By Gary Witzenburg
Posted 6/11/2003
Pay close attention to what I'm about to tell you, because it is very, very important. It looks as if our state legislators, pressured by anti-alcohol zealots and blackmailed by our Federal government, are about to inflict the 0.08 BAC "drunk driving" limit on us.
Some are doing so partly because they believe this will actually make a difference to highway safety -- although it has not in other states, or nationally. Most are doing it because refusing to adopt this too-low limit would cost Michigan millions of Federal highway dollars.
This puts all of us who drink occasionally and responsibly in serious danger of being arrested, jailed and severely fleeced by the system for the "crime" of driving after a two-beer stop or a two-wine dinner. Not to mention that your car will be towed and your license shredded without due process.
To sell this unreasonable law, NHTSA and MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Drivers) claim that it takes four or five drinks in an hour for an average person to reach .08 BAC (blood alcohol content). Not true! Independent studies demonstrate that a small woman can reach that level with a single drink, and an average man after two! Other proven facts:
1) NHTSA data clearly shows that drivers in the .08-.10 low-BAC range are non-factors (1.3% in 2001) in highway fatalities, while the vast majority (83%) involve non-drinking drivers. Drivers above .15 BAC are a significant factor (12.4%); those below .14 are not.
2) Scientific tests have demonstrated that breathalyzer tests correlate plus-or-minus 50% with actual blood alcohol content. If you "blow" .10 BAC, you are somewhere between .05 and .15. "Field" breathalyzer tests may not be admissible in court, but they will get you arrested, presumed guilty.
3) NHTSA's "alcohol related" fatality data (the oft-quoted 41%) is grossly inflated to make the "drunk driving" problem look much worse than it is. It includes pedestrians, bicyclists, motorcyclists and passengers who are known or assumed to have consumed any alcohol at all. Independent researchers (check www.ridl.us or www.motorists.org), estimate that legally impaired drivers actually cause about 6% of fatal accidents.
4) Targeting responsible moderate drinkers is a waste of enforcement and court resources. To make a real difference to highway safety, police and courts need to target the minority of truly dangerous drunk drivers who are the problem, not the majority of responsible moderate drinkers who are not.
Don't misunderstand. I am neither encouraging nor excusing drunk driving. Driving while impaired is dangerous and irresponsible and deserves severe punishment. But I am questioning the definition of "impaired." It was already low at .10 BAC and will be ridiculously low at .08.
This was brought home to me recently when a friend was stopped and arrested by an Ingham County Sheriff's Deputy, who crowded him, then stopped him for "speeding" seven mph over the limit -- a common (illegal) technique. After passing physical tests but failing a breathalyzer, he blew a threshold .08 at the station and was jailed overnight under Michigan's current "operating under the influence" law, a lesser offense with penalties nearly as harsh.
When I contacted Sheriff Gene Wrigglesworth to learn more, he was (and remains) hostile and uncooperative. "Your friend can fight it in court," he says. Fighting a DUI can cost $10,000 in penalties, fines and legal fees, and even a minor first-time alcohol offense stains your record for life. This makes it difficult to find affordable insurance or rent a car, and it can ruin your career.
What NHTSA and MADD appear to be working toward is "virtual prohibition." They want everyone afraid to consume even a drop of alcohol before driving. Reasonable people see this as unfair and unnecessary. Meanwhile, watch your drinking, watch your driving, and watch your mirrors. And you may want to buy a breathalyzer (despite questionable accuracy) to test yourself before driving. I just did. # # #