Introduction

The Presidential Commission on Drunk Driving was charged with a most important and farreaching task: to encourage State and local governments, as well as the private sector, to implement programs that will reduce the carnage caused by the drinking driver on our highways. This task is not an easy one. In fact, to reach this goal the Commission's recommendations must go far beyond the highway environment to the heart of the problem-society's values, attitudes, and behaviors regarding the use, and abuse, of alcohol. Past Efforts

This nation has tried in the past to combat drunk driving. Millions of dollars have been spent by all segments of American society. These efforts have applied new and improved technology, procedures, and laws to reduce driving under the influence. Information programs and limited health and educational efforts have been a part of these undertakings, but few have been carried out on a comprehensive sustained basis.

In some cases, these past efforts have shown short-term success; in others, the impact was not noticeable. For example, between 1970 and 1976 the Department of Transportation and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration conducted the Alcohol Safety Action Program, which had some measure of success, but the efforts were not uniformly sustained. Alcohol-impaired driving continues to be a serious public health and safety problem. It is the number one killer of young people in this nation.

The Drunk Driving Problem Today

At least 50 percent of all highway deaths involve the irresponsible use of alcohol. Over the past 10 years, 250,000 Americans have tragically lost their lives in alcohol-related crashes. Conservative estimates place the annual economic loss at $21 billion, while others run as high as $24 billion. There is, of course, no way to measure the loss of human lives.

In single vehicle fatal crashes, for which fault can be more easily ascertained than in multiple vehicle crashes, upwards of 65 percent of those drivers who died were legally under the influence, i.e., their alcohol level was above 0.10. Furthermore, more than half of the drunk drivers who were involved in fatal crashes had blood alcohol concentrations (BACs) twice that of the legal limit. The average BAC of these drunk drivers was 0.20. These figures suggest that the majority of alcohol-related fatal crashes is caused by heavy (problem) drinkers. This is not to say that less heavy, less chronic, "social" drinkers are not involved-they are-but it is the individual who regularly abuses alcohol who appears to be most often involved in alcohol-related fatal crashes.

This becomes even more significant in light of the fact that only one in five hundred (1/500) to one in two thousand (1/2,000) drivers on the road with a BAC greater than 0.10 are arrested for driving under the influence. The low likelihood of arrest, and a lenient judicial attitude fostered by a misperception of the seriousness of the offense, are important factors in perpetuating this nation's drunk driving problem.

An even more pervasive problem is the social acceptability of intoxication and drunk driving. In a society where mass transportation is underdeveloped and underutilized, the person who drinks at a party or a commercial establishment will most likely be a driver or passenger in an automobile. Americans are uncomfortable with those who overdrink, but by and large do not feel it is their responsibility or even their right-to prevent intoxication among the members of their own social circles. In addition, Americans have a long tradition of laughing at "funny drunks" in the movies, on the stage, and in their own social circles-constituting a tacit, albeit uncomfortable, societal O.K. to drunkenness. The combination of the social acceptance of intoxication and the omnipresence of the individual passenger car adds up to the continued social acceptability of drunk driving.

The New Hope of Solution

In the past two years, society has reacted to the drunk driving problem in ways it had not in the past. A number of citizen action groups have brought the problem of alcohol-related tragedies to the attention of the public and to officials at the local, State, and Federal levels. The Presidential Commission was the culmination of a crescendo of voices-voices of victims and their families-which demanded action. The demand for action is not new, but its intensity and extent have never been more dramatic. Such a national outcry presents an enormous opportunity and yet an enormous danger.

The enormous opportunity arises from the fact that the public is united in demanding solutions-no one is in favor of drunk driving, not even drunk drivers. For example, within the last year, 39 States have enacted improved legislation, and 41 States have established task forces or Commis'sions to examine the problem, to identify system deficiencies, and to recommend solutions. The media have become actively involved in supporting and publicizing improvements in the system. Legislators, enforcement officials, prosecutors, and judges around the country have responded to society's demands by enacting more effective legislation, apprehending more offenders, effectively prosecuting offenders, and meting out more appropriate sanctions.

The enormous danger lies in the possibility that these necessary changes will be mistaken for the ultimate solution to the problem. Alone, most legal and judicial changes will bring about no more than short-term solutions to the drunk driving problem. If we propose only such short-term responses, we may mislead the American public into believing that a few changes in law and administration will make the difference, and thereby squander the public confidence which is our most important ally. Laws alone will not dramatically change the drunk driving problem. The individual and society, as a whole, must be active partners in this effort if we are to see changes over the long haul that will be sustained by future generations. Society has shown itself to be willing; we must provide longterm leadership and innovative solutions.

