Posted on 12/16/2005 5:33:56 PM PST by RWR8189
No one wants to see a family of four killed by a drunk driver. But the United States has veered way out of the lines in its DUI laws, and it’s time to rethink them from bumper to bumper.
Whether you’re a 220 lb. guzzler with an iron liver or a 120 anorexic who’s just had her first drink, you will be evaluated by the same standard in determining whether you’re capable of driving. The standard in most states is a .08 blood-alcohol content or BAC. But other states have policies in which an even lower BAC can send you to jail. Recently, for example, the Washington D.C. city council voted in favor of raising its legal BAC from .01 to .05 -- where between .05 and .079 police may use their discretion about whether to make an arrest.
This will be a marginal improvement over rules yielding incidents like the one involving Debra Bolton who was arrested for a BAC of just .03 (that is, a single glass of wine). Allegedly Mrs. Bolton had forgotten to turn on her headlights, and the police pulled her over. But it is not clear that failing to burn one’s lights is probable cause for suspecting impairment. (Most of us forget from time to time. It doesn’t mean we’re drunk.) But in Debra Bolton’s case, it was only a quick (and questionable) step from a very charitable interpretation of probable cause, to the evocation of the “police discretion” standard, in which officers may arrest based on their subjective belief that the driver is impaired. After all, when they administered the Intoxilyzer 5000, they came up with a .03 reading -- well below the legal limit.
Despite the laudable .04 percent change in the standard for acceptable BAC in Washington (before “police discretion” can be evoked), the city is still left with a rather draconian DUI law. The Cato Institute’s Radley Balko puts all this another way:
But when two-thirds of alcohol-related traffic fatalities involve blood-alcohol levels of .14 and above, and the average fatal accident occurs at .17, this move [changing the legal limit from .1 to .08] doesn't make much sense. It's like lowering the speed limit from 65 to 60 to catch people who drive 100 miles per hour. In fact, the U.S. Government Accountability Office reviewed all the statistical data and concluded "the evidence does not conclusively establish that .08 BAC laws by themselves result in reductions in the number and severity of crashes involving alcohol." (Emphasis added.)
The prima facie argument for a single BAC standard is that there is no other fair standard available for police to make a determination. BAC was introduced because many thought that police discretion and sobriety tests were too subjective on their own, and people were thus vulnerable to abuse by cops looking to fill a quota. BAC was to be an objective standard upon which the law would rest -- with subjective sobriety tests becoming a supplement.
It turns out that while the BAC standard is an objective standard for measuring the percentage of alcohol in the blood. It isn’t an objective standard of someone’s ability to drive safely. The very term DUI stands for “driving under the influence.” But the breathalyzer and other BAC measures can’t determine the influence of alcohol on one’s reaction times, faculties, and motor skills. If we were trying to determine whether someone is actually impaired, aren’t reaction times, faculties and motor skills what we ought to be looking at?
To be fair, there was a time in which the BAC standard made sense. In the absence of a better standard, a proxy standard would have had to suffice -- just as age 65 might be a reasonable proxy standard for testing elderly drivers for the degenerative effects of aging.
So the question comes down to this: Are there other (non-cost prohibitive) standards available for testing drivers? One’s that actually test for impairment?
You bet -- and they’re inexpensive.
My tentative suggestion would be a portable driving simulator. If we train fighter-pilots and astronauts on sims, why not test drivers with them? In fact, there are all sorts of computer programs sitting on servers at different universities around the country, not to mention in for-profit companies. There are programs for everything from learning to drive an eighteen wheeler, to -- eureka -- testing people’s driving abilities under the influence.
Even if we thought the driving simulators extant were somehow insufficient for the task of determining whether or not someone is impaired, we know the technology exists and that a prototype for cops could be worked up in a matter of months. Don’t believe me? This following list of games should give us an idea of what’s out there:
I admit that a formalized simulation might have to be studied extensively. But the technology is there: 3-D virtual reality glasses, algorithms that recreate physical forces, graphics, sound -- and everything else cool and realistic that you might find in your kids’ X-Box 360.
While such new technologies may have to be reworked and tested for use as a legal standard, it’s certainly a significantly better objective standard for determining whether a person is capable of driving than breathalyzers. And while there may be a minor inferential step from someone’s score on the simulation to the presence of alcohol in her body, such a step is far, far narrower than the giant leap between BAC and impairment.
In the interests of justice, have our lawmakers even looked into these options?
Max Borders is Managing Editor for TCS Daily. He is also founder of the Wingbeat Project.
When I was a teenager the cops would not make us pour out our beer, they rather would confiscate it for evidence "just in case we (got) caught you (us) again". In reality, if they did their jobs during the week and Friday night after the football game really well, they wouldn't have to buy any beer for themselves all weekend.
Same was true for fireworks leading up to the fourth.
You are correct. If one glass of wine is certain to cause impairment and lead to a tragic accident, then why are there so many drivers on the road everytime I commute to work or go to the mall? Shouldn't we all be dead by now?
