Abolish drunk driving laws?

[William Wallace]

https://reason.com/archives/2010/12/31/abolish-drunk-driving-laws

Austin Police Chief Art Acevedo wants to create a new criminal offense: “driving while ability impaired.” The problem with the current Texas law prohibiting “driving while intoxicated” (DWI), Acevedo explained to the Austin-American Statesman in October, is that it doesn’t allow him to arrest a driver whose blood-alcohol content (BAC) is below 0.08 percent unless there’s additional evidence of impairment.

“People sometimes focus on how many drinks they can have before they’ll go to jail,” Acevedo explains. “It varies.…A person may be intoxicated at 0.05, and you don’t want them out driving.” Acevedo wants to be able to arrest people with BAC levels as low as 0.05 percent, and he may have support for that idea in the state legislature. John Whitmire (D-Houston), chairman of the state Senate’s Criminal Justice Committee, likes his idea.

Acevedo and Whitmire are right, though probably not in the way they intended. People do react to alcohol differently. For many people one drink may well be too many. Experienced drinkers, by contrast, can function relatively normally with a BAC at or above the legal threshold. A person’s impairment may also depend on variables such as the medications he is taking and the amount of sleep he got the night before.

Acevedo’s objections to the legal definition of intoxication highlight the absurdity of drawing an arbitrary, breathalyzer-based line between sobriety and criminal intoxication. But the right solution is not to push the artificial line back farther. Instead we should get rid of it entirely by repealing 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. Two-thirds of such accidents involved drivers with BACs of 0.14 or higher. (The federal government classifies a fatal accident as “alcohol-related” if it involved a driver, a biker, or a pedestrian who had consumed alcohol, 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, 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 sobriety checkpoint 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.

These constitutionally dubious checkpoints have become little more than revenue generators for local governments. When local newspapers inquire about specific roadblocks after the fact, they inevitably find lots of fines for minor infractions but few drunk drivers. In 2009, according to a story at the investigative journalism site California Watch and data from the University of California at Berkeley, 1,600 sobriety checkpoints in California generated $40 million in fines, $30 million in overtime pay for cops, 24,000 vehicle confiscations, and just 3,200 arrests for drunk driving. A typical nightly checkpoint would divert 20 or more cops from other tasks while yielding a dozen or more vehicle confiscations but only about three drunk driving arrests.

In addition to the Fourth Amendment issues raised by roadblocks, the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination has been turned upside down by state laws that instantly suspend the licenses of drivers who refuse to take roadside breath tests. Most manufacturers of breath test machines have refused to turn over their source code, meaning DWI defendants can’t assess the machines’ margin of error—a significant factor in a case where the difference between 0.80 and 0.79 for a first offense can mean $1,000 or more in fines, mandatory alcohol awareness classes, and loss of driving privileges for up to a year.

Blood tests are far more accurate, but by the time a driver is pulled over, questioned, taken to the nearest hospital, and had his blood drawn, his BAC may be significantly different from what it was when he was driving. Perversely, the time lapse can have the effect of protecting guiltier motorists. Imagine a driver pulled over or stopped at a checkpoint after having “one for the road,” knowing his house is a short drive away and the last drink won’t kick in until he’s sitting on his couch. At the time he is stopped, he is under the legal limit. But his BAC is rising, and it tops 0.08 by the time his blood is drawn at the hospital. By contrast, a driver who is impaired when he’s pulled over, but who stopped drinking an hour or so before, benefits from the delay, since his BAC is falling by the time he arrives at the hospital.

Many states have tried to solve this problem by claiming another alarming power: They now allow police to forcibly take a blood sample on the side of the road.

These ever-expanding enforcement powers miss the point: The threat posed by drunk driving comes not from drinking per se but from the impairment drinking can cause. That fact has been lost in the rush to demonize people who have even a single drink before getting behind the wheel (exemplified by the shift in the government’s message from “Don’t Drive Drunk” to “Don’t Drink and Drive”). Several studies, such as a 2005 paper in the British Medical Journal, have found that talking on a cell phone, even with a hands-free device, causes more driver impairment than a 0.08 BAC. A 2001 American Automobile Association study found several other in-car distractions that also caused more impairment, including eating, adjusting a radio or CD player, and having kids in the backseat.

If our ultimate goals are to reduce driver impairment and maximize highway safety, we should be punishing reckless driving more consistently. It shouldn’t matter if it’s caused by alcohol, sleep deprivation, prescription medication, text messaging, or road rage. If lawmakers want to stick it to dangerous drivers who threaten everyone else on the road, they can dial up the civil and criminal liability for reckless driving, especially in cases that result in injury or property damage.

