Let's Abolish Drunk Driving Laws
That's the thesis of this piece in Reason, by Radley Balko. As Balko points out, it's odd that the law focuses on a specific level of blood-alcohol content rather than impairment. Studies suggest that various activities cause as much impairment as .08 Blood Alcohol Content, including talking on the phone (even with hands-free device), eating, and even having a kid in the back seat.
Moreover, the whole infrastructure of enforcing drunk driving laws -- the sobriety checks, the breathalyzers, blood tests, etc., are constitutionally dubious. Consider state laws that instantly suspend the licenses of drivers who refuse to take roadside breath tests: what happened to the presumption of innocence?
So why not simply have more consistent and aggressive enforcement of reckless driving, whatever the cause of the recklessness? And, while we're at it, why not make the driving tests a little more challenging? Is it worth focusing so much attention on alcohol?
- Comment (53)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
Re: Let's Abolish Drunk Driving Laws
Car accident statistics:
I completely agree. Something definitely needs to change.
May '10
Re: Let's Abolish Drunk Driving Laws
Joshua Riddle, Intern: Car accident statistics:
I completely agree. Something definitely needs to change. · Jan 4 at 7:07pm
These stats are interesting, but I have always wondered what percent of those accidents/injuries/deaths are caused by a drunk driver. Is it the leading cause? I have always suspected that since it wasn't mentioned every time they talk about DUIs, it isn't... Do you guys have that info?
Re: Let's Abolish Drunk Driving Laws
Joshua Riddle, Intern: Car accident statistics:
I completely agree. Something definitely needs to change. · Jan 4 at 7:07pm
Thanks Josh! I don't usually like to introduce facts into my conversations, but I'll make an exception here.
Edited on Jan 4, 2011 at 7:26pmMay '10
Re: Let's Abolish Drunk Driving Laws
My feeling about why drunk driving laws keep getting more and more stringent as time goes by is that virtually every kind of criminal has achieved a kind of victim status. The only groups left that a law-and-order legislator can safely demonize are drunk drivers and pedophiles, so they have to keep piling on them rather than go after traditional criminals.
Smokers have honorary status in the drunk driver/pedophile class as well.
Jul '10
Re: Let's Abolish Drunk Driving Laws
Hay Joshua, what does Yer link have to do with Freedman's post? You completely agree with what? What needs to be changed?
Jul '10
Re: Let's Abolish Drunk Driving Laws
Ideally, we would measure impairment rather than the blood level of one particular agent of impairment. Driving while severely sleep-deprived isn't any safer than driving drunk (and may be far worse, depending on the degree of drunkenness) but it's more of a challenge to measure. Designing a test that got at impairment of relevant driving skills would be a challenge, but if possible, would be a move toward a more rational law that punished the drivers who are most putting others at risk.
Dec '10
Re: Let's Abolish Drunk Driving Laws
Whenever I see someone driving in a way that 25 years ago would have immediately led to suspicions of driving "drunk", I try to see if they have a cell phone glued to their ear. They almost always do.
I see this often, a few times a week minimum, and at all hours of the day.
I keep an eye on them and drive extra defensively, same as I would if I suspected they were driving under the influence, until I can get a safe distance away.
Re: Let's Abolish Drunk Driving Laws
"why not simply have more consistent and aggressive enforcement of reckless driving, whatever the cause of the recklessness?"
Merely commenting about the seriousness of reckless driving and agreeing that we need to be more aggressive with its enforcement. Whatever we are doing now obviously isn't working.
I Should have been more clear, I am a little out of it right now trucking through the first reading of my 'Sex, Gender and Society: Introduction to Women's and Gender Studies' class. Thanks 'Cultural Identity' distributive requirement.
Dec '10
Re: Let's Abolish Drunk Driving Laws
I think today's neo-prohibitionists have something to do with it, too. Prohibitionist sentiment didn't end in 1933. The demon alcohol crowd is still around and active. DUI laws are one of their favorite lobbying battlegrounds. Some advocate zero tolerance laws making a blood alcohol level while driving of over 0.0% a criminal offense even for first time offenders.
Imagine what they could do using Obamacare.
Edited on Jan 4, 2011 at 8:00pmJul '10
Re: Let's Abolish Drunk Driving Laws
Impairment?! There are parking spaces specifically targeted for impaired drivers! What's the difference between an intoxicated driver and One Who is 87 years old?
How about prosecuting People who actually do damage instead of laws trying to prevent it. If You want laws to prevent damages, then outlaw the automobile.
Edited on Jan 4, 2011 at 8:09pmRe: Let's Abolish Drunk Driving Laws
Excellent topic, Adam. We all know there's something that doesn't make sense in the focus on drunk drivers as opposed to bad drivers. I'd much rather be in a car driven by the young Chuck Yeager, even if he was drunk as a lord, than in a car driven by my grandmother--who kept driving until she was 99, and there was nothing we could legally do to stop it, and believe me I looked into it, and believe me, it was as bad as it sounded.
