|
Abstract
|
We appreciate the three commentaries on our paper documenting the effectiveness of lowering the alcohol limit for driving from 0.08 to 0.05 blood alcohol concentration (BAC). Our purpose was to stimulate debate and, from the thoughtful commentaries received, we appear to have been successful. We thank Dr Sheehan [1] for her comments generally supporting the need for a 0.05 law in the United States, given that she is a researcher from a country that has had such a law in place in all Australian states since 1991. We also recognize the importance of the comments of Mr Talpins and Mr Hurley [2, 3], both strong safety advocates who have held senior positions with Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD). They both raised the typical argument expressed by opponents of the 0.05 law that the risk levels associated with BACs in the 0.05–0.07 range are modest. This is certainly true when 0.05 BAC is compared to risk levels at 0.15 and above. However, what is lost in this argument is that lowering the BAC limit for driving in the United States and abroad has typically affected these high BAC drivers just as much as drivers with low BACs [4-7]. This is one of the reasons that we are recommending the 0.05 BAC limit, because it has been proven to reduce the frequency of high BAC (>0.15) drivers in fatal crashes and serves as a general deterrent to drinking and driving. Lowering the BAC limit sends a message to the public that the law is becoming stricter and enforcement more intensive and, thus, reduces alcohol-related crash frequencies at all BAC levels.
Mr Talpins also expresses concern that lowering the limit to 0.05 would substantially increase arrests and strain enforcement resources. However, there was no significant increase in driving while intoxicated (DWI) arrests when states lowered their limits from 0.10 to 0.08 in the 1990s and up to 2003 [8]. Lowering the BAC limit to 0.05 reduces the proportion of drivers on the roads who are impaired by alcohol, whether they are at 0.05, 0.08, 0.10 or 0.15 and greater [5, 6].
Mr Hurley notes that the lowering of the BAC limit from 0.10 to 0.08, in which MADD played a major role, saved 600–800 lives a year and argues that the effect of a 0.05 BAC law would be less. However, one study of the effects of the 0.08 BAC laws in the United States estimated that 0.08 BAC laws prevent 360 deaths per year and estimated that lowering the BAC limit even further to 0.05 would prevent an additional 538 deaths per year [5]. If the effects of lowering the limit from 0.08 to 0.05 in the United States are similar to those in Europe and Australia, we can expect a reduction of approximately 8% in impaired driving fatal crashes [9, 10], which would currently translate to 800–900 lives saved annually.
We agree and support all four components of the MADD Campaign to Eliminate Drunk Driving; however, there is no evidence that high visibility enforcement has increased in the United States and no evidence that interlock laws have had a general deterrent effect on impaired driving. The advanced technology for passively detecting impaired drivers can certainly be set for a BAC of 0.05 or greater, and in numerous surveys [11] the public agrees with the statement that people should not drive after two or three drinks (less than 0.05 BAC for most people). Why not add one more evidence-based, proven countermeasure to the Campaign and support lowering the limit to 0.05? That policy will save lives as soon as it is adopted.
1. Sheehan M. A .05 BAC limit in the United States: an important challenge for policy, health and safety. Addiction 2014; 109: 875.
2. Talpins S. An argument for prioritizing drivers above the current illegal limit in the United States. Addiction 2014; 109: 875–877.
3. Hurley C. A better path to progress on drunk driving. Addiction 2014; 109: 877–878.
4. Hingson R., Heeren T., Winter M. Lowering state legal blood alcohol limits to 0.08 percent: the effect on fatal motor vehicle crashes. Am J Public Health 1996; 86: 1297–1299.
5. Wagenaar A., Maldonado-Molina M., Ma L., Tobler A., Komro K. Effects of legal BAC limits on fatal crash involvement: analyses of 28 states from 1976 through 2002. J Safety Res 2007; 38: 493–499.
6. Brooks C., Zaal D. Effects of a 0.05 Alcohol Limit in the Australian Capital Territory. Canberra, Australia: Federal Office of Road Safety MR 10; 1992.
7. Homel R. Drink-driving law enforcement and the legal blood alcohol limit in New South Wales. Accid Anal Prev 1994; 26: 147–155.
8. Federal Bureau of Investigation. Uniform Crime Reporting. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services Division; 2012.
9. Henstridge J., Homel R., Mackay P. The long-term effects of random breath testing in Adelaide. In: Kloeden C. N., McLean A. J., editors. Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety—T′95, 13–18 August 1995. Adelaide, Australia: International Council on Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety (ICADTS); 1995.
10. Smith D. I. Effect on traffic safety of introducing a 0.05% blood alcohol level in Queensland, Australia. Med Sci Law 1988; 28: 165–170.
11. Moulton B. E., Peterson A., Haddix D., Drew L. National Survey of Drinking and Driving Attitudes and Behaviors: 2008 (Volume II: Findings Report). Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration; 2010.
Language: en |