The squeamishness that was expressed, for instance, by NY Times editorial writers, seemed part of the abiding American tradition that traffic law enforcement is best if it's not too efficient or thorough. The Times' concern for first time offenders missed the point that the first offence often represents only the first time a drunk driver is caught. Other examples of this culture abound. In NJ, right-to-drive activists have legislatively banned police use of photo-radar for speeding enforcement. The NY State legislature continues to limit NYC's ability to deploy more red light cameras.

In the Tri-State region, tolerance for aberrant behavior at the wheel, combined with horrible gridlock, has led to epidemic red-light running and speeding, and a general attitude that traffic laws are guidelines rather than rules that must be obeyed. In 1997, the Hartford Courant felt reduced to issuing a pathetic editorial plea imploring drivers to obey traffic signals.

The crackdown on drunk driving is refreshing in itself and for sparking a high-profile public exchange about motorists' responsibilities. We hope the debate - especially among local government leaders and district attorneys - can move beyond the confines of drunk driving to irresponsible driving more generally.