I think the more logical approach is a different level of punishment depending on the level of intoxication. The fact is, I prefer not to have anyone on the road who has had more than one drink, but realistically the real threat is some jerk off who had to hold a hand over one eye because he is so drunk he sees double.
In Virginia, any traffic violation gives you a choice: take the points on your license or go to traffic school. The traffic school is conducted in a hotel ballroom by a private company. You have to pay to take the class and the company gives the state a percentage of the take. There is absolutely no evidence these classes reduce traffic violations or accidents, but since the state gets a windfall from the classes and there is zero overhead, there is no incentive to stop the classes. It's a huge rip-off.
Bump to read later
Let me guess, you vote for Democrats don't you.
You still don't get it. The trend is toward stricter and stricter laws, and the laws *already* criminalize levels of alcohol that DO NOT IMPAIR the driver.
"Good. It would appear that the DUI laws are working in your case"
Years n Years ago, when this nonsense was just starting, some university types decided to use SCCA members in a study. They laid out a gymkhana course, and had everyone drive it as fast as possible after measured amounts of alcohol.
The dirty little secret is that we all did **better** at .1 BAC.
DUI at .1 is overly restrictive. .08 is bloody ridiculous. As the article shows, it's not about preventing traffic accidents, it's about more power for the nazis.
What the DUI laws are "working" to do is to deprive us of another freedom.
"Once you are out on the streets its NOT YOUR RIGHT OR YOUR PRIVATE MATTER."
That is true **if** you are a danger to others. The guy you describe sounds like his BAC was well above .1
America is supposed to be a free country, and damn it, a person who drinks a couple of beers and is not impaired should be free to do it.
Is that your idea of a cogent argument?
I "get it" just fine, thank you.
Years n Years ago, when this nonsense was just starting, some university types decided to use SCCA members in a study. They laid out a gymkhana course, and had everyone drive it as fast as possible after measured amounts of alcohol. The dirty little secret is that we all did **better** at .1 BAC.
That is very interesting. Where were the results published somewhere?
Would you say that the SCCA drivers who participated in these experiments were representative of the typical driver? Did the course include other moving vehicles, pedestrians, bicyclists, stop signs, and so on?
DUI at .1 is overly restrictive. .08 is bloody ridiculous. As the article shows, it's not about preventing traffic accidents, it's about more power for the nazis.
Okay, I am willing to be convinced. Cite for me the scientific studies showing that the average driver is not impaired at 0.08 or 0.10 BAC.
What the DUI laws are "working" to do is to deprive us of another freedom.
Well, I suppose they do, in much the same way as speed limits, traffic lights, and stop signs do.
It is one more fishing tool. The local police told me that one in four drivers in the bar district at closing time who fail to turn on their headlights are DUI. Your mileage may vary.
"That is very interesting. Where were the results published somewhere?"
I don't really know. I wasn't politically aware at the time. Given that the results came out "wrong," it's entirely possible that they weren't.
"Would you say that the SCCA drivers who participated in these experiments were representative of the typical driver?"
In terms of physical characteristics, yes. A decrement (on an arbitrary scale) from 100 to 80 is as measurable as a decrement from 50 to 40, so driving skills shouldn't matter.
"Did the course include other moving vehicles, pedestrians, bicyclists, stop signs, and so on?"
Ever drive a gymkhana? They can be devilishly difficult. Points are deducted for knocking over pylons. If you can miss pylons, you can miss pedestrians and bicycles (although why anyone would want to miss a bicyclist is beyond me).
"Okay, I am willing to be convinced. Cite for me the scientific studies showing that the average driver is not impaired at 0.08 or 0.10 BAC."
When academia is in the iron grip of ideologues, studies that come out "wrong" are not permitted. However, the article above cites two figures that highly indicative of just that point.
Besides, didn't you see that recent study showing that most studies are horse puckey?
"Well, I suppose they do, in much the same way as speed limits, traffic lights, and stop signs do."
That would be true of reasonable DUI laws. It is not true of the ones we have now.
Remember, you & your money will pass like water under a bridge, "your" lawyer still has to work in that courtroom with his fellow workers.
"Drop the vernacular."
"That's a Derby, judgy wudgy."
The trend towards continuing to lower the illegal BAC is wrong a waste of time, and counter productive.
I'd rather see increasing levels of punishment at the UPPER levels of BAC, those drivers who are truly dangerous.
You're right... the penalty for refusal is intentionally worse than a guilty in WA also. A refusal results in a ~revocation~ of license for at least a year, which is much worse than a suspended. It's like you never had one before. You must retake the test.
Cletus, you have given very bad advice.
In many states, that can get you arrested, and it can mean a one year revocation of your drivers license. Even if you go to court, it won't get your license back.
Mark
Dear Kozak,
"I deal with drunks, and drunk drivers on a nearly daily basis. People out on the streets so drunk they piss themselves and don't know it. Not capable of operating a pencil, let alone 2000 lbs steel battering rams."
And this relates to someone with a BAC of .03... how?
sitetest
I'm amazed that I survived riding in the bed of a pickup truck, or the back of a station wagon, with no seatbelts, and confounded with how I survived playing Lawn Darts!
I should be dead by now!
Mark
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.