JACK SCOTT
It was Friday evening, Sept. 19. My 16-year-old granddaughter, three
other teenagers, and a father of one of the youths were on their way
to a church retreat for young people.
Suddenly, a speeding car smashed into their vehicle. My
granddaughter escaped with severe bruises and scrapes, but the girl
sitting next to her was killed. One other teenager had to have his
right foot amputated, and his pelvis was crushed.
The driver of the other car was drunk. His blood alcohol was 0.24%
-- three times the legal limit -- and he was going the wrong way on a
freeway. He was killed, along with one of his passengers. Three lives
lost, and others shattered.
This was not supposed to happen. Mothers Against Drunk Driving has
led a revolution in the way we view drunk driving, and their
successes over the last two decades have been phenomenal in reducing
the number of alcohol-related auto accidents. From their founding in
California in 1980 through 1994, MADD was instrumental in reducing
alcohol-related deaths to the lowest levels seen since the 1970s.
However, in 1995 the rates began to creep up. And unfortunately,
the numbers are still startling. Last year, according to the National
Highway Transportation Safety Administration, 17,419 Americans died
in alcohol-related automobile accidents -- about one every 30
minutes. More appalling, these alcohol-related deaths are more than
40% of the total number of traffic fatalities in the nation. Forty
percent of all traffic deaths in this country are related to drunk
driving!
We can't be complacent in thinking that what MADD started has been
finished. Maybe, without thinking about it, we have become too
tolerant of drunk drivers.
Next year, I intend to introduce legislation to further reduce
alcohol-related accidents, and I would like your help in deciding
what may be the best approach. According to a well-researched report
from the DMV last year, we know that increased jail time and fines do
not deter most drunk drivers. However, the DMV report suggests a
number of potential solutions that do appear to work, and which I
would like to consider:
* Repeat offenders are clearly the most morally reprehensible.
Perhaps it is time to impound or confiscate the vehicles they
repetitively use as weapons. Someone convicted of a third
drunk-driving offense would lose not just their license, but also
their vehicle -- three strikes and your car's out.
* California has had a complicated and confusing system of
