Skip to comments.
Sobering 'drunk-driving' stats
Washington Times ^
| Sunday, December 2, 2001
| House Editorial
Posted on 12/02/2001 12:18:44 AM PST by JohnHuang2
Edited on 07/12/2004 3:49:44 PM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
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
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
TOPICS: Editorial; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-37 next last
To: JohnHuang2
good article
To: JohnHuang2
NMA/AKA-DAMM:
Drunks Against Mad Mothers
3
posted on
12/02/2001 2:23:14 AM PST
by
dasboot
To: JohnHuang2
Click
here to learn about MADD's real agenda: Virtual Prohibition.
4
posted on
12/02/2001 4:43:50 AM PST
by
bassmaner
To: Free the USA
bump
To: bassmaner
To: JohnHuang2
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.
7
posted on
12/02/2001 9:27:17 AM PST
by
A CA Guy
To: A CA Guy
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".
8
posted on
12/02/2001 9:40:01 AM PST
by
CWRWinger
To: CWRWinger
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.
9
posted on
12/02/2001 10:14:20 AM PST
by
A CA Guy
To: A CA Guy
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?
Comment #11 Removed by Moderator
To: JohnHuang2; glock rocks
"
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!
To: Pete-R-Bilt
ducks?
To: glock rocks
sorry, meant baby ducks...
To: snopercod
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.
15
posted on
12/02/2001 11:04:10 AM PST
by
A CA Guy
To: snopercod
Through civil lawsuits if an oldster was found neglectful and had assets, they can be sued for in California.
16
posted on
12/02/2001 11:05:38 AM PST
by
A CA Guy
To: abwehr
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.
17
posted on
12/02/2001 11:09:38 AM PST
by
A CA Guy
To: Pete-R-Bilt
oh.
To: 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.
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!
19
posted on
12/02/2001 11:43:42 AM PST
by
kennyo
To: kennyo
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.
20
posted on
12/02/2001 12:12:37 PM PST
by
A CA Guy
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-37 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson