Sobering 'drunk-driving' stats

Washington Times ^ | Sunday, December 2, 2001 | House Editorial

[JohnHuang2]

For years, groups such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) have fought to establish ever lower legal standards defining "impaired" or "drunken" driving. Over the past 20 years, largely as a result of pressure exerted by MADD, many states have dropped their legal maximum Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) standards from .10 or .12 to .08 BAC. MADD has claimed that this reduction in allowable BAC levels, combined with more severe enforcement, such as the expanded use of so-called sobriety checkpoints, would result in less drunken driving

[JohnHuang2]

Quote of the Day by JoeEveryman

[Free the USA]

good article

[dasboot]

NMA/AKA-DAMM:

Drunks Against Mad Mothers

[bassmaner]

Click here to learn about MADD's real agenda: Virtual Prohibition.

[Free the USA]

bump

[caseyblane]

and click here for more information on DUI stats.

[A CA Guy]

What a bunch of BS. Just like illegal drug use, if they drive intoxicated, put them in jail and attach their assets in lawsuits.

Every excuse to avoid RESPONSIBILITY is seems.

[CWRWinger]

Good comments!! RE: Post #7.

While our 'Representatives' decry the use of cell phones, scream about manditory seat belts, go after people with tinted glass, turn speeding tickets into a state profit center; they hypocritically ignore the biggest single influence to death and destruction on the highways.

And as Rush says, "Follow the money".

[A CA Guy]

It isn't the booze at moderate levels that is the problem. It is the people who over-drink or take illegal stuff.

If drunk drivers are not made accountable, that IS a problem. That is as bad as using illegal drugs as far as I am concerned.

Some people equate accessability to a product to the freedom to abuse by way of excess! That is not rational. It is unethical. It is simply wrong.

[snopercod]

And how many accidents are caused by 80+ year-old drivers on our highways? Lot's more than drunks, I'll wager.

So by your "drink a beer - go to jail" logic, we should attach their assets as well. (By "we", you mean the state, of course.)

But then you Californians are big on having the state hold you by the hand and tell you what to do and not to do, aren't you?

[Pete-R-Bilt]

" It is time to focus on the real problem, those who are truly impaired on our roads "

In 25 years of OTR trucking I could tell you stories that would scare the dickens out of you.

A local TV station quoted statistics from the Utah Highway Patrol
stating that normally 1 in 5 drivers on the freeways is "impared" not drunk.

Impared by everything from booze, to pot, to cold medicine, to just plain fatigue.
From Dec.15th thru the end of weekend following News Years, that
rate falls to 1 in 3.

That scares me almost as much as Yugo's and ducks!

[glock rocks]

ducks?

[Pete-R-Bilt]

sorry, meant baby ducks...

[A CA Guy]

Your 80+ year old behind the wheel situations is a problem. Did you know in our state they have to take a driving test in their car every year? So at least in California they took your point into serious consideration and did something about it.

[A CA Guy]

Through civil lawsuits if an oldster was found neglectful and had assets, they can be sued for in California.

[A CA Guy]

I agree with all but your last line. It comes down to being rashionl and responsible. They have done tests with people at .008 and they were not able to be safe on average. So on average if they drive like that they are criminals.

Can someone NOT drink and drive those that want to drink home? Better to be safe when possible.

[glock rocks]

oh.

[kennyo]

What a bunch of BS. Just like illegal drug use, if they drive intoxicated, put them in jail and attach their assets in lawsuits.

I disagree.If they drive intoxicated,take away their license.Then,if they drive without a license,jail may be the proper penalty.If they get into an accident while intoxicated,THEN there is evidence of the negligence that MAY call for jail time or civil penalties. Driving while drunk should not be a CRIMINAL offense!

[A CA Guy]

I was referring to when harm was done to others. If there is no injury there can be no civil action to go after assets.