A panel of experts appointed by the governor of Oregon recently recommended that the state strengthen its anti-drunk-driving laws and procedures. Chapter 813 of the Oregon Revised Statutes specifies in excruciating detail Oregon's stance on, and procedures for dealing with, drunk driving. Among many other things, this statute permits police officers and others to administer a "sobriety field test" which is a

...physical or mental test...that enables a police officer...to screen for or detect probable impairment from intoxicating liquor, a controlled substance or a combination of intoxicating liquor and a controlled substance.

As is so often the case in our society, the legislature has chosen not to outlaw the behavior that it wishes to deter. Instead it has focused its attention on, and outlawed only, one of the many means through which that behavior can, but not necessarily will, occur.

Specifically, the behavior that the legislature wishes, or should wish, to deter, is the driving of a vehicle on the public roads by a person who does not possess at least a minimally acceptable level of physical, mental and emotional driving-related capability. Such capability includes such things as peripheral vision, reflex reaction time, visual acuity, alertness, attentiveness, hand-foot-eye coordination, and so forth. These and similar personal characteristics largely determine the intrinsic ability of a person to drive successfully and safely, and it is these characteristics that the law should be testing for rather than the ingestion of liquor or controlled substances. For the purposes of this discussion, let's refer to this combination of characteristics as "drive-ability", and a person who doesn't possess at least the minimum acceptable level of these characteristics as "undrive-able".

There are, of course, numerous factors other than alcohol and controlled substances that could result in a person's being undrive-able. These include, but are by no means limited to, such things as:

• Old age
• A recent heavy meal
• Insufficient sleep
• Boredom
• Temporary physical disability (e.g., eye dilation by an opthamologist)
• Ingestion of over-the-counter drugs
• A recent intense interpersonal conflict.
• Etc.

Conversely, not everyone who has ingested a specified level of alcohol is equally impaired by same. For instance, those whose hand-eye coordination, reflexes, etc., are superior will be able to meet drive-ability standards even when they are impaired by alcohol, lack of sleep, or other events and conditions. So the current drunk-driving laws, and the recommendations of the governor's panel to make them even more restrictive, punish some who drink but remain drive-able, while many, probably the majority, of those who are "undrive-able" will be free to continue to threaten the safety of all of us who use public roads.

Consider these facts: In recent years, approximately one in three traffic fatalities involved either a motorist or pedestrian who was "intoxicated" (defined as having a blood-alcohol level of 0.1% or more), and about 40% of these fatalities involved either a motorist or pedestrian who had a blood-alcohol level of 0.01% or more. By subtraction, we see that 60% of traffic fatalities involved motorists and pedestrians none of whom had measurable levels of alcohol in their systems, and two-thirds involved motorists and pedestrians none of whom were intoxicated. Presumably, a great many (probably the great majority) of these deaths were caused by some combination of lack of attentiveness or alertness, inadequate reaction time, inadequate hand-eye coordination, and similar characteristics either on the part of the drivers or the pedestrians involved in the accidents. Yet we have no laws penalizing those who operate a motor vehicle in this impaired condition.

Instead of penalizing the consumption of alcohol in conjunction with driving an automobile, we should be penalizing those who drive while they are in an undrive-able condition, regardless of the reason for their undrive-ability. How can we accomplish this? Simple. Instead of giving drivers involved in accidents (or otherwise providing indication that they are in an undrive-able condition) a breathalyzer or other alcohol-related test, give them a drive-ability test. Such tests could be easily embodied in a small, possibly even hand-held, Nintendo-like console.

Society's response in this matter, as reflected in ORS Chapter 813 and the governor's panel, has been to concentrate on means (alcohol), rather than ends (drive-ability). As a consequence, the bulk (perhaps two-thirds) of the problem has been ignored, while some (those with exceptional reflexes, etc.) who are drive-able have been needlessly punished. Unfortunately, this shortsighted narrowing of focus to means rather than ends, to form rather than substance, is the typical response of society in general, and our legislators in particular, to many of the problems and opportunities that we face.