I've been thinking a lot about how catastrophic events can be catalysts for positive change. I hope that in the next Virginia legislative assembly delegates will consider ways to reduce fatalities from drunk driving. Lots of people die young because of drunk driving and drunk drivers.
In 2005 (the last complete statistical year) NHSTA recorded 263 fatalities in Virginia where one of the drivers was over the BCA .08 limit. (Add another 84 deaths where alcohol "was a factor.") That is a huge number -- about five lives snuffed out every week in our state because someone thought they could drink and drive.
Sadly, while there is not much society can do to protect itself against some random acts of violence, we can do something about drunk driving. Our society is still far too permissive about it. We still tell jokes about drunks. We need much stronger incentives not to drink and drive. In 2005, there were nearly 17,000 traffic deaths nationwide where alcohol was a factor. In one year, that's 5 times the U.S. troop fatalities for the entire Iraq war.
Because there is no one huge drunk driving event that covers the news for days, it is hard to get the general public worked up about this issue. But it is one we should think about, and urge our legislators to work on.
Virginia's drunk drivers EVERY YEAR kill about 8 times as many people as died at VT. I do not find this acceptable.
From what I read, the first DUI in VA is a misdemeanor without jail time (or, suspended sentence). The financial penalty, I read, is about $300. (I just checked one lawyer's DUI site.) Maybe someone knows more -- I only have a finite amount of time to do research.
I find that paltry. I would impose a penalty based on percentage of income, maybe 5% of annual taxable income. So if your adjusted gross is 60k, you're looking at a $3,000 penalty. I would make jail time mandatory, first offense. I would make a second offense a permanent driving ban.
Younger people think drunk driving is a joke. Here's a picture of a girl who was hit by a drunk driver:
Now, Virginia does have a better than average drunk driving rate. (Why is New York State's so low?)http://199.79.179.18...
No, I don't want to drive around in a tank. If we had tougher laws, people would not have to.
Posting up graphic pictures is a really useful, non-emotional, and logical argument tactic. This was thoroughly discussed on this blog in February.
The idea of making DWI laws tougher in that post was throughly shot down in the comments to that post as well.
Virginia studies have shown that a first-offense Virginia DWI costs the average Defendant $20K between fines, costs, time off work, increased insurance, and attorney's fees.
You can cherry pick your statistics all day long, but Virginia's laws are some of the toughest in the country. Read this article with quotes from MADD and the head of the Washington Regional Alcohol Program to that effect:
Alcoholics are going to drink and drive. You can only stop them so much. Human beings are going to make mistakes. It's called human nature. Lots of things kill lots of people every year. The Government can only do so much.
I've also worked with MADD. I've had a family member killed by a drunk driver. I'm not insensitive to this stuff. You're clearly too close to this issue to be objective about it if you feel that you have to post up graphic pictures of horribly maimed victims to "have a discussion" that you should be able to have simply by using words.
I do disagree about the pictures. That's a valid device because otherwise people don't connect. We talk about the Iraq war and don't connect there either. Ask people from my generation how a certain set of pictures heightened opposition to the war in Vietnam, e.g., the naked little girl running down the street after a napalm attack.
For example, the Post doesn't show blood and guts pictures of the war, and people don't connect the war with the pain being incurred. Pictures convey a lot more than words can. I can talk about pain and suffering all day long, but pictures produce visceral reactions.
But doctors see stuff like those picture every weekend in emergency rooms.
We'll just have to disagree on that.
I had not realized there was a prior topic on this, and I'm a daily reader. Sorry, I missed it. Here's what I think, Catzmaw's eloquent argument to the contrary. Drunk driving is like shooting a gun straight up into the air. Most of the time it falls harmlessly. Once in a while it kills someone. And would any of us have a problem with jailing someone who randomly shot bullets straight up into the air? For a first offense?
I do not find 263 deaths acceptable and I'm looking for a way to reduce it. I don't think many people take it seriously as a problem. Those are the regular Joes who drive drunk once in a while (like I did when I was young and stupider.) Society says it's "okay" to drive home drunk from a wedding. It's "okay", according to our society, to let kids have a few drinks on prom night.
The military argument is not logical. I think if you're old enough to serve you're old enough to drink -- and old enough and mature enough to have a designated driver or to drink at home.
A few peer reviewed papers I was not able to open talked about the lack of knowledge. People know drunk driving is bad, and can land you in trouble, but they really don't know how bad it is.
So here are a few ideas. How about an increase in excise taxes on alcoholic beverages for alcohol sold in drinking/dining establishments?
