DOT HS 809 426 March 2002

Open Container Laws &

Some Preliminary Data

Alcohol Involved Crashes:
This publication is distributed by the U.S. Department of

Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,

in the interest of information exchange. The opinions, findings and

conclusions expressed in this publication are those of the author(s)

and not necessarily those of the Department of Transportation or

the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The United

States Government assumes no liability for its content or use thereof.

 If trade or manufacturer’s names or products are mentioned, it is

because they are considered essential to the object of the publication

and should not be construed as an endorsement. The United States

Government does not endorse products or manufacturers.
1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No.

DOT HS 809 426

4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date

 Open Container Laws and Alcohol Involved Crashes: Some Preliminary Data April 2002

7. Authors 6. Performing Organization Code

n/a

Jack Stuster, PhD; Marcelline Burns, PhD; and, Dary Fiorentino, MA 8. Performing Organization Report No.

n/a

9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)

Anacapa Sciences, Inc.

P.O. Box 519 11. Contract No.

Santa Barbara, CA 93102 DTNH22-98-D-05079

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Final Report

400 Seventh Street, SW

Washington, D.C. 20590

15. Supplemental Notes 14. Sponsoring Agency Code

Paul J. Tremont, PhD was the Contracting Officer’s Technical

Representative (COTR) for this project.

16. Abstract

This report presents the results of a study conducted for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to assess

the highway safety effects of laws that prohibit open containers of alcoholic beverages to be located in the passenger

compartment of motor vehicles operated on public roadways. These laws are commonly referred to as “Open Container Laws.”

The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), H.R. 2400, P.L. 105-178, was passed by the Senate and the

House of Representatives on 22 May 1998, signed into law on 9 June 1998, and amended by a technical corrections bill, entitled

the TEA-21 Restoration Act, P.L. 105-206, on 22 July 1998. The TEA-21 Restoration Act established a program to encourage

states to enact and enforce open container laws that conform to a Federal Standard. States without conforming Open Container

laws are subject to a transfer of highway construction funds.

Four states passed legislation in 1999 in response to the TEA-21 Restoration Act (Iowa, Maine, Rhode Island, and South

Dakota). Analyses indicated that three of the four states appeared to decline in their proportions of alcohol-involved fatal crashes

during the first six months after enforcement of the conforming laws; however, the declines were not statistically significant.

In addition to the before and after analyses, crash data (from 1999) were compared among states that have had fully-conforming

laws since the enactment of the TEA-21 Restoration Act on July 22, 1998; states that enacted fully-conforming laws as of

October 1, 2000, the date on which the first transfer of funds took effect; states that had partially-conforming laws as of October

1, 2000; and, states that had no Open Container laws at all, as of October 1, 2000. This analysis showed that states without

Open Container Laws experienced significantly greater proportions of alcohol-involved fatal crashes than states with partiallyconforming or fully-conforming laws. Also, it was noted that survey data show support for Open Container laws by a substantial

majority of the general public, even in states without such laws.

17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement

Traffic Safety, Transportation Equity Act, TEA-21,

Open Container Law, Alcohol, DWI, DUI

19. Security Classif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif. (of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price

Unclassified Unclassified

Form DOT 1700.7
OPEN CONTAINER LAWS AND ALCOHOL INVOLVED CRASHES

SOME PRELIMINARY DATA

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report presents the results of a study conducted for the National Highway

Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to assess the highway safety effects of laws that

prohibit open containers of alcoholic beverages to be located in the passenger

compartment of motor vehicles operated on public roadways. These laws are

commonly referred to as “Open Container laws.” The Transportation Equity Act for the

21st Century (TEA-21), H.R. 2400, P.L. 105-178, was passed by the Senate and the House

of Representatives on 22 May 1998, signed into law on 9 June 1998, and amended by a

technical corrections bill, entitled the TEA-21 Restoration Act, P.L. 105-206, on 22 July

1998. The TEA-21 Restoration Act established a program to encourage states to enact

and enforce open container laws that conform to a Federal standard. A percentage of a

state’s Federal-aid highway construction funds will be transferred for use in drinking

and driving countermeasures programs, law enforcement, and hazard elimination if the

state fails to enact and enforce a conforming “Open Container law.” To avoid the

transfer of funds, a state must enact and enforce a law that prohibits the possession of

any open alcoholic beverage container, and the consumption of any alcoholic beverage,

in the passenger area of any motor vehicle located on a public highway, or the right-ofway of a public highway, in the state.

Four states passed legislation in 1999 following enactment of the TEA-21 Restoration Act (Iowa, Maine, Rhode Island, and South Dakota). Analyses of data obtained

from the states found that three of the four states appeared to decline in the

proportions of all fatal crashes that were alcohol-involved during the first six months

following the beginning of enforcement of the compliant laws. The changes were in the

direction expected; however, the differences were not statistically significant.

