How much do we really value human life? I know, we all believe life is priceless, but we make transportation decisions all the time that involve painful trade-offs that cost lives. Where do we draw the lines?
Last post, I wrote about the repeal of the national speed limit, a transportation policy that has (arguably) caused thousands of deaths without much apparent public concern or debate. And if on deeper reflection it seems trivial to cause carnage so we can go a little bit faster, keep in mind that we also kill simply so we can have fun. Shocking, but true.
Unless you were abducted by aliens and have been held captive on the planet Xandar for the last 100 years, you know that drunk driving is a bad thing. As if they really had to bother, myriad scientists and social scientists have documented its ill effects. (The first study on the topic was published in 1904.)
According to this review of the literature by E. J. D. Ogden and Herbert Moskowitz, alcohol impairs the analysis of sensory information, slows reaction time in complex situations, impedes multitasking, complicates the processing of visual information, slows tracking, reduces vigilance, dulls alertness, and reduces control of intricate movement. Obviously, none of this helps you to drive any better.
As if that wasn’t bad enough, drunk driving not only increases your chances of being in a crash, but it increases the physical harm that befalls you when a crash does take place.
How serious a problem is this for our society? It depends on your point of view.
Let’s start with the good news. In the last 30 years, we have seen a terrific reduction in the number of fatalities due to DUI. In 1982, we experienced 1.64 alcohol-related road fatalities per 100 million miles driven; in 2007, the figure was 0.43. As a society, we really do deserve a pat on the back for this achievement.
What gets the credit? As Peter Howat, David Sleet, Randy Elder, and Bruce Maycock report, some of this reduction in the fatality rate would have happened anyway, as cars and roads have gotten safer in general. But the majority of the improvement is due to stricter law enforcement, harsher penalties and other regulations, publicity campaigns by worthy organizations like Mothers Against Drunk Driving, and organizational policies and economic incentives.
But before we celebrate, things aren’t quite so simple. Obviously, drunk driving is still with us, and over the next couple of posts I’ll look at it in more depth, including the many things we could do to reduce it — if we really have the will.
Correction: Last post, I misspelled the name of one of the authors of the informative report on the speed limit that I cited: my apologies to Jon Bottom (i.e., Jon with no “h”).
and 
. You can also watch it on 
From what I remember, the legal limit used to be 0.1% BAL. Nowadays, 0.08% is the standard. Organizations like MADD espouse the philosophy that “impairment begins with the first drink”, and I would guess they would support further lowing the legal threshold.
However, I’m wondering if the data shows that an outsized proportion of serious / fatal crashes involve people who are very intoxicated–maybe 0.2% and up. And if so, wouldn’t the limited the resources of police, etc. be better utilized by focusing on these people, compared to finding people with BAL’s between 0.08% – 0.1%?
As economists, you should know the importance of counterfactuals. Please provide comparison data on deaths per 100m miles for the same 25-year window; that will help isolate the effects of drunk driving awareness and prevention vs. other general safety initiatives and improvements in car safety.
We could dig all the roads up, and burn down all the gasoline refineries. That would save at least one child, so its clearly worth it.
“I know, we all believe life is priceless, but we make transportation decisions all the time that involve painful trade-offs that cost lives. Where do we draw the lines?”
Whenever there’s a traffic jam to do with a suicidal person or a person who’s ‘lost it’ for whatever reason, the airwaves fill w/ CB calls for the police to just shoot the person and get it over with.
Collectively, people don’t value lives at all if it affects their traffic flow, whatever they may profess individually.
I like the idea of a series.
In fact, it could be a part of a larger series (or even a book!) titled, “How to Legislate Against Stupidity.”
I’m thinking built-in breathalyzer and mandatory BAC test wired into the starting program of a vehicle.
Lets just require all cars have the devices you have to blow in to start your car. Whatever they cost now, surely it would be much cheaper if we made millions per year. Not foolproof, but I bet it would have a huge effect. They require this of repeat offenders so it must have some effect.
Also, why don’t we require this of commercial pilots before every flight?
The solution will inevitably happen when we have robotic cars. There are several technologies leading towards this already, but it will end up with autonomously driven vehicles. I would guess this is 15-20 years away.
I would be interested in a comparative analysis of drunk driving with other crimes where there is no harm committed. Most things defined as crimes involve someone being harmed or the perp having the intent to cause harm, neither of which occur in drunk driving (in cases where no accident occurred). What other laws act this way and does this make drunk driving a victimless crime?