bs_bs_banner
Commentary
people who drive at or above 0.08 and/or with drugs in their systems. Declaration of interests I am a former prosecutor and former MADD National Director of Public Policy. I continue to advocate on criminal justice issues and work through four national nonprofits, including the National Partnership on Alcohol Misuse and Crime. NPAMC has accepted donations from Beam Global and The Century Council, as well as Smart Start, Inc. (manufacturer of ignition interlock and breath testing devices) and Alcohol Monitoring Systems, Inc. (manufacturer of breath testing and transdermal testing devices). I also represent DUI crash victims in court and defend dram shop cases. Keywords Alcohol impairment, blood alcohol concentration, crash risk, deterrence, field sobriety tests, illegal BAC limit. STEPHEN K. TALPINS
Chairman and CEO, National Partnership on Alcohol Misuse and Crme, Washington, DC, USA. E-mail: [email protected] References 1. Fell J. C., Voas R. B. The effectiveness of a 0.05 blood alcohol concentration (BAC) limit for driving in the United States. Addiction 2014; 109: 869–74. 2. Strayer D. L., Drews F. A., Crouch D. J. A comparison of the cell phone driver and the drunk driver. Hum Factors 2006; 48: 381–91. 3. Kloeden C. N., McLean A. J., Moore V. M., Ponte G. Travelling speed and the rate of crash involvement. Volume 1: Findings. Report no. CR 172. Canberra: Federal Office of Road Safety; 1997. 4. Peden M., Scurfield R., Sleet D., Mohan D., Hyder A. A., Jarawan E. et al., editors. World Report on Road Traffic Injury Prevention. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2004. 5. Voas R. B., Torres P., Romano E., Lacey J. H. Alcohol-related risk of driver fatalities: an update using 2007 data. J Stud Alcohol Drugs 2012; 73: 341–50. 6. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Traffic safety facts 2011 data: Alcohol impaired driving. DOT HS 811 700. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation; 2012. 7. Fell J. C., Compton C. Evaluation of the use and benefit of passive alcohol sensors during routine traffic stops. Annu Proc Assoc Adv Automot Med 2007; 51: 437–48. 8. Stuster J., Burns M. Validation of the standardized field sobriety test battery at BACs below 0.10 percent: Final report. Santa Barbara, CA: Anacapa Sciences, Inc.; 1998. 9. Burns M., Dioquino T. A Florida Validation Study of the Standardized Field Sobriety Test (SFST) Battery. Tallahassee, FL: State Safety Office; 1997. 10. Burns M., Anderson E. W. A Colorado Validation Study of the Standardized Field Sobriety Test (SFST) Battery. Denver, CO: Colorado Department of Transportation; 1995. © 2014 Society for the Study of Addiction
877
11. Kiger S., Lestina D., Lund A. Passive alcohol sensors in law enforcement screening for alcohol-impaired drivers. Alcohol Drugs Driving 1993; 9: 7–18. 12. Talpins S., Hayes C. The Drug Evaluation and Classification (DEC) Program: Targeting Hardcore Impaired Drivers. Alexandria, VA: American Prosecutors Research Institute; 2004. 13. McKnight A. J., Langson E. A., McKnight A. S., Lange J. E. Sobriety tests for low blood alcohol concentrations. Accid Anal Prev 2002; 34: 305–11. 14. Berning A., Compton R., Vegega M., Beirness D., Hedlund J., Jones R. et al. Refusal of intoxication testing: A report to Congress. DOT HS 811 098. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation; 1998. 15. Jones A. W. Evidence-based survey of the elimination rates of ethanol from blood with applications in forensic casework. Forensic Sci Int 2010; 200: 1–20. 16. Robertson R., Mayhew D., Vanlaar W., Simpson S. Recommendations for Improving Federal Impaired Driving Laws. Ottawa, Ontario: Traffic Injury Research Foundation; 2008.
