I’ve just read an article (sorry, no link) that Japan has begun to impose significant fines (in the 4 figure range) on the passengers of a DUI driver as accessories to the driver’s drunken driving (along with fining/arresting the driver, of course). This is apparently having significant effect on drunk driving in Japan.
Given the ongoing push in the US against drunk driving, I would not be surprised if similar laws started being enacted in some states. Good idea or bad?
Me, I can see some validity if one of the passengers was buying the drinks for the driver. In that case, the passenger would have both control and knowledge. But in other cases, such a law would require the passenger to monitor the driver, be aware of how many drinks would cause the driver to be DUI and the amount of time that has elapsed since the driver began drinking, etc. The passenger would have to become the cop.
I think it’s a good idea. Why would someone be in a car with a driver who’s been drinking? Generally because they’ve been out drinking with the driver. So they should either plan on who’s going to be the Designated Driver or decide to take public transport (or a taxi) home if they both decide to get boozed up.
One possible objection is a drunk driver meeting a friend on the street and offering a ride. If it’s immediately obvious the driver’s blotto, then the other person can say “Sure, but let me drive” or “No thanks, you seem to have been drinking” (IMO the first response is the better of the two).
I hardly think placing shared responsibility on a pair or group of drinkers to make sure they all get home safe is any sort of inconvenience. The driver of the car still bears responsibility for ensuring he can drive home if he plans to. His friends don’t have to monitor his alcohol intake every second but if they plan on riding with him they should be able to judge at the end of the night who should drive or if they should all find the closest pad to sleep it off.
There is no way to make this work “fairly” under the US system. This kind of law would dictate that every person who rides in a car be as well trained as a police officer in detecting a drunk driver (something even the police can’t always do properly until a breath or blood test has been administered).
What if I am already drunk and my judgement is impaired and I get a ride home from a friend who, unbeknown to be, has had a few drinks? How is he my responsibility? I’m trying to do the right thing and he screws me and now I’M in trouble?
As far as fining the person who bought/served the drinks, we already have laws regarding that, although they are selectively enforced (usually only when there is a fatality, because the police just wouldn’t have the resources to investigate where each run of the mill DUI case got his drinks). And you don’t have to be in the car - the law can crack down on a bartender or a homeowner who serves drinks to someone they know will get behind the wheel.
That’s not true at all. The same logical argument could be applied to YOURSELF - even if I’ve been drinking, how do I know if my BAC is .079 or .081?
If the US were to start handing out “DUI accessory” tickets, the person does have the opportunity to plead not guilty and fight the charge. Unless the authorities can demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that any reasonable man would have known the driver was drunk, the passenger would be acquitted.
Given the astounding level of carnage caused by drunk drivers, I would say the government does need to find new avenues of approach. Half of all motor vehicle accident fatalities have alcohol as a contributing factor. If it’s done right I wholeheartedly endorse this idea.
Well, in theory it is a good idea. If a (capable and adult, of course - I would hope children and incapacitated adults would be exempt from this law) passenger knows the driver has been drinking, than he or she is as guilty as the driver in the dangerous situation that results. So I agree in principle that the “accessory to DUI” fine is a good way to reduce drunk driving and make the roads safer. And I’d personally be in favor of it.
That said, there are certainly some hitches in the implementation. As Strange Biller suggested - what if the passenger had no idea the driver had been drinking? Assuming that the potential driver isn’t absolutely flat-on-his-ass trashed, you might not know whether he’s had enough liquor to affect his reflexes or fine motor skills (heh, there’s a pun in there!) - especially if you didn’t actually see him drinking, and didn’t suspect it. It’s sort of a brother’s-keeper dilemma.
If it were me, I’d be happy to just carry a breathalyzer (sp?) with me everywhere, and test anyone driving me anywhere to make sure, but I can imagine the general public not taking kindly to the necessity. And I’d probably have to walk a lot…
Here’s a suggestion (slight hijack, apologies) - hook a breath-test to the ignition, causing the ignition to lock unless the driver has been tested and proven to be under legal limits… Granted, there’s the problem of ensuring it was the driver’s breath, and not a proxy (designated test-taker?) but I’ll leave it to other minds to work that out. Maybe we could include a retinal scan with the breath-test-locking system.
Rickjay, the actual drinker has a few clues that allow/help him to determine level of impairment that the passenger doesn’t - exactly how many drinks he drank, how he feels, whether there are two of everything or not.
The hyperbole is unintended (I just can’t think of a equivalent phrase that isn’t hyperbolic), but this is a “kill 'em all and let god sort 'em out” approach.
Is “carnage” a sufficient justification for holding people responsible for a crime that someone else committed without any assistance from the ‘accessory?’ If the passenger said, “no way man, I ain’t driving with you,” this would have no effect on whether the actual crime of DUI was actually committed by the driver; one doesn’t need passengers to drive drunk. While this isn’t absolutely true in law, I prefer it when accessories actually accessorize - that somehow they contribute to the crime or attempts to escape prosecution for the crime - before we impose criminal sanctions on them.
The passengers don’t do that; they are, literally, along for the ride.
