Drunk Driving Policy with Beer Goggles On

Recently the National Transportation Safety Board made a public endorsement to reduce the legal limit blood alcohol concentration (BAC) to 0.05 from 0.08 (g/dL). The existing 0.08 limit was set about 10 years ago by Congress and soon afterward the number of drunk-driving related fatalities began to fall. However, the number of drunk-driving related fatalities has seemingly plateaued at about 10,000 fatalities per year.

While it is true that consuming any alcohol can impact judgment and reaction times, I am not convinced a substantial number of fatalities are accounted for by the 0.05 to 0.08 range. In fact, I am concerned that reducing the legal limit to 0.05 from 0.08 will be more dangerous than leaving well enough alone.

I was discussing this proposed change with a friend of mine and we agreed that when a limit is considered to be set too low, it is ignored more than a more reasonable rule or limit. A favorite example of mine is the speed limit on I-99 in and near Altoona, PA. Through Altoona the posted speed limit is 55 mph because it is a developed, urbanized area. When I-99 is traveling through undeveloped areas the speed limit is 65 mph. I drive this route a lot. From this experience, I have observed that the mean speed tends to be about 70 mph. The lower speed limit has no apparent effect on actual speed, yet in that area drivers are putting themselves at risk for a much costlier ticket.

Given that for some individuals, 0.05 is not even one drink and the average drunk driver drives 80 times before getting caught, the change seems meaningless. And if one drink puts you over the legal limit and you elect to drink anyway, why stop after one drink?

My additional concerns regarding this proposed policy are related to how we look at drunk driving. Drunk driving is still very often considered a white man’s problem (although incidence is greater in Native American populations, there are fewer of them overall and some areas have virtually no Native American population). However, the involvement of women and minorities in alcohol-related crashes is rising. Yet, few campaigns are directed at these groups and their drunk driving habits.

Flavored alcohols are really taking off. Flavored alcohols are largely targeted toward women—women who are driving and working in greater numbers than ever before. Yet, when you think of the relationship between women and drunk driving, your first thought (if you have one regarding this matter) is Mothers Against Drunk Driving, MADD. Our collective first thought should be: almost equally likely to get behind the wheel when they shouldn’t after a night on the town.

My experience with drunk driving checkpoints reflects these gender differences. Once, while traveling with my dad we went through a checkpoint. The police officer asked my dad a series of questions. He hadn’t been drinking and after about a minute we were on our way. On the other hand, I have never even been asked a question by an officer at a checkpoint.

Furthermore, given how often many regular drunk drivers must drive before getting caught, more emphasis needs to be placed on recidivism. If that is not possible, why not increase the penalties? Here is an example of a guy with 15 DUIs that is still on the road! How about after 3 DUIs an individual gets a permanent license suspension without exceptions?

Before the BAC is lowered, I want to know how many fatalities were tied to a driver with a BAC between 0.05 and 0.08 and what percentage that is of the whole of drunk driving fatalities, and I believe that is what the public should demand before surrendering the 0.08 limit. Addressing the issue of drunk driving is a lot more than reducing the legal BAC. Lowering the BAC is an attempt to grasp the low hanging fruit but, truthfully, the low hanging fruit has been snapped up. Law enforcement, the court system, and transportation agencies need to get together and try something new, something radical, something never done before.

But please, if you're reading this, just don't drink and drive. Don't even make this an issue we've got to talk about. Ultimately, drinking and driving is something we should all be preventing.

Some Talk on Transportation Funding

The 600-lb gorilla in the room in terms of transportation is funding. There are a lot of contributing factors to the transportation budget mess. A few of my favorites:

• Policymakers seem more excited to build new things than maintaining what they’ve already got
• Out of date taxation structures
• Political manipulation enabling habits costlier to society (and transportation infrastructure)

There also appears to be some confusion as to what contributes to the degradation of road infrastructure. Virtually universally, damage to systems is caused by weight. As long as weight is the issue, a gasoline or VMT tax will not equitably raise sufficient funds to fix crumbling roads. Regardless of whether or not the Prius is sufficiently contributing it’s “fair share” of gas tax, the Prius has a negligible effect on the road… just like my Cavalier, just like my husband’s Civic, just like my old college roommate’s Neon. Should these users contribute to maintenance? Absolutely. We all benefit from nice infrastructure.

However, the fact is that heavy trucks are what do the most damage to the roads. This is widely enough known that I’ve even had truckers tell me this without provocation. Long-haul trucking is also notoriously inefficient for moving goods. In terms of fuel per mile, your best bet is to go by train (which also keeps the damage off the roads). Where trucks excel is the fact they don’t need rail and they can often move things faster.

But let’s look back in time. There was a time when trucks weren’t an option. Goods were shipped efficiently by train and the last mile problem was solved by buggy, bicycle, or feet. Today, that last mile could be fulfilled by trucks. If our freight strategy was intermodal, I doubt any jobs would be lost, but, for example, trucking would be a local affair, intended to fill the holes and deliver to the doors of business not on the rail line. I like this strategy, as well, because it means so many truckers would not have to spend sometimes weeks on end away from home.

Moving more freight to rail would extend the life of the road network. It could buy additional years between repaving. Furthermore, it would stimulate the railroad industry while making the trucking business more desirable for those interested in the job but fearful of the time spent away from family. However, the trucking lobby has very effectively built its current niche by making friends in Washington as well as state capitols everywhere.

If we can’t find a way to reduce the damage to the roads cause by heavy vehicles, it seems most equitable to tax them more for the damage done because of the weight. The unfortunate side effect to this, however, is that costs would likely be handed down to the consumer when you shop for things like groceries and clothes because, as the saying goes, if you bought it, a trucker brought it.

Of course, the alternative is that we just toll every limited access highway in the United States. Based on the feedback I hear on the Pennsylvania Turnpike… that’d be the least preferred means of handling the mounting costs for transportation. Additionally, we could start removing some roads. While every politician wants a nice, shiney interstate highway running through the middle of their district, it is ultimately more mileage that must be maintained, with money we’re not sure how to get.