Back to .08 BAC [Blood Alcohol Concentration]

Ask the Scholar

Document scope · 1 page

doc

Scholar

Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory. For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.

Scholar Source Context

Document identity

localId

26416197

label

.08 BAC [Blood Alcohol Concentration]

core

doc

dtoType

document

citationUrl

https://catalog.archives.gov/id/26416197

pageCount

Source metadata

26416197

sourceUrl

https://catalog.archives.gov/id/26416197

contentType

document

title

.08 BAC [Blood Alcohol Concentration]

citationUrl

https://catalog.archives.gov/id/26416197

collections

Records of the Domestic Policy Council (Clinton Administration)

Elizabeth Drye's Files

iiifBase

https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/foia/2015/Batch0003/42-t-7367455-20140046S-004-001-2015.pdf

thumbnailUrl

https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/foia/2015/Batch0003/42-t-7367455-20140046S-004-001-2015.pdf

largeImageUrl

https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/foia/2015/Batch0003/42-t-7367455-20140046S-004-001-2015.pdf

imageCount

hasImages

yes

source

import

hasTranscription

Source extras

url

https://catalog.archives.gov/id/26416197

naId

26416197

levelOfDescription

fileUnit

otherTitles

42-t-7367455-20140046S-004-001-2015

recordType

description

ocrSource

nara-archive

Single page context

seq

pageIndex

type

document

url

https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/foia/2015/Batch0003/42-t-7367455-20140046S-004-001-2015.pdf

