News and recent developments: Utah is first state in the United States to set a .05 BAC limit for driving.
In 1986, when the US Department of Transportation (DOT) took its first formal step toward advocating that the legal BAC limit be lowered from .10 to .08, only two states had enacted such laws (Oregon and Utah in 1983). That federal government initiative involved a regulatory action specifying the enactment of a .08 law as a criterion for a supplemental alcohol traffic-safety grant under a program authorized by the US Congress (23 U.S.C. 408). Consequently, additional states began to consider .08 BAC per se levels, and three more states adopted the new level: Maine in 1988, California in 1990, and Vermont in 1991. Between 1992 and 1998, 10 additional US states adopted .08 BAC per se laws. The movement toward a national standard for .08 BAC received renewed attention in the 105th Congress. On June 15, 2000, the Senate passed H.R. 4475 (the DOT Appropriations Bill for FY 2001) that included a general provision encouraging states to adopt .08 BAC laws by withholding a portion of a state's federal highway funds, beginning in FY 2004, for states that did not adopt the .08 limit. Congress adopted the final .08 BAC bill (Section 351) in 2000, and the president signed it into law shortly thereafter. This federal legislation expired on September 30, 2013, but has been renewed by Congress each year since then.
On May 14, 2013, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), an independent federal agency dedicated to promoting transportation safety, issued a report recommending, among other measures, that states should lower the illegal BAC limit for driving from .08 to .05 g/dL. The NTSB provided a sound rationale in their report and concluded that lowering the BAC limit to .05 or lower has a strong evidence-based foundation. Most industrialized nations have already enacted a .05 g/dL illegal BAC limit. However, there was a lack of enthusiastic support from some organizations, such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving, which questioned the potential benefit of a .05 g/dL BAC law. The DOT's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) did not formally support the recommendation either. Officials at NHTSA have stated, however, that states are free to lower their illegal BAC limit to .05 or lower if they feel that is appropriate and NHTSA will evaluate the effects. The National Safety Council (NSC) recently adopted a policy statement recommending a limit of .05 g/dL BAC or lower. In 1997, the American Medical Association (AMA) recommended that the limit for driving should be .05 g/dL BAC.
To date, only Utah has adopted this criminal per se statute in the United States and it will not take effect until December 31, 2018. A recent study conducted under a grant from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) found from a metaanalysis of studies around the world that lowering the BAC limit to .05 or lower was associated with an 11% decrease in alcohol-impaired-driving fatal crashes.
The Case for a .05 BAC Limit. The World Medical Association, the American Medical Association, the British Medical Association, the European Commission, the European Transport Safety Council, the World Health Organization, the Canadian Medical Association, the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, and the Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine all have policies supporting a .05 BAC or lower as the illegal limit per se for drivers aged 21 and older. At least 91 countries around the world have adopted a .05 BAC or lower limit for driving; 54 countries use limits from .06 to .12 BAC. The rationale behind adopting a .05 BAC law include:
* Virtually all drivers are impaired with regard to driving performance at .05 BAC. Laboratory and test track research shows that the vast majority of drivers, even experienced drinkers who typically reach BACs of .15 or greater, are impaired at .05 BAC and higher with regard to critical driving tasks. There are significant decrements in performance in areas such as braking, steering, lane changing, judgment, and divided attention at .05 BAC. Some studies report that performance decrements in some of these tasks are as high as 50% at .05 BAC.
* The risk of being involved in a crash increases significantly at .05 BAC. The risk of being involved in a crash increases at each positive BAC level, but rises very rapidly after a driver reaches or exceeds .05 BAC compared to drivers with no alcohol in their blood systems. Recent studies indicate that the relative risk of being killed in a single-vehicle crash for drivers with BACs of .05 to .079 is at least 7 times that of drivers at .00 BAC (no alcohol) and could be as much as 21 times that of drivers at .00 BAC depending on the age of the driver. These risks are significant.
* Lowering the illegal per se limit to .05 BAC is a proven effective countermeasure that has reduced alcohol-related traffic fatalities in other countries, most notably Australia. While studies in Europe and Australia each use a different methodology to evaluate these effects, the evidence is consistent and persuasive that fatal and injury crashes involving drinking drivers decrease on the order of at least 5% and up to 18% after a country lowers their illegal BAC limit from .08 to .05 BAC.
* .05 BAC is a reasonable standard to set. A .05 BAC is not typically reached with a couple of beers after work or with a glass of wine or two with dinner. It takes at least four drinks for the average 170-lb. male to exceed .05 BAC within 2 h, on an empty stomach (three drinks for a 137-lb. female). The BAC level reached depends on a person's age, gender, weight, whether there is food in their stomach, and their metabolism rate. No matter how many drinks it takes to reach .05 BAC, people at this level are too impaired to drive safely.