The Commission's Blueprint for Change

In its deliberations and recommendations, the Commission has kept in mind both the great opportunity and the great danger. Our recommendations recognize the unique role that the individual, the

society within which we live, and social institutions must play in changing behavior in order to reduce the carnage caused by driving under the influence. The most important recommendations deal with the need for grassroots citizen action, the creation of State and local task forces, the establishment of self-funding means, and the involvement of the private sector in long-term educational efforts.

We have tried to learn from past attempts, which have not been entirely successful, and tried to recognize the immense competition for the public's attention by many important social problems. We seek support for our recommendations on the basis of a comprehensive, realistic evaluation of what must be done and by whom if drunk driving is to be reduced in this nation.

The Commission believes that public officials at all levels of government must take action to eliminate or reduce the public health hazard of driving under the influence and should be primarily responsible for assuring legal and judicial innovation and program implementation. The Commission's recommendations in the areas of enforcement, prosecution, adjudication, licensing administration, alcoholic beverage regulation, systems support, and education and treatment represent a coherent, comprehensive program to serve as a baseline of public, official response to the problem. Prompt adoption of these recommendations will assure that the criminal justice system works swiftly and fairly to deter where possible and to treat and/or punish where necessary.

The Commission wishes to stress, however, that prevention is the only long-term remedy for the driving-under-the-influence problem. We are currently in the most fertile environment to undertake innovative educational efforts to prevent drunk driving. Past prevention campaigns had to begin by building public awareness of the drunk driving problem. Today, however, the general public's level of awareness of the drunk driving problem is already high, thanks to the efforts of grassroots citizens groups and enlightened public leaders. This high level of awareness implies that the public is ready for the next step: educational efforts that tell them how to prevent intoxication and drunk driving in their own social circles.

Such comprehensive, innovative efforts are contained in the Commission's recommendations concerning Public Awareness, Public Education, and the Private Sector. The program outlined in these recommendations must be sustained for at least a decade and must make use of every channel of

communication in the home, in the work place, in voluntary associations, in educational institutions, and in the community to reach the widest possible audience with the message that drunkenness and drunk driving are socially unacceptable and that each of us has the responsibility and the right to sustain an environment in which such dangerous practices will not be tolerated.

The Presidential Commission on Drunk Driving issues this report as a challenge to the nation to take action. We believe that the solution to drunk driving lies within the power of each American who chooses to support and act on the Commission's recommendations.

The Commission's Charge

President Reagan established "The Presidential Commission on Drunk Driving" by Executive Order No. 12358, on April 14, 1982. The functions of the Commission were to:

Heighten public awareness of the seriousness of the drunk driving problem;

• Persuade States and communities to attack the drunk driving problem in a more organized and systematic manner, including developing plans to eliminate bottlenecks in the arrest, trial, and sentencing process that impair the effectiveness of many drunk driving laws;

• Encourage State and local officials and organizations to accept and use the latest techniques and methods to solve the problem; and

• Generate public support for increased enforcement of State and local drunk driving laws. To accomplish these functions, the Commission established the following goals:

• To encourage all governors, county executives, and mayors to form task forces to examine their drunk driving control systems, to develop solutions to problems, to increase public awareness, and to develop plans for the future.

• To recommend improvements in the areas of education and prevention, enforcement and adjudication, and executive and legislative leadership.

• To act as spokesman on the issue in order to heighten public awareness, and to encourage others to take action to help resolve the problem.

• To advocate implementation of existing approaches to attack the drunk driving problem, and to serve as a clearinghouse for disseminating new information and techniques to the States.

• To identify long-term prevention and education approaches which can be taken to reduce the problem.

The Commission's Approach

To address each of the functions assigned to the Commission and to accomplish the goals it established, the Chairman created three Committees within the Commission with the following charges: Education and Prevention Committee: To encourage the development and institution of a public and private sector information and education program which is designed to (1) increase public awareness of the drunk driving problem; (2) stimulate greater efforts by local community action groups; (3) establish social norms which deter drunk driving; (4) establish long-term education and prevention programs; and (5) encourage the availability of effective treatment programs.

Enforcement and Adjudication Committee: To encourage enhanced enforcement, prosecution, and adjudication of the drunk driving offense through increased use of (1) selective enforcement techniques; (2) improved hardware and training; (3) effective prosecution and sanctioning; and (4) improved assessment and follow-up in order to establish effective deterrent programs for the general driving population and apprehended drunk drivers.

Executive and Legislative Leadership Committee: To encourage public and private sector executives and organizations, and legislative leaders at State and local levels to support enhanced systematic drunk driving programs that include (1) coordinators at the State and local level; (2) financial support mechanisms; (3) emphasis through government and private sector policy statements; and (4) equitable and enforceable laws.

Individual members of the Commission had firsthand knowledge of the problems associated with arrest, prosecution, and adjudication of DUI offenders. Others had expertise in State legislatures, the media, and in the education and treatment of offenders. However, in order to obtain the views of Americans nationwide, the Commission conducted