Drunk driving in the States is fought, among other things, with the help of trendy gadgets: the policeman's hand holds not a flashlight but a scanner that can detect alcohol vapors inside the car.
UNDER THE INFLUENCE
Do drunk drivers occur in America? Alas, yes. But one of the differences between this country and Russia and Europe is that American lawmakers have abandoned the principle of absolute sobriety, recognizing this formula as practically unattainable. The last attempt to zero out the blood alcohol content was made a few years ago in the capital's federal district of Columbia – and it fizzled out.
Currently, throughout the United States, the same permissible level applies – 0.08 percent (0.8 promille). In a very average measure for a very average individual, this corresponds to consuming a shot of vodka, whiskey, or brandy, a glass (130 grams) of wine, or a small bottle of low-alcohol beer. This is, of course, not as lenient as it was in 1939, when Indiana became the first in America to introduce a legal limit for intoxication – 0.15 percent (1.5 promille). But it still remains an object of envy for both Russian and European motorists, sometimes leading them into undue temptation.
However, Americans are also susceptible to temptation. Statistics show that annually in the United States, up to 1.5 million people are held accountable for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. These include ordinary citizens, Hollywood celebrities, and business representatives. Politicians also get caught. But here too, one can easily find a stark contrast between how the laws are applied in the USA and Russia. On the American road, there are no exceptions for anyone. Remember how one of the characters in 'Peculiarities of the National Hunt' said: 'Before a bear, we are all equal...'
For everyone, the same standard procedure, although ridiculed for its ostentatious theatricality. Get out of the car. Stand straight in front of the police officer. Follow his hand with your eyes: up, down, sideways... Touch the tip of your nose with your index finger or some other finger. Stand on one leg. Recite the letters of the alphabet in order or count – from one thousand to one thousand fifteen, for example. Finally, blow into a breathalyzer. Hear the result and the ominous formula: 'You are under arrest.' Then, in handcuffs, proceed to the nearest station for a repeat stationary test and receive a summons to appear in court...
And if for Hollywood stars and starlets like Paris Hilton or Lindsay Lohan, arrest and appearance at court hearings are something like free publicity, for many other people it is the beginning of a severe life trial.
One such person was the famous Russian hockey goaltender Nikolai Khabibulin from the NHL club 'Edmonton Oilers'. On February 8, 2010, he was stopped on a highway in Arizona. The hockey player's black 'Ferrari' was flying at 112 km/h in a zone with a speed limit of 70 km. Additionally, it turned out that his blood alcohol content was above the norm. The matter ended with a fine of $5,000 and 30 days in jail. Nikolai served half of the sentence and was released to serve the rest under house arrest for good behavior.
A separate story involves politicians who have gotten into such a predicament. It is impossible to hide the incident in America. All that remains is to repent, beat one's chest, and ask for leniency from voters, as was the case with Congressman Patrick Kennedy, the son of the famous, now deceased, Senator Edward Kennedy.
Less fortunate was a member of the House of Representatives, 43-year-old Republican Vito Fossella. The legislator from New York State was stopped by Virginia police in the dead of night in May 2008 for driving under the influence. A woman, whom he called his wife, came to pick him up from the station. A couple of days later, the press discovered that Fossella's wife was at their home in New York State that night and learned of the incident from the newspapers. Well, it went on from there.
It turned out that the congressman was essentially a bigamist: he had an illegitimate child with the Virginia woman. After that, of course, there could be no talk of re-election. The only thing the ex-congressman tried to argue in court was that the degree of intoxication was not that high and did not warrant a jail sentence. But the judge ruled otherwise.
RUIN AND SHAME
Generally, Virginia's laws are particularly harsh. I know this, alas, not from hearsay but from personal experience. On March 8, 2006, I was returning from friends with whom I celebrated International Women's Day. And the Virginia police were in the midst of another decade-long campaign against drinking drivers. They were stopping everyone. I, of course, after a farewell 'one for the road,' was slightly over the limit. And then it went on and on along the well-worn path of trampling by authority, the dollar, pedagogy, shame, and social influence. In some cases, all this was intricately intertwined.
First, about the material costs. I had to pay $40 for a taxi to get home at night. Then $260 went to retrieving the car from the impound lot. Almost two thousand was demanded by the lawyer (and this was not the most expensive one). Without him, it would have been very difficult to deal with the judge and prosecutor to get permission to travel to other cities or abroad. The minimum fine was $250, $150 to reinstate driving privileges in the state, and another $720 for a mandatory increase in car insurance by $20 per month for three years. So that's about $3,500 right away. And this was with minimal penalties.
