Drinking and Driving in America – Part II Toward a New and Better Paradigm Based on Actions

We present a much better better plan for dealing with drinking and driving. 
Drinking and Driving in America – Part II
Toward a New and Better Paradigm Based on Actions
By: George Noga – September 10, 2017
      Part I of our series highlighted serious flaws in America’s present blood alcohol (BAC) based drinking and driving laws. This post presents a superior paradigm, one that focuses on a driver’s actions much more than on his/her BAC. We should be far more concerned with what a driver does than with his/her blood alcohol level.
    Driving with elevated (.08%) BAC would remain illegal; however, it would be a misdemeanor; offenders would receive citations similar to traffic tickets. Speeding fines increase with the speed over the limit; so it would be for BAC above .08%. Ultra high BAC (above .2%) can be dangerous and should be a serious offence. Open containers would be legal; this behavior harms no one and is part of our liberty.
     Our new paradigm punishes actions more than conditions. There would be no added penalty for driving with elevated BAC if stopped for a non-moving violation such as an expired tag. Lesser moving violations (creeping through a stop sign) would carry added fines for elevated BAC. Speeding with elevated BAC would be a much more serious offense. In all cases, the higher the BAC, the more severe the penalty.
    Dangerous actions (careless/reckless driving, causing an accident) with elevated BAC are dealt with more harshly than at present. The worst drunken driving offenders permanently forfeit their right to drive. Special law enforcement units would monitor such offenders with surprise inspections and immediately jail offenders. Drivers under age 21 would have zero tolerance for BAC above zero. Drivers 16-18 would be subject to restrictions on number of passengers and a curfew. If they drive with BAC above zero, they lose the right to drive for a long time and are subject to the inspections.
     Focusing on actions more than on conditions (BAC) has five major benefits. 
1. It punishes truly dangerous actions of drivers with elevated BAC much more than the present system. It permanently removes the most dangerous drunk drivers from the roads. It deals much more harshly with high risk young drivers who drink.
2. Drivers are incentivized to minimize BAC, to drive safely and to obey all traffic laws. The present system makes little distinction between BAC levels and treats drivers above the limit the same whether they are driving safely or recklessly.
3. Penalties are fair, logical, proportional and progressive. Drivers always know where they stand. As long as they drive safely, their BAC is not a factor. They needn’t worry that a one-thousandth of one percent change in BAC will totally upend their lives.
4. It breeds respect for the law. Currently, hordes of responsible Americans flaunt open container and drinking and driving laws. Tens of millions drive each day after having a few drinks, knowing it is sheer caprice who gets ensnared in the BAC dragnet.
5. All Americans will have more liberty and less government intrusion into their lives. They can live their lives under a logical and rational legal framework for alcohol. A couple can enjoy a dinner together with a bottle of wine without being criminalized.
     Technology is alleviating the problem; Uber and ride sharing already have made a huge impact. Ultimately, self-driving cars will finish the job. Until that becomes a reality however, America needs to abandon the BAC paradigm and embrace a new paradigm based on driver actions rather than on driver conditions.
     I began the prequel to this series with a personal anecdote when I was 20 years old. I’ll end with another anecdote a half-century later. A while back, I got a speeding ticket while driving home from my club late at night. I got ticketed only because I had not consumed any alcohol that night and was driving normally. Had I consumed alcohol, I would have strictly observed the speed limit. There is a moral in there somewhere.

September 17th is the final Montana Moments posting for this summer.

