All contents copyright ©, Drive and Stay Alive, Inc., 2003 onwards, unless specified otherwise. All rights reserved.

IMPORTANT: click here to read the DISCLAIMER

On May 23, the American Beverage Institute [ABI] issued a press release¹ via PR Newswire in which they state:

"Unfortunately, ineffective tactics widely used today, including roadblocks and PR campaigns, target responsible adults while they ignore the root cause of today's drunk driving problem -- hard core product abusers and repeat offenders."  [DSA italics]

But might this assertion have anything to do with "roadblocks and PR campaigns" affecting sales. And, if that is the case, might it just be that the ABI are rather conveniently ignoring one key factor -- in addition to a wide range of international data -- in its quest for less impact on its members' profits?

Firstly, if one examines a recent report from the NHTSA ² one finds that, in 2003, 1670 drivers with prior DWI convictions were involved in fatal crashes in the U.S.A.

Of these, 1103 (66 percent) had at least 0.01 percent Blood Alcohol Concentration [BAC], and of these 1105 had a BAC of at least 0.08 percent (i.e. 91 percent of those with any alcohol had a BAC of 0.08 percent or higher).

In the same year, 54304 drivers with no prior DWI convictions were involved in fatal crashes in the U.S.A.

Of these, 12581 (23 percent) had at least 0.01 percent BAC, and of these 10511 had a BAC of at least 0.08 percent (i.e. 84 percent of those with any alcohol).

A further 2182 drivers were involved in fatal crashes but no BAC measurements are known for these individuals.

Therefore, of those drivers involved in fatal crashes who had a BAC of 0.08 percent or higher, 1105 had a prior conviction for DWI whereas 10511 did not.

In other words, slightly less than 9 percent of all drivers with a BAC of 0.08 percent or higher, who were involved in fatal crashes in the U.S.A. during 2003, were repeat drunk-drive offenders who had one or more prior DWI convictions.

So as serious as the problem of repeat offending may be, in terms of human lives obliterated, it is only a relatively small part of the overall problem.

Secondly, the ABI -- and others who like to challenge drunk driving laws or the enforcement of such -- repeatedly fall back on the fact that people with the highest BAC levels are involved in a large proportion of drunk driving fatalities (see below). But should we be surprised by that fact? Isn't it an obvious and well-known fact that the more a person has to drink the bigger the risk of a crash? Logically, one could not expect this situation to be any different. 

The ABI states:

Data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) show that the average blood alcohol content (BAC) of a drunk driver in a fatal car crash is 0.19% -- more than twice the legal limit. The NHTSA administrator has said that today's problem is "by far and away" made up of "those who have alcohol use disorders." And a NHTSA study found that "specific deterrence strategies, like roving patrols that 'hunt down' DWIs, might be the optimum means for targeting the hard core drinking driver."

"[T]he number of DWI arrests made by the roving patrol program was nearly three times the average number of DWIs made by the checkpoint programs," NHTSA reported. "If making a large number of DWI arrests is an objective of a program, [the data] clearly suggests that roving patrols would be the preferred option."

Drive and Stay Alive [DSA] has not seen Dr. Runge's comment that "today's problem is 'by far and away' made up of 'those who have alcohol use disorders'," so we cannot comment on that. But however accurate this quote may be, the key point is that the phrase "by far and away" categorically does not mean "exclusively," so our question to the ABI is this:

If -- for the sake of argument -- we wildly guess that "by far and away" means 80 percent, or maybe even 90 percent, America would still be left with significantly more than a thousand people being killed each year in crashes involving drivers with BACs over 0.08 percent but not close to the 0.19 percent which you quote (above). So why would you -- the ABI -- appear to suggest that this terrible number of family tragedies, each year, is somehow less unacceptable or perhaps irrelevant when compared to the deaths caused by people with higher BACs? 

The ABI press release concludes with the following paragraph:

"Roadblocks, lower arrest thresholds, and red-ribbon campaigns are not going to change the behavior of the alcohol abusers who are the source of today's drunk driving problem," said ABI executive director John Doyle. "In fact, these efforts divert funds and attention away from the real problem. We need to use the most effective law enforcement methods we have to get drunk drivers off the road."

The misinformation hidden in the above paragraph lies in the use of the phrase: "the real problem."

Surely  the "real problem" is every single person who drinks beyond reasonable limits and than drives, Mr. Doyle!  As mentioned above, it is simply unacceptable to imply that truly heavy drinkers are the only problem. Why else would so many people be killed each year by those with BACs below the figures you like to focus upon?

Indeed, with a now-national limit of 0.08 percent, the USA still lies in equal-third position for the highest BAC limits around the world (along with a further 20 countries). Only Cyprus and Swaziland are known to have higher limits.³

On the other hand, 58 other countries have a BAC limit of 0.05 percent or lower. Why? Because medical and road safety research around the world has brought about the broad consensus that 0.05 is the maximum allowable limit if a sensible degree of safety is to be maintained. One of the many proponents for a global BAC limit of 0.05 percent is the World Medical Association.⁴

As for sobriety check points -- which the ABI prefer to describe rather emotively as roadblocks -- the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety [IIHS], in their April 2005 'Status Report,' state that "the effectiveness of checkpoints should not be determined by how many drivers are netted. The number might not be more than DWI patrols could apprehend. Instead the primary reason checkpoints are effective is that they are highly visible, so they change drivers' perceptions of the likelihood of being apprehended for DWI offenses..." ⁵

DSA actually agrees with the ABI on their closing sentence:  "We need to use the most effective law enforcement methods we have to get drunk drivers off the road."

The difference is that at DSA we believe this mandate must apply to all drunk drivers and to using all available methods in order to achieve this goal, definitely not just some sort of attempt to draw attention away from those dangerous law- breakers who -- despite the ABI's rather repetitive press releases -- are indeed exceeding the U.S. legal BAC limit and are certainly over the level classed as dangerous by the majority of relevant scientists and national governments around the world.

Judging by the ABI's own comments -- see above -- and the overall tone of their press release, it would appear that they class people who only exceed the legal BAC limit by a relatively modest margin to be (quote) responsible adults. But they are not; they are provably dangerous.

Eddie Wren

Notes

1.  Sobriety Checkpoints Not Effective in Catching Drunk Drivers, American Beverage Institute 

2.  Alcohol Involvement in Fatal Motor Vehicle Traffic Crashes, 2003 (Page 24 online, p. 9 in hard-copy version - Table 15)

3.  International Blood Alcohol Limits, DSA

4.  World Medical Association Statement on Alcohol and Road Safety

5.  IIHS Status Report -- Reflecting on the Alcohol-Impaired Driving Problem Worldwide and what to do about it