NTSB NUMBER: SS-84/01
NTIS  NUMBER:  PB84-917001

Over the last several years, victims of alcohol-involved accidents and other anti-drunk driving activists have prompted legislative and program initiatives in most States to curb drunk driving. Special task forces have been created in at least 41 States to study the drunk driving problem and to revitalize State and local programs. Enhanced Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) enforcement programs and tougher penalties. for convicted offenders are being legislated in a number of States. Yet in spite of this increase in legislative and countermeasure activity, drunk driving continues throughout this country. Roughly the same percentage (55 - 58 percent) of all highway fatalities each year involve alcohol. In 1982 alone, approximately 259600 persons died in alcohol-involved accidents. (See table 1.) National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) studies of Injury producing and property damage accidents also demonstrate -the substantial role alcohol plays In these less severe accidents. Nearly 670,000 persons are injured each year in alcohol-involved crashes and some 1,200,000 alcohol-involved property damage accidents occur yearly. Without question, drunk driving remains one of our Nation's most serious public health, transportation and safety Issues.

The tragic consequences of alcohol abuse have long been of concern to the Safety Board. Throughout the Board's history, it has observed the overinvolvement of alcohol-impaired drivers in fatal highway crashes. The Safety Board has issued Safety Recommendations to Federal, State, and local governments as well as to private organizations, focusing on both the specific causes of individual accidents as well as on the general factors which lead to alcohol-involved accidents on our highways.

Recently, the Safety Board has promoted several specific actions it be eves are needed to reduce significantly alcohol-involved highway accidents. The first called on the States to raise the minimum legal age for drinking or purchasing all alcoholic beverages to 21 years (NTSB Recommendation H-82-18, see appendix A). The second recommended
Table l.--Alcohol-involved highway fatalities in the United States. 1/ 1980 1981 1982

Number of fatalities resulting from alcohol-involved accidents 289000 28,100 259600
Total highway fatalities 511091 49,301 43p945
Percent alcohol-involvement 55 57 58

the implementation of citizen awareness and drunk driver reporting programs, such as the "REDDI" program (Report Every Drunk Driver Immediately) active in six States (Safety Recommendation H-82-35, see appendix B). Most recently the Safety Board initiated an intensive study of The law enforcement, judicial, and rehabilitation systems in several States and localities with regard to their treatment of the drunk driver. The purpose of this ongoing study is to uncover and document deficiencies in these systems which allow DWI offenders to repeat their offense and which help to create the impression among many drivers that they can drive after drinking with impunity. The study may lead to recommendations designed to Improve the efficency and effectiveness of State and local drunk driving programs.

The increase in minimum legal drinking age has had a direct effect a demonstrable reduction in alcohol-related deaths and injuries among the Nation's youth. By restricting access to alcoholic beverages, the 21 minimum legal drinking age has helped to reduce the tragic consequences of drunk driving. Since the Safety Board recommended on July 22, 1982, that the States raise their minimum legal age to 21 years for drinking or purchasing alcoholic beverages, five States have raised their minimum age to 21; one to 20; and one to 19; three to 19 for beer and 21 for distilled spirits; one to 21 for nonresidents and 19 for residents. Interest In this issue remains high, with most States with a legal age below 21 currently considering bills to implement the change to age 21. The Safety Board will continue its efforts to encourage the remaining under-21 States to raise their minimum age in order to realize the full safety benefit of a uniform age 21.

REDDI programs have provided direct assistance to law enforcement efforts to detect and apprehend drunk drivers. With the aid of the motoring public, the detection capabilities of police have been expanded and the deterrent effect of DWI enforcement programs has been increased. Since the Safety Board recommended to the Nation's Governors that they adopt REDDI-type programs in their States, 12 additional States have adopted such programs. As of August 1983, 18 States now have REDDI programs, which have reported receiving 49,719 citizen calls, resulting in 12,070 contacts with motorists and leading to 7,662 DWI arrests (63.5 percent of contacts).

