
heavy episodic drinking, sensation-seeking disposition and alcohol-impaired driving
behavior were assessed. They found sensation seeking remains a statistically significant
independent predictor of alcohol-impaired driving behavior (Zackletskaia et al. 2009).
The author’s found that sensation-seeking college students who engage in heavy episodic
drinking, live off-campus, and go to bars are at highest risk for alcohol-impaired driving
behaviors (Zackletskaia et al. 2009). This study is interesting and could lead to further
studies measuring the personality traits of intoxicated drivers by researching and studying
not only the idea of sensation seeking, but the concepts behind it, the environmental
factors that mediate it, and the link between sensation seeking and alcohol-impaired
driving behaviors.
These prior theories focus on a multitude of factors and variables that authors
theorize are the reasons behind drinking and driving behavior and attitudes. These
theories are helpful in understanding and providing background for this study. This
14
background is used to search for emerging themes in the data. The emergent themes are
in turn used to show the factors that indicate why students use or do not use safe ride
programs. The following graph indicates the theories that guide this research and
analysis of the research data as well as looking at behavior and attitudes towards DWI.
Rabow et al. 1995:
College Student
Drinking is Highly
Social
Cyders et al. 2009:
Risk Taking
Behavior,
Sensation Seeking,
& Dyscontrol
Gastil 2000:
Theory of
Reasoned Action
(TRA) Perceived
Fear of Penalties
Driving While
Intoxicated:
Leading
TheoriesDriving
Research
Sarkar et al. 2005:
Risk Taking
BehaviorParticipants felt
they had no choice
Houston et al.
2004: Perception of
Punishment Costs,
Testing Deterrence
Theory, & Morality
Policies
Blair et al. 2001:
Risk Taking
Behavior- Aware of
Consequences
Zakletskaia et al.
2009: AlcoholImpaired Driving
Behavior and
SensationSeeking…
15
Graph 2
Sociological Theory- Alcohol/Drug Use, Drinking and Driving
Structural-Functionalism
The structural-functional paradigm adopts a macro view of society as a complex
system whose parts work together to promote solidarity and stability. Structuralfunctionalists maintain that dysfunction and alienation in society’s components fosters
alienation or anomie, which can become a motivator for conflict, deviance and chaos.
Therefore, structural-functionalists views on alcohol/drug use and DWI/DUI are deviant.
Consequently, these practices can potentially disrupt the functioning of society.
Symbolic Interactionism
Symbolic interaction is a micro-level orientation to deviance (alcohol/drug use
DWI/DUI). Here society is a product of the everyday interactions of individuals. Thus,
society and reality are what people make them; realities and society are created or
socially constructed by individuals. The social construction of reality is important in
understanding deviance like drinking and driving. According to interactionists, drinking
and driving is only a label, it does not exist objectively or naturally. Thus, nothing is
inherently deviant or wrong. Such designations are socially defined by people, who
reach those conclusions through shared and contested views of the world, society, and
their own lived experience.
16
Social-Conflict Paradigm
Conflict theorists are macro-oriented and view society as an arena of inequality
and conflict. For conflict theorists, society’s structure is controlled by those with the
greatest economic, social, and cultural assets. These assets or “capital” enables them to
rise to positions of power in the public and private sectors, where they continue to create
structures that perpetuate their power and interests. Deviance then like alcohol/drug use
or drinking and driving are theorized as a response to the alienating conditions of material
and immaterial inequality (low socioeconomic status) and group (ethnic/racial/class)
marginalization. Conflict theorists argue that some resort to alcohol/drug use because of
inequality and marginalization, or they are simply resisting the status quo by adopting
alternative lifestyles and defiant identities.
Methodology
Methods and Measures
IRB (Institutional Review Board) approval was obtained prior to conducting
research in late 2012. This study used focus group interviews. Focus group research is
popular amongst social scientist and public health fields (Esterberg 1999). It is
qualitative, exploratory, and allows for the exploration of ideas and thoughts that the
researcher might not have discovered in a one on one interview. The focus groups
session questions consisted of open ended questions about drinking frequency and
questions designed to assess the participant’s knowledge and usage of Safe Ride
17
Programs. Further, focus group(s) output can be useful in both qualitative and
quantitative research, has real life implications, and can lead to further research (Esterber
1999).
