Posted by: Tim | May 7, 2008 7:55 AM

How the h*ll was this made into a racial issue?

Posted by: christine | May 7, 2008 8:32 AM

Minorities are more likely to be pulled over and the bill may be a tool to increase racial profiling.

Posted by: Edward_H | May 7, 2008 10:02 AM

What does it matter if the container of alcohol is open but no one in the car is intoxicated? What if someone is driving home from dinner with an open bottle of wine in the car? Sounds like a huge waste of time to me.

Posted by: doug | May 7, 2008 4:00 PM

It may seem like this isn't a racial issue, because on its face it isn't. Open container of alcohol don't belong in vehicles - period. It's a bad idea and results tend to prove that, overwhelmingly.

But I can understand the legislators' concern and questions regarding the potential enforcement of this law. Here's an AP story that seems to illustrate the point...

Posted by: Edward_H | May 7, 2008 5:44 PM

Doug

Open container of alcohol don't belong in vehicles - period. It's a bad idea and results tend to prove that, overwhelmingly.

Are you implying open containers of alcohol are causing accidents rather than intoxicated drivers? I would like to see at least one example of such an incident. Do you know of any?

Posted by: doug | May 7, 2008 7:31 PM

Mr. H,

I'm just going to go ahead and tell you how I feel about this. Please don't take offense.

Plenty of examples of drunk driving out there ... used to work with a number of guys - contractors - who basically drove around with either an open beer or bottle of whiskey in their lap all day. Legally drunk pretty fast. Maybe they're not drunk after the first beer, but with the limit (in the right place) at .08, it really only takes 1 or 2 beers to do the trick.

I don't know how anyone can argue that it's OK to drive around with an open container of alcohol. It's an obviously bad - ludicrous - combination. There is this culture in the U.S. that people can do whatever they want on the road - drive recklessly fast, drink to excess - because "everyone does it" or as if it's some kind of rite of passage. Bullsh*t. Drunk drivers get off all the time and almost never go to prison. It takes multiple arrests and accidents to get a license pulled, and then they go out and drive anyway because they've "gotta go to work" or some nonsense, and judges allow that? Look at the woman in Manchester who killed the letter carrier, stayed out of prison and kept driving drunk with her children in the vehicle.

Alcoholism is a disease, but just because someone has a disease doesn't mean they shouldn't go to prison.

Have you ever attended a sentencing for a drunk driving conviction on vehicular assault or manslaughter with an MV? Survivors and family get to make a statement on the record before the judge issues a sentence. I've been to one of these. Guy had multiple DUIs, had lost his license in Mass. before moving here and starting the process all over. Maimed another driver & passenger on a motorcycle - rear-ended the bike, drove over it, dragged the young woman under his vehicle.
Horrific road rash for the girl, lost leg for the guy - a performer and a chef before the accident.

Driver never even stopped. You can bet your mortgage he was from that "buddy for the road" culture of driving with an open container. If a new law cuts even 2 or 3 percent off the tens of thousands who die in these accidents every year... it's worth it.

My two cents. Take it for what it's worth. If it's a bad bill, if it's written in such a way that it won't actually work effectively as a tool in the field, then I'm wrong and I'm fine with that. But the spirit of the bill is good.

This is not a nanny state issue. It's a "lock them up and throw away the key when they deserve it" state issue.

Posted by: Edward_H | May 8, 2008 10:03 AM

Doug

Every example you gave clearly has to do with DUI,the results of DUI laws that are not strong enough or the lack of judicial will to enforce harsh sentences. As I said before an open container of alcohol has nothing to do with a persons intoxication level. Nothing you said supports the implementation of a law that criminalizes a person with an open container of alcohol in a car with a lack of intoxication of any of the occupants. What happens to a pair of married couples who come home from dinner with an open bottle of wine in the car with a designated driver? What happens to a woman who alcoholic husband stashes a bottle of whiskey under the driver seat she knows nothing about? This law is a clear example of politicians who want to be seen as "doing something" about drunk driving. They might as well make carrying alcohol in the passenger area of a car completely illegal, open container or not.

