|Title||Driving under the influence of alcohol in Germany. Primary data from the study.|
|Original Title||Fahren unter Alkohol in Deutschland. Primärdaten zur Studie.|
|Citation||Krüger, H.-P., & Vollrath, M. (2004). Driving under the influence of alcohol in Germany. Primary data from the study. [Translated Title] (Version 1) [Files on CD-ROM]. Trier: Center for Research Data in Psychology: PsychData of the Leibniz Institute for Psychology Information ZPID. https://doi.org/10.5160/psychdata.krhs94fa20|
|Language of variable documentation||German|
|Responsible for Data Collection||Krüger, Hans-Peter|
|Data Collection Completion Date||1994|
|Study Description||On January 1, 1993 the blood alcohol limit of 0 mg/ml was officially increased to 0.8 mg/ml in the new German states (since the reunification). To examine the effects of this legal measure, more than 20,000 motorists from Thuringia and Lower Franconia (control region) were stopped and briefly questioned by police about their drinking and driving behavior during the times of late 1992, spring 1993, and spring 1994. Breathalyzer tests were also administered. In a follow-up survey, a selected sample of the drivers was interviewed by telephone. The main issues examined in the project were: (1) determining the frequency of driving while under the influence of alcohol, (2) investigating the situational and personal factors influencing the decision to drive under the influence of alcohol, and (3) evaluating the effect of the legal change in the blood alcohol limit.
Data is presented in the context of the 21,198 driver surveys carried out during the aforementioned traffic controls.
|Keyphrase||effects of modified legal alcohol limit on car drivers' behavior and attitudes, 3 measurement points, 21198 car drivers, questionnaire & breath alcohol, primary data|
|Funding||Volkswagenstiftung; Bundesanstalt für Straßenwesen|
|Rating||double data entry of breath alcohol content; plausibility check of the primary data; determination of breath alcohol content with the equipment calibrated by the manufacturer; objective assessment of inebriation; representative weighting according to a representative driving study (KONTIV89).|
|Classification||Drug & Alcohol Usage (Legal)
Police & Legal Personnel
|Controlled Terms||Driving Under the Influence
|Research Method Description||Questionnaire Data|
|Classification of Data Collection||Combined Standardized Survey Instruments (Combination of various standardized sections)|
|Research Instrument||The questionnaire was designed around the following battery of questions:
• How many drivers drive under the influence of alcohol?
• How risky is drinking and driving?
• What can be done about drinking and driving?
The survey instrument format consists of both closed questions and a few open answer questions. The questions were processed in part by a special collection-point field coordinator (especially data concerning the general situation in which the data was collected) or by the particular interviewer (excerpts from the passenger-provided information and coding of information concerning noncooperative drivers).
Additionly, data were used which was gathered by the interviewers using calibrated instruments to measure breath values . Most of the data, however, were directly asked of the car drivers and noted by the interviewer.
Content can be divided into several areas: coding of the survey wave, survey situation and response behavior, examination of alcohol and drugs/medications intake, driver and passenger information, information concerning alcohol consumption, experience of control situations, route information, existing alcohol limits and penalties, information concerning the dangers of driving, driving while intoxicated, blood alcohol limits and traffic controls, information concerning most recent car accident, car information.
|Data Collection Method||Data collection in the presence of an experimenter
-Special equipment or measuring instruments: Dräger Alcotest 7410 a manufacturer-calibrated device for measuring breath alcohol levels.
|Time Points||repeated measurements|
|Survey Time Period||Three data collection waves:
|Characteristics||Cooperation with the police; implementation of inspections|
|Population||Representative of driving in Germany (KONTIV 89) with regards to age, gender, day of week and time of day by weighting|
|Sample||A random selection of rest stops in Lower Franconia and Thüringen and a random selection of drivers off the road. Surveys focused on weekend nights, though other times of day and days of the week were also surveyed.|
|Subject Recruitment||Selection of drivers by the police.|
|Sample Size||21189 individuals|
|Return/Drop Out||Of the drivers selected by the police, 96.1% answered the relevant questions|
|Gender Distribution||24,1% female subjects (n=5107)
75,3% male subjects (n=15952)
|Age Distribution||18-24 years; 25-49 years; 50 years or older|
|Special Groups||Drivers of motor vehicles.|
|Region||Lower Franconia; Thüringen|
|Variables||Independent Variables: 3 measuring times: before, immediately after, and about one year after the amendment of the legal alcohol limit in the new German federal states.
Independent Variables: Survey of drivers in the region of Thüringen and Lower Franconia (control group).
