Drunk driving in Texas - Editorial Board Sounds Off

Every week, we poll the members of the editorial board on a timely and divisive topic. This week, the question is:

Texas ranks among the 10 states that have done the least to prevent alcohol-related traffic fatalities, according to a report released this week by the National Transportation Safety Board. Our news story on this explained that Texas has one of highest proportions of drunken driving deaths in the country, yet has implemented only four of the federal agency's 11 recommendations to eliminate "hard core" drunken driving. For details, go here. Given these facts, what are the most important dditional measures - if any - do you think we should be advocating for when the Texas Legislature convenes in January?

Here are their responses:

Keven Ann Willey, editor of the editorial page:
Frankly, I was surprised to learn that Texas employs only four of the recommended 11 sanctions against DWI, especially given the enormity of the problem in this state. As our news story the other day pointed out, fully 40 percent of traffic accidents statewide involved a drunk driver - the fifth highest in the country. That's huge. Just last week, we read about a man who was convicted of a double murder while driving drunk in Denton County. This guy had three previous DWI convictions (which means he probably actually had many more DWI issues, given that the state's permissive plea bargain laws allow for many DWI-related offenses to occur before they actually get prosecuted as an actual DWI offense).What was this guy doing behind the wheel in the first place?

Unfortunately the online version of our story doesn't include the detail that was actually in the paper about what Texas does and doesn't do. In shorthand, the state reportedly does four things well: revoke licenses, impose heightened penalties for high blood-alcohol levels (over 0.15), allow judges to weigh past DWI offenses when assessing penalties for new offenses, and sanction hard-core offenders especially harshly.

Among the actions the state hasn't taken that the safety board thinks it should, in shorthand: employ more sobriety checkpoints, impound more vehicles or use interlock devices more commonly, eliminate diversion programs, impose penalties for driving with a 0.08 blood-alcohol level, develop a "hot sheet" program to identify frequent offenders, develop other confinement alternatives, outlaw plea bargaining, etc....

I think the highest priority should be focusing on repeat offenders. We need to eliminate the difficulty of taking these ticking time bombs off the road. Judges should mandate interlock devices and impound cars of itinerate alcohol abusers more frequently. Developing a "hot sheet" program to identify frequent offenders - sort of like a terrorist watch list at airports - makes tremendous sense to me.

I'm even sympathetic to an idea put forth by one of our volunteer Voices columnists - a retired Dallas cop named Scotty Holt - at a workshop we held with them earlier this week. He argued for making blood-alcohol tests mandatory for anybody pulled over on suspicion of DWI. This would be a bit more costly on the front end; blood tests for all. But it would be much cheaper - and more sensible - in the long run by eliminating much of the legal maneuvering and gamesmanship surrounding DWI prosecutions. It would provide unambiguous evidence - either your blood alcohol was over the limit or not - of your status. It should be a much more black-and-white, fact-based process. So do the blood work, get the answer, take your penalty (or walk if your level was OK). Get it done. Quit with the diversionary tactics. Move on.

READ FULL ARTICLE HERE