|
|
A Road Map for Progress
Against Increased Drunk Driving
By Jim Hedlund and Anne McCartt
Preusser Research Group, Inc.
TRUMBULL, Conn. - Progress against
drunken driving in the United States has
stalled. After dropping 37 percent from
1982 to 1994, the number of drunken
drivers in fatal crashes with a blood
alcohol level (BAC) of .10 or above
remained virtually unchanged from 1994
through 1999. Last year's (2000) six percent
increase, to 10,408, was the largest
annual increase in drunken driving since
1986.
Sponsored by the AAA Foundation
for Traffic Safety, we analyzed data, consulted
research studies and interviewed
more than 90 knowledgeable persons
across the country. We learned what's
wrong, what's needed, and how to get
the job done.
What's wrong
Every state has an elaborate system
of drunken driving laws, enforcement
and adjudication. But this system doesn't
work as well as it should. Drunken
drivers have little fear of being stopped,
arrested, convicted or punished - so
they continue to drink and drive.
Drinking and driving is common. About
21 percent of driving-age Americans
reported driving after drinking in the past
year. They made about 80 million trips
where the driver's BAC exceeded .08,
the legal limit in many states.
Drunken driving arrests are rare. The
chances of arrest on any drunken driving
trip are less than 1 in 50.
Repeat offenders and drivers at high
BAC levels contribute prominently. About
one-third of all drivers arrested for DWI
are repeat offenders and more than half
had a BAC higher than .15.
States differ substantially. In some
states about 10 percent of all drivers
involved in fatal crashes had BAC levels
higher than .10. In other states, more
than 25 percent of driving fatalities
involved BAC higher than .10.
What's needed
Why aren't drunken drivers consistently
arrested, regularly convicted, and
appropriately punished? Here are some
common problems and solutions.
|
Problem
|
Solution
|
|
State laws are complex and contain inconsistencies and loopholes.
|
Review and simplify laws.
|
|
Many drivers refuse to take BAC tests.
|
Establish BAC test refusal penalties that are more
severe than the penalty for failing the BAC test.
|
|
DWI enforcement levels and arrest
rates are low.
|
Simplify arrest procedures and paperwork; provide needed equipment and training; enforce drinking age
21 and zero tolerance laws.
|
|
Many arrested drunken drivers aren't
convicted.
|
Eliminate plea bargains to non-alcohol offenses; eliminate diversion programs that allow offenders
to escape punishment; assure that administrative
hearings don't interfere with criminal proceedings.
|
|
Many repeat offenders are not identified.
|
Improve record systems to identify prior drunken
driving offenses.
|
|
Problem drinkers are not identified or
treated effectively.
|
Screen all drunken driving offenders for drinking problems; require treatment if needed.
|
|
Even convicted drunken drivers escape meaningful
punishment.
|
Apply administrative and criminal sanctions consistently; include actions against the offender's car.
|
|
Offenders frequently are not monitored
to assure they complete their sentences.
|
Control offenders closely during probation; consider dedicated facilities if needed.
|
|
Offenders frequently drive with suspended licenses or fail to relicense when eligible.
|
Establish and enforce stiff penalties for unlicensed driving.
|
|
Law enforcement, courts and probation lack needed resources.
|
Provide steady, dedicated funding.
|
|
States need strong leadership for all drunken driving control activities.
|
Assure that state transportation, health, law enforcement, motor vehicle and justice departments
work together.
|
|
How to get it done
Three strategies can link community,
state and national organizations and
resources in a renewed effort to reduce
drunken driving.
- Establish a drunken driving system monitoring program in each state. Few states have good data to track DWI arrests, court actions or offender follow-up. A drunken driving system monitoring pro-gram in each state could combine data from official records with data collected directly in communities, in a fashion similar to the court monitoring programs that oper-ated so effectively in the 1980s. MADD, AAA and other citizen organiza-tions can operate system monitoring pro-grams. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and other federal agencies can work with organizations rep-resenting motor vehicle departments, pros-ecutors, judges, probation officers and state officials to design and help communities implement a monitoring program.
- Reinvigorate state drunken driv-ing
task forces. State task forces include
all constituencies involved with drunken
driving control. They can identify problems,
suggest solutions and produce action.
NHTSA should help state task forces by
defining a model state drunken driving con-trol
program, establishing performance
measures for drunken driving enforcement
and adjudication, and support states as
they improve their drunken driving control
systems.
- Revise state drunken driving
grants. Federal grants are critical to state
drunken driving control activities. They pro-vide
funds and also encourage states to
adopt effective strategies. The current
grant programs are unnecessarily bureau-cratic
and rigid. The 2003 Surface
Transportation Reauthorization should
revise the grant programs to:
- Reward successful states and encourageweaker states to improve;
- Provide both flexibility and accountability for results;
- Assure steady funding as long as per-formance goals are met;
- Use performance-based criteria instead of requiring specific laws or programs;
- Provide substantial funding for state record systems;
- Require states to establish or continue broad-based drunken driving task forces; and
- Require federal departments of transportation, justice and health and human services to work together in designing and operating these grant programs.
The goal
The most effective ways to improve
state drunken driving control systems will
invest authority and responsibility in people
and organizations at all levels, local to
national. They will operate in the public eye,
using the media to report on problems and
solutions. They won't promise instant solu-tions
based on a single action but will take
steady steps to long-term improvement.
And they will establish mechanisms for
identifying and solving problems rather
than attempting to apply one-size-fits-all
methods.
The goal is an open, effective, consis-tent
and accountable drunken driving con-trol
system, extending from detection to
rehabilitation. When everyone understands
that driving drunk brings frequent and
uncomfortable consequences, fewer per-sons
will drive drunk. All that's needed is
leadership and commitment.
Jim Hedlund is a former associate admin-istrator
at NHTSA. Preusser Research
Group, Trumbull, Conn., conducts research
on traffic safety topics; 203-459-8700.
Back to Top
|
|
|
