Aims: Rational Choice theory was tested to better understand the differences in behaviour regarding walking and driving under the influence of alcohol. Methods: Students at a residential college campus in Virginia were surveyed. Findings: Results show that students were less likely to walk or drive while intoxicated if they believed such behaviour was morally wrong and if they knew few others who had engaged in such behaviour without negative consequences (a measure of punishment avoidance). If students reported that driving while intoxicated was a serious problem, which would result in like punishment, they were less likely to drive under the influence all else equal. Notably, certainty of punishment did not significantly impact differences between students with regard to the likelihood of driving under the influence. Conclusions: We found limited support for Rational Choice theory in understanding differences in the likelihood of walking and driving under the influence of alcohol. (Contains 4 tables.)