For the purposes of this study, the participants were asked to sign a consent form
that illustrates and clarifies the focus group study and the proposed audio collection of
data. Upon signing the consent form the participant’s were given “color coordinated
name tag. The “color” of the name badge was used as a substitute for the participant’s
name in order to insure that the person’s name will be held anonymous during the focus
group session. All participants’ names and private information was held confidential.
The method and focus group study was utilized for various reasons: 1) to limit costs, 2)
to speed up the interview process, 3) to take the main focus off of the researcher, 4) to
project a comfortable atmosphere, 5) to allow for ease and flow of ideas, 6) and to
discover new or un- anticipated outcomes (Dupont 1976; Esterberg 1999).
Sample
Participants consisted of 6 groups of 20, first- year college students (120) enrolled
in an introductory Sociology course at an undisclosed university (Esterberg 1999;
Cardoso et al. 2009). The sample size and selection is consistent with prior research
(Rabow et al. 1995; Cyders et al. 2009). Participants were recruited by announcing the
need for participants in a voluntary study. The study accepted volunteers that drank two
or more times a week and those who have used a safe ride program at sometime in the
past year (Sarkar 2005). The participant questionnaire was completed by each potential
participant asking student(s): name, e-mail address, availability, as well as questions
18
designed to aid the researcher in the participant selection process. These questions asked
for age, sex, frequency of drinking, and if a safe ride program had been used in the past
year. Upon collection of the potential participant questionnaire, the individuals chosen for
the focus group study were contacted via e-mail indicating the location, date, and time of
the focus group session. The sample group was 56% Female and 44% Male. The
average age of the sample group was 20.
Analyses Procedure
Audio recordings (recorded during focus group sessions) and transcriptions of
theses same recordings were analyzed for emergent themes. The data was coded in
relation to the participants color coded name badge that was chosen and used by the
participant during the focus group session. The name tags were collected at the end of
the focus group session and placed in the privacy box which included the sign in sheet
and signed debriefing form.
The sessions had a moderator in charge of reading the topic questions and
guiding the flow of the conversation, leaving the researcher free to observe and listen. In
addition, the researcher took hand written notes and passed cues to the moderator, asking
for clarification from the participants and/or adding additional clarification to the
question if the participants appeared unsure of what the question(s) were asking.
Discussion of Findings
The present study found several emergent themes that occurred in all six focus
group sessions. These themes were in fact universal in each group and were so consistent
19
that the data was checked several times to ensure accuracy. First, all participants felt safe
ride programs were a good idea, and consistent with recruitment, had used a safe ride
program in the past year. However, universally the focus groups as a whole only used
safe ride programs upon occasion or only once.
The theme that the safe ride took too long was a universal reason for it not being
used; Transcript: “Was going to take 2 hours” “Tired of waiting and drove myself home”
“Was drunk and did not feel like waiting.” Also the car being left on the street, in a
parking lot, or some other location was another universal theme; “The party was in a bad
area didn’t want to leave my car” “My car was in the middle of nowhere and I was afraid
I might not be able to find it the next day” “I have nice rims, I didn’t want them stolen.”
Another topic that was raised by the focus groups was that the safe ride could only be
used once and was therefore not useful; “They only take you home” “We wanted to go
somewhere else” “Wanted to hit another party” “Got a text there was a rave in an old
building downtown.”
The two themes that emerged of not wanting to leave a vehicle unattended and the
need to go to another location were interesting, and during the focus group session the
moderator was instructed to probe for further clarification on these points. Moderator:
“Why would your car be in the middle of nowhere?” Participant responses: “Where else
would a rave be?” “The place was an underground club and in an industrial area” “The
club was downtown, and not in a safe area miles from my house” “We went out on the
mesa and there was no way I was leaving my car.”
