Drunk Driving: A Problem on the Road

Nick Allen

Drunk Driving: A Problem on the Road 

Have you ever seen a news story about another poor soul who lost their life in a tragic car accident, only to find out that it was because of someone’s terrible decision to drink and drive? Each year we hear our fair share of these cases. We either connect emotionally with the victims or loved ones involved, or we shrug it off because of a lack of emotional connection to the situation. However, it is the sad reality of the world that we live in that every year, people choose to drive while intoxicated.  In this essay, I will look at the efforts made by law enforcement to keep our roads safe, such as attempts at stopping drunk driving from occurring in previous offenders. Furthermore, drunk driving related accidents result in paralysis, severe injury and fatality, ruining lives every single day; this is why drunk driving is a serious issue that is making our roads unsafe and needs to be resolved. Each year tens of thousands of people die in alcohol-related motor vehicle crashes. Law enforcement has taken many measures to combat drunk driving, but it is not enough. Therefore, awareness must be increased in order to prevent individuals form making the terrible decision to drive drunk.

It is no secret that in the Unites States, a lot of drinking occurs on college campuses. But a good chunk of college students are underaged and therefore, are not legally allowed to drink alcohol. Those who are under the drinking age in college (between seventeen and twenty years of age) have a serious impact on the statistics of alcohol related driving accidents. Much speculation and arguing has taken place regarding the drinking age. According to Laura Dean-Mooney of The U.S. News and World Report “Twenty-one isn't just an arbitrary number set by Congress-more than twenty states already had laws setting the drinking age there in 1984” (Dean-Mooney 10). Surprisingly, People do think that twenty-one is “an arbitrary number” and that the drinking age should be lowered to eighteen. Dean-Mooney goes on to mention that, “Since the twenty-one law was enacted, the number of young people killed annually in crashes involving drunk drivers under twenty-one has been cut in half, from more than 5,000 individuals in the early 1980’s to around 2,000 in 2005” (Dean-Mooney 10). The law has proven its effectiveness over the long haul, but is it really enough? After all, drunk driving accident rates are still extremely high and its not just young drivers or even civilians for that matter, that we have to worry about. The issue goes beyond what police officers can do to protect the roads. In fact, the very same people who we look to for keeping our roads safe are in the middle of this epidemic.

In Brooklyn In September 2009, an off duty police officer killed a women while he was driving under the influence of alcohol. In an article in The New York Times, it was reported by Christine Hauser that there were “two off duty officers in a sport utility vehicle that struck and killed [a] woman. . .” (Hauser ). Since drunk driving is such a big problem in the United States, I find it disturbing that our very own police officers, the ones who vow to “serve and protect” are contributing to one of the very problems that they are supposed to help prevent. In a time when drunk driving is  back on the rise after a period of decline, the last thing we need is for police officers to be contributing to the damage done via drunk driving. Hauser’s article also points out that, “. . . a police union representative on Monday Identified [the passenger] as Michael Downs, a four year veteran of the force. . .” (Hauser). I think that someone with four years of experience in the police force should in no circumstance make such a terrible mistake. It is sad, not only that drunk driving is occurring, but it is even occurring in the people who we trust to keep our roads as safe as possible. It is necessary to point out that it is a much bigger problem than many realize.

While it is an important thing to be aware of, it needs to be made clear that drunk driving in officers is not the real issue. The more pressing issue is the number of people in general each year that choose to drive a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. People lose loved ones every year to drunk driving, yet it continues to happen. According to Naimi et al in the article “Driving After Binge Drinking”, “Excessive drinking is the third actual leading cause of death in the U.S., is responsible for approximately 79,000 deaths annually and shortens the lives of those who die by approximately 30 years” (Brewer, Naimi and Nelson 314). Now I recognize that Binge drinking and drunk driving are two different things. But Naimi et al went on to say, “Survey research has shown that binge drinking is strongly associated with alcoholic-impaired driving” (Brewer, Naimi and Nelson 314), Thus creating a hazard on the road. It is scary to think that our roads are not safe, so we have a right to look out for our safety. After all, it is against the law to drink and drive. Thats right, drunk drivers are not only affecting themselves, but everyone out on the road at the same time as them as well. Though there is an eminent danger on the road, many people are still not aware of it. The fact is that many people are simply not aware of the statistics of drunk-driving related deaths.

