Impact Assessment of Arizonas Lowered Legal Drinking Age
1983 · Cité 1 fois — In August of 1972, the Arizona State Legislature lowered the minimum legal drinking age from 21 to 19 years, Evaluations of similar drinking age changes have produced important results
Legal Age To - Arizona Department of Liquor Licenses and
Liquor Laws (Updated April 2019) Topic Legal Age Statute/Rule Legal drinking age 21
Arizona lawmaker wants to lower alcohol serving age to 18
An Arizona state lawmaker has introduced legislation that would allow 18-year-olds to serve alcohol at restaurants and bars The bill, introduced by State Rep Jeff Weninger (R-Chandler), would lower the minimum age from 19 to 18 for both servers and bartenders The bill does not change the legal drinking age of 21
ARIZONA GAMBLING LAWS TITLE 4 ALCOHOLIC
it or charitable organizations for purposes of charitable fund raising which are issued special event age, or for a person under the legal drinking age to buy, receive, have in
pdf Legal Age To Arizona Liquor Laws
Age to be in bar (exceptions) w/ spouse guardian parent of legal drinking age A R S
[PDF] array instance variable javascript
[PDF] array of array in javascript
[PDF] array size in javascript
[PDF] arraylist object java example
[PDF] arrêter les paris sportifs
[PDF] arrhenius equation calculator
[PDF] arris vip2262 hard reset
[PDF] arrivée en france quarantaine obligatoire
[PDF] arrivees aeroport biarritz
[PDF] art curriculum ontario grade 9
[PDF] arthur furniture store
[PDF] article 16 constitution france
[PDF] article 173 vi france
[PDF] article about new york times
An Evaluation of the Changes in the Legal Drinking Ages in
Michigan
Tuhicol Rqort Docuni~tati'om Page
I. Rqod No.
UM HSRI-80-67
9. Puking Orpmiaution Nme ad Address 1 10. Work Unit No.
2. Cormmmt Accession No.
' 7. Authds)Alexander C. Wagenaar, Richard I. Douqlass
4. Title end Subtitle 5. Repert Date
8. Perbrming Orgar~xation Repor? NO.
UM-HSRI-80-67
Highway Safety Research Institute The University
of MichiganAnn Arbor, Michigan 48109
12. $onsoring Agency Nre cnd Addr***
16. Abstroct
Michigan reduced its drinking age from 21 to 18 in 1972. Several studies have reported significant increases in alcohol -related traffic crashes among drivers affected by the lower drinking age. Michigan raised the
drinking age from 18 to 21 in December 1978. This investigation measured the effect of the 1978 increase in the legal drinking age in Michigan on the frequency of
a1 coho1 -re1 ated traffic crash involvement among young drivers.A 20 percent random sample of all reported motor vehicle crashes in the State of Michigan from 1972 through 1979 was analyzed. Monthly time-series
of these measures were examined for drivers aged 16-17, 18-20, 21-24, and25-45 using the Box-Jenkins time-series analysis methods. The analyses con-
trol led for long-term trends, seasonality, and other patterns in crash fre- quency expected to influence the 1979 data.A1 1 age groups had reductions in non-alcohol -related crashes in 1979. Alcohol -related crashes increased sl ightly for drivers aged
21-45, while
these crashes decreased significantly for the 18-20-year-old drivers, who were directly affected by a higher legal drinking age (21) in 1979, 16-17-year-old alcohol -related crashes a1 so decreased in 1979. The reductions in general non-alcohol -related crash frequencies, for
a1 1 ages, were too small to account for the siqnificant reduction in alcohol-related crash incidence11. Contract or Gront NO. 13. Type of Report and Period Cowered
