Good afternoon Chairman Whitmire and members of the Criminal Justice Committee.  The National Transportation Safety Board is pleased to offer this statement on the Board’s recommendations for addressing the drinking driver problem, including ignition interlock use.

The National Transportation Safety Board is an independent Federal agency charged by Congress to investigate transportation accidents, determine their probable cause, and make safety recommendations to prevent their recurrence.  The recommendations that arise from our investigations and safety studies are our most important product.  The Safety Board cannot mandate implementation of these recommendations.  However, in our nearly 40-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 motor vehicle crashes are responsible for more deaths than crashes in all other transportation modes combined.  More than 90 percent of all transportation related deaths each year result from highway crashes.  Each year, about 40 percent of highway deaths nationwide are alcohol-related.  Alcohol-related fatalities increased from 16,694 in 2004 to 16,885 in 2005, and the number of alcohol-related fatalities remains substantially higher than in 1999, when approximately 15,790 people died in alcohol-related crashes.  In 2005, 1,569 people died in alcohol-related crashes in Texas.  Alcohol-related fatalities comprised 45 percent of all highway fatalities in Texas, substantially greater than the national proportion of 39 percent in 2005

The emotional toll on families is staggering, but impaired driving also has a financial impact.  According to calculations by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), the lifetime cost to society for each fatality is over $977,000; alcohol-related crashes cost society billions of dollars each year.  While the affected individual covers some of these costs, overall, NHTSA estimates that those not directly involved in crashes pay for nearly three-quarters of all crash costs, primarily through insurance premiums, taxes and public funding, and travel delay.  Clearly, much needs to be done to reduce this ongoing tragedy.

The Hard Core Drinking Driver(1)

The Safety Board is particularly concerned with hard core drinking drivers, who are involved in about 54 percent of alcohol-related fatalities.  The Board defines hard core drinking drivers as individuals who drive with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.15 percent or greater, or who are arrested for driving while intoxicated within 10 years of a prior driving while impaired (DWI) arrest.  From 1983 through 2005, more than 183,000 people died in crashes involving hard core drinking drivers.  Most 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.  NHTSA estimates that on average, an individual makes about 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 DWI offenders.  Since those recommendations were issued, all States have made efforts to address the alcohol-related highway safety problem, making considerable progress 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 thousands of lives. 

In light of the thousands of deaths still resulting from these crashes, the Safety Board focused on hard core drinking drivers in 2000.  In that report, the Board examined a variety of countermeasures used by the States to identify which of these actions have been effective, and recommended a model program to reduce hard core drinking driving.  The problem of hard core drinking drivers is complex; no single countermeasure by itself appears to reduce recidivism and crashes sufficiently.  We need a comprehensive system of prevention, apprehension, sanction, and treatment to reduce the crashes, injuries, and fatalities caused by these drivers.  Widespread use of ignition interlocks for DWI offenders is a key part of that system.

SB 1061 Ignition Interlock Bill

Because drinking drivers have demonstrated an inability to separate their drinking from their driving, measures to separate the offenders from their vehicles are important.  In addition, while license sanctions are useful for preventing DWI violations, hard core drinking drivers frequently continue to drive while their licenses are suspended or revoked.  In a recent survey, 65 percent of suspended drivers and 71 percent of revoked drivers in California admitted to driving during their disqualification.

A Safety Board analysis of 1998 FARS data showed that, if involved in a fatal crash, drivers with suspended or revoked licenses and a prior DWI conviction are 4.43 times more likely to be drinking at the time of the crash than drivers with a valid license and no prior DWI conviction.  Another California study found that California drivers with suspended or revoked licenses have 3.7 times the fatal crash rate of the average driver, and a second study determined that the relative risk of a fatal crash is substantially higher than average among drivers suspended or revoked for DWI offenses.  States must create a system to intervene effectively with DWI offenders the very first time they are arrested.

Further, repeat offenders, those familiar with the system, whether previously convicted or diverted, are more likely to refuse a test than first offenders.  By refusing the test, a repeat offender essentially opts himself out of the system.  The lack of a valid test result robs the State of a valuable piece of information in identifying those most in need of a significant intervention, impedes alcohol problem assessment, and substantially weakens the system for preventing alcohol-related fatalities.