Jul '10
Re: Let's Abolish Drunk Driving Laws
A recent development I find chilling is Florida's "no refusal" sobriety checkpoints, where all drivers are compelled to blow into a breathalyzer. For those who refuse, a judge is there on the spot to issue a court order which authorizes police to forcibly take a blood sample.
Re: Let's Abolish Drunk Driving Laws
I agree that focusing exclusively on demon alcohol misses the broader problem. With the proliferation of medical marijuana here in California--the just-departed Governator recently signing a further decriminalization bill--how can we deter a rise in breathalyzer-approved driving while stoned?
Re: Let's Abolish Drunk Driving Laws
Chilling news, Kenneth. There is no such thing as a perfect medical test. There's intrinsic sensitivity and specificity to consider, as also device calibration and cross-contamination. In mass-screening scenarios you are more likely to wind up with false-positives, arresting, trying and convicting motorists who are in fact completely sober.
Jun '10
Re: Let's Abolish Drunk Driving Laws
Adam Freedman: ....Studies suggest that various activities cause as much impairment as .08 Blood Alcohol Content, including talking on the phone (even with hands-free device), eating, and even having a kid in the back seat.
Moreover, the whole infrastructure of enforcing drunk driving laws -- the sobriety checks, the breathalyzers, blood tests, etc., are constitutionally dubious. Consider state laws that instantly suspend the licenses of drivers who refuse to take roadside breath tests: what happened to the presumption of innocence?
So why not simply have more consistent and aggressive enforcement of reckless driving, whatever the cause of the recklessness? And, while we're at it, why not make the driving tests a little more challenging? Is it worth focusing so much attention on alcohol? ·
Reckless is subjective. Blood alcohol is not. American law doesn't like subjective measurements all that much. And what makes intoxication different than pure distraction is, you can't shut alcohol impairment off in the distance of a block. You can always put away the phone, put the hamburger down, and maybe scare the kids into being quiet.
Dec '10
Re: Let's Abolish Drunk Driving Laws
I'm interested in how open people are about this. I sure am. But I'd be curious to see what Ricochet members would have said about this issue two or three years ago. I've noticed people in center-right-ish circles more readily and proudly supporting such blatent libertarian changes in the past year. Probably for the better
Nov '10
Re: Let's Abolish Drunk Driving Laws
An excellent source of information on the evil of DUI laws is Lawrence Taylor’s DUI Blog.
It’s worse than you think. For example:
Breathalyzer tests are no where near as scientific as they are touted to be because they assume inconstant variables to be the same at all times for all people, such as the formula for conversion of breath alcohol to blood alcohol;
There is nothing scientific about .08, it is purely political;
A “DUI exception” to the U.S. Constitution has been carved out by the courts;
Courts and police departments depend heavily on DUI arrests for a mountain of revenue;
MADD is the most powerful lobbying group in the nation and is an organization of hysterical zealots whose ultimate goal is complete prohibition;
A MADD officer spoke frankly when she thought the microphone was turned off and was caught saying, “We will not stop until the glass of wine with dinner is a thing of the past;”
Roadside sobriety tests in common use are not a very good measure of driving impairment and used solely to give the officer probable cause to make an arrest;
Much more at DUI Blog
Nov '10
Re: Let's Abolish Drunk Driving Laws
Just a few of the collateral consequences of a DUI conviction that most people either aren’t aware of or don’t think about:
Unbelievably high insurance premiums for at least 5 years;
Barred from entering Canada for 5 years for one DUI, for life for more than one;
Unable to rent a car from Avis or Hertz or most of the others;
Loss of a commercial drivers' license for one year for the first DUI. Of course, that means the loss of your job if you drive for a living;
A lowering of your credit score so that even if you can get a loan it will be at a high rate of interest (a low credit score affects much more than one’s ability to obtain credit);
Loss of CCW permit in many states. (if you are in possession of a firearm when you get a DUI you are in worse trouble.)
These are just a sample, there’s more.
Disclaimer: I have never had a DUI. I do not drink at all when I have to drive. I am much too afraid of this system. MADD wins. No glass of wine with dinner for me.
Nov '10
Re: Let's Abolish Drunk Driving Laws
One mistake most people who think about DUI laws make is thinking the objective is to get drunks off the road. That’s not what it’s about. It’s about getting as many convictions as possible. There is money in it for everyone, except the poor sap who gets nailed for having a burnt out tail light, and who would have harmed no one if he had been allowed to continue on his way unmolested.
The real drunks, the ones with a BAC of .20 or higher, are still on the road maiming and killing the innocent. MADD is not focused on that because it is too complicated. They haven’t a clue what to do. So they go for the easy stuff, making "a glass of wine with dinner a thing of the past.”
They will be successful doing that, but they will have done nothing that will have the slightest effect for getting recidivist drunks off the road. Whatever the answer, the first step is to realize that resources used to fight social drinking are therefore not available to fight the real problem.
Edited on Jan 4, 2011 at 11:21pmNov '10
Re: Let's Abolish Drunk Driving Laws
I know how we can get recidivist drunks off the road. But I’m serial posting and have to stop.