Abolish Drunk Driving Laws

[BrentWil]

I thought this was a decent argument for getting rid of these laws. Opinions?

http://reason.com/archives/2010/10/11/abolish-drunk-driving-laws

Consider the 2000 federal law that pressured states to lower their BAC standards to 0.08 from 0.10. At the time, the average BAC in alcohol-related fatal accidents was 0.17, and two-thirds of such accidents involved drivers with BACs of 0.14 or higher. In fact, drivers with BACs between 0.01 and 0.03 were involved in more fatal accidents than drivers with BACs between 0.08 and 0.10. (The federal government classifies a fatal accident as "alcohol-related" if it involved a driver, a biker, or a pedestrian with a BAC of 0.01 or more, whether or not drinking actually contributed to the accident.) In 1995 the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration studied traffic data in 30 safety categories from the first five states to adopt the new DWI standard. In 21 of the 30 categories, those states were either no different from or less safe than the rest of the country.

Once the 0.08 standard took effect nationwide in 2000, a curious thing happened: Alcohol-related traffic fatalities increased, following a 20-year decline. Critics of the 0.08 standard predicted this would happen. The problem is that most people with a BAC between 0.08 and 0.10 don't drive erratically enough to be noticed by police officers in patrol cars. So police began setting up roadblocks to catch them. But every cop manning a roadblock aimed at catching motorists violating the new law is a cop not on the highways looking for more seriously impaired motorists. By 2004 alcohol-related fatalities went down again, but only because the decrease in states that don't use roadblocks compensated for a slight but continuing increase in the states that use them.

More in the actual argument.

[bemildred]

1. A good argument.

There ought to be one "impaired driving" law, applying to all drugs and sleep deprivation and texting and anything else whatsoever.

[BrentWil]

2. Yeah, it should be about public safety...

I think that should be the focus

[elleng]

3. Don't think so.

States/localities can and should learn about best approaches to enforcement; does NOT mean changing the standard is a good idea.

[qazplm]

4. first off, it doesn't support abolishing the laws

it supports raising the BAC required for drunk driving, second I am not sure it supports that but instead supports stopping the roadblocks and returning to cruising the streets.

I'd suggest cops would be better positioned at or near the local bars. They won't catch the folks who drink at home and then go out, but they'd catch a lot of the folks too drunk to drive and heck, might stop them from even getting in the car in the first place, saving lives and keeping folks from getting convictions.

The article argues for a law that already exists, reckless driving. It doesn't require a BAC and it's already on the books everywhere.
I would also argue that basically the argue assumes causality without proving causality. How do we know the rate went up simply because of the change in the DD laws?

[apocalypsehow]

5. As I click on this thread, I can almost hear Johnny Cash hum..."I fell in to a burning ring of fire"

:popcorn:

[DJ13]

6. That assumes lowering the BAC to .08 was for safety

Its an enhanced revenue generator (think of all the fines, and mandated $$ programs once convicted).

And its so low that anyone can be pulled over and investigated now because theres little actual impairment at the legal limit.

Its a great way to increase local revenues through tickets, even if the person isnt above the limit (think seatbelts, a 10 day old roach in an ashtray, vehicular safety equipment).

[qazplm]

7. I know it's popular to be cynical

but I don't see any evidence that safety was not a consideration in lowering the BAC. There is plenty of evidence that the average person in fact will be impaired at the legal limit.

[provis99]

12. yet people drive 100s of times drunk without getting stopped.

Isn't that in itself an indication that they weren't driving recklessly, even if they may have been .08 or higher? Cops blanket the highways on Friday and Saturday night around Indiana, with the state AG claiming 1/3 (!) of drivers on Friday and Saturday night are over the legal limit, yet very few drunk driving arrests are made relative to the claim! Again, doesn't that demonstrate that a person can be legally impaired, yet driving such that even a cop can't tell on the highway?

[MindPilot]

8. Roadblocks are so effective the last one San Diego yielded exactly zero DUIs

They found people without licenses or insurance, they found people to deport, but not one of what they were actually looking for. DUI checkpoint my ass...they are de facto "papers please" checkpoints.

Most drunk driving crashes seem to be caused not by the guy who had a few beers after work, but the guy who's on his fourth DUI with a BAC pushing point three.

[BrentWil]

10. Maybe that should be the focus.

Focus on if the guy is driving badly. WOuldn't that be a better focus for public safety, esp. with cell phones, texting, etc.

[MindPilot]

15. That is one of my argument against cell-phone bans

under the California law it is the act of holding a device up to your ear that gets you pulled over. (If I had too much time on my hands, I would drive around with my wallet to the side of my head and see how many times I can get pulled over.)

So all other things being equal, the guy driving perfectly fine talking on the phone will get pulled over, while the drunk who happens to be doing OK at that moment weaves on down the road.