During the Safety Board's continuing search for additional measures to address the drunk driving problem, it has examined State and local programs, studied efforts in other countries, and reviewed the writings of numerous experts in the field of alcohol in transportation and highway safety. As a result of this study, several conclusions have emerged. First, both short- and long-term solutions are needed. Measures to reduce the present danger of drunk drivers now on our roads are as essential as steps to prevent the potential danger from future generations of drunk drivers. The 70 deaths and 1,800 injuries Americans suffer each day due to drunk drivers demand that actions be taken that can produce an immediate reduction in the number of alcohol-related deaths and injuries.

If drunk driving is to be reduced significantly in the short-term motorists must be convinced that there is a strong likelihood they will be arrested and penalized if they drive drunk. Most experts agree that many drunk drivers persist in their behavior because they have a perception of low risk of arrest and penalty. These facts help explain why public perception of risk of arrest is so low. In a recent nationwide telephone survey, between 1/4 and 1/3 of the drivers who drink say they believe that the chances of being caught and punished are not great enough to deter them from driving after drinking too much. While the rate of drunk driving arrests depends largely on the aggressiveness of local law enforcement efforts, estimates of the probability of arrest vary from 1 in 200 drunk drivers to 1 in 2,000.

State and local programs that focus principally on those relatively few drunk drivers who have been apprehended, as opposed to programs designed to deter the vast majority of offenders who are never caught, are not likely to achieve significant results. Experts believe that significant short-term reductions in the alcohol-related deaths an injuries are more likely to be brought about through programs designed to deter drunk drivers still on our roads than those which seek to stop an individual, convicts drunk driver from repeating his or her crime. A comprehensive program is needed that does both - a program that. efficiently arrests and penalizes all apprehended offenders and provides alcohol treatment for those who need its but also deters potential offenders because of the increased likelihood of arrest and penalty.

In the long-term, a societal norm must be established that makes drunk driving socially unacceptable behavior. Achievement of such a goal is by nature a slow and gradual process requiring decades of effort. The focus for such an effort must be our Nation's youth. Through long-term prevention/education programs in our schools and within our communitities, responsible attitudes toward the use of alcohol and driving must be established and reinforced.

Longer term programs use positive motivational incentives as well as purely punitive measures. illustrations of -motivational programs: a reduction in insurance rates, extended license periods for accident-free driving designated drivers at locations where liquor will be consumed, and rewarding drivers who are seen to use safe driving procedures and those who have reported drunk drivers.

The purpose of this study is to review two drunk driving countermeasures that have the potential to produce short-term improvements in the safety of motorists on our highways and to discuss specific recommendations for their implementation in States and localities.

The change in accident statistics in Delaware following the initiation of the checkpoint and administrative revocation legislation is encouraging. Between 1982 and 1983, there was a 13.8-percent decline in total fatal accidents and a 17.3-percent decline in alcohol-involved fatal accidents. The impact appeared to be even greater among injury accidents where the total decline was only 3.5 percent from 1982 to 1983 but the decline in alcohol-involved accidents was 21.9 percent. These declines occurred despite an 8-pereent increase in sales of fuel in Delaware, indicating that the reduction could not be explained by reduced travel. In addition, between 1982 and 1983, there was only a small decline in fatal accidents nationwide.

Perhaps the most impressive indication of the potential impact of these two countermeasures In Delaware is the number of drinking drivers Involved in fatal accidents. Delaware is one of the few States which test nearly all fatally injured drivers for alcohol. When the number of drivers who are fatally Injured and tested for alcohol is added to the number of surviving drivers In fatal accidents who were charged by the police with drunken driving (and also tested for BAC), the number of drinking drivers (BAC greater than 0.05 percent) in fatal accidents decreased by 19.1 percent from 1982 to 1983. This reduction is based on known BAC levels and is not subject to the biases which sometimes occur in police judgments regarding whether a driver was drinking. While more detailed analysis of accident data over a number of years will be required to confirm that this change can be attributed to the new laws this reduction in the number of accident-involved drinking drivers is impressive.