mediaId

aa9736c58dcc3312

ocrText

Ac 586-2268 8 Congress of the United States Washington, DC 20515 March 14, 1997 William Jefferson Clinton The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. MAR 17PM7:14 Washington, DC 20500 Dear Mr. President: Drunk driving crashes claimed 17,274 lives on our nation's roadways in 1995, an increase in drunk driving fatalities for the first time in a decade. These numbers confirm the sad reality that our nation's drunk driving laws are just not tough enough and underscore the need to adopt proven measures to curb drunk driving. To that end, we recently introduced legislation entitled "The Safe and Sober Streets Act of 1997." Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, and drunk driving victims strongly support this bill. We hope the Administration will join us in supporting this life-saving measure. Our legislation, which is modeled on the overwhelming success of the 21 Minimum Drinking Age Law and the Zero Tolerance Law for underage drunk drivers, would withhold a portion of a state's federal highway funds if it does not lower the legal level of intoxication from .10 Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) to .08 BAC by October 1, 2000. For many years, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has recommended that states adopt .08 BAC, as have a wide array of groups including the American Medical Association, the American Automobile Association, the National Safety Council, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, and some of our nation's largest insurance companies. To date, thirteen states (California, Oregon, Utah, New Mexico, Kansas, Alabama, Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine) have adopted .08, and their experiences show that 500-600 lives would be saved in the U.S. each year if every state did so. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, a 170 lb. man would only reach .08 BAC after consuming four drinks in one hour on an empty stomach. The average 137 lb. female would need three drinks on an empty stomach in one hour to reach that level. This is hardly social drinking. Moreover, more than 3,500 people were killed in 1995 by drivers with blood alcohol levels below .10 BAC. The United States lags behind a number of industrialized nations in adopting .08 BAC laws, despite the overwhelming evidence of the hazards of driving at this level of intoxication. This is no longer acceptable, and we intend to include the "The Safe and Sober Streets Act" in the upcoming reauthorization of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act. We would very much welcome the Administration's support in making this a reality. Thank you for your attention and consideration of this matter. We look forward to working with you. Best regards, Nita M. Lowey Frank Lautenberg Member of Congress United States Senator cc: Secretary Rodney Slater PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER .08 Illegal Per Se BAC Per Se Levels Per Se Laws are proven effective countermeasures Years ago, .15 was the standard in many states .10 BAC is a somewhat arbitrary level Recent scientific evidence shows .08 BAC to be the more reasonable level Number of Drinks and BAC in One Hour of Drinking 10 1 Drink = .54 ounces 5 Drinks of alcohol .09 .08 3 Drinks 07 4 Drinks .06 .05 3 Drinks 2 Drinks .04 .03 2 Drinks 02 .01 Male Female BAC 170 lbs. 137 lbs. Number of Drinks and BAC in Two Hours of Drinking 1 Drink = .54 ounces .10 of alcohol 4 Drinks .09 .08 5 Drinks 07 3 Drinks .06 4 Drinks .05 .04 .03 3 Drinks 2 drinks .02 .01 2 Drinks Male Female BAC 170 lbs. 137 lbs. BAC and Impairment 10 09 08 Concentrated attention, speed control 07 06 Information processing, judgment 05 Coordination 04 Eye movement control, standing steadiness, emergency responses 03 Tracking and steering 02 Divided attention, choice reaction 01 time, visual function BAC Experimental Studies of Impairment and BAC Percent Decrement in Performance Measure 70 60 50 40 X 30 Moskowitz (1985) 20 X Moskowitz (1974) Mortimer (1963) 10 Landauer (1983) Laurell (1975) 0 .01 .02 .03 .04 .05 .06 .07 .08 .09 .10 BAC and Fatal Crash Risk (Zador, 1989) 10 10 Times .09 08 5 Times 07 .06 3 Times 05 04 03 02 01 BAC 380 Times .15 14 48 Times .10 .09 11.1 Times .05 04 1.4 Times 02 BAC Relative Fatality Risk for Drivers in Single Vehicle Crashes by BAC (Zador, IIHS, 1991) Alcohol Limits for Drivers A Report to Congress NHTSA USDOT February 1991 No "safe" BAC level. All States should have "Per Se" laws. .08 should be adopted. Multilevel system of admini- strative, civil, and criminal penalties should be considered. Driving Under the Influence: A Report to Congress on Alcohol Limits Enact .08 BAC as per se criminal offense Accompany lower limits with PI&E Repeal laws that create presumption drivers not under influence at any BAC above .00 "Don't drink and drive" "Don't drive if you have been drinking" National Highway Traffic Safety Administration United States Department of Transportation July 1992 Effectiveness of .08 Per Se NHTSA evaluated effects of .08 in California Results: - 81% knew BAC limit was stricter - Increase in DUI arrests - 12% reduction in A/R fatalities - Some of effects due to ALR D Effectiveness of.08 Per Se Effects were evaluated in Maine Results: - Maine experienced 19% decline in nighttime fatal crashes during law's first three years compared to previous 5 years - Control States of New Hampshire and Vermont (with .10 Per Se) experienced 3% increase in nighttime fatals during same period - Proportion of fatal crashes involving alcohol declined from 53% (five years before law) to 37% (four years after law) A preliminary assessment of the impact of lowering the illegal BAC per se limit to .08 in five states National Center for Statistics and Analysis National Highway Traffic Safety Administration December 1994 Summary of Significant Decreases in Alcohol Related Crashes After .08 Legislation State Measure Decrease CA Alcohol ≥ .10 - 4% OR Any alcohol - 9% Alcohol ≥ .10 - 11% Police reported alcohol - 13% Estimated alcohol - 11% UT Police reported alcohol - 30% VT Any alcohol - 36% Alcohol ≥ ≥.10 - 31% Estimated alcohol - 40% BAC Limits in Other Countries Country Illegal Per Se Canada .08 Great Britain .08 Australia .05 - .08 Austria .08 Switzerland .08 Netherlands .05 Norway .05 Finland .05 Sweden .02 Who Supports Lower BAC Levels? MADD Mothers Against Drunk Driving IACP International Association of Chiefs of Police HHS U.S. Surgeon General, Health and Human Services NCADD National Commission Against Drunk Driving RID Remove Intoxicated Drivers AAA American Automobile Association NSA National Sheriff's Association Who Supports Lower BAC Levels? AMA American Medical Association NSC National Safety Council NCUTLO National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances AAAM Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine NIAAA National Institute for Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NTSB National Transportation Safety Board .08 Per Se Point: Lowering the illegal BAC level to .08 will only affect those moderate drinkers at .08 and .09 BAC. Counterpoint: .08 Per Se will serve as a general deterrent to all drinker drivers that the law is more strict. 08 Per Se How will .08 affect problem drinker drivers (BACs ≥ .15)? Significant reductions in the proportion of fatally injured drivers with BACs ≥ .20 occurred in California after .08 went into effect .08 will serve as a general deterrent, if accompanied with PI&E even for drinkers who reach high BACs The .08 Per Se Law Will: Increase the arrest and conviction rates for impaired drivers at 10 and above. Raise the perceived risk of arrest for driving after drinking. Improve public awareness about how much alcohol it takes to be dangerously impaired. Bring the U.S. closer to per se limits of most industrialized nations. .08 Per Se By the time a level of .08 is reached, virtually everyone experiences dangerous driving skill impairment, even those who are experienced or habitual drinkers. .08 Per Se Lowering the limit from the current level to .08 would set the boundary at a level at which driving skills are proven to be compromised for the vast majority of drivers. It is a limit which is reasonable and necessary for the driving safety of all. .08 In Summary Is not just a couple of drinks after work Is a level at which critical driving skills are impaired Is a level above which the risk of crash is increased substantially Is a level which most industrialized countries have adopted Is a proven effective measure which will reduce alcohol-related fatalities States with BAC Per Se Laws (as of September 1995) 1 FI # P Br Inp . Maine Washington North Minnesota VT Montana Dakota Michigan NH New Oregon Wisconsin York MA South CTRI Idaho Dakota Pennsylvania NJ Wyoming lowa Indiana Ohio Nebraska MD DE Nevada DC Illinois West Virginia Utah Virginia Colorado Kansas Missourl Kentucky North California Carolina, Tennessee South Oklahoma Carolina Arizona Arkansas New Mexico Georgia Mississippi Texas Louislana Florida .08 (AL, CA, FL, HI, KS, ME, NC, NH, NM, OR, UT, VA, VT) .10 Alaska Hawaii No Per Se Law (MA, SC) 0 .08 Per Se Laws all States with Law Effective Date Utah August 1, 1983 Oregon October 15, 1983 Maine August 4, 1988 California January 1, 1990 Vermont July 1, 1991 Kansas July 1, 1993 North Carolina October 1, 1993 New Mexico January 1, 1994 New Hampshire January 1, 1994 Florida January 1, 1994 Virginia July 1, 1994 Hawaii June 30, 1995 Alabama October 1, 1995 Effects of .08 Legislation On Alcohol Consumption Per Capita Alcohol Consumption (Gallons of Alcohol) State Before .08 After .08 Comments 1982 1983 1984 Utah 1.71 1.52 1.53 No change No change in Oregon 2.74 2.69 2.63 decreasing trend 1987 1988 1989 Maine 2.55 2.55 2.45 Decreased 4% 1989 1990 California 2.15 2.13 No change Sources: DISCUS, Beer Institute, NIAAA TESTIMONY BY JAMES C. FELL NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION BEFORE THE CRIMINAL JURISPRUDENCE COMMITTEE OF THE TEXAS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ON THE MERITS OF A .08 BAC PER SE LAW FOR ADULT DRIVERS, SOBRIETY CHECKPOINTS, ZERO TOLERANCE, AND OTHER BILLS TO REDUCE IMPAIRED DRIVING MARCH 12, 1997 Thank you for inviting me to testify today. My name is James C. Fell and I am Chief of Research and Evaluation in Traffic Safety Programs, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), U.S. Department of Transportation. Our goal at NHTSA is to reduce the annual toll of 41,000 deaths, 3,000,000 injuries and $150 billion in societal costs due to motor vehicle crashes. Impaired driving plays a substantial role in these crashes. However, the solutions to impaired driving are mainly at the state and community level. We conduct research at NHTSA and evaluate programs to see what is working. We do know that certain measures reduce impaired driving: legislation, highly publicized and visible enforcement, and public information and education. And there is specific legislation that has proven effective in the impaired driving area. I will be testifying in favor of HB 133 which proposes to lower the illegal blood alcohol concentration (BAC) limit from 10 to .08, HB 603 which authorizes sobriety checkpoints, and SB 35 which is a zero tolerance law for drivers under age 21. 2 We believe that lowering the illegal per se BAC limit to .08 will not only save lives and reduce injuries in Texas, but will also save your citizens substantial amounts of money in associated health care costs. NHTSA has produced two reports to the U.S. Congress on the subject of blood alcohol concentration (BAC) limits for drivers. In both of those reports, we recommend that all states and D.C., should establish .08 BAC as the illegal limit per se for drivers aged 21 and older. There are several good reasons for this position: (1) Virtually all drivers are substantially impaired at .08 BAC. Laboratory and test track research shows that the vast majority of drivers, even experienced drinkers, are impaired at .08 with regard to critical driving tasks. There are significant decrements in performance in braking, steering, lane changing, judgement and divided attention, among other measures, at .08 BAC. Performance decrements in some of these tasks are as high as 60%-70% at .08 BAC according to studies. (2) The risk of being involved in a crash increases substantially by .08 BAC. The risk of being in a crash gradually increases at each BAC level, but rises very rapidly after a driver reaches or exceeds .08 BAC compared to drivers with no alcohol in their blood systems. Research by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety indicates that the relative risk of being killed in a single vehicle crash at BACs between .05 and .09 is 11 times that drivers at .00 BAC (no alcohol). 