Can progress in reducing alcohol-impaired driving fatalities be resumed? Results of a workshop sponsored by the Transportation Research Board, Alcohol, Other Drugs, and Transportation Committee (ANB50)
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Objective: Despite successes in the 1980s and early 1990s, progress in reducing impaired driving fatalities in the United States has stagnated in recent years. Since 1997, the percentage of drivers involved in fatal crashes with illegal blood alcohol concentration (BAC) levels has remained at approximately 20 to 22%. Many experts believe that public complacency, competing social and public health issues, and the lack of political fortitude have all contributed to this stagnation. The number of alcohol-related crashes, injuries, and fatalities is still unacceptable, and most are preventable. The public needs to be aware that the problem presented by drinking drivers has not been solved. Political leaders need guidance on which measures will affect the problem, and stakeholders need to be motivated once again to implement effective strategies. Methods: The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Transportation Research Board (TRB), Alcohol, Other Drugs, and Transportation Committee (ANB50) sponsored a workshop held at the NAS facility in Woods Hole, Massachusetts, on August 24–25, 2015, to discuss the lack of progress in reducing impaired driving and to make recommendations for future progress. A total of 26 experts in research and policy related to alcohol-impaired driving participated in the workshop. The workshop began by examining the static situation in the rate of alcohol-impaired driving fatal crashes to determine what factors may be inhibiting further progress. The workshop then discussed 8 effective strategies that have not been fully implemented in the United States. Workshop participants (16 of the 26) rated their top 3 strategies. Results: 3 strategies received the most support: 1. Impose administrative sanctions for drivers with BACs = 0.05 to 0.08 g/dL.2. Require alcohol ignition interlocks for all alcohol-impaired driving offenders.3. Increase the frequency of sobriety checkpoints, including enacting legislation to allow them in the 11 states that currently prohibit them. Impose administrative sanctions for drivers with BACs = 0.05 to 0.08 g/dL. Require alcohol ignition interlocks for all alcohol-impaired driving offenders. Increase the frequency of sobriety checkpoints, including enacting legislation to allow them in the 11 states that currently prohibit them. 5 other important strategies included the following: (1) increase alcohol taxes to raise the price and reduce alcohol consumption; (2) reengage the public and raise the priority of impaired driving; (3) lower the illegal per se BAC limit to 0.05 for a criminal offense; (4) develop and implement in-vehicle alcohol detection systems; and (5) expand the use of screening and brief interventions in medical facilities. Conclusions: Each of these strategies is proven to be effective, yet all are substantially underutilized. Each is used in some jurisdictions in the United States or Canada, but none is used extensively. Any one of the 3 strategies implemented on a widespread basis would decrease impaired driving crashes, injuries, and fatalities. Based on the research, all 3 together would have a substantial impact on the problem.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,051 | 0,050 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,005 | 0,006 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,011 | 0,002 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».