Designated Drivers

* Re “Designated Driver Programs May Neglect Costs of Alcohol,” June 20:

Through inaccuracies and omissions, your article presents a misleading assessment of the designated-driver concept, undercutting its important value in keeping drunk drivers off the road:

Your reporter cites an unsubstantiated concern that designated-driver programs might inadvertently encourage abusive drinking by the driver’s companions. However, a new national study, conducted by the Harvard School of Public Health, lays this concern to rest. Among college students, the use of designated drivers actually results in a net reduction in binge drinking on campus. This is because, among students who usually binge-drink, 47% abstain when they serve as a designated driver and an additional 23% limit themselves to a single drink. I shared these findings with your reporter.

The article leaves the erroneous impression that the designated-driver campaign does not include a moderation message aimed at the driver’s companions. The campaign places great emphasis on a moderation message. The article claims that a “backlash” is developing against designated-driver programs. However, an original handful of critics has actually declined in number over the past several years, and their views have long been reported in the press.

The designated-driver concept has three key strengths: It promotes a social norm that the driver does not drink any alcohol; grants social legitimacy to the nondrinking option; and encourages people to plan ahead when they go out.

Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop put it well in The Times in 1992: “Don’t drink if you have a problem with it. And for those who don’t have a problem, drink only in controlled moderation. The best thing that could happen in that area is an absolute commitment to the designated driver.”

JAY A. WINSTEN Ph.D.

Associate Dean, Harvard School

of Public Health, Boston