There is an interesting story out of Washington where a powerful industry group is lobbying to kill legislation. Nothing new there. Lobbyists routinely kill bills in Congress and write other bills. However, this effort has raised a few eyebrows because the American Beverage Institute is opposing a drunk driving measure in the House Transportation bill — a measure calling for states to require in-car Breathalyzers for people convicted of drunk driving. So far, however, to the chagrin of the ABI, Congress has refused to yield to demands to eliminate the provision.
There are many good-faith reasons for such measures to be criticized, including the encroachment of federal authority on state rights. For many years, there have been objections over the practice of Congress collecting taxes with the sole purposes of returning the money to the states with federal mandates or conditions. The Supreme Court has upheld the practice while preserving a very limited (and unused) exception in extreme cases. I have previously testified against the expansion of these federal bills with conditional funds. The American Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Act contains $493 million for federal highway safety grants.
However, this law does not deny highway or transportation funds to states unwilling to pass the laws. It simply offers $25 million per year to states that require the devices to be installed for anyone convicted of driving under the influence — even first-time offenders.
This should be the last group to be arguing against drunk driving provisions. The group representing more than 8,000 U.S. restaurants insists that these laws do not distinguish between cases of high and low alcohol levels. As such, they argue, the law denies judges to make tailored sentences.
Fifteen states require all convicted drunk drivers to use ignition interlocks and studies show a sharp decline in drunk driving deaths, with Oregon and Arizona experiencing a fall of 52 and 51 percent, respectively. I am not sure of the cause and effect but it would seem that such laws would have an obvious impact on drunk driving. I actually do favor giving judges more discretion in such matters. However, the ABI shows little judgment in ignoring its obvious conflict of interest in such matters while publicly campaigning against the measures. It leaves the impression of bars and restaurants working to ensure that drunk drivers will be able to return to their establishments. The optics are perfectly horrible and it is hard to see why these 8000 businesses pay to create such a public relations disaster.
Yet, the ABI has previously fought these measures despite the bad press. Like many industry groups, there is little fear that customers will blame individual members for the actions of their lobbyists or think tanks — particularly when there are over 8000 of them.
Source: Fox News
A biography of Jedgar Hoover stated that, because of his familiarity with highway carnage statistics, he refused to allow his driver to make lefts across oncoming traffic as well. I seem to recall a study suggesting the same for UPS trucks … They would actually save fuel and large amounts of money on lawyers and doctors by eliminating left turns.
Bob,
I have a friend who only makes right hand turns … hand to heart … left hand turns scare her so she goes around and around till she can turn right onto the street or into the parking lot. (We never let her drive us anywhere)
Quid pro quo. Breathlyzer on the floor of Congress mandatory before any voice vote, other vote, speech, or interview with a journalist.
“Look, if we wanted to curb most roadway accidents we could outlaw left turns.”
Spoken like a man who never drove through New Jersey.
breathalyzers are not 100% accurate. people who work around solvents (acetone) may have trouble starting their vehicle.
using some spot removers on the seats or carpet could result in no start/intermittent no start conditions.
The church side of congress, the Republican House, whines about too many regulations all the time, even as they impose religious based regulations.
Hypocrisy is an inevitable result of speaking doublespeak all day long.
“…every motorist must prove that he is not drunk before starting a vehicle.”
*************************************
I can see all kinds of problems here. The breathalizer does not measure alcohol, it measures “other.” You could have a stomach bug or GERD and manage to fail the test.
Also, would you want your wife, girlfriend, or you to need to get the car started to get away from bad things happening, and have to take the time to work the thing while some criminal or abuser was trying to get at you?
Beware the Law of Unintended Consequences.
This federal proposal opens the door to ignition interlocks being mandated in all cars, as was proposed in Pennsylvania a few years ago. MADD also advocates for “voluntary” placement of the devices in vehicles even if a driver has no record of drunk driving.
I wonder who makes money on the devices. They run about $5000 in nys. Keeps the low income drunks from retaining their driver’s license.
Speaking of laws that have little chance of passage.
In Virginia, a Democratic state Senator introduced a bill requiring all men who wanted a prescription for ED medications to have a rectal examination and cardiac stress test.
This was in response to the right wing effort to require invasive procedures for women.
It failed, of course.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101439525
Mespo,
Great ad clip!
Mr. Ed.,
You are right, imo.
This same group opposed smoke-free bars and restaurants, fearful that they’d lose business. The opposite happened as non-smokers visited where they didn’t want to before. Their position is indefensible, and they still don’t know it.
I think the law is probably a good idea, but I can understand the industry’s opposition. Most of our country is auto dependent, especially suburban, exurban and rural areas. For most people outside of large Cities to go to a Restaurant and or bar they have to drive. We rail against drunk driving and it is a problem, however, we live in a country where driving is the predominant means of transportation. Where I live for instance, which is not at all rural, the nearest restaurant is more than a mile and a half away.
News Flash….News Flash…..
All cars are to be equipped with them in France:
Every car in France will have to be equipped with a breathalyzer from the spring of 2012. The announcement was made by French President Nicolas Sarkozy.
The new plan will force every driver to have a breathalyzer kit in their cars so they can check their alcohol level before driving. A kit costs just €1.50 to €2 ($2 to $2.70). Anyone caught without a kit will face a €17 ($23) fine.
The President has made it a personal crusade to cut the number of road deaths in France. In 2007 he pledged to get the annual number of deaths below 3,000 in 2012, which now seems unlikely. The total fell just below 4,000 for the first time ever in 2010, with a total number of 3,994 deaths. The figure for 2011 is likely to be similar.
http://www.jacksonvillewineguide.com/2012/01/breathalyzer-kits-to-become-compulsory-in-all-vehicles-in-france/
I think that they the inner workings are already installed in every vehicle in the US manufactured since 2008….
I think if they stopped every legislator or staff in DC alone…they’d probably arrest 45 to 60 percent…then the bill would die a slow death…never getting out of the super sub, sub committee….Just saying….
How many new secondary laws are they going to make? A lot of these laws are designed to profit someone. I say stop the law machine!
Whats wrong with good old responsibility and consequences and leave it at that.
Here’s the best one for all time:
“Like many industry groups, there is little fear that customers will blame individual members for the actions of their lobbyists or think tanks — particularly when there are over 8000 of them.”
Shortsightedness …
This “carrot appoach” is getting some traction as more and more cash-strapped states are requiring the ignition interlock system for persons convicted of first time DUI. While is sounds reasonable, it places a “scarlet letter” on other members of the family who drive the car and it’s expensive I think it’s only appropriate for repeat offenders with demonstrated alcohol addictions.
Look, if we wanted to curb most roadway accidents we could outlaw left turns. Just because something is effective doesn’t mean its appropriate.
Given how easy a Breathalyzer can be (and routinely are) disabled or bypassed I think this is just a mouthpiece issue for politicians during a campaign year. I want fewer people driving while intoxicated but I think this is a piece of fluff legislation that’s designed to pad the representative’s resume.
Wouldn’t this kind of legislation actually have a chance of reducing the bars and restaurant’s dram shop insurance?