Reliance on Blood Alcohol is Wrongheaded

The risk of dying from drunken driving is about the same as falling off a ladder.
Drinking and Driving in America – Part I
Reliance on Blood Alcohol is Wrongheaded
By: George Noga – September 7, 2017
       Drinking and driving laws are based on blood alcohol concentration or BAC; this is a deeply flawed paradigm. A BAC of .079% is legal; should it be one-thousandth of one percent higher at .080%, your life becomes a living hell. Penalties are not much harsher for BAC above .08%. If you are arrested driving recklessly at double that BAC, your penalty is not much more than for driving safely at .08% BAC.
      BAC is relative; it varies based on weight, gender, BMI, physical condition, time, genetics, food consumption, testing equipment and factors still unknown. Different studies reach conflicting conclusions about how much alcohol it takes to reach .08%. One widely accepted study shows consuming 8 ounces (1.6 glasses) of wine over 75 minutes put half the subjects over the limit. The NTSB now wants to lower BAC by nearly 40% to .05%, criminalizing driving after drinking of one glass of wine.
      The term “impairment” is grotesquely misused. The proper standard should be when alcohol first becomes a potential danger – not the onset of impairment. People are impaired for myriad reasons: age, health, combing hair, applying cosmetics, talking, texting, children in the car, music, medicines, eating, emotions, drowsiness, dogs, insects, day dreaming and drinking hot coffee. If an impairment standard is to be used, a great many people (perhaps most) would be disqualified from driving.
       I can’t find one study that objectively assesses the risks of drinking and driving. Most studies use an “alcohol was involved” standard. That term is meaningless because it is applied when: (1) only a passenger was drinking; (2) the driver’s BAC was legal; (3) the person drinking wasn’t at fault; and (4) a pedestrian was drinking. There are studies that tangentially shed some light. One state determined that fatalities were caused by speeding (37%), no seat belt (31%), other (19%) and alcohol (13%). In Florida, only 400 of 32,000 accidents studied (1.25%) “involved” BAC above .08%. Again, beware the term “involved” as alcohol was not necessarily the cause.
      Basic logic dictates drinking and driving is not the bogeyman most believe. The Orlando, FL SMA has 15,000 establishments serving alcohol, plus people drink at work, home and elsewhere. I estimated how many drink each day and then drive. In a year that number is 50 million which results in one death per million in Orlando. To place this in perspective, that risk is the same as dying falling from a ladder, drowning in a bathtub or being electrocuted. You are 10 times more likely to die in a fire.
      Laws based on BAC do little to deter those who are a real threat. Instead, they criminalize anodyne behavior and make responsible Americans even more cautious. They inject the heavy hand of government into everyday life and diminish our liberty. Today’s laws result from pressure groups brandishing ersatz statistics and are not based on objective reliable data. The pressure for ever more Draconian alcohol laws comes mainly from bi-coastal elites attempting to impose a nanny state on America.
      In a nation of 325 million there always will be horrific drunken driving accidents. They never can be totally eliminated even in places where drinking and driving is banned. In the final part of this series we present a plan that reduces drinking and driving accidents while resulting in more liberty and less government for America.

Next up is the final part of our series: Drinking and Driving in America.

Drinking and Driving – A Personal Anecdote

This personal anecdote is a prequel to our series about drinking and driving. 
Drinking and Driving – A Personal Anecdote
By: George Noga – September 3, 2017
     Proper public policy about drinking and driving can be summed up in one phrase: laws should focus on actions rather than on conditions. I present a persuasive case that America’s current approach to drinking and driving is wrongheaded. Please bear with me until you have read the entire two-part series of which this anecdote is a prequel.
       It was 2:30 AM on New Year’s Day 1964; I was 20 years old and driving home. I carelessly ran out of gas but luckily it was near an all night gas station. I walked to the station for a container of gas. Just as I began pouring gas into the car, two policemen arrived. It was obvious I was sloshed as I labored to hold the funnel and pour the gas. One officer, with a straight face, asked if I had been drinking. It was New Year’s, my car had college and fraternity decals and my motor skills were clearly impaired.
      My understated reply was that I had a few drinks earlier in the evening. The second officer asked if I was okay to drive. I blathered something to the effect that I could get home and would be exceedingly careful doing so. The police then suggested I stop at a nearby diner for coffee, whereupon they left with the parting admonition: “Be careful.
I returned the gas container, stopped for coffee and drove home uneventfully.
      There are several fecund facets of this story to speculate about. It could be argued I received privileged treatment as I was a white, well dressed, respectful college student. Legally, it could be argued the officers had not observed me driving; however, they could have held me for public intoxication or simply waited for me to drive and then cited me. Or, they could have held me for underage drinking. However, I knew from the outset the worst thing that would happen to me would be going to the station and drinking coffee with the officers until they deemed me okay to drive.
    The police evaluated the situation and correctly concluded I was not a threat to anyone. In that pre-Vietnam era, police would go out of their way to be helpful and their respect was reciprocated. Not only was there no animus between young people and police, there was a reservoir of good will. That is why I intuitively grasped I would not be charged with any violation. That is how things were in 1964 America.
    If the same incident occurred today, I would be jailed and charged with DUI. Lacking $10,000 for competent legal defense, I would be saddled with a permanent criminal record and forever barred from the military and many other jobs. I would be subject to a staggering array of risible sanctions including suspended/restricted driving, car boots, hackneyed counseling, alcohol/GPS monitors, curfews, fines, community service, asset forfeiture and even jail time. All of this would be followed by years of highly invasive probation. Is this truly better for America than the situation in 1964?
    I know many readers may diverge from me on this subject and I again ask that you suspend reaching a conclusion until you read the following parts of this series. If you agree with the present drinking and driving paradigm, the facts and logic will lead you in a different direction, i.e. to a policy that penalizes actions rather than conditions.

Next up in 3-4 days is Part I of our series: Drinking and Driving in America