Talking Michigan Transportation

Why are drunk driving arrests down while alcohol-related crashes are on the rise?

• Michigan Department of Transportation • Season 6 • Episode 188

Share episode

Bridge Michigan reported this week on some troubling statistics in Michigan that show that police are not making as many arrests for drunk driving and crashes caused by impaired driving are on the rise.

Among key findings:

  • Drunk driving arrests in Michigan have dropped 28 percent since 2014, while fatal alcohol- and drug-related crashes have risen 40 percent.
  • Experts attribute the rise in crashes to fewer police officers and less traffic enforcement, leading to more dangerous driving behavior.
  • In 67 of Michigan’s 83 counties, drunk driving arrests have declined, mirroring a national trend


On this week’s Talking Michigan Transportation podcast, Daniel Zimmerman, senior director of government relations and policy for the Washington, D.C.-based Governors Highway Safety Association, talks about the problem.

One initiative that perhaps holds promise for solutions stems from a bipartisan provision in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (Section 24220, Public Law 117-58, IIJA) signed into law in 2021. The provision requires a new national safety standard for passive, advanced impaired driving prevention systems in new vehicles.

Jeff Cranson:

Hello, welcome to the Talking Michigan Transportation Podcast. I'm Jeff Cranson. You may have heard the stats. This is a national trend and it was reported in very specific detail in Bridge Michigan, just this week that drunk driving arrests in Michigan have dropped 28% since 2014, but fatal alcohol and drug-related crashes have risen 40%. So this is of major concern. There are some theories about why, having to do with equity, and concerns about how various law enforcement agencies have handled their traffic stops All legitimate questions that have led to some changes. It's also about resources, among other things.

Jeff Cranson:

The experts say that the rise in crashes is just about fewer police officers and less traffic enforcement. That leads to more dangerous driving behavior. I think there's ample evidence of that over decades. So today I'm going to talk with Daniel Zimmerman of the Governor's Highway Safety Association, which is a Washington DC-based nonprofit that represents state highway offices, and he's going to talk about what the association is hearing and doing about this, and he has some very interesting things to say, especially about the Investment and Infrastructure and Jobs Act, or IIJA, and some of the provisions in there for the National Traffic Highway Safety Administration to address drunk driving through technology and vehicles. So I hope you enjoy the conversation. Daniel, thanks for taking time to be here.

Daniel Zimmerman:

Absolutely happy to be joining.

Jeff Cranson:

As I mentioned in the intro, I laid out some of the stats that showed up in a Bridge Michigan story that posted earlier this week and what we're seeing in Michigan in terms of increase in drunk driving crashes and a decrease in arrests kinds of tracks with what's going on in the rest of the country. It seems like a lot of this comes down to resources. I know your association executive director thinks it's about enforcement and it's probably about not having the resources to do more enforcement. Is it that simple, Daniel? Or would you say there's more to it than that?

Daniel Zimmerman:

Yeah, I mean I think there are a number of factors going into the challenges we're seeing with impaired driving. Enforcement is certainly a large one. We've seen a large decrease in enforcement activities over the last couple of years. You know there's been challenges with the attitudes around traffic enforcement and the perception of that after the unfortunate death of George Floyd in 2020. And we've seen a decrease in traffic enforcement since then in an effort to address some of the equity concerns that have been raised over. You know, for years now, and certainly there's statistics to support that there are challenges there. But what has come along with that is we've seen increases in things like impaired driving and while decreases in DUI arrests have occurred. We've seen these challenges. I think that's definitely a big part of it. Another one is the you know the big factor is the increasing prevalence of drug impaired driving, as lots of states are increasingly legalizing some impacts of cannabis consumption is not really in alignment with its actual level of impairment when driving.

Jeff Cranson:

It sounds like it's been difficult for researchers, at least so far, to really parse those differences. I haven't been able to find the stats. I know in the Bridge Michigan story they lumped impaired driving whether it's drugs or alcohol together. Do you have any sense of how that breaks down? And it sounds like from what you're saying, you think that's definitely a factor in this increase.

