
                         Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: FRIDAY, August 18, 1995                   TAG: 9508180043
SECTION: EDITORIAL                    PAGE: A14   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: 
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Medium

A USER'S FEE FOR DRUNKEN DRIVERS?

DISCOURAGING drunken driving is a legitimate role of government. Presumably, that's what Blacksburg Town Council had in mind when it passed a new ordinance creating civil liabilities for those convicted of driving under the influence. Evidently, it's also what the 1995 General Assembly intended when it gave cities, counties and towns the go-ahead for such ordinances.

So drivers in Blacksburg, be advised: If you cause an accident or mishap that requires the response of police, rescue squads or firefighters, and you're subsequently convicted of DUI, you may be liable for up to $1,000 to cover costs of sending those personnel to the accident scene.

Call it a user's fee.

Many will applaud this as an additional crackdown on drunken driving. After all, state law currently allows administrative revocation of driver's licenses for motorists arrested for drunken driving. Sobriety checkpoints are deemed permissible. These are heavy-duty extensions of legal authority. Liability for the costs of police, fire and rescue services can be seen as merely another weapon in the legal arsenal - and another reminder that a drunk who gets behind the wheel is incurring risks and costs not just for himself, but for others and for society.

We relish, as much as anyone, the idea of making drunken drivers pay for some of these costs. But we aren't willing to celebrate the new ordinance without qualms.

In the first place, as horrible as its damage to life, limb and property can be, drunken driving isn't the only crime that takes such a toll. Nor is it the only crime that imposes costs on taxpayers in terms of official personnel's response time.

On what basis do we single out drunken drivers? Why not also send murderers the tab for the time that detectives spend investigating the crimes and that prosecutors spend getting convictions? Why shouldn't arsonists or petty thieves be made to pay the costs of their arrests?

Maybe they should. Maybe not. We fear, in any case, that insufficient attention has been paid to the principle underlying the new law, in a rush to get yet tougher on drunken drivers.

As for putting the law on the books in Blacksburg and perhaps elsewhere, details of implementation could open up all sorts of problems.

For example: Since police already are on the taxpayers' payroll, how are the costs of manpower hours spent on accidents caused by drunken drivers to be isolated and calculated? For that matter, would the funds collected from convicted DUIs provide a subtle incentive to attend more to DUI-related accidents in relation to other police work?

The ordinance, says Blacksburg Mayor Roger Hedgepeth, ``sounds like a good idea, but I hope it's not abused.'' Town officials have a responsibility to do more than hope it won't be. They need to keep a close eye on this law's implementation and results, and make sure it is not abused.

State lawmakers, for their part, need to think more about the law's precedent-setting implications.

by CNB