[Synthesized voice] "Good morning, Earthlings. I am Lambda Two. I come to you. rational thought among the life forms on your planet.

Transcription

1 RANDOM BREATH TESTING FOR RESEARCH AND ENFORCEMENT M.W. Bud Perrine Vermont Alcohol Research Center Burlington, Vermont USA [Synthesized voice] "Good morning, Earthlings. I am Lambda Two. I come to you from Gamma Iota in a distant galaxy. I lead a scientific effort to look for rational thought among the life forms on your planet. I appear before you today as an Earthling through the process of transplasmic endogenic transfiguration. I regret that the only Earthling form we could commandeer on short notice was that of Bud Perrine, a very antiquated model. Unfortunately, we just received notice of this meeting last week from Alpha Lauersdorf of the National Safety Council. Now I will undergo the transplasmic transfiguration and appear before you as Earthling Perrine." ZAP! [Earthling voice] Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I would like to share with you some of the non-rational incongruities that we find among you Earthlings. We find that a drug you Earthlings call "alcohol," and consume voluntarily, is involved in approximately half of all highway fatalities; approximately 23,000 individuals are killed this way each year in the United States alone. By contrast, we find that the number of airline passengers who have died due to terrorist violence in the United States is zero. Yet at all your airports, you have security checkpoints through which you voluntarily let yourselves be herded, let your personal effects be pawed over by uniformed strangers, and occasionally let yourselves be frisked -- with no objection whatsoever. The fear that a terrorist may board the airplane with a weapon or bomb is so compelling that you allow your self and your most private 81

2 possessions to be screened by some impersonal machine or by some cumbersome Earthling. On the other hand, you Earthlings do have the very real and present danger of terrorists on the highways, those drivers who have consumed this drug alcohol that is so widely available -- and from which your governments obtain so many millions and billions of dollars in taxes. Yet when some of the more rational Earthlings try to conduct security checkpoints for drunken drivers on your highways, some other Earthlings -- mostly lawyers, media, and legislators -- raise sharp objections and talk about the infringement of civil rights. Whose civil rights? The drunken drivers, these drugged terrorists? What about the rights of the other users of the public highways, the vast majority of whom are at zero alcohol (approximately 75%)? Why do you Earthlings not apply the same rationale to stop these drunken terrorists on the highways that you do to stop other terrorists with airport security checks? Now, how effective these sobriety checkpoints are on the highway depends upon whom you ask. You will receive one answer from the small number of critical attorneys and legislators, another answer from enforcement officials, and still another answer from your learned scientists. But why not ask the public; why not ask the motorists who are actually at risk from these drunken terrorists on the highways. What do we find? Last year in Vermont, approximately 700 motorists were surveyed at roadside on Friday and Saturday nights between 10:00 p.m. and 3:00 a.m. (Foss, Perrine, Meyers, Musty, & Voas, 1990; Foss, Voas, & Perrine 1990). Among other things, they were asked a series of four questions concerning their perception of relative risk regarding drinking and driving. For ease of presentation in this paper, their responses were collapsed from a four-category scale (very likely, somewhat likely, somewhat unlikely, very unlikely) to two categories 82

3 (likely, unlikely). The drivers were arranged in four groups according to measured BAC (0.00,.01-,049,.05-,099,.10 or higher). The first question asked about the perceived likelihood of being stopped at an alcohol roadblock in Vermont. The typical response was highly consistent across all four BAC groups: approximately 80% of drivers in each group felt that it is exceedingly unlikely to be stopped at an alcohol roadblock in Vermont -- and they are correct. The second question asked the same drivers about the perceived likelihood of arrest at a roadblock if stopped while driving drunk. A high degree of consistency was again found across all four BAC groups, with 80% of the drivers in each of the lowest two BAC groups saying that it was likely and approximately 62% and 78% of the higher two BAC groups, respectively, saying that it was likely. Thus, the drivers in the BAC group did not perceive the likelihood of arrest if stopped at a roadblock while driving drunk to be quite as high as the drivers in the other BAC groups. The third question asked about the perceived likelihood of arrest if driving while drunk and appearing to be drunk. Approximately 90% of the drivers in each of the three lower BAC groups believed that arrest in such a case was likely. By contrast, only 75% of the drivers who were legally intoxicated (0.10 or higher) believed that arrest in such a case was likely. The final question asked about the perceived likelihood of arrest if driving while drunk, but appearing to be sober. Approximately 58% of the drivers in each of the lowest two BAC groups believed this case to be likely, whereas 32% of the drivers and 54% of the legally intoxicated drivers believed it to be likely. Thus, a large and consistent proportion of all drivers at these highest risk times believed that if stopped, drunken drivers will be arrested at roadblocks, especially if they appear to be drunk; whereas if they appear sober, it is much less likely 83

