A fundamental principle in engineering is that a problem well defined is half solved. Unfortunately, what has been defined about drunken driving merely states that it’s a problem, drunk drivers sometimes crash. Sober drivers crash too. The Legislature proposes solutions that treat a condition, blood alcohol level, rather than impaired function.
The proposed remedy includes enforcement. The Legislature’s solution is to fiddle with the definition of impairment. Just as you cannot inspect quality into a poorly conceived product, you cannot define responsible behavior to undo the event. You might deter repeat offenses, but what about the consequences of the first offense? If enforcement is the solution, then why has the problem not gone away. More politics “If you are going the wrong way you must run twice as fast.”
Are there proportionally more impaired drivers on Hawaii? Why? Is the proportion higher than other islands, or is it that they have to drive a lot farther to get home, on more challenging roads? Comparing rural Hawaii (45 people per square mile) to urban Honolulu (2,000 per square mile) is like comparing West Virginia to Miami. Drunks in Honolulu can walk home, or take a taxi. If they do drive, it’s not far. On Hawaii Island, it can be 90 miles from party to home, with the last bus at 4:30 p.m. Does the social situation in Hawaii encourage drunken driving, or simply more drinking? Many “drunk drivers” are also using something harder to quantify like methamphetamine (ice). Maybe they’re just bad drivers, drunk or not.
Do our roads make sobriety more critical? Many Hawaii County highways are outdated, built many years ago and not up to current, or even intermediate (1970) federal standards. Lanes are narrow, shoulders are narrow to nonexistent. Guardrails are uncommon, and when they do exist many are substandard to downright lethal. Napo’opo’o Road, Highway 160 is an example, it is perfectly engineered — for donkey carts. Sharp curves follow the terrain to maintain a uniform 8% grade. Sidewalks, pavement markings and reflectors range from minimum standard to nonexistent. Except, crosswalk markings, which thanks to nondriving lobbyists may be excessive and may encourage reckless behavior by inattentive pedestrians (petextrians?).
The typical reference to highway engineering is to add pullout areas to facilitate enforcement. Are we building roads to safely transport people or to collect ticket revenue? There is often a call for lower speed limits, without any deliberation as to whether that will make the situation better or worse. Artificially low speed limits often lead to other poor driving behavior, such as tailgating or unsafe passing.
Without accusing anyone, it is necessary to point out that it is very easy for a police officer to cite alcohol as the cause of an accident, even if a sober driver would have had the same outcome, or if the proximate cause was improper behavior by some other driver. It’s not the officer’s fault. The system is designed to find a violation, cite someone and collect a fine. It is the court’s de facto function to collect revenue.
One problem is that the legal standard for impaired driving is not whether the driver is functionally impaired. It is blood alcohol content, (BAC) an indirect measure. Not everyone is equally affected by alcohol let alone alcohol plus other drugs. The legal system likes litmus tests: BAC 0.079 you are OK, 0.080 you are legally drunk, period. The test can be timed to increase the probability of a violation. Police have a battery of field sobriety tests that are in fact an actual measure of impairment. Unfortunately, the tests are accused of being subjective and defense lawyers can often get around them, thus the reliance on BAC.
A modern option would be automated impairment testing (like pilots in a simulator) using a portable device similar to a smart phone. Pass most you are presumed safe. Fail most you are impaired. It would have to be proprietary so no one could practice. There are several becoming available, but the legal system is not as receptive as it could be.
Ken Obenski is a forensic engineer, now safety and freedom advocate in South Kona. Send feedback to obenskik@gmail.com