Traverse City Record-Eagle

Forums

Related Photos

July 2, 2009

Forum: Highway bill drunk with power

BY SARAH LONGWELL

Recently the House Transportation Committee unveiled details of its six-year, $450 billion highway bill. Buried in the details are some generous handouts for special interests, including a provision to require a controversial sentencing requirement for low-level, first-time DUI offenders: ignition interlocks.

These in-car breathalyzers prevent a vehicle from starting if its driver's breath registers above a pre-set blood-alcohol limit. Because they are so expensive, intrusive, and prone to technical failures, this penalty has typically been reserved for extreme offenders.

There's a reason this unusual clause made its way into the new highway bill. As currently written, Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) will be one step closer to its goal of prohibiting responsible adults from having a glass of wine with dinner before driving home.

The hospitality industry is working with traffic safety advocates to require these devices for repeat offenders. We've succeeded in twenty-seven states. But under the new transportation bill, those states will be penalized if they do not amend their laws to also include first-time, low-BAC offenders -- even those just one sip over the legal limit.

A 120-lb woman can reach the legal limit of 0.08 after two six-ounce glasses of wine over a two-hour period. Under this new mandate, if she drives she will automatically be punished with an interlock for behavior that is, according to several studies, no more dangerous than driving while talking on a "hands-free" cell phone.

Mandating ignition interlocks for all DUI offenders is a one-size-fits-all approach that would punish that woman in the same way as hard core abusers and eliminate a judge's ability to treat these very different offenders differently.

America has a terrible record with universal sentencing guidelines. Judges should be able to adjust some sentences based on circumstances and common sense and let the punishment fit the crime.

Most state legislatures have already made it clear they favor judicial discretion for marginal DUI offenders by rejecting low-level first offender mandates or passing ignition interlock bills that target only high-BAC and repeat offenders.

Those decisions are supported by National Highway Traffic Safety Administration statistics showing most alcohol-related fatalities involve offenders with BACs more than twice the legal limit.

But the House transportation committee is poised to force legislatures to change their laws.

In 1998, Congress approved highway funding sanctions for states that did not lower their limits to 0.08 BAC after MADD insisted doing so would save thousands of lives. It didn't. In 2007, the number of alcohol-related fatalities was roughly the same as ten years prior.

In 2006, MADD projected a 10-year timeline to develop ignition interlock technology as "standard equipment" for every vehicle in America (set at levels as low as 0.02 and 0.03). Three years later, we are already on the verge of requiring one for every person caught one sip over the legal limit.

If MADD's efforts move forward, it won't be long until your car is forbidding you from driving home after a champagne toast at a wedding or a beer at a baseball game.

About the author: Sarah Longwell is Managing Director of the American Beverage Institute in Washington, D.C., an association of restaurants committed to the responsible serving of adult beverages.

Text Only