A BETTER PATH TO PROGRESS ON DRUNK DRIVING Research finds significant impairment at 0.05 blood alcohol concentration (BAC). The world standard is 0.05. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has issued a strong recommendation for 0.05. So why isn’t the highway safety community stepping up to lead the effort? There are three good reasons: The data Most studies, including those cited by Jim Fell and Bob Voas, find significant but not substantial impairment at 0.05 BAC. Unlike 0.08 BAC where all are intoxicated and are a primary threat to others on the road, Fell & Voas [1] state that ‘most’ are impaired. That makes simple substitution of the lower level to the very extensive array of criminal and administrative per se sanctions very problematic. It should be pointed out that not all countries with 0.05 have criminal penalties. Also, Hingson [2] and others have found, that Mothers Against Drunk Driving’s (MADD) successful push for 0.08 BAC in all states save an estimated 600–800 lives per year, it is reasonable to estimate that the savings from 0.05 would be somewhat less. Such savings would be significant but finite. Enforcement and legislative realities Law enforcement officers are the everyday heroes who get drunk drivers off the road, and everyone should be deeply concerned by the budget cuts they have faced in recent years. Increasing the number of violators without providing law enforcement with the resources they need would Addiction, 109, 875–879
bs_bs_banner
878
Commentary
undercut deterrence, the primary doctrine MADD has successfully pursued since the findings of the Presidential Commission on Drunk Driving in 1983. Detection of 0.05 at sobriety checkpoints would also be more difficult. Legislatively, at the national level, the outlook is bleak. The benefits of 0.05 BAC presume enactment in all 50 states, which in turn presumes highway fund sanctions to force state action, which in turn presumes strong Congressional support which is non-existent and unlikely to change in the foreseeable future. A far better strategy MADD’s Campaign to Eliminate Drunk Driving, launched in 2006, has an increasingly realistic target of virtually eliminating drunk driving at 0.08 BAC in the next 15 years.The four components of the Campaign are: committed support for high-visibility enforcement; enactment in all states of first conviction interlock laws; accelerated pursuit of advanced technologies that hold the real promise of not allowing the car to move when the driver is over 0.08 BAC; and continued aggressive efforts at increased public support. Since 2006, we have progressed from one state with first conviction interlock requirements at 0.08 to 20 states, with many more efforts pending and have made remarkable progress in developing a noninvasive in-vehicle alcohol detection system. We are profoundly grateful for the renewed commitments of support for pursuing advanced technology from National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Administrator David Strickland and United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) Secretary Anthony Foxx. According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, these technologies have the ability to save an estimated 7000 lives per year. Other initiatives for driverless cars would also have major implications for drunk driving. In conclusion, let me be clear. I do not oppose 0.05 BAC. I simply and strongly support the far better strategy of the Campaign to Eliminate Drunk Driving. The better approach on 0.05 is that all states should have, and many do, non-per se penalties at 0.05 for proven impairment rather than intoxicated driving. We all look forward to the day when there are no drunk drivers on the road. Declaration of interests None. Keywords
Data, strategy, technology. CHUCK HURLEY
Former CEO, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Irving, TX, USA. E-mail: [email protected] © 2014 Society for the Study of Addiction
References 1. Fell J. C., Voas R. B. The effectiveness of a 0.05 blood alcohol concentration (BAC) limit for driving in the United States. Addiction 2014; 109: 869–74. 2. Hingson R., Heeren T., Winter M. Lowering state legal blood alcohol limits to 0.08%: the effect on fatal motor vehicle crashes. Am J Public Health 1996; 86: 1297–99.
RESPONSE TO COMMENTARIES ON 0.05 BLOOD ALCOHOL CONCENTRATION (BAC) LIMIT We appreciate the three commentaries on our paper documenting the effectiveness of lowering the alcohol limit for driving from 0.08 to 0.05 blood alcohol concentration (BAC). Our purpose was to stimulate debate and, from the thoughtful commentaries received, we appear to have been successful. We thank Dr Sheehan [1] for her comments generally supporting the need for a 0.05 law in the United States, given that she is a researcher from a country that has had such a law in place in all Australian states since 1991. We also recognize the importance of the comments of Mr Talpins and Mr Hurley [2,3], both strong safety advocates who have held senior positions with Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD). They both raised the typical argument expressed by opponents of the 0.05 law that the risk levels associated with BACs in the 0.05–0.07 range are modest. This is certainly true when 0.05 BAC is compared to risk levels at 0.15 and above. However, what is lost in this argument is that lowering the BAC limit for driving in the United States and abroad has typically affected these high BAC drivers just as much as drivers with low BACs [4–7]. This is one of the reasons that we are recommending the 0.05 BAC limit, because it has been proven to reduce the frequency of high BAC (>0.15) drivers in fatal crashes and serves as a general deterrent to drinking and driving. Lowering the BAC limit sends a message to the public that the law is becoming stricter and enforcement more intensive and, thus, reduces alcohol-related crash frequencies at all BAC levels. Mr Talpins also expresses concern that lowering the limit to 0.05 would substantially increase arrests and strain enforcement resources. However, there was no significant increase in driving while intoxicated (DWI) arrests when states lowered their limits from 0.10 to 0.08 in the 1990s and up to 2003 [8]. Lowering the BAC limit to 0.05 reduces the proportion of drivers on the roads who are impaired by alcohol, whether they are at 0.05, 0.08, 0.10 or 0.15 and greater [5,6]. Mr Hurley notes that the lowering of the BAC limit from 0.10 to 0.08, in which MADD played a major role, Addiction, 109, 875–879
This document is a scanned copy of a printed document. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material.
