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 ...
Call me paranoid, but I think it's the fact that many cops don't want people to see what they're up to. Too hard to get a conviction if the jury gets the idea that the suspect wasn't treated fairly.
"Which is more likely to cause an accident: (1) someone who drives a vehicle while eating a burrito, or (2) a small person who is basically alert who has recently consumed two beers?"
Two beers will not see you blow over the legal limit, not even at .08. Unless of course you are talking about a 70 pounder, in that case it would be an issue of underage drinking.
"The increase in accident risk caused by a 0.08 or 0.09BAC is statistically negligible compared with the many other factors which are routinely accepted."
So? It's .08 per lawmakers. If you do not like it then by all means lobby to see it changed.
I fyou want to defend drinking and driving do so openly. Cell phones burritos and sleepyness ( aside from PASSED OUT THAT IS) are entirely different subjects.
You are trying to say that because something else is bad then this bad thing should not be punished. Such merit you post with.....sheesh.
.08 IS a level of impairment. .08 is the LAW. I guess you are against the rule of law. I guess you do not respect it simply due to the fact you disagree.
Terrorists think they have a right to do the things they do and they do not respect the laws against it either. Nor do they respect the way in which they were formed.
Burglers do not respect the rule of law or the laws that prohibit what they do. I guess you agree with them also.
OH and Illegal aliens..same for them, Seems you agree with them too. They disagree BIG TIME with the law and how it was formed. They think it is wrong to apply the rule of law to them also.
See its easy to talk about other things.....
Take the high road and argue for me the MERITS of DRINKING and DRIVING and all that good that comes of it and put it up against the bad that is so OBVIOUS.
My bet is that you will not even TRY to argue the GOOD that comes from drinking and driving. But hey I could be surprised.
I am off to bed right now but I look forward to seeing what you write in response ....or what you don't.
Two drinks will put a small person over 0.08. And even one drink consumed before a person gets involved in an accident will cause that accident to be "alcohol related" even if the person who had the drink was in no way at fault when the accident occurred.
One thing to beware of is a phenomenon I call 'statistical homeopathy'. The more remote a causal linkage the stronger the claimed effect.
For example, suppose that accidents were only called 'alcohol related' if they were materially caused by a driver whose BAC was 0.20 or above. There would then be some number of 'alcohol related' accidents each year.
Now redefine 'alcohol related' accidents to include those where an at-fault driver had a BAC of 0.10 or above. Under that definition there will be more 'alcohol related' accidents per year.
Now redefine things further and include any accident in which any participant, whether or not that participant was at fault (or even driving), had a BAC of 0.01 and there will be even more 'alcohol related' accidents.
Note that in the original case, the causual relationship was probably pretty strong. In the latter case it's pretty weak. Nonetheless, the weaker the causal relationship the stronger the claimed causation.
But if they're going to go that far, why not go all the way? Declare an accident to be 'alcohol related' if anyone within a mile of it has ever consumed a drop of alcohol in their life. Lo and behold--99.9% of accidents are "alcohol related"! We must ban the demon run!
Suppose 15% of people have green eyes (or pick whatever color you like). An analysis of fatal accidents shows that 25% of them involve one person, 25% two people, 25% three people, and 25% four people. But over 32% of the accidents are "green-eye related". Would that constitute proof that we need to do something about this "green-eyed menace"? Why do we continue to allow green-eyed people on the road? What good are they anyway?
Even if alcohol had absolutely zero effect on traffic fatalities, the data would not be much different from what they are. What reason is there to believe that the differences cannot be explained by factors unrelated to drivers with low-but-illegal BAC levels such as either (1) a driver had a BAC of 0.15 or higher, which I would stipulate should be basis for prosecution, or (2) a fatality was caused by the alcohol even though the intoxicated person wasn't driving (e.g. a drunk stumbles into the street and gets hit by a motorist).
I'm not saying that there's anything particularly wonderful or noble about someone driving home after having a beer, any more than there's anything noble about driving home after having done something really great or really stupid (and thinking about it on the way). Indeed, a person who has had one or two large beers and is mindful of the need to drive carefully is apt to be a safer driver than a sober motorist whose mind is on other things. So why is the former worthy of more condemnation than the latter?
No, I was asking why the harsh rhetoric. I wasn't even arguing what you were attacking me quite harshly for saying. Chill a bit. :)
If you're here for education about the purpose of the board, you should go back to the home page. If you're looking to discover where a popularity contest is, check out hotornot.com or run for student body president at your high school.