3 (3) Lowering the per se limit is a proven effective countermeasure which will reduce alcohol- related traffic fatalities. We have evidence in California that significant reductions in alcohol- related fatalities occurred in 1990 (a 12% reduction), the year .08 and an administrative license revocation law went into effect. In a recent study by Boston University, there was a 16% reduction in the proportion of fatal crashes involving fatally injured drivers whose BACs were .08 or higher in five states that lowered their illegal limit from 10 to .08 compared to five states that did not do so. NHTSA has found significant decreases in four states that adopted .08 on nine measures of alcohol-related fatalities in a report published in 1995. These decreases in alcohol-related fatalities ranged from 4% to 40% in those states analyzed. I want to point out that in California, the decrease in alcohol-related fatalities occurred at both high and low BAC levels, even drivers with BACs of .20 or greater. A .08 law serves as a general deterrent to all drinking drivers, not just social drinkers or moderate drinkers. (4) .08 is a reasonable level to set the limit. A .08 BAC is not reached with a couple of beers after work or a glass or two of wine with dinner. The average 170 pound male would have to consume more than 4 drinks within 1 hour on an empty stomach to reach .08 BAC. The average 137 pound female would need 3 drinks in one hour on an empty stomach to reach that level. More typically, that female driver would need 4 drinks over a 2 hour period to get above .08 BAC and the male would need 5 drinks. 4 (5) The public supports levels below .10 BAC. NHTSA surveys all show that most people would not drive after consuming 2 or 3 drinks in an hour. (6) Most other industrialized nations have set BAC limits at .08 or lower and have had these laws for many years. For example, Canada and Great Britain are at .08--so is Austria and Switzerland. The states in Australia range from .05 to .08. There is opposition to .08 BAC laws by some in the alcohol industry. They think that people will drink less or simply stop drinking alcohol if .08 laws are passed. There is no evidence that happened in California. The per capita alcohol consumption did not change in California in 1990, the year .08 went into effect, compared to 1989. Nor did it change in Utah and Oregon the year after .08 went into effect. There is also data from Maine that restaurant sales actually increased 11% in 1988, the year .08 went into effect. In summary, 13 states already have .08 per se laws. The time is now for Texas and other states to adopt the law. It is a level at which critical driving tasks are impaired. It is level at which the risk of a crash increases substantially. It is a level which most industrialized nations have adopted. It is a proven effective measure which will save lives and reduce injuries. And, it is not just a couple of drinks after work. We are talking about a fairly substantial amount of alcohol when we talk about .08 BAC. I urge the Criminal Jurisprudence Committee to consider the merits of this legislation and pass the measure to lower the illegal BAC to .08. 5 With regard to HB 603, there is also substantial evidence that sobriety checkpoints, more so than other enforcement efforts, will reduce alcohol-related crashes. In communities around the United States, impaired driving occurs anywhere from 100 to 2000 times before an arrest is made for driving under the influence. Police resources are limited and must be used efficiently and effectively in order to reduce impaired driving. Sobriety checkpoints not only serve as a specific deterrent to impaired driving by detecting and arresting impaired drivers who pass through a checkpoint, but more importantly, as a general deterrent to drinking drivers. Checkpoints increase the perceived risk of arrest if they are adequately publicized and visible to the public. Sobriety checkpoints are a key feature of many impaired driving enforcement programs around the country. We have had evidence for sometime that sobriety checkpoints in communities have been effective. A well-publicized sobriety checkpoint program held in Binghamton, NY resulted in a 39% decrease in the number of drinking drivers on the roads at night according to roadside surveys and a 23% reduction in late night crashes in the months the checkpoints were held. A year-long checkpoint program in Charlottesville, VA was associated with a 13% reduction in the proportion of crashes that were alcohol-related. Similar results were obtained from a checkpoint program in Clearwater and Largo, FL which experienced a 20% decrease following checkpoint operations. 6 Now there is evidence that statewide sobriety checkpoint programs are also effective. A checkpoint program conducted in Tennessee in 1994-1995 resulted in a 17% reduction in the number of drunk driving fatal crashes that would have occurred without the program. This is a reduction of 5-6 drunk driving fatal crashes per month in Tennessee. Other statewide programs in North Carolina and New Mexico are showing similar results. Recent surveys by NHTSA indicate that 70% to 80% of the general public favor the increased use of sobriety checkpoints by police as an enforcement tool. Sobriety checkpoint programs are also cost effective. A recent study showed that for every $1 spent on a sobriety checkpoint program, a community can expect to save $6, including $1.30 of insurer costs. Sobriety checkpoints also have the potential to impact other crime via the detection of felonies such as drug interdiction, stolen vehicles and stolen goods. Sobriety checkpoints reduce impaired driving, save lives, and are cost effective. The public favors their use. Police agencies in the State of Texas should have the authority to conduct them, within certain strict guidelines. 7 The Zero Tolerance bill (SB 35) for drivers under age 21 will also save lives. Zero Tolerance laws in other states have been found to be very effective in reducing nighttime crashes of drivers under age 21 (a recent study showed a 16% reduction). Since the drinking age law in Texas prohibits the purchase and public possession of alcohol by those under 21, it seems reasonable to expect drivers under age 21 to have no alcohol in their blood systems. Limits higher than .02 for these young drivers (Texas is .07) are simply not effective and send a mixed message. A Zero Tolerance law not only is reasonable and effective, but there is also a scientific basis for it. The relative risk of fatal crash involvement is substantially higher for drivers under age 21 at lower BAC levels than for drivers aged 25 and older. For example, male drivers aged 16-20 have 6 times the driver fatality risk in single vehicle crashes at BACs = .01 to .04, compared to male drivers aged 25 and older at these low levels. Clearly, a zero tolerance law (.02 or above) in Texas will send a consistent and clear message to our youth don't drink and drive, period. Thank you for allowing me to testify today. I would be glad to answer any questions you may have. 002 03/13/97 THU 18:42 FAX COMMITTEE ON DISTRICT OFFICER APPROPRIATIONS 222 MAMARONECK AVENUE SUME 310 SUBCOMMITTEES: WHITE PLAINS, NY 10605 LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES. (814) 428-1707 AND EDUCATION FAX (914) 328-1506 FOREIGN OPERATIONS. EXPORT FINANCING AND RELATED PROGRAMS 97-46 QUEENS BOULEVARD CO-CHAIR, CONGRESSIONAL CAUCUS SUITE 506 FOR WOMEN'S ISSUES Nita M. Lowey REGO PARK. NY 11374 (718) 897-3602 WASHINGTON OFFICE FAX (718) 897-3804 2421 RAYBURN BUILDING Congress of the United States WASHINGTON, DC 20515 GRINTON I. WILL LIBRARY (202) 225-6506 1500 CENTRAL PARK AVENUE FAX (202) 226-0548 18th District, New Pork YONKERS, NY 10710 (914) 779-9788 (By APPOINTMENT) SUNY MARITIME ACADEMY AT FORT SCHUYLER March 13, 1997 BRONX, NY 10485 (718) 829-8027 (BY APPOINTMENT). Mr. James Hedlund Associate Administrator for Traffic Safety Programs National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20590 Dear Mr. Hedlund: As you are probably aware, Senator Lautenberg and I recently joined Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, and drunk driving victims in introducing "The Safe and Sober Streets Act of 1997." This legislation would withhold a portion of a state's federal highway funds if it does not lower the legal level of intoxication to .08 Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) by October 1, 2000. In its public statements in opposition to this legislation, the American Beverage Institute has repeatedly asserted that a 120 lb. woman who drinks two 12 oz. beers or two glasses of wine in a two-hour period would reach a BAC level of .08. These figures do not correspond to any information I have seen on this subject, nor do they correspond to the BAC information contained in the report "Setting Limits, Saving Lives: The Case for .08 BAC Laws" published in January 1997 by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the National Safety Council. This report states that the average 137 lb. female would need to drink three 12 oz. beers or three glasses of wine in one hour on an empty. stomach to reach .08 BAC. The report also states that the average 170 lb. man would only reach .08 BAC after consuming four alcoholic drinks in one hour on an empty stomach. In light of NHTSA's expertise on this subject, I would appreciate it if you could comment on the American Beverage Institute's assertion and clarify how many alcoholic beverages the median weight male and female would have to drink in order to reach .08 BAC. This information will be essential in ensuring an informed and honest debate of my legislation. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, NitaLamy PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 03/07/1997 14:08 2148692206 MADDA PAGE 01 FEB-21-1997 08:02 ERICAN AR 607 143. Street N.W. Sure TITO Washington D.C.20X Phone (202) 347-82:5 FAX (202) 347-5250 February 12, 1997 The Honorable Allan H. Spear Chairman BOARD OF DIRECTORS Minnesota State Legislature Committee on Proxident Crime Prevention Williams L Hyda Jr. State Capitol, Room 120 Morton's Group. Lac. St. Paul, MN. 55155 Directors Michael D. o Deanell Dear Chairman Spear: Ale House Managerousl Loc. Lane Cardwell Thank you again for providing what I felt to be an imminently fair hearing on Brinker liternational. Inc. the issue of dropping the blood alcohol content (BAC) in Minnesota to .08. Joseph P. Misatrode. Buen Ventures, Iss. Regarding the confusion over conflicting claims on BAC levels, the John T. Boods Capital Rituaturent Concepts. Ltd proponents of dropping the BAC levels seek to put the current arrest Ted Soor threshold of .10 in the worst possible light in their quest for a tighter Durden Restiurance Inc standard; They are using technically correct, but totally. unrealistic and Rexanu K Exháick inflammatory scenarios to describe drinking am.08 as the type of behavior Priday's Hospitality Worldwide. los that should be prohibited (and prosecuted), As 1 testified, the facts belie the claim this level of drinking is where a disproportionate number of accidents Pater 1. Beaudrauft Hard Rock Cafe are occurring: Interestional Andrew J. Revells Proponents of .08 suggest that five drinks in one hour can-put someone at Homely's Emertainment Inc. the .08 lével. This is a statement.designed to enrage, but not enlighten. Richard W. Alcara Homers of Arocrica, Inc. (They could just as easily claim that five drinks in a half hour renders this Sunley R. Novack result.) This hypothetical individual, finishing a drink once every 12 minutes How Marriou Services for a full hour, does not fit the 08 drinker profile. This is a consumer who Corporation will be drinking to much higher BAC levels and will only be at the .08 BAC Tim Cannon level for a few-minutes. This hypothetical "problem drinker evidencing this Ovtback Steakhouse. Inc. consumption pattern does not quit drinking after 60 minutes. (The average Pawick G. Golombo Sharri, Inc fatally injured drunk driver has had about 15 drinks prior to becoming involved in the crash.) Cais 3. Miller UNO Restaurant Corporation A more realistic description of a.08 drinker is a 120 pound woman with Richard B. Berrpan General Counsel a verage metabolism who has consumed two six-ounce glasses of wine over a two-hour period. Changing the BAC level to a .08 threshold for arrest would mean that this moderate consumer who is clearly not engaged in abusive drinking (and is typical of many benign social drinkers) would be subject to arrest) imprisonment, fines, higher insurance rates and loss of license. This is clearly not the individual or behavior logically targeted by anti drunk driving programs. Protecting your business by promoting the truth PAGE 02 03/07/1997 14:08 2148692206 MADDA P.02/02 FEB-21-1997 08:02 The Honorable Allan H. Spear February 12, 1997 Page Two * (This two-drink scenario comes from the Office of Program Development and Evaluation of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, October 1994.) Please be advised that proponents of .08 are engaged in a massive campaign to distort the debate through half truths and inflammatory rhetoric. There is an old saying that "Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but not their own set of facts.' 