Whoa, Tiger! Early Thoughts About Tiger Woods’ DUI

While details are still forthcoming, Tiger Woods has been arrested on the charge of driving under the influence (DUI). It’s hard to think of another public health problem that has gotten so much attention, that is so avoidable and that yet still persists. What are some of the likely reasons that Woods did what he did? Much more research exists on DUI caused by alcohol as opposed to drugs, so this article will focus on drinking and driving.

1. Woods denied the degree of his own impairment. Anyone who takes a health class in high school is taught that impaired drivers minimize the degree to which they have drunk alcohol or used drugs. Yet, in the case of alcohol, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has estimated that impaired drivers make over 110 million car trips annually. The fact that Woods is a celebrity may make it more likely that he saw himself as invulnerable. The list of athletes and Hollywood performers arrested for DUI is legion.
2. Woods did not plan in advance. Those who are planning to drink should plan a safe way to get home at the start of their evening. The best-known intervention along these lines is the designated driver, in which a spouse, relative or friend volunteers not to drink and to be the driver at the end of the night. There are also local taxi services that one can hire to provide safe rides at the end of an evening. It appears that Woods did not avail himself of either of these two options, even though he had chosen to drive home at 3 a.m. Truth be told, enthusiasm for designated drivers is less in the United States than in heavy-drinking countries such as Sweden and Australia, in which hosts of parties ask in advance who the designated driver will be and actively monitor the alcohol intake of their guests.
3. There are limitations to which public health efforts can change people’s behaviors. Since 1980, with the founding of anti-drunk driving groups such as Remove Intoxicated Drivers (RID) and Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), states have passed hundreds of laws tightening loopholes in DUI laws. The acceptable blood alcohol level, which was once 0.15 in many jurisdictions, was lowered to 0.08 nationwide. Meanwhile, public service announcements about the dangers of impaired or buzzed driving abound. Still, however, some people stubbornly will not change their behaviors.
4. The alcohol and beverage industries have opposed stricter DUI laws and punishments. There is a long and complicated history of how industry has both supported and opposed anti-drunk driving measures, which I detail in my book, One for the Road. While in some instances, particularly in getting binge drinkers and recidivists off the road, industry has helped, there has been persistent opposition to tighter control measures, such as lowering the legal blood alcohol level to 0.05, expanding the use of roadside checkpoints and making ignition interlocks mandatory for everyone convicted of one DUI offense. In addition, crafty defense lawyers employ many strategies, such as questioning the validity of breathalyzer testing, to get their clients off the hook. Presumably, Woods will have access to the best lawyers that money can buy.
5. Drunk driving is a rite of passage for young American males. Annual deaths from drunk driving have declined to less than 10,000 annually from 25,000 in the late 1960s, indicating that less impaired driving is occurring. But there is still a romanticism—which stems back to the James Dean era—associated with the idea of being able to drink heavily and then drive home. Machismo also clearly plays a role. Drunk driving rates and deaths are highest among males aged 21-34. Woods is 41, so only slightly older than this group.
6. Efforts to stop impaired driving violate American libertarianism. All public health efforts, no matter how scientific or well-meaning, will generate a backlash among Americans who want the government off their backs. Even Benjamin Franklin said, “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety.” This mindset discourages legislators from pushing too hard to generate and enforce more punitive sanctions against impaired drivers. Perhaps the MADD mothers had been correct in raising the issue of drunk driving in the 1980s, one critic wrote in 2002, but they had since become a “fraudulent gang of liberty-squashing fascists.”

More details of Woods’ DUI are likely to emerge in the coming days, including whether he had used alcohol, drugs or both. But the most important point may be the following: he should feel extremely lucky that he did not kill or injure himself or others. In researching my book, I met hundreds of victims of drunk driving as well as family members of victims. Regardless of their specific stories, all of them remain forever scarred by the choice of an individual to engage in an unbelievably dangerous, entirely preventable behavior. Perhaps Tiger Woods will use his celebrity to remind all of us to never do what he did.

Originally published on Forbes.com on May 29th, 2017.