Good afternoon Chairman Vallario and Judiciary Committee members. It is my pleasure to be here in Annapolis again to discuss the National Transportation Safety Board's recommendations addressing hard core drinking drivers.

The National Transportation Safety Board is an independent Federal agency charged by Congress to investigate transportation accidents, determine their probable cause, and made recommendations to prevent their recurrence. For example, we have launched an investigation into the causes of last week's water taxi sinking in Baltimore harbor. The recommendations that arise from our investigations and safety studies are our most important product. The Safety Board has neither regulatory authority nor grant funds. However, in our 37-year history, organizations and government bodies have adopted more than 80 percent of our recommendations.

The Alcohol-Highway Safety Problem

The Safety Board has recognized for many years that traffic crashes are this nation's most serious transportation safety problem. More than 90 percent of all transportation related deaths each year result from highway crashes. About 41 percent of highway deaths nationwide, and 40 percent in Maryland, are alcohol-related. During the 1990s, the nation experienced a reduction in alcohol-related fatalities. Since 1999, however, the number of alcohol-related fatalities has risen across the nation, in 2002, reaching 17,419 nationally and 265 in Maryland.

The emotional toll on families is staggering, but drunk driving also has a financial impact. With the lifetime cost to society for each fatality at approximately $977,000, alcohol-related crashes cost society more than $17 billion. Those not directly involved in crashes pay for nearly three-quarters of all crash costs, primarily through insurance premiums, taxes, and travel delay. Clearly, much needs to be done to reduce this ongoing tragedy.

The Hard Core Drinking Driver

The Safety Board is particularly concerned about hard core drinking drivers, known to be involved in about 48 percent of alcohol-related fatalities. The Board defines hard core drinking drivers as individuals who drive with a blood alcohol content (BAC) of 0.15 percent or greater, or who are arrested for or convicted of driving while intoxicated within 10 years of a prior driving while impaired (DWI) conviction. From 1983 through 1998, at least 137,338 people died in crashes nationwide involving hard core drinking drivers.

Most experts agree that drunk drivers persist in their behavior because these drivers believe that they will not be caught and/or convicted. That perception is based on reality. On average, drinking drivers make 1,000 drinking driving trips before being arrested.

In 1984, the Safety Board completed a safety study that included recommendations to reduce the problem of repeat offenders. Since the Board issued those recommendations, Maryland, and other States, have made efforts to address the alcohol-related highway safety problem, and considerable progress has been made in detecting, arresting, and adjudicating drinking drivers. However, the measures taken and the degree of implementation have not been uniform, and alcohol-related crashes continue to claim too many lives.

In light of the thousands of deaths still resulting from these crashes, the Safety Board again focused on drunk driving. In 2000, the Board examined a variety of countermeasures for hard core drinking driving. The Board identified which countermeasures have been effective in the specific States that have utilized them and recommended a model program (attached) to reduce hard core drinking driving. The problem of hard core drinking drivers is complex. No single countermeasure appears to be sufficient to address this issue because these offenders require different approaches. We need a comprehensive system of prevention, apprehension, sanction, and treatment to reduce the crashes, injuries, and fatalities caused by these drivers.

Repeat offenders require different approaches than the average impaired driver including effective countermeasures and a longer look-back period. Two of the bills before you, H.B. 888 and H.B. 1232, address gaps in Maryland's system for addressing these hard core drinking drivers.

Probation Before Judgment Lookback Period (House Bill 888)

Maryland's probation before judgment program inhibits its progress in preventing impaired driving. H.B. 888 would partially address this shortcoming by extending from five to ten years following a probation before judgment action the time during which courts would be prohibited from staying the entry of a judgment. Given the low likelihood of arrest for DWI, and the need for long term measures to change the behavior of hard core drinking drivers, a 10 years would be a reasonable lookback period for probation before judgment.

A repeat DWI arrest, supports the conclusion that the individual has an alcohol abuse problem. The American Psychological Association Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-IV) states that one DWI offense is indicative of a substance problem. Given the low likelihood of arrest and the need for long-term measures to change the behavior of hard core drinking drivers, look-back periods of longer than 5 years are needed. Currently, 25 States have a 10-year or longer look-back period, as recommended by the Safety Board.

Drug and Alcohol Abuse Assessment and Treatment (House Bill 1232)

H. B. 1232 would expand the range of alcohol and drug related driving offenses subject to drug or alcohol abuse assessment and treatment. Assessment, classification, and assignment to appropriate treatment are effective for repeat offenders if used in conjunction with other sanctions. Repeat offenders abuse alcohol. They either cannot or will not avoid driving after drinking. Thus, while strong punitive sanctions are important deterrence measures, they must be combined with assessment and effective treatment in order to address the alcohol abuse problems of repeat offenders.

When the Safety Board first studied the problem of repeat DWI offenders, some 20 years ago, it recommended that States require alcohol problem evaluations of persons charged with alcohol-related driving offenses. Treatment approaches for problem drinkers vary, but they generally include intensive alcohol education, counseling, individual and group therapy, and, in some cases, medical treatment.

Follow-up treatment and rehabilitation programs are essential to achieve a successful recovery for hard core drinking drivers. Without some form of follow-up, a repeat offender is all too likely to lapse into his former drinking and driving habits. Unless effective rehabilitation programs are provided, punitive sanctions such as jail sentences may have only a short-term safety impact. Because repeat offenders generally suffer from alcohol dependency, the threat of sanctions probably will not remove the underlying cause of their drunk driving behavior. Jurisdictions must assure that DWI offenders participate in appropriate follow-up programs. Without these actions, the likelihood of another DWI arrest or alcohol-related crash has not been significantly reduced.

Conclusion

House Bills 888 and 1232 will strengthen Maryland's DWI control system, and help to decrease further the serious problem created by those who insist on driving while impaired. Based on the last five years of alcohol-related fatalities, it seems clear that the DWI control system in Maryland is not working to the degree needed to reduce these preventable tragedies. The Safety Board urges you to act promptly on these and the other life-saving measures that are now pending before the Committee.

Thank you for allowing the Safety Board to testify about legislation that you can enact to save lives on streets and highways in Maryland. I would be pleased to answer any questions that you may have.