1 hope that you and the other Committee members will keep the factual evidence in mind prior to voting on this issue. We will be pleased to work with you on fashioning meaningful solutions at your pleasure. Sincerely, Richard a. Berman General Coursel RBB/vinw Post-It* Fax Note 7671 Date 3/7/97 # of pages 2 Co/Dept. To JimHedlund/Jim From Anne Russell Fell Co. Thisis what ABI Phone has been waving Fax # 2026366-2096 Fax # Phone around. Any ideas? TOTAL F.02 U.S. Department 400 Seventh Street. S.W. of Transportation Washington, D.C. 20590 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration MAR 12 1997 Richard B. Berman General Counsel American Beverage Institute 607 14th Street, NW, Suite 1110 Washington, DC 20005 Dear Mr. Berman: Your letter to the Honorable Allan H. Spear, Chairman of the Minnesota State Legislative Committee on Crime Prevention dated February 12, 1997, has come to my attention. I would like to set the record straight on the number of drinks it would take for a 120 pound woman to reach a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 08. Your letter states that: "A more realistic description of a .08 drinker is a 120 pound woman with an average metabolism who has consumed two six-ounce glasses of wine over a two hour period." This is incorrect. According to research conducted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and reported in our October 1992 Report to Congress on Alcohol Limits (DOT HS 807 879) and in a Traffic Tech (No. 80, November 1994), a 120 pound female who was a moderate drinker with an average metabolism would have a BAC of .04 after consuming 2 drinks in a two hour period. That same female would probably reach 08 BAC after 3 drinks in a two hour period. It would take more than 3 drinks for a median weight (137 pounds) female to reach 08 in two hours. For the medium weight male (170 pounds), it would take over 4 drinks in a one hour period to reach .08 and 5 drinks in a two hour period. These can be verified with NHTSA's "BAC Estimator" which was released with the Traffic Tech in November 1994 (Computing a BAC Estimate, on diskette). I am assuming you are referring to this "BAC Estimator" when you stated: "(This two-drink scenario comes from the Office of Program Development and Evaluation of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, October, 1994)." If so, you did not properly calculate the BAC for a 120 pound woman who had two drinks in a two hour period (see enclosure). together! AUTO SAFETY HOTLINE (800) 424-9393 SAFETY BELTS SAVE LIVES Wash. D.C. Area 366-0123 2 For most individuals, a 08 BAC requires a substantial amount of alcohol, much more alcohol than the vast majority of the public feels is safe for driving. Sincerely, James Hedlund Hoded Associate Administrator Traffic Safety Programs Enclosure cc: The Honorable Allan H. Spear -= - = BAC Estimator =- Body Weight (lbs) 120 Gender (M or F) F Number of 12oz Beers 2 Time Duration (hrs) 2 Metabolism Rate BAC Below Average .05 Average .04 Above Average .04 -= - = BAC Estimator =- = Body Weight (lbs) 120 Gender (M or F) F Number of 12oz Beers 3 Time Duration (hrs) 2 Metabolism Rate BAC Below Average .09 Average .08 Above Average .07 -= - = BAC Estimator =- Body Weight (lbs) 137 Gender (M or F) F Number of 12oz Beers 2 Time Duration (hrs) 2 Metabolism Rate BAC Below Average .04 Average .03 Above Average .03 -= - = BAC Estimator =- Body Weight (lbs) 137 Gender (M or F) F Number of 12oz Beers 3 Time Duration (hrs) 2 Metabolism Rate BAC Below Average .09 Average .08 Above Average .07 -= - = BAC Estimator =- - Body Weight (lbs) 170 Gender (M or F) M Number of 12oz Beers 5 Time Duration (hrs) 2 Metabolism Rate BAC Below Average .09 Average .08 Above Average .07 Analysis of .08 Studies There have been four major studies of the effects following the implementation of .08 laws in states. The following includes descriptions and comments about each. "The Effects Following the Implementation of an 0.08 BAC Limit and an Administrative Per Se Law in California," Research and Evaluation Associates, sponsored by NHTSA, DOT HS 807 777, August 1991. Description: California implemented .08 on 1/1/90 and Administrative License Revocation (ALR) on 7/1/90. NHTSA studied driver awareness, the effects of the laws on police and courts, and the effects on arrests and crashes. The two laws and their publicity appear to have reduced alcohol-related traffic fatalities by 12% in 1990. The police and courts required only minimal changes to accommodate the .08 law. Comment: The study could not quantify the separate effect of each law. "The General Deterrent Impact of California's 0.08% Blood Alcohol Concentration Limit and Administrative Per Se License Suspension Laws," Patrice Rogers, California Department of Motor Vehicles, Research and Development Section, CAL-DMV-RSS-95-158, September 1995. Description: Intervention time series analysis was used to evaluate the deterrent impact of these laws in the general population of driving under the influence (DUI) offenders as measured by the effects on alcohol-related traffic accidents. While there were reductions in some of the alcohol measures, .08 could not be linked to any significant decreases in the "had-been-drinking" (HBD) crashes or in fatal crashes. Where impact did occur in association with the .08 law, it was consistently in the form of a permanent 7.2% reduction in nighttime fatal and severe-injury crashes, reflecting a one-year estimated total decrease of approximately 500 such crashes following the law. Comment: Some in the alcohol industry point to this study as finding no effect of .08, but it did, as stated above. The effect was not seen in the HBD crashes or in total fatal crashes, but the 7.2% reduction was in nighttime fatal and severe crashes, where alcohol involvement is historically high. "The Impact of Lowering the Illegal BAC Limit to .08 in Five States in the U.S.," Delmas Johnson and James Fell, NHTSA, 39th Proceedings of the Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine, October 1995. Description: An analysis was conducted using fatal crash data (from FARS) to determine the impact of lowering the per se limit to .08 in five states which had the law for at least 2 years. The results revealed statistically significant reductions of driver involvement in alcohol-related fatal crashes after .08 legislation took effect in 4 out of the 5 states, ranging from 4% in California to 40% in Vermont. This assessment appears to indicate that the implementation of .08 laws and other related activities (i.e. public information about the laws) are associated with reductions in fatal crash driver alcohol involvement. Comment: The study did not control for other factors which could have influenced the reductions such as increased enforcement, other DWI legislation, and public information and education. Significant reductions were found in only 9 of 30 measures used and this is often critcized by some opponents to .08. However, the nine significant changes were reductions in favor of the .08 legislation. Of the remaining 21 measures, most were reductions but were not significant. NHTSA is conducting further analyses of these 5 states in attempts to control for some potentially influencing factors. That analysis should be completed in the summer of 1997. "Lowering State Legal Blood Alcohol Limits to 0.08%: The Effect on Fatal Motor Vehicle Crashes," Ralph Hingson, Timothy Heeren, Michael Winter, Boston University, American Journal of Public Health, Vol 86, No.9, September 1996. Description: The first 5 states that lowered legal blood alcohol limits to .08 were paired with 5 nearby states that retained .10. Within each pair, comparisons were made for the maximum equal available number of prelaw and postlaw years. States adopting .08 experienced 16% and 18% relative postlaw declines in the proportion of fatal crashes involving fatally injured drivers with BACs .08 or higher and .15 or higher, respectively. If all states adopt .08, at least 500 to 600 fewer fatal crashes would occur annually. Comment: The five comparison or control states were selected based upon three criteria: geography, population, and BAC testing rate on fatal drivers. The control state had to be nearby the .08 state to account for regional differences, had to be similarly populated (small, medium, large), and had to have a fairly high BAC testing rate on fatally injured drivers (the average testing rate was 81% during the study periods). These criteria are common practice in public health studies of this kind. The effects most likely would not have been the same if five different control states were selected. However, according to the strict criteria noted above, the five selected states were pretty much the only ones that could have been used. Many researchers believe that the sample size in controls should be higher than the sample size in the experimental group. When NHTSA performs these analyses, it uses "the rest of the states" as a comparison to the .08 states (see Johnson and Fell, 1995). There are good reasons to do this and it is a weakness in the Hingson study. However, Hingson had used his "matched pair" methodology in other research without criticism. In fact, the "match pair" philosophy is used by many top researchers in traffic safety. His paper was peer reviewed by the American Public Health Association editors before it was published, so it passed their muster. Future Studies NHTSA is sponsoring a study by the University of North Carolina on the effects of .08 in North Carolina. That study is in progress and should be completed by the summer of 1997. Preliminary indications are a small positive effect (unknown if statistically significant). o:/nts31/fell/08stds.wpd LOWERING THE ILLEGAL PER SE BAC LIMIT TO .08 POINT/COUNTERPOINT Point 1 A .08 law will cause moderate drinkers to drink less alcohol, or not even drink at all, for fear of breaking the law or being arrested for driving while impaired. Counterpoint There is no evidence in the 5 states which have had a .08 law for more than a year that per capita alcohol consumption was affected by the law. In California, for instance, per capital alcohol consumption in 1989 (before the law) was 2.15 gallons of alcohol. In 1990, after the law went into effect, per capita consumption was 2.13, with only wine consumption decreasing (insignificantly), according to figures from the alcohol industry. While per capita alcohol consumption decreased somewhat in Utah, Oregon, Maine and Vermont after their .08 laws were passed, the decrease. was no different than the decreasing trend that was already occurring in those states. Point 2 A 08 law will cause a shift in drinking behavior from licensed establishments (restaurants, bars, taverns) to the home where no driving is involved. Counterpoint On the contrary, there is evidence from Maine that restaurant sales increased 11% in 1988, the year .08 went into effect. However, if a shift is happening, there are plenty of incentives that the hospitality industry can use to bring customers back to their premises and reduce the risk of driving while impaired: promote the designated driver program by providing free or reduced price non-alcoholic beverages to those individuals; promote non-alcoholic beers and wines; provide free rides home for drivers who appear to be impaired; and engage in responsible alcohol service by training servers, making food available to patrons, not serving intoxicated customers, etc. Finally, the intention of.08 legislation is to send a message to drivers that the laws against DWI are getting stricter and that if they do get caught driving impaired they will be prosecuted. It is intended to reduce drinking and driving behavior, not drinking behavior. Point 3 A 08 law will diminish efforts to deal with the real problem the hard core drinking drivers with very high BACs. Counterpoint Efforts continue to attack the impaired driving problem from all angles. For approximately 70-80% of fatally injured drinking drivers each year, their fatality is their first alcohol-related contact with the system, no matter what their BAC. .08 legislation is just one of many laws and programs that NHTSA is encouraging states to adopt. Other legislation that NHTSA promotes include zero tolerance (.02 BAC) laws for drivers under age 21, administrative license revocation laws to ensure swift punishment for DWI, graduated licensing programs for new drivers, self-sufficient DWI programs, and various vehicle actions against repeat DWI offenders. In the area of enforcement, NHTSA promotes the use of sobriety checkpoints and saturation patrols to catch impaired drivers, training for police on standardized field sobriety testing, and increased enforcement of underage drinking and driving. New public information and education programs will target hard core drinking drivers. Responsible alcohol service programs are also encouraged by NHTSA, which have the potential of preventing intoxicated patrons from driving. NHTSA spends substantial time and energy promoting all of the above. Point 4 Instead of lowering the illegal BAC limit from 10 to .08, why not adopt more severe sanctions for drivers with high BAC levels (e.g. those at 15 or .20 and higher)? These are the majority of drinking drivers arrested and involved in fatal crashes. Counterpoint Some states, such as Florida, use both systems. Florida lowered its per se BAC limit to .08 on January 1, 1994. There is also no question that drivers with very high BACs (.15 +) are more impaired and have greater crash risks than drivers at .08 For many years, Florida has had mandatory minimum jail sentences and fines for drivers convicted of DWI at BACs = .15 or greater. These "mandatory minimums" do not apply to drivers under 15 BAC. Both laws are rational and make sense It should not be "one or the other," but can be both. There is evidence that .08 reduces alcohol-related fatalities. While more severe penalties based upon BAC makes sense, there is no evidence to date that this system is effective. Point 5 The only evidence that NHTSA has that .08 is effective in reducing alcohol-related crashes is the California study, and that study has flaws: (1) There was only a 5% reduction in alcohol-related fatalities in California between 1989 and 1990, not 12% as reported by NHTSA. (2) The national decrease in