win $20,000 from Get MADD (1 Viewer)

[JeremyErwin]

Sigh... Theoretically, if the kids in the car are distracting you, you can tell them to shut up. You can hang up your cell phone. But if you've imbibed some alcohol, the only thing you can do is wait.

It's a choice. Either you drink or you drive, not both.

But, then, I've always opted for the former.

 

[Chris]

I could directly prove their statistics.. except they wouldn't accept it. How? I just did a State factbook, and add them together.

The problem is, this website doesn't like that. They want some sort of verification, because they don't trust the 'government'. So, do I have the time to sit on a phone and call every single person connected to a drunk driving fatality and ask "did you lose a father/son/brother/sister/wife/?" Nope, besides, doing that I would lose money even if I won their contest, plus piss people off. No one has time to track all these people down.

So, if I don't believe the State Department of Motor Vehicles (state by state) and add them up (which is what was done at the national level) then how the heck else do you "verify" it? Good luck calling all those people.

Here's my big counter argument: whether it's 19,800 or 9,000, it's still way the hell too many.

Your argument regarding level of drunkenness is a hard one to swallow..


If your argument is that people drive safer who have had a drink.. I would argue that this is largely because they are afraid of being caught breaking the law. Therefore, the law also has a positive effect on others who are mild drinkers.

 

[JeremyErwin]

A brief review of the public health literature (or rather, what was freely available..) suggests that a BAC of .02% still contributes significantly to the risk of accidents. Some governments (notably DC) have fined drivers with BAC between .02% and .08%.

Some of the articles (public heath can get, well, political), have departed from this sober reliance on risk analysis and made statements such as


But not everyone weighs as much as 72 kg. It may seem like drinking 4 beers is clearly in the category of "had a few too many," but a BAC limit geared around letting that 72 kg man have his one beer would make teetotalers of the rest of us... Far better to set a limit based on actual risk, and society's tolerance of that risk.

In the meantime, it looks like the anti-DUI community (so to speak) is gearing up for another reduction in legal BAC: to .05%.

Personally I'm worried more about public intoxication laws.

 

[drobbins]

Well we should arrest people for carrying bats! Just incase they might hurt someone? That is exactly what check points do.

 

[Randy Tennison]

Obviously, Drobbins, by your argument, there should be no enforcement of any traffic regulation. Because they are all designed to prevent accidents. And they are all proactive. Driving 75 in a 25, but don't run over a 6 year olds near their school? No ticket, because you haven't caused an accident. Run a red light and swerved around the other vehicles in the intersection? You didn't hit anyone, so you shouldn't get a ticket. Have a tail light out? No one rear ended you because they didn't see your brake lights, so no ticket. Your license is revoked, but you drive to the movie theatre to see Rocky Balboa? No harm done, you didn't hit anyone.

I'm a trained pursuit driver, and a former pursuit driving instructor, and thus have great knowledge and control of a vehicle at high speeds. I can drive very fast, and very safely. The number of miles I can drive my car in excess of 100 supports that I should never get a speeding ticket, because I've never hit anyone before.

In this country, we actively try to catch people before they commit a crime or hurt someone. And the crime in a DWI is committed when the person gets behind the wheel and takes control of the vehicle. Waiting until they hurt someone is not the way to do it.

Just curious? Do you wear a seatbelt? Why? You haven't been killed in a traffic accident before. Why wear one if it's never happened.

 

[Ricardo C]

If they're swinging their bat while walking down the street, in close proximity to unsuspecting pedestrians, yes, we bloody well should.

 

[drobbins]

Randy,
Either I am giving off the wrong impression or you are reading too much into what I am saying. I have been driving for about 26 years now. Currently I put about 500 miles a week on my car. I have never been the cause of an accident and except for the speeding ticket (I deserved) last year, I havent had a ticket in over 14 years. I don't consider myself to be God's gift to driving, but I wouldn't consider myself to be a bad driver either.
Yes, I do wear a seat belt all the time and my whole family does also. But I don't believe it is the governments place to tell me I have to. I am against drunk driving, but that doesn't give the government the right to stop & search every car that uses the roads. I don't own a gun, but I don't think the government has the right to do a house by house search looking for illegal or unregistered guns. I rarely drink and don't have any problems with it, so why should my daughter be looking at my like I am evil when I have a glass of wine at the house?
If you get an e-mail (which you probably just did) with the statement:
A friend of mine who lives in the white house next to mine was doing kamikaze shots last night until he got bombed. He staggered out of the house and tripped killing the bush in front of his house. Should that give the Dept of Homeland Security the right to snoop through all you e-mail and monitor your internet usage?
The governments purpose is to serve the people. People do not exist so the government has someone to govern. Traffic laws and others must exist so the roads operate in an orderly fashion. Stopping and investigating every car, mostly innocent non-lawbreakers, that uses a road does not support this. Should the government do house by house searches of all houses to find out what illegal activities a few people are up to, but in the mean time search many houses of people who are not doing anything wrong? Should Mall Security search all shoppers asking for receipts, just to find the few shoplifters? I take it you have done road side checks. What is the percentage of cars that you investigate that are breaking the law - DUI or otherwise?
Drunk driving reduction efforts have been successful, but now has leveled off. Drunk driving will never go away until people stop getting drunk. I have a hard time believing that anyone who drives drunk today is not aware of the penalities.

 

[Ricardo C]

I was going to reply, but I slipped on your slope, and a 100-pound sack of fallacy crushed my skull.

 

[Jeffrey Noel]

Randy, I don't think God could change their minds. Keep up the fight though!

