Posted on 11/09/2005 3:39:41 PM PST by elkfersupper
It is time to separate fact from fiction about our drunken driving laws. It is time to stop deluding ourselves into believing that stricter penalties are the solution. It is also time to start promulgating laws that attack the core problem, including creating a bright line that even an intoxicated person can walk.
Drunken driving is a problem in Massachusetts. It is also a problem in New York, Texas and every other state in the country. Statistically, Massachusetts’ roads are not the most dangerous in the country. There is also no proof that Massachusetts drivers are more likely to drive impaired.
-snip-
Perhaps it is time to make it illegal to drink any alcohol and drive a car.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.bostonherald.com ...
I deal with matters related to traffic safety in the course of my work, so I can address this point with a certain level of professional credibility. The numbers you've quoted there are absolutely meaningless, and provide a clear illustration of why statistics can easily be twisted to convey a political message to support a political agenda.
If you look carefully at the methodology used by the NHTSA to estimate "alcohol-related accidents," you'll find that these statistics include many accidents in which alcohol may not (and in some case, absolutely DO NOT) have any causal influence at all. An "alcohol-related accident" is one in which one or more of the principals involved (driver, injured party, or fatality) is deemed to be under the influence of alcohol, regardless of whether the alcohol played any role in the accident -- and regardless of whether the person under the influence of alcohol was operating a motor vehicle.
Just consider these examples . . .
1. Suppose I go out with three friends of mine who all get drunk, and I drink nothing but club soda all night long because I have every intention of serving as the group's "designated driver" for the night. If I get in an accident on the way home (through my own fault, or otherwise) and one of my drunk passengers is injured or killed, the NHTSA considers this an "alcohol-related accident" even though none of the drunk people were driving the car.
2. If I'm driving home alone at night (totally sober) and I run over a drunken pedestrian who stumbled into the street in front of my car, the NHTSA considers this an "alcohol-related accident" even though the only person under the influence of alcohol was the pedestrian.
3. And here's the most nebulous case of all -- which is also the best argument against ever getting behind the wheel of a car with any alcohol in your system regardless of how alert and clear-minded you might be. If you are driving with a blood-alcohol level of around 0.06% and some incompetent (but sober) @sshole runs a red light and causes a serious accident, the NHTSA considers this an alcohol-related accident even if the sober driver was fully responsible for the accident. And the driver who blows the 0.06% on the breathalyzer in this case will likely be charged with driving under the influence, too.
I can agree with that. I'd bet a majority, perhaps a vast majority, of all alchol related deaths don't happen because the driver had impaired reflexes, but because they were reckless. There is no breathilizer for 'gumption'. :)
But, I'm not sure how to settle the paradox of this individual variation in order to fairly define a DUI, as laws cannot really be written that way (unless an objective reflex test or something was developed)... now that would be interesting... :)
I'm not one to get hot and bothered over our current DUI laws, sure some might be a bit unfair to certain individuals, and too lienent to others, but I'm not sure how you change the system to make it 'fair' and there are plenty of more important things to put one's time and energy into fighting...
I know these scenarios are all included in the statistics, and I would like to see a breakdown. But I'm quite sure that a solid majority of the included fatalities involved a drunk driver.
If true, that is interesting. I'd like to see those sources.
Be careful what you ask for.
NHTSA nearly doubles the number of instances of drunk drivers
Flattery will get you nowhere.
Actually, I've been considering it. I've been piggybacking (read freeloading) off the libertarian list.
In order to run one the right way, one would need to be around FR and/or a computer and connection all day, every day. I can't do that.
Plus, I've been thinking I've been sort of a one-note-Johnny on this subject.
I just get so torqued when I get waylaid by one of these "checkpoints" that I just can't stand myself.
And, I can find 'em like millerbugs find a lightbulb. Just lucky that way. Plus, this is a "target rich" environment. So many stories, and the opposition is getting better all the time.
I've seen that. Very good!
One here.