RECOMMENDATIONS

As a result of this Safety Study, the National Transportation Safety Board made the following recommendations:

--to the Governors of Alabama, California, Connecticut, Guam, Hawaii, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Montana, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virgin Islands Wisconsin, and Wyoming:

Institute the use of sobriety checkpoints on a periodic and continuing basis by the appropriate enforcement agencies under your jurisdiction as part of a comprehensive Driving While Intoxicated enforcement program. These checkpoints should be conducted according to accepted procedures and constitutional safeguards. (Class II, Priority Action) (H-84-11)

Encourage local law enforcement agencies within your State to institute sobriety checkpoints on a similar basis. (Class II, Priority Action) (H-84-12)

Enact legislation or utilize existing authority to provide for administrative revocation of the licenses of drivers who refuse a chemical test for alcohol or who provide a result at or above the State presumptive limit. (Class II, Priority Action) (H-84-13)

Evaluate the effectiveness of sobriety checkpoints and administrative license revocation procedures implemented. (Class II, Priority Action) (H-84-14)

--to the Governors of Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, South Dakota, Vermont and Virginia:

Continue and expand the use of sobriety checkpoints on a periodic and continuing basis by the appropriate enforcement agencies under your jurisdiction as part of a comprehensive Diving While Intoxicated enforcement program. These checkpoints should be conducted according to accepted procedures and constitutional safeguards. (Class II, Priority Action)(H-84-15)

Encourage local law enforcement agencies within your State to institute sobriety checkpoints on a similar basis. (Class II, Priority Action) (H-84-16)

Enact legislation or utilize existing authority to provide for administrative revocation of the licenses of drivers who refuse a chemical test for alcohol or who provide a result at or above the State presumptive limit. (Class II, Priority Action) (H-84-17)

Evaluate the effectiveness of sobriety checkpoints and administrative license revocation procedures implemented. (Class II, Priority Action) (H-84-18)

--to the Governors of Colorado, Delaware, Missouri, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and Washington:

Continue and expand the use of sobriety checkpoints on a periodic and continuing basis by the appropriate enforcement agencies under your jurisdiction as part of a comprehensive Diving While Intoxicated enforcement program. These checkpoints should be conducted according to accepted procedures and constitutional safeguards. (Class II, Priority Action)(H-84-19)

Encourage local law enforcement agencies within your State to institute sobriety checkpoints on a similar basis. (Class II, Priority Action) (H-84-20)

Evaluate the effectiveness of sobriety checkpoints and administrative license revocation procedures implemented.(Class II, Priority Action) (H-84-21)

--to the Governors of Alaska, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota,
Mississippi, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, and West Virginia:

Institute the use of sobriety checkpoints on a periodic and continuing basis by the appropriate enforcement agencies under your jurisdiction as part of a comprehensive Driving While Intoxicated enforcement program. These checkpoints should be conducted according to accepted procedures and constitutional safeguards. (Class II, Priority Action) (H-84-22)

Encourage local law enforcement agencies within your State to institute sobriety checkpoints on a similar basis. (Class II, Priority Action) (H-84-23)

Evaluate the effectiveness of sobriety checkpoints and administrative license revocation procedures implemented. (Class II, Priority Action) (H-84-24)

--to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration:

Evaluate the effectiveness of sobriety checkpoints and administrative revocation procedures. (Class II, Priority Action) (H-84-25)

--to the Mayor of the District of Columbia:

Continue and expand the use of sobriety checkpoints on a periodic and continuing basis by the appropriate enforcement agencies under your jurisdiction as part of a comprehensive Driving While Intoxicated enforcement program. These checkpoints should be conducted according to accepted procedures and constitutional safeguards. (Class II, Priority Action) (H-84-26)

Evaluate the effectiveness of the sobriety checkpoints and administrative license revocation procedures implemented. (Class II, Priority Action) (H-84-27)