Dependent Variable: Comprehensive survey instrument canvassing driving behavior and attitudes of drivers with the following main topics: Coding of the survey wave, survey setting and driver response behavior (47), examination of alcohol and drugs/medications intake (13), driver and passenger information (21), information concerning alcohol consumption (8), information concerning the experience of control situations (2), information concerning the route (4), reference to existing alcohol limits and penalties (31), information about the dangers of driving, driving under the influence, and data to assess the alcohol limits and traffic controls (7), information concerning most recent car accident (7), information about the car (7)
|Data Status||Data Set Excerpt|
|Original Records||Some of the information (description of the experimental setting) was collected by a field coordinator on site. The remaining details were added independently of the individual interviewers.|
|Transformation||The information collected via traffic controls were entered into a central matrix that combined the data of the field coordinator and the interviewer. This matrix was subjected to error- and plausibility-correction. 4 variables that could lead to the identification of subjects were removed from the matrix. The adjusted matrix (krhs94fa20_pd.txt) along with the associated codebook (krhs94fa20_kb.txt) are available. Then 2 central aggregate data were calculated and weighting factors to ensure the representativeness of the results were introduced. This matrix (krhs94fa20_ad.txt) along with the aggregate instructions (krhs94fa20_aa.txt) are available.|
|Description||Primary study data|
|Data Content||21,198 subjects, 146 variables|
|Data Points||21198*146=3094908 data points|
|Variables||Coding of the survey wave, survey setting and driver response behavior (47), examination of alcohol and drugs/medications intake (13), driver and passenger information (21), information concerning alcohol consumption (8), information concerning the experience of control situations (2), information concerning the route (4), reference to existing alcohol limits and penalties (31), information about the dangers of driving, driving under the influence, and data to assess the alcohol limits and traffic controls (7), information concerning most recent car accident (7), information about the car (6)|
|Description||Primary data and derived data for the study|
|Data Content||21,198 subjects, 153 variables|
|Data Points||21198*153=3243294 data points|
|Variables||Coding of the survey wave, survey setting and driver response behavior (47), examination of alcohol and drugs/medications intake (13), driver and passenger information (21), information concerning alcohol consumption (8), information concerning the experience of control situations (2), information concerning the route (4), reference to existing alcohol limits and penalties (31), information about the dangers of driving, driving under the influence, and data to assess the alcohol limits and traffic controls (7), information concerning most recent car accident (7), information about the car (6), age of the driver divided into in 3 levels (1), breath alcohol level divided into 4 levels (1), weighting factors (5)|
|German codebook of primary data set krhs94fa20_pd.txt||krhs94fa20_kb.txt|
|Instructions for the calculation of the derived data of the dataset krhs94fa_ad.txt||krhs94fa20_aa.txt|
|Publications Directly Related to the Dataset|
|EMNID (1991). KONTIV 89. Bericht zur Methode, Anlagenband und Tabellenteil. Bielefeld: EMNID.|
|Kazenwadel, J. & Vollrath, M. (1997). The dark number of driving while intoxicated in Germany - how many intoxicated drivers are detected? In C. Mercier-Guyon (Ed.), Alcohol, drugs and traffic safety - T'97 (pp. 1153-1158). CERMT: Annecy.|
|Krüger, H.-P. & Schöch, H. (1993). Absenkung der Promillegrenze. Ein zweifelhafter Beitrag zur Verkehrssicherheit. Deutsches Autorecht, 62, 334-343.|
|Krüger, H.-P. (1994). Gruppenspezifität der Generalprävention - was aus einer Erhöhung der Promillegrenze zu lernen ist. In A. Eser, H. J. Kullmann, L. Meyer-Goßner, W. Odersky & R. Voss (Hrsg.), Straf- und Strafverfahrensrecht, Recht und Verkehr, Recht und Medizin. Festschrift für Hans-Karl Salger (S. 495-509). Köln: Heymann.|
|Krüger, H.-P. (1995). Differential effects of deterrence - What can be learned from raising a BAC limit. In N. Kloeden & A. J. McLean (Eds.), Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety (pp. 386-396). Road Accident Research Unit: University of Adelaide, Australia.|
|Krüger, H.-P. (1997). Auftreten und Risiken von Alkohol und Drogen im Straßenverkehr - Möglichkeiten generalpräventiver Maßnahmen. Zeitschrift für Verkehrsrecht, 5, 146-154.|
|Krüger, H.-P., Reiss, J. A., Kazenwadel, J., Vollrath, M., Hilsenbeck, T. & Krause, W. (1995). The German roadside survey 1992-1994. In N. Kloeden & A. J. McLean (Eds.), Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety (pp. 172-178). Road Accident Research Unit: University of Adelaide, Australia.|
|Magerl, H., Hein, P. M. & Schulz, E. (1994). Ethanol und Begleitstoffe im Speichel: Ergebnisse, gewonnen unter Feld- und Laborbedingungen. Zentralblatt Rechtsmedizin, 42, 442.|
|Schöch, H. (1995). Straf- und verwaltungsrechtliche Aspekte des Fahrens unter Drogeneinfluß. Berichte der Bundesanstalt für Straßenwesen, Heft M 41. Bergisch Gladbach.|
|Schöch, H. (1996). Medikamente im Straßenverkehr. Deutsches Autorecht, 452-460.|
|Schöch, H. (1996). Verdachtlose Atemalkoholkontrolle und Grenzwertdiskussion. Deutsches Autorecht, 44-50.|
|Schöch, H. (1997). Präventive Verkehrskontrollen bei Alkohol- und Drogenfahrten und ihre Bedeutung für das Straf- und Bußgeldverfahren. Blutalkohol, 34, 169-179.|
|Vollrath, M. & Kazenwadel, J. (1997). Das Dunkelfeld der Trunkenheitsfahrten. Blutalkohol, 45(5), 344-359.|
|Vollrath, M. (2000). Detecting intoxicated drivers in Germany - estimating the effectiveness of police tests. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 32, 665-672.|
|Vollrath, M., Löbmann, R., Hilsenbeck, T. & Krüger, H.-P. (1997). Young drivers under the influence of alcohol and their passengers - the role of informal social control. In C. Mercier-Guyon (Ed.), Alcohol, drugs and traffic safety - T'97 (pp. 1181-1184). CERMT: Annecy.|
|Vollrath, M., Reiß, J. & Krüger, H.-P. (1997). The influence of passengers and alcohol on traffic safety. In C. Mercier-Guyon (Ed.), Alcohol, drugs and traffic safety - T'97 (pp. 139-145). CERMT: Annecy.|
|Weinacht, P.-L., Leuerer, T. & Retsch, H. (1995). Die Erhöhung des Blutalkoholgrenzwerts im Gebiet der vormaligen DDR - Entscheidung des gesamtdeutschen Gesetzgebers durch Nicht-Entscheidung. Zeitschrift für Rechtssoziologie. 16(1), 65-93.|