As I said previously if you have some evidence or studies proving open containers of alcohol in the passenger areas of cars are causing accidents in absence of an intoxicated or impaired driver please let us know.

Posted by: dwightstreetrenter | May 8, 2008 10:05 AM

by making this a law, you're criminializing those who choose NOT to drink and drive, by NOT finishing that expensive bottle of wine at the party, but instead bringing it home! The law should be clear: driving while over the legal limit should be prosecuted; transporting liquor in one's personal vehicle while SOBER should not.

Posted by: doug | May 8, 2008 10:54 AM

When you say "open containers," I take that to mean people are actively drinking in the vehicle. If the bill state's otherwise, then - like I said - it could be a bad bill. I suppose the details in the bill's language are the key.

However, if you're arguing that it's OK to drive around while drinking alcohol right up to the point where you - the driving drinker - are now the drunken driver, then you're wrong about this. This type of decision making is the reason drunken driving kills so many people.

You're making it seem like the bill is targeting a bunch of innocents who are transporting partially-consumed
- but corked - bottles of wine as passengers rather than drivers. Why would you worry about that if your driver hasn't been drinking? Also, you could put the corked bottle in the trunk as well, along with any firearms...

Posted by: Edward_H | May 8, 2008 12:08 PM

Doug

I suppose the details in the bill's language are the key.

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;

b) No person shall possess an open alcoholic beverage container within the passenger area of a motor vehicle while such motor vehicle is on any highway or highway right-of-way in this state.

The devil is in the details

However, if you're arguing that it's OK to drive around while drinking alcohol right up to the point where you - the driving drinker - are now the drunken driver, then you're wrong about this.

Would you mind pointing out where in my previous posts I argue drinking while driving is OK? Where did I even imply or even suggest such nonsense? Please don't read things into my posts.

You're making it seem like the bill is targeting a bunch of innocents who are transporting partially-consumed
- but corked - bottles of wine as passengers rather than drivers.

I am not making it seem that way, the law is written that way. There are no end of laws passed with good intentions that have had the opposite effect of what is intended. Everything from the welfare system to rent regulation has had the opposite effect of what was hoped for.

I would still like to see of an example of where an open container of alcohol caused an accident if you have any.

Posted by: doug | May 8, 2008 12:18 PM

For me, it's DUI culture that's in question, but I would agree there's some ambiguity there in the language.

However, if you've consumed half a bottle of wine and are driving the rest of it home, you probably shouldn't be driving either, no? Can't tell you how many people have said: "I've only got a little buzz; I'm OK to drive..."

As for an example... I think you could ask any number of police officers, firefighters, or EMTs about how often they've found open beers in vehicles after crashes. Just because no one tailored a statistic for the express purpose of this argument doesn't mean that data doesn't exist.

On a lighter note, I guess in-vehicle hand sanitizer is out as well...

Posted by: Joe | May 10, 2008 1:49 AM

What does "racial, ethnic, and gender impact study" mean? Do blacks and hispanics drink while driving more than whites? I don't get it.

Posted by: Edward_H | May 11, 2008 9:46 AM

Doug

However, if you've consumed half a bottle of wine and are driving the rest of it home, you probably shouldn't be driving either, no?

Of course you should not be driving. I never once stated anyone who has consumed alcohol should be behind the wheel of a car. Let's take your example. Imagine you are out to dinner with some friends who order a bottle of wine for the table, since you have to drive home you do not partake in any wine. At the end of dinner your friend says " Doug, take home the rest of the bottle since you did not drink any wine during dinner. It is really good. Let me know what you think" Now in order to keep in upright and prevent spillage perhaps you nestle it between the cushions of your backseat. Now on the way driving home sober as a stone you are pulled over for a broken tail light. The cop notices the "open container" in your back seat and now places you under arrest. Now you have to spend time and money fighting this charge in court. What of the person who has an alcoholic spouse who has hidden an "open container" under a seat of a vehicle both share? What a young person who is helping a drunk friend get home who happens to have a small bottle of alcohol on his/her person unknow to the driver? There is no "ambiguiity" in this law, it is simply written badly. No politician has the guts to say so due to at least 2 reasons I can think of:

1) not wanting to look like they support drunk driving to an ignorant public who can't think for themselves.

