CAMPAIGN TO ELIMINATE DRUNK DRIVING:

Drunk Driving and Enforcement Fact Sheet

Drunk Driving in the U.S.

• In 2005, there were 43,433 total traffic fatalities and of these, 12,945 involved a driver with an illegal BAC (.08 or greater)
• Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for people 3 to 33 years old.
• About 1/3 of all drivers are 40% more likely to be involved in a fatal crash than those without prior DUIs.
• In a recent study, 60% of those surveyed said they had operated a car or truck under the influence of alcohol or close to being under the influence of alcohol, up from 57% in 2000.

If You DRIVE DRUNK , You WILL Be ARRESTED

• Approximately 1.4 million drivers were arrested in 2004 for driving under the influence of alcohol or narcotics. This is an arrest rate of 1 for every 139 licensed drivers in the United States (2005 data not yet available)
• Research show that 88% of respondents support .08% blood alcohol concentration (BAC) as the illegal drunk driving limit.

Sobriety Checkpoints & Saturation Patrols

• 40 states and Washington , D.C. , allow sobriety checkpoints. All states allow saturation patrols.
• Research has shown that highly publicized, highly visible, and frequent sobriety checkpoints reduce alcohol-involved crashes and fatalities by an average of 20%
• 87% of Americans surveyed say they support the use of sobriety checkpoints to check for drunk drivers. 62% would like sobriety checkpoints to be used more often.
• 80% of Americans say they themselves would be discouraged from drinking and driving by sobriety checkpoints.
• Well- conducted sobriety checkpoints generally delay drivers for no more than 30 seconds, and cause no traffic problems.

DRUNK DRIVING. Over the Limit. Under Arrest.

• The national Drunk Driving. Over the Limit. Under Arrest. Is a comprehensive impaired driving prevention program organized by the U.S. Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in partnership with Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), the Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA) and the International Chiefs of Police (IACP). The program focuses on combining high-visibility enforcement of drunk driving laws in twice-yearly national crackdowns with heightened public awareness through advertising and publicity.
• Over the 2006 Labor Day holidays, more than 11,500 law enforcement agencies in all 50 states and the District of Columbia stepped up enforcement using sobriety checkpoints and saturation patrols. The effort was also supported by $11 million from Congress in paid national advertising to help put everyone on notice that if they are caught driving drunk, they will be arrested.
• Based on the highly successful, Click It or Ticket program, the U.S. Congress dedicated $16 million over 4 years in the federal highway bill to support high-visibility crackdown for both seat belts and drunk driving.

CAMPAIGN TO ELIMINATE DRUNK DRIVING

ABOUT THE CAMPAIGN

• In recent years, the war against drunk driving has stalled in the U.S.  , but MADD is launching a major new offensive through its Campaign to Eliminate Drunk Driving
• Although alcohol-related traffic fatalities have declined by more than 40% since MADD was founded in 1980, progress has stalled in recent years and more of the same won’t work. Every year, nearly 13,000 people are killed by drunk drivers with an illegal blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of .08 or above. This represents more than 1,000 families every month that must live with the tragic consequences of drunk driving.
• The Campaign calls for intensive, high visibility law enforcement, mandatory ignition interlock for all convicted drunk drivers, exploration of advanced vehicles-based technology and community support.

THE CAMPAIGN HAS 4 ELEMENTS:

1. Intensive high-visibility law enforcement: including twice-yearly crackdowns and frequent enforcement efforts that include sobriety checkpoints and saturation patrols in all 50 states.

2. Full implementation of current alcohol ignition interlock technology: including efforts to require alcohol ignition interlock devices for all convicted drunk drivers. A key part of this effort will be working with judges, prosecutors and state driver’s license officials to stop the revolving door of repeat offenders.

3.   Exploration of advanced vehicle technologies: through the establishment of a Blue Ribbon Panel of international safety to assess the feasibility of a range of technologies that would prevent drunk driving. These technologies must be moderately priced, absolutely reliable, set at the illegal BAC limit and unobtrusive to the sober driver

4. Mobilization of grassroots support: led by MADD and its 400+ affiliates, to make the elimination of drunk driving a reality. MADD is uniting drunk driving victims, families, community leaders and policy makers to fight to eliminate drunk driving

The best way to honor the victim of drunk driving is to prevent it from happening to anyone else.MADD will continue to provide free victim services until there are no more drunk driving victims who need support.

MADD intends to work with law enforcement agencies, judicial organizations, auto manufacturers, insurers, distilled spirits companies, technology companies, safety advocates, health care professionals, emergency technicians and government at the local, state and federal levels.

This holiday season we are asking the public to Tie One On For Safety (or tie MADD’s red ribbon to their vehicle) in support of MADD’s Campaign to Eliminate Drunk Driving.

