By Todd Welch / Herald Columnist
The Washington State Senate recently passed Senate Bill 5067, lowering the legal blood alcohol concentration for drivers from 0.08 to 0.05. The proposal is now before the House community safety committee.
Everyone agrees on the goal. Fewer crashes. Fewer funerals. Fewer families getting that late-night knock on the door.
But good intentions do not automatically make good policy. This bill risks focusing on the wrong drivers while ignoring the ones who actually cause the most harm.
Fatal DUI crashes rarely involve someone barely over 0.08. They overwhelmingly involve drivers with extremely high blood alcohol levels, often 0.15, 0.20 or higher. These are not people who had one drink with dinner. They are repeat offenders who are profoundly impaired and making dangerous decisions long before they get behind the wheel.
That is where the danger lives. Lowering the threshold to 0.05 casts a wider net that sweeps in moderate, otherwise responsible adults while doing little to address the small group of chronic, high-blood-alcohol-level offenders responsible for the deadliest crashes. It may feel like action, but it is not targeted action.
There is also a practical cost. Every DUI arrest takes hours of an officer’s time for testing, paperwork, transport and court appearances. That pulls officers off patrol and away from proactive policing. When departments are already short staffed, tying up law enforcement with borderline 0.05 cases means fewer resources to stop the drivers who truly pose a danger.
The same strain hits the courts. More arrests mean more hearings, more lab work and more public defenders. And that problem is about to get worse. Recent rulings from the Washington state Supreme Court limit the hours and caseloads public defenders can carry to ensure adequate representation. That reform protects defendants’ rights, but it also means fewer attorneys are available to handle new cases. Expanding DUI prosecutions at lower BAC levels will crowd dockets, delay justice and pull scarce defense resources away from more serious crimes.
Before redefining impairment, lawmakers should ask a harder question: Are we even enforcing the laws we already have?
Washington’s DUI statutes are already strict. The state sentencing grid requires mandatory jail time, escalating fines, license revocations, ignition interlock devices and sobriety monitoring even for first offenses. Repeat offenders face months of mandatory confinement and long-term supervision.
On paper, the system is tough. In practice, it is inconsistent.
Too many DUI cases are pled down to reckless driving. Too many high-BAC arrests are negotiated away. Too many ignition interlock requirements go unmonitored. Too many alcohol restrictions are ignored. Too many court orders are violated with little or no consequence.
The law even requires confinement for probation violations, yet those sanctions are rarely imposed.
Accountability often ends at the arrest.
If lawmakers want real reform, the state should track what actually happens after a DUI arrest. Track BAC levels. Track repeat offenders. Track how many cases are reduced. Track how many mandatory sentences are fully served. Track how often ignition interlock and sobriety monitoring rules are enforced.
Not what the statute says. What the courtroom does.
Because the gap between policy and practice is where public safety breaks down.
Lowering the BAC limit does nothing to close that gap. It simply creates more low-level cases that consume limited police and court resources.
If we want safer roads, the focus should be on measures that work. Consistent prosecution. Fewer plea deals for serious offenders. Mandatory ignition interlocks that are actively monitored. Real alcohol testing for offenders. Immediate consequences when court orders are violated. Treatment programs that are completed, not optional.
Those steps target the small group of repeat and high-risk drivers responsible for the most serious crashes.
Public safety policy should be driven by evidence, not symbolism. A smaller number on paper may sound tough, but it will not matter if the most dangerous drivers continue slipping through the cracks.
We do not need a broader net.
We need follow-through.
That is how you change behavior. That is how you prevent repeat offenses. And that is how you keep families safe.
Todd Welch is a Herald columnist covering local and state issues.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
