The issue of penalties for car accidents while driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs (DUI) has received much attention. Articles in the Taipei Times on Feb. 26 (“Government mulls ignition locks for drunk drivers,” page 1) and on Tuesday last week (“Ministry backs ignition interlock devices: source,” page 2) discuss some of the issues related to mandating ignition interlocks in cars involved in DUI accidents.
The discussions seem to avoid, or be unaware of, two issues that might be very important in this connection; namely that drivers could drive cars that they do not own, and that cars can be sold and bought.
Data from insurers indicate that in a substantial fraction of accidents the driver of the car is not the owner of the car. The fraction varies with the age of the driver and is much higher in young male drivers than in other groups.
I have never seen data that include information on whether the driver was impaired or not, and it is possible that such data are not available.
However, this observation by itself suggests that putting an interlock in a car is not the same as putting an interlock on the driver.
That cars can be bought and sold is also important, especially in relation to Taiwan’s pricing of car insurance. The base premiums for auto insurance are based on the personal characteristics of the owner of the car, modified by the number of accidents reported in the recent past. Since insurance rates for females over 30 are much lower than those of females under 30, and those in turn are much lower than those for males under 30, it is common for a mother to buy the car and the children, especially young males, to drive them.
A car ordered to have an interlock installed on it can presumably still be sold and a different woman, an aunt or grandmother, can buy a car for the young people to drive.
How does mandating interlocks work in such a context? Does Taiwan have laws that would prevent such activities? If not, what changes should be made in the premium rating calculations to prevent such activities? And how would laws that “require recidivist drunk drivers to install ignition interlocks in their cars” be interpreted by the courts when the driver is not the owner?
In the US the basic premiums for automobile insurance are based on the characteristics of the most risk-prone individual in the household, no matter who owns the individual cars. When my son reached 18 years of age and got a driver’s license, the insurance on the two cars in the household would have more than doubled, it was only that he moved to Canada for his university education that spared us the increase.
Moreover, in the US there has been at least one case in which a grandmother who provided funds for a recidivist drunk driver to purchase and insure a new car was required to pay damages for an accident incurred by the grandson who used the new car under impaired conditions. The court found that the grandmother had acted recklessly and endangered public safety in providing the financing when she knew the history of recidivism.
In such a context selling a car or transferring ownership of a car does not save money.
Finally, I have seen no information on the effect that the imposition of interlocks might have in causing recidivist drunk drivers to switch to motorcycles and scooters so they can continue their habits undisturbed, or on and how those changes would affect public safety.
Maybe the government should consider developing data to assess these effects before undertaking changes that might do more harm than good.
A third article, on a different aspect of the DUI problem appeared on Friday last week (“Premier approves death penalty for drunk driving,” page 1).
That article leaves me somewhat puzzled at several levels. One of the ways in which the laws would be changed is reported as: “Those who are deemed to have caused fatalities with the intent to murder shall be tried under Article 22, meaning that they would be sentenced to 10 years in prison, a life sentence or the death penalty.”
That raises a basic question: Will the courts decide that somebody who is allegedly intoxicated can be said to have intent? That issue, by itself, might result in a conflict between the purpose of the proposed law, to protect public safety, on one hand, and the way in which the courts would interpret the law and enforce it.
As best I interpret the article, if a person who is involved in an accident resulting in one or more fatalities while driving under the influence at a time of less than five years from a prior conviction (or receiving probation) for DUI “shall be sentenced to life or a prison term of at least seven years.”
Now suppose that the previous conviction had been for five years and, on the day after his release the individual celebrated by getting drunk and, as a result, had an accident that resulted in fatalities.
Obviously, this accident would have occurred at least five years and one day after the conviction, so the law would not apply. Would the courts then have to rule that the penalty should to be applied is that specified for first offenders?
There appears to be no effort to extend penalties to cover events that involve serious bodily injury to passengers or other people, but do not involve a fatality. Should accidents resulting in permanent partial or total disability not be treated more severely that those with temporary disabilities?
Should seven accidents involving bodily injury, all under DUI, not receive progressively stiffer sentences?
Finally, if public safety is the main concern, has anybody considered a requirement for rehabilitation and/or detoxification during the time in prison?
Emilio Venezian is a former visiting professor at Feng Chia University.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath