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
Commentary
saved 600–800 lives a year and argues that the effect of a 0.05 BAC law would be less. However, one study of the effects of the 0.08 BAC laws in the United States estimated that 0.08 BAC laws prevent 360 deaths per year and estimated that lowering the BAC limit even further to 0.05 would prevent an additional 538 deaths per year [5]. If the effects of lowering the limit from 0.08 to 0.05 in the United States are similar to those in Europe and Australia, we can expect a reduction of approximately 8% in impaired driving fatal crashes [9,10], which would currently translate to 800–900 lives saved annually. We agree and support all four components of the MADD Campaign to Eliminate Drunk Driving; however, there is no evidence that high visibility enforcement has increased in the United States and no evidence that interlock laws have had a general deterrent effect on impaired driving. The advanced technology for passively detecting impaired drivers can certainly be set for a BAC of 0.05 or greater, and in numerous surveys [11] the public agrees with the statement that people should not drive after two or three drinks (less than 0.05 BAC for most people). Why not add one more evidence-based, proven countermeasure to the Campaign and support lowering the limit to 0.05? That policy will save lives as soon as it is adopted. Declaration of interests None. Keywords Blood alcohol concentration limits for driving, effectiveness, general deterrent, high BAC drivers, impaired driving fatal crashes, 0.05 grams per decilitre. JAMES C. FELL & ROBERT B. VOAS
879
References 1. Sheehan M. A .05 BAC limit in the United States: an important challenge for policy, health and safety. Addiction 2014; 109: 875. 2. Talpins S. An argument for prioritizing drivers above the current illegal limit in the United States. Addiction 2014; 109: 875–7. 3. Hurley C. A better path to progress on drunk driving. Addiction 2014; 109: 877–8. 4. Hingson R., Heeren T., Winter M. Lowering state legal blood alcohol limits to 0.08 percent: the effect on fatal motor vehicle crashes. Am J Public Health 1996; 86: 1297–9. 5. Wagenaar A., Maldonado-Molina M., Ma L., Tobler A., Komro K. Effects of legal BAC limits on fatal crash involvement: analyses of 28 states from 1976 through 2002. J Safety Res 2007; 38: 493–9. 6. Brooks C., Zaal D. Effects of a 0.05 Alcohol Limit in the Australian Capital Territory. Canberra, Australia: Federal Office of Road Safety MR 10; 1992. 7. Homel R. Drink-driving law enforcement and the legal blood alcohol limit in New South Wales. Accid Anal Prev 1994; 26: 147–55. 8. Federal Bureau of Investigation. Uniform Crime Reporting. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services Division; 2012. 9. Henstridge J., Homel R., Mackay P. The long-term effects of random breath testing in Adelaide. In: Kloeden C. N., McLean A. J., editors. Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety—T′95, 13–18 August 1995. Adelaide, Australia: International Council on Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety (ICADTS); 1995. 10. Smith D. I. Effect on traffic safety of introducing a 0.05% blood alcohol level in Queensland, Australia. Med Sci Law 1988; 28: 165–70. 11. Moulton B. E., Peterson A., Haddix D., Drew L. National Survey of Drinking and Driving Attitudes and Behaviors: 2008 (Volume II: Findings Report). Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration; 2010.
Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, Calverton, MD, USA. E-mail: [email protected]
© 2014 Society for the Study of Addiction
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.
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
Commentary
saved 600–800 lives a year and argues that the effect of a 0.05 BAC law would be less. However, one study of the effects of the 0.08 BAC laws in the United States estimated that 0.08 BAC laws prevent 360 deaths per year and estimated that lowering the BAC limit even further to 0.05 would prevent an additional 538 deaths per year [5]. If the effects of lowering the limit from 0.08 to 0.05 in the United States are similar to those in Europe and Australia, we can expect a reduction of approximately 8% in impaired driving fatal crashes [9,10], which would currently translate to 800–900 lives saved annually. We agree and support all four components of the MADD Campaign to Eliminate Drunk Driving; however, there is no evidence that high visibility enforcement has increased in the United States and no evidence that interlock laws have had a general deterrent effect on impaired driving. The advanced technology for passively detecting impaired drivers can certainly be set for a BAC of 0.05 or greater, and in numerous surveys [11] the public agrees with the statement that people should not drive after two or three drinks (less than 0.05 BAC for most people). Why not add one more evidence-based, proven countermeasure to the Campaign and support lowering the limit to 0.05? That policy will save lives as soon as it is adopted. Declaration of interests None. Keywords Blood alcohol concentration limits for driving, effectiveness, general deterrent, high BAC drivers, impaired driving fatal crashes, 0.05 grams per decilitre. JAMES C. FELL & ROBERT B. VOAS
879
References 1. Sheehan M. A .05 BAC limit in the United States: an important challenge for policy, health and safety. Addiction 2014; 109: 875. 2. Talpins S. An argument for prioritizing drivers above the current illegal limit in the United States. Addiction 2014; 109: 875–7. 3. Hurley C. A better path to progress on drunk driving. Addiction 2014; 109: 877–8. 4. Hingson R., Heeren T., Winter M. Lowering state legal blood alcohol limits to 0.08 percent: the effect on fatal motor vehicle crashes. Am J Public Health 1996; 86: 1297–9. 5. Wagenaar A., Maldonado-Molina M., Ma L., Tobler A., Komro K. Effects of legal BAC limits on fatal crash involvement: analyses of 28 states from 1976 through 2002. J Safety Res 2007; 38: 493–9. 6. Brooks C., Zaal D. Effects of a 0.05 Alcohol Limit in the Australian Capital Territory. Canberra, Australia: Federal Office of Road Safety MR 10; 1992. 7. Homel R. Drink-driving law enforcement and the legal blood alcohol limit in New South Wales. Accid Anal Prev 1994; 26: 147–55. 8. Federal Bureau of Investigation. Uniform Crime Reporting. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services Division; 2012. 9. Henstridge J., Homel R., Mackay P. The long-term effects of random breath testing in Adelaide. In: Kloeden C. N., McLean A. J., editors. Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety—T′95, 13–18 August 1995. Adelaide, Australia: International Council on Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety (ICADTS); 1995. 10. Smith D. I. Effect on traffic safety of introducing a 0.05% blood alcohol level in Queensland, Australia. Med Sci Law 1988; 28: 165–70. 11. Moulton B. E., Peterson A., Haddix D., Drew L. National Survey of Drinking and Driving Attitudes and Behaviors: 2008 (Volume II: Findings Report). Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration; 2010.
Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, Calverton, MD, USA. E-mail: [email protected]
© 2014 Society for the Study of Addiction
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.