Commentary
people who drive at or above 0.08 and/or with drugs in their systems. Declaration of interests I am a former prosecutor and former MADD National Director of Public Policy. I continue to advocate on criminal justice issues and work through four national nonprofits, including the National Partnership on Alcohol Misuse and Crime. NPAMC has accepted donations from Beam Global and The Century Council, as well as Smart Start, Inc. (manufacturer of ignition interlock and breath testing devices) and Alcohol Monitoring Systems, Inc. (manufacturer of breath testing and transdermal testing devices). I also represent DUI crash victims in court and defend dram shop cases. Keywords Alcohol impairment, blood alcohol concentration, crash risk, deterrence, field sobriety tests, illegal BAC limit. STEPHEN K. TALPINS
Chairman and CEO, National Partnership on Alcohol Misuse and Crme, Washington, DC, USA. E-mail: [email protected] References 1. Fell J. C., Voas R. B. The effectiveness of a 0.05 blood alcohol concentration (BAC) limit for driving in the United States. Addiction 2014; 109: 869–74. 2. Strayer D. L., Drews F. A., Crouch D. J. A comparison of the cell phone driver and the drunk driver. Hum Factors 2006; 48: 381–91. 3. Kloeden C. N., McLean A. J., Moore V. M., Ponte G. Travelling speed and the rate of crash involvement. Volume 1: Findings. Report no. CR 172. Canberra: Federal Office of Road Safety; 1997. 4. Peden M., Scurfield R., Sleet D., Mohan D., Hyder A. A., Jarawan E. et al., editors. World Report on Road Traffic Injury Prevention. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2004. 5. Voas R. B., Torres P., Romano E., Lacey J. H. Alcohol-related risk of driver fatalities: an update using 2007 data. J Stud Alcohol Drugs 2012; 73: 341–50. 6. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Traffic safety facts 2011 data: Alcohol impaired driving. DOT HS 811 700. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation; 2012. 7. Fell J. C., Compton C. Evaluation of the use and benefit of passive alcohol sensors during routine traffic stops. Annu Proc Assoc Adv Automot Med 2007; 51: 437–48. 8. Stuster J., Burns M. Validation of the standardized field sobriety test battery at BACs below 0.10 percent: Final report. Santa Barbara, CA: Anacapa Sciences, Inc.; 1998. 9. Burns M., Dioquino T. A Florida Validation Study of the Standardized Field Sobriety Test (SFST) Battery. Tallahassee, FL: State Safety Office; 1997. 10. Burns M., Anderson E. W. A Colorado Validation Study of the Standardized Field Sobriety Test (SFST) Battery. Denver, CO: Colorado Department of Transportation; 1995. © 2014 Society for the Study of Addiction
877
11. Kiger S., Lestina D., Lund A. Passive alcohol sensors in law enforcement screening for alcohol-impaired drivers. Alcohol Drugs Driving 1993; 9: 7–18. 12. Talpins S., Hayes C. The Drug Evaluation and Classification (DEC) Program: Targeting Hardcore Impaired Drivers. Alexandria, VA: American Prosecutors Research Institute; 2004. 13. McKnight A. J., Langson E. A., McKnight A. S., Lange J. E. Sobriety tests for low blood alcohol concentrations. Accid Anal Prev 2002; 34: 305–11. 14. Berning A., Compton R., Vegega M., Beirness D., Hedlund J., Jones R. et al. Refusal of intoxication testing: A report to Congress. DOT HS 811 098. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation; 1998. 15. Jones A. W. Evidence-based survey of the elimination rates of ethanol from blood with applications in forensic casework. Forensic Sci Int 2010; 200: 1–20. 16. Robertson R., Mayhew D., Vanlaar W., Simpson S. Recommendations for Improving Federal Impaired Driving Laws. Ottawa, Ontario: Traffic Injury Research Foundation; 2008.