Doing away with the specific charge of drunk driving sounds radical at first blush, but it would put the focus back on behavior, where it belongs. The punishable act should be violating road rules or causing an accident, not the factors that led to those offenses. Singling out alcohol impairment for extra punishment isn’t about making the roads safer. It’s about a lingering hostility toward demon rum.

[GuineaPig]

This is a completely ridiculous article.

[William Wallace]

This is a completely ridiculous article.

A very insightful rebuttal, thanks. Would you care to share why?

[jsem]

Interesting point. Blood tests and all. Some1 oughta try this, even though it's rather tricky.

[rumborak]

Why is it that Libertarians´ immediate reaction to a slightly imperfect thing is to reject it altogether?

rumborak

[El Barto]

I've always maintained that DWI laws are bullshit.  It has little to do with public safety and everything to do with raking in tons of cash.  I'm all in favor of busting people for driving while impaired, but the arbitrary .08% is meaningless in that regard. 

[jsem]

Why is it that Libertarians´ immediate reaction to a slightly imperfect thing is to reject it altogether?

rumborak

No libertartian would want to completely remove drunk driving laws without having some form of replacement for it. Neighborhood effects make it so that if it's a shared road (which all public roads are) you shouldn't be drinking while drunk.

The title and the article don't really match. It brings up alternatives to what is the status quo, and since there's problems with the status quo why not try to make it better?

[William Wallace]

Why is it that Libertarians´ immediate reaction to a slightly imperfect thing is to reject it altogether?

rumborak

I don't how you could come to that conclusion, unless you quit reading after the title of the article. Barto summed it up well: base the violation on the risk motorist pose to public safety and not some arbitrary standard. Of course, that assumes that public safety is the main goal.

[El Barto]

Not the main goal.  MAAD is a temperance organization (just ask Candy Lightner) and LE is merely in it for the money.  Impaired or not, blow an .085 and they'll ring you up to the tune of $12,000.  Blast through a school zone at 60mph while eating a brakfast burrito and talking on the phone and you're looking at about $500 here in Texas.  That should tell you something. 

[Perpetual Change]

I find the conclusion to this article to be pretty baffling. Some people just need to be taken off the road before they cause an accident.

[El Barto]

I find the conclusion to this article to be pretty baffling. Some people just need to be taken off the road before they cause an accident.

What makes you think that anybody is suggesting otherwise?  The gist of the article isn't that we should let people drive while shitfaced.  It's that we should be preventing all dangerous driving habits.  Not just the ones that are fashionable and profitable. 

[Perpetual Change]

I find the conclusion to this article to be pretty baffling. Some people just need to be taken off the road before they cause an accident.

What makes you think that anybody is suggesting otherwise?  The gist of the article isn't that we should let people drive while shitfaced.  It's that we should be preventing all dangerous driving habits.  Not just the ones that are fashionable and profitable.  

Granted I only skimmed the article, I got the impression that it was arguing that the extra DUI fine is BS, and we should just ticket people for the actual offenses they commit. So, in practice, if an officer sees someone swerving in and out of his lane or running a red light, he should ticket that person for making "illegal lane shifts" or something like that rather than DUI. However, people who pass in no-passing lanes and ignore traffic signals get slapped with fines and then are free to continue their drive.  So treating drunk drivers by their behavior alone doesn't make sense, especially when you have probably cause that the behavior is out of the driver's control. To do that, however, you need to take things a step further than merely enforcing traffic laws. You need to be able to make the distinction between people who are consciously being reckless and people who are impaired and a danger to everyone else driving. I don't see how you can do that without tacking on the extra DUI offense.

[ack44]

Why is it that Libertarians´ immediate reaction to a slightly imperfect thing is to reject it altogether?

rumborak

I don't how you could come to that conclusion, unless you quit reading after the title of the article. Barto summed it up well: base the violation on the risk motorist pose to public safety and not some arbitrary standard. Of course, that assumes that public safety is the main goal.

William Wallace flashes a devilish grin as a vulnerable liberal falls for his trap

[rumborak]

Barto summed it up well: base the violation on the risk motorist pose to public safety and not some arbitrary standard.

What then? Please suggest a quick way and more reliable of establishing a driver's capability to operate a vehicle, one that catches incapable ones before they have an accident. It's easy to rant; suggest something better that can be deployed on a national scale.

rumborak

[GuineaPig]

That was my problem with the article: the main argument seemed to be that BAC tests are not always accurate; a system the author claimed could cause incorrect results and therefore unjustified criminal or financial punishment.  It seemed to be an argument based around classic Libertarian principles and the notion of "innocent until proven guilty."

Then the author suggests a completely subjective method of policing that they would probably protest if it was ever adopted by anyone.

[El Barto]

Barto summed it up well: base the violation on the risk motorist pose to public safety and not some arbitrary standard.

What then? Please suggest a quick way and more reliable of establishing a driver's capability to operate a vehicle, one that catches incapable ones before they have an accident. It's easy to rant; suggest something better that can be deployed on a national scale.

rumborak

Field sobriety tests (minus the HGN which needs more research) would probably be a good place to start.

I read an interesting thread in a cop forum a while back about the highest BAC's they've come across.  Several of them have busted people well into the lethal range--we're talking into the .6's.  In several instances, the cops who stopped them didn't notice anything peculiar.  One cop said he was fixing to let one go before deciding to have him blow just for the helluvit.  Point is, there are plenty of Eastern Europeans who can put away a bottle of potato vodka before lunch and still be perfectly functional, as opposed to some ditzy sorority girl who's in no shape to drive at .05 (or probably sober, for that matter). 

And again, my issue isn't with the enforcement of DUI prohibition.  My problem is turning into an ATM machine for the state while completely ignoring any number of equally dangerous conditions. 

[rumborak]

Field sobriety tests (minus the HGN which needs more research) would probably be a good place to start.

You mean touching your nose and standing on one leg? That is supposed to be more accurate than BAC? I have done those tests in the past, and I have excellent balance and coordination, so I always aced those tests, despite the fact that I was drunk out of my skull and would have planted a car into the next corner when driving.

Point is, there are plenty of Eastern Europeans who can put away a bottle of potato vodka before lunch and still be perfectly functional, as opposed to some ditzy sorority girl who's in no shape to drive at .05 (or probably sober, for that matter).

So what? Drinking and then driving is inherently irresponsible behavior. You might be punishing that Eastern European heavily even though he was still semi-functional, but the point is that he willingly endangered people with his behavior.
Frankly, I find the 0.08 limit pretty lax. Supposedly it's the level and adult gets after drinking 3 beers on an empty stomach within one hour. I can certainly hold my liquor, but at that level I would not go near any car, let alone drive it.

And again, my issue isn't with the enforcement of DUI prohibition.  My problem is turning into an ATM machine for the state

Market principle. Seemingly people are willing to risk the fine.

rumborak

[El Barto]

Field sobriety tests (minus the HGN which needs more research) would probably be a good place to start.

You mean touching your nose and standing on one leg? That is supposed to be more accurate than BAC? I have done those tests in the past, and I have excellent balance and coordination, so I always aced those tests, despite the fact that I was drunk out of my skull and would have planted a car into the next corner when driving.

And did you have a cop standing over you trying to ascertain whether or not you were loaded?  FST's are somewhat subjective.  It's getting you to spend a few minutes interacting with a cop so he can get an idea of your level of impairment.  Being able to recite the alphabet backwards while entertaining your comrades in a bar isn't the same thing. 

Furthermore, we're well into the 21st century.  I'm sure we could come up with a variety of ways to determine a person's level of physical impairment.  You don't think a reasonable method for determining reaction time could be developed?  The problem is that MAAD has convinced everybody to rely on an arbitrary number to make that determination, which has done a grave disservice to everybody. 

Point is, there are plenty of Eastern Europeans who can put away a bottle of potato vodka before lunch and still be perfectly functional, as opposed to some ditzy sorority girl who's in no shape to drive at .05 (or probably sober, for that matter).

So what? Drinking and then driving is inherently irresponsible behavior. You might be punishing that Eastern European heavily even though he was still semi-functional, but the point is that he willingly endangered people with his behavior.
Frankly, I find the 0.08 limit pretty lax.  Supposedly it's the level and adult gets after drinking 3 beers on an empty stomach within one hour. I can certainly hold my liquor, but at that level I would not go near any car, let alone drive it.

No, driving while impaired is inherently irresponsible behavior.  There's a big difference.  It's unfortunate that we as a society have moved from "don't drive drunk" to "don't drink and drive." 

If you don't feel you're safe to drive after three beers, then don't.  However, I'd be willing to bet that at that same level, you'd probably be a much safer driver than half the people on the road.  You strike me as the sort of fellow that under normal circumstances would be a conscientious and thoughtful driver, and I'd rather have a road full of good drivers with a .08 BAC than the current society full of sober idiots.  No question about it.

[rumborak]

And did you have a cop standing over you trying to ascertain whether or not you were loaded?