[BrentWil]

16. WHy not just make the focus bad driving?

I mean, that does seem to be a simple solution

[Nikia]

9. I disagree

In Wisconsin, we have a serious drunk driving problem. This behavior does need to be deterred. Sadly, it doesn't seem to deter some people who seem determined to drink and drive unless they are locked up and unable to do so. I don't think prision is always the best option for repeat offenders. I think that inpatient treatment would be better. Most of them have a serious problem with alcohol.

[BrentWil]

11. I agree, it does need to deterred..

But so does all forms of bad driving.

[Crunchy Frog]

13. Maybe just abolish the roadblocks?

:shrug:

[jmowreader]

14. Abolishing drunk driving CHECKPOINTS would be better...

Idaho had the 0.08BAC drunk driving standard in the 1970s.

I really think the drunk driving checkpoints are a significant problem. As stated upthread, a drunk driving checkpoint catches all sorts of non-drunk-driving offenses but not so many drunk drivers...How much ya want to bet someone who gets through the checkpoint pulls over, pulls out his or her cell and alerts all his/her friends at the bar, "don't go down East Road tonite, there's a checkpoint"?

[Statistical]

17. Your title is misleading. Abolishing DUI laws = off the charts stupid. ...

Returning DUI limits to sane scientific based cutoffs = intelligent and possibly productive.

Nobody is advocating abolishing all DUI laws. That is just a strawman.

Ending DUI roadblocks, putting more cops back on road. Moving DUI limits back to 0.12 or higher. Strenghening penalties for those who are criminally drunk at the wheel. I would go with $5,000 fine and 90 days in jail for first offense rising to lifetime forfeiture of license and 3-5 years in jail by third offense. Crack down on the criminally dangerous and stop all this MADD inspired zero tolerance bullshit. That is something I can support.

[BrentWil]

20. I would...

I would suggest that we change punish all types of crappy driving. The focus should be on public safety and I don't think the current laws keep that focus.

[Statistical]

22. Well you are in an "extreme" minority.

The problem with punishing only bad driving is there is roughly one cop on patrol for every 80,000 people in the United States. Statistically the majority of those bad behavior people won't be caught by a cop they will simply kill someone. Now you can punish that but it is of little consolation to the family of the slain.

At a high level of blood alcohol it has been scientifically proven that despite one's best intentions they simply can not drive in a safe manner. If you manage to get home without crashing it was merely good luck and circumstances.

[BrentWil]

23. Have DUI laws created a safer driving environment?

If you have less cops trying to enforce DUIs at checkpoints and more cops out looking for reckless driving, you actually increase public safety. I think it is stupid to drive drunk because it impairs your ability to drive. However, it is the impairment that is the public safety problem. Cops should be enforcing punishments against that, whatever the cause is. That includes sleepy drivers or cell phone idiots.

[Statistical]

25. please read what i wrote.

It is possible to have middle ground.

DUI deaths actually did decline even w/ DUI laws. It wasn't until the recent MADD zero tolerance and checkpoint policy that it leveled out and started to rise.

I clearly indicated I support higher more scientific based limits, stronger penalties for the truly dangerous, and ending checkpoints.

[BrentWil]

26. I understand your points...

But shouldn't the crime be reckless driving and not a DUI? You can still use a BAC point as evidence, but the actual crime should be that the person is endangering the population.

The point being, that reckless driving of all types should carry a stiffer penalty. Driving is an activity too many people (including myself) do without ever considering the huge responsibility you have to public safety. Drinking drunk is bad because it stops people from being able to operate a car safely. Use BAC and science to prove that, but lets also focus the law on other dangers to public safety.

[Motown_Johnny]

18. how about we increase the penalties for drunk driving and use that money for more cops?

[BrentWil]

19. Don't we have enough?

Why not have cops enforce only laws that have a direct victim or put the public at direct risk? Focus them, don't get more of them.

[MindPilot]

21. How about we not give law enforcement any more monetary incentives

The justice system should not have to finance itself. That is a very slippery slope.

[HEyHEY]

24. Why don't we just ease up on the roadblocks?

[saras]

27. Why 'impaired'?

Personally I'd bail on all the 'impaired driving' laws - it's just an excuse, after all.

I wouldn't let them off - quite the opposite. You were SOBER and CONSCIOUS at the time you chose to get drunk and drive, so that you could KILL someone. That makes it PREMEDITATED.

You CONSCIOUSLY chose to turn your attention away from driving to your phone or text device, knowing quite well that cars without functional drivers kill people. That makes it PREMEDITATED.

No excuses.

[BrentWil]

28. I agree to some point...

Put don't you make a conscious choice to drive sleepy too? My point is, there is a wider array of dangers that are a problem on the road. Punish the driving and if you make a conscious decision to drive that way, that should add to the crime.

[taterguy]

29. You don't have to be driving recklessly to kill someone

Just run a Stop sign.

Or don't react quickly enough to an emergency.

Driving after consuming alcohol makes those two things more likely.

The article has a good point about roadblocks but BAC limits enhance safety.