Good afternoon Chairman Alquist and members of the Public Safety Committee. It is my pleasure to be in Sacramento today 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 make 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 38-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 40 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. The trend for the last five years has been stagnant.

In 2003, impaired driving resulted in 17,013 alcohol-related fatalities nationwide. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates the cost of each fatality is over $977,000, thus alcohol-related fatal crashes cost society over $16.6 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. They are highly likely to recidivate unless they experience a significant intervention. Hard core drinking drivers are involved in almost 40 percent of all alcohol-related highway deaths. From 1983 through 2003, more than 170,000 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. There is, on average, only one DWI arrest for every thousand drinking-driving trips.

In light of the thousands of deaths resulting from these crashes, the Safety Board focused its efforts on hard core drinking drivers in 2000. That report examined a variety of countermeasures to identify which actions have been effective in the specific States that have utilized them, and recommended a model program (attached) to reduce hard core drinking driving.

Here in California, you have established a zero tolerance standard for repeat offenders, provided treatment alternatives to confinement, and created specialized DWI courts and taken other important steps to address hard core drinking drivers. But, the problem is still serious, with 1,626 persons killed in California alcohol-related crashes in 2003.

Today, I want to discuss two key measures pertaining to impaired driving. First, A.B. 571 lowers the existing high BAC “aggravated alcohol offense” standard from 0.20 percent to 0.15 percent. Second, A.B. 979 allows early license reinstatement with the use of an ignition interlock.

Drivers with High Blood Alcohol Content (A.B. 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 have a prior DWI conviction. 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.

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 all 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.

At least 35 States, including California, have laws providing for an “extreme” or “aggravated” DWI offense, and 23 of these States have set the “aggravated” offense level at 0.15 or .16. Some States that had set higher BACs, such as Virginia and Arizona, have subsequently lowered the level to 0.15. In these States, a first offender committing an aggravated alcohol offense can be subject to sanctions similar to those available for repeat offenders.

States with high BAC laws recognize that the treating all first offenders in a like manner, regardless of the aggravating factor of a high BAC, is 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.

A.B. 571 provides a more significant intervention for high BAC drivers by lowering the high BAC level to 0.15 percent. It continues to mandate 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. While we do not know the total numbers of drivers in this BAC range, we do know that here in California 241 people were killed in crashes that involved a driver with a BAC from 0.15 to 0.20 percent in 2003.

Ignition Interlocks (A.B. 979)

The vast majority of both DWI offenders and hard core drinking drivers are employed. Employment plays a significant role in successful rehabilitation, and ignition interlocks help offenders maintain the mobility necessary to maintain employment and attend treatment. Ignition interlocks also ensure that people driver sober. License suspension is an important sanction, but it does not ultimately prevent a person from driving. In California, many people choose not to reinstate their licenses. A.B. 979 strengthens California’s existing interlock law, allowing offenders to maintain their mobility. It also provides an incentive to reinstate the driver’s license. Driving without an interlock can lead to the vehicle’s being impounded.

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 on California’s roads. I would like to note that earlier this year New Mexico adopted an interlock requirement for all DWI offenders as a key measure to reduce its tragic toll of alcohol-related fatalities while keeping offenders licensed and employed. The Board asks that you adopt A.B. 979.

The Safety Board considers the problem of hard core drinking drivers so important that it has included adoption of its hard core drinking driver model program on its list of “Most Wanted” recommendations. These measures have been tested in other States and found to reduce fatalities, injuries, crashes, and recidivism.

The impaired driving problem has not gone away or even been substantially reduced in many States. Our citizens need your help and protection. We urge you to quickly approve these important life-saving measures.

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.

NTSB HARD CORE DRINKING DRIVER MODEL PROGRAM

• Sobriety checkpoints (frequent, statewide)

• Vehicle sanctions

• License plate actions (impoundment, confiscation, etc.)
• Vehicle immobilization
• Vehicle impoundment
• Vehicle forfeiture
• Ignition interlocks (court-ordered and administrative)

• State and community cooperative enforcement programs for driving while suspended/revoked/unlicensed

• Zero BAC for prior offenders

• Aggravated offense for high BAC (0.15 or greater)

• Alternatives to confinement

• Home detention with electronic monitoring
• Intensive supervision probation
• Jail-treatment facilities (for multiple DWI offenders)
• Eliminate community service (does not reduce recidivism)

• Plea bargaining restrictions

• Prohibit lessening of DWI offense to non-alcohol-related offense
• Require reasons for DWI charge reduction to be entered into public record

• Eliminate diversion programs that allow erasing, deferring, or otherwise purging the DWI offense record, or that allow the offender to avoid license suspension

• Administrative license revocation for BAC test failure and refusal

• 10 year DWI record retention and offense enhancement period

• Individualized court-based sanction programs with frequent offender contact, unannounced testing, mandatory assessment, treatment, and long-term follow-up

“Actions to Reduce Fatalities, Injuries, and Crashes Involving the Hard Core Drinking Driver,” June, 2000