Yes indeed these were cops. This was in Germany, and they actually came into a bar to see whether they should haul one of us off (who had been very rambuctous). Whatever stupid test they conjured up I pretty much aced, despite that I was damn drunk. If this had been on the road they would have been forced to release me.

 FST's are somewhat subjective.

Not just somewhat, completely. Besides, you rant about the arbitrariness of it; how arbitrary would an FST decision be?! "Pfft, I don't like this guy; he might have done alright in the FST, but who can prove that? I'll just over-emphasize his pauses when reciting the alphabet backwards".
Breathalizer tests are objective, that's a huge plus.

Furthermore, we're well into the 21st century.  I'm sure we could come up with a variety of ways to determine a person's level of physical impairment.  You don't think a reasonable method for determining reaction time could be developed?

Again, it's easy to conjecture; suggest an objective, quick way of establishing sobriety. You can't have a cop interviewing a driver for half an hour to establish his/her sobriety.

 The problem is that MAAD has convinced everybody to rely on an arbitrary number to make that determination, which has done a grave disservice to everybody.

It is a great "disservice" to people who get into the business of managing their alcohol blood content. If an Eastern European thinks he needs to down half a bottle of potato vodka and still get into the car, there is an issue with that person. It's not just the fact that you have alcohol in your blood; it's the fact that you let it rise to a dangerous level and still think you should operate an inherently dangerous activity that could kill people.

If you don't feel you're safe to drive after three beers, then don't.  However, I'd be willing to bet that at that same level, you'd probably be a much safer driver than half the people on the road.  You strike me as the sort of fellow that under normal circumstances would be a conscientious and thoughtful driver, and I'd rather have a road full of good drivers with a .08 BAC than the current society full of sober idiots.  No question about it.

Sure thing, but what are you gonna do about the combination of drunk+idiot? Neither of us here are the measure of what is a reasonable counter-measure; sadly, as with every law in this world, one must orient it after the bad apples, the ones who abuse it.

rumborak

[El Barto]

Is a person with a .08 BAC automatically an unsafe driver because of it?  Howabout .05?  .12?

And did you have a cop standing over you trying to ascertain whether or not you were loaded?

Yes indeed these were cops. This was in Germany, and they actually came into a bar to see whether they should haul one of us off (who had been very rambuctous). Whatever stupid test they conjured up I pretty much aced, despite that I was damn drunk. If this had been on the road they would have been forced to release me.

Just out of curiosity, did they actually think you were sober, or did they just find you to not be the troublemaker they were after?

[7StringedBeast]

What worries me about field tests, is that if a cop ever stopped me and tried to get me to recite the alphabet backwards I would fail so miserably even if i was stone cold sober.  I cannot for the life of me do it. 

[Fuzzboy]

What worries me about field tests, is that if a cop ever stopped me and tried to get me to recite the alphabet backwards I would fail so miserably even if i was stone cold sober.  I cannot for the life of me do it. 

  Same here. That's one of my worst fears

[El Barto]

What worries me about field tests, is that if a cop ever stopped me and tried to get me to recite the alphabet backwards I would fail so miserably even if i was stone cold sober.  I cannot for the life of me do it. 

  Same here. That's one of my worst fears

Well, if you believe what Johnny has to say, it doesn't matter if you succeed of fail.  It's all about how you succeed or fail.  I think rather poorly of cops, but I don't think them so stupid as to view them as incapable of recognizing that sober people will have some difficulties with the standard FST's. 

Now, if you believe the shysters who defend drunks for a living, a cop who has you take FST's already has it in his mind that you're taking a ride.  The tests are nothing more than evidence to insure a conviction.  Nothing beats showing a video of you falling down and acting like a clown on the side of the highway to 12 honest jurors. 

Either way, a sober driver shouldn't have too much to fear concerning their ability to pass those things. 

[William Wallace]

Rumbo, I think you're wrong with the "well, what are you going to replace it with?" routine. There's a reasonable suggestion in the article. Do away with the check points so you have more cops on the roads watching for reckless drivers, and focus on the dangerous behavior. Besides, is there any justification for the .08 standard?

[rumborak]

Rumbo, I think you're wrong with the "well, what are you going to replace it with?" routine. There's a reasonable suggestion in the article. Do away with the check points so you have more cops on the roads watching for reckless drivers, and focus on the dangerous behavior.

Of course, that part I agree with. Road blocks are a very questionable practice. But, that has nothing directly to do with BAC. I'm defending the BAC as a quick and objective measure of sobriety.

Besides, is there any justification for the .08 standard?

