- No amount of alcohol seems to be safe for driving, says a new study published in the journal Addiction that comes on the heels of the death of Jackass star Ryan Dunn in a fiery crash on Monday in his 2007 Porsche 911 GT3.
- Blood-alcohol levels "well below" the U.S. legal limit are linked with "incapacitating injury and death," said the study by a University of California, San Diego sociologist.
- Researchers say they are pushing U.S. legislators to lower the legal blood-alcohol content level "even more."
SAN DIEGO — No amount of alcohol seems to be safe for driving, says a new study published in the journal Addiction that comes on the heels of the death of Jackass star Ryan Dunn in a fiery crash on Monday in his 2007 Porsche 911 GT3.
Researchers say they are pushing U.S. legislators to lower the legal blood-alcohol content level of 0.08 "even more." They note that blood-alcohol content limits vary greatly around the globe, with countries such as Japan and Sweden adopting what essentially amounts to a zero-tolerance policy. In Sweden, the limit is 0.02; in Japan the limit is 0.03.
The study, which is entitled "Buzz Kills: No Amount of Alcohol Safe To Drive," finds that blood-alcohol levels well below the U.S. legal limit are associated with "incapacitating injury and death."
"Accidents are 36.6 percent more severe even when alcohol was barely detectable in a driver's blood," said David Phillips, a University of California, San Diego sociologist and study co-author.
The study notes that even with a minimal blood-alcohol content of 0.01, there are 4.33 serious injuries for every non-serious injury versus 3.17 for sober drivers.
The study also found that the greater the blood-alcohol content, the greater the average speed of the driver and the greater the severity of the accident.
"Compared with sober drivers, buzzed drivers are more likely to speed, more likely to be improperly seat-belted and more likely to drive the striking vehicle, all of which are associated with greater severity," it noted.
The study used official data from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System that includes information on all persons in the U.S. who were involved in fatal car accidents — 1,495,667 from 1994-2008.
"We hope that our study might influence not only U.S. legislators, but also foreign legislators, in providing empirical evidence for lowering the legal BAC even more," said Phillips.
Inside Line says: Would you be in favor of supporting what amounts to an automotive temperance movement, especially in the aftermath of a well-publicized horrific crash like Ryan Dunn's?
Add A Comment »
phoenixc says:
02:03 PM, 06/26/2011
LAME!
bimmerd says:
07:43 AM, 06/25/2011
Lots of good comments here...one more thing to add. I'm not entirely convinced this is a direct correlation. Some of the (re)stated facts:
"The study used official data from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System that includes information on all persons in the U.S. who were involved in fatal car accidents - 1,495,667 from 1994-2008."
"The study notes that even with a minimal blood-alcohol content of 0.01, there are 4.33 serious injuries for every non-serious injury versus 3.17 for sober drivers."
I would like to see a demographic breakdown and time-of-day breakdown for these statistics. People (usually younger and less-experienced driving) tend to have drinks after work when they are already worn out from a long day, and many of the fatal accidents that occur happen later at night/early-morning. These are typically on non-commuting (i.e. - less familiar) routes, as well.
I'm not saying that drinking alcohol isn't a problem, but for many people a small amount has been consistently shown in controlled studies to have minimal effect, and almost always less than sleep depreviation (>20 hours awake).
The main point I want to make is that many more factors besides trace amounts of alcohol are involved in these numbers, and a highly doubt alcohol alone accounts for even half of the 37% difference (from 3.17 to 4.33). I've said it before, but wouldn't focusing federal dollars on something other than automotive deaths - like heart disease and/or obesity - be a MUCH better investment...?
ambee514 says:
06:22 PM, 06/24/2011
any time one "Jackass" kills himself doing something stupid there are immediately calls to make what ever killed that person illegal. People need to grow up and take responsibility for their actions, I don't need the nanny state to tell me how to live every facet of my life. Before you know it people are going to be calling out to make alcohol illegal! oh wait, we already tried that didn't we?
daskiing1 says:
02:07 PM, 06/24/2011
so what their trying to say is i am significantly less responsible after one beer behind the wheel? I don't think so. This sounds like more ridiculous bullcrap that won't happen...unless that paranoid moron ray lahood agrees, then the law will go into place and 9 out of 10 drivers will be arrested for dui
a1c_scg says:
10:34 AM, 06/24/2011
woz76-
Holy sh!t, I wish all enforcement officials had your mentality. I rarely drink, and when I do, I have sober transportation arranged, even if I've only drank a little. I obviously can't attest from personal experience, but your assessment sounds spot-on.
Removing officers from duty who could be catching drivers in much further violation of the law seems like a painfully obvious bad idea. On top of that, judging from people I know who have had trouble in such scenarios, the ones who drive drunkest often times do it the most often.
I think the bigger problem here is that people who get DUI citations are too quick to be repeat offenders because the penalty for multiple offenses isn't severe enough. There's always gray area, but I feel a good system would be: one violation- hefty fine and temporary loss of driving privileges; two violations- larger fine, longer suspension; three violations, OR driving on suspended license- jail time.
