Drunk Driving Issue, Issue Forum
Special Advertising site produced by washingtonpost.com
spacer
contents
Home
Road Map for Progress
BAC Education Hits the Road
National Goal to Reduce Fatalities
MADD: Strategies for Safer Streets
Complacency is Largest Threat
Homeland Security & Highway Safety Not Mutually Exclusive
NCADD National Town Meeting Addresses Rising Death Toll
Drunken Driving - Predictable, but Inevitable?
.08 Percent BAC Laws Save Lives
About This Section
spacer

National Goal to Reduce Fatalities Attainable, But Requires Work
By John H. Lacey
Robert B. Voas
James C. Fell
Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation

CALVERTON, Md. - In January 1995, a bold national goal was established to reduce alcohol-related traffic fatalities in the United States to no more than 11,000 by the year 2005. A summit, involving more than 150 partners, including government leaders, legislators, judges, police, citizen activists, industry groups and researchers, resulted in 125 recommendations to meet the goal.

This Partners in Progress effort led to a national conference in 1997 to stimulate effective actions at the state and local level. Despite the activity, progress in achieving this national public health goal has been slow. Alcohol-related traffic fatalities since the goal was established in 1995 have been reduced from 17,247 to 16,653 in 2000. If we continue at our current rate of improvement we will come nowhere near meeting the 11,000 by 2005. However, in the face of more cars, drivers and miles driven, just holding the line is an accomplishment.

In order to reduce alcohol-related fatalities to no more than 11,000 by 2005, progress must be achieved at a pace that averages more than 1,100 fewer alcohol-related fatalities year-to-year from 2000 to 2005. The average reduction from 1995 to 2000 was 119 fatalities. If certain measures are instituted over the next few years, "11,000 by 2005" can be achieved.

A combination of effective laws, highly publicized enforcement, public information and education, and practical alternatives to drinking and driving are the keys to substantially reducing the impaired driving problem in this country.

If we are really serious about achieving the goal by 2005, there are laws that can be adopted and existing laws that can be better implemented in every state; enforcement programs that deter drinking and driving in the first place; public information campaigns to raise public consciousness; and transportation alternatives to make it easier for people to change behavior. Based on what we know now, the goal for 2005 can be achieved if we aggressively implement certain strategies at the state and local levels.

Specific laws when enacted, enforced and publicized, have had dramatic effects on alcohol-related crashes. These laws include administrative license revocation laws that empower officers to take drivers' licenses at the time of arrest rather than after conviction; laws that lower the legal blood alcohol concentration level from .10 to .08; and zero tolerance laws that prohibit driving with any alcohol by persons under 21.

Key in the effort is strong enforcement. Sobriety checkpoints are an effective means of reducing alcohol-related crashes. Efforts in Tennessee and New Mexico reduced alcohol-related fatalities by as much as 20 percent. In states where these efforts have continued, the benefits have been sustained. However, few state or community police departments regularly employ checkpoints.

Well publicized saturation patrols have also been effective but they require considerable manpower. The most effective community drinking and driving enforcement program should include both check-points and saturation patrols.

If we are to achieve the goal of reducing alcohol-related traffic deaths to 11,000 by 2005, it will take a renewed nationwide commitment to the application of laws we know work. This includes adopting them in states that have not yet done so, and publicized enforcement in all states to give the laws teeth. What remains to be seen is whether we have the political will to do so.

John H. Lacey, Robert B. Voas and James C. Fell are senior researchers for the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, a Calverton, Md.-based research and evaluation non-profit that concentrates on preventive health and safety issues including impaired driving. PIRE's Web site is www.pire.org.

Back to Top