3.1 Communications and Outreach Addressing Impaired Pedestrians

Overall Effectiveness Concerns: There are insufficient evaluation data available to conclude that the countermeasure is effective.

In 2018 some 33% of all fatally injured pedestrians had BACs of .08 g/dL or higher, and 38% of all fatally injured pedestrians had positive BACs (NCSA, 2020a).

Communications and outreach to reduce impaired-pedestrian crashes can be directed at audiences such as law enforcement, drivers, alcohol servers and vendors, civic and neighborhood leaders, faith-based communities, universities, and friends and family of likely impaired pedestrians. Impaired pedestrians are also a target audience, of course. However, they are viewed as a difficult audience for communications and outreach to have a meaningful effect on their behavior because their decision-making is compromised. Reaching others who can prevent these crashes, or to alter the circumstances that lead up to such crashes, may be among the most effective ways to achieve success. Some of the countermeasures proposed for impaired drivers in the Alcohol- and Drug-Impaired Driving chapter, such as responsible beverage service training and alternative transportation, are also appropriate for impaired pedestrians.

Use: Low. NHTSA has successfully implemented one zone-based program in Baltimore that included PSAs, posters, flyers, and interventions aimed at alcohol-impaired pedestrians, but the program is not currently active (Blomberg & Cleven, 2000). Most impaired-roadway user programs focus on impaired drivers.

Effectiveness: Using 5.5 years of before data and 2 years of after data, Blomberg and Cleven (2000) found a 22% decrease in crashes among males 30 to 59 in the targeted zones where the intervention took place. Although encouraging, there have been no demonstrations of crash or injury reductions unless the communications and outreach is part of a comprehensive program that includes engineering measures and some form of law enforcement involvement, as in the case of Blomberg and Cleven (2000).

Costs: The costs for such a program can range from low to high, depending on the extent of the campaign that is designed and implemented.

Time to implement: The actual time to implement depends on the scope and ambition of the program.