Drunk Drivers Keep on Killing
As Albany Dawdles Over Bills;
Assembly Appears Paralyzed.
 
By Henry J. Stern
March 31, 2005

The stories appear with monotonous regularity: a pedestrian, motorist or passenger in a car is killed or seriously injured.  The person responsible for the accident is a drunken driver.  Another fatality is recorded as the body count continues its steady increase.
 
This problem has been on my mind ever since I read an article in Reader's Digest, "…And Sudden Death," by J.C. Furnas (1905-2001), originally published in August 1935, and frequently reprinted thereafter.  (I did not know how to read when the article first appeared, but my family kept old Reader's Digests in the bathroom for a number of years.)
 
Governor Pataki proposed five bills to deal with the issue in his State of the State message in 2004.  As of today, none of those bills had passed, nor had any other bill on the subject.  The State Senate has a plan to deal with drunk driving, the Assembly has another.  Several dozen bills have been introduced, with accompanying press releases.  In general, the Senate is tougher on drunk drivers than the Assembly, but neither house has agreed with the other to do anything on this subject.  Just another example of legislative deadlock — except in this case, the failure to act costs human lives.
 
Newsday ran a commentary by John Valenti on the subject this morning.  If you or a family member drives or crosses the street, I would suggest you link to the column and read his take on the subject.
 
Between the two houses of the Legislature, it is the Assembly that is more concerned with the rights of defendants, except when they are being sued by tort lawyers, the exalted class in Albany.  When it comes to criminal matters, the Assembly can always find reasons to protect the accused, to minimize penalties if they are convicted, and to excuse their offenses after they are released.
 
There are no organizations we could find that support drunk driving, not even the National Rifle Association. Across the cultural gap, drunk driving is not defended, excused or rationalized by the American Civil Liberties Union The antagonists of alcohol-fueled drivers include automobile clubs, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, traffic safety foundations, and insurance companies who desire to minimize their losses.  The resistance to stronger laws appears to come from those who do not accept individual responsibility for misconduct, or see the law as an instrument of injustice for them or their constituents.
 
Most people do not know it (neither did I), but impressive work against drunk driving has been done on the federal level, by what its enemies call the nanny-state.  Using its power to withhold funds under the federal highway act, Congress induces state governments to pass laws they would not otherwise adopt.  Back in 1984, the minimum drinking age was raised from 18 or 19, depending on state law, to a uniform national standard of 21.  In 1995, a zero-tolerance law was enacted by Congress.  Under that law, if a driver is under 21, and has any alcohol in his blood, he is driving illegally, and is subject to penalties as determined by state law.  In 2000, the standard for determining impairment due to alcohol was reduced from .10 % to .08%.  As is the case with environmental laws and regulations, a lower percentage of permitted pollutant provides a higher standard of safety or cleanliness.
 
One need not be a brain surgeon, or even a rocket scientist, to know that this plague, which killed 529 New Yorkers last year, the majority of them young people, should be challenged by stronger state laws.  Both parties and the governor agree with that, and we have not found anyone who believes the current regulatory patchwork is sufficient.  Nonetheless, there has been no action taken on this subject in Albany. 
 
When we complain about legislative gridlock and the need for rules changes, these aren't just quibbles over which committee chair will have more influence, or who will hand out more patronage.  There are issues of substance which are not resolved because of the tripartite minuet of men who can scarcely be called friends.  We would hope that they will act together in the public interest to fight drunk driving.  We hope.  We hope.
 
The Daily News has written two editorials on the subject of tightening the law, on November 17, 2004, "Inching toward Vasean's Law," and on March 15, 2005, "Save a Life, Change the Law" (scroll to second editorial on page).  Both say Speaker Sheldon Silver has not gone far enough, and that the bill he supports contains provisions which would make it impossible to convict most drunk drivers.  We don't know whether Silver's recalcitrance is due to his own distaste for punishment or accountability, or whether he is simply reflecting the views of his caucus, some of whose members have already been convicted of sundry offenses.  In either case, the Assembly has shown more concern for drunk drivers than for dead children.

Today is March 31, the last day of the first quarter of the calendar year, and the last day of the last quarter of the state fiscal year.  The budget should be adopted.  And then, the wise men and women of Albany can turn to legislation.  We will report on June 30 to inform you what the governor, the Senate and the Assembly have done about drunk driving.  From now until then, extrapolating from last year, 132 more New Yorkers will be killed by drunk drivers.
 
That is the shame of the State.

---