"National Commission Against Drunk Drivers
- NOTES OF INTEREST"


Chronic drunk drivers represent not only the greatest DUI danger to the public, but the biggest opportunity to win a significant battle in the national fight against drunk driving.

SMALL PERCENTAGE CAUSE MOST CRASHES
Chronic drunk drivers comprise a small percentage of all drivers, yet cause the most crashes. These individuals drive repeatedly after drinking; they often do so at high BACs-.15 or .20 or more - that exceed the legal limits by two to almost three times; and they risist changing their behavior, for the most part ignoring the anti-DWI countermeasures that have worked so well with social drinkers. Their behavior is dangerous because they either cannot or will not change their unsafe driving behavior, possibly due to underlying problems of alcohol abuse or alcoholism.

Chronic drunk drivers may drive drunk over 1000 times before being apprehended, and this fact screams for timely assessment and treatment. And the judicial system is sometimes too lenient in allowing plea bargaining or simply slapping the wrist of drunk drivers.

There are few events more upsetting to the public or discouraging to safety professionals than the death of innocent motorists or pedestrians in a crash caused by an impaired driver who has previously been convicted of drunk driving.

Decisions that lead to drunk driving for the problem drinker, start very early.
A seven to nine percent reduction in recidivism could be attributed to the better alcohol programs and the most successful interventions occurred with the medium risk group, particularly those who were first-time offenders who had high BACs. The programs need to address the problems caused by excessive drinking, and create disincentives to such drinking, and alter early decisions that can lead to drunk driving.

MEET THE CHRONIC DRUNK DRIVER

The chronic drunk driver is an individual who may have driven over 1,000 times drunk before being caught. The chronic drunk driver does not respond to social pressures, enhanced law enforcement, and mass communications messages that have been combines so effectively to reform the drinking and driving behavior of American society. Given the highly disproportionate role that these chronic violators play in drunk driving incidents, injuries, and fatalities, it would be wise public policy at this stage in our war on drunk driving to focus more on them. At the heart of this strategy should be the goal of intervening as early as possible with these offenders to stop their drunk driving from becoming habitual. This means recognizing that assessments show that many "first" offenders with high BACs are chronic drunk drivers, and we need to deal with them accordingly.

THE DRUNK DRIVING PROBLEM AMONG 21 to 34 YEAR OLDS

Studies have found that this age group:

CHRONIC DRUNK DRIVERS AND ALCOHOLISM
The alcoholic and the addict really don't care about anything except one thing -- and that's the next drink or drug. That's ... what motivates the person .. to continually drive drunk, to continually break the law. The addict will disregard .. the law, his/her family, children, and a job in ... (order to satisfy his craving. The denial aspect of alcoholism in particular is so strong that it can undermine an individual's desire to seek treatment.

We'll never arrest our way out of this problem.

TRADITIONAL APPROACHES OF LICENSE REVOCATION AND JAIL TIME HAVE FAILED WITH MANY DWI OFFENDERS

There is little or no evidence that fines and jail sanctions effectively deter DUI repeat offenders from drinking and driving. A fairly new phenomenon is that individuals who have had their licenses suspended are not having them renewed once their sentences have concluded. Thus individuals are driving without licenses and in many cases without insurance. Likewise, being sentenced to a small number of days in jail for DWI has proved to be of little deterrence to many chronic drunk drivers.

PROBLEMS WITH JAIL SENTENCES AND LICENSE REVOCATION Long-term incarceration for DUI offenses has proved to be infeasible for two reasons -- the cost and society's unwillingeness to sentence drunk drivers to jail terms which would keep them off the road for sufficiently long periods. The typical jail sentence for most drunk drivers is two to three days and, "this amount of non-driving time does not have much impact in terms of drinking and driving." Additionally, jail terms remove individuals from their normal lives and people can lose their jobs and the backing of family members. In short, everything familiar that could serve as support is taken away. Research demonstrates that after they are released, convicted drunk drivers are just as likely to commit additional offenses as are offenders who are not jailed.

Research shows that there are problems with license revocation/suspension as well.Reserach shows tht 75 percent of those with suspended licenses will drive illegally, depending on the length of the sentence. A disturbing phenomenon is that many of these individuals are not choosing to have their license renewed once their sentences have been completed. Studies in the states of Washington & Oregon revealed that while first-time DWI offenders may be eligible for license reinstatement after three months; five years later, half were still suspended. We are breeding a large group of people who operate outside the law.

PROBLEMS WITH THE INTERLOCK SYSTEM
* Once the interlock has been removed, there is some evidence that the chronic drunk driver's previous behavior may return.
* To date, only a small portion of all DWI offenders have been williing to have interlocks placed on their vehicles. Social stigma has been the greatest area of negative fedback. People do not want their neighbors to know that they have been convicted of drunk driving.
* Likewise, nothing prevents a driver, whose vehicle has an interlock system, from using another car.
* The alcohol safety interlock has not experienced wide use by the judiciary system, in part because administration - making sure the offender has the interlock placed on the vehicle and taking action to penalize the offender if he/she tampers with the equipment - has proved to be a problem for local courts because of their limited staff capabilities. Some feel that the judicial system should be in charge of the program, as the system installation could be a condition of probation.
* Some say that it would be best if a state department of motor vehicles administered the program, given the fact that this entity has the management capability that court systems usually lack. This is a problem, because the state DMV has only one reward to motivate drivers to install an interlock -- license reinstatement. Given the fact that many individuals with suspended licenses do not attempt to have their licenses reinstated, this is no longer an alluring "carrot" for many drivers.

Regardless of what entity manages the installation, maintenance, and retrieval of the system, in order for the interlock to enjoy widespread use, this managerial issue must be clarified, because follow-up monitoring is essential to its success.

OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES THAT KEEP DRUNK DRIVERS OFF THE ROAD.
It is illegal to serve individuals who are visibly intoxicated in all but four states. In most states it is a criminal violation against the server, although servers are almost never prosecuted. If caught, the establishment incurs an administrative violation, which could mean suspension or revocation of the business' liquor license. This is almost never enforced as well because someone needs to be sent into bars to watch people being served. In short, if there is zero enforcement, then there is going to be zero compliance.

A recent study completed in Michigan oncluded that when police officers did go into bars to enforce the laws, the threat of enforcement alone increased the refusal rate to serve intoxicated patrons from 15 to 55 percent. In order for such laws to be effective, the liquor control commission has to be willing to take action if police officers are willing to enforce the statutes. In general, far more citations are given for serving individuals who are underage than for serving intoxicated individuals.

Enforcement of these laws offers a highly effective way in curbing drunk driving because a large majority of people in bars drive to get there and because the supply of alcohol is in the hands of sober people.


<

[HOME ]
[A LETTER TO TIFFANY]
[TIFFANY'S DEAD] [DEATH OF AN INNOCENT] [UNDEFENDED VICTIM] [MOONLIGHT RIDE]
[POEMS OF COMFORT] [HER LIGHT SHINES BRIGHT] [FRIENDS REMEMBER] [FAMILY LINKS]
[DUI PROPOSAL INDEX PAGE] [PROPOSED DUI LEGISLATION] [HOW IT WORKS]
[WHY WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT] [THIS IS NOT..]
[WHY THIS WORKS BETTER-A WIN/WIN SOLUTION] [DUI FAQ]
[DUI STATISTICS] [UPDATES] [SERVER ACCOUNTABILITY]
[TAVERN CONCERNS] [DUI BILL-STEP THRU]
[THE MONTANA BILL] [RELATED LINKS]
[WE PRAY] [AWARDS]

This page hosted by GeoCities