In addition to the before and after analyses, crash data (from 1999) were

compared among states that had fully-conforming laws (as of the enactment of the

TEA-21 Restoration Act on July 22, 1998), states that enacted fully-conforming laws as of

October 1, 2000, the date on which the first transfer of funds took place; states that had

partially-conforming laws, as of October 1, 2000 and states that had no Open Container

laws at all, as of October 1, 2000. This analysis showed that states without Open

Container laws experienced significantly greater proportions of alcohol-involved fatal

crashes than states with partially conforming or fully conforming laws.

It is also noted that NHTSA’s 1999 national survey on drinking and driving

revealed that a substantial majority of the general public supports Open Container

laws, even in states without such laws.
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

BACKGROUND............................................................................................................................ 1

PURPOSE OF SECTION 154 .......................................................................................................... 2

OPEN CONTAINER LAW INCENTIVES.......................................................................................... 3

OPEN CONTAINER LAW CONFORMANCE CRITERIA ................................................................... 3

STATUS OF CONFORMANCE: OCTOBER 2000.............................................................................. 5

EVALUATION OF THE EFFECTS OF OPEN CONTAINER LAWS ....................................................... 5

Before and After Comparison of the Four States ...................................................... 5

Comparisons Of Data From States That Had Conforming Laws, Adopted

Conforming Laws, Had Partially Conforming Laws, And Had No Open Container

Laws ................................................................................................................................. 8

PUBLIC OPINION CONCERNING OPEN CONTAINER LAWS........................................................... 9

CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................................... 10

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS................................................................................................................ 11

REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................. 12

APPENDIX A: DATA TABLES ...................................................................................................... 13
TABLE

Table Page

1 SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS OPEN CONTAINER LAWS IN THE FIRST FOUR STATES

TO ENACT LAWS TO CONFORM WITH TEA-21 REQUIREMENTS ..................................... 6

FIGURES

Figure Page

1 Percent of All Fatal Crashes That Were Alcohol-Involved:

Six-Month Period After Enforcement Began Compared to the

Same Period in the Previous Year ........................................................................... 7

2 Nighttime Hit-and-Run Crashes: Six-Month Period After Enforcement

Began Compared to the Same Period in the Previous Year................................ 7

3 Percent of All Fatal Crashes That Were Alcohol-Involved.................................. 8

4 Percent of Residents Who Believe Their States Should Have An Open

Container Law ............................................................................................................ 10
– 1 –

OPEN CONTAINER LAWS AND ALCOHOL INVOLVED CRASHES

SOME PRELIMINARY DATA

This report presents the results of a study conducted for the National Highway

Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to assess the highway safety effects of laws that

prohibit open containers of alcoholic beverages to be located in the passenger

compartment of motor vehicles operated on public roadways. These laws are

commonly referred to as Open Container laws.

BACKGROUND

The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), H.R. 2400, P.L. 105-

178, was passed by the Senate and the House of Representatives on 22 May 1998 and

signed into law on 9 June 1998. On 22 July 1998, a technical corrections bill, entitled the

TEA-21 Restoration Act, P.L. 105-206, was enacted to restore provisions that were

agreed to by the conferees to H.R. 2400, but were not included in the TEA-21

conference report.1Section 1405 of the Act amended chapter 1 of title 23, United States

Code (U.S.C.), by adding Section 154, which established a transfer program under

which a percentage of a state’s Federal-aid highway construction funds will be

transferred to the state’s apportionment under Section 402 of Title 23 of the United

States Code, if the state fails to enact and enforce a conforming Open Container law.

The transferred funds are to be used for alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures or

the enforcement of drinking and driving laws, or states may elect to use all or a portion

of the funds for hazard elimination activities, under 23 U.S.C. Section 152.

To avoid the transfer of funds, Section 154 requires that a state must enact and

enforce a law that prohibits the possession of any open alcoholic beverage container,

and the consumption of any alcoholic beverage, in the passenger area of any motor

vehicle (including possession or consumption by the driver of the vehicle) located on a

public highway, or the right-of-way of a public highway, in the state.

