If you listen to MADD and law enforcement, you might think the roads are more dangerous today than they've ever been. You might think that we need to shred the Constitution and Bill of Rights in order to regain control of our highways. You might think that drunk driving is worse today than just a few years ago.
You might think that -- but you'd be wrong. Despite the media hype of No Refusal Weekends and forced blood draws, the reality is that our highways are safer now than they were ten years ago. And that's according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).
In 2000, there were 57,280 drivers involved in fatality accidents. Of those drivers, 12,261 had alcohol concentrations of .08 or higher (that's 21% of the drivers). That number, however, does not indicate how many of those impaired drivers were at fault for the accident.
Fast forward to 2009 when the number of drivers involved in fatality accidents dropped to 45,230. The number of drivers with alcohol concentrations of .08 or higher dropped to 10,102 (22% of the drivers). Again, we don't know from the NHTSA study how many of those impaired drivers were at fault for the accident.
So, between 2000 and 2009, there were 21% fewer drivers involved in fatality accidents and almost 18% fewer drivers with alcohol concentrations of .08 or higher. If that's the case, if our roads are safer now than they were ten years ago, why the push to curb motorists' constitutional rights?
Is the No Refusal "movement" the proverbial nose of the camel edging underneath the tent? If we demonize motorists accused of driving while intoxicated are we making it easier to curtail the rights of other defendants?