There is a price to procrastination. In deferring Senate Bill 160 to lower blood alcohol concentration (BAC) from 0.08 to 0.05, our lawmakers seem to have decided that they can tolerate the price of more lives lost.

What will the toll be in lives lost or permanently damaged by alcohol­-impaired driving before our lawmakers get around to considering this measure that has been proven to save lives in every developed country that has adopted it?

I keep hearing the pain in the voice of someone who lost her sister after a crash caused by an alcohol-impaired driver. She said, “The driver will do a short time in jail and then come out and get on with the rest of his life. I will never see my sister again.”

How many more lives will be lost or changed forever before the next legislative session?

Would it be worth the delay if even one life is lost or damaged because we procrastinated?

We have been told that more data is needed. But the data is already there. Jim Fell, the principal research scientist for Economics, Justice & Society at NORC, University of Chicago, observes: “The evidence is stronger for lowering BAC for driving from .08 to .05 than any other current impaired driving countermeasure.”

There also are a Utah study and a meta-analysis study showing its effectiveness in the short time the law has been implemented in that state. More than a dozen studies from Australia, Europe, Japan and South America show that 0.05 BAC saves lives.

All the evidence points to 0.05 being the most rational countermeasure in the toolbox for creating safer streets. Lab studies show impairment at 0.05 BAC and the risk of a crash is significant at 0.05 BAC, so it is no surprise that there is broad public acceptance of a 0.05 BAC limit. I believe voters welcome this measure; lawmakers should, too. Plus, legislators can do this knowing there is zero cost to the state in doing so.

We were told that one of the reasons state Rep. David Tarnas, chair of the Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs Committee, did not schedule a hearing for the bill was because he felt he did not have the support of his colleagues on the committee or in the House. He told us that “many of them have significant questions about the bill that prevent them from supporting the bill at this time.”

We are baffled. Over these many months of advocating for the measure, we have seen growing support from voters. Every sign-waving event on each island drew enthusiastic representation from the police, teachers, students, nonprofit leaders, youth leaders, health professionals and families of those impacted by the deadly consequences of impaired driving. The commentary columns and letters to the editor on every island reflected a similar diversity.

Our campaign has been closely followed by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), who offered testimony, a commentary piece, and took part in an interview on Hawaii Public Radio. In addition to the NTSB, this measure also has the endorsement of the World Health Organization, the world’s largest brewer, Anheuser-­Busch, and others.

In the face of all this support, it is bewildering to be told that a life-saving measure like lowering the BAC would be shunted off by our lawmakers for another year, when it may or may not be heard because of a “lack of support.”

Rep. Tarnas has said that he will “update the members of the committee and the House before next session to gauge if there is enough support to schedule the bill for a hearing next session.”

We trust the update will include a tally of lives lost and impaired. We hope that Tarnas will uphold his commitment to meet with his colleagues, collect more data and support SB 160. It will save lives.

Cynthia Okazaki, a community volunteer and advocate for road safety, retired from Parents and Children Together (PACT) in 2016.