alcohol-related fatalities was the same as California's between 1989 and 1990. Therefore, .08 did not have an effect. (3) California's own studies show no significant decrease in alcohol-related crashes or fatalities between 1989 and 1990. (4) Most of the states with .08 laws had higher proportions of drivers with alcohol in fatal crashes than the national average in 1992. (5) California actually had an increase in the number of fatally injured drivers with BACs = .15-.19 between 1989 and 1990, where the real problem lies. (6) The NHTSA study in California showed no significant decrease in crashes where the police reported a driver as "had been drinking" (HBD). Counterpoint The evaluation of .08 in California was not the only reason NHTSA has endorsed .08 laws. There is substantial evidence that critical driving performance measures are impaired at .08 and that the risk of a crash is significantly elevated at .08 and beyond. Many industrialized nations use .08 or a lower BAC as a standard for impairment. The fact that the California study indicated bottom-line effectiveness of the law was just one more ingredient in the decision. With regard to the specific "flaws" in the California study, here are the facts: (1) The evaluation used an accepted methodology to study the effects of the .08 law time series analyses using the AutoRegressive Integrated Moving Averages (ARIMA) model. Data were analyzed 4 years before the law change and 1 year after. The trend model before the law took effect predicted alcohol-related fatalities for 1990. Actual alcohol-related fatalities for 1990 were 12% below that predicted while non-alcohol- related fatalities experienced no change. The 12% significant decrease took place in the first six months of 1990 when .08 was in effect but the administrative license revocation (ALR) law was not. In analyses of the effects of laws, it is not appropriate to merely compare one year of aggregated data before the law change to one year of aggregated data after the law. The NHTSA study used an acceptable, peer-reviewed, statistical approach to the problem. (2) Many things went on in the rest of the nation to explain the national decrease from 1989 to 1990. These things were controlled for to the extent possible in the California study, which is why the time series method was used. The fact is, California's alcohol-related fatality decrease was significant and was due mainly to the .08 and ALR laws. (3) California has published no studies to date which make this statement. The California Department of Motor Vehicles is conducting its own analyses of the effects of the .08 and ALR laws and plans to publish those results this year. (4) Here are the estimates of drivers in fatal crashes with positive BACs for the 5 states with .08 and the nation as a whole in 1992: Percent Drivers in Fatal Crashes with BAC> 01 CA 27.4 ME 29.1 OR 28.5 UT 20.4 VT 33.4 Nation 28.6 Three of the five states with .08 had lower proportions of drivers with positive BACs compared to the national average. However, these comparisons are irrelevant to the effects of .08 laws. Some of these .08 states started out with higher than national average alcohol rates. It is the reduction in alcohol-related fatalities due to the law change, not comparisons to the national average, that is the issue. (5) California did experience a slight, non-significant increase in the number of driver fatalities with BACs = .15-.19 in 1990 compared to 1989. However, they experienced decreases in driver fatalities in all other BAC ranges, including those with .20 BAC and above. Overall, California experienced a decrease in driver fatalities with positive BACs between 1989 and 1990, certainly the desired effect. (6) Experience in many past evaluations shows that police may change their behavior in reporting HBD crashes in the year following a highly publicized law change. Police became more aware of the problem and feel more compelled to report HBD crashes. Many times this behavior change offsets any real decreases since crashes reported as "HBD" in the year following the law change may not have been reported as such in the year before. This phenomenon is common and it is why other measures of alcohol involvement are used in scientifically accepted evaluations. Finally, NHTSA is conducting an analyses of the effects of .08 in the 5 states which have had the legislation for over a year. So far, 9 out of 30 measures of alcohol-involvement in fatal crashes show statistically significant decreases when the .08 law went into effect in 4 of the 5 states. Results of these analyses will be published in the spring of 1994. Point 6 .08 is just the first step in a process to lower the illegal limit even further. Counterpoint NHTSA believes that a .08 limit is practical, rational and acceptable to the public. NHTSA has no plans to recommend limits lower than .08 for adults, except for commercial drivers (where the national standard is already .04) and for drivers under age 21 where NHTSA recommends zero tolerance: .02 or lower. JCF 3/18/94 SHEET SEPT 0.08 BAC Illegal Per Se Level t is illegal per se to drive a motor affected significantly at 0.08 BAC. vehicle with a blood alcohol Performance decrements in some of these concentration (BAC) at or above a tasks are as high as 60-70 percent at 0.08 specified level in all but two States of BAC according to studies. the United States. The customary level, The risk of being involved in a crash increases currently the law in 35 States and DC, substantially by 0.08 BAC. The risk of being in was 0.10 for all drivers aged 21 and a crash gradually increases at each BAC level, above. However, 13 states have but rises very rapidly after a driver reaches or lowered their level to 0.08. In a 1992 exceeds 0.08 BAC compared to drivers with no alcohol in their blood systems. Research Report to Congress, NHTSA by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety recommended that all states lower indicates that the relative risk of being killed their illegal per se level to 0.08 for all in a single vehicle crash at 0.08 BAC is eleven drivers aged 21 and above. times that of drivers at .00 BAC (no alcohol). Lowering the per se limit is a proven effective Key Facts countermeasure which will reduce alcohol- related traffic fatalities. There was a 12 In 1995, 41 percent of the 41,798 percent reduction in alcohol-related fatalities motor vehicle deaths were alcohol- in California in 1990, the year 0.08 and an related. This percentage translates into administrative license revocation law went 17,274 alcohol-related deaths last year. into effect. The decrease in alcohol-related fatalities occurred at both high and low BAC Over 80 percent of drivers involved in levels, even drivers with BACs of .20 or fatal crashes with positive BACs had greater. levels exceeding 0.08. 0.08 is a reasonable BAC level. A 0.08 BAC is not reached with a couple of beers after work An average male weighing 170 pounds or a glass or two of wine with dinner. Studies must consume more than four drinks show that the average 170 pound male within one hour on an empty stomach would have to consume more than four to reach a 0.08 BAC level. drinks within one hour on an empty stomach to reach 0.08 BAC. The average 137 pound A recent analysis of five states that female would need three drinks on an empty lowered the BAC limit to 0.08 showed stomach to reach that level. Typically, that that significant decreases in alcohol- (continued) related fatal crashes occured in four out of the five states as a result of the legislation. Contents Key Facts Why 0.087 Why 0.08? Virtually all drivers are substantially impaired at 0.08 BAC. Laboratory and test Point/Counterpoint track research shows that the vast majority of drivers, even experienced drinkers, are Impact on the Criminal Justice Traffic impaired at 0.08 with regard to critical System driving tasks. Braking, steering, lane Who Supports 0.087 U.S changing, judgment, and divided Department attention, among other measures, are all Information Sources Transportation Why 0.08? (continued) Point: 0.08 legislation is the first step in Who Supports 0.08? Information Sources female driver would need four drinks over a two lowering the limit even further. The following organizations support a BAC limit of Driving Under the Influence: A Report to Congress hour period to get above 0.08 BAC and the male 0.08 or lower: on Alcohol Limits. NHTSA, Report Number DOT HS would need five drinks. Counterpoint: NHTSA has no plan to Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety 807 879, October 1992. recommend a per se limit below 0.08 for adult The public supports a 0.08 BAC level. NHTSA drivers. The agency does recommend, however, All State Insurance The Effects Following the Implementation of an surveys all show that most people would not drive 0.08 BAC Limit and an Administrative Per Se Law a zero tolerance limit for drivers under the age after consuming two or three drinks in an hour. American Alliance for Rights and in California. NHTSA, Report Number DOT HS 807 of 21 since they may not drink alcohol legally Most other industrialized nations have set BAC Responsibilities 777, August 1991. anyway, and a .04 limit for commercial drivers. limits at 0.08 or lower and have had these laws for American Association of Motor Vehicle The Effects of Low Doses of Alcohol on Driving many years. For example, Canada, Great Britain, Administrators The 0.08 limit is reasonable and has the potential Skills: A Review of the Evidence. Moscowitz, Austria, and Switzerland have a 0.08 BAC level. The for saving thousands of lives and many more American Association of Neurological Herbert and Robinson, Christopher D., National states in Australia have 0.05 or 0.08 BAC levels. injuries on the highways if it is implemented by Surgeons Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA, more states in the U.S. Report Number DOT HS 807 280, July 1988. American Automobile Manufacturers Point Counterpoint Association Alcohol-Related Relative Risk of Fatal Driver Injuries in Relation to Driver Age and Sex. Zador, States considering 0.08 legislation should review all Impact on the Criminal Justice System American Coalition for Traffic Safety Paul, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, the facts, including the rationale behind 0.08 and When California lowered the BAC limit to 0.08 American Insurance Association Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 52, 4, 1991. the potential impact on alcohol-related deaths. there was little impact on court administrators or Opposition to 0.08 legislation generally includes American Medical Association Alcohol Limits for Drivers: A Report on the Effects judges. The main impact has been on prosecutors' the following claims: American Spinal Injury Association of Alcohol and Expected Institutional Responses to decisions concerning whether cases should be filed. Point: 0.08 legislation will not affect high BAC American Trucking Associations New Limits. NHTSA, Report Number DOT HS 807 Previously, DWI arrestees with BACs below 0.12 692, April 1991. problem drinker drivers. typically were allowed to plea to reduced charges. Association for the Advancement of Since the limit was changed, this plea-bargain "cut Automotive Medicine Lowering the Illegal Per Se BAC Limit to 08. Point/ Counterpoint: There is evidence that 0.08 off" has dropped to about 0.10 BAC. No increases Counterpoint, NHTSA 1994. have been reported in the proportion of DWI American Spinal Injury Association legislation reduced the proportion of fatally Improving the Understanding of Alcohol injured drivers who had BACs greater than or defendants pleading guilty, requesting jury trials, Center for Substance Abuse Prevention Impairment and BAC Levels, and their Relationship equal to .20 in California. or appealing convictions. Federal Highway Administration to Highway Accidents. NHTSA Report DOT HS 807 Insurance Information Institute 433, May 1989. Point: 0.08 legislation will affect alcohol The 0.08 Alcohol Concentration Limit. House consumption and, therefore, affect the International Association of Chiefs of Police Research Policy Brief, Minnesota House of economy. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety Representatives, March 1994. Kemper Insurance Group 08 Saves Lives in Your State, 11 Minute video on Counterpoint: There is no evidence that per capita alcohol consumption was affected in any Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) merits of .08 produced by USAA for NHTSA. of the five states examined by NHTSA with the National Safety Council 08 Blood Alcohol Content Laws: Facts. Myths, and 0.08 legislation. Fictions. Kathryn Stewart, Center for Substance National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws Abuse Prevention, October 1993. and Ordinances States with BAC Per Se Laws The Impact of Lowering Illegal BAC Limit to 08 in National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Five States in the U.S., Johnson, Delmas; and Fell, (as of August 1996) National Safety Council James, NHTSA, 39th AAAM Proceedings, 1995. AK National Sheriffs' Association ME, WA Nationwide Insurance MT NO MN Operation Lifesaver DR NY WI ID SD Students Against Driving Drunk MI WY PA U.S. Department of Justice IA NE OH IN DE USAA Insurance IL NV UT CO VA CA MO KY U.S. Surgeon General KA NC TN AZ OK SC AR GA .08 (AL, CA, FL, HI, KS, ME, NC, MS The reports and additional Information are available from your State Highway Safety Office, the NHTSA NH, NM, OR, UT, VA, VT) TX LA Regional Office serving your State, or from NHTSA Headquarters, Traffic Safety Programs, NTS-20, 400 .10 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20590, 202-366-9588. No Per Se Law (MA, SC) Clinton Presidential Records Digital Records Marker This is not a presidential record. This is used as an administrative marker by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library Staff. This marker identifies the place of a publication. Publications have not been scanned in their entirety for the purpose of digitization. To see the full publication please search online or visit the Clinton Presidential Library's Research Room. THE CASE FOR 08 BAC LAWS SETTING LIMITS, SAVING LIVES MAR 24 '97 04:08PM AVIATION INTL AFFAIR P.2 Analysis of .08 Studies There have been four major studies of the effects following the implementation of .08 laws in states. The following includes descriptions and comments about each. "The Effects Following the Implementation of an 0.08 BAC Limit and an Administrative Per Se Law in California," Research and Evaluation Associates, sponsored by NHTSA, DOT HS 807 777, August 1991. Description: California implemented .08 on 1/1/90 and Administrative License Revocation (ALR) on 7/1/90. NHTSA studied driver awareness, the effects of the laws on police and courts, and the effects on arrests and crashes. The two laws and their publicity appear to have reduced alcohol-related traffic fatalities by 12% in 1990. The police and courts required only minimal changes to accommodate the .08 law. Comment: The study could not quantify the separate effect of each law. "The General Deterrent Impact of California's 0.08% Blood Alcohol Concentration Limit and Administrative Per Se License Suspension Laws," Patrice Rogers, California Department of Motor Vehicles, Research and Development Section, CAL-DMV-RSS-95-158, September 1995. Description: Intervention time series analysis was used to evaluate the deterrent impact of these laws in the general population of driving under the influence (DUI) offenders as measured by the effects on alcohol-related traffic accidents. While there were reductions in some of the alcohol measures, .08 could not be linked to any significant decreases in the "had-been-drinking" (HBD) crashes or in fatal crashes. Where impact did occur in association with the .08 law, it was consistently in the form of a permanent 7.2% reduction in nighttime fatal and severe-injury crashes, reflecting a one-year estimated total decrease of approximately 500 such crashes following the law. Comment: Some in the alcohol industry point to this study as finding no effect of .08, but it did, as stated above. The effect was not seen in the HBD crashes or in total fatal crashes, but the 7.2% reduction was in nighttime fatal and severe crashes, where alcohol involvement is historically high. "The Impact of Lowering the Illegal BAC Limit to .08 in Five States in the U.S.," Delmas Johnson and James Fell, NHTSA, 39th Proceedings of the Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine, October 1995. Description: An analysis was conducted using fatal crash data (from FARS) to determine the impact of lowering the per se limit to .08 in five states which had the law for at least 2 years. The results revealed statistically significant reductions of driver involvement in alcohol-related fatal crashes after .08 legislation took effect in 4 out of the 5 states, MAR 24 '97 4:09PM AVIATION INTL AFFAIR P.3 ranging from 4% in California to 40% in Vermont. This assessment appears to indicate that the implementation of .08 laws and other related activities (i.e. public information about the laws) are associated with reductions in fatal crash driver alcohol involvement. Comment: The study did not control for other factors which could have influenced the reductions such as increased enforcement, other DWI legislation, and public information and education. Significant reduction were found in only 9 of 30 measures used. NHTSA is conducting further analyses of these 5 states in attempts to control for some potentially influencing factors. That analysis should be completed in the summer of 1997. "Lowering State Legal Blood Alcohol Limits to 0.08%: The Effect on Fatal Motor Vehicle Crashes," Ralph Hingson, Timothy Heeren, Michael Winter, Boston University, American Journal of Public Health, Vol 86, No.9, September 1996. Description: The first 5 states that lowered legal blood alcohol limits to .08 were paired with 5 nearby states that retained 10. Within each pair, comparisons were made for the maximum equal available number of prelaw and postlaw years. States adopting 08 experienced 16% and 18% relative postlaw declines in the proportion of fatal crashes involving fatally injured drivers with BACs .08 or higher and .15 or higher, respectively. If all states adopt .08, at least 500 to 600 fewer fatal crashes would occur annually. Comment: The five comparison or control states were selected based upon three criteria: geography, population, and BAC testing rate on fatal drivers. The control state had to be nearby the .08 state to account for regional differences, had to be similarly populated (small, medium, large), and had to have a fairly high BAC testing rate on fatally injured drivers (the average testing rate was 81% during the study periods). These criteria are common practice in public health studies of this kind. The effects most likely would not have been the same if five different control states were selected. However, according to the strict criteria noted above, the five selected states were pretty much the only ones that could have been used. Many researchers believe that the sample size in controls should be higher than the sample size in the experimental group. When NHTSA performs these analyses, it uses "the rest of the states" as a comparison to the .08 states (see Johnson and Fell, 1995). There are good reasons to do this and it is a weakness in the Hingson: study. However, Hingson had used his "matched pair" methodology in other research without criticism. In fact, the "match pair" philosophy is used by many top researchers in traffic safety. His paper was peer reviewed by the American Public Health Association editors before it was published, so it passed their muster. Future Studies NHTSA is sponsoring a study by the University of North Carolina on the effects of .08 in North Carolina. That study is in progress and should be completed by the summer of 1997. Preliminary indications are a small positive effect (unknown if statistically significant). 3-21-1997 12:58PM FROM DOT OST DAS POLICY 202 493 2005 P. 1 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORTATION POLICY Number of Pages including this Page: 15 Date: 3/21/97 TO: Dorothy Roleyn JOHN N. LIEBER FROM: DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORTATION POLICY (202) 366-4450 FAX: (202) 366-7127 FAX MESSAGE: Dorothy I will be sending the partially, other pages will follow D Cheryl Second Sheft SHIMABUKUR_L@A1 03/24/97 12:05:00 PM Record Type: Record To: Elizabeth Drye, Dennis Burke, Leanne A. Shimabukuro CC: Subject: RESTAURANTS BLOCK LIFESAVING DRUNK DRIVING LEGISLATION, Date: 03/24/97 Time: 09:15 bRestaurants Block Lifesaving Drunk Driving Legislation, Says MADD To: National Desk Contact: Brandy Anderson, 214-744-6233, ext. 272, or Michelle Bennett, 214-744-6233, ext. 248, or Tresa Coe, 214-744-6233, ext. 245, all of Mothers Against Drunk Driving DALLAS, March 24 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The American Beverage Institute (ABI), which represents the parent companies of some of America's favorite restaurant chains, including Chili's, TGI Fridays, Morton's of Chicago, Red Lobster, Mick's, Outback Steakhouse, Hard Rock Cafe, Romano's Macaroni Grill, Hooters and Pizzeria Uno, continues to mislead the public and legislators across the nation concerning legislation that would lower the illegal blood alcohol content limit (BAC) from .10 to .08, Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) charged today. "The ABI's propaganda machine is working overtime issuing false and misleading statements intended to sway legislators into defeating lifesaving legislation and scare the public into believing that a glass or two of wine with dinner will make them criminals," said Katherine Prescott, MADD's national president. "MADD might expect such scare tactics and unprofessional conduct from 'drink and drown' establishments whose main goal is to sell as much alcohol as possible regardless of the consequences, but not from nationally recognized restaurant chains, particularly those that we think of as family restaurants." Prescott charged that Richard Berman, general counsel for the ABI, has repeatedly used the media to distort the facts by claiming a report from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) establishes that a 120-pound female would reach a 0.08 BAC level after consuming two glasses of wine in a two-hour period. NHTSA recently issued a letter refuting Berman's inaccurate claim. The NHTSA letter said that Berman's information was ``incorrect" and that the ABI ``did not properly calculate the BAC for a 120-pound woman." The fact is, a 120-pound woman only would have a BAC level of .04 after drinking two drinks in two hours, according to the NHTSA report. It would take at least two or three alcoholic beverages in just one hour for this woman to reach a .08 BAC level. A 170-pound man would have to drink three to four drinks in an hour before reaching .08 BAC. The letter from NHTSA also stated that ``for most individuals, a .08 BAC requires a substantial amount of alcohol, much more alcohol than the vast majority of the public feels is safe for driving." MADD, NHTSA and many other health, medical, safety and law enforcement groups support .08 BAC laws because .08 BAC is the level at which all critical driving skills have been severely diminished. Studies show that .08 laws serve as a deterrent to drinking drivers of all BAC levels including the would-be first-time offender who represents 70 to 80 percent of all fatally injured drinking drivers. "This is the third letter NHTSA has had to send in the last year as a result of false and misleading statements made by the ABI altering and twisting NHTSA facts to fit the ABI's narrow agenda," said Prescott. "We are deeply distressed at the lengths to which the ABI and its members will go to distort the facts and mislead the public and lawmakers to try to stop this lifesaving legislation," said Prescott. "We question if the 'One for the Road Gang' is more interested in selling more drinks to an already impaired person than in preserving the safety of their customers and others who share the road with them. "The time has come to pull back the ABI's curtain so the American public, a majority of whom support .08 BAC laws, can see exactly who is opposing .08 legislation that would save hundreds of lives each year," said Prescott. Despite scientific research including an American Journal of Public Health study released last September, which showed that lowering the BAC limit to .08 in all states would reduce alcohol-related traffic deaths by 500 to 600 per year, many state legislatures have been slow to enact this effective law and have buckled under pressure from the powerful alcohol and hospitality industries that oppose .08 BAC laws. Currently, 14 states have .08 bills pending and 14 states have already lowered their BAC limits from .10 (Alabama, California, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, Maine, North Carolina, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Virginia and Vermont). Federal legislation was recently introduced by U.S. Rep. Nita Lowey and Sen. Frank Lautenberg to requre the states to make .08 the law of the land as a condition of receiving their full share of federal highway funds. Prescott challenged the ABI and its members to ``immediately stop their misinformation campaign. It's time for the 'One for the Road Gang' to join the majority in America's war on drunk driving." -0- /U.S. Newswire 202-347-2770/ APNP-03-24-97 0926EST 20' 3 dr.nhs 3 drinks temale 137 (bs enpty stomach 170 lbs 170 lbs 11 4 male " - 3½ -2hrs. dnmkins - - female -5- - 2 hrs. drinks - male 3-21-1997 1:02PM FROM DOT OST DAS POLICY 202 493 2005 P.8 0.08 BAC Illegal Per Se Level t is illegal per se to drive a motor affected significantly at 0.08 BAC. vehicle with a blood alcohol Performance decrements in some of these concentration (BAC) at or above a tasks are as high as 60-70 percent at 0.08 specified level in all but two States of BAC according to studies. the United States. The customary level, The risk of being involved in a crash increases currently the law in 35 States and DC, substantially by 0.08 BAC. The risk of being in was 0.10 for all drivers aged 21 and a crash gradually increases at each BAC level, above. However, 13 states have but rises very rapidly after a driver reaches or lowered their level to 0.08. In a 1992 exceeds 0.08 BAC compared to drivers with no alcohol in their blood systems. Research Report to Congress, NHTSA by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety recommended that all states lower indicates that the relative risk of being killed their illegal per se level to 0.08 for all in a single vehicle crash at 0.08 BAC is eleven drivers aged 21 and above. times that of drivers at .00 BAC (no alcohol). Lowering the per se limit is a proven effective Key Facts countermeasure which will reduce alcohol- related traffic fatalities. There was a 12 In 1995, 41 percent of the 41,798 percent reduction in alcchol-related fatalities motor vehicle deaths were alcohol- in California in 1990, the year 0.08 and an related. This percentage translates into administrative license revocation law went 17,274 alcohol-related deaths last year. into effect. The decrease in alcchol-related fatalities occurred at beth high and low BAC Over 80 percent of drivers involved in levels, even drivers with BACs of .20 or fatal crashes with positive BACs had greater. levels exceeding 0.08. 