Home
Local DUI News
State DUI Statutes
DUI Links
DUI Legal News
DUI Articles
DUI Science Articles
Contact DUI-News
DUI Forum
Driving under the influence discussions are intense and emotional. Congress tends to ignore actual facts and statistics when the DUI problem is illustrated by tragic stories of young lives cut short, alarming holiday statistics, and dire warnings.
In the wake of intense lobbying, in 1998, Congress passed 23 U.S.C. 163, Safety Incentives to Prevent Operation of Motor Vehicles by Intoxicated Persons which provides that a state will receive increased highway funds if it enacts and enforces a law which states that any person with a blood alcohol content (BAC) of over .08 “shall be deemed to have committed a per se offense” of DUI. Subsequently, the Act was amended to penalize any state which did not deem driving with a BAC of over .08 as a DUI by holding back Federal Highway Funding. Not surprisingly, all 50 states have enacted such laws. Now, states are being pressured to reduce the BAC limits even further in an effort to deter driving under the influence.
Has the .08% BAC made the highways any safer from those driving under the influence? The answer is unclear. Statistical studies and evaluations have yet to prove that there is any direct correlation between bad driving and a specific blood alcohol level.
A 1991 report prepared by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) concluded that there was evidence that crash risks increased at BACs over .10%, but that evidence for increased crash risks at lower BACs was less certain.
Prior to passing 23 U.S.C. 163, Congress commissioned a study from the General Accounting Office to determine whether reducing the BAC to .08% would directly result in fewer alcohol-related fatalities from DUIs. The office concluded that there was no evidence to support this claim. A December 31, 1998, Office of Legislative Research Report prepared by James J. Fazzaloro noted that extensive experimental research had not resolved the issue of whether a specific BAC could prove that one was driving under the influence. Fazzaloro noted that the studies being relied on were not persuasive due to the different methodologies involved in the testing, a lack of consensus concerning what skills were essential to safe driving, testing in laboratory conditions instead of on the road, and a failure to address how individuals reacted differently to alcohol.
Other groups opposed to the .08% limit for DUI charges, such as the National Motorists’ Association argue that it is senseless to conclude that an individual is guilty of driving under the influence merely because tests reveal a .08% BAC. By focusing on a number, instead of the behavior, police are not monitoring the actual cause of accidents: bad driving. Further, the costs of testing drivers, holding administrative hearings, challenging testing in court, and setting up roadblocks is not justified given that there is still no proof that DUI fatalities have decreased as a result of these measures.
Finally, the statistics suggests that the real culprits, habitual drunk drivers, are not deterred by the harsher laws. Instead, it is often the social drinkers who suffer harsh penalties when they are stopped for a minor infraction, then found to have a BAC over 8%.
No one wants to be an advocate for someone who drives under the influence. It certainly won’t get you re-elected to Congress. However, both sides’ arguments need to be evaluated. It simply does not make sense to demand harsher DUI laws when there is no evidence that such laws have any measurable effect.
© COPYRIGHT 2009 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED DUI-NEWS.INFO
| Sponsors |
Try our custom DUI search 
Custom Search
|
|