4 they will be arrested. However, remember that only 20% of all these drivers believed it at all likely to be stopped at an alcohol roadblock. A more precise indicator of the effectiveness of security checkpoints (or roadblocks) is the proportion of legally impaired drivers (with a BAC of 0.10 or higher) who are correctly identified by the police officers and arrested. A 1983 study of enforcement checkpoints in Vermont found that when police used traditional observational means without the aid of a preliminary breath tester, they correctly identified and arrested one-third of the drivers stopped who were 0.10 or higher (Worden et al., 1989). In the roadside survey conducted in Vermont last fall (Foss et al., 1990), drivers were invited to perform the field sobriety tests (i.e., the one-leg stand, the walk-and-turn test, and lateral gaze nystagmus) according to the standards established by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (which are also used by police officers throughout the nation). Among drivers whose BACs were 0.10 or higher, half failed the field sobriety tests. In other words, if the police had conducted these tests at enforcement checkpoints, the officers would have had a basis for arresting 50% of the legally impaired drivers. The next relevant question is: "How many drunken drivers are out there on the highways?" If alcohol is involved in approximately 50% of all fatal crashes, and if approximately 40% of all fatally injured drivers are legally impaired (with a BAC 0.10 or higher), then what proportion of all other drivers on the highways are 0.10 or higher? The answer depends upon the time of day or night involved. When sampled around the clock at whatever times and places that previous fatal crashes had occurred, several case/control studies (one in rural Vermont by Perrine, Waller, & Harris [1971] and one in urban Grand Rapids, Michigan by Borkenstein et al. [1974]) indicate that approximately 2% of the drivers surveyed at roadside have a BAC of 0.10 or higher. However, 84

5 when drivers are sampled only at high-risk times (i.e., Friday and Saturday nights from 10 p.m. to 3:00 a.m.), approximately 5% of these drivers have a BAC of 0.10 or higher. It should be emphasized, of course, that many of you Earthlings now know that alcohol impairment starts at BACs much lower than Some states have recently lowered the BAC standard from 0.10 to 0.08, while some European countries have lowered it from 0.08 to 0.05, and even to The next question of interest is: "What differences in drinking and in driving after drinking are found among motorists?" A combined roadside and household survey across the spectrum of drivers in Vermont obtained data concerning the typical quantity and typical frequency of the preferred beverage (Perrine et al., 1971). Many significant differences in drinking patterns were found across the spectrum of drivers, especially regarding the proportion of heavy drinkers (i.e., 5 or more drinks consumed in the usual sitting) in each category of driver: clear-driver-record motorists stopped at roadside: 7%; all drivers stopped at roadside: 12%; fatally injured drivers: 23%; and convicted drunken drivers: 60%. These data in conjunction with many other analyses show again and again that convicted drunken drivers are a very deviant group relative to all drivers on the highways. Convicted first and multiple DUI offenders were compared with the general driving population on a number of drinking and driving variables in a recent study of characteristics of male drinking drivers (Perrine, 1990). (A companion study of female drinking drivers was also conducted by Fortini and Perrine [1990].) A few of the more relevant results with males for the present paper are reviewed briefly. When asked whether they themselves may have a drinking problem, the proportions of each group responding "yes" or "maybe" were: 14% of the general driving population, 45% of first DUI offenders, and 85

6 79% of multiple DUI offenders. When asked to estimate the number of times during the previous three years they had driven when they thought they were probably over the legal alcohol limit, the general driving population averaged 5 times and the first and multiple DUI offenders averaged about 13 times. Similar, statistically significant differences were also found on such variables as: number of crashes after drinking, number of traffic citations after drinking, number of non-traffic arrests, and how often they "get very intoxicated" whenever they drink. These very recent data (Perrine, 1990) provide detailed in-depth corroboration for the earlier, somewhat coarser studies: as a group, the DUI offenders are very deviant on a number of relevant variables. Is there any hope for you Earthlings and your drunken terrorists on the highways? Are effective measures available? Yes, Security checkpoints based on random breath testing have been shown to be effective in reducing the drunken driving problem. A very encouraging study was conducted in New South Wales, Australia, and reported by Homel, Carseldine, and Kearns (1988). In 1982, the government of New South Wales passed a trial program for implementing and evaluating the powerful and sustained deterrent impact of sobriety checkpoints - - or as they refer to it in Australia, "Random Breath Testing" (RBT). The scope of the RBT program was so extensive that an average of one in every three New South Wales drivers was tested each year. Every driver passing through a security checkpoint was required to provide a breath test for the police. Relative to the 5 years immediately preceeding the RBT program, fatal crashes in the 5 years after passage were down 22%. Further, the alcoholrelated fatal and serious injury crashes were down by 35%. The number of fatal injured drivers and passengers with an illegal BAC of 0.05 or higher dropped by 36%. When asked in 1987 (5 years after passage of the legislation) about the 86