PURPOSE OF SECTION 154

The TEA-21 Restoration Act added Section 154 to Chapter 1 of Title 23, United

States Code (U.S.C.), to reduce alcohol-impaired driving, a serious national public safety

problem. Nearly 1.4 million people have died in traffic crashes in the United States since

1966, the year the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act was passed. During the

late 1960s and early 1970s more than 50,000 people lost their lives each year on our

 

1 Prior to TEA-21, Congress had enacted 23 U.S.C. Section 410 (the Section 410 program) to encourage

states to enact and enforce effective impaired driving measures (including open container laws). Under

this program, states could qualify for supplemental grant funds if they were eligible for a basic Section

410 grant, and they had an open container law that met certain requirements. TEA-21 changed the

Section 410 program and removed the open container incentive grant criterion. The conferees to that

legislation had intended to create a new open container transfer program to encourage states to enact

open container laws, but the new program was inadvertently omitted from the TEA-21 conference report;

the program was included instead in the TEA-21 Restoration Act. (Information presented in this report

about TEA-21 and the open container regulations, was obtained from the TEA-21 website, maintained by

the U.S. Department of Transportation, www.fhwa.dot.gov/tea21.)
– 2 –

nation’s public roads and more than half of the motorists killed had been drinking.

Traffic safety has improved considerably since that time: the annual death toll has

declined to about 40,000, even though the numbers of drivers, vehicles, and miles

driven all have greatly increased. The improvements in traffic safety are reflected in the

change in fatality rate per 100 million vehicle miles traveled: The rate fell from 5.5 in

1966 to 1.5 in 1998 (FARS–Fatality Analysis Reporting System–98), a 73 percent

improvement. When miles traveled are considered, the likelihood of being killed in

traffic in 1966 was more than three times what it is today.

Despite the significant improvements in traffic safety during the past two

decades, an average of more than 115 people still die each day from motor vehicle

crashes in the United States. In addition to the human costs, the economic losses from

crashes are estimated to be more than $150 billion annually, including $19 billion in

medical and emergency expenses, $42 billion in lost productivity, $52 billion in property

damage, and $37 billion in other crash-related costs (FARS–98). It is estimated that

approximately 40 percent of fatal crashes involve a drinking driver and 29 percent of

the drivers who die in crashes have blood alcohol concentrations (BACs) of 0.10 percent

or greater.

Drinking and driving laws and the efforts of law enforcement personnel have

contributed to the substantial decline in the incidence of alcohol-involved crashes

(Stuster & Burns, 1998). The enactment and enforcement of uniformly strong Open

Container laws provides another potential means to help reduce drinking and driving,

and could lead to further reductions in the numbers of alcohol-involved crashes.

Previous research on the relationship between Open Container laws and traffic safety is

limited; however, there is evidence that, from a traffic safety perspective, the most

dangerous form of alcohol-consumption is drinking in a vehicle (Ross, 1992). For

example, a study of drivers who were arrested for DWI in San Diego, California, found

that more than half of the violators had consumed alcohol in their vehicles soon after

purchasing it from liquor stores, convenience stores, or gasoline minimarts.2 The study

found that the incidence of alcohol drinking in cars was nearly three times greater when

the beverages were purchased at gas stations, compared to all other outlets (Segars &

Ryan, 1986; Wittman, 1986). Similarly, a study of DWI offenders in Santa Fe County,

New Mexico found that 37 percent of the offenders who bought package liquor prior to

arrest bought their alcohol at a drive-up window, compared to 14 percent at a

convenience/drug store. Further, the offenders who bought at a drive-up window

were 67 percent more likely to have been drinking in their vehicle prior to arrest, and

67 percent more likely to be problem drinkers, than those who bought package liquor

elsewhere (Lewis, Lapham, & Skipper, 1998).

In addition to problem drinkers, officers report that underage youth exhibit a

preference for drinking in vehicles. The danger associated with underage drinking and

driving is compounded by a tendency to consume all of the alcoholic beverage available

(because usually it cannot be stored). Other factors, including a lack of driving

experience and skill, exacerbate this problem.

 

2 Various terms are used throughout the United States for offenses involving drinking and driving. In

this report, Driving While Impaired (DWI) is used to refer to all occurrences of driving at or above the

legal blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of a jurisdiction.
– 3 –

OPEN CONTAINER LAW INCENTIVES

According to Section 154, if a state does not meet the statutory requirements by

October 1, 2000 or October 1, 2001, an amount equal to one and one-half percent of the

funds apportioned to the state on those dates under each of Sections 104(b)(1), (3) and

(4) of title 23 of the United States Code will be transferred to the state’s apportionment

under Section 402 of that title to be used for alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures

or enforcement, hazard elimination, or related administration and planning.3If a state

does not meet the statutory requirements by October 1, 2002, an amount equal to three

percent of the funds apportioned to the state on that date under Sections 104(b)(1), (3)

and (4) will be transferred. An amount equal to three percent will continue to be

transferred on October 1 of each subsequent fiscal year, if the state does not meet the

requirements on those dates.4

OPEN CONTAINER LAW CONFORMANCE CRITERIA

The regulations resulting from the TEA-21 Restoration Act specify six elements

that state Open Container laws must include to conform to the Federal Standard and to

enable a state to avoid the transfer of Federal-aid highway construction funds. The

required elements are described in the following paragraphs.5

To fully conform to the federal requirements, an Open Container law must...

