Good afternoon Chairman Vallario and members of the Judiciary Committee. It is my pleasure to back here in Annapolis to talk about the National Transportation Safety Board’s recommendations for addressing hard core drinking drivers. I am pleased to be joined by many other organizations in supporting effective laws to prevent impaired driving including our national partners, the Century Council, AAA, and Mothers Against Drunk Driving and our Maryland partners in the Impaired Driving Coalition.

The National Transportation Safety Board is an independent Federal agency charged by Congress to investigate transportation accidents, determine their probable cause, and made recommendations to prevent their recurrence. The recommendations that arise from our investigations and safety studies are our most important product. The Safety Board has neither regulatory authority nor grant funds. In our 35-year history, organizations and government bodies have adopted more than 80 percent of our recommendations.

The Alcohol-Highway Safety Problem

The Safety Board has recognized for many years that traffic crashes are one of this nation’s most serious transportation safety problems. More than 90 percent of all transportation related deaths each year result from highway crashes. Approximately 41 percent of the highway deaths nationwide are alcohol-related. Unfortunately over the last five years, the proportion of alcohol-related fatalities has not been improving and increased last year. The trend for the last five years has been in the wrong direction.

In 2003, impaired driving resulted in 17,013 alcohol-related fatalities nationwide, with hard core drinking drivers involved in almost 40 percent of these deaths. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates the cost of each fatality is over $977,000, thus alcohol-related fatal crashes cost society over $17 billion each year. We believe this to be a very conservative estimate. While the affected individual covers some of these costs, overall, those not directly involved in crashes pay for nearly three-quarters of all crash costs, primarily through insurance premiums, government paid health care costs, taxes, and travel delay. Clearly, much needs to be done to reduce this ongoing tragedy.

The Hard Core Drinking Driver

In 1988, the Safety Board investigated the worst alcohol-related highway collision in American history, the collision of a pick-up truck and a church activity bus in Carrollton, Kentucky. The crash killed 27 and injured 34 innocent people. The pick-up driver had been drinking and was traveling the wrong way on an Interstate. Ninety minutes after the crash, the pick-up driver’s blood alcohol content (BAC) was 0.26 percent. This individual was a hard core drinking driver.

The Safety Board defines hard core drinking drivers as individuals who drive with a BAC of 0.15 percent or greater, or who are arrested for or convicted of driving while intoxicated within 10 years of a prior driving while impaired (DWI) conviction. From 1983 through 1998, at least 137,338 people died in crashes involving hard core drinking drivers.

The problem of hard core drinking drivers is complex. No single countermeasure appears to be sufficient to address hard core drinking drivers. These offenders require different approaches. We need a comprehensive system of prevention, apprehension, sanction, and treatment to reduce the crashes, injuries, and fatalities caused by these drivers. Experts agree that impaired drivers persist in their behavior because these drivers believe that they will not be caught and/or convicted. That perception is based on reality. An intoxicated person can drive from New York to Los Angeles and halfway back without being arrested.

In 1984, the Safety Board made a series of recommendations to address the problem of repeat offenders. Since those recommendations were issued, all states have made at least some efforts to address the alcohol-related highway safety problem, and considerable progress has been made in detecting, arresting, and adjudicating drinking drivers. However, the measures taken and the degree of implementation of the Safety Board’s 1984 recommendations by states and localities have not been uniform, and alcohol-related crashes continue to claim too many lives.

In light of the thousands of deaths still resulting from these crashes, the Safety Board again focused its efforts on hard core drinking drivers in 2000. That report examined a variety of countermeasures to identify which of these actions have been effective in the specific states that have utilized them, and recommended a model program (attached) to reduce hard core drinking driving.

Today, I want to discuss several key issues pertaining to impaired driving that are directly related to the bills being considered. First, I would like to clarify how the drinking driver problem has changed over the last 30 years. Second, legislation to focus effective measures on hard core drinking drivers and, third, action on underage drinking drivers is needed. Bills that your are considering that can reduce fatalities involving hard core drinking drivers include: HB 732 (mandatory interlocks for second and subsequent offenders), HB 815 (mandatory interlocks for high BAC offenders), HB 808 (use of effective penalties for repeat offenders); HB 1137 (limiting diversion through programs such as probation before judgment (PBJ) to once every 10 years); and HB 1138 to provide for effective sanctions for high BAC offenders and test refusals). You are considering bills to make Maryland’s minimum drinking age laws more complete and effective. The bills include: HB 252 (license revocations for underage drinking driving convictions) and HB 1154 (adopting an underage alcohol consumption ban)

Hard Core Drinking Driving Bills

Drivers with High Blood Alcohol Content (HB 1138 and HB 815)

Drivers with a high BAC, 0.15 percent or greater, require a significant intervention similar to that ordinarily prescribed for repeat offenders. Those who reach this high BAC level have consumed large amounts of alcohol, much more than is considered to be social or responsible drinking. High BAC offenders are also likely to be repeat drinking drivers though they may not be repeat DWI offenders. Research has found that drivers with a high BAC are at a substantially greater risk of being involved in a fatal crash. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety has estimated that the relative fatality risk for drivers in single-vehicle crashes with a high BAC is 385 times that of a zero-BAC driver and for male drivers the risk is 607 times that of a sober driver.

