Strengthen Traffic Safety in Texas
State law should be amended to make Texas highways safer from drunk drivers.
Background
Texas has one of America's worst traffic safety records. In 1997, 3,510 people were killed on Texas highways, the nation's second-highest traffic fatality toll. Only California, a state with 13 million more people than Texas, experienced a greater loss, with 3,688 highway deaths.
Factors contributing to this problem include speeding, a lack of driving experience, failure to use seat belts or infant car seats, and inattentive driving, such as when drivers use cellular phones. However, driving while intoxicated or under the influence of drugs (DWI/DUI) is the leading cause of Texas' sorry record.
According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Texas had the nation's highest number of alcohol-related traffic fatalities in 1997 (Exhibit 1). In all, 1,748 deaths occurred in alcohol-related crashes on Texas highways, compared to 1,314 in second-ranked California. Of all Texas traffic deaths, nearly 50 percent were related to alcohol; only the District of Columbia and Alaska experienced a higher percentage of alcohol-related traffic deaths than Texas, with rates of 58.5 percent and 52.8 percent, respectively.[1]
EXHIBIT 1
1997 Traffic Fatalities Involving Alcohol
(Selected States)
State Total # Traffic Fatalities # Involving Alcohol % Involving Alcohol Alaska 77 41 52.8% California 3,688 1,314 35.6% District of Columbia 60 35 58.5% Florida 2,782 934 33.6% North Dakota 105 50 47.8% Texas 3,510 1,748 49.8% U.S. Total 41,967 16,189 38.6% Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
The National Safety Council ranks drinking as the single most important factor in motor vehicle deaths and injuries.[2] Disturbingly, in any given year, 20 percent of licensed drivers in America will drive while intoxicated.[3] Alcohol-impaired driving in the U.S. takes the lives of more than 17,000 people each year, a figure roughly equivalent to one fully-loaded DC-9 jetliner crashing every other day.[4] In Texas, an alcohol-related traffic accident kills someone every seven hours and causes an injury every 17 minutes.[5]
The national economic cost of drunk driving is staggering. In 1994, health care costs, rehabilitation, police and judicial services, lost wages, insurance, lost productivity, and other direct economic costs amounted to about $45 billion.[6] The indirect costs of DWI crashes (pain, suffering, and diminished quality of life) tacked on an additional $134 billion.[7] Why so much? The Centers for Disease Control estimate that in 1993, U.S. motorists were involved in about 123 million incidents involving alcohol-impaired driving.[8] Each alcohol-related injury averaged $20,000, each alcohol-related fatality cost society about $950,000, and each alcohol-related crash cost innocent victims about $36,000.[9] But the most sobering cost, of course, is the loss of human life.
Some claim that the DWI problem is getting better because the percentage of alcohol-related motor vehicle fatalities has steadily declined over the years, but recent studies indicate that alcohol and drug use is on the rise nationally.[10] This is an alarming trend and one with frightening consequences for Texas, for the state already has the deadliest highways in the nation.
On the road to reducing DWI
Positive strides are being taken to reduce the carnage on Texas' highways. For example, the Texas Legislature passed a zero tolerance law during the 1997 session that prohibits drivers under age 21 from operating a vehicle with any amount of alcohol in their system. The Administrative License Revocation (ALR) program, inaugurated on January 1, 1995, allows the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) to temporarily suspend the licenses of drivers who fail or refuse to take a chemical test for alcohol.[11] Also, DWI laws have moved from the civil statutes to the Penal Code and penalties were increased. Additionally, judges now may require treatment for alcohol abuse as a condition of parole, and DWI offenders are not eligible for deferred adjudication.[12]
Still, more must be done to reduce the needless loss of lives on Texas highways. In an effort to improve the DWI/DUI problem, TPR reviewed other states' DWI prevention programs and investigated new ideas for improving traffic safety. Some of the issues explored include implementing sobriety checkpoints, imposing stricter penalties on second-time DWI offenders, denying bail to third-time (felony) DWI offenders, implementing a graduated licensing program, and granting statutory authority to approve alcohol and drug abuse driving awareness programs so that drivers may qualify for auto insurance discounts.
