Drunken driving no longer 'cool,' but war is far from over

Public attitudes have changed
Blueprint for action
Take more seriously as a crime
Traffic deaths reduced
Designated driver idea supported

Once upon a time, not so very long ago, the funniest fellow in the neighborhood was the drunken driver.
You remember this clown; other people made jokes about him, and he was pretty good at laughing at himself too. It was hard not to guffaw at someone who weaved home from the bars late at night, sometimes turning in at the right house, sometimes not. The police seldom stopped him, and when they did, more often than not they just gave a lecture and a ticket carrying roughly the same penalty as a stoplight violation.

Then, seemingly almost overnight, things changed. People began to realize there was nothing funny about someone who was a menace to public safety. All too often, innocent people were killed or crippled or otherwise injured . . . and perhaps the drunken driver was too.

That's when people decided it was time to stop the drunken driver -- to make sure deserved punishment is given, but more important, to get him off the road . . . and to take steps to ensure he isn't replaced by new drunks behind the wheel.

Public attitudes have changed
Much has happened since those days in the early 1980s when the United States began to take drunken driving seriously as a social problem. Police are doing a better job of enforcing drunken-driving laws. In many cases, laws have been toughened to make penalties stiffer or to make it harder for youthful drivers to obtain alcoholic beverages. Perhaps most important, public attitudes toward drinking and driving have changed. It's no longer considered "cool" to combine the two.

Some drivers -- whether out of fear of being caught or heightened social consciousness -- are either refraining from driving after drinking or are watching their alcohol intake much more closely than ever before. Some are taking their turn as "designated drivers" who stay cold sober when out partying with friends.

While it's hard to pinpoint exactly how and when the campaign against drunken driving began, it started primarily as a grass-roots movement. One of the most significant events was the founding of Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) by a California woman whose 13-year-old daughter was killed in 1980 by a drunken driver with a history of arrests for driving under the influence.

MADD -- and other citizens' groups such as Remove Intoxicated Drivers (RID) -- put the spotlight on the innocent victims of alcohol-related crashes . . . people killed or seriously injured, and their families. By doing so, it helped build public outrage against drunken driving and gave rise to cries for reform in the way offenders were handled. These groups also helped dispel the myth that most drunken drivers are simply social drinkers who had one too many -- an attitude that had contributed to lenient treatment of such drivers by the criminal justice system. On the contrary, the majority of drunken drivers in fatal crashes are "problem" drinkers whose blood alcohol content is far above the legal limit.

Largely because of this public outcry, then-President Reagan appointed a commission to study the drunken driving problem and come up with possible solutions. A key recommendation in this group's 1983 report was to require all states to make 21 the minimum age for buying and drinking alcoholic beverages or lose some federal highway funds.

Beginning in the early 1970s, when 18-year-olds gained the right to vote, 38 states lowered their legal drinking age from 21 to 18 or 19, either for all alcoholic beverages or for beer and/or wine. Teen-age highway fatalities soared in some of those states, and many state legislatures began reconsidering their action. By 1981, about half the states had 21 as the legal drinking age.

Congress in 1984 followed the commission's recommendation and mandated all states to make 21 the drinking age. Despite resistance from a few states, it was indeed 21 everywhere by 1988. One study showed that raising the drinking age reduced highway deaths 13 percent among affected drivers, saving at least 11,400 lives between 1975 and 1990.

Blueprint for action

While some efforts to get a better handle on drunken driving were already under way in 1983, the presidential commission's report provided a blueprint for action that has been followed to some degree in the years since. Some of its other recommendations were:

• States should make a .08 percent blood alcohol content (rather than .10) the level at which a driver is considered legally drunk. As of late 2001, 28 states and the District of Columbia had adopted the .08 legal limit. Congress has passed legislation requiring all states to adopt the .08 limit by 2003 or start losing some of their federal highway funds. On average, highway deaths have dropped 7 percent after states enacted the .08 limit, according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.
  