When the moderator probed about why the participants would need to go
somewhere besides home, the following was indicated; Moderator: “So why would any
20
of you want to go somewhere else after drinking?” Participant responses: “Usually we
start at the dorms, and then hit up at a party or rave” “We start at someone’s house to get
a little drunk first, then head to a bar, or maybe downtown, then we end up wherever” “Its
expensive to get drunk at a bar or club so we pre load before going out” “We all hang out
and drink and smoke a little (marijuana), then figure out where we want to hit up.”
During analysis these themes were found to be very revealing. Today’s college
student does not just drink at one location, or one establishment, they bar hop, party hop,
or do both in tandem. Further, drinking is often done in what can be considered
nontraditional places, such as raves (large party’s featuring performances by DJs playing
electronic music, particularly electronic dance music, with the accompaniment of laser
light shows, projected images, visual effects and smoke machines, which are held in
secluded or rural locations) or in underground clubs.
For a safe ride program to work (according to our participants) the safe ride would
need to deliver each person to each destination, and then collect them at the end of the
night to return them home. However, safe ride programs are only set up to give each
person or group of up to four a ride home, drop off to other locations besides their
“home” is not an option and the service can be used only once per night.
Discussions about non conventional places where students drink and/or party lead
to another key finding. The terms “party” “go to a party” or “rave” is used to indicate
drinking coupled with the use of other illegal substances in tandem with alcohol.
Moderator: “When your at a rave or party is there mainly just drinking going on?”
Participant responses: “At a rave most everybody is rolling, drinking, and smoking
21
(marijuana).” “Most everybody at a rave drinks while dropping molly’s” “Flipping is
pretty common.”
Moderator: “So you get both drunk and high at a rave or party?” Participant
responses: “Well yes and no, but being drunk usually overpowers being high.” “Once
you’re wasted drinking, it’s like you can’t get high.” “Yeah too much alcohol will kill
your Adam.” “At a party this E-tard was just tripping balls and wouldn’t calm down. We
gave him a couple of shots and it mellowed him out. He was just drunk then.”
Definitions: Rolling- the act of using MDMA/Ecstasy. Molly, to drop a molly- another
common term for MDMA or using MDMA. To flip or flipping- mixing another
substance (like alcohol) with MDMA. E-tard- a person that is stupid or out-of-hand
under the influence of MDMA. Adam- term for MDMA. As previously noted, illicit drug
use is not the focus of this research. However, most all of the participants in our study
were using alcohol and other drugs as a social medium, which is core to their overall
college experience. This emerges as a prominent theme within the drinking practices of
today’s college students, regardless of whether or not it was an intended part of the study.
The discussion on “partying” or “raving” then led to another theme that was also
quite unexpected. Participant statements: “I was wasted and kept thinking this guy (safe
ride driver) was going to turn me in for public intoxication or something” “I had some
mushrooms on me and a dime bag of weed; I kept thinking the guy (safe ride driver)
might turn me in.” “When the safe ride finally showed up, we were afraid the dude was
going to snitch out the house party we just left.” During discussion within all the focus
groups, the participants all had the shared belief that the drivers of the safe ride program
had some sort of connection with law enforcement. It was their thought that if they were
22
picked up at a house, out in the middle of the desert, or at a warehouse in an industrial
area that the safe ride driver might “snitch” the location of the party or rave to the police.
Further, the participants felt that if they were carrying illegal drugs the driver
might turn them over to police. Additionally, they also felt that since they had to use their
student ID to use the safe ride there was a data base that tracked them, and somehow their
activities would be given to the police or their parents. Participant statements: “They
wanted to see my college ID, what if they (the university) knew how much partying I was
doing.” “I always wondered what kind of records they (safe ride) kept.” “What if my
parents found out I was using the safe ride, they must have records.” Further, those that
were underage but needed to use safe ride suspected that the driver would turn them over
to police for underage drinking as well. Multiple Participants made a similar statement: “I
was pretty fucked up and kept thinking this guy (safe ride driver) was going to turn me
into the cops for underage drinking.”
The next theme was consistent with past research; it seems that once a group
decides against a safe ride they use a cost analysis and rationalization to decide if; they
should drive drunk, who amongst them is the least drunk, or who is the best at driving
while drunk. Another theme consistent with past research was that more often than not
our participants felt they had no other choice but to drive drunk. They cited the safe ride
program as being too restrictive or dangerous (fear of police and link to safe ride), public
transportation being limited, and cabs being too expensive.
