Don't Reduce Crashes
by Glen Johnson
Associated Press Writer
June 24, 1999
Washington (AP) -- Reducing by one drink the alcohol it takes to become legally drunk doesn't conclusively reduce the number or severity of alcohol-related crashes, according to a new government study.
The finding challenges statements by President Clinton last year in advocating 0.08 percent blood alcohol content as a nationwide standard for legal drunkenness rather than the 0.1 percent limit in effect in two-thirds of the states.
"If all states lower their BAC (blood-alcohol content) to 0.08, it will result in 600 fewer alcohol-related deaths each year," Clinton said, citing a 1996 university study.
The General Accounting Office, an investigative arm of Congress, said in a report Wednesday that such claims cannot be supported. Research to date has used flawed methodology or ignored other factors that could contribute to a lower fatality count, the congressional auditors said.
"A 0.08 BAC law can be an important component of a state's overall highway safety program, but a 0.08 BAC law alone is not a 'silver bullet,"' the GAO wrote. "Highway safety research shows that the best countermeasure against drunken driving is a combination of laws, sustained public education and vigorous enforcement."
Data from the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board indicates that the lower standard for many people translates into having one less drink before reaching legal drunkennesss. It defined a drink as 1.25 ounces of 80-proof liquor, 12 ounces of beer or 5 ounces of table wine.
But Dr. Marcelline Burns of the independent Southern California Research Institute says several factors beyond the number of drinks determine blood-alcohol content: a person's size, sex, body, the time over which drinks were consumed and how much food was taken with them.
"There is no easy answer," Burns warned. If people are worried about hitting the blood alcohol limits, "they need to eat and to pace their drinks."
In a rebuttal to the report, the Transportation Department said a series of studies "provided positive, if not conclusive, results and formed a reasonable basis for supporting 0.08 BAC laws."
The department also said it has consistently supported a broad approach to combating drunken driving, including public education and stricter law enforcement in addition to a lower blood-alcohol limit.
A leading drunken driving group, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, said the GAO report supported its call for a comprehensive approach to fighting drunken driving.
"All research is equivocal and, by definition, inconclusive," said MADD President Karolyn Nunnallee. "The fact is, all research to date points in the same direction: 0.08 laws are effective in reducing alcohol-related traffic fatalities."
Thirty-two states and the District of Columbia have laws making it illegal for people to operate an automobile if their blood contains 1/10th of 1 percent alcohol. Sixteen states have a stricter limit: 0.08 percent. Two states, Massachusetts and South Carolina, have blood-alcohol limits, but they also require that a person show visible signs of drunkenness.
The GAO report grew out of last year's debate about a $203 billion national highway bill. Drunken driving opponents got the Senate to support a provision saying that states that did not lower their blood-alcohol limits to 0.08 percent would risk losing their federal highway funds. The president argued in favor of the provision.
The House did not support the measure and ultimately it was thrown out of the bill, which Clinton signed. The bill did include a provision asking the GAO to gauge the effectiveness of state 0.08 BAC laws.
Critics of stricter limits point out that a 120-pound woman having two glasses of wine over two hours could be branded a drunken driver. Supporters say a 170-pound man wouldn't reach the limit unless he downed more than four beers in an hour.