To this, you should add another $300 for pedagogical expenses – mandatory attendance of classes on the "Virginia Driver Safety Program" – a dozen, it seems, four-hour weekly lessons without the right to a single absence. I still have the standard brochure. It details in detail the harmful influence of alcohol and drugs on the human body and one's ability to drive a car – on the one hand. On the other – when covering each topic, the teachers required me, either orally or in writing, to analyze my actions, in other words, I tearfully repented of my own carelessness that led me to get behind the wheel after drinking. And there was nothing to be done.
Periodically during the classes, a breathalyzer was brought out: the diverse and multi-aged students (there were 24 of us in the group) were asked to blow into it. Great sorrow awaited the violator – being sent back to the judge and a multiple tightening of the previous sentence. At the "graduation," we were required to write an essay comparing our views on DUI – "driving under the influence" – before getting acquainted with the program and after studying it, setting forth the conclusions we had drawn. And as a finale, there was something like a conference where drivers who had committed serious crimes while under the influence – with significant material damage and human casualties – spoke. The initiator of this idea is the public organization "Mothers Against Drunk Driving" (MADD), which works in close contact with local authorities.
Concurrently with the classes, the court issued me tickets for mandatory attendance of meetings of another strictly public organization – "Alcoholics Anonymous" ("AA"). For this, however, no payment was required. These are voluntary meetings of people who are subject to a harmful habit, diluted with occasional violators like me. Again, in my case, everything was at a minimum: two meetings, while the usual norm is from 6 to 12. At the first, there were only five of us, and we took turns reading chapters to each other from a huge, Bible-sized folio titled "Alcoholics Anonymous."
At the second meeting, in a church basement in Alexandria, everything was more serious. A person would stand up, state their name, though without a surname, and utter the sacramental: "I am an alcoholic." And then they would confess. Heart-wrenching stories were told – the desire after such events was one: never to end up there again! But you must keep in mind that repeat offenders are sent not to "AA" but to specialized clinics to doctors. And those are paid programs, and very expensive – from two to six thousand dollars.
DO NOT TEMPT FATE
And yet, all this is only part of the ordeal. After court, you understand very well the saying of the former Russian president: "Freedom is better than unfreedom." After all, among other things, the judge assigns you a probation period – from one to three years. In mild cases like mine, this involves monthly filling out a report on meetings, trips, purchases, and bills, and requesting permission to leave the city.
In more serious situations – revocation of driving privileges for various periods or imposition of restrictions on them, for example, only for trips to work (school), to court, or to safety program classes. Or restriction of the travel area – I saw such a map from one fellow sufferer: he was even glad that his workplace turned out to be within the permitted zone.
Officers from the probation service are not limited to your reports – they have the right to drop in on you at any time of day and demand that you blow into a breathalyzer. An open bottle of beer or a glass of wine from which you did not even drink yourself will backfire on you.
Among other measures – wearing a special bracelet that shows your location, being under house arrest, or five days of jail time if the alcohol level exceeded 0.15 percent (1.5 promille). A second violation within five years is punishable by revocation of driving privileges for four months with possible restoration of limited privileges and jail for 10–20 days regardless of the level of intoxication. In addition, an ignition interlock device is mandatory for six months: to start the engine, you must be completely sober. The gadget costs $480. A third violation is treated by law as extremely serious, the term of imprisonment can be up to five years, with three months being mandatory time served.
The law also prescribes that the offending driver must inform all of their relatives, friends, old and new acquaintances about their status as a law violator, so that each of them can develop their own line of conduct.
Since then, Virginia's laws have become even stricter – here our Duma with the Americans, one might say, is keeping pace. In particular, since July, ignition interlock has been required even after the first instance of driving under the influence. True, Virginia bureaucrats turned out to be less far-sighted than Russian ones: those who are supposed to implement this decision complain that there are simply not enough such devices in stock and it is impossible to fill the deficit in the coming years.
In short, after such a massive and coordinated pressure from the state and the public, a citizen loses any desire to go through this path again. This is not only my conviction. In the fight against drunk driving in the United States, tangible positive results are visible. At least, that's what the most biased participants in this campaign – "Mothers Against Drunk Driving" – told Itogi.
According to data from MADD's Washington office, since the founding of this organization in 1980, the number of deaths in alcohol- and drug-related car crashes has halved. And the number of those held accountable for driving under the influence also shows a noticeable decrease, no more than 1.4 million in 2010. A trend, indeed! We wish we had that.
Nikolai ZIMIN.
<\/strong><\/p>