YourCT.com header image 2

Why Curtail Spending When an Open Container Law Is Afoot?


by turfgrrl


August 20th, 2007 · 10 Comments

Okay the legislature is out of session, so these what might have been stories are a dime a dozen, but, I find it irking to the max that instead of talking about the big problems, we get legislators talking about the little problems. Problems like a tweak to the open container law. From Brian Lockhart’s report in the Advocate:

Amann said over the weekend that when the General Assembly reconvenes later this summer to vote on a bonding package, he wants his colleagues to budget additional money for bridge and road maintenance to avoid a deadly collapse like the one in Minneapolis Aug. 1.

Amann said he also may urge his colleagues to revive the open-container ban, which died in June in the House of Representatives. It may be that, without one, Connecticut and 12 other states are forced to divert tens of millions of dollars in federal road grants to drunken-driving prevention.

“If that’s true . . . we should immediately put a lid on those containers and see if we can receive the revenues,” Amann said. “It never seemed to be a priority of too many people.”

Now drivers over 21 cannot drink alcohol behind the wheel but can have an open container in the vehicle. Passengers are allowed to consume alcohol.

State Sen. William Nickerson, R-Greenwich, a longtime proponent of a ban, said an open bottle often means a driver is imbibing.

Note that no one is talking about the statistics or evidence on just how many drivers are tooling around with open containers of alcoholic beverages in their cars. I’m surprised that they aren’t talking about the corallary, too hot coffee beverages, open and inviting in the drivers hand as they drive. Let’s take drinking and driving to its ultimate conclusion, no drinking and driving of any kind. Then maybe we can start to focus on the real problem which is reckless and irratic driving.

Reckless driving is something that police can actually easily observe and enforce. Things like tailgating, lane switching without turn signals, turning without signals, turning radius into the wrong lane, speeding, weaving in and out of traffic at high speeds, driving too slowly, and not staying in a lane. Then there’s the stopping at stop signs, red lights, school buses, and slwoing down through construction zones. In short, there are many driving behaviors that are easily observerble that are not enforced. That is the real problem to solve. Not some feel good measure, cloaked in federal highway funds scare tactics, to make it look like the legislature is doing something.

The legislature should be concerned about the budget deficit, which they wrongfully refer to as a budget surplus. They did nothing after Rell vetoed the adoption of GAAP, mostly because they spend time worrying about issues like the open container law, instead of issues like having a financial reports that reflect the actual state of the state, instead of the fantasy numbers they all use so they continue spending money.

source: Advocate, Bid to outlaw open containers may be revived, August 20 2007

Tags: CT House · In the News · Transportation

10 Responses so far “Why Curtail Spending When an Open Container Law Is Afoot?”



  • 1 MGeake // Aug 20, 2007 at 8:11 am

    Since this non-partisan site does so much Democrat bashing, and precious little Republican, let me highlight a key fact in TG’s preamble: Governor Rell, a Republican, vetoes the Democrats’ attempt to implement use of the GAAP and more accurate reporting of the state’s finances.

    Now let me see if I get the gist of the complaint correct: the Federal government didn’t care about statistics when their rules forced the state to divert funds from highway maintenance, but the legislature should, and the legislature shouldn’t worry that badly needed funds are being diverted.

    I agree that waste should be addressed and that the DOT is probably long overdue for an overhaul (which Republican have neglected for over a decade), but that doesn’t mean we should ignore funding sources). Wasn’t it our current mayor who scolded his opponent about not agressively pursuing federal funds?

    Now can we get back to discussing issues and not do this inane finger pointing every day?

  • 2 turfgrrl // Aug 20, 2007 at 8:21 am

    MGeake: Funny how you spin this. I have consistently criticized Rell on the GAAP veto, DOT appointments, DOT waste, corruption and inefficiency. And there are two legislators in the open container law quoted above and in support of it, Amann-D and Nickerson-R.

    You say there’s more Democratic bashing here. And then make the mistake of ignoring the gist of what I’m saying. As long as we allow the legislature as a whole to persue these inane behavior laws, they are ignoring the bigger more salient issues of governance.

    If you want to make this into some sort of anti-dem screed, go ahead.

  • 3 #13 of the Miserable 25 // Aug 22, 2007 at 10:11 am

    This is a subject that any party Dem or Pub should be ashamed to make points on. Again He said they said is brainless. I have seen accidents happen in front of me where an obviously drunk driver took an open whiskey bottle and staggered to his trunk and hid the bottle. The witness had to tell the NPD this or they would not have found it. Lets get these KILLERS off the road. For once the parties had better put their differences behind them and just vote to see this law passed ASAP. It could by yours or their children killed by a drunk driver.

  • 4 anonymous // Aug 22, 2007 at 10:34 am

    Another feel good law. Driver is either intoxicated or he is not. Doesn’t matter whether there is an open container in the car. Let’s enforce the laws that are already there to solve the problem.

  • 5 #13 of the Miserable 25 // Aug 22, 2007 at 1:18 pm

    Let us also forget about a loaded firearm arm in the car. The driver is ether a shooter or his is not.

  • 6 anonymous // Aug 22, 2007 at 2:07 pm

    13

    Missed the point. Already laws on the books regarding drinking while friving and dwi.

  • 7 John Lombardo // Aug 22, 2007 at 3:39 pm

    The open container is an invitation to break the law. Why allow it to be allowed. If it ain’t there it can’t be swigged. Why make the temptation to have a shot, stronger by the presence of an already open invitation to drink. Who knows how many deaths have occurred because there was an open booze bottle in the front seat, and the driver only wanted a little taste. Just enough to kill himself and a few other people. Take away that temptation and you drive another nail in the coffin of drunk drivers. It sure as hell is not going to bother anyone who does not want a drink while they are driving.

  • 8 Sara Sikes // Aug 23, 2007 at 9:35 am

    Hey John, how you doing? I have to agree with you on this one. Did you see how stupid our state looked in the NY times article last weekend?
    “…In this fiscal year, the lack of such a ban on open containers will force the state to divert $5.8 million it could have used for road projects. Since 2000, Connecticut has had to divert nearly $46 million in federal money in part because of its failure to ban open containers. Connecticut, where mass transit hardly exists, depends heavily in its roads. Wasting dollars that could be used to improve them seems insane.

    The reason for the General Assembly’s obstinacy is unclear; even the liquor lobby supports bans on open containers of alcohol in automobiles. For years, Connecticut drunken driving laws were among the nation’s weakest. Improvements have come about in the last decade largely because of the threat of federal financial penalties. The stubborn refusal to act on open containers is one of the last, vestigial remnants of the General Assembly’s strange but longstanding shortsightedness when it comes to regulating the use of alcohol.”
    Ny Times August 19, 2007

  • 9 AnonymousObserver // Aug 23, 2007 at 10:06 am

    Hey Sara - I also think that having drunks swigging booze in the back seat is a recipe for disaster for teens. Irratic driving can be caused by soused jokesters distracting a sober teen driver. Open containers should not be in the passenger area of the auto, plain and simple.

  • 10 #13 of the Miserable 25 // Aug 23, 2007 at 12:06 pm

    Why is this simple concept so hard for our lawmakers to understand?

Leave a Reply