October 1, 1979-
The Office of Substance Abuse Services,
Michigan Department
of Pub1 ic Health, Lansing, Michigan 48906 for 18-20-year-01 d drivers.17. Key Words 18. Distribution
Stotu.nt ~e~tember -30, 1980
14. Sponsoring Agency Code
IS. Suppl-tay Notes
Legal Drinking Age, Traffic Acci- dents, Alcohol
Availabil ity, Time-
Series Analysis, Public Health, Youth and AlcoholUnclassified Unclassified
21- No. of Pages
21 822. Prtcc
TABLE OF CONTENTS
......................... LIST OF TABLES vLIST OF FIGURES ........................ ix
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
.........,.............. xi i1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................... 1
2.0BACKGROUND LITERATURE, THEORY, AND DEVELOPMENT OF
HYPOTHESES
........................ 72.1 Alcohol and Highway Safety Among Youth
2.2 The Legal Drinking Age and Highway Safety
2.3 Conceptual Models for the Prevention of
Alcohol
-re1 ated Problems2.4 Specification of Hypotheses
3.0 RESEARCH DESIGN AND DATA ANALYSIS METHODS
......... 513.1 Research Design
3.2Operationalization and Data Collection
3.3 Design Validity
3.4 Data Analysis Methods
4.0 RESULTS
.......................... 774.1 An Example of the Box-Jenkins Method: Three-factor-
surrogate Crash Frequency Among DriversAged 18-20
4.2Time-series Models of Michigan Total Crash
Frequencies, 1972-1
9794.3 Time-series Models of Michigan Fatal Crash
Frequencies, 1968-1
9795.0 THE RAISED LEGAL DRINKING AGE AND AGGREGATE ALCOHOL
CONSUMPTION IN MICHIGAN
.................. 1355.1 Literature Review
5.2 Method
5.3 Results
5.4 Discussion
6.0 SUMMARY
AND CONCLUSIONS .................. 157
6.1 Summary of Findings
6.2 Recomendati ons for Research
6.3 Recomnendations for Pub1 ic Pol icy
iii APPENDIX A: Baseline ARIM Time-series Model EstimationResults
..................... 169APPENDIX B: Designvalidity ................. 181
REFERENCES .......................... 207
TAB L.ES
3.1 Full Design Matrix Depicting Age Groups, Type of Accidents,
and Operationalized Measures Used ........ 53 4.1 ARIMA Model Estimation Results for the Frequency ofThree-factor-surrogate Crash Involvement
Among 18-20 Year Old Drivers in Michigan
................ 834.2 Initial Estimation Resul ts for Combi ned
ARIMAI
Transfer Function Model of Three-factor-surrogate Crash Frequency Among Drivers Aged 18-20 .......... 864.3 Final Estimation Results for Combined
ARIMAITransfer
Function Model of Three-factor-surrogate Crash FrequencyAmong Drivers Aged 18-20 ............. 88
4.4 Final Estimation Results for Combined
ARIMAITransfer
Function Model of Had-been-drinking Crash FrequencyAmong Drivers Aged 18-20 .................. 95
4.5 Final Estimation Results for Combined
ARIMAITransfer
Function Model of Three-factor-surrogate Crash
............. Frequency Among Drivers Aged 16-17 974.6 Final Estimation Results for Combined ARIMAITransfer
Function Model of Reported Had-been-drinking Crash FrequencyAmong Drivers Aged 16-17 ............. 99
4.7 Final Estimation Results for
Ctambined ARIMA/Transfer
Function Model of Reported Had-not-been drinking
.......... Crash Frequency Among Drivers Aged 18-20 1014.8 Final Estimation Resul ts for Combined
ARIMAITransfer
Function Model of Reported Had-not-been drinking
.......... Crash Frequency Among Drivers Aged 16-17 1034.9 Final Estimation Results for Combined
ARIMAITransfer
Function Model of Three-factor-surrogate Crash Frequency Among Drivers Aged 21-24 ............. 1054.10 Final Estimation Results for
Combined ARIMAITransfer