And if you're trying to insult my post about Kinison...[snore].
"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?"
You're just silly, you know. First off, opposing the TSA's p.r. searches doesn't qualify as 'opposing airport security.' Second off, Hitler advocated strip searching security risks, and so do you, so you must be Hitler, right? Your stupid guilt-by-association tactics are just more evidence of what a fool you are. I hope you don't actually go out and try to sell people on the GOP with that kind of childish pap.
And I asked you a question, little one, one that you refuse to answer because you know how ridiculous you'll sound stating clearly what you imply above:
Are you really saying that people who drink and drive are as bad as TERRORISTS?
Go ahead, answer the question truthfully, so we can see how silly you are, little one.
Someone should come up with a standardized fitness to drive test. This would catch the drunks, as well as the highs, sicks, and tireds.
"Funny you should say that cuz you arer talking to one right now. ARE you listening?"
---I have been listening, but you haven't had much to say besides how anyone who's against your point of view is a terrorist. I said the AVERAGE 'victim' of a drunk driver. And my point was that the average drunk driver doesn't have a victim, because I'd put money on most drunk drivers making it home fine. That doesn't mean I approve of drunk driving, or that I approve of your preaching as if your victim status should accord your lame 'arguments' more validity. I think drunk driving ought to be punished in a way that specifically stops drunk driving. Not with license revocations and checkpoints on highways. How about checkpoints in front of BARS, for example? Or simply requiring places that legally sell alcohol to confirm the legality of their drinkers on the way out they way they must confirm them on the way in?
"Many that are caught go off scott free too. I see a problem with that, do You?"
---It depends on why. But if you commit the crime, generally, you should be punished for it in a way that prevents recidivism. Not 'rehabilitated.' Punished.
"That is exactly why you see BAC's going down and down people aren't listening quite yet."
---That's right, some of you are not listening. Because lowering BACs ain't working. It's just putting more 'drunks' out on the street and making police more likely to arrest people whose actual impairment is questionable. When you make it illegal to drink at all, you simply annoy legal drinkers and make them more likely to be lawbreakers, because the laws are simply easily broken.
Prohibition didn't work the first time, either.
"A lot more Americans are killed by drunk drivers every year, than were killed by terrorists on 9/11. In 2001 (to choose the 9/11 year as an example), 17,448 people died in alcohol-related vehicle accidents, and 33% of those (about 5,800 or almost twice as many as killed by the 9/11 attacks) were not intoxicated themselves. Apparently you are willing to dismiss the seriousness of this, on the grounds that the majority of drunk drivers in a given year don't manage to kill anyone (though many cause serious/permanent injury and/or major property damage, even when they don't kill)."
---No, straw man. I'm just not willing to demagogue the way so many here are about lowering the BAC to infinitesimal numbers that will make no difference in the actual number of dangerous drunks on the road, and have little impact on those oh-so-impressive numbers you're tossing around.
"By the same theory, we shouldn't worry at all about the thousands of Muslim men in this country who are enthusiastically attending religious services and lessons where they're brainwashed about the supposed glory of committing homicide bombings or other forms of terrorism, since the vast majority of them won't ever get around to actually doing it."
---No, we should do something to stop both of them. TSA nail clipper searches and BAC drops won't do squat.
"I think that any societal custom that is resulting in thousands of deaths of innocent people, is cause for great concern."
---I guess you'd probably be for stopping 16-year-olds from driving, then. But the point is not that drunks should drive or be allowed to drive--it's that laws should not be passed for purposes of simply looking tough on crime. Laws, if they are intended to stop drunk driving, ought to have that as their primary effect, instead of the primary effect of running bar owners into the ground.
"Two drinks will put a small person over 0.08."
Please define 'small person'. How many pounds?
"And even one drink consumed before a person gets involved in an accident will cause that accident to be "alcohol related" even if the person who had the drink was in no way at fault when the accident occurred."
Ok take your example and cut into thirds... saying 2/3 of the deaths are only related in the way you relate.
That means that over 5000 people STILL died as a result of drinking and driving. There is no way to spin out the fact that drinking and driving combine to create death and destruction.
"Now redefine 'alcohol related' accidents to include those where an at-fault driver had a BAC of 0.10 or above."
See my last paragraph.
"In the latter case it's pretty weak."
Over 5000 deaths ( not including injuries) is pretty weak?
Sorry you feel that way.
I guess you fell 9 11 was pretty weak too then right? After all only a bit more than half that died that day, and by your standards that would be pretty weak, right?