Sobriety checkpoints
Sobriety checkpoints involve the nondiscriminatory stopping of motor vehicles by police to determine if drivers are operating their vehicles while under the influence of alcohol. Forty states deploy them and many report exceptional success.[13] Sobriety checkpoints usually are conducted during peak hours for drinking and driving, often Friday and Saturday nights. If checkpoints are well conducted, they cause delays of only a few minutes and require as few as three to five officers. Typically, however, 10 to 12 officers participate, which further expedites the process.
Sobriety checkpoints are most effective when well publicized. If drivers know that law enforcement officers are conducting checkpoints in their area, they are less likely to take the risk of driving while intoxicated. According to Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), fear of arrest is the single most effective deterrent to drunk driving, and sobriety checkpoints, more than any other enforcement tool, raise the public's perception that detection and arrest are likely to occur.[14]
For example, a well-publicized checkpoint program deployed in Binghamton, New York resulted in a 39 percent decrease in drunk drivers and a 23 percent reduction in late-night accidents. Similar programs in New Jersey and Florida resulted in 10 to 20 percent reductions in DWI.[15] California reported a 42 percent reduction in alcohol-related fatal and injury crashes and a 41 percent decrease in hit-and-run cases in preliminary checkpoint studies.[16]
In one California experiment, 18 checkpoints were conducted in four communities over nine months. The number of alcohol-related crashes in these communities were compared with two control groups: a community police force that used roving police patrols aggressively focused on DWI enforcement, and a police force employing no special DWI enforcement program. The four communities hosting sobriety checkpoints reported reductions of 43, 32, 19, and 16 percent in alcohol-related crashes, compared to a statewide decline of 8 percent. The community using roving police patrols reported a 5 percent reduction in alcohol-related crashes. The report stated: "...while the statewide totals declined, alcohol-involved crashes in the checkpoint communities declined, on average, at a rate three and a half times the combined rate of all other communities in the state."[17] California estimates that the checkpoints prevented at least 50 vehicular crashes and saved taxpayers more than $3 million.[18]
North Carolina uses sobriety checkpoints liberally and recently enacted a policy of turning over DWI fines to local school boards. The National Safety Council reports that some North Carolina school boards now exclaim, "Hey, forget the bake sale, we want ourselves a checkpoint."[19]
In 1990, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that sobriety checkpoints do not constitute illegal search and seizure; in June 1994, however, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals declared them unconstitutional in Texas due to a lack of statewide, standardized guidelines.[20] The court heard concerns that checkpoints could be used improperly to target certain populations or as "fishing expeditions." As a result of the Texas court decision and a case filed in Michigan courts, MADD developed guidelines for conducting sobriety checkpoints.[21] They include:
Opponents argue that sobriety checkpoints are inconvenient and will cause annoying delays. But other states report that checkpoints, if well organized, usually cause only minor delays, and many drivers report feeling safer knowing that checkpoints are being conducted.
- allowing checkpoints to be operated temporarily by law enforcement agencies;
- requiring an officer with the rank of lieutenant or above (or its equivalent) to approve the checkpoint and the procedures used in its operation;
- stipulating that vehicles may be stopped only on a predictable, non-arbitrary basis, not randomly;
- keeping intrusions on drivers minimal, not to exceed two or three minutes unless the officer has probable cause to detain the driver longer;
- allowing officers to conduct field sobriety tests only if there is reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe a driver has committed an offense;
- requiring checkpoint operations to be publicized;
- stipulating that checkpoints may not be operated in one location or within one-half mile of that location for more than four hours at one time or more than twice within a week;
- requiring law enforcement agencies to maintain a record of the date, time, and location of the checkpoint.[22]
Texans are likely to support sobriety checkpoints. According to the Dallas Morning News, voters in Arlington favored their use by a three-to-one margin in a 1995 straw poll, and El Pasoans supported the idea by an even wider margin of 83 to 15 percent.[23]
The federal highway bill, Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), provides incentives for states that enact DWI prevention programs. Grants of about $3 million are available to states which meet five of seven criteria, including sobriety checkpoints.