0.08 is a reasonable BAC level. A 0.08 BAC is not reached with a couple of beers after work An average male weighing 170 pounds or a glass or two of wine with dinner. Studies must consume more than four drinks show that the average 170 pound male within one hour on an empty stomach would have to consume more than four to reach a 0.08 BAC level. drinks within one hour on an empty stomach to reach 0.08 BAC. The average 137 pound A recent analysis of five states that female would need three drinks on an empty lowered the BAC limit to 0.08 showed stomach to reach that level. Typically, that that significant decreases in alcohol- (continued) related fatal crashes occured in four out of the five states as a result of the legislation. Contents Key Facts Why 0.087 Why 0.087 Virtually all drivers are substantially impaired at 0.08 BAC. Laboratory and test Point/Counterpoint National track research shows that the vast majority Impact on the Criminal Justice Highway of drivers, even experienced drinkers, are Traffic Safety impaired at 0.08 with regard to critical System Administration driving tasks. Braking, steering, lane Who Supports 0.067 U.S changing, judgment, and divided Department attention, among other measures, are all Information Sources Transportation 3-21-1997 1 :04PM FROM DOT OST DAS POLICY 202 493 2005 P.9 Why 0.087 (continued) Point: 0.08 legislation is the first step in female driver would need four drinks over a two lowering the limit even further. hour period to get above 0.08 BAC and the male would need five drinks. Counterpoint: NHTSA has no plan to recommend a per se limit below 0.08 for adult The public supports a 0.08 BAC level. NHTSA drivers. The agency does recommend, however, surveys all show that most people would not drive a zero tolerance limit for drivers under the age after consuming two or three drinks in an hour. of 21 since they may not drink alcohol legally Most other industrialized nations have set BAC anyway, and a .04 limit for commercial drivers. limits at 0.08 or lower and have had these laws for many years. For example, Canada, Great Britain, The 0.08 limit is reasonable and has the potential Austria, and Switzerland have a 0.08 BAC level. The for saving thousands of lives and many more states in Australia have 0.05 or 0.08 BAC levels. Injuries on the highways if it is implemented by more states in the U.S. Point Counterpoint States considering 0.08 legislation should review all Impact on the Criminal Justice System the facts, including the rationale behind 0.08 and When California lowered the BAC limit to 0.08 the potential impact on alcohol-related deaths. there was little impact on court administrators or Opposition to 0.08 legislation generally includes judges. The main impact has been on prosecutors' the following claims: decisions concerning whether cases should be filed. Point: 0.08 legislation will not affect high BAC Previously, DWI arrestees with BACs below 0.12 problem drinker drivers. typically were allowed to plea to reduced charges. Since the limit was changed, this plea-bargain "cut Counterpoint: There is evidence that 0.08 off" has dropped to about 0.10 BAC. No increases legislation reduced the proportion of fatally have been reported in the proportion of DWI injured drivers who had BACs greater than or defendants pleading guilty, requesting jury trials, equal to .20 in California. or appealing convictions. Point: 0.08 legislation will affect alcohol consumption and, therefore, affect the economy. Counterpoint: There is no evidence that per capita alcohol consumption was affected in any of the five states examined by NHTSA with the 0.08 legislation. States with BAC Per Se Laws (as of August 1996) AK ME WA MT ND MN WI ID so RJ MI WY FA LA NE OH IN IL WV NV CO MO KY no TN AZ OK AR GA .08 (AL, CA, FL, HI, KS, ME, NC, us NH, NM, OR, UT, VA, VT) TX LA .10 No Per Se Law (MA, SC) 3-21-1997 1 05PM FROM DOT OST DAS POLICY 202 493 2005 P. 10 Who Supports 0.08? Information Sources The following organizations support a BAC limit of Driving Under the Influence: A Report to Congress 0.08 or lower: on Alcohol Limits. NHTSA, Report Number DOT HS 807 879, October 1992. Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety All State Insurance The Effects Following the Implementation of an 0.08 BAC Limit and an Administrative Per Se Law American Alliance for Rights and in California, NHTSA, Report Number DOT HS 807 Responsibilities 777, August 1991. American Association of Motor Vehicle The Effects of Low Dases of Alcohol on Driving Administrators Skills: A Review of the Evidence. Moscowitz, American Association of Neurological Herbert and Robinson, Christopher D., National Surgeons Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA, Report Number DOT HS 807 280, July 1988. American Automobile Manufacturers Association Alcohol-Related Relative Risk of Fatal Driver Injuries in Relation to Driver Age and Sex Zador, American Coalition for Traffic Safety Paul, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, American Insurance Association Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 52, 4, 1991. American Medical Association Alcohol Limits for Drivers: A Report on the Effects American Spinal Injury Association of Alcohol and Expected Institutional Responses to American Trucking Associations New Limits. NHTSA, Report Number DOT HS 807 692, April 1991. Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine Lowering the illegal Per Se BAC Limit to 08. Point/ Counterpoint, NHTSA 1994. American Spinal Injury Association Improving the Understanding of Alcohol Center for Substance Abuse Prevention Impairment and BAC Levels, and their Relationship Federal Highway Administration to Highway Accidents. NHTSA Report DOT HS 807 Insurance Information Institute 433, May 1989. The 0.08 Alcohol Concentration limit House International Association of Chiefs of Police Research Policy Brief, Minnesota House of Insurance Institute for Highway Safety Representatives, March 1994. Kemper Insurance Group .08 Saves Lives in Your State, 11 Minute video on Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) merits of .08 produced by USAA for NHTSA. National Safety Council 08 Blood Alcohol Content Laws Myths. and Fictions. Kathryn Stewart, Center for Substance National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws Abuse Prevention, October 1993. and Ordinances The Impact of Lowering Illegal BAC Linit to 08 in National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Five States in the U.S., Johnson, Delines: and Fell, National Safety Council James, NHTSA, 39th AAAM Proceedings, 1995. National Sheriffs' Association Nationwide Insurance Operation Lifesaver Students Against Driving Drunk U.S. Department of Justice USAA Insurance U.S. Surgeon General The reports and additional Information are available from your State Highway Safety Office, the NHTSA Regional Office serving your State, or from NHTSA Headquarters, Traffic Safety Programs, NTS-20, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20590, 202-366-9588. 3-21-1997 12:58PM FROM DOT OST DAS POLICY 202 493 2005 P.2 LOWERING THE ILLEGAL PER SE BAC LIMIT TO .08 POINT/COUNTERPOINT Point 1 A .08 law will cause moderate drinkers to drink less alcohol, or not even drink at all, for fear of breaking the law or being arrested for driving while impaired. Counterpoint There is no evidence in the 5 states which have had a .08 law for more than a year that per capita alcohol consumption was affected by the law. In California, for instance, per capita alcohol consumption in 1989 (before the law) was 2.15 gallons of alcohol. In 1990, after the law went into effect, per capita consumption was 2.13, with only wine consumption decreasing (insignificantly), according to figures from the alcohol industry. While per capita alcohol consumption decreased somewhat in Utah, Oregon, Maine and Vermont after their .08 laws were passed, the decrease was no different than the decreasing trend that was already occurring in those states. Point 2 A .08 law will cause a shift in drinking behavior from licensed establishments (restaurants, bars, taverns) to the home where no driving is involved. Counterpoint On the contrary, there is evidence from Maine that restaurant sales increased 11% in 1988, the year .08 went into effect. However, if a shift is happening, there are plenty of incentives that the hospitality industry can use to bring customers back to their premises and reduce the risk of driving while impaired: promote the designated driver program by providing free or reduced price non-alcoholic beverages to those individuals; promote non-alcoholic beers and wines; provide free rides home for drivers who appear to be impaired; and engage in responsible alcohol service by training servers, making food available to patrons, not serving intoxicated customers, etc. 3-21-1997 12:59PM FROM DOT OST DAS POLICY 202 493 2005 P.3 Finally, the intention of.08 legislation is to send a message to drivers that the laws against DWI are getting stricter and that if they do get caught driving impaired they will be prosecuted. It is intended to reduce drinking and driving behavior, not drinking behavior. Point 3 A .08 law will diminish efforts to deal with the real problem ---- the hard core drinking drivers with very high BACs. Counterpoint Efforts continue to attack the impaired driving problem from all angles. For approximately 70-80% of fatally injured drinking drivers each year, their fatality is their first alcohol-related contact with the system, no matter what their BAC. .08 legislation is just one of many laws and programs that NHTSA is encouraging states to adopt. Other legislation that NHTSA promotes include zero tolerance (.02 BAC) laws for drivers under age 21, administrative license revocation laws to ensure swift punishment for DWI, graduated licensing programs for new drivers, self-sufficient DWI programs, and various vehicle- actions against repeat DWI offenders. In the area of enforcement, NHTSA promotes the use of sobriety checkpoints and saturation patrols to catch impaired drivers, training for police on standardized field sobriety testing, and increased enforcement of underage drinking and driving. New public information and education programs will target hard core drinking drivers. Responsible alcohol service programs are also encouraged by NHTSA, which have the potential of preventing intoxicated patrons from driving. NHTSA spends substantial time and energy promoting all of the above. Point 4 Instead of lowering the illegal BAC limit from 10 to .08, why not adopt more severe sanctions for drivers with high BAC levels (e.g. those at 15 or .20 and higher)? These are the majority of drinking drivers arrested and involved in fatal crashes. Counterpoint Some states, such as Florida, use both systems. Florida lowered its per se BAC limit to .08 on January 1, 1994. There is also no question that drivers with very high EACs (.15 +) are more impaired and have greater crash risks than drivers at .08 For many years, Florida has had mandatory minimum jail sentences and fines for drivers convicted of DWI at BACs = .15 or greater. These "mandatory minimums" do not apply to drivers under .15 BAC. Both laws are rational and make sense It should not be "one or the other," but can be both. There is evidence that .08 reduces alcohol-related fatalities. 