National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Recommends States to Lower BAC to .05 for DUIs
Criminal DUI-DWI Criminal Motor Vehicle Traffic
Summary: Discusion and detail of the NTSB's new recommendations for DUI laws and penalties including lowering the BAC requirement from .08 to .05.
Recently the National Transportation
Safety Board (NTSB) announced that they are recommending that all states lower
the blood alcohol content from .08 to .05 to constitute drunk driving. They
claim that drivers are impaired at that level and in order to reduce the number
of alcohol-related crashes, the qualifying threshold needs to be lowered. But
where have we heard this rhetoric before? Oh yeah, back in the 1980s when
Congress practically coerced states to lower the BAC for drunk driving offenses
to .10 less they lose a portion of their highway funds. The Supreme Court says
Congress can pressure states to change or enact laws by withholding federal
money under Congress’s “spending power” (although it would be more
appropriately characterized as their extortion or coercion power). The battle
cry was that states needed to lower the BAC in order to save more lives and
keep the roads safer. Apparently, it wasn’t good enough because in the 1990s
they embarked on another successful campaign to get states to lower the BAC
requirement to .08 under the same battle cry. Now, in 2013 they are
recommending it go even lower to .05 because .10 and .08 just isn’t keeping us
safe enough (although they told us at the time it would). Would lowering the BAC
to a point where perfectly safe social drinkers could face criminal conviction actually
save more lives and keep dangerous drivers off the road? I think not.
As a Michigan OWI attorney, the problem
I have always had with these DUI standards is that they never take into
consideration the quality of the driving. Legislators enact these arbitrary
figures which keep getting pushed lower and lower instead of focusing on
whether the driver was actually impaired or not. Instead, with the BAC
threshold, the driver is presumed to be under the influence regardless of
whether they are or not. These standards don’t take into consideration that
many people are perfectly capable of safely operating a motor vehicle at .08 or
.10 or even higher. Instead, by lowering it 37.5% states will only be
criminalizing responsible drinkers who will now have to bear the shame and
expense of a DUI charge as well as potentially having their career and educational
opportunities go up in smoke all because they had a couple drinks at the bar
and drove home.
Another problem I have with this
constant clamor of “we need to change the DUI laws” is that they never seem to
conduct a cost-benefit analysis. Their usual response is the clichéd “you can’t
put a price tag on safety” but will these new enactments actually make us
safer? First of all, alcohol-related deaths are at an all-time low since 1982
while non-alcohol related traffic accidents have sky-rocketed by 78% during
that same time span according to the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA). Furthermore, the NHTSA further states that texting
while driving is now the leading cause of death and accidents among teens.
Texting drivers are 23 times more likely to be in a crash that non-texting
drivers. Texting is responsible for 3,000 deaths and 330,000 injuries a year
according to a study by the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis.
Are drivers with a low BAC really the
problem? The statistics resoundingly scream no. In 2011 less than 1% of traffic
fatalities were caused by drivers with a BAC of .05-.08. The majority of
crashes and fatalities involved drivers with a BAC of .15 or above. These are
the drivers that legislation should be targeting and most states do with “Super
Drunk,” “High BAC,” and “Aggravated DUI” charges with increasingly stiff
penalties and many prosecutors have policies against plea bargaining on. If you are intoxicated and have an accident
that causes an injury or death, prison is all but a guarantee. Ignition interlock
and vehicle immobilization are imposed by many judges on High BAC cases or
repeat offenders. These measures make sense. Criminalizing social drinkers
doesn’t.
Among their list of recommendations,
the NTSB wants an “automatic administrative suspension of your driver’s license”
upon being charged with a DUI. In other words, when you are merely accused and
(supposedly) presumed innocent, they want the government to automatically yank
your driving privileges. Sounds like something that would happen in a totalitarian
state doesn’t it? Whatever happened to “innocent unless proven guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt?” I guess that Constitutional safeguard doesn’t matter. Michigan
already confiscates and destroys your license upon being charged with an OWI
offense and replaces it with a “paper license” until your matter is resolved
which is tantamount to convicting you by being charged.
The NTSB and other drunk driving
advocate zealots, don’t seem to realize (or care?) that the average DUI stop,
investigation, and arrest can take over an hour, and often an hour-and-a-half
to two hours. That’s time that law enforcement could have spent on the road
tracking down impaired drivers who are an actual threat to the safety of
others, instead of going after the 110-lb. female who had a couple glasses of
wine with dinner. Not to mention clogging up the court dockets prosecuting
people who are little to no threat to fellow motorists or pedestrians.
While implementing these recommends
would probably be years down the road, it’s scary to think that it’s even a
possibility being considered. If states want to protect the roadways, they
should crack down on drivers with High BACs, repeat offenders, and drunk
drivers who cause damage or injury to property or others. Better yet, enact
stricter laws against texting while driving. If I had the choice of sharing the
highway with someone with a BAC of .05 or a distracted texting driver, I’d opt
for the former any day.