1. Prohibit possession of any open alcoholic beverage container and the consumption

of any alcoholic beverage in a motor vehicle.

A state’s open container law must prohibit the possession of any open alcoholic

beverage container and the consumption of any alcoholic beverage in the passenger

area of any motor vehicle that is located on a public highway or right-of-way.

However, state laws and proposed legislation that prohibit possession without

prohibiting consumption also have been found to be in conformance with the

 

3 The Act also provides that states may elect to use all or a portion of the transferred funds for hazard

elimination activities under 23 U.S.C. 152.

4 The amount of the apportionment to be transferred may be derived from one or more of the

apportionments under Sections 104(b)(1), (3) and (4). In other words, the total amount to be transferred

from a non-conforming state will be calculated based on a percentage of the funds apportioned to the

state under each of Sections 104(b)(1), (3) and (4). However, the actual transfers need not be evenly

distributed among these three sources. The transferred funds may come from any one or a combination of

the apportionments under Sections 104(b)(1), (3) or (4), as long as the appropriate total amount is

transferred from one or more of these three sections. The rule specifies that all of the affected state

agencies should participate in deciding how transferred funds should be directed.

5

Section 154 provides that nonconforming states will be subject to the transfer of funds beginningin fiscal

year 2001. To avoid the transfer, each state must submit a certification demonstrating conformance. The

certifications submitted by the states under this Part will provide the National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration and the Federal Highway Administration with the basis for finding states in

conformance with the Open Container requirements. Until a state has been determined to be in

conformance with these requirements, it must submit a certification by an appropriate state official

that the state has enacted and is enforcing a conforming open container law. Once a state has been

determined to be in conformance with the requirements, the state would not be required to submit

certifications in subsequent fiscal years, unless the state’s law had changed or the state had ceased to

enforce the open container law. States are required only to submit a certification that they are enforcing

their laws to demonstrate enforcement under the regulation.
– 4 –

possession and consumption criterion because in order to consume an alcoholic

beverage, an individual must first have that beverage in their possession.

2. Specify the passenger area of any motor vehicle.

The open container law must apply to the passenger area of any motor vehicle.

“Passenger area” is defined as the area designed to seat the driver and passengers while

the motor vehicle is in operation and any area that is readily accessible to the driver or a

passenger while in their seating positions, including the glove compartment. Vehicles

without trunks may have an open alcoholic beverage container behind the last upright

seat or in an area not normally occupied by the driver or passengers. A law that

permits the possession of open alcoholic beverage containers in an unlocked glove

compartment, however, will not conform to the requirements. “Motor vehicle” is

defined in the regulation to mean a vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power and

manufactured primarily for use on public highways. The term does not include a

vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.

3. Apply to all alcoholic beverages.

The open container law must apply to all alcoholic beverages. “Alcoholic

beverage” is defined in the regulation to include all types of alcoholic beverages,

including beer, wine and distilled spirits. Beer, wine, and distilled spirits are covered by

the definition if they contain one-half of one percent or more of alcohol by volume. An

“open alcoholic beverage container” is any bottle, can, or other receptacle that contains

any amount of alcoholic beverage, and that is open or has a broken seal, or the contents

of which are partially removed.

4. Apply to all occupants.

The open container law must apply to all occupants of the motor vehicle,

including the driver and all passengers. The statute provides for two exceptions,

however, to the all-occupant requirement. A law will be deemed to apply to all

occupants if the law prohibits the possession of any open alcoholic beverage container

by the driver, but permits possession of alcohol by passengers in “the passenger area of

a motor vehicle designed, maintained or used primarily for the transportation of

persons for compensation” (e.g., buses, taxis, limousines) and passengers “in the living

quarters of a house coach or house trailer.”

5. Specify on a public highway or the right-of-way of a public highway.

The open container law must apply to a motor vehicle while it is located

anywhere on a public highway or the right-of-way of a public highway. The agencies

have defined “public highway or the right-of-way of a public highway” to include a

roadway and the shoulder alongside of it.

6. Specify primary enforcement.

A state must provide for primary enforcement of its open container law. Under a

primary enforcement law, officers have the authority to enforce the law without the

need to show that they had probable cause to believe that another violation had been

committed. An open container law that provides for secondary enforcement does not

conform to the requirements of the regulation.
– 5 –

STATUS OF CONFORMANCE: OCTOBER 2000

The overall status of states’ conformity to the Federal Standard is constantly

changing. However, the status of conformance as of October 2000 is presented below.6

Fully Conforming States Before Enactment of the TEA 21 Restoration Act

The following States had in effect open container laws that conformed fully with

the Federal open container requirements contained in 23 U.S.C. § 154 and the agency’s

implementing regulations, 23 CFR Part 1270, as of October 1, 2000. Accordingly, these

States were not subject to a transfer of funds under the Section 154 program on that

date. The laws were in effect in these states and the District of Columbia before July 22,

1998, when the Section 154 program was established by the Transportation Equity Act

for the 21st Century (TEA 21) Restoration Act, and have not been amended since.

