Fifty-four people. That’s how many motorists die per day on America’s roads over the New Year’s weekend, according to new federal traffic safety data. During the Christmas holiday, it’s 45 a day (normally, it’s 36 daily fatalities).
Most of these deaths are completely preventable. About two out of every five traffic fatalities during the Christmas and New Year’s holidays involved a drunk driver or motorcycle rider, compared with less than one-third of the accidents during the year, according to the Transportation Department.
Does anyone care?
Well, let’s just see how many bloggers and mainstream media types decide to pick up this story. My prediction? I expect a collective yawn, for reasons I’ve already explained. (Ahh, if only the cars had wings … then maybe they’d be writing about this tragedy.)
They should be outraged.
Not at the fact that Transportation Secretary Mary Peters issued a dull press release that stated the obvious. (“Driving with a blood alcohol content (BAC) of .08 or higher is illegal in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.”)
Not that the federal government is missing the bigger picture, that the overall number of highway fatalities is unacceptable.
No, it’s this that irks me the most:
Secretary Peters and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Administrator Nicole R. Nason announced an intensive nationwide crackdown on drunk drivers by law enforcement agencies that will continue through New Year’s Eve. The “Drunk Driving. Over the Limit. Under Arrest.” public awareness campaign is being supported by $7 million in national television and radio advertising.
Say what?
You mean to tell me that the government is spending just $7 million to increase awareness of inebriated driving?
Do the math. In 2005, the last year for which statistics are available, 856 people were killed on the roads during Christmas and New Year’s. So in essence, the government is saying those lost lives are worth $8,177 each.
That’s disgusting.
✓ Get the latest travel news, tips and commentary from Elliott’s E-Mail, the subversive newsletter from industry gadfly Christopher Elliott. You’ll travel like a pro. Sign up here. It’s free.
Sign up for my 
{ 8 comments… read them below or add one }
Go find a BAC calculator on the web. Enter your weight, sex, # hours etc., and number of drinks to get to .05 – much less .08. Then, some evening – go do it. Say, 5 drinks over a 2 hour period — no food. See how you feel. Feel OK to drive? I bet you won’t when you are paying attention. Now – get it to .08 – no matter what – you will feel it in the morning -
You could look at this from the other side, Chris. The Government is spending $7M to tell people that driving drunk is a bad thing?? Well, d’uh! I doubt that there’s one person out there who would actually be influenced to NOT drink and drive by a television ad. “Oh, man! I was on my way out the door from the bar last night, roaring drunk, heading to my car. But, then I saw that TV ad and decided to call a cab.” Now, I’m all for spending money on drunk driving prevention, but from the ENFORCEMENT side of the picture. More checkpoints, more police enforcement. I just don’t believe that it’s necessary to continue to spend millions telling us the obvious.
You’re not working with sound math.
If a drunk driving awareness campaign would stop all DUIs, MADD would’ve stomped out the whole matter years ago. The immediate question I have is how much drunk driving will the campaign actually stop. My guess would be relatively little.
If you want me to be outraged, I suggest finding legitimate studies that examine the efficacy of various deterrence tactics. From that you should be able to provide strong evidence that the tactics will work, and that they are the most efficient way of achieving the goal.
As it stands, there’s nothing to be outraged about.
Math never was my strongest subject, but my I would beg to differ with your conclusion. $7 million is a token amount for an awareness campaign. As to Mark’s point about enforcement, I think that goes without saying. What irritates me is that the government is throwing what amounts to a few bucks at a problem that will take more time, money and resources to fix. Whether you like my fun-with-numbers exercise or not, I think that conclusion is still valid.
I think it’s valid, too, Chris.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but DUI is nearly non-existent in Europe. This is because people know they will suffer much more severe penalties than DUI offenders in the U.S.
I’m all for the tack taken by some law enforcement agencies where deadbeat dads are concerned. Put their pictures on TV and in the newspaper with DUI in big letters underneath. Shame works. It isn’t pleasant, but neither is getting a 3 a.m. phone call telling you that your child/spouse/loved one has just been seriously injured or killed by a drunk who wouldn’t call a cab.
Last week in a nearby city, an individual involved in a wreck was DUI and when the police officer went to speak with the driver, the man pulled out a gun and shot him between the eyes. The officer died the next morning, leaving behind a wife and five children, 2 weeks before Christmas.
I’m not sure what all the answers are, but it’s clear something must be done. More enforcement and much stiffer penalties are a start, not just more TV commercials.
I agree with you, Chris. However, I’m upset not only with the amount being spent, but by the fact that a drunk driving accident can occur at any time during the year. Yes, the stats are higher at times when there are social drinking occasions — such as NYE — but if the gov’t wants to address the issue of lowering DUI incidents, the focus needs to be present year-round. In addition, DUI is not limited to alcohol only but also includes recreational and prescription drugs, all of which lead to a higher number of impaired drivers on the road than we may ever know statistically. The people who died by DUI not during the holidays are no less valued than those who are.
@ Chicky: It varies from country to country in Europe how bad DUIs are. In France, it’s a huge issue. In Holland less. I guess because everybody bikes there.
On the money issue. I agree with Chris. It’s ridiculous that the US has spent a trillion now, that’s $1,000,000,000,000, on a War on Terror protecting us against a real but overstated threat – only a few thousand people have died in terrorism since 2001 -, while a meager $7,000,000 is thrown at traffic DUIs that a rough 250,000-300,000 people have died since in traffic.
Yes, I know the score is not really one trillion vs a couple of million, but I dare anybody to show a justification of the numbers here. It makes no sense that so little money is spent to reduce the roughly 46,000 people every year dying in traffic, vs the huge amount of money that is spent to ‘protect’ us against a rather vague threat.
Also, we shouldn’t just focus on the DUis here. Every traffic death (and injury) is one too much. The cause of death is irrelevant. And quite frankly, I believe a lot can be done with a relative little amount of money. Simple road safety does not need to be expensive. Better road signs can help a lot for instance.
Hey Chris,
Re: Does anyone care?
We care! The Century Council has been fighting Hard Core Drunk Driving for nearly a decade.
Check out our holiday e-card / slideshow that serves as a reminder to not drive drunk.
You can view it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndvem-H4EMw
or here: http://www.centurycouncil.org/ecards/holiday/index.cfm?user=friend