Wake Up America and Save Lives!!! Move the Drunk Driving Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) Cut-off to 0.05%!!!

This paper argues for an established Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) cut-off for impaired driving at 0.05%, aka 0.05 g/dl, for drivers in the United States. This argument is backed by scientifi c evidence collected over many years and multiple countries using crash data and fatality data; we shall provide an example from our own research as well. We will demonstrate that this cut-off can be effectively enforced at the roadside by law enforcement offi cers, both in terms of breathalyzer use and fi eld sobriety testing. We will note the many national organizations in favor of a BAC at 0.05%, and we will counter the principal arguments raised by groups and individuals that are opposed to the move to 0.05%. We will show how the BAC of 0.05% is consistent with where the rest of the world is headed. Finally, we will argue that BAC 0.050.08% should be associated with a lower level of punishment than for driving with BAC > 0.08%, as has been done in several jurisdictions around the world. (Human studies research conducted in accordance with WSU IRB #066716B3E.)


078
https://www.peertechz.com/journals/journal-of-addiction-medicine-and-therapeutic-science Citation: Zohr  et al. (2000) reported that even at a BAC of 0.035%, the relative risk for a fatal single vehicle crash is between 2.6-4.6 times greater than when at a BAC of 0.00% [6]. As shown in the table below from the CDC, BAC concentrations of 0.05% or higher have signifi cant effects on several measures related to driving safety,including slower responses in emergency situations [7]. effects alcohol on driving performance. Based on studies using a fi xed-base driving simulator [11] and working with Moody Mattan at Brand XR (Orlando, FL), we have created a laptopbased crash avoidance reaction test utilizing a Virtual Reality (VR) headset and a portable gaming chair equipped with a steering wheel and foot pedals. We report here the results of a 'proof of concept' pilot study in a single subject (author RLC).
In this two-choice reaction test, the subject drives at a steady speed (70 mph) on a straight roadway. On multiple occasions during this drive, the subject is forced to make an emergency steering response (to the left or the right) to avoid crashing into a stalled car that 'appears instantly' (only 40 meters) ahead in the roadway. The primary dependent variable is the crash avoidance reaction time, measured as the time (in msec) from the appearance of the stalled car until the driver made an avoidance steering response (i.e., turn of > 5 degrees).
Reference tests were multiple drives on the day before and the day following alcohol treatment. On the Alcohol Test Day, the subject (BW 200 pounds) drove immediately before drinking, and then at 30-minute intervals after consuming alcohol, in this case 4 'standard drinks' in the form of 6 ounces of 80 proof vodka in juice. We used a portable personal breathalyzer (BA Track S80 model) to determine BAC. Previous studies have demonstrated that this device is a reliable instrument for estimating BAC. In control tests, the typical subject successfully makes the crash avoidance maneuver with an average reaction time of approximately 325 msec. As can be seen in the right panel of Figure 1, this alcohol treatment resulted in a peak BAC of 0.064% at 60 minutes and fell predictably over time. MADD has argued that reducing the BAC cut-off would result in a decrease in alcohol-related deaths by 5-18% [13]. The American Medical Association (AMA) goes even farther than 0.05; the AMA "...supports 0.04 percent blood-alcohol level as per se illegal for driving, and urges incorporation of that provision in In addition, Moskowitz and Fiorentino (2000) reported that 73% of individuals had consistent driving, vigilance, divided attention, and drowsiness impairment at a BAC level of 0.039%, less than half of the 0.08% limit that currently is established across most of the United States [8].
In other countries, reducing the BAC cut-off has reduced crashes and lives lost to drunk drivers. In 1998, Austria decreased the BAC cut-off to 0.05%; this change decreased drunk driving accidents by 9.4% [9]. The National Transportation Safety Board gathered data from the Global Status Report on Road Safety 2015 and WHO World Health Statistics 2015 [10]. As can be seen in Table 1, 2015 data showed that 31% of crash deaths in the United States involved alcohol. By contrast, in Sweden where their legal BAC is 0.02%, only 19% of traffi c related deaths involved alcohol. Similarly, in the Netherlands where their limit is 0.05%, they also saw 19% [10]. In the same report the NTSB stated that "...twenty years of international studies have shown that when a country lowers BAC limits from 0.08% to 0.05% alcohol-related fatal and injury crashes decrease between 5% and 10%" [10].