23
Limitations
Interpretations of our findings are constrained by several limitations. First, the
findings of the present study may not generalize to other college and non-college
populations. Although the demographic characteristics from the sample closely
resembled the demographic characteristics of similar 4-year U.S. colleges and
universities nationally (Wechsler et al., 2002), previous research has found rates of illicit
drug/alcohol use vary across U.S. colleges and universities (e.g., Bell et al., 1997;
McCabe et al., 2005a, 2005b).
Second, the present study did not examine differences between ethnic groups and
subgroups, since previous research has found differences in drug/alcohol use between
ethnic subgroups among secondary school students (Delva et al., 2005). Future collegiate
studies need to examine possible differences between ethnic groups in drug/alcohol use.
Despite these limitations, the present study provides strong evidence from one university
that a drug/alcohol culture is the key element that promotes DWI/DUI, and safe ride
programs do little to reverse the trend.
Conclusion
By understanding modern college students drinking practices, and how they are
intertwined with transportation and drug use, it is the goal of this research that the
information be applied towards DWI/DUI prevention. It is also expected that the results
of a replication in progress of this 2012 study will yield similar results at a second
24
university in 2015. Further, this research significantly adds to the current literature on
college students in regards to drinking, driving, and drug use practices.
Additionally, this study illuminates how safe ride programs are currently failing
the students who pay for these programs through student fees. Unfortunately, these safe
ride programs are implemented by individuals several decades older than the current
students, who are out of touch with current drinking practices. These administrators have
failed to realize that society is not static but is in constant flux.
The norms of drinking practiced by individuals of college age in the 60’s, 70’s,
80’s and even 90’s are vastly different than the modern drinking practices of current
college age individuals. Therefore, the safe ride program does not really work for those it
was intended. Even if a university were to sanction university owned and operated safe
ride vehicles to pick up students from illegal raves or underground clubs, it would create
a huge liability that even the most liberal of universities might balk at.
By design this study only reveals the practices of college student drinking
behavior, and in doing so exposes the shortcomings of safe ride programs. It was not
designed to provide solutions or answers, and in the sprit of Bacon studied student
drinking practices as a social phenomenon without judgments on morality.
Yet, with drinking and driving appearing in the news more often, and affecting
more college students each year, it is almost certain that the rates will increase as laws
become even more restrictive. Policy makers and administrators at universities must take
the time to understand today’s drinking practices that have become entrenched within
college culture. Eradication of this practice is perhaps not an option. Indeed trying to
25
eradicate a social practice often strengthens it, just as prohibition firmly entrenched
alcohol into our society, thereby creating DWI, and modern college drinking practices.
References
Anderson, T.L. 1998. “A Cultural-Identity Theory of Drug Abuse.” Sociology of Crime,
Law, and Deviance 1:233-262.
Bacon, S.D. 1943. “Sociology and the problems of alcohol: Foundations for a sociologic
study of drinking behavior Introduction by E.M. Jellinek.” Quarterly Journal of
Studies of Alcohol 4(3):399- 445.
Bell, R., H. Wechsler, and L. D. Johnston. 1997. “Correlates of college student
marijuana use: results of a US National Survey.” Addiction 92(5):571-81.
26
Brislin, R.W. 1986. “The wording and translation of research instruments. In: Lonner,
W.J., and Berry, J.W., eds.” Field Methods in Cross- Cultural Research 8:137164.
Conners, G.J., S. A. Maisto, and D. W. Watson. 1989. “Initial drinking experiences
among Black and White male and female student drinkers.” International
Journal of the Addictions 24(12):1173- 1182.
Delva, J., J.M. Wallace Jr., P.M. O’ Malley, J.G. Bachman, L.D. Johnston, and J.E.
Schulenberg. 2005. “The epidemiology of alcohol, marijuana, and cocaine use
among Mexican American, Puerto Rican, Cuban American, and other Latin
American eighth-grade students in the United States: 1991-2002.” American
Journal of Public Health 95(4):696- 702.