Daniel Zimmerman:

Yeah, I don't have any hard statistics to show what that breakdown looks like between alcohol impairment and drug impairment. Show what that breakdown looks like between alcohol impairment and drug impairment. I think a big part of the challenges there are that with figuring out what that spread is that there's not really a commercialized roadside technology similar to the breathalyzer that can help traffic enforcement identify drug-impaired driving, and it can be much harder to actually get those verified statistics because it can require blood tests or other forms of testing further down the road and so those aren't necessarily always captured in the actual traffic stop data. So it can be difficult and that's something that there's lots of research ongoing about, but not a lot of hard data currently on what that spread looks like.

Jeff Cranson:

Well, so let's talk a little bit about the funding challenges which you know. The resources that various law enforcement agencies have to devote to this come down to funding, have to devote to this come down to funding. And your association works closely with other safety advocacy groups across the country, including the various offices of high police safety planning in the various states and obviously in DOTs and several other organizations, and you've worked previously in safety and done some work on the Hill talking to folks about this. Why would it be more difficult, if we know there are more crashes and there are more people dying from these crashes, to get the enforcement? I know Jonathan Adkins at the association said plainly that yeah, if people don't think that they're going to get stopped, they're more likely to exercise this risky behavior. Do you have any thoughts on that?

Daniel Zimmerman:

Yeah, absolutely. I would say the real crux of the issue right now are questions around equity when it comes to traffic enforcement. As I mentioned earlier, there absolutely has been a statistical demonstration of the fact that people of color are more likely to get pulled over for traffic stops and those traffic stops are more likely to get pulled over for traffic stops and those traffic stops are more likely. When those traffic stops occur, they're more likely to experience either the threat of physical violence, a physical force or physical force during that interaction. And so you know that's something that has been brought to the forefront and communities, whether it's, you know, state or federal legislatures or, you know, community organizations, are aware of that and looking to address it.

Daniel Zimmerman:

And a lot of that has come, you know, with an actual reduction in the number of police officers that are out there doing traffic enforcement. And actually for a lot of police forces we've also seen that they're having trouble hiring additional staff. So you know, also seen that they're having trouble hiring additional staff. So even if they're interested in doing additional traffic enforcement, they just can't bring on enough people to do it because of some of the perceptions that are out there. Those issues with equity absolutely need to make sure that the effective countermeasure that is enforcement is in place, because it acts as a really effective deterrent for activities of unsafe driver behavior, like impaired driving, like speeding, like not wearing your seat belt. It's been proven to do that, and so we need to find a path forward where we can both address these equity concerns but also make sure that we're not abandoning traffic enforcement, because it has an important role to play in making sure that everyone can get to their destination safely.

Jeff Cranson:

Yeah, and to your point, I know that, especially in some large urban police departments, chiefs and policymakers have made it a point not to do as many of those kinds of stops for all the reasons that you cited, and that makes sense. So it's not just about the money, but something else that we saw and I know you're well aware of this is with the beginning of the pandemic, people started driving faster. There were fewer cars on the road taking more chances. People were drinking more because they were home and maybe just bored and doing other things. Even we saw an uptick in people not wearing their seatbelts.

Jeff Cranson:

I never understood why that went hand in hand with the pandemic, but I had my own theories on it that it was kind of a backlash against being told to wear a mask or being told to do anything. You know that I'm just not going to do all these things you tell me I have to do. That has subsided some, but not enough. Some of those bad habits, those driving habits that were created during the pandemic, are continuing. How much do you think those things factor in?

Daniel Zimmerman:

I think they definitely are a factor and, like you said, we saw a lot of those increases over the pandemic and for several of those factors we've started to see a decrease but we're certainly not back to the levels we had before the pandemic. And I think that's really actually a key on the enforcement side is making sure that the traffic enforcement is happening is targeting those specific dangerous behaviors speeding, impaired driving, not buckling up, like you mentioned. Those are things that we know cause crashes to occur and or cause the severity of the crash to be worse on those involved. And if enforcement's focused on that, we can look to get at some of those root causes. And then that also helps reduce some of the equity concerns. When we're focusing out there and not things like if you have expired registration or we're in areas where, like, there's laws around what can be hung from the rear view mirror, things like that. If we're not focused on some of those things and really targeting the areas that are causing some of these concerns, then we can get to the root of it.