I am pretty sure they didn't just pick that number out of the air.

rumborak

[William Wallace]

I am pretty sure they didn't just pick that number out of the air.

rumborak

It seems arbitrary, given that people don't respond to alcohol identically.

[Perpetual Change]

Well, it's better than the cop making you recite the alphabet backwards.

Speaking of that figure, though, it definitely isn't perfect. I'm probably not suitable for driving even at much lower levels.

[lordxizor]

Would some of you really have a drunk driving conviction left up to a subjective test by a cop on the side of the road rather than a cut and dry measurement? I think the less subjectivity the better. In that case, they have to pick a number. 0.08 seems decent enough to me for the average person. Obviously there are exceptions for people being drunk on either side fo that number.

[7StringedBeast]

How accurate are breathalyzer tests though?  How often are the machines calibrated?  If someone is at a .08 and you would never be able to tell, aka they are acting completely sober then should they really be nailed even though they were no more harm to anyone more than a 16 year old on a cell phone?

[El Barto]

.08 is just where it's currently set.  It started at up to .15 in the 70s.  MADD pushed to get it lowered to .10, then .08, and now they're bucking for .05.  Guess what'll come next.  Gotta take these things one step at a time.

Which raises an interesting point.  Should a person be allowed to drive after having one glass of wine with dinner? 

[7StringedBeast]

As long as its not impairing then absolutely.  Why do people think 1 drink makes you unable to drive.  That's absurd.  Unless you are a lightweight.  So maybe for some they couldn't handle it.  But I'd say the majority of men would be able to handle it, and most females im sure.  Especially if it was with dinner.

The problem is, completely wasted people will still drive because they don't care and aren't thinking about cops when they get in their car.  They will still kill people.  There is no way to prevent this.  So I'm not sure why we spend time busting people hovering around the legal limit if they have no signs of impairment, other than snagging money and making people's lives hell.

Don't get me wrong, I am so against drunk driving and I despise when people get behind a wheel when they shouldn't.  It's gotta come down to personal responsibility or friend's  responsibility to stop this.  Unfortunately that's the problem as well.

Little side story, I was driving through a DUI checkpoint and the cop asked me if i had been drinking.  I said yeah, I have a couple drinks a few hours ago, and he just said thanks for your honesty and told me to have a nice night.  So he obviously could tell I wasn't impaired by having a short conversation with me. 

[XJDenton]

As long as its not impairing then absolutely.  Why do people think 1 drink makes you unable to drive.  That's absurd.  Unless you are a lightweight.  So maybe for some they couldn't handle it.  But I'd say the majority of men would be able to handle it, and most females im sure.  Especially if it was with dinner.

There are multiple studies that show impairment of driving ability can begin with BACs as low as 0.02%, which is consistent with a 200 lb guy having a quick pint before heading home.

[El Barto]

As long as its not impairing then absolutely.  Why do people think 1 drink makes you unable to drive.  That's absurd.  Unless you are a lightweight.  So maybe for some they couldn't handle it.  But I'd say the majority of men would be able to handle it, and most females im sure.  Especially if it was with dinner.

There are multiple studies that show impairment of driving ability can begin with BACs as low as 0.02%, which is consistent with a 200 lb guy having a quick pint before heading home.

At some point you have to start considering acceptable risk.  Just how far should we take this impairment thing?

[Fiery Winds]

It's an across the board rule applied to a varied populace.  Yes, drinking impairs driving ability, but by how much, and like El Barto said, what is the acceptable risk? 

Let's assume a scale of driving ability, with 0 being complete incompetence, and 100 being perfect. 

100
90 - 200 lb man sober
80 - 200 lb man at 0.08
70 - your older brother trying to impress his girlfriend
60 - teenage girl
50 - your grandmother
40 - teenage girl after breakup
30 - 100 lb man at 0.03

The point is that each person is different and to punish those who pose no threat to anyone simply because they passed a certain limit is not keeping more people safe.

[XJDenton]

As long as its not impairing then absolutely.  Why do people think 1 drink makes you unable to drive.  That's absurd.  Unless you are a lightweight.  So maybe for some they couldn't handle it.  But I'd say the majority of men would be able to handle it, and most females im sure.  Especially if it was with dinner.

There are multiple studies that show impairment of driving ability can begin with BACs as low as 0.02%, which is consistent with a 200 lb guy having a quick pint before heading home.

At some point you have to start considering acceptable risk.  Just how far should we take this impairment thing?

Like all risk minimisation it should be done to the highest level possible whilst still allowing people to perform the activity under reasonable circumstances.