Function Model of Reported Had-been-drinki ng Crash ............. Frequency Among Drivers Aged 2'1-24 1074.11 Final Estimation Results for Combined ARIMA/Transfer
Function Model of Three-factor-surrogate Crash
............ Frequency Among Drivers Aged 25-45 1094.12 Final Estimation
Resul ts for Combined ARIMA/Transfer
Function Model of Reported Had-been-drinking Crash Frequency Among Drivers Aged 25-45 ............ 1114.13 Final Estimation Results for Combined
ARIMA/Transfer
Function Model of Reported Had-not-been-drinki ng Crash Frequency Among Drivers Aged 21-24 11 34.14 Final Estimation Results for Combined
ARIMA/Transfer
Function Model of Reported Had-not-been-drinking Crash Frequency Among Drivers Aged 25-45 1154.15
Summary of Transfer Function Estimates of the Impact of the Raised Legal Drinking Age on a 20 Percent Random Sample of Motor Vehicle Crashes in Michigan
1165.1
Estimated Baseline Model of Packaged
Beer Distribu-
........ tion: January 1969 Through December 1978 1435.2 Comparison of Forecasted and Actual Packaged Beer Distribution: January 1979 Through February 1980
..... 1445.3 Estimated
Base1 ine Model of Draught Beer Distribution: January 1969 Through December 1978 ............ 148 5.4 Comparison of Forecasted and Actual Draught Beer Distribution: January 1979 Through February 1980 ..... 1495.5 Estimated
Base1 ine Model of Wine Distribution: January 1969 Through December 1978 ............ 151 5.6 Comparison of Forecasted and Actual Wine Distribution: January 1969 Through February 1980 ............ 152A.l ARIMA Model Estimation Results for the Frequency of Had-been-drinking Crash Invol vement Among 18-20 Year
01 d Drivers in Michigan ................. 170
A.2 ARIMA Model Estimation Results for the Frequency of Three-factor-surrogate Crash Involvement Among 16-17
............... Year Old Drivers in Michigan 171A.3 ARIMA Model Estimation Results for the Frequency of Had-been-drinking Crash Involvement Among 16-1
7 Year
................. Old Drivers in Michigan 172 A.4 ARIMA Model Estimation Results for the Frequency of Had-not-been-drin ki ng CrashInvol vement Among 18-20
................ Year Old Drivers in Michigan 173 A.5 ARIMA Model Estimation Results for the Frequency of Had-not-been-drinking Crash InvolvementAmong 16-1 7
Year Old Drivers in Michigan ................ 174 A.6 ARIMA Model Estimation Results for the Frequency ofThree-factor-surrogate Crash Involvement
Among 21 -24 Year Old Drivers in Michigan
................ 175 A.7 ARIMA Model Estimation Results for the Frequency of Had-been-drinking Crash InvolvementAmong 21 -24 Year Old Drivers in Michigan
.................. 176 A.8 ARIMA Model Estimation Results for the Frequency of Three-factor-surrogate Crash InvolvementAmong 25-45
................ Year Old Drivers in Michigan 177 A.9 ARIMA Model Estimation Results for the Frequency of Had-been-drin ki ng Crash Invol vfement Among 25-45 YearOld Drivers in Michigan .................. 178
A.10 ARIMA Model Estimation Results for the Frequency of Had-not-been-drinking Crash Invol vementAmong 21-24 Year Old Drivers in Michigan
................ 779 A.ll ARIMA Model Estimation Results for the Frequency of Had-not-been-drinking Crash InvolvementAmong 25-45 Year Old Drivers in Michigan
................ 180FIGURES
Major Categories of Causal
Factors in Motor-vehicle
Collisions
