Most Wanted
Transportation Safety
Improvements
State Issues

Eliminate Hard Core Drinking Driving

Importance

In 2007, there were 12,998 fatalities involving an alcohol-impaired driver that occurred nationwide, based on data released by NHTSA. 

The Safety Board made a series of recommendations in 1984 to address detecting, arresting, and adjudicating repeat offenders.  Because thousands of deaths continue to occur involving individuals who drive while intoxicated, in 2000 the Board focused its efforts on hard core drinking drivers.

Hard core drinking drivers (repeat offender-drinking drivers with a prior driving-while-intoxicated [DWI] arrest or conviction within the past 10 years or offenders with a BAC of 0.15 percent or greater) pose an increased risk of crashes, injuries, and fatalities.

In 2006, hard core drinking drivers were involved in a minimum of 9,414 (53.5% of all) alcohol-related fatalities, the estimated cost of which was over $9.1 billion. 

The Board believes that a model program to reduce hard core drinking driving would incorporate the following elements:  (1) statewide sobriety checkpoints; (2) vehicle sanctions to restrict or separate hard core drinking drivers from their vehicles; (3) State and community cooperative programs to enforce DWI driver’s license suspension and revocation; (4) legislation to require that DWI offenders maintain a zero BAC while operating a motor vehicle; (5) legislation that defines a high BAC (0.15 percent or greater) as an “aggravated” DWI offense; (6) alternatives to confinement, such as home detention with electronic monitoring; (7) legislation that restricts the plea bargaining of a DWI offense to a lesser, non-alcohol-related offense; (8) elimination of diversion programs that permit erasing, deferring, or otherwise purging the DWI offense record or that allow the offender to avoid license suspension; (9) administrative license revocation (ALR) for BAC test failure and refusal; (10) a DWI record retention and DWI offense enhancement look-back period of at least 10 years; and (11) individualized sanction programs for hard core DWI offenders.

Safety Recommendations:  This issue area currently includes one recommendation (H-00-26).

H-00-26 (the States and the District of Columbia)
Issued August 7, 2000
Added to the Most Wanted List:  2003
Status:  Open—Acceptable Response
Establish a comprehensive program that is designed to reduce the incidence of alcohol-related crashes, injuries, and fatalities caused by hard core drinking drivers and that includes elements such as those suggested in the National Transportation Safety Board’s Model Program. (Source:  2000 Safety Report on Actions to Reduce Fatalities, Injuries, and Crashes Involving the Hard Core Drinking Driver [NTSB/SR-00/01])

Since the Safety Board’s recommendation was issued, all States have considered legislation related to the Board’s recommendation, and at least 31 States and the District of Columbia have adopted one or more elements of the model program.  No State has adopted all of the elements recommended in the Board’s model program; however, five States (CA, NH, OH, UT, and VA) have made sufficient progress for closure.

Thirty-eight States (AL, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MS, MO, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, PA, SC, SD, TN, UT, VT, VA, and WV) and the District of Columbia authorize sobriety checkpoints (element 1), but not all of these jurisdictions conduct sobriety checkpoints with the same frequency.

Forty-nine States and the District of Columbia have adopted some form of vehicle sanction, but only six States (FL, IA, KS, MS, OH, and OR) have adopted at least four of the five vehicle sanctions (element 2) mentioned in the Board’s model program.  The most common vehicle sanction is ignition interlock.  Although 41 States had provisions authorizing the use of interlocks when the Board issued its report, there has been substantial activity in the last few years to broaden the use of this effective technology.  In the last 2 years, 2 States added ignition interlocks to their countermeasure system, 12 States strengthened their existing interlock laws, and 12 States considered legislative proposals.

The Board had identified three States (LA, NE, and OH) that use “hot sheet” programs (1) to identify DWI offenders who may drive on a suspended or revoked license (element 3).  Maine has adopted an acceptable alternative, an on-line suspended driver search service.  South Carolina also has adopted an acceptable alternative, a statute that requires the licensing agency to release on a monthly basis the names and addresses of individuals whose licenses were suspended for DWI offenses.  The “hot sheet” program is now being promoted in all States by NHTSA.