Jeff Cranson:

Are some of these advocacy groups? Are they just not as effective as a lobby as they used to be? I mean, you tell me, but my memory is that one of the things that drove the federal government to incentivize, I guess, maybe more stick than carrot states to go to a point. Oh wait, you know what alcohol level to set the bar? There were groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving and advocacy groups like that Is it. Have they waned in their influence?

Daniel Zimmerman:

in their influence? I don't think so. There's been a fair amount of progress at the national level on impaired driving legislation. Most recently in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, there was a provision that requires the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to do a rulemaking on advanced impaired driving technology. So essentially it will result in vehicles being all newly manufactured, vehicles being equipped with technology to determine if the driver's impaired and then prevent the driver from driving if that's what the determination is, which represents a huge step forward once that technology is out there on the road on addressing impaired driving. So I think there's definitely progress being made. It's just not necessarily at the state level all the time, but at the national level as well there's progress.

Jeff Cranson:

Yeah, I'm glad you brought that up. I read about that early on when the IAJ passed and then I think it's actually considering how groundbreaking that could be. It hasn't gotten the coverage that I you know that. I think it should, just because I think it's very interesting. And what is the year? Is that still being discussed and being being debated, negotiated? I mean, it was supposed to be any model vehicle year after, like 2025, wasn't it?

Daniel Zimmerman:

I believe. Yeah, twenty twenty six, I think. So it'll be model year 25 or, yeah, I think 2026 is when it's supposed to go into effect. Nhtsa has a deadline of this fall for publishing the final rule, which would actually establish what those deadlines are. There's always deadlines that occur from Congress and the legislation, that the agencies don't always necessarily meet those marks. So that's what really the rulemaking process at NHTSA is, what we need to watch to determine what actually the effective year will be and specifically what those requirements will look like.

Jeff Cranson:

What does your experience and ear to the ground tell you about this and what kind of opposition might come up? Would it be, you know, opposition from don't tread on me folks or who, or I don't know the liquor industry? I mean, do you think that this will go through without a fight?

Daniel Zimmerman:

I definitely think that there's some concerns I know that have been raised around privacy and then there's been some efforts from some, particularly on the congressional side, to bring up some points around. You know that probably in the same vein that you were referencing earlier around not wanting to wear a seatbelt just because it was a requirement. So some concerns have been raised there. I believe NHTSA is going to address a lot of those One, making sure that public perception for accepting the technology, that there's effective public awareness campaigns to address those, and two, making sure that if there are any privacy concerns around data and that sort of thing, that those are fully addressed. So I think there is some opposition that's out there. There was when it was being debated for its inclusion at IIJA, but it is congressionally mandated at this point. So it will need to move forward. It's just a matter of how quickly and if there are, you know, roadblocks in place for that.

Jeff Cranson:

I mean as much as we'd like to think that you know peer pressure and societal norms mores all those things you know are really the best influencers of behavior. Laws are still the best when it comes to these kinds of things. I mean they work. We found out pretty quickly that when Michigan passed a hands-free law that it started to make a dent in crashes. I know in your native Ohio they found the same thing early on after they passed a hands-free law. The same thing applied when there was a lot of enforcement after the .08 standard was set. Same thing for seatbelts becoming a law, especially if they can be a primary offense. What do you hear when these things are debated? Does it break down on largely partisan lines? The discussions about these kinds of things, including the technology that would you know, require that you test to be sober before you drive a vehicle.

Daniel Zimmerman:

No, I wouldn't say that it breaks down partisan lines.

Daniel Zimmerman:

In fact the requirements in the IIJA have bipartisan support for being included and you know generally what we're seeing even though there is some opposition on the Hill, it still kind of has widespread bipartisan support to oppose those efforts to kind of roll things back.