• States should give police the authority to get drunken drivers off the road immediately. Under administrative license suspension, if a driver either fails a breath or blood alcohol test or refuses to take one, police may confiscate the driver's license. A later hearing determines whether the license is returned; any criminal charges are a separate action. Forty-one states and the District of Columbia now allow this procedure.
  
• Police should use sobriety checkpoints (roadblocks), mainly because they create a perception that drunken drivers are likely to be caught. While roadblocks are unpopular with civil libertarians and have been challenged on constitutional grounds in some states, the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld their validity. Some states ban them as violations of the state law or state constitution. Police and experts on drunken driving say they are effective in deterring driving after drinking.
  

Take more seriously as a crime

• Drunken driving must be taken more seriously as a crime by prosecutors, judges and others who determine the fate of accused drunken drivers. If they are found guilty, appropriate punishment is necessary.
  
  
• Drunken drivers should be required to pay restitution to victims or surviving families. When death or serious injury is involved, courts should weigh statements by victims and family members as to how they have been affected. Prosecutors should inform victims and family members as to progress of the case and permit them to comment in court prior to sentencing. (MADD has been particularly active in helping victims track court calendars and cope with the frustrations of delays and other impediments.)

These recommendations and other measures helped pave the way for substantial progress in the fight against drunken driving during the 1980s and 1990s. Many states and local governments are prosecuting drunken drivers more aggressively. Conviction rates have jumped in many areas, and the number of drunken drivers losing their licenses has skyrocketed in some states.

In Illinois, for example, The New York Times reported that 92 percent of those arrested for drunken driving in 1986 lost their driving privileges, compared with only 25 percent in the early 1980's.

Traffic deaths reduced

Most important, the high-visibility campaign against drunken driving has put a dent in both the actual number and (by some measures) the proportion of traffic deaths blamed on it.

The nation's motor-vehicle death toll dropped to 39,235 in 1992 -- lowest since 1961 -- and has risen only to 41,812 in 2000. Safety experts agree efforts to curb drunken driving have been a key factor. About 40 percent of the deaths in 2000, or 16,653 were alcohol-related, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration -- down from 25,180 in 1982.

Even more encouraging, the proportion of fatally injured passenger vehicle drivers who had a blood alcohol level of .10 or above dropped from 49 percent in 1980 to 28 percent in 1999, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety reports. MADD estimates up to 39,000 lives were saved through anti-drunken-driving efforts between 1980 and 1990.

But alcohol-related crashes continue to take a heavy toll in injuries -- about 297,000 in 1994, the most recent year for which numbers are available. Auto insurance policyholders pay the costs of these injuries (and the cost of repairing damaged cars) through their premiums. MADD reports the economic costs of alcohol-related traffic deaths were estimated at more than $40 billion in 1998.

A primary reason for society's progress against drunken driving is the change in public attitudes. Because of health concerns, alcohol consumption is more moderate than it once was; lower-alcohol drinks such as wine and light beer are more often the drink of choice.

Studies confirm that people are more reluctant to drive after drinking. A survey by the Insurance Research Council (IRC), which measures changes in public attitudes on insurance-related issues, found that 21 percent of those interviewed admitted to driving after drinking in 1995. That compares with 26 percent in 1990 and 37 percent in 1985.

Male drivers (26 percent) are much more likely to drive after drinking than female drivers (12 percent). Except for those 65 and older -- only 8 percent said they drive after drinking -- persons in other age groups were almost equally inclined to do so; those 30-34 led all others with 23 percent. More-educated persons (26 percent of college graduates) were more likely to admit driving after drinking than the less-educated (16 percent of high-school graduates).

In earlier IRC surveys, 79 percent supported administrative license suspension as a "get tough" measure against drunken drivers; 68 percent backed driver tests at roadblocks; and large majorities supported steps not widely pursued -- testing all drivers stopped for moving violations (61 percent), testing all drivers involved in accidents (71 percent), and testing all drivers involved in accidents with injuries (88 percent).