California Michigan Ohio Washington

District of Columbia Nevada Oklahoma Wisconsin

Illinois New Hampshire Oregon

Kansas North Dakota Utah

States that Became Fully Conforming Since Enactment of the TEA-21 Restoration Act

The following States had open container laws in effect that conformed fully with

the Federal open container requirements contained in 23 U.S.C. § 154 and the agency’s

implementing regulations, 23 CFR Part 1270, as of October 1, 2000. Accordingly, these

States were not subject to a transfer of funds under the Section 154 program on that

date. The laws in these states were amended since July 22, 1998, when the Section 154

program was established by the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA

21) Restoration Act.

Alabama Iowa Nebraska Pennsylvania

Arizona Kentucky New Jersey Rhode Island

Florida Maine New York South Carolina

Hawaii Minnesota North Carolina South Dakota

Idaho

States with Open Container Laws that Did Not Fully Conform as of October 1, 2000

The following States did not have open container laws in effect that complied

fully with the Federal open container requirements contained in 23 U.S.C. § 154 and the

agency’s implementing regulations, 23 CFR Part 1270, as of October 1, 2000.

Accordingly, these States were subject to a transfer of funds under the Section 154

program on that date.

Alaska Indiana Missouri Texas

Arkansas Louisiana Montana Vermont

Colorado Maryland New Mexico Virginia

Delaware Massachusetts Tennessee West Virginia

Georgia

States With No Open Container Laws as of October 1, 2000

The following States and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico did not have any

open container laws in effect, as of October 1, 2000. Accordingly, these States were

subject to a transfer of funds under the Section 154 program on that date.

Connecticut Mississippi Puerto Rico Wyoming

 

6 This information was provided by NHTSA’s Office of the Chief Counsel.
– 6 –

EVALUATION OF THE EFFECTS OF OPEN CONTAINER LAWS

Two methods were used to assess the effects of Open Container laws on traffic

safety: 1) A before and after comparison of data from the four states that enacted

legislation in 1999 to modify their Open Container laws to be in conformance with the

Federal Standard; and 2) A comparison of data from states that had conforming laws

when the TEA-21 Restoration Act was enacted; adopted fully conforming laws by

October 1, 2000; had partially-conforming laws by October 1, 2000; and had no Open

Container laws at all as of October 1, 2000.

BEFORE AND AFTER COMPARISON OF THE FOUR STATES

Four states (IA, ME, RI, SD) modified existing Open Container laws in 1999 to be

in conformance with the Federal requirements established in Section 154 of Chapter 1

of Title 23, United States Code (U.S.C.), and the Act’s implementing regulations, 23 CFR

Part 1270. As of January 2000, only these four states had enacted Open Container

legislation in response to the TEA-21 Restoration Act. One of the states enacted its

legislation in May of 1999 and the other three states enacted their legislation in July of

1999. All four states had Open Container laws when the TEA-21 Restoration Act was

enacted, but each of those laws contained deficiencies that prevented them from fully

conforming with the new Federal requirement. Table 1 summarizes the extent to which

those states’ previous open container laws complied with the six elements of the

Federal requirements. South Dakota had not demonstrated that its law covered all

alcoholic beverages and all public highways and rights-of-way; Iowa, Rhode Island, and

Maine had not demonstrated that their laws prohibited both possession and

consumption, and that they covered the entire passenger area and all occupants of a

vehicle. Maine, in addition, had not demonstrated that its law covered all public

highways.

TABLE 1

SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS OPEN CONTAINER LAWS IN THE FIRST FOUR STATES

TO ENACT LAWS TO CONFORM WITH TEA-21 REQUIREMENTS

Element Required by TEA-21

Possession & Passenger All Alcoholic All All Public Primary

State Consumption Area Beverages Occupants Highways Enforcement

Iowa no no yes no yes yes

Maine no no yes no no yes

Rhode Island no no yes no yes yes

South Dakota yes yes no yes no yes

Enforcement of the new conforming laws began on 1 July 1999 in Iowa and

South Dakota, on 1 October in Maine, and on 1 January 2000 in Rhode Island. Data were

obtained from agencies of the four states to identify effects on traffic safety that might

be attributable to changes in the states’ Open Container laws. The hypothesis of the

evaluation is that conformance with the Federal requirements is associated with a lower

incidence of alcohol-involved crashes.