2) Submitting to the federal government in order to secure highway funds.

As for an example... I think you could ask any number of police officers, firefighters, or EMTs about how often they've found open beers in vehicles after crashes.

And in those crashes where open beers have been found has the driver been intoxicated? If so then current DUI laws already covers this offense. Whether the laws are harsh enough is a entirely different matter. You have yet to provide even one example of how an open container ,in and of itself, leads to or causes any accidents in absence of the driver of said vehicle being intoxicated. Drinking WHILE driving or being under the influence of alcohol are different matters. Curent laws need to be toughened and we need to have mandatory sentences.

Joe

What does "racial, ethnic, and gender impact study" mean? Do blacks and hispanics drink while driving more than whites? I don't get it.

Just my guess on the matter, I am not saying I agree but this is just my take on their reasoning :

The Democratic Black and Latino Caucus appear to believe that a significant portion of law enforcement officers are racists and/or sexist. (which to me seems to be a racist assumption but go figure?) . Proceeding from this assumption possibly they think the law will be enforced with more frequency upon the particular groups they represent. As they believe an officer might use his/her discretion to enforce the law on memeber of a particular racial/ethnic/gender group he/she may not like or have some prejudice towards.

Posted by: doug | May 11, 2008 11:25 AM

Saw Rep. Ken Green talking about the bill today. He says they were trying to improve the bill, and like I said, that's fine.

But he also made the another point that I failed to articulate... passengers with open containers put police in the difficult situation of having to make a judgment call about whether the driver has been drinking from the open container. That's bad.

You're responsible for what's in your vehicle. If an alcoholic has hidden alcohol in your vehicle, it's doubtful a cop is going to find it during a traffic stop anyway. More likely, a drunk driver is going to slide a bottle under his/her seat to avoid the obvious problem - he/she has been drinking.

If people are partying in your car while your driving, chances are you are - or have been - drinking as well. Cops are going to pull you over and test you.

Either way, the driver is responsible for what's happening in his/her car. There already is a law on the books - cork and carry - that says you can keep a previously opened bottle of wine in your trunk. Do that and avoid the problem.

Posted by: Edward_H | May 11, 2008 1:22 PM

passengers with open containers put police in the difficult situation of having to make a judgment call about whether the driver has been drinking from the open container. That's bad.

There is no judgment call to make. Give a breathalyzer. If they are above the limit arrest and charge them. Only a politician would say something naïve and clueless. Cops already make judgment calls and use their discretion every day. This guy obviously does not have a hint as to what police officers do on a daily basis.

You're responsible for what's in your vehicle. If an alcoholic has hidden alcohol in your vehicle, it's doubtful a cop is going to find it during a traffic stop anyway.

Doubtful but not impossible, thereby making a criminal out of someone who posed no danger to the public. MADD will be fine with this law until some soccer Mom gets in a fender bender and a cop discovers an "open container" left in her minivan stashed by her husband a couple night previous. Or until some young kid borrows the family car and has his life ruined because his parent keeps a flask under the seat.

More likely, a drunk driver is going to slide a bottle under his/her seat to avoid the obvious problem - he/she has been drinking

Again, here the problem is the driver has been drinking while driving. If the container is under the seat and the driver has NOT been drinking from it why is this criminal behavior now?

If people are partying in your car while your driving, chances are you are - or have been - drinking as well. Cops are going to pull you over and test you.

If the driver has not been drinking why should he be charged with a crime? Hit him with a breathalyzer. Is this not what the whole "Designated Driver" campaign that has been drilled into our heads for the last 20 plus years been about? Give me one good reason a group of friends drinking responsibly by designating a driver should be charged with a crime? During my life I have known many a person who does not drink for either religious, medical or health reasons , if said person is driving around with a car full of passengers who are actively drinking how does that present a danger to the public? Please explain why it is OK when you hire a limo or cab to drive you around while drinking but not ask a teetotaler friend too?