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Environmental Causal Factors in Motor-vehicle Coll isions . . 12 Vehicular Causal Factors in Motor-vehicle Collisions . . . . 13 Human Direct Causes in Motor-vehicle Collisions . . . . . . 15 Human Conditions and States Identified as Causal Influences in Motor-vehicle Coll isions . . . . . . . . . . . 16Human Predisposing Factors for Motor-vehicle Col
1 ision
Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17The Bimodal Model of Alcohol Consumption
. . . . . . . . . . 32 The Single Distribution Mode1 of Alcohol Consumption . . . . 36 Conceptual Model of the Impact of Changes in the Legal Drinking Age on Motor-vehicle Crash Involvement . . . . . . 41 Negative Impact Pattern Estimated by the rsb (1,0,0) Transfer Function Model With a Step Function Input . . . . . 68 Positive Impact Pattern Estimated by the rsb (1,0,0) Transfer Function Model With a Step Function Input . . . . . 68 Negative Impact Pattern Estimated by the rsb (0,0,0) Transfer Function Model With a Step Function Input . . . . . 69 Positive Impact Pattern Estimated by the rsb (0,0,0) Transfer Function Model With a Step Function Input . . . . . 69Negative Impact Pattern
Estimatzed by the rsb (l,0,0)
Transfer Function Model With a Pulse Function Input . . . . 71Positive Impact Pattern Estimated
by the rsb (1,0,0) Transfer Function Model With a Pulse Function Input . . . . 71 Frequency of Three-factor-surrogate Crash Involvement Among 18-20 Year Old Drivers in Michigan,1972-1978 . . . . 78
4.2 Autocorrelation Function of the Frequency of Three-factor- surrogate Crash Involvement Among 18-20 Year Old Drivers
8 04.3 Partial Autocorrelation Function of the Frequency of Three-factor-surrogate Crash Involvement Among 18-20 Year Old Drivers
8 14.4 Frequency of Three-factor-surrogate Crash Involvement Among 18-20 Year Old Drivers in Michigan, 1972-1979
.... 894.5 Actual and Predicted Frequency of Three-factor-surrogate Crash Involvement Among 15-20 Year Old Drivers
in Michigan,1973-1979 ......................... 90
4.6 Frequency of Had-been-drinking Crash Involvement Among 18-20 Year Old Drivers in Michigan, 1972-1979
....... 9 44.7 Frequency of Three-factor-surrogate Crash Involvement Among 16-17 Year Old
Drivers in Michigan, 1972-1979 .... 9 6
4.8 Frequency of Had-been-drinki ng Crash Involvement Among 16-17 Year Old Drivers
in Michigan, 1972-1979 ....... 9 84.9 Frequency of Had-been-drinki ng Crash Involvement Among 18-20 Year Old Drivers in Michigan,
1972-1979 ....... 100
4.10 Frequency of Had-not-been-drinking Crash Invol vement Among 16-17 Year Old Drivers in Michigan,
1972-1979 .... 102
4.7 1 Frequency of Three-%factor-surrogate Crash Invol
vemen t Among 21-24 Year Old Drivers in Michigan, 1972-1979 .... 1044.12 Frequency of Had-been-drinking Crash Invol vement Among 21-24 Year Old Drivers
in Michigan, 1972-1979 ....... 1064.13 Frequency of Three-factor-surrogate Crash Involvement Among 25-45 Year Old Drive-rs in Michigan, 1972-1979
.... 1084.14 Frequench of Had-been-dri nki ng Crash Invol vement Among 25-45 Year Old Drivers
in Michigan, 1972-1979 ....... 7 104.15 Frequency of Had-not-been drinking Crash Invol vemen
t .... Among 21-24 Year Old Drivers in Michigan, 1972-1979 1124.16 Frequency of Had-not-been Drinking Crash Involvement Among 25-45 Year Old Drivers
in Michigan, 1972-1979 .... 1144.17 Frequency of Three-factor-surrogate Fatal Crash Involve-
ment Among 18-20 Year Old Drivers in Michigan, 1968-1979 . . 123 Frequency of Total Fatal Crash Involvement Among 18-20 Year Old Drivers in Michigan, 1968-1979 . . . . . . . . . . 124Frequency of Three-factor-surrogate Fatal Crash Involvement Among 16-17 Year Old Drivers in Michigan,