Figure 1 presents the proportions of all fatal crashes that were alcohol-involved

in the four states during the six-month periods following the beginning of enforcement

of the states’ conforming laws, compared to data from the same six-month periods in
– 7 –

the previous year. The figure suggests that the alcohol-involved proportion of fatal

crashes in three of the four states was lower during the first six months following

enforcement of conforming Open Container laws.7Iowa had no apparent change;

however, the apparent change observed in the other three states is in the direction

expected if the laws had an impact; however, the declines were not statistically

significant (z test at 0.05).

Figure 1. Percent of All Fatal Crashes That Were Alcohol-Involved: 

Six-Month Period After Enforcement Began

Compared to the Same Period in the Previous Year

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Before After Iowa Maine Rhode Island South Dakota

Hit-and-run crashes,

particularly during nighttime hours, provide an

indirect measure of the

incidence of drinking and

driving; it is well-known

to law enforcement that

many drivers flee the

scene of a nighttime crash

to conceal their alcoholimpairment. Figure 2

presents the numbers of

nighttime hit and run

crashes (in the two states

for which data are available) during the six-month

periods following the beginning of enforcement of

the states’ conforming

laws, compared to data

from the same six-month

 

7 Data illustrated in all figures are presented in Appendix A.

Figure 2. Nighttime Hit and Run Crashes:

Six-Month Period After Enforcement Began

Compared to the Same Period in the Previous Year 

0

50

100

150

200

250

Maine South Dakota Before After
– 8 –

periods in the previous year.8 The figure shows that the numbers of hit-and-run crashes

declined in both states during the first six months after enforcement of their conforming laws began, compared to the same six-month periods one year earlier. Chi Square

tests found the difference to be statistically significant for Maine, but not for South

Dakota (p= 0.05).

COMPARISONS AMONG STATES THAT HAD CONFORMING LAWS PRIOR TO TEA-21, STATES

THAT ENACTED CONFORMING LAWS BY OCTOBER 1, 2000, STATES WITH PARTIALLYCONFORMING LAWS BY OCTOBER 1, 2000, AND STATES WITH NO OPEN CONTAINER LAWS

BY OCTOBER 1, 2000

The previous section compared measures of traffic safety before and after

changes to Open Container laws took effect in the four states that enacted TEA-21

conforming legislation in 1999. Another method for assessing the effects of Open

Container laws is to compare traffic safety data from states that had conforming laws

prior to the amendment of the TEA-21 Restoration Act to data from other states,

including states that adopted fully conforming laws, states with only partiallyconforming laws, and states with no Open Container laws at all, as of October 1, 2000.

Thirteen states and the District of Columbia had laws that conformed fully with

the Federal Standard prior to July 22, 1998, when the Section 154 program was

established by the TEA-21 Restoration Act. Seventeen states amended their laws to

become fully conforming between July 1998 and October 2000; the first four of those

states to amend their laws were the subjects of the previous analysis. Twenty states and

the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico had not amended their laws to conform to the

Federal Standard by October 2000. Seventeen of those states had partially-conforming

laws; three of those states (CT, MS, WY) and Puerto Rico had no Open Container laws

at all.

Figure 3 shows the percentages of alcohol-involved fatal crashes during 1999 in

the four categories: 1) States with Open Container laws that conformed fully to the

Federal requirements prior to July 22, 1998 (13 states and the District of Columbia); 2)

States that became fully-conforming by October 1, 2000 (17 states); 3) States with laws

that did not fully conform by October 2000 (17 states); and 4) States with no Open

Container laws at all as of October 1, 2000 (three states and Puerto Rico).

Figure 3 shows that states without laws prohibiting the possession and

consumption of alcoholic beverages in a motor vehicle have higher proportions of

alcohol-involved fatal crashes than states with either partially-conforming or fullyconforming laws. The differences illustrated in the figure amount to ten percent more

alcohol-involved fatal crashes in states without Open Container laws, compared to

states with either partially or fully-conforming laws. The differences between the No

Law states and the other states, combined, are statistically significant (z test at 0.05). The

figure also shows that states that became fully-conforming in response to the TEA-21

Restoration Act (i.e., between July 22, 1998 and October 1, 2000) experienced alcohol

involvement rates in fatal crashes in 1999 that were comparable to the states that had

fully-conforming laws in effect prior to July 22, 1998. The results of the analysis

illustrated in Figure 3 are consistent with the expectation that conformity to the Federal

requirements has an effect on the incidence of alcohol-involved crashes.

