TBO.com - TBO is Tampa Bay Online

A bill not worth toasting

ADVERTISEMENT

By SARAH LONGWELL

Special To The Tampa Tribune

Published: July 3, 2009

Last week the U.S. House Transportation Committee unveiled the details of its six-year, $450 billion overhaul known as the Highway Bill. Buried in the blueprints, not surprisingly, are some generous handouts for special interests.

One such favor is a provision that would 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 concentration (BAC) limit. Because they are so expensive, intrusive and prone to technical failures, this penalty has typically been reserved for the most extreme DUI offenders.

But there's a reason this unusual clause made its way into the new highway bill. If it passes 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 has already been working with traffic safety advocates to require these devices for repeat offenders caught with high blood-alcohol concentrations. We've succeeded in 27 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-pound woman can reach the legal limit of 0.08 after two 6-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 the hardcore abusers who cause the vast majority of alcohol-related fatalities. It also eliminates a judge's ability to treat these very different offenders differently.

Drunk driving is a serious offense, but a driver who had two glasses of wine with dinner should not be punished in the same way as one who had 10 drinks prior to driving.

Most state legislatures have already made it clear that 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.

But under pressure from MADD, the House Transportation Committee is poised to force those state legislatures to change their laws.

Unlike the debate over BAC limits, the vast majority of states have already chosen to forgo ignition interlock mandates for low-BAC, first-time DUI offenders. The fact that the House Transportation Committee may give MADD its wish anyway is a troubling sign of the power of special interests over states' rights.

But here's what's also troubling: 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 to put interlock technology in all cars are allowed to move forward unabated, 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.

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.

Share this:

Loading Comments...

Email Print

ADVERTISEMENT