MADD supports an increase on wine and beer to the alcohol equivalent of taxes on distilled spirits, and the indexation of tax rates applicable to alcoholic beverages as a means of recovering costs to society caused by misuse of alcohol and as a means of supporting prevention programs including countermeasures to alcohol-impaired driving. MADD does not support decreasing the excise tax on any alcoholic beverage.
We educate kids in high school on drunk driving. How about doing more of it for people in their 20's?
Maybe stiffer penalties isn't the way to go, but, I know this is like a broken record, 263 deaths a year in this state?
When the VT students died, this blog and every blog had emotion filled posts, offering theories and solutions. When Lowell brought up this drunken driving topic, we had a few tepid posts, and two long ones from Catzmaw. That's it? That's the response from a progressive community? No discussion of deterrence? No other ideas? The ideas were not "thoroughly shot down" in that post. There was almost no response from this community.
It was a pathetic response from this community on an important subject.
However, I disagree with Not Harry on the somewhat defeatist point of view (paraphrased in my words) that drunks will be drunks and there's not much we can do about it. I hope you didn't mean it like that, but that's how it read to me.
Education is clearly one of the keys. Education about how many drinks put one over the limit, how poorly one drives while under the influence, what the penalties are really like if you're caught even once, and witnessing the pain of injury and death caused by drunk drivers. The vast majority of people either don't know or need to be reminded.
There is also the question of what society finds acceptable in terms of policing the problem. Road blocks occasionally happen and I'm sure they catch a few drunks driving. A few people complain although I haven't heard much outrage. But what about money for more police on the streets during prime drinking hours, or cameras to monitor road behavior at all hours, or even going as far as police pulling over anyone who leaves a bar or party? That last one would nail a lot of DUI offenders. And for the many offenders who are caught and lose their licenses - what about frequent stops for the vehicles they own to make sure they're not driving? There's a wide spectrum and society is fairly accepting of some of these measures but would certainly be against the more extreme ones.
I'm not sure what the correctly level of enforcement should be. We live in a free society which means, unfortunately, some innocent victims will pay the price for our freedom. But along the lines of what PM says, our society has become so accepting and numbed to predictable and repetitive results such as drunk driving fatalities that the society is allowing far too many unnecessary deaths. That is wrong.
Tougher laws may not be the answer and might not change much. Tough enforcement would improve the situation but will always run the risk of going too far. What I can say with certainty is that there are far too many of these DUI related deaths and we as a society must continue to push to lower that number.
THE FACTS are also not what most people think they are. The history of this issue shows that we have done about all we can. Being continually vigilant in social pressure and ostracizing people who choose to engage in drinking and driving is what is most important - not making the laws harsher.
It is clear that lowering the drinking age lowered fatalities. AND Virginia's fatalities have been DROPPING. BUT, how much of that is attributable to airbags, side impact protections, and improved medical care is big question. I've never seen anyone track the stats in a meaningful way that teases out the effects of safety improvements from the effects of the laws, but I'm not convinced that these laws due all of the credit that everyone gives them.
As for alcoholics and inevitability, addicts can't control themselves. They are sick. It's an illness. Alcohol further inhibits judgment. Alcoholics are going to drive. We can put all the contraptions we like on cars or lock them up, but at some point, all we can do is try to catch them before the hurt someone the next time they try to drink and drive. Our Commonwealth's laws are some of the harshest on the books for recidivist and high BAC convicts. We can't lock up alcoholics forever.
Roadblocks also are a blunt tool. Look at this:
4/28/07 - TWELVE police officers stopped 338 motorists and arrested a total of ZERO suspected drunk drivers.
4/31/07 - TWELVE police officers stopped 573 motorists and arrested a total of ZERO suspected drunk drivers.
4/20/07 - FOURTEEN police officers stopped 830 cars and arrested a total of ZERO suspected drunk drivers.
4/1/07 - FOURTEEN police officers stopped 625 cars and arrested ZERO suspected drunk drivers.
That's 52 Police officers hanging out on the side of the road, probably for about at least 200 man-hours (that's nearly 25 eight-hour shifts), stopping 2366 cars and caught ZERO drunk drivers. Is that effective policing? I think we'd get better results if these officers would be out on the street instead of waiting for drunk drivers to come to them.
The bottom line is that we will never be rid of this problem. We will always have criminals as long as we have humans. For now, it's about under control as it's going to be and that more roadblocks, harsher punishments, or steeper fines, are going to be of marginal assistance while over-punishing others.
I think you make excellent points and I am going to study this issue further.
I am more of an optimist that the situation can be changed. When I was a TGIF person (before marriage) I know lots of people who drove after too much to drink that were not chronic drunks. I believe Catmaw said he saw two classes of people. Attitudinally, society has been changing. I think we agree on that.
