Lawmakers ponder alcohol-related fatalities
12/2/08 | 17 comments

Lawmakers ponder alcohol-related fatalities


By Eric Russell
BDN Staff

BANGOR, Maine — A report released by Mothers Against Drunk Driving suggests Maine still has work to do to reduce the number of alcohol-related highway fatalities.

Of all traffic deaths in Maine in 2007, 66, or 36 percent, involved alcohol. That percentage ranked Maine 42nd among 50 states and the District of Columbia and represented a 27 percent increase over the number of alcohol-related fatalities in 2006.

“The truth is, we’re always looking at ways to improve our laws,” said Sen. Bill Diamond, chairman of the Legislature’s Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee. “But it’s not like we’d be happy if we got it down to 10 percent. It would still be too many.”

The report released last week by MADD also offered opinions about each state’s progress. Utah had the lowest percentage of deaths involving drunken drivers, at 17 percent, while North Dakota’s rate of 48 percent was the highest.

MADD credited Maine for passing a 2008 law that allows repeat driving offenders to use an ignition interlock system at a judge’s discretion, but said the law should be mandatory. Maine had been one of only five states not to employ an interlock system, which prevents vehicles from starting unless the operator provides a breath sample with an alcohol concentration below a set level.

No data have been released on how often judges have required ignition interlock systems in Maine. Diamond said that because the law was enacted only a few months ago, it hasn’t had a chance to be successful.

“Initially, I was taken aback at our ranking because I felt we had made some strides,” he said. “But it does take time for some of these laws to have an effect.”

Ignition interlock devices have greatly improved in quality and reliability in recent years. Some are equipped with cameras to record the person who actually blows into the device, and some can be equipped to randomly require the person to be tested again after first starting the vehicle.

Even though drunken driving laws passed during the last legislative session, Diamond predicted that 15 to 20 bills would be introduced in January that directly or indirectly address that issue.

“I think, a lot of times, new legislators introduce bills that they think are specific to their area, and we always see bills that seek mandatory sentences,” he said. “But the problem with that is we can’t afford to keep putting people in jail at taxpayers’ expense. We need to think more about prevention than punishment.”

The Legislature has taken steps to focus on what Diamond called hard-core drunken drivers and repeat offenders, but he said the state still has a number of social drinkers who get behind the wheel when they should not.

To that end, Sen. Peter Mills introduced legislation during the last session that sought to lower the legal blood alcohol level from 0.08 to 0.06. The bill would have made Maine the only state with a limit that low but it failed to make it to the floor.

Not registered? Click here
E-mail this
Print this
Guidelines for posting on bangordailynews.com

Bangordailynews.com is pleased to offer a forum for readers to react to our stories, discuss them and provide additional information. We are reluctant to delete comments, but do reserve that right for those who abuse our forum. For more on using this site, please see our terms of service.

The primary rule here is pretty simple: Treat others with the same respect you'd want for yourself. What does that mean specifically? Here are some guidelines (see more):

Comments
17 comments on this item
On 12/2/08 at 8:08 AM, dregsfan wrote:         Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden

Again the Leg. takes up our time and money on 15-20 useless bills instead of fixing the economy.Seatbelt laws,anti smoking laws,etc.make us a laughingstock across the US

Report abuse
On 12/2/08 at 8:32 AM, chemaine wrote:         Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden

"Again the Leg. takes up our time and money on 15-20 useless bills instead of fixing the economy"

Zigactly! If I wanna drink me a six pack or a messa Allen's and get behind the wheel of ma car, i gots da right and no dangun politician is gonna stop me. I pays for the roads so I'ma gonna use dem! Stupid liberals trying ta make the place safe with all their fancy liberal elite laws. If ya don't like drunk drivers, stay offa da road!

Report abuse
On 12/2/08 at 8:47 AM, Bangorian wrote:         Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden

Where is the evidence that lowering the blood alcohol content to .06 will reduce the number of accidents/fatalities? My guess is that the accidents come from repeat offenders who frequently drive drunk because they have a problem with alcohol, or from people who have had way too much.

Report abuse
On 12/2/08 at 8:50 AM, chemaine wrote:         Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden

"Where is the evidence that lowering the blood alcohol content to .06 will reduce the number of accidents/fatalities?"

Exaclty! anyne who thinks there is correltation between alochol intake and cognitive function is just wrong! I've alreeedy had 7 beerz thiz mornanf and i iz sull gud ta driiiive

Report abuse
On 12/2/08 at 8:57 AM, jgordon wrote:         Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden

If one is to believe the statistics that MADD puts forth then 64% of all traffic deaths are caused by sober drivers. The natural conclusion is that you are safer driving drunk because only 36% of the fatalities are credited to that condition. Not a popular way of looking at it nor do I suggest that people should drive drunk. What I am saying is that the statistics which MADD quotes are bogus, or at a minimum highly suspect. Why? First, the format that they use to put forth the data causes the reader to conclude that the 36% fatal vehicle accidents are caused by drunk drivers. That isn't true because the statistic they us is not for drunk drivers. Notice how they say, "involves alcohol" not that the driver is intoxicated. It is simply in how the data is presented. Lets say the driver had 1 beer 5 hours before driving and put the empty in a bag on his backseat, or that an intoxicated pedestrian falls off the sidewalk into the path of a car, or that a passenger has had a drink but the driver is a designated driver, or any combination of scenario's that involve alcohol but don't involve an intoxicated driver. Second, they do not normalize the data to be prorated for the total number of drivers. It would be much more accurate to say that X% of intoxicated drivers cause a fatal accident. MADD would have you believe, and have the state legislate, that all those deaths were caused by drunk drivers and it simply isn't true. I challenge them to come out with the statistics for fatalities which involve drunk drivers only. The percentage will be much much lower than the figures they typically quote.

Report abuse
On 12/2/08 at 9:26 AM, limlib wrote:         Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden

Our legislature is on course to totally eliminate any prosperity in this state, where are the movers and shakers to get this economy rolling ? We have te resources to be on top. We need some seriious housecleaning in Augusta. Tthe people in this part of Hancodk County voted in an over-educated tree hugger, no point talking economy with this rep. It's quite discouraging.

Report abuse
On 12/2/08 at 9:43 AM, chemaine wrote:         Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden

"We need some seriious housecleaning in Augusta."

Wasn't there just an election?

"Tthe people in this part of Hancodk County voted in an over-educated tree hugger, no point talking economy with this rep"

So it would be better to have a rep who was not eleted by the majority but who is not educated?

Let me guess, your lips move when you read?

Report abuse
On 12/2/08 at 9:48 AM, jaguarsky wrote:         Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden

Addicts are unable to make rational choices. That is a hard and true fact, and while driving under the influence is a crime, to simply criminalize an addiction behavior will not change that behavior. When courts begin to order repeat offenders into mandatory re-hab and follw up counseling these statistics, however skewed they might be, may begin to show the kind of improvement that we all hope for.

Report abuse
On 12/2/08 at 10:52 AM, mariahstorm wrote:         Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden

how many cars are on the road compared to accidents??? that would at least be more honest. who holds the other record for accidents? news media says cell phone users. Sure you haven't got some funds you need to spend from your fed grant program? If Mothers took their own responsibilities and not try to put the blame on someone else, then we wouldn't have such stupid diverse communistic leadership organizations. Where were you when your kid was on the road?

Report abuse
On 12/2/08 at 1:20 PM, opinionated wrote:         Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden

State ought to put some money into education.

Report abuse
On 12/2/08 at 1:57 PM, chemaine wrote:         Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden

"State ought to put some money into education. "

edumacation ain't gonna do no good. i didnt get the grade 12 even and i is plenty smart. i cut the wood and make the money and drinks da allen's. close da schools and lets all cut da wood and make da moneys. don't need no stupid schools, dey is for dummies

Report abuse
On 12/2/08 at 1:58 PM, bicycle1 wrote:         Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden

This is a Drunk Against Mad Mothers. {DAMM} Mothers you are right to try to get drunks off the road. However lowering the alcohol level to .06 does not accomplish this. Lowering the level catches people who are not drunk and puts them in the same class as hard core repeat offenders. This leads to the denial of the problem because their is no clear separation. The denial process allows a drunk to continue to drink and drive because it seems everybody can get caught. One drink actually sharpenes one's reflexes. Beyound that point is the drunk you want to get off the road. You know after all if you don't like the way they drive get off the sidewalk.

Report abuse
On 12/2/08 at 2:09 PM, SteveyDee wrote:         Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden

bicycle1, you are correct. Sipping on 1 cold one on the way home from work doesn't make you a drunk driver..

Report abuse
On 12/2/08 at 4:44 PM, chemaine wrote:         Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden

wow

i really can't believe people are against drinking and driving in this state.

you really are a bunch of stupid hicks.

Report abuse
On 12/2/08 at 5:07 PM, duckwa wrote:         Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden

Chemaine, even when it seems like I might agree with your point of view on something, your posts are so darn arrogant that I feel the need to pass. Is your 8:32 post also meant to imply that liberals are for safer roads and the dumb conservatives are in favor of drunk driving? Also 1:57, you don't really feel there is anything to be ashamed of if you earn you living in the woods do you? Yes I get that you were being sarcastic, but the points your sarcasism tries to make are still offensive.

Report abuse
On 12/2/08 at 5:12 PM, duckwa wrote:         Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden

Chemaine , what is it you are always trying so hard to over compensate for?

Report abuse
On 12/3/08 at 6:19 AM, scarletsaint5 wrote:         Repeated separate thumbs down will cause comment to be hidden

all cars should be eqipped with breatholators otherwise a drunk will always find a car to drive.

Report abuse
You must be logged in to post a comment. click here to log in.

Powered by: Creative Circle Advertising Solutions, Inc.