Reduce the Legal Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) Level to .08
In Texas, the maximum legal Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) limit for adults is 0.10, yet research shows that most drinkers are impaired long before their BAC reaches that limit. One study reported impaired driving occurred at a BAC level of 0.02,[24] but most studies confirm driver impairment at 0.07 BAC or below.[25] Epidemiological studies suggest a person with a BAC of 0.05 is twice as likely to have a crash as a non-drinker, a finding that led the American Medical Association to support lowering the legal BAC to 0.05.[26] Another study prompted Congress to establish .04 BAC as the maximum limit for commercial truck drivers.[27] NHTSA has concluded: "At .08, all drivers, even experienced ones, show impairment in driving ability."[28]
Opponents of reducing the legal BAC to 0.08 in Texas claim that any reduction will have little impact on repeat offenders, individuals with a history of drunk driving. About one-third of individuals arrested for DWI in Texas are repeat offenders.[29] But advocates contend the change would prevent accidents and save lives. Still, two-thirds of DWI offenders are first-time offenders.[30] Moreover, 85 percent of all alcohol-related fatalities are reportedly caused by first-time offenders, who are defined as individuals who have not been arrested for DWI within the previous three years.[31]
While some opponents have expressed concern that a 0.08 BAC limit would prevent them from enjoying a drink or two at dinner, studies reveal that a 170-pound man must consume four drinks within an hour on an empty stomach to reach 0.08 BAC.[32]
As of May 1998, 15 states had set the legal BAC at 0.08.[33]
There is strong support nationally for lowering the maximum legal BAC to 0.08. According to an Allstate Insurance survey, 70 percent of Americans support lowering the legal BAC to 0.08.[34] Another survey conducted by the Ad Council and the U.S. Department of Transportation found Americans support lowering the legal BAC to 0.08 by a 2-to-1 margin.[35]
Stiffer penalties for second-time offenders
About one-third of individuals arrested for DWI in Texas are repeat offenders.[36] According to the Centers for Disease Control, 70 percent of repeat offenders have serious drinking problems.[37] A profile of repeat offenders developed by researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health, reveals that between 13 and 38 percent drink daily, often five or more drinks at a time; their drink of choice usually is beer; the vast majority are white males between the ages of 20 and 45; they are single or divorced; they have a high school education or less; most have been abusing alcohol for some time, and many have serious family problems.Most repeat offenders feel they are competent to drive even when alcohol-impaired. And most will continue to drive while intoxicated, despite sanctions or penalties, because they believe they will not be caught.[38] Research has shown that suspending the license of DWI/DUI offenders can be an effective deterrent to recidivism.[39] But the period of license suspension is extremely important, with optimal results occurring when licenses are suspended for a minimum of one year.[40]
TEA-21 places sanctions on states which do not have a one-year license suspension law for second-time DWI offenders. The law requires a transfer of 1.5 percent of a state's federal highway funds to a state's highway safety or hazard elimination program if it does not have a Repeat Intoxicated Driver law (for second-time DWI offenders) that includes a one-year license suspension, vehicle impoundment or immobilization, alcohol assessment and treatment as appropriate, and a required 30 days of community service or five days in jail.[41]
Rules for implementing these requirements were pending at this writing, so it was uncertain how many of the criteria Texas would meet. However, one thing was certain: Texas clearly does not meet the one-year license suspension period for second-time DWI offenders.
Under the state's Administrative License Revocation program, adult drivers with a previous DWI/DUI offense receive a license suspension of 120 to 180 days (four to six months) or one year if the driver refuses to take a breath test and has a previous license suspension on record at the time of the second offense.[42]
Prosecutors have other legal recourses at their disposal in addition to the ALR program; they may choose to dismiss the case, accept a plea, or prosecute the case. Under SS521.344(b)(2) of the Transportation Code, second-time offenders receive a license suspension of 180 days to two years. The minimum suspension period of 180 days does not meet the federal requirement of one year. Only drivers under the age of 21 convicted of DWI receive an automatic license suspension of one year.[43]
If Texas does not increase its period of license suspension to one year by October 1, 2000, 1.5 percent of the state's federal highway funds, or about $20 million, will be transferred to the state's traffic safety programs in both federal fiscal 2001 and 2002; the penalty would double to $40 million in fiscal 2003 and thereafter.[44]
Opponents to lengthening Texas' license suspension period argue that more than half of all repeat offenders continue to drive despite having a suspended license, and therefore changing the law may have little overall impact on the DWI problem. But research indicates that offenders with a suspended license "appear to drive less frequently and in a more cautious manner than previously to avoid apprehension."[45] Therefore, lengthening the license suspension period to one year would keep more of these dangerous repeat offenders off the highways longer, and cause risk-takers to drive more cautiously.
