In the crash that killed 12-year-old Annie Davis last October, her mother's van was rammed by a Ford pickup driven by a man who police say was intoxicated.

The truck, on the other hand, was in good shape. The tires had plenty of tread. The braking system was well-maintained: master cylinder filled almost to its maximum, plenty of lining left in the brake shoes.

Authorities know these depths and thicknesses down to 32nds of an inch as the result of careful examination by investigators.

What they don't know is how much alcohol was in the bloodstream of the allegedly drunk driver. They had the technology to find out, but like many other states, Maryland doesn't always use it and, contrary to popular belief, the law does not always require it.

Police were not allowed to get a blood alcohol measurement because the driver, having been read his rights, refused the test. would have been compelled to take it only if Annie had died instantly.

It is ironic that Maryland's vaunted shock trauma system can save a drunk driver from the revelations that come with blood testing. To be valid as evidence of a driver's condition at the time of a crash, the test must be done within two hours.

Meanwhile, gravely injured crash victims are moved swiftly by helicopter to emergency rooms where they get some of the best medical care in the world. Many are saved. Others live a few hours or a day as Annie Davis did.

Legislators and anti-drunk driving groups have tried for years to make the test applicable even when death is not instantaneous, trying language that spoke to "serious" injury, or to injury requiring transportation to a hospital by ambulance. So far, nothing has seemed precise enough.

Meanwhile, only three of 100 Maryland drivers involved in fatal accidents are being tested, according to data collected under the Fatal Accident Reporting System of the U.S. Department of Transportation.

The test evidence is needed by prosecutors but also by traffic safety researchers, according to Robert G. Kirk, executive director of the American Council on Alcoholism. More stringent testing laws provide important highway safety data needed to assess the magnitude of the drinking and driving problem -- and to get problem drinkers into treatment.

Critics say a tighter law is blocked by legislative committees heavily laden with lawyers who fear they will be unable to provide a defense if the evidence of guilt is measured in stark numbers. The lawyers say tougher laws would actually help them, bringing more clients -- and they insist they are searching for a way to get the job done without increasing the state's power over the individual.

The real impediment, though, may be the success of recent efforts by organizations such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD). Thought grudgingly in some cases, states across the country have passed tougher laws. Drunk driving is less socially acceptable. Even the language is changing: drunk driving is not an accident, it's a crime, MADD insists.

The public may feel the problem has been taken care of, that further change is less urgent.

The friends of victims suggest otherwise.

In testimony and in a series of meetings with legislators, friends of Annie Davis and her mother, Susan Edkins, have gained the attention of legislators on the testing issue. In a small but crucial area, they made a bit of history last week.

Del. Joseph F. Vallario Jr., chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, met with them and said his committee would consider a new version of the testing bill killed earlier this year in his committee. By tradition, Judiciary does not deal with the same subject twice in a single session.

One of the students, Valerie Edwards, asked Chairman Vallario during a meeting in his office if he thought Maryland's laws against drunk driving are adequate. He said he thought the state had done well, but acknowledged room for improvement.

The testing proposal could fall into the improvement category, he said.

Mr. Vallario's assessment is supported by MADD which gives Maryland relatively good marks and then points out areas that need improvement.

In statistics and records keeping, it gets an A; in administrative and criminal sanctions, an A; and in campaigns to focus on drinking among young people, an A.

In the area of legislation, though, the score was C+. MADD urges reduction of the driving-while-intoxicated blood alcohol standard from .10 to .08; and more frequent use of blood alcohol testing.

For those who do submit to the test in Maryland, MADD reported, the average blood alcohol level was .17 -- approaching twice the allowable limit. That figure may mean that those who persist in driving drunk represent real problem drinkers. Increasingly, according to the State Police, drivers suspected of driving drunk refuse the test, perhaps knowing the consequences in court will be greater. In charges of vehicular manslaughter, for example, the alcohol level can be used to show intent.

So, MADD in Maryland is asking this year's General Assembly to pass:

* A so-called "illegal per se" law. Maryland has "administrative per se," meaning that persons who test over .10 on the Breathalyzer automatically lose their license to drive for 120 days -- one year for the second offense.

With "illegal per se," a person testing above the permissible level would go to court only for purposes of sentencing. MADD says 46 other states already have such a statute.

This change is needed, advocates say, to let alcohol consumption alone tell the story in court. Such a law renders moot the so-called field sobriety tests -- whether a person can count backward or walk a straight line. Some drunks have learned to pass these tests and their lawyers have learned how to undermine their validity.

"Illegal per se" is designed to squeeze out latitude for lawyers and judges in cases where the defendant has willfully consumed large amounts of alcohol and driven against all common sense.

* "Hard suspension" rules, preventing exceptions such as permission to drive to work. This slack should be removed from the law, says Evelyn Armiger, a long-time toiler in the MADD army.

"If you screw up you pay the price. If you screw up, walk," she says

* More severe penalties for repeat offenders. In some states, license tags are taken off the car of a repeat offender at the scene of his or her arrest. If that doesn't work, the vehicle may be sold and the proceeds are used to address the problem of drunk driving.

When legislators confront such proposals, says Del. Pauline Menes, D-Prince George's, they at least subconsciously mindful of the degree to which alcohol is a part of the social fabric.

"A large number of people drink, but a much smaller number of drinkers cause problems. Many people, including legislators, can imagine themselves in a situation where they've had a drink or so and wonder what would happen to them if they were stopped.

"We're dealing with drunk driving much more than we did years ago, but it's still a balancing act between personal freedom and what people do to cause harm," she says.

Legislators are caught between the passion of those who have lost a loved one and their responsibility to make laws with reason and without emotion.

HTC "We try to accommodate both sides so what happens is you take small steps," Del. Menes said.

Thus, until the law is changed, police and the prosecutors are left to describe the slurred speech and the wobbly gait of the accused, to measure the depth of tread on tires, to prove that a reasonably attentive driver had a vehicle that would have stopped if the brakes had been applied.

In the crash that claimed Annie Davis, the pickup left no skid marks except on the hearts of those who survived.

Fraser Smith is a reporter for The Baltimore Sun.