7 perceived likelihood of arrest if caught in one of the RBT checkpoints, 90% of respondents believed it was likely. Beyond the dramatic reduction in fatal crashes, public support for the RBT program is a critical element for its continued success. A 1982 survey conducted just after passage of the new trial program showed 64 percent of respondents were in favor of it. In 1987, after 5 years of extremely intensive checkpoint activity, public support had grown to an incredible 97%. The message from New South Wales is clear: the driving population-at-risk will support the brief, minor, and fair inconvenience of a security checkpoint for drunken terrorists when the program results in significantly safer public highways. That message should be readily transferrable to other parts of the world if the population at risk is asked for its opinion and support. Returning to roadside surveys as one valuable, advance indicator of the degree of support that could be expected for such a program in North America, what percentage of motorists stopped at such roadside surveys participated voluntarily? Taking the studies conducted in Vermont, for example, the voluntary cooperation rate of motorists sampled around the clock was 95% (Perrine et al., 1971) and the rate sampled at high-risk times last fall was 96%. Clearly, the overwhelming majority of motorists are willing to give a few minutes of their time for this important activity. Indeed, many of them volunteered such statements as, "Thank God someone's out here doing something about this drunk driving problem!" Thus, it seems highly probable that security checkpoints would be strongly supported by the American population-at- risk if they are given a choice. Fortunately, a few rational and respected Earthlings are making progress in this direction. For example, the U.S. Surgeon General, Dr. C. Everett Koop, convened a highly acclaimed workshop on drunken driving last year and endorsed 87

8 ten very important recommendations for the future. Of relevance here, his tenth recommendation stated: "Increase the enforcement of drinking and driving laws and expand the use of sobriety checkpoints" (Office of the Surgeon General, 1989). Dr. Koop stated further, "Sobriety checkpoints are a highly visible and effective enforcement tool. They are used successfully in many states and other countries. I urge all states to conduct them regularly, and all state legislatures to fund them" (Office of the Surgeon General, 1989). What is the alternative? You Earthlings can continue to have your terrorist timebombs exploding on the highway. Recall the extremely unfortunate incidence in Kentucky last year when a young man with a BAC of 0.24 was driving the wrong way on the interstate and crashed into a schoolbus which exploded killing 24 youngsters and seriously burning 14 more. Whose civil rights - - indeed whose fundamental right to life - - should be protected? ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The present paper and the recent research reported in it were supported by PHS research grants R01-AA06774, R01-AA06926, and R01-AA07876 from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism to M.W. Perrine, Principal Investigator. The views expressed in the present paper are those of the writer and not necessarily those of the U.S. Public Health Service or the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. REFERENCES Borkenstein, R. F., Crowther, R. F., Shumate, R. P., Ziel, W. B., & Zyman, R. (1974). The role of the drinking driver in traffic accidents. (The Grand Rapids Study). Blutalkohol. 11(Supplement 1), Fortini, M. E., & Perrine, M. W. (1990). Characteristics of the female drinking driver. In M. W. Perrine (Ed.), Alcohol, drugs and traffic safety - T89.

9 Foss, R. D., Perrine, M. W., Meyers, A. M., Musty, R. E., & Voas, R. B. (1990). A roadside survey in the computer age. In M. W. Perrine (Ed.), Alcohol, drugs and traffic safety - T89. Foss, R. D., Voas, R. B., & Perrine, M. W. (1990). Technologic and behavioral predictors of blood alcohol concentration. In M. W. Perrine (Ed.), Alcohol. drugs and traffic safety - T89. Homel, R., Carseldine, D., & Kearns, I. (1988). Drink-driving countermeasures in Australia. Alcohol. Drugs, and Driving. 4(2). Office of the Surgeon General, U. S. Public Health Service (1989). The Surgeon General's Workshop on Drunk Driving: Proceedings. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Health and Human Services. Perrine, M. W. (1990). Drinking-driving characteristics of drinking drivers. In M. W. Perrine (Ed.), Alcohol, drugs, and traffic safety - T89. Perrine, M. W., Waller, J. A., & Harris, L. S. (1971). Alcohol and highway safety: Behavioral and medical aspects. (Technical Report, DOT HS ). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Worden, J. K., Flynn, B. S., Merrill, D. G., Waller, J. A., & Haugh, L. D. (1989). Preventing alcohol-impaired driving through community self-regulation training. American Journal of Public Health. 79_(3),