* The public supports levels below .08 BAC. The NHTSA surveys show that most people would not drive after consuming two or three drinks in an hour and believe the limit should be no higher than the BAC level associated with that. That would be .05 BAC or lower for most drivers. A recent national survey revealed that 63.6% "strongly" or "somewhat" support lowering the limit to .05 BAC.
* Most other industrialized nations around the world have set BAC limits at .05 or lower. All states in Australia have a .05 BAC limit. France, Austria, Italy, Spain, and Germany lowered their limit to .05 BAC years ago, while Sweden, Norway, Japan, and Russia have set their limit at .02 BAC.
* Further progress is needed in reducing alcohol-impaired driving. It has been 34 years since the first two states adopted a .08 BAC limit and 17 years since federal legislation provided a strong incentive to adopt a .08 BAC limit. Progress in reducing impaired driving has stalled over the past 20 years. Lowering the BAC limit from .08 to .05 will serve as a general notice to all those who drink and drive that the state is getting tougher on impaired driving and will not tolerate it. Such legislation typically reduces drinking drivers in fatal crashes at all BAC levels (BACs > .01; BACs > .05; BACs > .08; BACs > .15).
Summary. It is expected that .05 BAC laws will serve as a strong general deterrent to impaired driving and affect drinking drivers at all BAC levels. This is what happened when the first .08 BAC laws were adopted. Reductions were seen in fatal crashes involving drivers who were drinking (BAC > .01), who were intoxicated (BAC > .08) and who were at very high BACs (BAC > .15).
Most drunk-driving laws passed recently have been specific deterrent laws (sanctions for DWI offenders caught and convicted). A law that sends the message that the state will not tolerate impaired driving, such as lowering the limit to .05 BAC, has substantial potential to resume progress in reducing impaired-driving injuries and fatalities in the United States.
1. Arnold LS, Tefft BC: Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol and Marijuana: Beliefs and Behaviors, United States, 2013-2015; AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety: Washington, DC; 1-19; May 2016.
2. Dang JN: Statistical Analysis of Alcohol-Related Driving Trends, 1982-2005 (DOT HS 810 942); National Highway Traffic Safety Administration: Washington, DC; 2008; http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/810942.pdf (Accessed May 26, 2017).
3. Fell JC, Voas RB: The effectiveness of a 0.05 blood alcohol concentration (BAC) limit for driving in the United States; Addiction 109:869; 2014.
4. Fell JC, Beirness DJ, Voas RB, Smith GS, Jonah B, Maxwell JC, Price J, Hedlund J: Can progress in reducing alcohol-impaired driving fatalities be resumed? Results of a Workshop sponsored by the Transportation Research Board, Alcohol, Other Drugs, and Transportation Committee (ANB50); Traffic Inj Prev 17:771; 2016.
5. Ferrara SD, Zancaner S, Georgetti R: Low blood alcohol levels and driving impairment. A review of experimental studies and international legislation; Int J Legal Med 106:169; 1994.
6. 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 86:1297; 1996.
7. Howat P, Sleet D, Smith I: Alcohol and driving: Is the 0.05% blood alcohol concentration limit justified? Drug Alcohol Rev 10:151; 1991
8. McKnight AJ, Langston E, McKnight AS, Lange J: Sobriety tests for low blood alcohol concentrations; Accid Anal Prev 34:305; 2002.
9. Moskowitz H, Burns M, Fiorentino D, Smiley A, Zador P: Driver Characteristics and Impairment at Various BACs (DOT HS 809 075); US Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration: Washington, DC; 2000.
10. Moskowitz H, Fiorentino D: A Review of the Literature on the Effects of Low Doses of Alcohol on Driving-Related Skills (DOT HS 809 028); US Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration: Washington, DC; 2000.
11. Voas RB, Tippetts AS, Fell JC: The relationship of alcohol safety laws to drinking drivers in fatal crashes; Accid Anal Prev 32:483; 2000.
12. Voas RB, Torres P, Romano E, Lacey JH: Alcohol-related risk of driver fatalities: An update using 2007 data; J Stud Alcohol Drugs 73:341; 2012.
13. 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 38:493; 2007.
14. Zador PL, Krawchuk SA, Voas RB: Alcohol-related relative risk of driver fatalities and driver involvement in fatal crashes in relation to driver age and gender: An update using 1996 data; J Stud Alcohol 61:387; 2000.
James C. Fell
National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago Bethesda, Maryland United States of America
Robert B. Voas (*)
Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation Opinion Research Center Calverton, Maryland United States of America
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Title Annotation:||FORENSIC SCIENCE AROUND THE WORLD; blood alcohol concentration|
|Author:||Fell, James C.; Voas, Robert B.|
|Publication:||Forensic Science Review|
|Date:||Jul 1, 2017|
|Previous Article:||Driving under the influence of non-alcohol drugs--an update. Part II: experimental studies.|
|Next Article:||Upcoming events.|