Considering further information on drunk driving, it was stated by the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, “In 2007 a total of 12,998 persons died in motor-vehicle crashes in which at least one driver had a blood alcohol concentration of greater than 0.08g/dL” (National Labor 856) which is above the legal limit. This is proof that drunk driving is happening and many times someone’s poor decision results in lost lives. Fortunately it appears that efforts are being made to decrease that stifling number of fatalities. A campaign called “Drunk Driving. Over the Limit, Under Arrest” was implemented in August of this year and the article also stated that, “Coordinated by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, this campaign combines high-visibility enforcement of laws against alcohol impaired driving with heightened public awareness through advertising and publicity” (National Labor 856). This ad, in the form of television commercials, features officers arresting people who have been driving drunk as part of its advertising efforts to help drastically reduce drunk driving. Is this enough? Will this keep people from a repeat offense?

      

This youtube video is an actual T.V. ad that appears for the campaign.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAonspm6LmU

 

The most common method of reducing drink driving is having officers patrol and look for offenders. But, as Angela Carlisle mentions in her article “Staggered Sentencing for Repeat Offenders: A New Weapon in the War Against Drunk Driving”, “Police agencies are limited in their ability to apprehend individuals driving under the influence. The limitation is based on the lack of law enforcement personnel, particularly in rural areas. . .” (Carlisle 89). It is no wonder that drunk driving is such an insurmountable issue to tackle, when our law enforcement officials recognize that the challenge requires them to be being essentially everywhere, to affectively enforce the law. Carlisle offers a solution for this nagging problem. She discusses the possibility of a program called “Staggered Sentencing”, a program used by the state of Minnesota to keep drunk driving offenders from committing repeat offenses. It has steps including incarceration, probation and treatment to name a few. As stated by Carlisle, “This new sentencing model in addition to preventing further DWI offenses, has several public policy implications including enhancing public safety, reducing the fiscal burdens on county governments. . . and alleviating the pressure on the state’s correctional budget” (Carlisle 89). I think this is a “win win situation”. Reducing repeat offenses and helping the government benefit fiscally are both positive things! could this be the best solution? well what about first time offenses?

According to Kenneth H. Beck of the journal Health and Promotion Practice, there is about “. . . one alcohol related traffic fatality every 31minutes” (Beck 370). This means that there are approximately 46 alcohol related fatalities each day in the United States. If efforts are beingmade to stop drunk driving from occurring, then why are these numbers still so high? There was a time in which drunk driving was causing few fatalities, but the rise started again at the turn of the twenty-first century. Beck went on to state:

The nation has made considerable progress during the past several decades at reducing the number of people who are fatally injured in alcohol related crashes. However, after experiencing a more than 20-year downward trend, alcohol related fatalities started to increase in 2000. (Beck 370)

This is startling evidence! It is baffling that there was such a long stretch of time where drunk driving accidents were on the decline and by the year 2000 they were on the rise again. Many things could be at fault including alcohol advertising. However, it must be noted that efforts such as the “Drunk Driving. Over the Limit, Under Arrest” campaign and other campaigns have made a noticeable difference. The efforts of late have actually been effective.

Enforcement of drunk driving is increasing and that leaves us some hope for safer roads. But many times, offenders drive with a suspended license and end up committing the same crime again. Enforcement of the law is not going to be what cuts down on the number of alcohol-related accidents and deaths. The Breathalyzer was a great invention, but it is only good for proving that someone is under the influence after the damage has been done, or the driver has at least had the chance to do some damage. Or can we use the device that has been proving criminals guilty for more than 50 years, to cut this problem off right where is starts? It appears that that is indeed the case. As pointed out by Judge Andrew Fulkerson in the article “Blow and Go: The Breath-Analyzed Ignition Interlock Device as a Technological Response to DWI,” in an issue of The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, “In addition to the use of modern scientific technology for evidentiary purposes, technology may also be used in such a manner as to prevent offenses” (Fulkerson 222). What he means by this is that a breathalyzer type devise will be installed in the steering column so that if the driver’s Blood Alcohol Concentration is at or above .08g/dL then the car will not start. “The ignition interlock is typically required as a part of an offender’s sentence as imposed by the trial judge following a conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol” (Fulkerson 222). Though it is not the solution to the problem, The Ignition interlock could be an affective way of keeping offenders from repeating and putting more lives at risk.