Of course there's always exceptions to made, but so long as the officer can make good judgement calls in those instances, the above seems pretty befitting, imo. People have no justification or reason to not repeatedly break a law if the ramifications aren't severe enough. And it should never come to instances such as Ryan Dunn's to eliminate the problem (and individual).
Just my .02
vq35_ser says:
10:32 AM, 06/24/2011
I think before anyone under 25 aatempts to drive any car, at any time.. an officer must first certify that he/she is capable to drive. This includes removing any distractions (radio, cell phone, dashboard jesus). The certification (i.e., hall pass) is only good for 2hrs before it expires. Additionally if that driver creates an accident. Both the officer and the driver are responsible.
Oh wait, I'm I describing a parent?!
church123 says:
10:01 AM, 06/24/2011
Absolutely surprised (pleasantly) with all the rationale comments about this piece. The whole drunk driving vendetta (pushed mainly by MADD) has become a modern day temperance/prohibition movement. As woz76 and others pointed out, lowering the BAC limit too low may have unintended consequences and some of them could be quite negative (more deaths/injuries). If memory serves, most fatalities involving alcohol involve drivers well over the _old_ BAC limits.
A big part of the problem with reports like this is the data they start with. Accident report forms are normally used to determine when alcohol is involved (or speed, etc.). But unscrupulous researchers with an agenda will consider an accident alcohol involved if anyone (including a passenger, or a driver of a car that was not breaking the law and was struck by another) admits or is shown to have any alcohol in their system (they use the same trick, with speed).
Second, correllation is not causation. Drinking does not necessarily _cause_ reduced seat belt usage, speeding, etc. In fact, it may be that the people who are willing to push the limits of alcohol consumption before driving are also those who are more foolhardy or less intelligent about safety and vehicle management. IOW, the problem isn't the alcohol so much as the nut holding the wheel. We'd all be better off if instead of tightening down so much on drunk driving (or texting) we dramatically improved driver education and testing requirements. Teach new drivers about how little room for error they truly have and most of them will self regulate. I find that kids who spend any time at all on a racetrack with good instruction will tend to drive much more conservatively on the streets (because they've seen what happens at the limit and can then translate that to an idea of how dangerous that is on a public road vs. track) while also having better car control skills. It's a win-win.
There will always be fools and morons who do stupid things. But they're pretty easy to spot. The severe drunk unable to stay in his lane or maintain speed (I've called in one or two of those in my life) or the idiot weaving through heavy traffic at 20 mph over the prevailing speed. The teen texting while driving. And they can be punished for those actions because they aren't driving well, not so much because of _why_. I've been pushing this for awhile. Don't worry so much about the causes of bad driving. Focus on education and training on the front end, and simple enforcement of traffic laws on the other and you'll take care of the vast majority of problems.
felonious says:
09:47 AM, 06/24/2011
I was all for it, until I read the post by woz76. Good first post, man!
90in55 says:
09:16 AM, 06/24/2011
The jackass in question was behind the wheel of a car that would be challenging to drive even stone cold sober. Accidents that are caused by "celebutards" in over their heads should not prevent responsible drivers from having a beer or a glass of wine in a restaurant.
woz76 says:
09:05 AM, 06/24/2011
An avid reader/first time poster here (just had to after reading this article).
As for a former city and state law enforcement officer, I have arrested many for "operating while intoxicated". I have quite a bit of training on the subject, and since there are no citations for their "data", I have to call B.S. on this one.
First, I have seen/read a study that showed after the lowing of BAC levels to .08 (thanks to MADD) that arrests for OWI increased, and crashes decreased (albeit slightly). The only problem was that the number of fatal and serious injury crashes actually increased. Here's the reason why: when an LEO makes the traffic stop/arrest, it takes that officer off the streets for at least 2 to 2.5 hours. This involves all of the transporting, monitoring for 20+ minutes, performing several evidentiary chemical tests, filling out forms, and then transporting to jail. The full report comes later and isn't included in that 2 to 2.5 hour time span.
The problem is compulsivity combined with young age. As an officer, I would gladly accept a 45 year old professional, educated family man or family woman driving at a .08 versus a 20 to 30 year old driving at that same BAC. Taking officers off the street for mandatory arrests at .04 is rediculous -- that officer has no discretion to possibly keep the person from driving by simply calling a friend or family member for them (something I did often in the .06 to .10 range) so that they can get back out on the streets quicker to get the "really drunk" drivers in the .12 and above range. These are the ones causing serious injury and death crashes. At the rate these overly liberal (no, I'm not trying to make this political) whiners might as well just have robots for law enforcement since there will be no ability to use good, reasonable discretion anymore.
By the way, roughly 20% of alcohol is absorbed in the stomach and roughly 80% is absorbed in the small intestine. Therefore, if you eat something requiring a lot of work by the stomach, the stomach will prevent it (and anything else) from entering the small intestine. That's why you can drink more after you've eaten than on an empty stomach. Also, it's not the weight of a larger person that allows them to drink more; it's the amount of muscle mass a person has (there's more water content in muscle than fat tissue). And even on an empty stomach, it would take you more than a glass or two of wine (or beer) to reach a .02 BAC.
These people need to leave law enforcement to the professionals.