Citation

Lange JE, Falb T, Johnson M. Proc. Int. Counc. Alcohol Drugs Traffic Safety Conf. 2002; 2002: 803-808.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2002, The author(s) and the Council, Publisher International Council on Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety)

DOI

unavailable

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

In theory, the designated-driver concept holds great promise for reducing the incidences of drunk driving. It is simple, inexpensive, almost universally recognized, and generally positively regarded by the U.S. population as a means for avoiding drunk driving. In practice, however, research has shown that implementing the designated-driver concept is often flawed. To function properly, groups of drinkers must commit to the three stages: (1) the group must designate a driver before starting to drink, (2) the designee must abstain from drinking, and (3) the designee must fulfill his or her responsibility to be the driver. Failure at any of these three stages of implementation could result in potentially impaired drivers either claiming to be the designated driver or usurping the role of the designated driver. The research described was designed to address factors that may impede proper implementation of the designated-driver concept. Six intervention trials were designed to (1) cue the use of designated drivers, (2) change the attitudes of the group, and (3) affect group norms to support the proper use of designated drivers. Results indicate that cueing alone decreased the returning BACs of drivers. Using group members to deliver prodesignated driver messages decreased driver and passenger BACs even farther.