Feds pushing states to lower threshold for drunk driving

Posted Tuesday, May. 14, 2013  comments  Print Reprints

Topics: DWI, Air Safety

Tags:

A

Have more to add? News tip? Tell us

Ordering that second margarita could lead to a ticket to jail for some motorists if states go along with the latest recommendation from federal safety officials who want to redefine drunk driving.

The National Transportation Safety Board on Tuesday recommended that states lower the threshold for driving while intoxicated to a blood-alcohol content of .05. Today in Texas and other states, motorists are generally considered too drunk to drive with a BAC of .08 or more.

If that amount were changed to .05, a woman weighing less than 120 pounds could be intoxicated if she downed more than one drink in an hour. For a 180-pound man, the limit would be two drinks in an hour.

More than 100 other countries have lowered their allowable blood-alcohol levels to .05, and reduced alcohol-related road deaths, NTSB says.

But at a time when safety advocates are calling for tougher measures to get drunks and other bad drivers off the roads, Texas seems to be headed the other direction.

With the current legislative session set to end May 27, bills that would allow police to conduct sobriety checkpoints, require ignition interlock devices for all DWI offenders or prohibit texting while driving are heading down a dead-end road.

“Those bills don’t seem to go anywhere,” said Vic Suhm, executive director of the Tarrant Regional Transportation Coalition, who has followed transportation and driver behavior bills closely for many years. “It’s just sort of that small-government, stay-out-of-my-business mentality.”

NTSB officials said they didn’t intend to prevent drivers from having a glass of wine with dinner, but agreed that if states set the blood-alcohol content, or BAC, level to .05, people who consumed one or two drinks would be best advised not to drive at all.

Lowering the acceptable blood-alcohol level could hurt local businesses, even those trying to serve customers responsibly, said Shannon Wynne, owner of Flying Saucer beer emporium in downtown Fort Worth.

“It’s very hard to determine if someone has had a drink or not, or several, or anything to eat before arriving,” Wynne said. “It’s awfully hard for operators to determine somebody’s body chemistry.”

Flying Saucer has a standing policy that no customer can have more than six beers in two hours, no matter their weight or gender, he said. Also, he said, servers are instructed not to continue serving customers who show signs of intoxication, even if they’ve only ordered one or two drinks.

Still, alcohol concentration levels as low as .01 have been associated with driving-related performance impairment, and levels as low as .05 have been associated with significantly increased risk of fatal crashes, NTSB said.

In Europe, the share of traffic deaths attributable to drunken driving was reduced by more than half within 10 years after the standard was dropped, the report said.

Alcohol is a factor in about a third of all fatal crashes, NTSP reports.

“Our goal is to get to zero deaths because each alcohol-impaired death is preventable,” said Deborah Hersman, NTSB chairwoman. “Alcohol-impaired deaths are not accidents. They are crimes. They can and should be prevented. The tools exist. What is needed is the will.”

Law enforcement officials typically measure blood-alcohol concentration with a breath or blood test.

Opposition likely

States likely will resist proposals to lower the alcohol limit to .05, said Jonathan Adkins, Governors Highway Safety Association spokesman.

“It was very difficult to get .08 in most states, so lowering it again won’t be popular,” Adkins said. “The focus in the states is on high [blood-alcohol content] offenders as well as repeat offenders. We expect industry will also be very vocal about keeping the limit at .08.”

Officials at Mothers Against Drunk Driving applauded NTSB for seeking to reduce deaths related to drunken driving, but stopped short of endorsing the .05 limit. Spokeswoman Carol Ronis said the Irving-based agency, which has been accused of harboring a prohibitionist agenda, is focusing on supporting only changes in law that can be backed with its own research — and MADD hasn’t had time to closely digest the content behind NTSB’s recommendations.

MADD’s campaign is aimed at promoting tougher police enforcement such as sobriety checkpoints, and persuading states to require ignition interlock devices that require drivers to give a breath sample before a car will start, she said.

State Sen. Wendy Davis, D-Fort Worth, authored a bill that would allow sobriety checkpoints — a bill supported by Arlington officials. But the bill has been sitting in a Senate criminal justice committee since March, untouched.

“I’m disappointed that I was not able to get a hearing on this important bill to allow the use of sobriety checkpoints to stop drunk drivers before they potentially cause a fatal accident,” Davis said.

A bill that would prohibit the use of mobile devices, including texting, while driving is stalled in a Senate transportation committee, said Jennifer Smith, a former Grapevine resident now living in Chicago who has become a national advocate for preventing distracted driving.

“Do they not understand that it will save the state millions of dollars if they reduce these crashes?” Smith said.

A bill that would allow expanded use of ignition interlock devices appears to be doomed this session as well, said Frank Harris, MADD state legislative affairs manager.

“Unfortunately those measures ran up against a big wall of opposition this year. Sadly, MADD’s going to have to wait until 2015,” Harris said.

“As a result, 2,400 more people are going to die in Texas, unless we have a chance to fix the law.”

This report includes information from The Associated Press.

Gordon Dickson, 817-390-7796 Twitter: @gdickson

Looking for comments?

We welcome your comments on this story, but please be civil. Do not use profanity, hate speech, threats, personal abuse or any device to draw undue attention. Our policy requires those wishing to post here to use their real identity.

Our commenting policy | Facebook commenting FAQ | Why Facebook?