flect it. This and other situations where deferred adjudication, plea bargaining, etc., occur can result in judges having repeat offenders in front of them without knowing it. The evidence is convincing that without changes such as these, there is little hope that DWI laws alone can reduce the number of alcohol-related deaths and injuries. Alcohol rehabilitation programs or informational courses are sometimes offered as alternatives to license revocation or suspension. And, indeed, there are many excellent programs. However, the evidence shows that drivers required to attend alcohol treatment programs instead of losing their licenses had worse accident and violation experience than corresponding groups of drivers who received license suspension or revocation. Educational programs probably have the greatest potential benefits when directed to first offenders and young people. Teenagers, for example, often have unrealistic perceptions of the physical and psychological effects of alcohol on driving abilities. They often believe the myths that beer is not as dangerous as hard liquor, that handling a car after a few drinks is just a matter of harder concentration, and that black coffee and a cold shower will sober you up. Therefore, it would seem that educational programs could do the most good if directed toward people, such as teenagers, who have not yet become offenders or problem drinkers And they could be ordered by the courts in addition to other penalties for DWI offenses. But, unless there is good research evidence demonstrating the effectiveness of a program in preventing future offenses, it should not be offered as an alternative to license suspension or revocation. Where teenaged drivers are concerned, ways need to be found, not only to educate them, but to separate as much as possible, the experience of learning to drive from learning how to drink alcohol Unfortunately, many AIDE MAGAZINE teenagers now learn to drink and drive at the same time and in the same place. This may account for the appallingly high rate of involvement of teenagers in motor vehicle crashes. One approach that has helped in states where it has been tried is increasing the legal minimum drinking age to 21. A study of states where the drinking age has been raised to 21 showed a dramatic reduction in night-time fatal crashes among teenagers. The majority of states, however, still have a legal drinking age below 21. Night-time curfews for the youngest drivers - 16 and 17 year olds- have also been very effective in reducing crashes, injuries and deaths in that age group and caused by that group. Realistically, the best we can hope to achieve through measures like these is to reduce the magnitude of the drinking-driving problem. They will not be enough to eliminate alcohol-related crashes or, perhaps, even to substantially reduce them. Other, complementary ways of attacking the problem must be pursued at the same time. These other countermeasures include occupant restraints Our thanks to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety and the National Association of Independent Insurers for some of the information used in this article. (child restraint laws, for example), improved vehicle design, more safety features in cars, and the improvement of our roads and highways. A broad, balanced approach to highway safety is needed with programs aimed at drivers, vehicles and the driving environment. The high public concern about the problem of traffic injuries and deaths presents us with an opportunity to act that may be unequalled in the last few decades. But sustaining public awareness will not be easy, and real change will require a lot of work and cooperation. The essential ingredient is you, the individual. Legislators will pass and improve laws, police will enforce them, and judges will apply them only if you make your voice heard. Here are some things you can do to help get problem drinking drivers off the road: • Write your governor and state representatives and ask for stricter drunk-driving laws in your state. Write your Congressional representative and ask for ongoing support of the President's Commission on Drunk Driving to provide visibility to the problem and coordinate national and local emphasis, education and prevention programs. • Work within your local civic groups, clubs and other organizations to educate the public on the drunk-driving problem. Mothers Against Drunk Drivers (MADD). Remove Intoxicated Drivers (RID) and Students Against Drunk Drivers (SADD) are among the groups that are mobilizing strong countrywide campaigns for victims of drunk drivers, and for stronger drunk-driver sanctions. • Invite traffic officials and citizen safety representatives to speak to your groups about necessary drunk-driving reforms. • Initiate or join others in circulating resolutions and petitions to urge positive and firm legislative and judicial support of stronger drunk-driving laws. Student Association of the State University of New York, Inc. STATEMENT