Open-container law makes good sense

The persistent rate of highway deaths in the United States, which declined for years before leveling off and rising again more recently, is attributable to many factors, with distracted driving a commonly cited culprit. But there’s no question that drunken driving continues to pose a serious problem. From 2006 to 2016, more than 10,000 people died every year on average in drunken-driving crashes.

Driving while intoxicated is illegal in every state, but there are other steps that can be taken to reduce risks and increase public safety. For no good reason, Connecticut is one of only a handful of states that does not prohibit passengers from having open containers of alcohol in a vehicle.

The Department of Transportation has proposed legislation to outlaw the practice for the past 17 years, but each time it has died on the House calendar. It is time to pass the bill and take a practical step toward increasing safety on the roads.

The price Connecticut pays goes beyond the wellbeing of drivers and passengers — there’s a literal price, too. States without an open container law have a percentage of annual funds from the federal government that would otherwise go toward infrastructure improvements instead diverted to other uses.

Connecticut’s total penalty has added up to $152.6 million, a not-insignificant sum. With an ongoing political fight over funding for transportation improvements and tolls, it seems obvious the state should not turn down money it needs for these purposes.

On that front, the wait continues for details of a workable plan from Senate Democrats. With a previous plan to toll all vehicles long dead, Gov. Ned Lamont has focused on a trucks-only plan that dates to his gubernatorial campaign in 2018. Signs indicate that a majority of Democrats are on board, but there are many points to work out before a final deal can be reached.

Republicans continue to insist that there is no future for tolls in Connecticut, with Sen. Len Fasano saying the issue comes down to a lack of trust that the money will be spent wisely. But the Republican plan, which relies more heavily on borrowing, would also require trust to succeed — one way or another, it’s public money at issue.

What all sides agree on is the need to spend money to secure the state’s transportation future. What’s dividing them is how to raise that money. The need for safer bridges and better trains is a widely held belief.

All of which makes the state’s decision to turn down federal money for infrastructure improvements even harder to understand. The Department of Transportation is again pushing to outlaw open containers, and there is no good reason why legislators should not move ahead on the plan.

The DOT is also looking to enact a rear-seatbelt requirement, which has died in the Assembly for each of the past five years despite good evidence that it could save lives. Twenty-nine states require all back-seat passengers to buckle up; in Connecticut, only those under 16 years old must do so.

That, too, should change. The DOT has two common-sense plans that the Legislature should see are turned into laws.

The price Connecticut pays goes beyond the well-being of drivers and passengers — there’s a literal price, too.