Auto insurance discounts
Texas insurance companies are authorized by the Texas Department of Insurance (TDI) to give a 5 percent discount on automobile insurance premiums for three years to clients who attend an authorized DWI prevention class. The six-hour class is taught by certified instructors trained by Texas A&M University for the Texas Drug and Alcohol Driving Awareness Program.The Texas Commission on Alcohol and Drug Abuse (TCADA) initially administered the program but transferred administrative responsibility to Texas A&M about two years ago when the agency began downsizing. The program fell under the purview of Texas A&M's Center for Alcohol and Drug Education Studies. In November 1997, TCADA repealed its rules; however, Texas A&M continued to offer the class and train and certify instructors without specific statutory authorization.
On June 18, 1998, TDI held a hearing to decide whether to continue to offer a 5 percent premium discount on auto insurance, since no state agency possesses statutory authority to administer the Texas Drug and Alcohol Driving Awareness Program or to develop its curriculum and certify instructors. TDI decided to table the issue and allow the Legislature to address the problem.
The program is a positive step toward reducing the DWI/DUI problem in Texas. Graduates of the class attest to its ability to positively influence driving behavior. When asked what they learned from the class, various students responded: "even a little bit of alcohol can cause problems--especially with driving"; "if you only have a couple of beers, your driving is affected"; "although not legally intoxicated, someone who has been drinking is still dangerous"; "I was alarmed to see the risks involved when alcohol is present"; and "driving drunk or under the influence is stupid."
When asked to describe how the class affected them personally, students responded: "greatly, because it taught me to NEVER get into a car when someone is drinking"; "now I won't drink and drive"; and "I learned exactly how dangerous drinking and driving can be."[46]
The Texas Education Agency (TEA) is a likely candidate to administer this program. TEA already is responsible for developing the curriculum for defensive driving courses, regulating commercial driving schools, and recommending a curriculum for private and public driver education courses. TEA also includes a significant portion of the Texas Drug and Alcohol Driving Awareness course in its driver education curriculum.[47]
Recommendations
A. The Texas Code of Criminal Procedure should be amended to permit sobriety checkpoints and to standardize sobriety checkpoint procedures.This would meet the Texas court requirement for uniform checkpoint procedures and favorably position the state to receive more federal transportation dollars.
B. State law should be amended to establish 0.08 BAC as the maximum legal limit.
Reducing the state's legal BAC limit to 0.08 will help reduce accidents and fatalities on Texas roadways due to impaired driving. In 1997, Texas led the nation in alcohol-related traffic fatalities. By establishing 0.08 BAC as the legal limit, Texas will qualify for additional federal funding.
C. State law should require a one-year license suspension for repeat DWI offenders.
The new federal transportation bill requires a one-year license suspension for all second-time DWI offenders. States which do not have or are not enforcing such a law by October 1, 2000 will have a percentage of their federal highway appropriation diverted to state highway safety programs.
D. State law should be amended to require the Texas Education Agency to approve alcohol and drug abuse driving awareness programs, adopt rules for them, and certify trainers for these programs.
This would enable drivers who complete alcohol and drug abuse driving awareness programs to continue to receive a premium discount on their auto insurance, assuming TDI continues to offer premium discounts to drivers who complete such programs.
Fiscal Impact
No additional cost would be required for sobriety checkpoints. Sheriffs and police departments could choose to operate checkpoints at their discretion.
TEA could administer alcohol and drug abuse driving awareness programs with existing agency resources.
The federal highway transportation bill, TEA-21, includes financial incentives for states to establish .08 as the legal blood alcohol content limit. According to the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT), for each fiscal year that a state has and enforces a limit of .08 BAC or less, the U.S. Secretary of Transportation is required to provide a grant. The size of each state's grant is based upon two factors: the total number of states that qualify, and a percentage of funds already apportioned to each qualifying state's federal traffic safety (DWI prevention) programs.
According to TxDOT, if Texas becomes the sixteenth state to enact and enforce a .08 BAC limit, the state could receive the following additional federal funds. A note of caution, however; the grant money will be shared by all eligible states. If more states establish 0.08 as the legal BAC limit, each state's share will decrease.
