“The Fine Print”, by Michael Schrader

ALCOHOL IS SOMETIMES NOT TO BLAME FOR ACCIDENTS

(Written 07 April 1999. Published in the Neighborhood Journal. Posted 14 October 2009.)

Whenever there is a one-car traffic accident in which the driver of the vehicle involved has been found to have been "under the influence", it is normally assumed that the alcohol caused the accident. However, in many such accidents, the alcohol may have contributed to the accident, but may not have caused it.

What is the difference? For something to cause an accident means that the accident would not have occurred without the influence of that something, be it a cellular telephone, the radio, alcohol, a cigarette, whatever. For something to contribute to an accident means that the accident may have occurred without the influence of the something, but that the something made it more likely for the accident to occur.

One of the more tragic cases I have been involved with concerned a high school graduate who had an accident on the way home from a night-time graduation party. In this accident, the driver was seriously injured, and her three passengers, all classmates, died. As there had been alcohol at the party, and the driver had been drinking, she was charged with three counts of first-degree murder, on the assumption that if she had not been drinking, the accident would never have occurred, and the three passengers would still be alive. In short, she committed vehicular homicide. But did she?

I was asked by a local television station to give my opinion. She should be charged with murder? My answer was no. The site where the accident occurred was on a very sharp curve, which had a history of accidents, including fatalities. Being out in the country, it is not lit, and since the striping was faded, it was very difficult at night to see the sharp turn in the road. In addition, as the driver was a novice who was unfamiliar with the twists and turns of this particular road, nighttime visibility becomes an even more important issue, as signs and markings are more for the benefit of drivers unfamiliar with a road than those who drive it regularly. (Regular drivers know where the dangers are.) In short, the accident may have occurred even if she had been completely sober.

While alcohol did not cause the accident, it did contribute to the accident, by adding an additional significant impediment to the safe traversing of this particular curve. Given her unfamiliarity with the road, the fact that she was an inexperienced driver, and that this particular road had a history of accidents, it was not wise for her to drink, even one wine cooler.

The prosecutor who charged her with murder was defeated in his bid for re-election, and the charges were later dropped, allowing this tragic case to come to a close.

There are two lessons to be learned from this case. First, driving is hard enough without intentionally adding the impediment of alcohol. To be a good driver requires a great deal of concentration, something we seem to forget when we get behind the wheel. The more distractions we have, the more difficult the task becomes. It's not only alcohol that makes driving difficult; inexperience, rain, snow, darkness, the radio, cellular phones, and fatigue can and do make the driving task more difficult. As the number of impedances to the driving task increase, so does the probability of an accident. In short, driving is a serious task that should be taken seriously.

Second, we tend to use alcohol as a scapegoat to mask real defects in our roads, which, if not corrected, can cause even further loss of life. Let's face it--fixing a road can be expensive, which requires raising taxes, which voters generally do not like. So it is much easier to dodge the issue of infrastructure improvement by placing the blame on something else, generally the driver. The problem with this is that someone else may die because of a known flaw in a road. That person is somebody's child. Think about it--somebody's child may die because we don't want to spend the money fixing a road.

Kind of puts it in a different light, doesn't it?

Back to “The Fine Print” Index