FOR THE HOUSE ENERGY AND COMMERCE SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, TRANSPORTATION AND TOURISM, SUBMITTED BY HOPE GEISLER LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR STUDENT ASSOCIATION OF THE STATE UNIVERSITIES OF NEW YORK ALBANY, NEW YORK 12207 We at SASU, the Student Association of the State Universities of New York State, urge that you oppose H.R. 3870, for several reasons which will be outlined below. We want to submit this statement for the public record. SASU represents nineteen (19) state universities and colleges' student associations in New York State directly, and many community colleges and public universities in an indirect way through auxiliary services and programs. These schools include the following: "..to represent, advocate, and further the interests and welfare of the students of the State University of New York Page Two Through the SASU Board of Directors, whose members are elected from each of the colleges and universities mentioned above, over one-hundred and thirtythousand (130,000) students are represented. The SASU Board of Directors debates positions on issues and determines policy. Each of the member campuses and their representatives have voiced their opposition to the bill, H.R. 3870, for several reasons. The most important reason is that a bill such as this, if enacted, would only serve to punish a large number of responsible people, in a weak effort to reach a very small number of abusive drinkers in this age group. SASU believes that there are more effective ways to help prevent the abusive drinker from causing accidents and injury. The elected officials of SASU, from each of the member campuses, and the many students that they represent, who may choose to drink, are responsible, moderate drinkers. Only between half and three-quarters of all sixteen (16) to twenty-one (21) year-olds hold drivers' licenses (NYS Department of Motor Vehicles, 1982) and of these numbers, fewer own cars. From this population, the overwhelming majority are competent, mature drivers. New York State Department of Motor Vehicles Police Reported Accidents for 1982 show that only a tiny percentage of ALL licensed drivers aged sixteen (16) to twenty-one (21) were involved in alcohol-related accidents of all types. The data show this for each individual age: Age 16 - .4% Age 17.5% Age 18.6% Age 19 .62 Age 20 - .6% Age 21 - .5% only this small group were involved in these accidents. This means that LESS THAN ONE PERCENT (1%) of all licensed drivers in each age group mentioned above were involved in alcohol-related accidents in 1982. Conversely, it also means that over ninety-nine percent (99%) of licensed drivers in each of the age groups were NOT INVOLVED in alcohol-related accidents in 1982 that the overwhelming majority of persons aged sixteen (16) to twenty-one (21) in New York State who have licenses drive competently and drink responsibly. An additional argument against a national drinking age of twentyone (21) is that, as the rationale behind the bill is based upon alcohol-related driving incidents, it then becomes a discriminatory argument. Women have a much Page Three better driving record in general, and much less involvement in alcohol-related auto accidents in particular (NYS Department of Motor Vehicle 1982 Police Reported Accidents) than men. By adopting H.R. 3870, the nation would not only be punishing the ninety-nine percent (99%) good drivers of this age group, but would be discriminating against the good driving records of these women. This is contrary to the historic American notions of fairness and justice. Another reason SASU opposes H.R. 3870 is that historically, an issue such as the minimum legal drinking age has been a matter for the states. We firmly believe that this issue is one that would be best dealt with at the state level, as it has been in the past. National attention has lately been focused unfairly on teenage/young adult drunk driving incidents TO THE EXCLUSION of drunk drivers of all other ages. Some of the most dangerous drunk drivers are the older abusers, who are often repeat offenders with a record of such incidents going back many years. Until the recent toughening of DWI laws and enforcement, these abusers habitually caused accidents but were not punished severely. Yet, the public perception of the drunk driver is always that of young persons. This is a distorted picture. We thank you for providing an opportunity for the many members of the Student Association of the State Universities of New York State to voice their opinion on this issue. As socially responsible, progressive-minded individuals, we wish to convey our feeling of concern on the topic of alcohol-related auto accidents, but also our hopes that more effective, less punitive means will be adopted in order to solve this terrible problem. Again, we urge you to oppose H.R. 3870. Thank you. James Tierny, President Hope Geisler, Legislative Director Student Association of the State Universities of New York |