Fiscal Year Gain to State Highway Fund 2000 $12,448,000 2001 14,004,000 2002 15,560,000 2003 17,116,000 2004 0 By enacting a one-year license suspension period for repeat (second-time) DWI offenders, the state may avoid a sanction imposed by new federal law. This sanction would require a state to transfer 1.5 percent of its federal highway funding to highway safety or hazard elimination programs in federal fiscal 2001 and 2002 and 3 percent in each year thereafter. This would equal $20 million in federal fiscal 2001 and 2002 and $40 million in each year thereafter.
The recommendations would cause a one-time dip in fiscal 2000 in revenue collected from license reinstatement fees (for second-time DWI offenders) due to extending the collection period to a maximum of one year from the current revocation period of 120 to 180 days. This reduction cannot be estimated at this time.
Endnotes
[1] National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, National Center for Statistics & Analysis, Research & Development, Traffic Safety Facts 1997 - Alcohol (U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C.), p. 7.
[2] National Safety Council and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Setting Limits, Saving Lives: The Case for .08 BAC Laws (Washington, D.C., 1997), p. 2.
[3] National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, A Guide to Sentencing DUI Offenders (Washington, D.C., March 1996), p. 1.
[4] Robert D. Brewer, M.D., and David A. Sleet, Ph.D., "Here's the Problem: Here's What Works," Washington Post National Weekly (Washington, D.C., December 8, 1997), p. S7.
[5] Texas Department of Public Safety, Motor Vehicle Traffic Accidents (Austin, Texas, 1996), p. 47.
[6] Robert D. Brewer, M.D., and David A. Sleet, Ph.D., "Here's the Problem: Here's What Works."
[7] National Safety Council and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Setting Limits, Saving Lives: The Case for .08 BAC Laws, p. 19.
[8] Robert D. Brewer, M.D., and David A. Sleet, Ph.D., "Here's the Problem: Here's What Works."
[9] National Safety Council and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Setting Limits, Saving Lives: The Case for .08 BAC Laws, p. 19.
[10] National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1995 Youth Fatal Crash and Alcohol Facts (Washington, D.C.), p. 9.
[11] Fax from Sharon Cloninger, assistant director of hearings, Legal Services Division, Department of Public Safety, Austin, Texas, April, 23, 1998.
[12] Texas Senate Committee on Criminal Justice, Interim Report (Austin, Texas, September 1996),
p. 22.[13] For example, the New Mexico Court of Appeals established sobriety checkpoint guidelines in Las Cruces v. Betancourt, 1987.
[14] Testimony of Bill Lewis, public policy liaison for Mothers Against Drunk Driving, before the Texas House of Representatives Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence, Austin, Texas, March 12, 1997.
[15] National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, "Safe and Sober Campaign: Sobriety Checkpoints," Washington, D.C. (Flyer.)
[16] "Issues Related to Driving While Intoxicated," Senate Committee on Criminal Justice: Interim Report, September 1996, p. 23 (cited in Traffic Safety Digest, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Fall 1995).
[17] Jack W. Stuster, Ph.D., and Paul A. Blowers, M.A., Experimental Evaluation of Sobriety Checkpoint Programs: Final Report (Washington, D.C., National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, June 1996), pp. iii-iv.
[18] Jack W. Stuster, Ph.D., and Paul A. Blowers, M.A., Experimental Evaluation of Sobriety Checkpoint Programs: Final Report, p. v.
[19] Mathew L. Wald, "Tough Action on Drunken Driving Pays Off," The New York Times (New York City, New York, November 26, 1997), p. 1.
[20] Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990); and Sanchez v. State, 856 S.W.2d 166 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993), as reported in "Issues Related to Driving while Intoxicated," Texas Senate Committee on Criminal Justice: Interim Report (Austin, Texas, September 1996), p. 23.
[21] Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990).
[22] Testimony of Bill Lewis, March 12, 1997.
[23] "Sobriety Checkpoints," The Dallas Morning News (Dallas, Texas, January 28, 1997), and Matthew Aguilar, "Safety outweighs hassle of checkpoints, voters say," El Paso Times (El Paso, Texas, March 14, 1997).
