Alcohol and driving: get tough on youth but cut some slack for mature drivers

By: Eric Peters
Date: 1999-04-09

Leave the first comment

This is a response by Automotive Journalist Eric Peters to a Drivers.com editorial that rebutted his article that was originally published in The National Review (September 28, 1998). Click here to read the Drivers.com article that summarizes the arguments Peters made in the original piece.

1) The argument that we in the U.S. ought to legislate .05 or less because Europeans have adopted such levels (.02 in Sweden, .05 in Europe & Australia, etc.) says nothing about the merit of the proposal-only that we have different laws from Europe and Australia. Europe also has a much greater degree of social welfarism and concomitant high unemployment level and economic malaise vis-a-vis America. Should we also adopt state socialism?

2) The point that accident/fatality rates among "novice drivers" (ages 16-19) with .05 to .08 BAC are high says more about their youthful recklessness and inexperience than it does about whether alcohol was a causative factor. I know in my own case that I was one hell of a lot more dangerous behind the wheel of a car when I was 16 and stone cold sober than I would be today, at 32, with 3 drinks in 2 hours in my bloodstream.

My point is that no one under age 18 (21, ideally) should be driving without restrictions-given the 2-5 years it takes to become a decently-skilled, respectful of others and aware of the concept of death, driver-and to develop some much needed maturity. I am therefore in favor of EXTREME sanctions for those 16-21 year-olds caught drinking while operating a motor vehicle. Mandatory license revocation for one year should be the penalty levied against any teenager found to be driving under the influence of alcohol, no matter how low the BAC.

But for adults, the standard should be different. Age brings maturity in most people-and most adults over age 25 won't do crazy things with a car just because they've had 2-3 drinks with dinner.

My final point remains intact, I think. It is that impairment is subjective, and "dumbing down" the standard below an acceptable average is unnecessarily harsh given the factual evidence (e.g. traffic deaths legitimately attributable to alcohol consumption, as opposed to the disingenuous "alcohol related" distortions purveyed by NHTSA & peddled by MADD to support .08 and lower); that BAC levels of .08 and lower do not result in greater accident/fatality rates, and accordingly, drivers with .08 or less BAC can be fairly said NOT to manifest serious impairment that warrants the attention of the gendarme.

I welcome any responses; my e-mail is EPeters952@aol.com

Login or sign up to receive email notification
when a comment is added to this thread.

NOTE - You can cancel at any time, and we have a strict privacy policy which forbids us from sharing your email address or other information with any third party.