A BETTER PATH TO PROGRESS ON DRUNK DRIVING Research finds significant impairment at 0.05 blood alcohol concentration (BAC). The world standard is 0.05. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has issued a strong recommendation for 0.05. So why isn’t the highway safety community stepping up to lead the effort? There are three good reasons: The data Most studies, including those cited by Jim Fell and Bob Voas, find significant but not substantial impairment at 0.05 BAC. Unlike 0.08 BAC where all are intoxicated and are a primary threat to others on the road, Fell & Voas [1] state that ‘most’ are impaired. That makes simple substitution of the lower level to the very extensive array of criminal and administrative per se sanctions very problematic. It should be pointed out that not all countries with 0.05 have criminal penalties. Also, Hingson [2] and others have found, that Mothers Against Drunk Driving’s (MADD) successful push for 0.08 BAC in all states save an estimated 600–800 lives per year, it is reasonable to estimate that the savings from 0.05 would be somewhat less. Such savings would be significant but finite. Enforcement and legislative realities Law enforcement officers are the everyday heroes who get drunk drivers off the road, and everyone should be deeply concerned by the budget cuts they have faced in recent years. Increasing the number of violators without providing law enforcement with the resources they need would Addiction, 109, 875–879
bs_bs_banner
878
Commentary
undercut deterrence, the primary doctrine MADD has successfully pursued since the findings of the Presidential Commission on Drunk Driving in 1983. Detection of 0.05 at sobriety checkpoints would also be more difficult. Legislatively, at the national level, the outlook is bleak. The benefits of 0.05 BAC presume enactment in all 50 states, which in turn presumes highway fund sanctions to force state action, which in turn presumes strong Congressional support which is non-existent and unlikely to change in the foreseeable future. A far better strategy MADD’s Campaign to Eliminate Drunk Driving, launched in 2006, has an increasingly realistic target of virtually eliminating drunk driving at 0.08 BAC in the next 15 years.The four components of the Campaign are: committed support for high-visibility enforcement; enactment in all states of first conviction interlock laws; accelerated pursuit of advanced technologies that hold the real promise of not allowing the car to move when the driver is over 0.08 BAC; and continued aggressive efforts at increased public support. Since 2006, we have progressed from one state with first conviction interlock requirements at 0.08 to 20 states, with many more efforts pending and have made remarkable progress in developing a noninvasive in-vehicle alcohol detection system. We are profoundly grateful for the renewed commitments of support for pursuing advanced technology from National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Administrator David Strickland and United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) Secretary Anthony Foxx. According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, these technologies have the ability to save an estimated 7000 lives per year. Other initiatives for driverless cars would also have major implications for drunk driving. In conclusion, let me be clear. I do not oppose 0.05 BAC. I simply and strongly support the far better strategy of the Campaign to Eliminate Drunk Driving. The better approach on 0.05 is that all states should have, and many do, non-per se penalties at 0.05 for proven impairment rather than intoxicated driving. We all look forward to the day when there are no drunk drivers on the road. Declaration of interests None. Keywords
Data, strategy, technology. CHUCK HURLEY
Former CEO, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Irving, TX, USA. E-mail: [email protected] © 2014 Society for the Study of Addiction
References 1. Fell J. C., Voas R. B. The effectiveness of a 0.05 blood alcohol concentration (BAC) limit for driving in the United States. Addiction 2014; 109: 869–74. 2. Hingson R., Heeren T., Winter M. Lowering state legal blood alcohol limits to 0.08%: the effect on fatal motor vehicle crashes. Am J Public Health 1996; 86: 1297–99.
RESPONSE TO COMMENTARIES ON 0.05 BLOOD ALCOHOL CONCENTRATION (BAC) LIMIT We appreciate the three commentaries on our paper documenting the effectiveness of lowering the alcohol limit for driving from 0.08 to 0.05 blood alcohol concentration (BAC). Our purpose was to stimulate debate and, from the thoughtful commentaries received, we appear to have been successful. We thank Dr Sheehan [1] for her comments generally supporting the need for a 0.05 law in the United States, given that she is a researcher from a country that has had such a law in place in all Australian states since 1991. We also recognize the importance of the comments of Mr Talpins and Mr Hurley [2,3], both strong safety advocates who have held senior positions with Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD). They both raised the typical argument expressed by opponents of the 0.05 law that the risk levels associated with BACs in the 0.05–0.07 range are modest. This is certainly true when 0.05 BAC is compared to risk levels at 0.15 and above. However, what is lost in this argument is that lowering the BAC limit for driving in the United States and abroad has typically affected these high BAC drivers just as much as drivers with low BACs [4–7]. This is one of the reasons that we are recommending the 0.05 BAC limit, because it has been proven to reduce the frequency of high BAC (>0.15) drivers in fatal crashes and serves as a general deterrent to drinking and driving. Lowering the BAC limit sends a message to the public that the law is becoming stricter and enforcement more intensive and, thus, reduces alcohol-related crash frequencies at all BAC levels. Mr Talpins also expresses concern that lowering the limit to 0.05 would substantially increase arrests and strain enforcement resources. However, there was no significant increase in driving while intoxicated (DWI) arrests when states lowered their limits from 0.10 to 0.08 in the 1990s and up to 2003 [8]. Lowering the BAC limit to 0.05 reduces the proportion of drivers on the roads who are impaired by alcohol, whether they are at 0.05, 0.08, 0.10 or 0.15 and greater [5,6]. Mr Hurley notes that the lowering of the BAC limit from 0.10 to 0.08, in which MADD played a major role, Addiction, 109, 875–879
This document is a scanned copy of a printed document. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material.
