"Certainly there are many ways such "studies" can be constructed to yield "results" far different from what the actual data show."
I will agree with that statement and add to it that it works both ways.
What is evident in both sides attempts is the simple fact that lots and lots of people are killed and seriously harmed with life lasting injury as a result of drinking and driving, especially at at BAC levels above .08.
You wanna drink and drive or anyone else wants to no laws will stop it, only their own personal choice will stop it in the end.
Take the deaths of persons throught the year as a result of terrorism. The very same arguments made opposing the Fight against drinking and driving can be made to argue against fighting terrorism. I think that offers a valid comparison.
On 9 11 Everyone saw up front and personal the dangers of allowing terrorism to go unchecked. The 90's saw truth go unnoticed by many people. Attack after attack went on unopposed. Look where it lead.
I offer that .08 BAC in combination with officers in the field making the judgment calls to take such a test is indeed "taking the fight to them" as we do in regards to terrorism today.
Drinking and driving with levels above .08 is shown to be dangerous and it is showing its effectiveness in helping to drop the number of deaths and injuries on our nations highways.
People argued against the dangers of terrorists and they also argued against going after them. Just as people argue today against curbing driving above .08.
"The Boston University study compared the first five states to lower their BAC limit to .08 (California, Maine, Oregon, Utah, and Vermont) with five nearby states that retained the .10 limit. The results of this study suggest .08 laws, particularly in combination with administrative license revocation, reduce the proportion of fatal crashes involving drivers and fatally injured drivers at blood alcohol levels of .08 and higher by 16% and those at BAC of .15 and greater by 18%.
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/alcohol/Archive/Limit.08/PresInit/science.html
"Proponents of the lower BAC standard point to the 3,732 who died in alcohol-related traffic crashes last year involving drivers with a BAC less than 0.10 percent."
http://www.ias.org.uk/publications/theglobe/97issue3/globe9703_p22.html
Although this article is a bit old and takes a stance I do not agree with when it comes to BAC I found this number interesting. Funny how when it is changed from a % to a number we see that MORE people died as a result of UNDER.10 than died on 911, and we take notice of the major difference in outlooks on those deaths.
Is this simply because they all did not happen at the same time? Would people see Osama and al qaeda as less of a problem had he planned operations that killed over 3000 people throughout the year rather than on one fateful day?
I would offer that when looking at the 90's ( and even before) that is EXACTLY what happened. 17 soldiers on the USS cole wasn't enough. Beruit wasn't enough. Somalia wasn't enough. WTC in 1993 wasn't enough. Kobar towers wasn't enough. (9 11 sure was though wasn't it).
I find it very interesting that the argument many times centers around .08 and .10. I find it very interesting that the number for .08 to .10 reflect so closely to those on 9 11 as it goes to deaths. I find it shocking the difference in perspective used to argue one way for .08 to .10 and the other way for 9 11 when it comes to responses to those figures.
What were the different states' policies on licence revocations for grossly intoxicated motorists at the time, and how did those policies change? If the states that put in the 0.08 standard simultaneously made harsher their policies for dealing with drivers who were above 0.10, the reduction in fatal crashes by those who habitually drive severely intoxicated could easily account for the entire observed phenomenon.