New Haven Independent

Posted by: Edward_H | June 9, 2009 12:46 PM

Would you mind telling us how having an open container of alcohol in a vehicle causes the operator of said vehicle to become a danger on the road if the operator is not drinking from it or drunk before they began driving? Mere possession of an open container of alcohol in a vehicle does not mean the driver is intoxicated anymore than possession of a cell phone mean the driver is sending text messages while driving.

Really? And there is some evidence someplace for this?Some study somewhere showing that people unable to drink as passengers drink more before they go for a ride?

Is there some study someplace that shows drivers become intoxicated or a danger on the roads by the mere presence of open containers of alcohol in a car? Or is this something someone made up out of thin air? If so then open containers of alcohol should be banned from limo's and party buses as well. Or do drivers of these vehicles have some sort of immunity us normal folks don't have.

Unfortunately, and it turns my stomach to write this, for once in my life I have to agree with the Black and Latino Caucus.

Are blacks and Latinos really more apt to drive around with passengers in their cars drinking than suburban white kids.

No, but many people fear when the police have the ability to use discretion as to when to charge someone with a crime they will more often charge a minority when given a chance. An example, let's say my wife and I are out with another couple. This couple does not drink due to their religious beliefs. Now let's say my wife and I order a bottle of wine and do not finish it and we take the "open container" into the passenger area of our non drinking friends car as they drive us home. If he gets pulled over for a broken tail light and the cop sees the "open container" of wine according to you my friend is guilty of a crime even though he has not had a drop to drink in years. Does the cop give him a ticket for the broken taillight and send him home or does he also charge him under the "open container" law you propose? Some would say if the passengers are black or latino they are more likely to be charged with under the open container law and if white let go with just the broken tail light ticket. I am not saying this is true but it is a reasonable fear. I too am looking forward to seeing the results of the study.

If you want to make a difference make the current laws tougher. Don't make up new laws to arrest sober people. This proposed law does nothing to curb or discourage drunk driving.

Posted by: Bruce | June 9, 2009 2:33 PM

I am pretty sure that witnessing an open container in a car -- even by a passenger -- would give a policeman enough reasonable suspicion to legally pull a car over (look up "Terry Stop"). If he then determines the driver has been drinking, DUI laws will apply.

I consider myself an advocate for safe driving, but I have to think this is just a feel-good law and I highly doubt it would do anything to stop drunk driving. Having an open container in a car does not impair one's ability to drive. Drinking alcohol does, and that's why we already have laws to prevent that.

I agree with Edward_H: "Don't make up new laws to arrest sober people." Well said.

Posted by: James FP | June 9, 2009 4:28 PM

I'll start with this paragraph:

"And if you thought that the 'partygoers would just drink more before they all got into the car' reasoning was the most illogical and irrational thing you ever heard of, think again. The Hartford Courant reported earlier this year that the legislature's Black and Latino caucus claimed that banning open containers would give police the excuse to stop and arrest more minorities."

I'm not going to launch into a spirited defense of the argument that "partygoers would just drink more before they all got into the car," but I will say that you are mistaken in saying that it is illogical and irrational. Let me walk you through the logic and reasoning of the argument. The argument is based on the idea that partygoers prefer to reach a certain level of intoxication before arriving at a party. At present, they are able to drink on the way (provided, of course, they are not the driver). However, if they are barred from drinking on the way, if they still wish to reach their preferred level of intoxication, they will drink more prior to departing. I'm not sure how that argument is illogical or irrational--they have a preference, and they act rationally within the constraints imposed on them in order to fulfill said preference.

Now, it's entirely possible that you might have some other objection to this line of argument. For example, you might try to argue that people DON'T have a preferred level of intoxication (which, I submit, given the human race's rich history of drinking, dating back to the brews of ancient Sumerians, is a poor argument). You might be reduced to some moralistic argument about drinking to the point of intoxication, but I think most people will find that legislating morality is a terrible idea (consider the case of abortion, where many people find it morally objectionable but support its legality).

Or you might go for the safety argument, which you seem to angle at with this statement:
"Thirty-six percent of all traffic deaths in Connecticut were related to alcohol. With a population of about 3 million, it is terrifying to realize that 15,000 of us have been arrested 3 or more times for DWI. I don't know how many of those folks still have licenses. I am not sure I want to know."
While every traffic death is tragic, ones that are generally preventable (e.g. alcohol related ones) hit especially hard. However, for statistical purposes, I don't think that "related to alcohol" means that a PASSENGER in the car had been drinking. If it did, it would render the statistic meaningless--having a drunk friend passed out in the passenger's seat does not markedly impair one's driving ability.
Furthermore, as the law stands, it is illegal for the driver of a car to drink while driving, and driving while intoxicated is already illegal.

Might I suggest that, if a police officer suspects that the driver of a car is drinking, the officer follow the car for a few blocks and see if the driver makes any erratic maneuvers? Such a simple revision to police protocol would not require legislative approval, and would not take away the ability of responsible adults to enjoy a drink in a car so long as they are not driving.

As for your outrage that 15,000 Connecticutians have been arrested 3 or more times on charges of driving while intoxicated yet many still have licenses, you should be glad to know that I share your outrage. However, I am not clear as to what this has to do with Connecticut's lack of an open container law. You are proposing a solution that has absolutely no relation to the problem, assuming the problem is that so many repeat offenders still have licenses (if this is not the problem, why even bring that up?). The solution to this problem is a reform of the Connecticut DMV's license suspension and revocation guidelines, not the elimination of the ability of responsible adults to partake in a beverage on the road.

You might be tempted to argue that the very act of banning open containers in vehicles would, through some combination of effects, reduce the overall accident rate. Even if you were to find statistical evidence to support this, I would argue that the irresponsibility of a few bad apples should not cost the rest of us our privileges. If we were to propose taking on the problem of reckless (but not drunken) driving by banning all driving, we could cut the accident rate to zero. But this is a ridiculous proposal, and we'd never implement it (to be clear, I think that the open container proposal is much more legitimate than this, and should be debated seriously; I use this exaggerated example to make my point clear). Ultimately, I believe that through a combination of incentives, good police work, and awareness programs, we can cut the DWI rate, and related accidents, by a significant amount without the need for otherwise law-abiding citizens to give up their ability to enjoy a drink on the road, provided they are not driving.

Posted by: Walt | June 9, 2009 4:41 PM

Do not agree with Kalb often but he is right on this one.

Still curious, so again ask whether Kalb is a paid columnist or just gets special treatment as a friend of the Publisher.

Would also like to know the wording of "open container" in the proposed rule as it would seem that a re-capped o re-corked wine bottle as in Edward's illustration, is no longer "open" unless so defined.

Posted by: DWILIEdotNET | June 9, 2009 5:42 PM

In reply to James FP's Statement,

Or you might go for the safety argument, which you seem to angle at with this statement:
"Thirty-six percent of all traffic deaths in Connecticut were related to alcohol. With a population of about 3 million, it is terrifying to realize that 15,000 of us have been arrested 3 or more times for DWI. I don't know how many of those folks still have licenses. I am not sure I want to know."
While every traffic death is tragic, ones that are generally preventable (e.g. alcohol related ones) hit especially hard. However, for statistical purposes, I don't think that "related to alcohol" means that a PASSENGER in the car had been drinking. If it did, it would render the statistic meaningless--having a drunk friend passed out in the passenger's seat does not markedly impair one's driving ability.

Actually "Alcohol Related" does include the passenger and it is a completely irrelevant statistic. Nationally only about 12.8% of fatal crashes involve a driver with a BAC over .08.

Not only that, but the NHTSA uses "Multiple Imputation" to "Replace Missing BAC Values in FARS" FARS is the Fatality Analysis Reporting System, and it is where everybody gets their traffic stats from when they say 30% or more are "Alcohol Related" Responsibility in DUI Laws Inc (www.ridl.us) analyzed the FARS data and discovered the 12.8% number, and you can find those reports on their sit.

The document that shows the NHTSA method of Fabricating "Alcohol Related Fatalities" can be found on my site here Click here and download 808816.pdf

They use vehicle class, age, sex, time of day, day of week, and other factors to "Replace the missing BAC Values" between .01 and .94 (People die around .50 or less) even when the police dont say any drinking took place, or a blood test shows there was no alcohol, pretty funny if you look at the reports. Well, funny if you think causing thousands of innocent people to go to jail each year is funny that is...

It's ALL A LIE, they want PROHIBITION!

Posted by: Edward_H | June 9, 2009 6:01 PM

Walt

Would also like to know the wording of "open container" in the proposed rule as it would seem that a re-capped o re-corked wine bottle as in Edward's illustration, is no longer "open" unless so defined.

From last year's proposal

3) "Open alcoholic beverage container" means a bottle, can or other receptacle that (A) contains any amount of an alcoholic beverage, and (B) (i) is open or has a broken seal, or (ii) the contents of which are partially removed;

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/AMD/S/2008SB-00301-R00SA-AMD.htm