Daniel Zimmerman:

So I wouldn't say I think it depends on the issue. I would say generally, you know traffic safety is a relatively bipartisan topic. You know more of a matter of how do we go about implementing specific requirements or what are those specific levers or incentives that we need to put into place. You know, I think the safe system approach is something that has really come to the forefront over the past several years and it's based on building multiple layers of protection for drivers and vulnerable road users, and so it includes a lot of those things like you were talking about, like requirements that are in place, but also improvements to infrastructure, improvements to community outreach, improvements to post-crash care, enforcement, education. So I think it's really about, when it comes to bipartisan support, it's finding where folks are interested in really putting the resources and addressing those different areas. Stay with us, we'll have more on the resources in addressing those different areas.

Jeff Cranson:

Stay with us. We'll have more on the other side of this important message.

MDOT Message:

In Michigan, safety comes first on the roads. To combat distracted driving, Michigan passed the hands-free law. The law makes holding or manually using a cell phone or other mobile electronic device while operating a vehicle a primary offense. This means an officer can stop and ticket you for violating the law.

MDOT Message:

This can include, but not limited to, sending or receiving a call, sending, receiving or reading a text or email, accessing, reading or posting to social media sites or entering locations into the phone GPS.

Jeff Cranson:

With this law in place, drivers are encouraged to stay focused, keeping their hands on the wheel and their attention on the road. Drive smart, drive safe, drive hands-free.

MDOT Message:

Michigan's hands-free law making the road safer for everyone.

Jeff Cranson:

Let's talk a little bit about messaging, because I still I wonder I know that these things are tested and a lot of money goes into them when I see ads targeting drunk driving or impaired driving and I think back to a project that I did when my daughter was in high school with several of her friends asking them what kind of messages would get them to put down their phone and not text while they're driving. And they were all very candid that you know. Just being told that you know I might get in a crash wasn't enough to really disincentivize that behavior. Jonathan once told me some of the research shows that disfigurement, the idea that you could, you know, have serious scars from a crash that that actually resonates with teens more. What are you hearing now? What's research showing about what actually connects with people, especially younger people?

Daniel Zimmerman:

Yeah, I think you know to your point, the more realistic you can make the potential consequences, the more likely it is to connect. When just messaging saying that don't engage in distracted driving while may have some degree of effect, the more that you can demonstrate to younger drivers what that impact is going to potential impact would be from operating that way, the more likely it is to resonate with them. I think there's also this is a great example of where education and enforcement really go hand in hand. We have that education component where we're demonstrating to them the potential consequences, but then with enforcement we can also make sure that they understand that not only are there potential consequences from a crash or severe injury or fatality, but also potential enforcement action that could result in their license being revoked or tickets or whatever that looks like, and so both of those can go hand in hand and helping make sure that they're deterred from that behavior.

Jeff Cranson:

Is it frustrating sometimes for you to try to get the attention of lawmakers and people who deal in these important policies Because they all will say you know, safety is a top priority. Of course you know, yeah, what you're doing is very important, but really it often takes a backseat to other things that they're working on. You know other things on their agenda, so how do you, how do you deal with that?

Daniel Zimmerman:

Yeah, I would say frustrating is definitely the is a portion of frustration that comes from. That is definitely a portion of what that looks like, of what that looks like. But I also think that you know it's a challenge that there's lots of advocacy groups that are working to overcome and it's really about finding ways to make the traffic safety issues rise in importance to the different lawmakers and policymakers. You know to your point about, it often takes the backseat to other priorities. It's finding ways that, whether it's engaging local constituents to them that have been impacted by traffic safety incidents, or making sure that they understand the resources that would be dedicated to their district or state it's helping them understand why it should be a priority. That is really the focus.

Jeff Cranson:

Yeah Well, I'll be watching eagerly as NHTSA works through the rules. I think that that's. You know, it's an overused term, but I think that really could be a game changer in terms of drunk driving and paired driving and how to police it without having to deploy actual law enforcement resources. Thanks, Daniel, for taking time to talk about these things and bringing up some really important points and, again, I think you do really important work and I appreciate you coming on to talk about it.

Daniel Zimmerman:

Absolutely Happy to do it.

Jeff Cranson:

I'd like to thank you once more for tuning in to Talking Michigan Transportation.