Suicide and Homicide in State Prisons and Local Jails
Another interpretation/extrapolation here (cover of the e-book and pages 41-42 of the text):
For one thing, abolish "sobriety checkpoints". The whole premise behind them is absurd: stop vehicles randomly on the hopes that one stumbles upon a drunk driver (well, that's the most charitable explanation). It would be much more effective (and much less of an attack on sober people) for officers to look for people who seem unable to drive their vehicles smoothly and effectively. Sure, sometimes perfectly sober people will get pulled over (I got pulled over shortly after getting my learner's permit, the first time I was driving a stickshift car; officer probably thought I was drunk until he saw the permit, said 'first time driving stick?', and I answered in the affirmative) but officers could probably get more of the dangerous drunks off the road by doing that than by wasting time harassing sober drivers.
Of course, for all this to really work, police cars should be equipped with video. Given the extent to which prices have fallen, I can't see much excuse for not doing so (except that juries might decide they didn't agree with officers' actions...)
What's going on here is a little different, but shares some similarity: the more broadly a problem is defined, the more that problem is going to be detected. Loosening the definition of "drunk driver" will increase the number of so-called "drunk drivers" on the road. If those who called for the looser definition can convince others that this "increase" is a problem, they can use it to justify further loosening even if most of the "problem" is caused by the looser standards in the first place.
"And yes, I do oppose the current level of airport security."
So does Osama.
"Most accidents in the home happen in your bathroom, new helmet laws needs to be enacted, and all safety checks will be routine and unannounced."
That is all fine and dandy but when a person makes a CHOICE to DRIVE DRUNK, they do not get into an 'accident'.
Indeed they CRASH. Big difference.
your premise in comparison is flawwed from the start.
"If you wish to opt out of the routine safety checks (all for your protection) you may pay a one time fee and the government will install cameras throughout your home and yard and all infractions will be noted and you will be billed monthly."
If you wish to opt out then by al means Don't Drive. It is not a right. You do have that Choice.
" Sammy is popular with some folks on this board. "
I didn't realize this was some sort of popularity contest....
"Are you really saying that people who drink and drive are as bad as TERRORISTS?"
I am saying they advocate the very same things as I posted to elk, He opposes airport security ( and it appears you may also) and so does Osama.....Truth hurts huh?
Thanks for the welcome. Get hit by a drunk driver and see how depressing it can really be.
that the best you got? Surely I hope you can do better than that. :)~
" I either dring at home, or turn my keys over to a DD BEFORE I even start to drink. Not really that hard."
That would be a post FULL of personal responsibility, Something a TRUE conservative aspires to emulate daily.
Thanks.
"Of course, from your posts, it is obvious that you disagree with that, so all I can say is start your own country! "
Evidently you misunderstand or simply mix issues together on purpose.
Thanks for the Sunrise, matter of fact it is my favorite drink. ( as I pour a little out for the homies that aren't with us any more)
IMHO people that cannot have fun while drinking without driving are the ones that have the serious problem.
Difference between me and you, after I frink I will have someone drive me home, or well id go to bed cuz I was already at home.
I do not advocate not drinking, just the driving when you do. Sorry you cannot see a difference....maybe its the alcohol clouding you up to the point you cannot see the line of seperation. Maybe it is just your unwillingness to agree with basic reality, when drinking is mixed with driving VERY bad things happen.
"To the people whose loved ones they kill, they're no different from terrorists. They don't really give a damn who they kill, because if they did, they'd never get behind a steering wheel after they've been drinking."
PERFECT!
I would like to add to that statement if I may:
Not all people that are victims of a terrorist act die, likewise not all victims of drunk driving die, in both cases lives are forever altered and damaged.
"Let's ask the victim of the average drunken driver what they think,:
Funny you should say that cuz you arer talking to one right now. ARE you listening?
"I'm pretty sure the victim of the average drunken driver will be silent--because I would take bets that the average drunken driver makes it home scot-free"
Many that are caught go off scott free too. I see a problem with that, do You?
"What these laws do is harshly criminalize behavior that so many people get away with"
That is exactly why you see BAC's going down and down people aren't listening quite yet.
Don't let BlueStateDepression get to you, Binger. I'll drink with you, and he's barred from the bar. LOL"
Punishment Eh?
How fitting....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.