Regarding the hypothetical situation with the husband and wife, no matter how far the couple is from home (.5 miles or 50 miles) he is still driving intoxicated! Good grief! He is breaking a law! When he got in the car to drive, he assumes the responsibilty of his actions. Who's to say, hypothetically, that with his intoxicated state he won't drive extremely fast to get home for some nookie and hit somebody on the way?!

I actually don't mind sobriety check points. I don't drink and drive, so why should I care even if it is taking time. I actually thank law enforcement for it. If they "get" one drunk driver, that's one less I have to worry about. The other night there was a check point in my area and the police arrested 9 people. NINE! Think of how many live's they might have saved for that!

Regarding using cell phones while driving, can't argue that. I won't talk but 5 seconds on my cell phone while driving because I understand my limitations! I know that I cannot multitask well and talking on the phone while driving is dangerous. Alcohol impairs that judgement though, doesn't it?

 

[JeremyErwin]

A Comparison of the Cell Phone Driver and the Drunk Driver

Strictly speaking, alchohol impaired driving is stylistically different from cell-phone impaired driving. Think of them as two different styles of causing accidents... This bit might prove to be of particular interest:

 

[Chris Lockwood]

> skillfully crafted regulation

There's an oxymoron if I've ever heard one.

 

[JeremyErwin]

isn't half a mile well within walking distance?

 

[Randy Tennison]

Drobbins, I don't think I'm reading into what you say. Your words are very surface. . .

Exactly what I want DARE teaching my school age child. Don't drink. You aren't old enough. And if their teaching was faulty, did you explain to her that there are things that grown ups can do that kids don't? That's why it's ok for you to have wine with dinner.

Lastly, you use the "What's next" argument alot. It's a very weak argument, because you can exaggerate anything. What's next, are we not going to allow people to write on home theatre boards? What's next, then are we going to take away their computers? What's next? Their IPOD's and cell phones, and then, remove their brains, because they are actually biological computers?

Government's job is to protect and serve the citizens, not just serve.

 

[drobbins]

I agree to an extent. Because this is a HT forum I am using movies as examples. In Star Wars 1-3, the democracy was voted out by the population who thought they were doing good. The government was not over thrown. Listening to George Lucas interview, he states that throughout history, the majority of democracies have fallen in this way. I don't have the time to verify that. But I do know that, every law that is passed for what ever good reason erodes away our freedoms. Many times with consequences that were not thought of at the time the law was passed. In my previous examples, the laws were implemented slowly over time not all at once. The same thing can also happen at check points. I hope my "What Next" arguments are only exaggerations. Only time will tell.
Getting back to the original post. Of the 17,970 alcohol related deaths, we also need a breakdown that includes the following information:

1. How many of these accidents were not caused by the driver with the excessive BAC. Using the argument "well he shouldn't have been there, so the accident wouldn't have happened" is pretty lame.
2. What percentage of these accidents would have happened even if the driver had not been drinking? There were about 24,000 non-alcohol related deaths. I am sure these same causes also effect people who have been drinking. I live in a rural area and hear on the news daily the deaths and accidents in the local area. Here are a few common ones:
3. Somebody is distracted and goes off the road slightly, they overcorrect and roll the car.
4. There are many windy, hilly, narrow roads here with out center lines. As a result head on collisions are common.
5. Many people work night shifts and or two jobs. They fall asleep driving. Granted even one beer and in the legal limit will still help you to fall asleep faster, but does not necessary mean that it wouldn't have happened if there was no drink.

[*]How many of these people will continue to drink & drive no matter how many laws and penates there are in place? I guarantee you that everyone arrested last night for DUI was aware of the chance he took.Locks keep honest people honest. Locks only slow down the crooks. Laws only work when people obey them. I guess we will never see eye to eye on this, but this is how I summarize my feelings.
Prohibition did not work. The DUI laws have been and are very effective in reducing deaths, but I don't think more laws or harassing the entire population will further reduce the number. It hasn't in the past few years. For the USA who is supposed to be the shinning example of freedom, we have more people in jail per capita than any other industrialized country. Most of these people are in for drug/alcohol related crimes. People want all these tougher laws but also don't want to pay for more jails or have it in their backyard. I appreciate the work & efforts that all the police do to keep this country safe for everyone, but I don't think that "Joe Blue-Collar Worker" who is operating his car safe manor, with out endangering anyone, should be stopped with out reason "just incase". We should be focusing our attention on the causes of the other 24,000 deaths to further reduce the entire number.

 

[Randy Tennison]

And that's why I wrote speeding tickets, stop light tickets, failure to signal tickets, C&I, etc. Actually, a very small percentage of traffic enforcement is dedicated to DWI detection. I wrote many more tickets for other offenses (and gave a lot more warnings) than I ever did DWI's.

Ok, we'll never agree that a properly conducted DWI checkpoint is proper. We also won't agree on the "we've lost our freedoms" argument. IMHO, We still have all the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. Not one has been removed.

Happy New Year, my friend. Be safe, watch out for the idiots if you are out and about, and take care of that little girl.

 

[Chris Lockwood]

> We still have all the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. Not one has been removed.

How naive! All of the Bill of Rights have been infringed, with the possible exception of the third amendment.

 

[KurtEP]

The Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz that Randy brings up is an interesting read:

http://supreme.justia.com/us/496/444/case.html

It's curious that the Supreme Court earlier rejected random stops to apprehend unlicensed drives and unsafe vehicles, stating that


It would be interesting to know whether more recent statistics have shown better results.

 

[Randy Tennison]

Ok, I'll bite. Name something guarenteed in the constitution that you now can't do.

 

[JeremyErwin]

um, despite the second amendment, I'd have a very difficult time keeping the types of weaponry necessary to fend off tyranny...

 

[Chris Lockwood]

Randy, it's so obvious that I don't need to give examples. Just open your eyes and stop worshipping the state.