Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: THURSDAY, March 10, 1994 TAG: 9403100147
SECTION: VIRGINIA PAGE: C-1 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: BY WARREN FISKE STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: RICHMOND LENGTH: Medium
The chamber voted 31-5 to lower the blood-alcohol level that constitutes drunken driving from 0.10 to 0.08 percent. Only 10 other states impose such a low standard.
The legislation means that, on average, a 160-pounder who consumes more than four drinks in an hour could be at risk for driving illegally. A 120-pounder who downs more than three drinks in an hour could be driving illegally.
The bill also would mandate:
An automatic seven-day license suspension of anyone who fails a Breathalyzer test.
A 0.02 percent drunken-driving standard - virtually zero tolerance - for drivers younger than 21. Violators would lose their licenses for six months and face a maximum $500 fine.
A 30-day impoundment of the car and license revocation of anyone who fails a Breathalyzer test and has a previous drunken-driving conviction.
A 90-day impoundment of the car of anyone who drives after having a license suspended for drunken driving.
With the House of Delegates having approved almost identical legislation, the matter appears headed to Allen's desk. But the governor, who campaigned last fall on a tough law-and-order platform, has voiced concerns about the automatic license revocation.
Although Allen said he has no qualms about other aspects of the bill, he has said that citizens should be entitled to a court hearing before they are deprived of their driving privileges. The governor has said he may send the General Assembly amendments that would delete automatic revocation from the bill.
Democrats seemed almost gleeful at the prospect of being able to accuse Allen of being soft on drunken driving. "I don't think the governor is that bad of a politician," said Del. Richard Cranwell, D-Roanoke County, the patron of the bill.
Cranwell said his bill is aimed at combating drunken driving on two fronts: imposing tougher limits on the social drinker, and strict laws that will take the habitual tippler off the road.
Opponents argued that the bill is too tough on social drinkers, complaining that a wife and a husband who split a bottle of wine over dinner may find it illegal to drive home.
"This bill will hurt tourism in Virginia," said Senate Minority Leader Joseph Benedetti, R-Richmond. "It won't take long for word to get around the United States that in Virginia, if you have a 0.08, you're not only going to get locked up, you could lose your car."
Proponents argued that experts have concluded a 0.08 blood alcohol content is the point where most drivers begin experiencing impairment in concentration, judgment, and ability to steer and brake.
Many senators said that automatically impounding the cars of those people who have previous drunken driving convictions could impose hardship on families. "There are many one-car families who would be penalized for the irresponsible actions of an offender," said state Sen. Robert Calhoun, R-Alexandria. "This is a penalty that goes beyond the problem we're trying to deal with."
In an effort to ease that concern, the Senate passed an amendment that would allow a judge to return a car to a family if "substantial hardship" would be caused by the impoundment.
Keywords:
GENERAL ASSEMBLY 1994
by CNB