 

A recent editorial in the New York Times discussed the efforts being made by California to crack down on drunk driving in their state, “Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger will require those convicted of drunken driving/including first-time offenders/to install special devices that prevent cars from operating if the driver is drunk . . .” (New York Times A34). This is a step in the right direction for the chronic problem plaguing our streets and highways. In fact, it could potentially provide a way to guarantee our roads of being safer. The article went on to say “This technical fix is more effective than just a license suspension. Up to three-quarters of drunken drivers whose licenses are suspended continue to drive. Typically, a first-time, convicted offender has driven under the influence dozens of times before being arrested” (New York Times A34). This sheds some light on how close we are to making a serious dent in this important issue! It is certainly encouraging to hear such new and seemingly effective ideas to solve this epidemic. 

Drunk driving is an obvious problem that needs to be solved. Several Examples of efforts to change the current circumstances have been presented, such as the “Drunk Driving, Over the Limit, Under Arrest” campaign and the ignition interlock device that keeps offenders from operating their motor vehicle while they are intoxicated, but the bottom line is that more needs to be done to prevent more lives from being lost (or changed negatively) due to drunk driving. Remember, in 2007 alone, 12,998 people died in drunk driving accidents.  As efforts and campaigns continue to be launched, we must not be satisfied until our roads are as safe as they can possibly be. If this is to be stopped or at least cut down drastically, then more intense action must be taken. I recognize it is a great challenge to drastically reducing first-time drunk driving offenses, but let’s consider implementing “Staggered Sentencing” at a national level to at least cut down on repeat offenses. Also, Police officers must lead by example. If our officers are driving under the influence, then there is no hope for the rest of the country. Law enforcement must consider more strict laws to ensure the safety of ourselves and those who make the regrettable decision to drink and drive. As long as motor-vehicles continue to be used as a primary source of transportation, the on-road risk will not cease to exist. Its never a “big deal” until its your friend, loved one or even you in that accident, then maybe you’ll reconsider. But let us not get to that point, Let’s protect our roads and highways by preventing people from drinking and driving!

Works Cited

Beck, Kenneth H., “Health promotion Practices.” Lessons learned from evaluating Maryland’s Anti-Drunk Driving Campaign: Assessing the Evidence for Cognitive, Behavioral, and Public Health Impact July. 2009: 370. Web. 26. Oct.

Brewer, Robert D., Timothy S. Naimi, and David E. Nelson. “American Journal of Preventative Medicine” Driving After Binge Drinking Oct. 2009: 314-320. Web. 21 Oct. 2009.

Carlisle, Angela. “Staggered Sentencing for Repeat DWI Offenders: A new weapon in the war against drunk driving. Hamline Journal of Public Law & Policy (2003): 97-113. Web. 3 Nov. 2009.

Dean-Mooney, Laura. “A Lower Age would Be Safe” U.S. News and World Report 15 Sept. 2008: 10. Web. 21 Oct. 2009

DeYoung, David J., Robert B. Voas. “Vehicle Action: Effective Policy for Controlling Drunk and Other High-Risk Drivers” Accident Analysis and Prevention May (2002): 263-264. Web. 13 Nov. 2009.

Hauser, Christine. “Second Officer Suspended in Fatal D.W.I. Accident” The New York Times 28 Sept. 2009: A35. 3 Nov. 2009.

Fulkerson, Judge Andrew. “Blow and Go: The Breath-Analyzed Ignition Interlock Device as a Technological Response to DWI”  American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse Feb. (2003): 219. 3 Nov. 2009.

“National Labor Day Drunk Driving Enforcement Crackdown” Morbidity and Mortality Report 14 Aug. 2009: 856. Web. 21 Oct. 2009.

“Progress on Drunken Driving” The New York Times 22 Oct. 2009: A34. 25 Oct. 2009.