chazwicke
03-02-2004, 01:43 PM
washingtonpost.com
DWI Laws That Should Be DOA
By Melanie Scarborough
Sunday, February 29, 2004; Page B08
Carry Nation, with all her saloon-smashing zeal, had nothing on some of
Virginia's lawmakers. In this year's General Assembly, legislators have
introduced dozens of bills to stiffen the penalties for drunken driving.
Mandatory jail time for first offenses has been one recommendation, along
with automobile forfeiture for subsequent convictions. "You're seeing an
all-out assault on drunken driving," says Del. David B. Albo (R-Fairfax),
which is good -- if the fight is fair.
Drunken driving is an easy political target because it is a reprehensible
crime. But intoxicated drivers aren't as big a menace as the public has
been led to believe.
First, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration defines a crash
as alcohol-related when any of the "active participants" -- a driver, a
pedestrian or a bicyclist -- has a blood-alcohol content of .01 or higher.
So if a cold-sober driver collides with a pedestrian who has cough syrup in
his system, the accident is recorded as an alcohol-related crash, even
though neither participant had been drinking.
Second, while alcohol was involved in about 60 percent of traffic deaths in
the early 1980s, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration that percentage dropped to 50 by 1990 and to 42 last year.
Moreover, individuals targeted by recent laws are not the most dangerous
drivers out there. Although the federal government insists that states set
their permissible blood-alcohol content level at .08 if they want to
receive federal highway funds, the drivers responsible for most drunken
crashes generally have twice that much alcohol in their system.
"This is a population of people whose average blood alcohol level after a
fatal crash is .16," says Jeffrey Runge, administrator of the highway
safety agency. "This is not a population of social indiscretions. This is a
population of people who are drinking to get drunk -- and [who] make the
choice to get behind the wheel."
Virginia lawmakers wisely are targeting this volatile population in many of
the bills they have introduced this session, keeping the focus on repeat
offenders and the dangerously intoxicated.
One incident of driving-under-the-influence can be a stupid mistake. A
second is inexcusable. But a third DUI demonstrates reckless disregard for
the safety of others. However, Albo has proposed that convicted drunken
drivers pay for the cost of their jail time, and that may be imprudent. It
could create an economic incentive for police to arrest people who present
little danger.
Consider that a 115-pound woman can reach the .08 blood alcohol level by
having just two glasses of wine in an hour. If she has a third glass in the
next hour, she almost certainly becomes legally drunk. Yet she probably
considers herself competent to drive because she doesn't feel intoxicated.
A police officer will tell her otherwise, however, if she is stopped at a
sobriety checkpoint.
Such checkpoints are a popular tool because police departments receive
grant money to conduct them. They are demonstrably ineffective, but they
are lucrative, so they're probably here to stay. Given that reality,
Virginia legislators should amend the law that allows almost anyone to be
convicted of drunken driving. Although a blood alcohol level of .08 is
considered prima facie evidence of driving-while-intoxicated, an individual
can be convicted of DUI with a blood-alcohol level as low as .05, based on
a police officer's testimony. The .08 level is sufficiently low, and it
ought to be applied across the board.
Draconian penalties are in order for habitual offenders. But lawmakers also
must consider the potential damage of casting too wide a net. It doesn't
improve the public safety to write rules that snare drivers on technical
offenses.
Considering new laws requires sober judgment. Temperance is in order in
Richmond.
scarboroughsfare@aol.com
© 2004 The Washington Post Company
DWI Laws That Should Be DOA
By Melanie Scarborough
Sunday, February 29, 2004; Page B08
Carry Nation, with all her saloon-smashing zeal, had nothing on some of
Virginia's lawmakers. In this year's General Assembly, legislators have
introduced dozens of bills to stiffen the penalties for drunken driving.
Mandatory jail time for first offenses has been one recommendation, along
with automobile forfeiture for subsequent convictions. "You're seeing an
all-out assault on drunken driving," says Del. David B. Albo (R-Fairfax),
which is good -- if the fight is fair.
Drunken driving is an easy political target because it is a reprehensible
crime. But intoxicated drivers aren't as big a menace as the public has
been led to believe.
First, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration defines a crash
as alcohol-related when any of the "active participants" -- a driver, a
pedestrian or a bicyclist -- has a blood-alcohol content of .01 or higher.
So if a cold-sober driver collides with a pedestrian who has cough syrup in
his system, the accident is recorded as an alcohol-related crash, even
though neither participant had been drinking.
Second, while alcohol was involved in about 60 percent of traffic deaths in
the early 1980s, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration that percentage dropped to 50 by 1990 and to 42 last year.
Moreover, individuals targeted by recent laws are not the most dangerous
drivers out there. Although the federal government insists that states set
their permissible blood-alcohol content level at .08 if they want to
receive federal highway funds, the drivers responsible for most drunken
crashes generally have twice that much alcohol in their system.
"This is a population of people whose average blood alcohol level after a
fatal crash is .16," says Jeffrey Runge, administrator of the highway
safety agency. "This is not a population of social indiscretions. This is a
population of people who are drinking to get drunk -- and [who] make the
choice to get behind the wheel."
Virginia lawmakers wisely are targeting this volatile population in many of
the bills they have introduced this session, keeping the focus on repeat
offenders and the dangerously intoxicated.
One incident of driving-under-the-influence can be a stupid mistake. A
second is inexcusable. But a third DUI demonstrates reckless disregard for
the safety of others. However, Albo has proposed that convicted drunken
drivers pay for the cost of their jail time, and that may be imprudent. It
could create an economic incentive for police to arrest people who present
little danger.
Consider that a 115-pound woman can reach the .08 blood alcohol level by
having just two glasses of wine in an hour. If she has a third glass in the
next hour, she almost certainly becomes legally drunk. Yet she probably
considers herself competent to drive because she doesn't feel intoxicated.
A police officer will tell her otherwise, however, if she is stopped at a
sobriety checkpoint.
Such checkpoints are a popular tool because police departments receive
grant money to conduct them. They are demonstrably ineffective, but they
are lucrative, so they're probably here to stay. Given that reality,
Virginia legislators should amend the law that allows almost anyone to be
convicted of drunken driving. Although a blood alcohol level of .08 is
considered prima facie evidence of driving-while-intoxicated, an individual
can be convicted of DUI with a blood-alcohol level as low as .05, based on
a police officer's testimony. The .08 level is sufficiently low, and it
ought to be applied across the board.
Draconian penalties are in order for habitual offenders. But lawmakers also
must consider the potential damage of casting too wide a net. It doesn't
improve the public safety to write rules that snare drivers on technical
offenses.
Considering new laws requires sober judgment. Temperance is in order in
Richmond.
scarboroughsfare@aol.com
© 2004 The Washington Post Company