ENFORCEMENT

• Highly visible law enforcement crackdowns, including checkpoints and saturation patrols, are proven to remove drunk drivers from the road. Americans stand behind strong enforcement: 87% say they support the use of sobriety checkpoints

• It’s time for our politicians to do the right thing: every state should allow sobriety checkpoints to find and deter drunk drivers. Every convicted drunk driver deserves an alcohol ignition interlock

• MADD is working with law enforcement agencies and federal, state and local governments to increase enforcement- especially during peak holiday periods. More than 11,500 law enforcement agencies across the nation participated in the 2006 Labor Day crackdown and MADD aims to build on that participation supporting periodic, coordinated crackdowns in the years ahead.

• Currently, there are 10 states that do not allow sobriety checkpoints and as part of a comprehensive enforcement strategy, MADD is committed to changing that.

ALCOHOL IGNITION INTERLOCK

• People drive drunk because they can and because we let them: research shows that the overwhelming majority of people arrested for drunk driving have driven drunk more than 50 times before their first arrest . 2/3 of those whose licenses are suspended for DUI drive anyway. Ignition interlock stops this.

• MADD believes that anyone who violates the public trust by driving at or above .08 BAC deserves and needs an alcohol ignition interlock. The public is behind us: 65% support mandatory interlock for all convicted drunk drivers. 81% of the public said installing an ignition interlock on their vehicle would discourage them from driving drunk

• One of the best proven ways to stop convicted drunk driving from continuing to drive drunk is through alcohol ignition interlock. Interlocks installed in the vehicles of convicted drunk drivers prevent the vehicle from starting if the driver fails a breath test.

• Although interlocks are up to 90% effective while on the vehicle, it is estimated that only one out of eight convicted drunk drivers each year currently gets the device and the majority are repeat offenders

• It is estimated that only 100,000 interlocks are currently in service in the United States . MADD is committed to vastly increasing that number in the next 5 years to 500,000 by encourage states to enact model laws that require alcohol ignition interlock devices for all convicted drunk drivers. Currently, only one state (New Mexico ) requires interlocks for all convicted drunk drivers

• The criminal justices system has reduced but can never completely eliminate drunk driving. That is why the addition of technology is essential to stop the revolving door of repeat offenders

• By working with judges, prosecutors and state driver’s license officials the Campaign aims to stop repeat drunk drivers through the use of alcohol ignition interlock

EMERGING TECHNOLOGY

• The Campaign supports advanced technology, currently in developed, that will stop a drunk driver from operating a vehicle. The public is supportive: by a 4 to 1 margin (58% to 16%) Americans support advances in smart vehicle technology to prevent drivers from driving drunk

• MADD, NHTSA, the auto industry and the Insurances Institute for Highway Safety are forming the Blue Ribbon Panel for the Development of Advanced Alcohol Detection Technology, which will focus on several key imperatives: technology must not affect to interfere with the sober driver; it must be absolutely reliable and accurate; it should be set at .08 BAC for adult drivers not convicted for drunk driving and the cost should be reasonable. There are many technologies currently under development including transferal detection to measure BAC through skin contact with the steering wheel or other surfaces in the vehicle, infrared beams to measure BAC through the skin, algorithms to detect weaving and biometric identification such as thumbprint screen.

2009

MADD CT

LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL

OPEN ALCOHOL CONTAINER LEGISLATION

The bill makes it illegal for anyone to possess an open alcohol beverage container in the PASSENGER AREA of a motor vehicle while it is on the highway in the state and a motor vehicle operator to allow any passenger to do this. It makes the violation an infraction. The bill does not:

Apply to motor vehicles designed, maintained and primarily used for the transportation of persons for hire and the living quarters of a recreational vehicle.

This year, the Open Container Law was finally pushed through to the House floor, however after much discussion and debate, the House passed through the bill citing the need for further revision.  The below letter is from dedicated survivors, Colleen and Skip Church, who helped MADD tremendously during this session to get this law passed.  MADD thanks all of the Legislators for their dedication and support of this bill.

"For the better part of a decade, some dedicated lawmakers have tried to remove Connecticut from its embarrassing position on the dwindling list of states that refuse to adopt legislation that prohibits open alcoholic containers in vehicles.  They have crafted legislation in virtually every form over the years and none has been able to satisfy enough House members to even have the courtesy to bring the bills to a vote. 

Feeling the legislation is so important as a statement for Connecticut on drinking and driving, these few dedicated lawmakers have been willing to compromise in many areas over the years.   Simply to get it out of the Transportation Committee, there was the inane necessity of compromise for those who want to continue to drink in a car.  They would have the option of writing a note to the driver stating that he was not only designated, he was hired.  Presumably, this could even be accomplished while the flashing lights of law enforcement were moving ever closer to the party car.  Still, the compromise was made for the greater good.

