Good afternoon Chairman Leno and members of the Public Safety Committee. It is my pleasure to be back in Sacramento to talk about the National Transportation Safety Board’s recommendations for addressing hard core drinking drivers. I am pleased to be joined by many other organizations in supporting effective laws to prevent impaired driving including our national partners, the Century Council and Mothers Against Drunk Driving.

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. 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. In our 35-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 one of this nation’s most serious transportation safety problems. More than 90 percent of all transportation related deaths each year result from highway crashes. Approximately 41 percent of the highway deaths nationwide are alcohol-related. Unfortunately over the last five years, the proportion of alcohol-related fatalities has not been improving and increased last year. The trend for the last five years has been in the wrong direction.

In 2003, impaired driving resulted in 17,013 alcohol-related fatalities nationwide, with hard core drinking drivers involved in almost 40 percent of these deaths. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates the cost of each fatality is over $977,000, thus alcohol-related fatal crashes cost society over $17 billion each year. We believe this to be a very conservative estimate. While the affected individual covers some of these costs, overall, those not directly involved in crashes pay for nearly three-quarters of all crash costs, primarily through insurance premiums, government paid health care costs, taxes, and travel delay. Clearly, much needs to be done to reduce this ongoing tragedy.

The Hard Core Drinking Driver

In 1988, the Safety Board investigated the worst alcohol-related highway collision in American history, the collision of a pick-up truck and a church activity bus in Carrollton, Kentucky. The crash killed 27 and injured 34 innocent people. The pick-up driver had been drinking and was traveling the wrong way on an Interstate. Ninety minutes after the crash, the pick-up driver’s blood alcohol content (BAC) was 0.26 percent. This individual was a hard core drinking driver.

The Safety Board defines hard core drinking drivers as individuals who drive with a 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 involving hard core drinking drivers.

The problem of hard core drinking drivers is complex. No single countermeasure appears to be sufficient to address hard core drinking drivers. 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. Experts agree that impaired drivers persist in their behavior because these drivers believe that they will not be caught and/or convicted. That perception is based on reality. An intoxicated person can drive from New York to Los Angeles and halfway back without being arrested.

In 1984, the Safety Board made a series of recommendations to address the problem of repeat offenders. Since those recommendations were issued, all States have made at least some 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 of the Safety Board’s 1984 recommendations by States and localities 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 its efforts on hard core drinking drivers in 2000. That report examined a variety of countermeasures to identify which of these actions have been effective in the specific States that have utilized them, and recommended a model program (attached) to reduce hard core drinking driving.

Today, I want to discuss two key issues pertaining to impaired driving that are directly related to the bills being considered. First, I would like to clarify how the drinking driver problem has changed over the last 30 years. Second, legislation to focus effective measures on hard core drinking drivers is needed. Bills that your are considering that can reduce fatalities involving hard core drinking drivers include: AB 571 (High BAC “aggravated alcohol offense” with mandatory assessment) and AB 979 (mandatory interlocks upon early license reinstatement and vehicle impoundment for driving without a required interlock).

Hard Core Drinking Driving Bills

Drivers with High Blood Alcohol Content (AB 571)

Drivers with a high BAC, 0.15 percent or greater, require a significant intervention similar to that ordinarily prescribed for repeat offenders. Those who reach this high BAC level have consumed large amounts of alcohol, much more than is normally considered to be social or responsible drinking. High BAC offenders are also likely to be repeat drinking drivers though they may not be repeat DWI offenders. Research has found that drivers with a high BAC are at a substantially greater risk of being involved in a fatal crash. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety has estimated that the relative fatality risk for drivers in single-vehicle crashes with a high BAC is 385 times that of a zero-BAC driver and for male drivers the risk is 607 times that of a sober driver.

Nationally at least 40 percent of fatal crashes involve a hard core drinking driver. That is they are high BAC first offenders or repeat offenders who are highly likely to recidivate unless they experience a significant intervention. A high BAC is a very good indicator of an alcohol problem that requires sanction, treatment, and long-term follow-up to prevent subsequent offenses.

At least 35 States and the District of Columbia have laws providing for an “extreme” or “aggravated” DWI offense, including California. At least 64 percent of these States have set the “aggravated” offense level at .15 or .16 and others that had set higher BACs, such as Virginia in 2004, lowered the level to .15. In these States, a first offender committing an aggravated alcohol offense can be subject to sanctions similar to those available for repeat offenders.

These States recognize that the treating all first offenders in a like manner, regardless of the aggravating factor of a high BAC, is now an out-of-date and even misguided approach. First offenders are no longer split equally among social drinkers, developing problem drinkers, and problem drinkers. National estimates indicate a very large proportion of first offenders with a high BAC have a substance use problem and are highly likely to recidivate. These first offenders require a significant intervention the very first time they are arrested.

AB 571 provides a more significant intervention for high BAC drivers at the 0.15 percent BAC. It also mandates an assessment for these offenders so that an appropriate referral to treatment may be made. We know that assessment and treatment are essential so that high BAC first offenders can rehabilitate themselves. Adopting this bill would increase the likelihood of rehabilitative success for high BAC first offenders.

Ignition Interlocks (AB 979)

The vast majority of both DWI offenders and hard core drinking drivers are employed. In order to help treatment succeed, an additional measure is needed and that is the use of ignition interlocks for high BAC offenders. Overcoming substance abuse requires long-term treatment. AB 979 provides the needed authority for earlier re-licensing with the interlock requirement and vehicle impoundment for driving without an interlock. Research in California, Maryland and other States shows that ignition interlocks work to reduce recidivism and crashes. The interlocks need to be used to keep offenders employed, participating in treatment, and sober so that they pose less of a risk to all of us on California’s roads. I would like to note that, three weeks ago, the State of New Mexico adopted an interlock requirement for all DWI offenders as a key measure to reduce their tragic toll of alcohol-related fatalities while keeping offenders licensed and employed.

More extensive use of ignition interlocks will protect the motoring public from offenders who clearly have a substance abuse problem and also help the repeat offender to remain employed and continue participation in treatment. Mandatory ignition interlocks for all repeat offenders will reinforce the sobriety required by both courts and treatment programs. The Board asks that you adopt AB 979.

You have a copy of the Safety Board’s list of “Most Wanted” recommendations. You will note that the Board has included adoption of the Model Program measures on the “Most Wanted” list. These measures have been tested in other States and found to reduce fatalities, injuries, crashes, or recidivism. We urge you to take action on these life-saving measures this year.

The impaired driving problem has not gone away or even been substantially reduced in many States. Our citizens need your help and protection. We are joined in the effort to reduce underage alcohol problems and hard core drinking driving by the Century Council, funded by the nation’s leading distillers, and by Mothers Against Drunk Driving. These organizations are our partners in the national Hard Core Drinking Driver Coalition.

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