But that does not mean we can't improve the situation. Two of the big preventable killers in our society: cigarettes and alcohol, with the driving subset. (Alcohol in moderation has shown health benefits.)
Lock up chronic drunk drivers? Sure. They're pushing 4,000 pounds of steel (and plastic) at 60 mph. That's a huge weapon. Much more deadly than a gun, in some respects.
Yes, alcoholics should get treatment -- but judges can order that.
I'm not ready to throw in the towel. The law has been evolving and will continue to evolve. Legal remedies across all classes of violations have improved over the last century.
As for "per se" rules, there's a reason for their adoption. Before such rules, and before chemical analysis, the cops had huge discretion and a subjective cop could screw a person. For a person able to measure their drinking, the rules provide protection. The rules protect disfavored minorities who might otherwise be harrassed. And per se rules promote even distribution of justice because it is not as easy for the rich to buy their way out of a jam. People who cops tends to pick on should be happier that there are controlled test.
I am sympathetic to Eric's analysis. We too often focus on events of the moment and not at the big picture. And the big picture is that there is tremendous carnage on our highways. One reason to put a comprehensive public transportation in place is to reduce highway deaths and injuries. We need to put the best minds of our nation on topics like alcoholism, cigarettes and other addictions. We need to ask why some states, or groups of states, in fact have lower alcohol-related crashes.
I think there is deterrence even from the presence of roadblocks. One local blog sometimes has alerts about the latest police activity. It's good that roadblocks are on young people's minds. I'd like to talk to some people in Fx government; I don't think the police do roadblocks merely to waste time. They catch a lot of drunk drivers doing something right. (Actually, you can see drunk or just nutty drivers by traveling along some of our major roads on a Saturday night -- I-395 out of DC can be frightening.)
This is a topic I hope to return to after reading and investigating more. Your input has been valuable. Maybe there's a solution everyone has been overlooking.
The key to me, however, is that I see the loss of one's life as the ultimate invasion of civil liberty. And as such, I feel that the government should be continuously pushing to improve problems such as DUI accidents.
You're absolutely right that this isn't an easy problem but let's not leave it as "good enough". There's always room for improvement.
If I may shorten this for other readers--
States that use sobriety checkpoints have lower fatality rates. http://www.iihs.org/... The size of the deterrence affect is about a 22% reduction in fatal crashes. (BTW, Fairfax County announces publicly when it will be conducting sobriety checkpoints.)
As to license suspension and other mechanisms:
http://www.iihs.org/... IIHS likes license suspension, saying it reduces the subsequent crash involvement of drivers convicted of alcohol offenses.
Would more severe sanctions reduce the problem? "The surprising answer is, probably not." [Diarist tucks fluffy tail beneath legs.]The problem seems to be that "the probability of apprehension has been low and penalties infrequently applied even if mandatory by statute."
What is the effect of treatment and rehabilitation programs? Although studies have had mixed results, research has shown that treatment and rehabilitation programs may have a small, positive effect on the subsequent behavior of alcohol-impaired drivers. For example: "A 1995 examination of more than 200 studies of the effects of various treatment and rehabilitation programs found a reduction of 8-9 percent, on average, in subsequent alcohol-impaired driving offenses and a smaller reduction in alcohol-involved crashes."
IIHS asks -- which laws have been most effective in the United States?
In a 1989 study, Institute researchers evaluated the effectiveness of administrative license suspension laws, per se BAC laws, and laws requiring jail or community service after a first alcohol-impaired driving offense. During the mostly late-night hours when at least half of all fatally injured drivers had BACs at or above 0.10 percent, administrative license suspension laws were estimated to reduce driver involvement in fatal crashes by about 9 percent. Laws requiring jail or community service for a first offense were estimated to reduce driver involvement in fatal crashes by about 6 percent. The effect of per se BAC laws was an estimated 6 percent reduction in crash involvement during daytime hours when fatal crashes typically are less likely to involve alcohol. A review by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention of the effects of lowering per se BAC thresholds from 0.10 to 0.08 percent found a median decrease of 7 percent in alcohol-related motor vehicle fatalities. Laws establishing a minimum age for purchasing alcohol also have proved effective in reducing nighttime fatal crashes among young drivers. An Institute study conducted in 26 states that raised the minimum legal purchase ages during 1975-84 estimated a 13 percent reduction in nighttime driver fatal crash involvement.
I'll keep reading up on this area; there's always some new kind of study on issues like these.
Perhaps we can renew this conversation at another time.
Of course, public transportation in Europe is typically far better than in most parts of the U.S., so the European drinker can generally manage to stumble to the bus stop or train station rather than drive himself home.
The link:
http://www.nhtsa.dot...