Nationally at least 40 percent of fatal crashes involve a hard core drinking driver. That is they are high BAC first offenders or repeat offenders who are highly likely to recidivate unless they experience a significant intervention. A high BAC is a very good indicator of an alcohol problem that requires sanction, treatment, and long-term follow-up to prevent subsequent offenses.

At least 35 states and the District of Columbia have laws providing for an “extreme” or “aggravated” DWI offense. At least 64 percent of these States have set the “aggravated” offense level at .15 or .16 and others that had set higher BACs, such as Virginia in 2004, lowered the level to .15. In these states, a first offender committing an aggravated alcohol offense can be subject to sanctions similar to those available for repeat offenders.

These States recognize that the treating all first offenders in a like manner, regardless of the aggravating factor of a high BAC, is now an out-of-date and even misguided approach. First offenders are no longer split equally among social drinkers, developing problem drinkers, and problem drinkers. National estimates indicate a very large proportion of first offenders with a high BAC have a substance use problem and are highly likely to recidivate. These first offenders require a significant intervention the very first time they are arrested.

HB 1138 provides a more significant license suspension for a high BAC driver and for test refusal. I understand that the bill is to be amended to provide only administrative penalties. We know that administrative actions are especially effective because the penalties are both swift and certain, though not necessarily severe. And we know that they are more effective with offenders who have not been through the system before. We also know that assessment and treatment are essential so that high BAC first offenders can rehabilitate themselves.

The vast majority of both DWI offenders and hard core drinking drivers are employed. In order to help treatment succeed, an additional measure is needed and that is the use of ignition interlocks for high BAC offenders. HB 815 provides the need authority. Research in Maryland and other States shows that ignition interlocks work. The interlocks need to be used to keep offenders employed, participating in treatment, and sober so that they pose less of a risk to all of us on Maryland’s roads.

All of the States surrounding Maryland, except for West Virginia, have high BAC laws. They’ve recognized the problem and taken action. The Board asks that you adopt both of HB1138 and HB 815.

Repeat Offenders (HB 808, HB 732, and HB 1137)

The Safety Board defines repeat offenders as individuals who are arrested or convicted of DWI offense within 10 years of a prior DWI arrest or conviction. As noted above, one DWI offense is indicative of a substance abuse problem. The Board also recommends a longer look-back period because the chance of arresting and convicting DWI offenders is so small. One estimate says that DWI offenders are arrested only once for every 700 or more impaired driving trips. A more conservative estimate for low DWI enforcement areas is one arrest for every 2000 impaired driving trips. It is also estimated that a problem drinker will drink to excess (above legal limit) about 80 times per year. This means that the likelihood of arrest is very low, thereby making the likelihood of a repeat offense arrest extremely low.

DWI offenders are not always convicted of DWI violations; their charges may be reduced to a lesser, non-alcohol-related offense, erased, or not used for enhancement after participating in a diversion program, such as PBJ. Because diversion programs interfere with the State’s retention of accurate records for enhancement, a subsequent DWI conviction may not place an individual in the repeat offender category. Yet such behavior, a repeat DWI arrest, supports the conclusion that the individual has an alcohol abuse problem. The American Psychological Association Diagnostic and Statistical Manual states that one DWI offense is indicative of a substance problem.

Research indicates that diverted offenders recidivate faster than offenders receiving conviction and traditional sanctions. Research has also shown that offenders can receive multiple diversions despite legislated limits on its use. Ideally, the Safety Board supports eliminating diversion programs like Maryland’s PBJ. If Maryland continues its diversion program, the tracking system must be effective and be used by prosecutors and judges to ensure that offenders cannot receive probation before judgment more than once.

The likelihood of being arrested twice in a five-year period is extremely low. However, it is possible to identify repeat offenders if that period is lengthened to at least 10 years. Currently, 25 states have a 10-year or longer look-back period, as recommended by the Safety Board. House Bill 1137 extends the look-back period for PBJ to 10 years. At least 34 States use 10 years or longer for the DWI offense look-back period. The sooner a person is identified as a repeat offender (therefore needing significant sanctions and treatment), the better chance there is to reduce recidivism, crashes, and fatalities. It is this logic that leads the Safety Board to support House Bill 1137.

