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 :
Dec '10
Re: Let's Abolish Drunk Driving Laws
Wylee Coyote
What makes you say that other causes of fatal crashes are ignored?
That was meant in relative terms.
Leaving aside the deliberately exaggerated claims of the anti-DUI crusaders (many of whom are essentially prohibitionists), both in terms of defining the scope of the "problem" and the effect their increasingly draconian and punitive laws have had on the "problem", the fact is close to 30,000 people are killed annually in crashes where alcohol is not or is probably not the cause.
Joshua indirectly alluded to this.
In relative terms nothing like the time, effort, and politically motivated attention given to "drunk" driving is devoted to siginificantly reducing that number, nor are the penalties, including in monitary terms, anything like those for DUI.
I concluded a couple decades ago that most anti-DUI crusaders and zealots are more concerned about reducing alcohol consumption and demonizing it than they are about reducing highway fatalities. Others are most interested in the revenue/income that is generated and/or in advancing their political careers. An entire "DUI industry" has been created that many people benefit from. If they were really mostly concerned about traffic deaths they would have branched out.
Edited on Jan 6, 2011 at 9:12amMay '10
Re: Let's Abolish Drunk Driving Laws
CDC doesn't define it; you gotta go to the study. MADD probably doesn't define it when they link to the CDC study. It's cite ready, people don't do it though. Just because you define it a certain way doesn't make it reasonable, if the general usage is contrary to how it's defined, and crowding it into a footnote doesn't help.
I agree that the key is controllability. I'm talking about why the stats are misleading, not whether we can change behaviour. Though I am for changing behaviour, through laws that focus on behaviour and not paying city budgets.
Dec '10
Re: Let's Abolish Drunk Driving Laws
More about "alcohol-impairment". From the article Adam linked...
"People... react to alcohol differently. For many people one drink may well be too many. Experienced drinkers, by contrast, can function relatively normally with a BAC at or above the legal threshold. A person’s impairment may also depend on variables such as the medications he is taking and the amount of sleep he got the night before.
Acevedo’s objections to the legal definition of intoxication highlight the absurdity of drawing an arbitrary, breathalyzer-based line between sobriety and criminal intoxication."
Winston Churchill effectively led Great Britain through WW II with a BAC while awake that probably varied between 0.01 and over our legal limit. He usually began drinking a weak mixture of scotch and water after waking, and drank off and on throughout the day.
Was he "impaired" in performing his duties? I don't think so. Regular drinkers develop a tolerance for alcohol that mitigates the affects, especially at lower BACs. I have observed that when the DUI crusaders are confronted with this fact they usually shift into "demon alcohol" mode and stop talking about DUI. They shift to arguing about alleged evils of alcohol in general.
Edited on Jan 6, 2011 at 9:39amJul '10
Re: Let's Abolish Drunk Driving Laws
Well, in that case, I'll word this point poorly, and we'll call it even. :)
I think I understand what you're getting at: 32% share of driving population wouldn't equate to involvement in 32% of fatal accidents, assuming there is more than 1 driver involved (both drivers don't have to be killed for it to be considered a fatal accident). That makes a lot of sense, my number was off.
Still, it seems extremely likely to me that in order for the 32% involvement figure to be a mere statistical accident, the percentage of drivers who are drunk at any given time would have to be awfully high.
Edited on Jan 6, 2011 at 9:45amJul '10
Re: Let's Abolish Drunk Driving Laws
Nickolas: Winston Churchill effectively led Great Britain through WW II with a BAC while awake that probably varied between 0.01 and over our legal limit. He usually began drinking a weak mixture of scotch and water after waking, and drank off and on throughout the day.
Was he "impaired" in performing his duties? I don't think so. · Jan 6 at 9:34am
And I bet he had a driver.
You hear this sort of thing a lot, about Winston Churchill, or Ulysses S Grant. And as a response to "alcohol is evil and no one should drink", it makes sense. But I don't think anyone here is making that case. I'm certainly not.
But we're not talking here about steering the ship of state, we're talking about steering a couple tons of speeding car. A physical task. There's a reason you hear about the drunk Prime Minister and the sodden general, but you don't hear about the drunk fighter pilot.
Dec '10
Re: Let's Abolish Drunk Driving Laws
Wylee Coyote
You hear this sort of thing a lot, about Winston Churchill, or Ulysses S Grant. ... but you don't hear about the drunk fighter pilot.
First, many arguments here are about the definition of "drunk".
Second, as to "drunk" fighter pilots specifically...again there's that definition of "drunk". In WW II it was not unusual for fighter pilots to fly and fight at BAC levels we would today consider "impaired". Youth, physical condition, adrenaline, and a tolerance for alcohol all mitigate the affects.
The article linked in the OP is about an effort to reduce the legal BAC in Texas from 0.08 to 0.05. This is another in a long litany of actions by the DUI crusaders and their supporters to redefine "drunk" and ratchet up the penalties.
