Study Finds Two Laws Have Reduced Drunken-Driving Fatalities

Two laws that have been on the books in all 50 states since 1988 are garnering new praise for lowering drunken-driving fatalities.

A scientific study in the July issue of Accident Analysis and Prevention has credited the increase in the drinking age to 21 with reducing the ratio of drunken-driving deaths by 11%. Making possession of a fake ID illegal and suspending the individual’s driver’s license has lowered fatalities by another 7%.

While it is illegal to use a fake ID to purchase alcohol in all 50 states, a driver's-license sanction is not necessarily the resulting punishment. The study urges that if such a law were made national and tied to highway funds (as is done with 21 as the designated drinking age), deaths would be lowered even further.

There have been occasional murmurs of reducing the drinking age to 18, especially in light of the role young soldiers have played in the Iraq war (you can fight and die for your country but can't legally drink a beer?) and the issue came up in a Democratic debate during the fall. However, the AAP study found that raising the drinking age to 21 has been crucial in lowering drunken driving deaths.

We'd like to hear what you think. Would you support driver's-license sanctions for people caught using a fake ID? Do you think a drinking age of 21 is fair and effective?

Safety: Alcohol Laws Found to Reduce Drunken-Driving Deaths (The New York Times)

Comments

[markt]

as far as the drinking age, i say if a teenager wants to get drunk the teen will find a way. i know i did. the only difference is my parents raised me to be responsible so i never got caught by the police or parents. key words here people "responsibility of ones actions"

[rob]

Lower the drinking age to 19, raise the driving age to 21. Problem solved. Too bad we have built an infrastructure that requires driving in order to live and adult life in most of the country.

[Jason T]

Sometimes for the sake of liberty, the solution that lowers the risk for everyone is still not necessarily the best.

There are other ways to lower traffic fatalities while abolishing the artificially high drinking age.

For example, put the drinking age at 18, but increase the severity and enforcement of the penalties imposed for drunk driving.

[Donna]

YES THE LEGAL DRINKING AGE SHOULD BE LOWERED. Anyone who can go to war, buy a house, etc., should be allowed to have a beer if they choose. A parent should be allowed to have a beer with their 19 yr old son who is leaving for war if they choose. I should be allowed to go with my 19 yr old son to hear a local band at a restaurant after 9pm if I so choose, & I should be able to buy him a beer if I so choose as his parent. I want to be there the first time my child decides to try alcohol!! I want to see how he handles it, if/how it changes his personality, so that I can teach him and make sure he knows what his limits are, and how it makes him incapable of driving. As things stand now I can't do that, if I am caught anywhere near him and he has been drinking, I will be arrested. So in stead of him being somewhere where I can watch and take care of him and make sure he doesn't drive, he and his friends are out in some field somewhere, or at someone's home who's parents are out of town, drinking with no supervision at all. That is not the way it should be. It does not matter what we say, or threaten to do, teenagers are going to drink. We are doing them an injustice by forcing them underground, we should be teaching them. Parents should have the right to teach them. Even if they make it through high school without drinking, which might happened for 1% of teens, they will drink in college. I don't want to send them off to college without the opportunity to teach them how to handle alcohol. It infuriates me that I don't have the right as their parent to do that. Drinking is something they will be exposed to for the rest of their lives and we owe it to them to teach them how to handle it. Most people either have an addictive personality or they don't. If they do they will become addicted to something, if its not alcohol, it will be cigarettes, drugs, food, gambling, etc. They are at greater risk doing something that could become addictive in hiding than they would be doing it out in the open with people who care watching after them! I keep hearing that raising the legal age to 21 is responsible for lowering drunk driving fatalities, but I have yet to see any statistics that really address all the factors. The decrease in drinking related car accidents is due to education. It was common for people of every age to drink and drive 20 or more years ago. Now it is taboo. People are much more aware of the consequences, and the penalties are much higher. All age groups are drinking and driving less, not just people under 21. Parents are much more diligent about drinking and driving now because of education, even parents who do not care if their underage kids drink. 20 years ago you never heard the term 'designated driver' which has become commonplace now. Vehicles are much safer now than they were 20 years ago, and seatbelts are worn all of which contribute to lower traffic fatalities alcohol or not. Having a legal age of 21 has not stopped kids from 18 to 21 from drinking, it has just changed how they do it. Education and penalties for drinking and driving should continue to be enforced strictly for all ages. If they are, the numbers will stay down regardless of what the legal age is.

[ArcherJP]

In nearly every country that has a lower drinking age than we do, there are fewer fatalities on the roads than our own. In Europe, the average drinking age is between 16 and 18, yet their road-fatalities are considerably lower than our own. For every million people in the past decade, Europe had an average of 95 deaths. The USA had an average of 150 over the past decade.

Of course, Europe has other laws to prevent road fatalities. Some of these laws include greater penalties for drunk driving, distracted driving, etc. Often, the driving age is 18 years of age, rather than the 16-17 of our own culture.

Kids can take the bus to school, or WALK (that'd take care of some of the obesity rates, I'd think) rather than having mommy or daddy drive them in every day. For those planning on going away to college, perhaps an allowance for them to learn to drive a little earlier (so we don't have newbies on the interstates, thanks) could be arranged. Otherwise, local colleges can be reached via walking, a bike, or mom/dad/guardian.

Studies have also shown that introducing alcohol to individuals at a younger age typically leads to a better understanding of alcohol, where one's individual limits are, and typically ends with the person not binge-drinking as often, or at all. They've learned their limits, and it no longer is 'cool' to throw keggers where everyone is completely messed up on alcohol.

I think if we ever did lower the drinking age in the US, the first year we'd have a bunch of younger folk running to the store to get as much alcohol as they could, legally, but once the novelty of it all wore off, things would calm down and 18 would become the new 21, with the one celebration by going to a bar or a club, and that'd be that.

I think we'd see either a drop in fatalities, or at least a steady, flat number of them, once the novelty of drinking at 18 wore off.