I agree with The Post's editorial "On Hitting the Bottle and the Road" {Feb. 6} that the remarks on drinking and driving by Virginia state Sen. William E. Fears (D-Accomac) were irresponsible (was he really serious?). But I take issue with the statement that "drunken driving is the most frequently committed violent crime in the country." This reflects the influence of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, who have been waging a campaign to put drunken driving somewhere on the crime chart between bombing an elementary school and murdering elderly persons for their Social Security checks.

I sympathize with those who have lost a loved one as the result of drunken driving. But it should be noted that the average drunken driver is an otherwise law-abiding citizen who does not get up in the morning and announce, "I think I'll get drunk and drive today and see how many people I can wipe out." In most instances, drunken drivers are themselves victims -- victims of an insidious illness that requires them to drink to excess at the same time that it destroys their judgment.

The way you stop these people from killing or maiming some innocent person on the highway is quite simple, although nobody seems to have the courage to suggest it: You pass a law forbidding drinking (of any amount) and driving for a specified period, similar to drinking laws for airline pilots. It may not entirely cure the problem, but it will afford the problem drinker the opportunity to make a decision about driving before he takes the first drink. It would also eliminate any defense the drunken driver has. It puts the responsibility squarely on him or her before judgment has been seriously impaired. WILLIAM F. FUCHS Centreville