The argument in the linked article basically... "Wait a minute! Hold on there! Is this really doing any good? What about all those other traffic deaths? Shouldn't we start focusing on all impaired driving no matter what the cause and stop with this seemingly unending knee-jerk further criminalization of only one potential cause of impairment?".
I find that position very rational and reasonable.
Jul '10
Re: Let's Abolish Drunk Driving Laws
Radley Balko in the linked article misrepresents Chief Acevedo's position (he refers to a newspaper article but doesn't link to it). I found a TV news segment on the proposed law change that includes an interview with Acevedo.
In it, he isn't moaning because the police can't charge anyone with drunk driving if they're below a .08. In fact, he points out, they already can, if they can make a case based on observations of the driver's behavior. Which is what Balko claims he wants.
The proposed law's rationale is mostly about giving them a lesser DUI charge that can be used in plea bargains, but allowing for enhanced penalties if they reoffend.. Balko ignores that.
Personally, I think if the problem is plea bargains, the solution is better judges and prosecutors. Another law won't solve it.
Jul '10
Re: Let's Abolish Drunk Driving Laws
Really? I admit I've never heard that. I can imagine a small nip to take the edge off maybe, but given the complexity and sureness required to pilot a plane, to say nothing of aerial combat, they were taking to the skies in a condition that would have them failing a DataMaster test? Color me a bit skeptical, particularly of the idea that it was commonplace. Skeptical, but intrigued. :)
Jul '10
Re: Let's Abolish Drunk Driving Laws
I want to address this, because I think it bears addressing. DUI enforcement is not an efficient means of generating revenue, at least not where I work.
I think a lot of people outside of police work don't quite understand how labor-intensive a DUI arrest is. In addition to the normal arrest procedures and paperwork, the prisoner has to be shuttled for the DataMaster test, which itself involves a lot of paperwork, forms, and a 20-minute wait between the implied consent paperwork and the actual breath test itself. There's often a hospital visit involved.
Then once the prisoner is booked and lodged, there is more paperwork, a long, detailed incident report, affidavits, and evidence sheets specific to DUI.
In the time it takes to process a single DUI, an experienced Traffic Division officer could write a large number of moving violations which together would net the city far more than a DUI fine.
The only members of the "DUI Industry" that really make bank are the private-practice attorneys. Naturally.
Dec '10
Re: Let's Abolish Drunk Driving Laws
Wylee Coyote
Really? I admit I've never heard that. ... Color me a bit skeptical, particularly of the idea that it was commonplace.
I said "not unusual", not "commonplace".
Based on reading over decades, were I to try to cite I'd start with Pappy Boyington and Marine pilots in the Solomons. I'd look into the Flying Tigers in China, Brits during the Battle of Britain, and Japanese pilots. Then I'd move on to Russian and German pilots. The constant stress of intense aerial combat was often dealt with by drinking, not as preparation prior to combat, but incidentally and as part of everyday life.
Non- or casual/light drinkers have no idea how the affects of alcohol can be offset by tolerance built up over time, physical fitness/condition, and adrenalin. They think everyone is affected the way they are by a drink or two.
Other examples... Some golfers can shoot par "legally drunk". John Daly did better than that.
May '10
Re: Let's Abolish Drunk Driving Laws
I can see that, this article talks about Albuquerque's profits, but $1 million for a city of 500,000+ doesn't really seem that huge, especially considering the size of the force and the effort. And really, the fines are the least of a person's worries. But it seems like a lot of times DUI fee increases are justified as budget control measures. Penalties that go beyond punitive never really sit well with me.
Jul '10
Re: Let's Abolish Drunk Driving Laws
That's a good point. It's a balancing act: on the one hand, it's tempting to use fines (aka "stupid taxes") to offset funds that would otherwise be wrung from the law-abiding, tax-paying public. But you're right that it carries a risk of losing sight of enforcement priorities in order to get the money.
Jul '10
Re: Let's Abolish Drunk Driving Laws
Ok, I think we're talking about different things here. I don't mean to suggest that WWII fighter pilots were teetotaling choirboys, but rather to illustrate that drinking before flying would degrade their physical performance, and they knew it. That they drank when they weren't flying doesn't change my point.
Pappy Boyington, for example, was famous as a rip-roaring drinker on the ground, but in the biography Black Sheep One it's indicated that his drinking often placed him and his squadmates in danger. He was a talented warrior, to be sure, but it's undeniable that alcohol impaired, as he often had to be replaced on missions because he was too drunk to fly. It's interesting to note, too, that members of Boyington's unit became estranged from him, because they were angry at his portrayal of them as blotto hell-raisers. As his squadmate Fred Avey put it, "We never went up drunk."
Edited on Jan 7, 2011 at 12:51am