Maryland just loves the Nanny State. On the heels of a statewide smoking ban and a proposal to ban trans fats, a lawmaker is now pushing a bill to require young drivers to pass a drug test in order to qualify for a license.
Del. Marvin E. Holmes (D-Prince George’s County) has introduced HB 191, which, according to The Gazette, “would require the Motor Vehicle Administration to test the breath and blood of driver’s license applicants under 21 for alcohol and controlled substances,” with positive tests resulting in six-month driving suspensions.
Holmes apparently is motivated “by reports of drunken driving and youth drug abuse in his district,” though it’s very telling that this legislation would reach well beyond his constituency alone.
The Gazette also reports that “3,467 drivers age 15 to 20 were killed nationally in 2005,” of which “28 percent had been drinking.” These figures may look striking when taken alone, but it behooves us to compare them against all available data.
For instance, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s Young Drivers Traffic Safety Fact Sheet for 2006, there were 12.6 million drivers between the ages of 15 and 20 in 2005. If 3,467 of these drivers were killed, that means .028 percent of all drivers in this age range died in car accidents. This is unfortunate but hardly indicative of an epidemic.
Furthermore, if 28 percent of these 3,467 young motorists were drinking, that means about 971were killed while under the influence. Put another way, less than one-hundredth of one percent (.008 percent) of drivers nationwide between the ages of 15 and 20 were drinking when they were killed in a motor
vehicle accident.
Perhaps most interestingly, drivers aged 15 to 20 are not disproportionately involved in fatal crashes when weighted against drivers in other age groups.
According to NHTSA data for 2006, drivers 15 to 20 years old accounted for 8.5 percent of the population and were involved in 13.2 percent of all fatal crashes. However, drivers aged 21 to 24 comprised 5.7 percent of the population, while being involved in 11.4 percent of fatal accidents.
Likewise, drivers aged 25 to 34 were 13.5 and 19.8 percent, while those aged 45 to 54 were 14.5 and 16.3 percent, respectively. In fact, involvement in fatal crashes doesn’t start to even out with representation in the total population until age 55.
In short, NHTSA data don’t seem to indict young drivers any more than they do older motorists, especially if we’re trying to argue that 15- to 20-year-olds constitute some inexplicably reckless bunch of drunks who must be reigned in and harassed by the state.
While civil libertariansare rightly concerned about the unconstitutionality of such a draconian mandate, it appears the opposition Holmes faces from Maryland bureaucrats and police officers is primarily logistical, focusing on funding constraints or the dearth of personnel and equipment currently available to conduct such testing. But this is Maryland – where there’s a will to fleece taxpayers, there’s a way.
Morality notwithstanding, consider the most glaring practical limitation of Holmes’ bill: If a 16-year-old were applying for her first driver’s license, couldn’t she easily stay clean long enough to pass a scheduled drug test, rendering this program entirely useless?
Moreover, considering that Maryland already suspends and revokes licenses for various substance abuse infractions, would this new law permit police to demand blood samples from young motorists on mere suspicion of DUI alone? Better yet, would we not be fools to believe such oppressive regulations for young drivers wouldn’t eventually be applied to everyone else?
Neither statistical data nor common sense validates the depravity inherent to Holmes’ plan. But then, self-righteous politicians don’t necessarily need to rely on facts if they can count on gullible citizens to fall for emotional mind games.
Trevor Bothwell blogs at Who’s Your Nanny? and can be contacted at [email protected].