Senate Bill 1061 addresses this impaired driving problem.  The National Transportation Safety Board supports this legislation that will strengthen the existing ignition interlock law and therefore reduce crashes, injuries, and deaths on highways and roads in Texas.

Ignition interlocks are designed to prevent an impaired driver from operating a vehicle.  These devices are designed with a variety of safeguards to reduce the chance that impaired drivers or other persons may defeat the interlock.  Safeguards include breath temperature sensors and “rolling re-tests.”  Research has demonstrated that interlocks effectively reduce recidivism (repetitive alcohol-impaired driving) so long as the device remains on the vehicle, and they support other efforts to address the underlying alcohol problem.  One evaluation found interlocks to be effective for first offenders as well as for hard core drinking drivers.  Furthermore, interlocks provide mobility to offenders, allowing offenders to maintain important employment and personal contacts, which are critical for those offenders who are seeking to address their alcohol problem.

According to many studies, use of interlocks is low and judges are not inclined to assign them.  Senate Bill 1061 expands the use of ignition interlocks and offers an incentive for their use by making ignition interlocks available for those offenders who have license suspension or revocations for refusing to take a chemical test.  This measure supports treatment and will provide further assurance that impaired drivers are avoiding alcohol and not repeating the act for which they are being treated.

Conclusion

I hope that the committee will promptly approve Senate Bill 1061, helping to reduce the number of people killed or seriously injured each year in traffic crashes on Texas roadways.  Thank you for your consideration.

# # #

NTSB Hard Core Drinking Driving Model Program

• Frequent and statewide sobriety checkpoints.  During a 1994 program, Tennessee experienced a 20.4% reduction of crashes involving impaired drivers.
• Programs for identifying individuals who drive on a suspended or revoked license.  In Ohio, such a program contributed to a 30% reduction in alcohol-related fatalities.
• Defining repeat offender as anyone arrested of a DWI offense within 10 years of a prior arrest for DWI.  One DWI arrest is indicative of a substance abuse problem.
• Enhanced penalties for DWI offenders arrested with a BAC level of 0.15% or higher.  The estimated relative fatality risk for drivers in single-vehicle crashes with a high BAC is 385 times that of a zero-BAC driver.
• Administrative license revocation – reduces involvement of adult drivers in alcohol-related fatal crashes by 13 to 19%
• Prohibiting plea bargaining.  Alternatively, requiring that the original alcohol-related charge be listed in the court and motor vehicle licensing records.  Towns in Arkansas and Kentucky experienced a reduction in recidivism after establishing plea bargaining limits.
• Prohibiting diversion programs.  Diverted offenders recidivate faster and often receive multiple diversions despite legislated limits on its use.
• Individualized court-based sanction programs (DWI Courts) with frequent offender contact, unannounced testing, mandatory assessment, treatment, and long-term follow-up.  Participants in the Rockdale County program had a 6% recidivism rate after 1 year and a 13.8% rate after 4 years, as compared to an 11% rate and 24.7% rate for offenders adjudicated in neighboring jurisdictions.  A similar program in Oregon produced a 48% reduction in re-arrests for DWI for participants in the program when compared with offenders who went through traditional courts.
• Alternatives to jail confinement:
  • Home detention with electronic monitoring.  One year after entering a Los Angeles County program, participants had about a one-third less recidivism rate.
  • Intensive supervision probation.  Milwaukee County’s probation program resulted in a re-arrest rate of 6% for participants, as compared to 11% for the control group.
  • Jail-treatment facilities, especially for multiple DWI offenders.  Residents of a Baltimore County facility have a 4% recidivism rate, as opposed to the 35% recidivism rate for a comparison group.
• Requirements that DWI offenders maintain a zero BAC level.  In conjunction with other components of a comprehensive system, this measure in Maine has resulted in a 45% reduction of the proportion of DWI offenders to all drivers involved in fatal crashes.
• Vehicle sanctions:
  • License plate impoundment - reduces recidivism by 50% after 1 year.
  • Ignition interlock device – reduces recidivism by 62 to 75% after 1 year.
  • Vehicle immobilization – reduces recidivism by 36% after 1 year.
  • Vehicle impoundment -18 to 34% reduction in subsequent convictions and 25 to 34% reduction in crashes.
  • Vehicle forfeiture - 14% reduction in crashes and 32% reduction in alcohol-related fatalities (preliminary data).