[24] H. Moskowitz and M. Burns, "Effects of Alcohol on Driving Performance," Alcohol Health and Research World, Volume 14, 1990, pp.12-14, cited by Ralph Hingson in "Effects of Lower Legal Blood Alcohol Limits for Young and Adult Drivers," Alcohol, Drugs and Driving, Volume 10, 1994, p. 244. James Hedlund, "If They Didn't Drink, Would They Crash Anyway?"-The Role of Alcohol in Traffic Crashes, Alcohol, Drugs and Driving, Volume 10, Number 2, pp. 115-125. Moskowitz and Robinson, Effects of Low Doses of Alcohol on Driving Related Skills: a Review of the Evidence , National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, (Washington, D.C., 1988).
[25] U.S. Department of Transportation and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, The Detection of DWI at BACs Below 0.10, by Jack Stuster, Anacapa Sciences. Santa Barbara, California, September 12, 1997, p. B-3.
[26] Attorney General Tom Udall's DWI Prevention Task Force Report, Preventable Deaths: An Action Plan for New Mexicans to Prevent DWI (Santa Fe, New Mexico, December 1992), p. 22.
[27] Moskowitz and Robinson, Effects of Low Doses of Alcohol on Driving Related Skills: a Review of the Evidence, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (Washington, D.C., 1988).
[28] National Safety Council and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Setting Limits, Saving Lives: The Case for 0.08 BAC Laws, p. 4.
[29] National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, "Repeat DWI Offenders in the United States," Traffic Tech (Washington, D.C., February 1995).
[30] Katherine Prescott, "Repeat DUI Offenders: Who are they & what can we do about them?" Driven, Mothers Against Drunk Driving (Arlington, Texas; Volume 1, Issue 1, 1998).
[31] Background informational packet furnished by Bill Lewis, public policy liaison, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Fort Worth, Texas, May 1998.
[32] National Safety Council and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Setting Limits, Saving Lives: The Case for 0.08 BAC Laws (Washington, D.C., December 1997), p. 12.
[33] Telephone survey conducted by Texas Performance Review, May 29, 1998.
[34] "Almost 70 Percent of Americans Support National .08 Legislation According to Allstate Survey," AOL News, March 4, 1998.
[35] "Statement of Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety in Response to President Clinton Endorsement of a National Uniform .08 Drunk Driving Law," AOL News, March 3, 1998.
[36] National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, "Repeat DWI Offenders in the United States," Traffic Tech (Washington, D.C., February 1995).
[37] Robert D. Brewer, M.D., and David A. Sleet, Ph.D., "Here's the Problem: Here's What Works,"
p. S7.[38] Katherine Prescott, "Here's Who Repeat Offenders Are; Here's What To Do About Them," Washington Post National Weekly (Washington, D.C., December 8, 1997), p. S2.
[39] A. Rodgers, "Effect of Minnesota's License Plate Impoundment Law on Recidivism of Multiple DWI Violators," Alcohol, Drugs, and Driving, 10(2), pp. 127-134, 1994; A.F. Williams, "The Effectiveness of Countermeasures Against Alcohol-Impaired Driving," Political Approaches to Injury Control at the State Level, edited by A.B. Bergman (University of Washington Press, Seattle, 1992), pp. 17-26; and A. James McKnight and Robert B. Voas, "The Effect of License Suspension Upon DWI Recidivism," Alcohol, Drugs, and Driving, pp. 43-54, 1991.
[40] National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, A Guide to Sentencing DUI Offenders, p. 7.
[41] Fax communication from Gary Taylor, senior regional program manager, National Highway Transportation Safety Administration, Fort Worth, Texas, July 27, 1998.
[42] V.T.C.A. Transportation Code SS524.022 (a)(2)(3) and (b)(2); and V.T.C.A. Transportation Code SS724.035 (c).
[43] V.T.C.A. Transportation Code SS521.342 (b).
[44] Email from Denise Pittard, policy analyst, Legislative Affairs Office, Texas Department of Transportation, Austin, Texas, January 15, 1999.
[45] National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, A Guide to Sentencing DUI Offenders, p. 7.
[46] Correspondence from Terry Derrington, state certified instructor, Texas Drug and Alcohol Driving Awareness Program, Keller, Texas, June 6, 1998.
[47] Telephone interview with Kathy Kenerson, Driver Training Division, Texas Education Agency, Austin, Texas, June 30, 1998.