HB 732 is a bill that will also create the significant intervention and the support for treatment previously discussed. Repeat offenders are also likely to be employed. More extensive use of ignition interlocks will protect the motoring public from offenders who clearly have a substance abuse problem and also help the repeat offender to remain employed and continue participation in treatment. Overcoming substance abuse requires long-term treatment. Mandatory ignition interlocks for all repeat offenders will reinforce the sobriety required by both courts and treatment programs. The Board asks that you adopt HB 732.

Congress addressed the repeat offender when it passed the Transportation Equity Act for the 21 st Century (TEA-21) and imposed penalties on states that did not implement repeat offender provisions. One provision requires states to impose imprisonment or community service. Community service for DWI offenders was developed in the 1980s as an alternative to jail because of high jail costs and limited available space. Existing research, however, has not identified positive effects of community service on recidivism or crashes. As an alternative, house arrest with electronic monitoring is an effective countermeasure for reducing DWI recidivism. House Bill 808 appropriately eliminates community service and promotes the use of house arrest with electronic monitoring as an alternative to jail sentences for DWI offenders. House arrest with electronic monitoring should last sufficiently longer than mandatory jail sentences, rather than permitting a day-for-day substitution. Our 2000 report indicated that three months is the minimum effective period for house arrest and a longer period is preferable. The Board asks that you adopt HB 808.

Underage Drinking Laws -Comprehensive Age 21 Laws (HB 252, HB 1154)

Restricting the ways in which minors can obtain alcohol is an effective countermeasure for underage drinking and driving. During the 1980s, the nation saw a reduction in alcohol-related fatal crashes, directly attributed to raising the legal minimum age for the sale (and public possession) of alcohol to age 21. Over 21,000 people are estimated to be alive because of that legislation. The fact that any minor, who cannot legally purchase alcohol, has a positive BAC demonstrates that underage drinking and driving remains a problem. Teenage drivers with a BAC between 0.05 and 0.10 percent are far more likely to be killed in single vehicle crashes than sober drivers or older drivers with similar BAC levels. Closing loopholes that allow minors to purchase, possess, or consume alcohol can further decrease the tragic highway problem. Misrepresenting age and using fake identification contribute to these dangerous activities and must also be addressed.

Maryland prohibits the sale of alcohol to minors. Maryland also prohibits minors from possessing alcohol or from using fake identification or misrepresenting their age to obtain alcohol. However, current Maryland law puts responsibility for underage alcohol purchase primarily on vendors. This seems inherently unfair to the retailers. Further, reportedly it is difficult to enforce the minimum drinking age law if the container is not in the underage person’s possession. HB 1154 would prohibit the consumption of alcohol by a minor. The Safety Board strongly supports closing the minimum drinking age law loophole by adopting this bill.

You know from the success of Maryland’s graduated license program for young drivers that it is important to identify high risk drivers and provide them with driver improvement opportunities. HB 252 attempts to get at the highest risk teen drivers, those who drink and drive. We know that such drivers are less likely to use safety belts and more likely to speed. The Safety Board supports adoption of a significant intervention for teen drinking drivers and the most significant intervention is loss of license. Maryland has a zero tolerance law with less severe penalties. Those teen drivers who exceed the adult legal alcohol limit should face a more severe sanction and receive treatment before they develop a life-long habit of drinking to excess and driving. By providing a significant sanction for initial and repeat violations of Section 21-902, this bill will put on notice those who would drink to excess and drive. The Safety Board supports significant license actions for teen drivers who violate adult driving while impaired laws.

Based on the last five years of alcohol-related fatalities, it seems clear that despite the best efforts of many, the DWI control system in Maryland is not working effectively to reduce these preventable tragedies. You have a copy of the Safety Board’s list of “Most Wanted” recommendations. You will note that the Board has included adoption of the Model Program measures on the “Most Wanted” list. These measures have been tested in other States and found to reduce fatalities, injuries, crashes, or recidivism. We urge you to take action on these life-saving measures this year.

The impaired driving problem has not gone away or even been substantially reduced in many States. Our citizens need your help and protection. We are joined in the effort to reduce underage alcohol problems and hard core drinking driving by the Century Council, funded by the nation’s leading distillers, AAA, and by Mothers Against Drunk Driving. These organizations are our partners in the national Hard Core Drinking Driver Coalition.

Thank you for allowing the Safety Board to testify about legislation that you can enact to save lives on streets and highways in Maryland. I would be pleased to answer any questions that you may have.