News :: Opinion
Email
Print
A Sober Look At Drunk Driving Stats
ADVERTISEMENT
Published: June 29, 2008
Drunk driving makes headlines every day. Traffic safety advocates relentlessly remind the American public that the abuse of alcohol continues to be a huge problem on our roadways and, as a result, the most drastic measures are needed. Though truly "drunk" driving is a serious issue, much of the reported problem is little more than PR.
From traffic statistics to talking points, legislative agendas to enforcement campaigns, the data used to justify these tactics are often embellished or flat-out wrong.
Consider traffic fatality reports. The number of deaths that activist groups attribute to drunk driving is grossly exaggerated. Last year, federal statisticians classified almost 18,000 deaths as "alcohol-related." However, alcohol-related does not mean alcohol-caused. In fact, that figure includes anyone killed in a crash in which at least one person (driver, pedestrian, cyclist, etc.) was estimated to have had any trace of alcohol. For instance, if a sober driver speeds through a stop sign, crashing into and killing a family whose driver had one glass of wine at dinner, statistics reflect all their deaths as "alcohol-related."
In reality, the commonly referenced "drunk" driving figure reflects a much broader spectrum of casualties: people under the legal limit, drunk pedestrians, impaired cyclists, and others. After accounting for those people, actual, innocent victims only make up 12 percent of the widely reported statistic - considerably smaller amount than activists have led us to believe.
In order to pressure legislators to pass increasingly draconian legislation, the anti-alcohol lobby has also invented fantastical talking points to bolster their bunk traffic stats. One of its favorites ("first offenders drive drunk on average 87 times before they are caught") goes so far as to accuse individuals of criminal acts with absolutely no proof to back up the claim.
The truth is that this widely publicized figure is based on rough estimates from self-reported data - commonly criticized as unreliable. Collected from a small sample almost 13 years ago, even the study's own authors admit the estimates are "crude." But the flaws in these close-to-fiction facts should come as no surprise. The anti-alcohol movement has a long history of Enron-like number crunching.
In the '90s, these groups assured lawmakers and the public that reducing the legal BAC limit from 0.10 to 0.08 percent would save 600-800 lives each year. More than a decade later, research proves it didn't work.
Their 0.08 push failed to have any measurable effects on traffic fatality rates. It only lowered the threshold for qualifying as a "drunk" driver, ignoring the fact that the majority of "drunks" wreaking havoc on our roads drive while more than double the 0.08 limit. While the most dangerous drivers remained at extreme BAC levels, activist efforts drove our focus lower. One study in the Contemporary Economic Policy concluded that efforts spent to reduce allowable BACs to 0.08 would have been better spent encouraging effective measures against chronic drunk drivers.
Anti-alcohol groups aren't heeding that warning. Instead, they're demanding more funding, more legislation, and more manpower for other misguided traffic safety measures. Their latest tactic even carries one additional cost: our civil liberties.
Sobriety checkpoints are based on the idea that it's more important to look "tough on drunk driving" than to actually go after the drunks. These roadblocks don't catch many drunk drivers. Instead, lawmakers claim they raise "awareness" of enforcement efforts. This means they are trampling our constitutional rights - specifically the Fourth Amendment protection against being detained without probable cause - for a policy that amounts to an overpriced publicity stunt.
Not only do they harass law-abiding citizens, these incredibly expensive PR campaigns also take tax dollars and manpower away from roving police patrols - a tactic that catches 10 times more drunk drivers than roadblocks.
These groups aim instead to eliminate any drinking before driving. Right now, the 176 million responsible Americans who drink in moderation can still safely (and legally) drive home after enjoying a drink. Furthermore, university research shows that drivers who talk on a cell phone, drive while drowsy, or travel a mere 7 mph above the speed limit pose a larger threat than those who enjoy a few drinks.
Disregarding the evidence, the anti-alcohol movement's invented, inflated and distorted "facts" would have the public believe that there should be no legal limit except "zero." This is the reason we all think one thing, when the reality is another.
Sarah Longwell is the managing director of the American Beverage Institute in Washington, D.C., an association of restaurants.
Email
Print
TBO.com - Tampa Bay Online Member Agreement | Privacy Statement | Work With Us