Engs, Ruth C., D.J. Hanson, and B. Diebold. 1997. “The Drinking Patterns and
Problems of a National Sample of College Students, 1994: Implications for
Education.” Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education
Ford, D.S., and P. G. Carr. 1990. “Psychological correlates of alcohol consumption
among Black college students.” Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education
36(1):45- 51.
Gastil, John. 2000. “Thinking, Drinking and Driving: Application of the Theory of
Reasoned Action to DWI Prevention.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology
30(11):2217- 2232.
Hanson, D. J. and R. C. Engs. 1990. “Black college students drinking patterns. in:
Forster, B and Salloway, J.C. (eds).” The Socio Cultural Matrix of Alcohol and
Drug Abuse 1:62- 78.
Hayes-Bautista, D.E. 1980. “Identifying “Hispanic” populations: The influence of
research methodology upon public policy.” American Journal of Public Health
73:353– 356.
Heath, D.B. 1991. “Uses and misuses of the concept of ethnicity in alcohol studies: An
essay in deconstruction.” International Journal of the Addictions 25(5A &
6A):607–628.
Houston, David J. and Lilliard E. Richardson jr. 2004. “Drinking- and Driving in
America: A Test of Behavioral Assumptions Underlying Public Policy.”
Political Research Quarterly 57(1):53- 64.
Jolly, David N. 2009. “DUI/DWI: The History of Driving Under the Influence.”
Outskirts Press
27
Kandel, Denise B. 1980. “Drug and Drinking Behavior Among Youth.” Annual Review
of Sociology 6:235- 285.
Maddox, G.L., and J.R. Williams. 1968. “Drinking behavior of Negro college students.”
Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol 29:117- 129.
May, P.A. 1982. “Substance abuse and American Indians: Prevalence and
susceptibility.” International Journal of the Addictions 17:1185–1209.
McCabe, S.E., J.R. Knight, C.J. Teter, and H. Wechsler. 2005. “Non-medical use of
prescription stimulants among US college students: prevalence and correlates
from a national survey.” Addiction 100(1):96-106.
Morrissey, Michael. 2005. “Ethnicity and Race in Drug and Alcohol Research.” Health
Sociology Review 14(2):111- 120.
Room, R., A. Janca, L.A. Bennet, L. Schmidt, and N. Sartorius. 1996. “ WHO crosscultural applicability research on diagnosis and assessment of substance use
disorders: An overview of methods and selected results.” Addiction 91:199–220.
Sarkar, Sheila, Marie Andreas and Fabio De Faria. 2005. “Who Uses Safe Ride
Programs: An Examination of the Dynamics of Individuals Who Use a Safe Ride
Program Instead of Driving Home While Drunk.” American Journal of Drug and
Alcohol Abuse 305- 325.
Solomon-Schwartz, Benjamin P. 1999. "Clinton Appears in Announcement Encouraging
Y2K Designated Driving". The Harvard Crimson 11-30.
Weeks, M.F., and R. P. Moore. 1981. “Ethnicity-of-interviewer effects on
ethnic respondents.” Public Opinion Quarterly 45:245–249.
Wechsler, H., J.E. Lee, M. Kuo, M. Seibring, T.F. Nelson, and H. Lee. 2002. “Trends in
college binge drinking during a period of increased prevention efforts. Findings
from 4 Harvard School of Public Health College Alcohol Study surveys: 19932001.” Journal of American College Health 50(5): 203-17.
Wilson, Jean P. and Robert E. Mann, eds. 1990. “Drinking and Driving: Advances in
Research and Prevention.” New York: Guilford Press.
Winsten, Jay A. 2000. "The Harvard Alcohol Project: Promoting the "Designated
Driver"". In Suman, Michael; Rossman, Gabriel. Advocacy Groups and the
Entertainment Industry 3–8.
Zakletskaia, L. I., Mundt, M. P., Balousek, S. L., Wilson, E. L., & Fleming, M. F. 2009.
“Alcohol-Impaired Driving Behavior and Sensation-Seeking Disposition in a
28
College Population Receiving Routine Care at Campus Health Services Centers.”
Accident; Analysis and Prevention 41(3), 380–386.
29