Posted on 03/31/2006 1:21:52 PM PST by Porsche060
The issue of banning open containers of alcohol in vehicles was crushed in the state House March 28. Although the measure is expected to be re-introduced next week, Delaware seems on course to remain one of only 12 states without an open container restriction in place.
The defeat is a new hurdle for the bill, which has easily passed in the House several years running only to be stalled each round in the Senate.
“Certainly, I hope it passes in the House, but it may well hit the proverbial wall in the Senate,” said Sen. Gary Simpson, R-Milford, who supports the bill but has never been able to vote on it because Senate rules have held it in committee.
In lobbying for the bill, prime sponsor Rep. Nancy Wagner, R-South Dover, said the state could suffer from sanctions on federal highway money if the bill fails to pass. Under federal law in support of banning open containers, states without the ban are restricted in their use of federal dollars.
“Last year we were penalized to the tune of $2.2 million,” said Andrea Summers, community relations director for the Delaware Office of Highway Safety, explaining that while the state still receives the funds, they cannot be used for road construction. “The real downside is the money can only be used for smaller projects such as signage, intersection and guardrail improvements.”
Despite personal reservations, Rep. Gerald Hocker, R-Ocean View, voted in favor of the bill.
“Personally, I think if I am driving the guys to a ballgame, for example, if they want to have beer it is their business. However, my district overwhelmingly supports banning open containers in vehicles so I voted for the bill,” he said. Hocker said he conducts biannual surveys on hot issues and the open container issue received 68 percent approval of the ban. A no vote came from Rep. Pete Schwartzkopf, D-Rehoboth Beach, surprising some, given his law enforcement background. “I am opposed to the mechanics of the bill. Regardless of who has an open container, the driver gets the ticket and it is a primary offense.” Schwartzkopf said in many cases a driver may be trying to do the right thing by getting someone home safe.
“They might be the nicest person in the world sober but belligerent when they are drinking and you just want to get them to their destination safe. In that case the driver has the right intention and doesn’t deserve the ticket,” he said
Proponents of the bill feel it necessary to prevent drivers and passengers “passing around” alcoholic beverages. Mothers Against Drunk Drivers (MADD) considers the passage integral to their complete agenda. MADD representatives said having a ban only on consumption makes it too easy for the driver to pass the beverage to a passenger or toss it in the back seat. The law prohibits alcohol in the complete interior of a vehicle, including the glove compartment. Schwartzkopf said this is the only bill touted as reducing drunk driving and driver safety he has ever opposed, including seat belt enforcement and the 2005 seat belt requirement law.
“We have stringent DUI laws. If the driver is also drinking, the officer will ascertain that and charge them accordingly.”
Rep. Joe Booth, R-Georgetown, disagrees and joined the 24 House members who voted yes on the bill. “There is only one person turning the key and they have to be in charge. Order should be established before the car is in motion,” said Booth.
House attorneys are currently reviewing whether the bill does require a two-thirds vote. If the legal staff decide it requires only a simple majority, Wagner hopes to have it back on the House floor for a successful vote immediately. Its path then, would be set again by Senate leaders.
Ronald Reagan once said "The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help." You are "Republicans" voting for the open container law. I ask you realize what party you are from.
Since you were mentioned in the Cape Gazette I am in writing in response to your vote. There is no need for me to do it publicly.
The law Mr. Booth and Hocker voted for makes little sense. The driver will be driving. On a 1-2 hour ride to the ball game or to the beach, the passengers should be free to relax. The driver won't be drinking, that would violate the law. If he's pulled over it's not as simple as handing someone else the bottle. A police officer could easily see he is under the influence.
What you are doing is saying I have too much time on my hands, let's make another law. I want to regulate how someone controls a car. To you two a driver having passengers under order is making the passenger observe a law you mandate.
To reiterate drinking while driving is AGAINST the law. If a passenger drinks as they do now, what's wrong with that. How many accidents would this prevent? How many accidents have been caused by this? If 0, is this another reason for someone to be issued a ticket? What is the true purpose of the law?
Yes there's road money at stake. That money instead will be allocated to the signs, and the signs can then be reallocated for the roads. You are a state and the federal government has no business determining state law.
A concerned Republican,
(Publicly meaning in the newspaper)
Surprised Congress didn't "help" us all by mandating it years ago.
Do you know the names of the other 11 states that have no law against open containers?
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.