Critics Say District's DUI Policy Goes Too Far

Washington Post ^ | 10/13/05 | Brigid Schulte

[elkfersupper]

Officials with organizations that lobby for safe roads and tough drunken driving laws yesterday criticized the District's zero-tolerance policy toward drinking and driving, saying that they'd never heard of it and that limited police resources should be devoted to those more obviously drunk. Even D.C. Council member Carol Schwartz (R-At Large), who has sponsored legislation to lower the legal limit for drunken driving, said she was not aware that police officers are arresting drivers who have as little as .01 percent blood alcohol content -- less than from drinking a glass of wine or beer -- in their systems. Nor did she think that such a policy was a good idea.

[elkfersupper]

Carol Schwartz (R-At Large), who has sponsored legislation to lower the legal limit for drunken driving, said she was not aware that police officers are arresting drivers who have as little as .01 percent blood alcohol content

Sorry, Carol. Try and get that toothpaste back in the tube and you will be viciously attacked by MADD and others.

A follow-up to this thread.

Single Glass of Wine Immerses D.C. Driver in Legal Battle

[elkfersupper]

Follow-up to your previous thread.

[mtbopfuyn]

Just a little impaired behind the wheel is the same as being just a little pregnant.

[elkfersupper]

Just a little impaired behind the wheel is the same as being just a little pregnant.

You better park it then. Everybody is a little impaired.

[ChinaThreat]

Why bother with a BAC test then? This is precisely why a bac is performed. Once sip of wine versus a 12-pack before driving. You don't think there is a difference?

[phatoldphart]

Let me get this straight. If they have 0 tolerance, then the worst ones will be ignored?

[supercat]

Just a little impaired behind the wheel is the same as being just a little pregnant.

Nonsense. There are many things which will increase a motorist's likelihood of getting in an accident far more than a 0.02 BAC [or for many people even a 0.08BAC] but are nonetheless perfectly legal. Why single out alcohol?

[supercat]

Let me get this straight. If they have 0 tolerance, then the worst ones will be ignored?

Oftentimes, yes. If a zero-tolerance policy is in effect and resources only allow 10% of "intoxicated" motorists to be caught, then a lot of dangerously intoxicated motorists will not be caught because of the resources allocated to the harmless ones.

[thoughtomator]

Given that I consider utter stupidity to be an impairment, I'm used to impaired drivers on the road.

[usurper]

This is actually a good idea…….

If your sole peruse is to generate revenue.

[elkfersupper]

Let me get this straight. If they have 0 tolerance, then the worst ones will be ignored?

No, the object is to go after the worst ones and ignore the people who had one glass of wine with dinner (who - surprisingly - can pay fines).

[somemoreequalthanothers]

It's a shame DUI doesn't carry the same penalty as perjuring yourself before a grand jury or stealing classified documents from the National Archives.

[Antonello]

Just a little impaired behind the wheel is the same as being just a little pregnant.

This is not even close to a comparable analogy. The 0.08 limit wasn't arbitrary; it was derived from research that identified at what point alcohol began to significantly affect driving skills. Lowering the threshold to .01 won't reduce the amount of alcohol related accidents, but it certainly will make for a great revenue generator and appeasement point to the MADD crowd.

[elkfersupper]

The 0.08 limit wasn't arbitrary

Actually, it was arbitrary - the result of NHTSA and MADD lobbying the American Medical Association to come up with a number.

It started at .15, then went to .12, then to .10, then to .08.

MADD is currently campaigning for .05 - I don't know why, because we already have de facto prohibition, as demonstrated in this article.

[Atlas Sneezed]

Just a little impaired behind the wheel is the same as being just a little pregnant.

---

Yes and no.

Yes, in the sense that having a conversation with a passenger, being a little pooped at eh end of the workday, having your eyesight not being what it once was, and having had a beer an hour ago are impairments. But none of these justify arresting people, not even a prohibition in a free society.

No, in the medical science sense that shows that BAC levels under 0.08-010 thresholds are on a par with sober elderly and teens, and maybe even sober adult cell phone users (none of these things being criminal, either.

And no, in the sense that medical studies show that impairment is not linearly proportional to BAC level, but is relatively gently sloping up to about 0.12-0.15 BAC (the traditional threshold before medical science was supplanted by politics in setting limits). After this point, the impairment curve knees sharply up. Which fits common sense, in that you can watch your local paper for a long time, reading about scores of drunk-caused fatalities, until you see one under 0.12. (I did this for a year in a metro area of a million people, and the only one under that level was teens who were street racing, so there may have been a cause other than alcohol.)

[Atlas Sneezed]

Let me get this straight. If they have 0 tolerance, then the worst ones will be ignored?

---

If drunk enforcement were limited to cops driving around at night, paying attention to the traffic, and watching for drunks, they'd catch the genuinely impaired ones. When they are stopping random, normal-driving motorists on pretexts, or raising speed limit money, and sniffing for a hint of alcohol that had no visible effect on driving performance, they are busy at the roadside while the swerving drunk drives by.

[Atlas Sneezed]

The 0.08 limit wasn't arbitrary; it was derived from research that identified at what point alcohol began to significantly affect driving skills.

---

No, 0.08 IS arbitrary. The old 0.15-0.12 were based on science. I have seen the medical studies with the bend in the impairment curve at that range.

[thomas16]

If this is the policy then they should shut down all the bars and not allow restaurants to serve any liquor. Otherwise the the bar or restaurant that served her the glass of wine is also responsible. This is how it works, so if you have one drink and get pulled over you can sue the restaurant for allowing you to leave in an intoxicated condition.

[elkfersupper]

It's a shame DUI doesn't carry the same penalty as perjuring yourself before a grand jury or stealing classified documents from the National Archives.

True, but there's no money in that - only one or two offenders-defended by the mainstream media.

[coladirienzi]

Absolutely correct, its about the money, and only the money.

Like most people, I want reasonable laws enforced in a common sense manner. I really get pissed seeing my tax dollars being used by some Barney Fife hiding in the weeds with his radar gun. I've also seen folks get pulled over a block after leaving a bar or restaurant for no particular reason, no weaving or weirdness, and be forced to blow up the balloon.

I am surprised that more police don't resent being treated like a modern version of eighteenth century English highwaymen.

If traffic fines were replaced by mandatory jail sentences the number of tickets written would drop to zip because now it would cost the city to stop someone instead of fleecing them.