I don’t know about you but I don’t keep track of everything my pal drinks. Should I not get into a car with someone if I know they’ve had one or two beers? There are a few friends of mine who I won’t get into the car with because I don’t trust them to drink responsibly. There are others who I wouldn’t think twice about getting into the car with unless it was obvious they were drunk. Not everyone who is legally drunk is obvious about it.
**
Being a passenger generally isn’t a criminal offense. Can we ticket passengers if the driver speeds?
I agree with all those who don’t think it could word fairly. Another consideration is that the legal blood alcohol level is quite low, now, .08% in many states. That level would be hard to discern by a passenger.
OTOH I wonder if it might not do some good. E.g., the artist Jackson Pollack died in one-car accident when he was driving drunk, along with two young women, one of whom also died IIRC. Of course the women were foolish to get into the car with him in his inebriated state. Would they have been deterred if going with him had also been illegal? If they had refused to go with him, would he have made some different arrangement that didn’t involve his driving? I suppose it’s possible…
I have another vote against this latest and rather odd increase in a conceptual “brother’s keeper” legal intimidation.
I fully support what seems to me to be the more simplified and safer course of legal action: laws prohibiting any drinking and driving. (As we’ve had a fatal accident here in the Seattle area where recent cocaine use by the responsible driver appears to at least partially be the cause, I’m peripherally interested in this aspect as well). As has been pointed out already, a drinking driver is unable to self determine BAC, hence should not under any circumstances attempt to operate a motor vehicle. Driving is a privilege, (and don’t we hate being constantly reminded of that) and a potential deadly weapon. Let’s be smart and err on the side of caution.
Well, I think it could be fair if the onus was on the prosecution to prove that the passenger was aware of the driver’s intoxication. Maybe for the law to kick in the driver would have to be at 1.0 or something.
If you can prove that the passenger was aware the driver was drunk (e.g he was a slobbering mess when he poured himself into the car and people witnessed it) then you are knowingly benefitting from a dangerous crime. Don’t see why you shouldn’t net some charge for that.
Cogitation over. OK, CarnalK has swayed me a bit. I would support an accessory charge if the passenger had affirmative knowledge that the driver was drunk.
Not a reasonable person standard; the passenger has to have witnessed the driver drinking and the driver has to be obviously impaired. (What does “obviously impaired” mean? Let the courts figger it out).
They may have already. Many states have laws that impart liability to tavernowners and bartenders if they serve alcohol to “obviously impaired” individuals and the person goes out and gets in a wreck. But I dunno how these laws have worked in practicality. Anyone got some background?
Wasn’t there a lawsuit recently where a guy was charged with murder because he allowed his supposeded drunk friend to drive and the friend ended up killing someone? The driver had been put in the drunk tank by the cops, they leter released him to his buddy, who took him to his car and “allowed” him to drive. Seems like the jury voted that the accessory was guilty. Probably manslaughter, not murder, but still held liable.
I’m amazed. I don’t think it reasonable to expect ordinary citizens to decide if someone is drunk or not. The person driving is responsible, period. Japanese society has a somewhat different view of the individual, so maybe they could make this work. It would just be a legal mess here. Who wouldn’t challenge it? I’d be surprised if it was even constitutional.
Well, it not like your friend robbed a bank and then gave you some of the money. I don’t see what “benefit” one would get from getting into a car with a drunk driver, other than possibly a ride home. Is that small “benefit” commensurate with the proposed penalty? (Four figure fine in the Japan example cited).
Sounds more like a case of bad judgement, do we really want to start issuing tickets for that?
I think it’s a good idea. While you won’t be able to always tell when a person is drunk, you’ll (hopefully) be able to keep your eyes open and notice if it takes him 20 minutes to put the key in the ignition. Also, it’ll give people more impetus to have designated drivers and the like. Let’s be honest… you have to give people a personal stake in a lot of things before they take interest in it. While I don’t let friends drive drunk on general principle, if someone tells Joe Anonymous that he’s gonna have to pay $5,000 cuz he let Billy Bob drive drunk, you better believe odds are against it happening again.
If the driver is drunk enough to be picked up by the cops and have a breathilyzer over 0.8, the driver is significantly impaired. And at this level, the signs are often obvious. I think the passenger fine is too steep, however.
(1st draft of this post got eaten by the server… here’s the abbreviated version)
The fine for drunk driving is 300,000 yen ($2,500). I now hear a lot of people saying ‘I can’t drink, I have to drive’. Before, I never heard it unless I was going out with teachers (Japanese teachers are summarily dismissed if caught driving drunk). Even so, I don’t know how much credit I give the new law with reducing drunk driving incidents. I credit it to the fact that the police are now actually enforcing the drunk driving statutes, while before they were irregularly enforced, if at all (Japanese culture has always been that anything you do while drunk is forgiven.)
Japanese drunk driving law says that if you have been drinking at all, you are not allowed to drive, so it’s not quite as complicated for the passenger to make a judgement call. I do agree that it’s not the passenger’s job to have to make that call, though.
The law is inconsistent with other laws. There is no requirement, legal or customary, for bartenders to cut customers off. I have seen people who were having difficulty standing order drinks.