Then there was the compromise to the Black Caucus that talked the Open Container bill to a slow death in 2008.   There was a desire to allow constituents the opportunity to drink in cars parked on neighborhood streets.  The compromise was made.

The fear of racial profiling called for the compromise that an open alcoholic container could not be the primary reason for law enforcement to stop a vehicle.   It could only be secondary, after a stop for another violation.  The deal was made.

Another deal dealt with who would be charged.   It would only be the driver, even if it were the passengers who were violating the open container law.  Once again, the dedicated lawmakers compromised for the greater good.

There was also the compromise for tailgating, the compromise for where a partially full bottle of wine from an evening dinner could be stored while driving home, even the compromise to make sure that the bill would not be federally compliant so as not to affect the distribution of funding from the United States Treasury. 

The slicing and dicing and hacking and whacking would have made any sausage maker proud.   Still it was not enough to placate enough members of the House to even allow a vote.  A few salient points were made in the debate.  However, those points were so heavily outweighed by the ignorant ramblings of a few that it was more than maddening.  It was embarrassing.

Sadly, many members were all too willing to tear down the hard work of their peers.   Had they been as willing to accept the yearly invitations to help craft the legislation, Connecticut would now have an Open Container Law. 

After watching from the gallery during the past few years, testifying before committees and serving on subcommittees, my wife and I have come to the conclusion that there are a surprising number of House members who don’t want Open Container legislation on any kind, no matter how it is written.   So, we will continue our work in other areas where people listen and respond.

The Open Container law would not have eliminated drunk driving.   But it may have saved just one life.  You see, that’s very important to us.  Our son

Dustin was killed by a drunk driver and we don’t want that to ever happen to anyone else."

-- Colleen and Skip Church

                                     ALCOHOL IGNITION INTERLOCK

LAW

• Parallel administrative and judicial structures should exist. The administrative side would be voluntary (that is, offenders could opt either for a short license suspension, followed by a period of interlock-restricted license, or a hard license suspension with no restricted license): the judicial side would be mandatory.

• The mandatory judicial sanction should be structured so that if a person elected not to have an interlock license during the administrative process, the interlock period would start from scratch, but if they elected, the period wouldn’t start over
  • Thus it is in the offender’s best interest to elect for the interlock restricted license anyway to shorten the period of license suspension

• If the mandatory judicial sanction is not ordered by the court, the licensing body shall impose the restriction administratively.

• Penalties (for both the administrative and judicial) should be:

• First offense with no aggravators: 1890 day suspension, 30 of which must be hard (150 would be with interlock)
• o       First offense, .15+ BAC: one year suspension, 60 days of which must be hard (305 would be with interlock)
• o       Repeat offense: two year suspension, 60 days of which must be hard (670 would be with interlock)
• o       Third offenses and beyond would lead to vehicle forfeiture
• o       Look back periods for the purpose of repeat offenses should be at least 10 years
• o       Those under the age of 21 who drive with a measurable amount of alcohol in their system (i.e.,  zero tolerance violation should also receive an ignition interlock devices
• Offenders could elect for the administrative interlock program even if they do not own a vehicle- they would get an interlock-restricted license and would have to drive only vehicles with interlock. These offenders should also be subject to electronic monitoring to verify sober driving. On the judicial side, offenders who do not own a vehicle should require get to an interlock-restricted license and should be subject to electronic monitoring.

• The mandatory judicial sanction should be monitored as a part of probation, so that violations can be monitored and acted upon by the court. If a person is not sentenced to probation, not sentenced to an interlock, or probation is terminated, the interlock program should still be enforced through the licensure process.

• There should also be mandatory treatment administered through probation. Probation departments should be given appropriate resources to monitor interlock and treatment programming

• There should be a compliance provision. Interlocks should continue on the vehicle until an offender can demonstrate sober driving (either through the interlock or through the electronic monitoring). If the person fails a test, the period of extension should be equal to the initial interlock period (e.g., 150 days for a first offense) There should be an appeals process if a person thinks a violation was in error. Additionally, offenders should be required to attend additional, more intensive treatment and/or receive additional electronic monitoring if they continue to attempt to start their vehicles with alcohol in their system.

• Tampering with the device should be a separate offences and should be a breach of probation punishable by vehicle sanctions

• All interlocks used should be alcohol-specific, requiring running retests, have a set point of .02 BAC and comply with all NHTSA standards

• Interlocks should be required on all vehicles the offender operates, not just owns.

MADD CT  currently supports mandatory Ignition Interlock on 1^st offense 2^nd arrest conviction due to diversion program