Eleven States (CA, ME, MD, MN, MT, NH, NC, PA, UT, VA, and WI) have established a BAC requirement below the 0.08 limit for specified circumstances, such as driving while suspended after convicted of impaired driving or after multiple impaired-driving convictions (element 4).  Five States (CA, ME, NH, UT, and VA) mandate the Safety Board’s recommended low-BAC limit of 0.00 or 0.02 after a driver’s first conviction for impaired driving.

Aggravated offense or “high-BAC” laws exist today in 42 States and the District of Columbia (element 5), with 31 States having adopted the Safety Board–specified level of 0.15/0.16 percent as the definition of a high BAC.  Nineteen States (AK, AZ, AR, CA, DE, FL, HI, IL, KS, MD, MO, NE, NV, PA, TX, UT, VA, and WV) have adopted some form of a high-BAC law or have strengthened an existing high-BAC law since the Board’s recommendation was issued.

Forty States (AL, AK, AZ, CA, CO, DE, FL, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, LA, MD, MA, MI, MN, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, SC, SD, TN, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, and WI) have adopted alternatives to confinement (element 6).

Twenty-seven States (AL, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, GA, HI, IA, KS, KY, MN, MS, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OR, SD, UT, WA, and WY) have adopted     plea-bargaining restrictions (element 7).

Twenty-seven States (AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, DE, FL, GA, HI, IL, IN, KY, ME, MN, MT, NE, NV, NH, ND, OH, RI, SC, TN, UT, VA, WV, and WI) either have no diversion programs or prohibit DWI offenders from participating in diversion programs (element 8).

Forty States (AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, LA, ME, MD, MA, MN, MS, MO, NE, NV, NH, NM, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, and WY) and the District of Columbia authorize ALR (element 9).

Twenty-six States (AK, CT, GA, IL, IA, KS, LA, ME, MA, MN, NE, NH, NJ, NM, NY, OK, OR, PA, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, WV, and WI) and the District of Columbia have established a records retention period and look-back period (2) of 10 years or longer (element 10).

Thirty-four States (AK, AZ, CA, CO, FL, GA, ID, IN, KS, KY, LA, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, NV, NH, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, TN, TX, UT, VA, WA, WI, and WY) have established individualized sanction programs for hard core DWI offenders (element 11).

In 2007, Maryland passed legislation establishing an impaired driving task force.  In 2008, at least 12 States (AL, CA, KY, MD, MI, MO, NH, NJ, OK, RI, TN, and VA) considered bills related to hard core drinking driver program elements.  Six States (FL, GA, HI, ME, SC, and WV) implemented an element of the hard core drinking driving recommendation; six other States (AK, CO, CT, MO, NE, and WA) strengthened elements that they had already implemented.

Actions Remaining

Six States and the District of Columbia should enact at least two more primary elements of the model program.

Twelve States should authorize sobriety checkpoints.

Fifty-four States and the District of Columbia sanctions should implement at least 4 vehicle sanctions. These measures include ignition interlocks, license plate action (impoundment, confiscation, or other actions), vehicle immobilization, vehicle impoundment, and vehicle forfeiture. 

Forty-five States and the District of Columbia should establish special programs to identify drivers operating on a suspended or revoked license.

Forty-five States and the District of Columbia should require a zero or minimal (“low”) BAC for convicted DWI offenders.

Nineteen States and the District of Columbia should adopt an “aggravated” BAC law that is consistent with the Safety Board’s recommended BAC level.

Ten States and the District of Columbia should develop alternatives to jail incarceration for DWI offenders.

Twenty-three States and the District of Columbia should enact a law that either prohibits DWI offenders from plea bargaining to non-alcohol-related offenses or require that the records include information on the original alcohol-related offense.

Twenty-three States and the District of Columbia should eliminate diversion as an option for DWI offenders and prevent the records of offenders from being erased.

Ten States should enact ALR laws to address both DWI test refusal and failure.

Twenty-four States should establish a look-back period of at least 10 years with appropriate records retention.

Sixteen States and the District of Columbia should authorize individualized sanction programs or an alternative, such as special DWI courts, for DWI offenders.

November 2008