Feds study why drunken driving persists (Our taxes paid for this!)

Fresno Bee/SH ^ | December 27, 2004, 09:17:00 AM PST | MICHAEL DOYLE

[sully777]

WASHINGTON (SH) - The best public relations effort in the world apparently couldn't save victims [snip] from drunken drivers.

Now, federal investigators want to figure out why. They're examining why drunken driving persists in the face of aggressive anti-drunken driving campaigns.

"It's really complex," said Marilyn Sabin, assistant director of the California Office of Traffic Safety. "It's really a tough question, and I wish I had the answer [snip]

[sully777]

"...In 1997, for instance, Congress authorized $25 million for "alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures incentive grants." States can increase their grant funding by taking steps like videotaping drunk drivers, adopting young adult education programs or by showing a reduction in drunken-driving fatalities.

By last year, this annual grant authorization had increased to $40 million.

Next year, Congress will return to the task of rewriting the transportation bill. A version passed by the House earlier this year would continue the alcohol-impaired countermeasures grant program but with some changes; for instance, it would reward states that establish "a task force to evaluate and recommend changes to the state's drunk driving programs..." ------------------------------------------------------- I'll take the grant money for the correct answer for the the question: Why do you drink and drive?

1) Gotta get home. 2) I WANT TO DRIVE. 3) BS I AM NOT DRUNK! 4) I am indestructable. 5) I drive better drunk.

Which are all selfish, delusional, self-deceiving, irrational, and uninhibited personality traits--otherwise called INTOXICATION. How does the gov't stop drunken driving? Distribute those CIA anti-intoxicant pills U-Boat Teddy takes to speak soberly to the MSM press corp. You don't see him taking Oldsmobile swims anymore! -------------------------------------------------------- Uncle Sam, you can make that $25 million check to Sully C/O FreeRepublic. They'll know where to find me.

[international american]

They are alcoholics......DUH!!!!
Wanna stop them??
How about 1 year in jail for the first offence??
Nah, that would work, and there is too much money to be made on fines.

[weegee]

Why didn't they investigate why homosexuals still engage in anonymous public sex, or even worse bareback (condomless) sex, or even more mindboggingly "bug chasing" sexual encounters with people they KNOW to have AIDS?

[First_Salute]

Because lawyers and judges drink.

[akorahil]

Nah, that would work, and there is too much money to be made on fines.

The answer is right here folks...

[Disambiguator]

Because lawyers and judges drink.

You forgot legislators! Of course, they are all lawyers, anyway.

[RobbyS]

It boils down to a lack of enforcement. Guy gets his license suspended, but no one takes his car away. If he is caught driving without license, he should have his vehicle confiscated and sold. If he is driving another's vehicles THAT should be confiscated. City or county could make quite a bit on sales.

[the_devils_advocate_666]

How about 1 year in jail for the first offence??

Yep, that would work. And you also realize that muslim countries that chop of the hands of thieves have very low crime rates. Maybe we should give that a try, too.

[Smogger]

um... alcohol is legal, and people gotta get home.

Taxis? Public transit? Not in So. California.

[drt1]

Really not a mystery. The drunk driver is not being as aggressively prosecuted as he would if he were charged with murder, attempted murder, assault with a deadly weapon or endangering public safety - At least ONE of which ANY drunk driver is guilty of. Examples of this failure of enforcement on FR:

11-time drunk driver gets probation: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1306262/posts

Man Drunk at third DWI hearing: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1298625/posts

I will grant that these are probably exceptions but these kinds of results are all too common. Accidents that involve drunk drivers and innocent deaths are treated as manslaughter in most cases while other drunk driving infractions carry a fine but permit the drunk to take to the roads. Until a zero tolerance policy with long sentences for repeat offenders is adopted this problem will persist.

[Wolfie]

I'd say it boils down the preponderance of parking lots at bars.

[international american]

Quit using pure logic on me:)

[sully777]

Wanna stop them??
How about 1 year in jail for the first offence??
Nah, that would work, and there is too much money to be made on fines.

---

Great?! Now you have a drunk that is now sodomized.

I think the term "drunk" is the key to the problem. Americans are not educated from childhood the proper way to handle alcohol. For example, Italians (from Italy) eat and drink alcohol at the dinner table, which significantly lowers the effects of drunkenness. For many cultures, drinking is social and mature, rather than kegger-getting-SF-stupidity.

[international american]

"And you also realize that muslim countries that chop of the hands of thieves have very low crime rates. Maybe we should give that a try, too."

How do you equate 1 year in jail with three meals and HBO to cutting off one's hand? I missed something I spose.

[international american]

How many drunks would risk a year in jail to drive home??
Not many, I'll wager.

[fr_freak]

They are alcoholics......DUH!!!!

Wanna stop them??

How about 1 year in jail for the first offence??

Bear in mind that the standards for being considered driving drunk keep dropping (first it was .10, now .08). Now, for some people, it is the equivalent of a glass of wine or two with dinner. Does that make these people impaired drivers? Maybe, but maybe not (significantly). It depends on the person. However, the law as it now stands considers the case where a person is plastered to the gills and weaving all over the road the same as someone who has had a couple of drinks with dinner and shows no sign of impairment, as long as they're over that magic number.

A lot of accidents occur these days. The greater problem is simply the increase in the number of people on the road. Two of the areas mentioned (the Sacramento area and Modesto area) are jammed with traffic constantly. People do stupid things, drunk or not, and sometimes get themselves and others killed. But, if someone does something stupid when they've had a couple of drinks, suddenly alcohol is the sole cause. It's a similar technique to the one that includes all gang members among the death totals for children killed by guns each year.

Look at this statement in the article: "We need to get mad again," Sabin said. "There's a feeling (among some) that we've gotten a little bit complacent." Now, do you really believe that the present time, with all of the roadblocks, heavy penalties for DUI, and ad campaigns, is more complacent than before? The answer would have to be "hell no". But that's the hysterical view these people wish to promote, largely to keep their own organizations alive and well-funded.

Now, here's my disclaimer before I get flamed: drinking and driving is usually a bad idea. I am not trying to promote it. I just think the attitude displayed by this article is a little over the top.

[Salo]

I'd guess lowering the standard of what constitutes drunk driving might have contributed to the fact more people are driving drunk.

[Just another Joe]

You have a point, Sully, but it's more than that.
Many families, at least that I know, "eat and drink alcohol at the dinner table" and it still ends up being the kegger mentality.

It's not that the kids don't get exposed to it, they're not 'taught' about it.
Most people, especially when they're younger, don't think twice about drinking a few, or more, and then driving.
The children see this and do the same thing.
You cannot use the, "do what I say, not what I do" argument. It doesn't work.

The entire ethic surrounding alcohol needs to change.

[the_devils_advocate_666]

Granted, it was an extreme comparison. The point was simply that throwing everyone who blows a .08 on their first offense into the slammer for a year is extreme. I do not advocate mandatory minimums. It isn't black and white.