3-21-1997 1 00PM FROM DOT OST DAS POLICY 202 493 2005 P.4 While more severe penalties based upon BAC makes sense, there is no evidence to date that this system is effective. Point 5 The only evidence that NHTSA has that .08 is effective in reducing alcohol-related crashes is the California study, and that study has flaws: (1) There was only a 5% reduction in alcohol-related fatalities in California between 1989 and 1990, not 12% as reported by NHTSA. (2) The national decrease in alcohol-related fatalities was the same as California's between 1989 and 1990. Therefore, .08 did not have an effect. (3) California's own studies show no significant decrease in alcohol-related crashes or fatalities between 1989 and 1990. (4) Most of the states with .08 laws had higher proportions of drivers with alcohol in fatal crashes than the national average in 1992. (5) California actually had an increase in the number of fatally injured drivers with BACs = .15-.19 between 1989 and 1990, where the real problem lies. (6) The NHTSA study in California showed no significant decrease in crashes where the police reported a driver as "had been drinking" (HBD). Counterpoint The evaluation of .08 in California was not the only reason NHTSA has endorsed .08 laws. There is substantial evidence What? that critical driving performance measures are impaired at .08 and that the risk of a crash is significantly elevated at .08 and beyond. Many industrialized nations use .08 or a lower BAC as a standard for impairment. The fact that the California study indicated bottom-line effectiveness of the law was just one more ingredient in the decision. With regard to the specific "flaws" in the California study, here are the facts: 3-21-1997 1 00PM FROM DOT OST DAS POLICY 202 493 2005 P.5 (1) The evaluation used an accepted methodology to study the effects of the .08 law --- time series analyses using the AutoRegressive Integrated Moving Averages (ARIMA) model. Data were analyzed 4 years before the law change and 1 year after. The trend model before the law took effect predicted alcohol-related fatalities for 1990. Actual alcohol-related fatalities for 1990 were 12% below that predicted while non-alcohol- related fatalities experienced no change. The 12% significant decrease took place in the first six months of 1990 when .08 was in effect but the administrative license revocation (ALR) law was not. In analyses of the effects of laws, it is not appropriate to merely compare one year of aggregated data before the law change to one year of aggregated data after the law. The NHTSA study used an acceptable, peer-reviewed, statistical approach to the problem. (2) Many things went on in the rest of the nation to explain the national decrease from 1989 to 1990. These things were controlled for to the extent possible in the California study, which is why the time series method was used. The fact is, California's alcohol-related fatality decrease was significant and was due mainly to the .08 and ALR laws. (3) California has published no studies to date which make this statement. The California Department of Motor Vehicles is conducting its own analyses of the effects of the .08 and ALR laws and plans to publish those results this year. 3-21-1997 1:01PM FROM DOT OST DAS POLICY 202 493 2005 P.6 (4) Here are the estimates of drivers in fatal crashes with positive BACs for the 5 states with .08 and the nation as a whole in 1992: Percent Drivers in Fatal Crashes with BAC> .01 CA 27.4 ME 29.1 OR 28.5 UT 20.4 VT 33.4 Nation 28.6 Three of the five states with .08 had lower proportions of drivers with positive BACs compared to the national average. However, these comparisons are irrelevant to the effects of .08 laws. Some of these .08 states started out with higher than national average alcohol rates. It is the reduction in alcohol-related fatalities due to the law change, not comparisons to the national average, that is the issue. (5) California did experience a slight, non-significant increase in the number of driver fatalities with BACs = .15-.19 in 1990 compared to 1989. However, they experienced decreases in driver fatalities in all other BAC ranges, including those with .20 BAC and above. Overall, California experienced a decrease in driver fatalities with positive BACs between 1989 and 1990, certainly the desired effect. (6) Experience in many past evaluations shows that police may change their behavior in reporting HBD crashes in the year following a highly publicized law change. Police became more aware of the problem and feel more compelled to report HBD crashes. Many times this behavior change offsets any real decreases since crashes reported as "HBD" in the year following the law change may not have been reported as such in the year before. This phenomenon is common and it is why other measures of alcohol involvement are used in scientifically accepted evaluations. 3-21-1997 1:02PM FROM DUT UST DAS POLICY 202 493 2005 Finally, NHTSA is conducting an analyses of the effects of .08 in the 5 states which have had the legislation for over a year. So far, 9 out of 30 measures of alcohol-involvernent in fatal crashes show statistically significant decreases when the .08 law went into effect in 4 of the 5 states. Results of these analyses will be published in the spring of 1994. Point 6 .08 is just the first step in a process to lower the illegal limit even further. Counterpoint NHTSA believes that a .08 limit is practical, rational and acceptable to the public. NHTSA has no plans to recommend limits lower than .08 for adults, except for commercial drivers (where the national standard is already .04) and for drivers under age 21 where NHTSA recommends zero tolerance: .02 or lower. JCF 3/18/94 DOT SAFETY TITLE: OUTSTANDING ISSUES Primary Seat Belt Laws The NEXTEA proposal rolled out on March 12 included a new six-year, $125 million incentive program to encourage states to adopt and enforce aggressive laws and programs aimed at increasing seat belt and child restraint use. Primary seat belt laws -- i.e., a law permitting enforcement authorities to stop motorists and issues summonses solely for seat belt violations, and not just in the context of a stop for another traffic violation -- figure in one of the two options to qualify for the "basic grant" under this program. As proposed in NEXTEA, a state may qualify for funds by either satisfying four out of five specified pro- seat belt requirements, including having a primary belt law, or it may demonstrate that its belt use is at least 80 percent, and increasing. Experience with such primary belt laws -- which have been enacted by 11 states and the District of Columbia, together covering about one-third of U.S. population -- indicates that they work to increase belt use significantly. In primary law states, the level of belt use is 15 percent higher, on average, than in secondary law states. Moreover, much of the differential is due to increases achieved in the first year after enactment. NHTSA estimates that enactment of a primary seat belt law by all remaining states would save at least 1,800 lives nationwide in the first year. As part of the follow-on "safety title" to NEXTEA -- which will include regulatory, rather than funding elements -- the Department is now inclined to propose a "soft sanction" that would go beyond the incentive program. The proposal under consideration calls for requiring states to adopt primary seat belt laws by the end of the fifth year of reauthorization (i.e., by Amount. September 30, 2002) or have one-and-one-half percent of their highway construction funds 9 (three percent in subsequent years) mandatorily shifted to seat belt education and enforcement programs. These shifted funds would be in addition to funds made available for safety enforcement and education through NHTSA grant programs and the flexible infrastructure safety category proposed in NEXTEA. .08 Blood Alcohol Content Laws Also under consideration is a proposal to apply a similar "soft sanction" to states that do not by the end of FY 2002 adopt a law setting .08 Blood Alcohol Content as the standard for impairment. Notwithstanding great progress in reducing drunk driving, over 40 percent of fatal crashes are alcohol-related. Safety activists argue -- and NHTSA agrees -- that at .08 BAC virtually all drivers are substantially impaired in critical tasks such as braking, steering and judgment. One study found that the risk of a crash is 11 times higher at .08 BAC than when sober. Notwithstanding some public misunderstanding, .08 BAC does not impact the responsible social drinker. To reach .08, a 170 lb. male needs to drink 4 drinks in 1 hour on an empty stomach. A 120 lb. female needs 3 drinks in 1 hour on an empty stomach. Fourteen states currently have a .08 BAC limit. (Idaho, the most recent, passed .08 just last week.) Recent studies have shown that fatalities have declined anywhere from 7 to 16 percent when states lowered their BAC limits from .10 to .08. However, the studies are too few in number and not consistent enough to give a precise estimate of the reductions that have occured, or would occur if additional states adopted .08 laws. DOT is already on record supporting .08 BAC laws. In fact, adoption of both a .08 BAC law and an administrative license revocation law is one of the three options to qualify for funds under the proposed program alcohol incentive program included in NEXTEA. NEXTEA proposes to authorize that program at about $40 million a year. While the NEXTEA incentive programs will provide some encouragement to states to enact primary seat belt and .08 BAC laws, they will not have the effect, albeit coercive, of a sanction program. Sanction programs -- including programs by which states forfeit a portion of their construction funds -- have in the past been used successfully to get states to enact 55 mph speed limits, age 21 drinking laws, secondary seat belt laws, and zero tolerance laws. Strategic Considerations Sanction strategies are generally disfavored by state governments, highway construction interests, and states rights activists as an imposition on states rights and a diversion of needed construction funds. Activists, in turn, often favor such programs because of their strong motivational effect on states. The 1995 NHS bill repealed a range of sanctions -- including national speed limits and motorcycle helmets provisions -- long unpopular with states and various interest groups. Of the two proposals, the seat belt sanction is likely to be the less controversial and more likely to succeed. The issue of seat belt use has received enormous recent coverage given its close nexus with the airbag debate. Somewhere between 50 and 70 percent of the motoring public is already using seat belts. Virtually all those involved in the coalition of groups working on getting airbag safety messages out to the public -- including the auto manufacturers, insurance companies, seat belt and air bag suppliers, safety and health care organizations -- have made increased seat belt use, and primary laws in particular, a top agenda item. The President has asked DOT to submit a report recommending strategies to increase seat belt use. And NTSB has recently made seat belt usage a major priority. A seat belt sanction proposal will galvanize the support of these various groups during a time when the public is paying particular attention to the issue of seat belt use. Also, Congress is increasingly aware of the issue, particularly as hearings on the air bag issue take place. The proposal will draw opposition from the governors' highway safety offices (NAGHSR), the National Motorists Association (the strongest supporters of repealing the speed limit law), individual liberties groups, and the same conservative and western members of Congress who allied to repeal sanctions in the NHS Act. NHTSA does not expect opposition from civil rights or minority organizations. Overall, given the national focus on the issue and the broad support it will receive from the manufacturing, insurance, safety and health care industries, the measure has a significant chance of passing. DOT leadership is currently inclined to include a "soft sanction" that would only "bite" in the final year of NEXTEA. The battle over .08 will be more difficult. A .08 sanctions proposal will be broadly supported by Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), other safety organizations, health care and insurance industries, and probably by the auto industry also. Congresswoman Lowey and Senator Lautenberg have already introduced legislation requiring states to adopt .08 laws. However, a sanction approach to .08 BAC will be vigorously opposed by the beverage, restaurant and hotel industries. These interests are likely to mount an aggressive, well funded campaign seeking to portray the proposal as scientifically unsupported and a threat to casual drinkers. While these arguments can all be rebutted, public opinion is difficult to predict. Given that the BAC standard has received much less recent publicity than the belt issue and that the effectiveness studies on .08 are less than definitive, a .08 sanction will likely be tougher to win than a seat belt sanction. 7 An additional consideration is possible impacts on the Administration's other ISTEA reauthorization priorities. Led by Senator Chafee, the coalition of pro-ISTEA transportation progressives that supports the Administration's bill would likely welcome a proposal that included sanction provisions. At the same time, there is some possibility that sanctions proposals would undermine the relatively positive reception given the Administration's NEXTEA proposal by certain Republican transportation leaders (e.g., Chairrnan Shuster) and state transportation officials. Possible "spill-over" is not of itself an argument against sanction proposals, but it may weigh against proposing multiple sanction initiatives, on top of the truck size restrictions DOT intends to propose.

nara / coll_wjc-dpc / doc

.08 BAC [Blood Alcohol Concentration]

ID: 26416197
Type: document

Citation Image

Metadata

id	26416197
sourceUrl	https://catalog.archives.gov/id/26416197
contentType	document
collections	Records of the Domestic Policy Council (Clinton Administration) Elizabeth Drye's Files
iiifBase	https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/foia/2015/Batch0003/42-t-7367455-20140046S-004-001-2015.pdf
thumbnailUrl	https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/foia/2015/Batch0003/42-t-7367455-20140046S-004-001-2015.pdf
largeImageUrl	https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/foia/2015/Batch0003/42-t-7367455-20140046S-004-001-2015.pdf
imageCount	1
hasImages	yes
source	import

Additional Source Fields

url	https://catalog.archives.gov/id/26416197
naId	26416197
levelOfDescription	fileUnit
otherTitles	42-t-7367455-20140046S-004-001-2015
recordType	description
ocrSource	nara-archive

Pages

Page 1 OCR

Survos folio item chat

Ask the Scholar

Scholar Source Context