 

8 Data for Iowa and Rhode Island are not available; the states’ crash investigation forms lack data

fields for hit and run crashes.
– 9 –

Figure 3. Percent of All Fatal Crashes That Were Alcohol-Involved: 1999

41.8

40.7

37.0

38.1

34.0

35.0

36.0

37.0

38.0

39.0

40.0

41.0

42.0

43.0

States & DC that

Conformed Fully Prior to

July 22, 1998 (14)

States that Became

Fully Conforming as of

October 1, 2000 (17)

States that Did Not

Conform Fully as of

October 1, 2000 (17)

States & PR with No

Open Container Laws as

of October 1, 2000 (4)

Of course, focusing exclusively on the presence or absence of Open Container

laws does not permit a complete understanding of the many issues that contribute to

drinking while driving. In particular, many of the states that lacked fully-conforming

Open Container laws in 1999 had laws that contained many elements of a law that met

the Federal requirements. In addition, some cities and counties in states that lack Open

Container laws have their own regulations prohibiting open containers, which

contribute to public perceptions that open containers of alcoholic beverages are

prohibited on all roads and highways in the state, despite the absence of state Open

Container laws. Other factors that may contribute include other state laws currently in

effect and the level of enforcement and publicity dedicated to state and local laws.

PUBLIC OPINION CONCERNING OPEN CONTAINER LAWS

NHTSA’s most recent biennial National Survey of Drinking and Driving,

conducted in 1999 by The Gallup Organization (Royal, 2000) included two questions

concerning Open Container laws. The first question asked, “To the best of your

knowledge, does your state have any law that makes it illegal to have an open

container of alcohol inside a car while someone is driving?” The percentage of

respondents who believed that their states had such laws ranged from a high of 95

percent to a low of 56 percent. Overall, 86 percent of the people surveyed believed their

states to have Open Container laws, including a majority of those surveyed in states

that did not have Open Container Laws at the time (i.e., 82% in CT, 76% in MS, 73% in

LA, and 56% in WY).

The second survey question asked, “Do you think your state should have this

type of open container law?” The responses to this question are presented in Figure 4

according to the categories of states used in the previous analyses. The figure shows

that more than 90 percent of respondents from states that had fully-conforming Open

Container laws prior to the enactment of the TEA-21 Restoration Act, believed their

states should have those laws. Similarly, 87 percent of the respondents from states that

had enacted fully conforming laws between 22 July 1998 and 1 October 2000 and 86
– 10 –

percent of the respondents from states with partially-conforming laws as of 1 October

2000 agreed that Open Container laws are appropriate. Perhaps most important, more

than 83 percent of the people surveyed in states without Open Container laws reported

that their states should have Open Container laws. The data presented in the figure

show support for Open Container laws by a vast majority of citizens, including the

residents of states that lack Open Container laws.

Figure 4. Percent of Residents Who Believe Their State Should Have an Open 

Container Law: Comparison of States with No Open Container Laws

to States with Partially and Fully-Conforming Laws

90.24

87.01

86.09

83.57

80

82

84

86

88

90

92

States that

Conformed Fully Prior

to July 22, 1998 (14)

States that Became

Fully Conforming By

October 1, 2000 (17)

States that Did Not

Conform Fully as of

October 1, 2000 (17)

States with No Open

Container Laws as of

October 1, 2000 (3)

(Note: Data from Puerto Rico were not available to include in this analysis, therefore, n=3 in the No

Open Container law category in Figure 4.)

CONCLUSIONS

The analysis of data from the first four states that enacted Open Container laws

in 1999 in response to the TEA-21 Restoration Act, found that measures of alcoholinvolvement in crashes appeared to decline during the six-month periods following the

beginning of enforcement, compared to the same six-month periods one year earlier.

The changes were in the direction expected if the laws have an impact; however, the

differences were not statistically significant.

Comparisons of crash data showed that states that lacked Open Container laws

had significantly greater percentages of alcohol-involved fatal and single-vehicle crashes

than the states with partially or fully-conforming laws. Although the differences cannot

be attributed with certainty to the presence or absence of Open Container laws, the

results of the analyses suggest that conformance with some or all of the six elements of

the Federal requirements contributes measurably to traffic safety.

Further, states that enacted conforming laws in 1999 and 2000 experienced the

lowest proportion of alcohol-involved fatal crashes of the four categories of states,

suggesting that public consideration and subsequent adoption of proposed laws may

increase awareness of the issues and lead to safety benefits. Perhaps equally important
– 11 –

when considering whether such laws should be enacted, the national survey found that

a substantial majority of the driving-age public support Open Container laws, and thus,

appears to recognize their value in contributing to traffic safety.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We are grateful for the cooperation and crash data provided by Scott Falb, Iowa

Office of Driver Services, Research and Training Division; Greg Costello, Maine

Department of Transportation, Accident Records Section, and Sandra Carroll, Maine

Judicial Branch, Violations Bureau; Joseph A. Bucci and Michael Sprague, Rhode Island

Department of Transportation, Engineering Division; and, Pat Winters, South Dakota

Department of Transportation, Accident Records Section.
– 12 –

REFERENCES

Lewis, N.O., Lapham, S.C., and Skipper, B.J. Drive-up liquor windows and convicted

drunk drivers: A comparative analysis of place of purchase. Accident Analysis and

Prevention (30) 6, pp. 763-772, 1998.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Multiple Imputation of Missing Blood

Alcohol Concentration (BAC) Values in FARS. Research Note: U.S Department of

Transportation (NHTSA), October 1998.