Our research laboratory at Wayne State University has recently developed a public health tool for demonstrating the    It also has been argued that moving the cut-off BAC to 0.05% would result in the courts becoming overwhelmed with lower-level drunk driving cases, i.e., at BAC = 0.05-0.08%.
A study by James Fell and Robert Voas refutes this claim [5].
Extrapolating from NHTSA data from Illinois after the BAC was decreased from 0.10% to 0.08 %, these authors concluded that although there would be an increase in driving while impaired arrests at a BAC cut-off of 0.05%, this increase would not overwhelm the criminal justice system [5]. It should also be noted that most states currently have 'DWI Courts' specifi cally designed to handle drunk driving offenses and thus reduce the burden on regular court dockets; one of the priorities of the "Road to Zero" coalition is to increase the number of these DWI courts [12].
Much of the resistance to lowering the legal BAC to 0.05% is spearheaded by the American Beverage Institute (ABI), which identifi es itself as "...the only organization dedicated to the protection of responsible on-premise consumption of adult beverages…." [19]. Although the ABI acknowledges that a driver at a 0.05% BAC is technically impaired [20], it argues that moving the BAC cut-off from 0.08% to 0.05% would have only a minor effect on the problem of drunk driving, since the vast majority (>70%) of the drunk driving fatalities involve drunk drivers with BAC > 0.15% [20]. Although this fi gure is correct, the NTSB has estimated that approximately 500-800 lives each year would be saved in the United States if the legal limit was decreased from 0.08% to 0.05%; this fi gure is not insignifi cant [10].
The ABI also argues that moving to a BAC cut-off would have a chilling effect on the restaurant and entertainment industries. This argument is perhaps a bit of a moot point in the current COVID-19 environment, but this argument also fails when one recognizes that restaurants and entertainment industries did not cease to exist in those countries that moved to BAC 0.05%. Moreover, as Table 1 demonstrates, 2015 per capita alcohol consumption was comparable in the US, Sweden and The Netherlands, even though the drunk driving BAC was far lower in the latter two countries.
Finally, the ABI has argued "... The current nationally recognized blood-alcohol limit for driving is 0.08 BACwhich would take roughly three drinks for the average male to obtain … A 120-pound woman will hit 0.05 after having little more than a single drink and a 160-pound man would be considered legally drunk after two…." [20]. The suggestion is that a BAC cut-off or 0.05% is somehow 'unfair' to lower weight individuals. It is true that a smaller weight individual would achieve a higher BAC with fewer drinks, but it seems highly unlikely a 120-pound woman would achieve a BAC > 0.05% after a little more than one drink (or that a 160-pound male would after a little more than two drinks), unless the 'a little more' was in fact another 1-2 drinks. Moreover, even if that did occur, whether the driver was a 120-pound woman, a 160-pound man or a 300+ pound person of either sex, a person with a BAC > 0.05% would drive like a person with a BAC > 0.05%, i.e., impaired.
BAC 0.05% is the future As has been mentioned above, several countries currently operate with BAC cut-offs of 0.05% or lower. The legal limit BAC has been established at 0.05% in Australia, France, Germany, Spain, the Netherlands, and many other countries. In Norway, Sweden, and Russia this limit was moved even lower to 0.02% [5]. Overall, more than 90 countries in the world have adopted a BAC cut-off of 0.05% or lower [5].
In summary, there is more than ample evidence from multiple sources that BAC > 0.05% adversely and signifi cantly affects driving performance, crashes and fatalities. Based on this evidence, many organizations have advocated for moving the BAC cut-off to 0.05% across the US, a move that has been made by many countries around the world. Many organizations within the US have advocated for the BAC 0.05% cut-off, and we have addressed and effectively rebutted the arguments typically made against moving to a BAC > 0.05% cut-off.
Finally, consistent with the evidence, we have argued for the need to create lower levels of punishment when BAC is > 0.05% but < 0.08%. With all of this in mind, it is time for the US (and Canada and the UK) to join the rest of the world and reduce the drunk driving BAC cut-off to 0.05%.