Health : Cracking Down on Drunk Drivers : Physicians Press for New Limits on Blood Alcohol Levels

Some medical groups are pressing to reduce the blood alcohol limits for motorists--proposing a tougher standard that could mean that a driver who drinks three beers after work might be subject to arrest if stopped by police.

Thus far, this new focus on preventing drunk driving has lacked the clamor of the 1970s and 1980s debate that prompted the federal government to effectively set a national drinking age of 21. Virtually every state also set blood alcohol levels at which motorists legally were presumed to be driving drunk.

In 1982, California lawmakers set a blood alcohol level of .10% or higher to establish drunk driving guilt. All but three states use the .10% level; Maine, Utah and Oregon adopted a lower (.08%) standard.

But in the last few months, new developments among health groups, within the anti-drunk driving movement and in the federal government have begun to point the way to an even stricter standard.

In an announcement timed to coincide with traditional holiday safety concerns about drinking and driving, the nation’s largest group of emergency physicians late last month called for every state to set the blood alcohol level at .05% for presumptive evidence of drunk driving and .08% as a level at which motorists could escape conviction only by proving police acted illegally in an arrest.

Two-Pronged Standard

The announcement by the American College of Emergency Physicians appeared in the November Annals of Emergency Medicine. The doctors said their endorsement--the first by a large medical group--of the two-pronged drunk driving standard came at the encouragement of another physicians’ group, the Assn. for Advancement of Automotive Medicine.

“I think the time may be ripe for resuming the drunk driving debate,” said Elaine Petrucelli, the association’s executive director. “We’re still seeing about half the people who are killed on the highway (in crashes) where there is alcohol involved. Maybe what was done five years ago is beginning to wear off.”

The .05% level could mean a driver who stops after work and quickly drinks three beers on an empty stomach could be at risk of arrest when driving home, said Brian O’Neill, executive director of the Washington-based Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.

But a couple splitting a bottle of wine over dinner at a restaurant, spreading their drinking over the course of the meal, probably would not be at risk of violating the tougher new laws, no matter which of them drove home, he noted.

The recommendation by the emergency and automotive doctors coincides with a position taken last year by the American Medical Assn., encouraging states to adopt a single, .05% blood alcohol standard. The AMA endorsement was made almost simultaneously with Mothers Against Drunk Driving adopting the two-step strategy just advocated by the emergency physicians.

While no state legislature has acted in response to the physician proposals, the trend quietly has resulted in congressional action, passed in late October as part of a wide-ranging drug enforcement bill.

A little-noticed amendment offered by Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) orders a National Academy of Sciences study of drunk driving standards to determine if the federal government should press for uniformly lower state limits.

The study, not yet begun, is to be completed in 14 months. Its cost will be covered in the existing Department of Transportation research budget, a Lautenberg aide said, noting the agency recently enacted new rules setting a .04% blood alcohol level as the legal definition of impairment for drivers of commercial vehicles.

Symbolic Link

Lautenberg, who introduced the proposal separately to research the crackdown on drunk driving, added it to the drug legislation to symbolically link drunk driving with the broader question of drug abuse, his aide said. Lautenberg was the Senate author of the 1984 bill that set the national 21-year-old drinking age.

Dr. Lonnie Bristow, a California-based AMA trustee who has been active in drunk driving issues, said the new developments aren’t just a renewal of concern about how much alcohol drivers can safely consume: “What I see occurring--and very quietly--is a growing consensus that abuse of alcohol should be included within the frame of our attack on drug abuse.

“What we’re trying to do is to develop the concept that Americans have choices to make (about drug use) and we want them to make these choices from as informed a position as possible. Alcohol is one of several (substances) that are legal but are capable of being abused. I think you will see more attention focused on drunk driving in that framework.”

Nationwide and in California, drunk driving arrest totals have been relatively stable for five years. In 1987, 349,600 people were arrested in California and 1.7 million nationwide, the California Highway Patrol and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration report.

Individual MADD chapters are testing interest in the tougher blood alcohol standards, though the group has not tried to organize a coordinated, national campaign for them, said Anne Russell, MADD’s research and legislative coordinator. Petrucelli said the physician group hopes to move soon to persuade California officials to test the stricter standards.

Sam Haynes, a California Highway Patrol spokesman, said the CHP probably would not support a new, lower blood alcohol standard, unless there was widespread public support for it. “We’re inclined to support maintaining (the standard at .10%) until there is national acceptance of a lower level,” he said.

Attracting Attention

But O’Neill cautioned that lowering blood alcohol standards might dilute police effectiveness. He and other experts agree, for instance, that the road behavior of a driver with a .05% blood alcohol level probably would not, of itself, attract a passing police officer.

O’Neill said studies of alcohol-related fatal crashes show that 86% of fatalities are caused by drivers with blood alcohol levels of .10% and above; such drivers make up only 12% of the total number of persons who cause such crashes.

“It’s obviously politically (appealing) when people are making these pronouncements,” he said of the developing sentiment for stricter, lower standards. “But I’m not sure they really think through carefully the tactical implications of what they are proposing.”