The institute compares the laws of each state, and the District of Columbia, to those it says best protect against drunken driving.

01:00 AM EDT on Monday, August 15, 2005

BY BRUCE LANDIS
Journal Staff Writer

PROVIDENCE --

With one of the worst records in the nation for alcohol-related highway fatalities, Rhode Island also has the nation's weakest laws against drunken driving, according to a national highway-safety organization.

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, which rated the laws in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, gives only Rhode Island its worst rating: "poor."

Susan Ferguson, the group's senior vice president for research, said the institute compared all the states' laws with a list of laws that research found have actually reduce drunken driving.

A broad range of interests already want Rhode Island's laws to be toughened. The Carcieri administration, law-enforcement officials and community activists have all pressed the General Assembly, unsuccessfully, in recent years to tighten the state's laws.

Several bills intended to do that, in this year's legislative session, died without a vote in the House Judiciary Committee, chaired by Rep. Robert Flaherty, D-Warwick.

Flaherty, however, disputed the insurance institute's rating system, saying that Rhode Island's drunken driving laws are adequate, and are just as good as those the institute recommends.

"I think we clearly have a mechanism to control drunk driving," Flaherty said. He expressed concern that drunken-driving laws could infringe on the constitutional rights of drivers.

During public hearings, the state Department of Transportation, Attorney General Patrick C. Lynch and numerous state and local police commanders all cited weaknesses or loopholes in the existing laws, as they urged Flaherty and other legislators to enact tougher restrictions during the legislative session.

"There's definitely room for improvement," says the DOT's legislative liaison, Bernard Frezza. "We've tried to move in the same direction" as the insurance institute recommends.

Gabrielle Abbate, president of the state Mothers Against Drunk Driving chapter, said the state's present laws are "an embarrassment" and its poor rating from the institute is no surprise.

Abbate has blamed the Democratic leadership that controls the General Assembly, of which Flaherty is a part, for killing the legislation.

"The legislature doesn't even care," she said, about the suffering of families of drunken-driving victims, many of whom have testified without persuading the legislature to enact the bills.

Meanwhile, Rhode Island had the highest proportion of alcohol-related fatalities in the country in 2003, for the third year in a row. Abbate said officials have told her that Rhode Island will probably have the worst record in the nation again, when the 2004 figures are announced shortly.

The insurance institute is a nonprofit organization supported by the insurance industry. Its goal is to reduce highway deaths, injuries and property damage. It is best known for its often-cited vehicle crash-testing program.

The institute, based in Arlington, Va., rated each state's laws against four kinds of laws related to drinking and driving that it says are effective. To get a good rating, a state must have:

An administrative license-revocation law requiring at least a 30-day license revocation for violations. Ferguson said that means an immediate revocation for drivers whose breath-test results show an illegal level of alcohol in their blood or who refuse to take the test.

Rhode Island has no such provision, and the ease with which drivers can refuse to be tested is a widely cited loophole in the law.

A provision making it illegal to drive with a blood alcohol level of 0.08 percent or higher.

All the states have adopted this, some reluctantly. The General Assembly passed such a law in 2003, after an 11-year battle -- but only when further delay would have cost the state millions of dollars in federal transportation aid for failing to comply with federal standards.

A "readily enforceable" law making it illegal for those under 21 to drive with any measurable amount of alcohol in their blood.

Rhode Island has such a "no-tolerance" law, but it contains provisions that fall short of those the institute is seeking.

Permission to use "sobriety checkpoints," police roadblocks to detect drivers suspected of drinking. Authorities including the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration and the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention agree that such checkpoints are a proven strategy for cutting highway deaths involving alcohol.

Rhode Island is one of 11 states that don't allow such checkpoints. In 1989, the state Supreme Court ruled that checkpoints violate the state Constitution's protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. The U.S. Supreme Court had ruled the other way, based on a similar provision in the U.S. Constitution.

The insurance institute also rated the states on five other kinds of motor-vehicle laws, with mixed results in Rhode Island's case.

Young driver licensing: good.

Safety-belt use: marginal. The legislature has declined to approve a "primary" seat-belt law, under which police could stop drivers solely for not wearing a seat belt.

Child-restraint use: good.

Motorcycle-helmet use: poor. Rhode Island does not have a law requiring motorcycle operators to wear helmets.

Allowing use of cameras to catch drivers running red lights: The institute rated Rhode Island poor, for lack of this, but the General Assembly has since passed such a law, and the DOT is writing regulations to implement it.