More severe penalties sought

Probably the most detailed surveys ever of public attitudes toward drunken driving were completed in 1991 and 1994 by the Gallup Organization. They were commissioned by MADD and funded by State Farm.

The surveys indicated the "designated driver" idea is gaining wider acceptance. In 1991, 58 percent of the respondents said they or their friends assign a designated driver when they know they're going to be out drinking. Three years later, that figure had climbed to 64 percent.

Other key findings of the second survey:

Growing numbers of people believe the penalties for drunken driving aren't severe enough. For a first offense, 53 percent said they aren't severe enough; for a second offense, 66 percent; and for a third offense, 68 percent.

Seventy-four percent of those surveyed support police roadblocks as a means of catching impaired drivers.

When asked if they personally knew someone who had been convicted of drunken driving, 61 percent said yes. Fifty-two percent knew someone who had suffered property damage because of drunken driving, while 43 percent knew someone who had been injured or killed by a drunken driver.

More than half the respondents (56 percent) admitted drinking alcoholic beverages at least occasionally. Of those, 91 percent said they take precautions to avoid impaired driving, including using designated drivers, not driving if they plan to drink, and staying home. Among those who drink but don't take precautions, most said they "don't drink much" or drink in moderation.

Of those who drink, 13 percent admitted they had driven under the influence of alcohol or close to it in the last three months. And of this group, 1 percent said they had been stopped by police.

Asked what factors would discourage them from driving after drinking, those surveyed most often said: "realizing you could kill or injure others or yourself"; "a jail sentence"; "losing driver's license"; and "substantial fines."

Forty-two percent of respondents said society isn't effective in addressing the drunken driving problem, though more than half (56 percent) felt society is either effective or very effective in doing so.

Designated driver idea supported

State Farm supports the designated driver concept as a way the average citizen can make an important contribution to reducing driving after drinking. The company encourages its policyholders, employees, agents, agents' staff people and their families to "be a designated driver." It's also reaching the public through advertising and other efforts.

Some critics say the designated driver concept is flawed because (1) it condones excessive drinking as long as driving isn't involved and (2) intoxicated passengers sometimes cause accidents. Such criticism ignores the reality that some people are going to drink away from home. State Farm believes it's better for them to return home as passengers rather than drivers.

State Farm also backs a lower blood-alcohol level to define drunken driving.

Some states have resisted lowering the level to .08 percent, fearing it would target moderate drinkers. Some argue it wouldn't make much of a dent in the drunken driving problem because people at the .08 level aren't really drunk.

Strong evidence contradicts these notions. Even a blood-alcohol content as low as .02 affects driving ability and crash likelihood, according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Odds of being in a crash begin to increase significantly at .05 and climb rapidly after about .08. Based on data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 22.6 percent of alcohol-related traffic deaths in 2000 involved drivers or pedestrians with blood alcohol levels between .01 and .09.

As a result of a congressional mandate, all states have now adopted "not a drop" legislation, which usually provides for suspending the license of anyone under age 21 found driving with any alcohol in their blood.

There may always be "hard-core" drinking drivers -- many with previous drunken-driving convictions -- who resist all efforts to turn them into responsible motorists. One study by an injury research organization concluded that half of all drunken drivers killed in crashes had a blood alcohol content twice the .10 percent legal limit (in most states at the time). It recommended that those wanting to make real progress against drunken driving focus on the "hard-core."

According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, these people are difficult to reach. Education has little effect on their behavior because they have traits and values that make them the least susceptible to change. Treatment and rehabilitation also have met with little success. Getting them off the road -- and keeping them off -- may offer the only hope.

As the Institute said in a 1989 report:

" There are no simple solutions to the problem of alcohol-impaired driving and its consequences. Because alcohol is legal and widely available and the private motor vehicle is the predominant mode of transportation in the United States, some amount of driving after alcohol consumption is inevitable. The question is how to reduce or minimize driving by people who are seriously impaired . . . ."
The nation has won some significant battles in the war on drunken driving since the early 1980s, but the war is far from over.