NATIONAL MOTORISTS ASSOCIATION

---

Massachusetts Page

---

WHAT'S WRONG WITH THE "DON'T DRINK AND DRIVE" CAMPAIGN

1. What is 'impaired driving:'

- It has been shown there is very little difference in driving performance between people who had a couple of drinks, people who haven't slept awhile and people involved in complex cell phone conversations. They all did OK in normal driving and they all failed the same way in emergency avoiding maneuvers. So, what is being done about tired drivers and what is being done about cell phones? (Before you jump on this one, try to recall any details about any of your trips after an engaging phone conversation in your car.)

2. How to determine who is 'drunk:'

- Alcohol effects different people differently. With many people, there is no difference in hand/eye coordination at different small BAC levels at different times. Alcohol absorption varies with human metabolism over time. Therefore, sweeping statements such as "Any amount of alcohol in your system will impair your abilities somewhat" are false. By the same token, "any emotional state will impair your abilities somewhat" is also true. (Am I making you upset right now? Don't you go out and drive now, you hear?! :-) The same life-of-the-party who can't keep from drooling with a BAC of .1% may become Mr. Neat after an hour of water and pizza and back in control, but his BAC will now read .12 %. This is the one reason why BAC should not be per se evidence of drunk driving, until it reaches at least .15%.

- Breathalyzer can easily tell you who is really drunk (who can't?), but at such small tolerances such as the difference between .07 and .08 BAC it is almost 50% inaccurate. And after stopping someone for suspicion of driving impaired, police officers are under pressure to get that suspicion confirmed with various field sobriety tests. The only accurate indication of alcohol level in blood is a blood test.

- It is an urban legend that Blood Alcohol Content goes down when consumption ceases---not true. BAC goes up for some time after, anywhere from an hour up to, in some cases even six hours. There is a jump from BAC at the time of the stop to the BAC at the time of the test--- which is always later.

3. Lowering the threshold does not change the odds:

According to NHTSA, in 1996 75% of drivers in fatal crashes had 0 BAC levels. Drivers with 0.10 and above (illegal in every state) were at 19.4%. The distribution for the rest was about even (about .5% for .01, about .5% for .02, about .5% for .03 etc.) Statistically and practically, lowering the limit from say .10 to .08 or .08 to .06 will not make a difference on fatality rates. It will only make more people break the law.

4. Punishment:

Legally, there is a big difference between someone shoplifting a tube of toothpaste and someone embezzling millions. However with mandatory sentencing, there is no distinction in punishment for an alcoholic bombed out of his skull who is physically harassing others and someone on her way home from a wedding, stopped only because there was a sobriety checkpoint.

5. Hysteria based on voodoo science:

Did you know if in a 10 car pile-up ONE PASSENGER is drunk, the whole mess is classified as 'alcohol related'?

Did you know if a drunk pedestrian falls under the wheels of a sober driver, the accident is 'alcohol related'?

Did you know 30% of all accidents between cars and bicycles involved drunk cyclists and sober drivers and as such were classified 'alcohol related' ?

Did you know any single-car fatality between certain hours on a Saturday night is automatically classified as 'alcohol related,' whether the victim was drunk or not?

Did you know MADD makes no distinction between 'alcohol related' and "caused by alcohol?"

NHTSA defines a fatal crash as alcohol-related or alcohol-involved if either a driver or a nonmotorist (usually a pedestrian) had a measurable or estimated blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.01 grams per deciliter (g/dl) or above. NHTSA defines a nonfatal crash as alcohol-related or alcohol-involved if police indicate on the police accident report that there is evidence of alcohol present. The code does not necessarily mean that a driver or nonoccupant was tested for alcohol.

Hey, you don't have to take my word for it - you can read a Washington Times or a Denver Rocky Mountain News editorial instead.

About the NMA / Join the NMA / Contact the NMA / NMA Home