Ross, H.L. Confronting Drunk Driving: Social Policy for Saving Lives. Yale University Press:

New Haven, CT, 1992.

Royal, D. National Survey of Drinking and Driving, Attitudes and Behavior: 1999, U.S

Department of Transportation (NHTSA), December 2000.

Segars, L. and Ryan, M. Survey of off-site purchase and consumption locations of

convicted drinking drivers. Unpublished report. San Diego County Department

of Health Services, 1986.

Stuster, J. and Burns, M. Validation of the Standardized Field Sobriety Test Battery at BACs

Below 0.10 Percent. U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration, Report DOT HS 809 839, August 1998.

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Transportation

Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) Web Site, www.fhwa.dot.gov/tea21,

March 2000 update. [Note: Some material from this source is used in this report with only

minor modification to ensure accuracy when discussing legal issues.]

Wittman, F. Local control of alcohol availability to prevent alcohol problems:

Challenges for city and county planners. Unpublished paper. Prevention

Research Center: Berkeley, CA, 1986.
– 13 –

APPENDIX A

DATA TABLES

FIGURE 1 DATA

PERCENT OF ALL FATAL CRASHES THAT WERE ALCOHOL-INVOLVED:

SIX-MONTH PERIOD AFTER ENFORCEMENT BEGAN

COMPARED TO THE SAME PERIOD IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR

Before Enforcement After Enforcement

Fatal Alcohol- Percent Al- Fatal Alcohol- Percent Al- Percent

State Crashes Involved Involved Crashes Involved Involved Change

Iowa 263 74 28.1 277 78 28.2 0

Maine 73 14 19.2 49 9 18.4 -4.0

Rhode Island 45 14 31.1 43 13 30.2 -2.8

South Dakota 121 33 27.3 115 25 21.7 -20.5

Source: State agencies/FARS

FIGURE 2 DATA

NIGHTTIME HIT-AND-RUN CRASHES:

SIX-MONTH PERIOD AFTER ENFORCEMENT BEGAN

COMPARED TO THE SAME PERIOD IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR

Crashes Crashes Percent

State Before Enforcement After Enforcement Change

Iowa n/a n/a n/a

Maine 158 85 -46.2

Rhode Island n/a n/a n/a

South Dakota 233 215 -7.7

Source: State agencies
– 14 –

FIGURE 3 DATA

PERCENT OF ALL FATAL CRASHES THAT WERE ALCOHOL-INVOLVED:

COMPARISON OF STATES WITH FULLY-CONFORMING LAWS ON 22 JULY 1998,

STATES THAT BECAME FULLY-CONFORMING BETWEEN 22 JULY 1998 AND 1 OCTOBER 2000,

STATES WITH PARTIALLY-CONFORMING LAWS ON 1 OCTOBER 2000, AND

STATES WITH NO OPEN CONTAINER AND NO ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION LAWS

AS OF 1 OCTOBER 2000

1999

Total Alcohol- Percent Al

Category Crashes Involved Involved

Full Law on July 22, 1998 (13 states & DC) 11907 4542 38.1

Became Fully Conforming Since TEA-21 (17 states) 14393 5321 37.0

Partial Law on October 1, 2000 (17 states) 13794 5619 40.7

No Law on October 1, 2000 (3 states & PR) 1975 825 41.8

Source: FARS

FIGURE 4 DATA

PERCENT OF RESIDENTS WHO BELIEVE THEIR STATE SHOULD HAVE AN OPEN CONTAINER LAW:

COMPARISON OF STATES WITH FULLY-CONFORMING LAWS ON 22 JULY 1998,

STATES THAT BECAME FULLY-CONFORMING BETWEEN 22 JULY 1998 AND 1 OCTOBER 2000,

STATES WITH PARTIALLY-CONFORMING LAWS ON 1 OCTOBER 2000, AND

STATES WITH NO OPEN CONTAINER AND NO ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION LAWS

AS OF 1 OCTOBER 2000

Category Percent Responding “Yes”

Full Law on July 22, 1998 (13 states & DC) 90.24

Became Fully Conforming Since TEA-21 (17 states) 87.01

Partial Law on October 1, 2000 (17 states) 86.09

No Law on October 1, 2000 (3 states) 83.57

Source: NHTSA’s National Survey of Drinking and Driving, 1999

DOT HS 809 425

March 2002