"(1) a driver had a BAC of 0.15 or higher, which I would stipulate should be basis for prosecution, "
Tell that to the person that blew .123 and hurt me, the friend I was riding with and his girlfirend ( the passenger in his car. He was passed out....so much for your .15.
Can you show where eye color causes impairment in ability?
Your analogy fails there.
I agree that "alcohol related' leave a bit to be desired and that people like you can take issue with it. This is why I offer cut it into thirds.......how will you react then? Ignore it just like you do with the way stats are formed now. Thats how.
What do you consider harsh and what do you consider rhetoric? Examples would be helpful.
"opposing the TSA's p.r. searches doesn't qualify as 'opposing airport security.' "
Indeed it does when you fail to qualify your opposition with alternative solution. What is your qualifer?
It is a true statement to say that if you oppose searches at airports you hold the same position that terrorists do, they oppose searches also. Go ahead and tell me how that statement is inaccurate. THEN you can call me silly.
"Hitler advocated strip searching security risks"
Hitler was looking for jooooooos....to exterminate them.
Is that what TSA is looking for? This is a failed anaology. You omit the WHY in your comparison and that nullifies when the WHY is injected. You call it security when indeed hitlers purpose was genocie NOT protecting ALL people.
"Your stupid guilt-by-association tactics"
That is funny you just DID that with your attempt at hitler anlogy. Laughable it is.
"Are you really saying that people who drink and drive are as bad as TERRORISTS? "
Yes.
Drunk drivers and terrorists both set out on their own agenda regardless of who is harmed. They only seek to push their own agenda and whomever gets hurt in the process is irrelevant. Both of their actions lead to hurt and dead people and both attempt to justify what it is they do.
Go ahead and make that statement untrue. Let me see you try.
"but you haven't had much to say besides how anyone who's against your point of view is a terrorist."
That isn't what I said at all, you stretch and twist there.
Schumer would be proud.
I made a comparison and it is accurate.
"I'd put money on most drunk drivers making it home fine."
Most terrorists that set off roadside bombs (unless suicide bombers of course) make it home to, so I guess their actions are ok eh? That is your logic.
"That doesn't mean I approve of drunk driving, or that I approve of your preaching as if your victim status should accord your lame 'arguments' more validity."
My arguments are valid because they are true sir.
" I think drunk driving ought to be punished in a way that specifically stops drunk driving."
AND THEY WOULD BE??? I notice that you say in general what they should be and then swith to specifics that should NOT be. How about you offer some what SHOULD be's?
"How about checkpoints in front of BARS, for example?Or simply requiring places that legally sell alcohol to confirm the legality of their drinkers on the way out they way they must confirm them on the way in?
"
Here an idea was floated to put BAC machines in bars for the public to police themselves. Guess which party members threw a fit and killed that Idea? The party of NO..the party that refuses to assign personal responsibiliy. The claim came of invasion of privacy, the very same argument made against checkpoints.
"It depends on why. "
They get off because the punishments aren't really there in strength to make them actually be punished. Some sommunity service, some 'counsiling' and a fine, maybe even a few months without a license, if you couyld call it that, as they get work permits and drive anyway.
I hear the arguments made about augmenting budgets and to a point I agree but much of the funds collected go to places like the victims compensation fund. I would also ask you to think about the people hurt or killed , who themselves or their families exit the capitolist arena and enter the socialist arena when their income is deleted as a result of the drunk drivers action. Food stamps, medicare even housing dollars are now the 'income' and the drunk driver is Why. Someone has to pay for this right? Why not a people that chose to drink and drive? Why shouldn't they have to pay?
"Because lowering BACs ain't working. It's just putting more 'drunks' out on the street and making police more likely to arrest people whose actual impairment is questionable. "
Impairment is questioned regardless of what the level is established at. This post has some of that contained within it. This is exactly WHY BAC as a limit is what is used as legal or not legal. It removes the impairment argument.
"When you make it illegal to drink at all, you simply annoy legal drinkers and make them more likely to be lawbreakers, because the laws are simply easily broken"
I do not advocate making illegal to drink. This is where you omit something in attempt to justify drinking and DRIVING. See, you omited the DRIVING part. This debate is not about drinking, it is about the Driving when you drink. You just tried to moit the driving part and make it about just drinking. This is something that many attempt to do. It fails when the real context is talked about. It is the driving that is the issue, not simply drinking.
This isn't about prohibition of alcohol. If you think it is, then I suppose you would to see pilots allowed to fly when they drink, I suppose you would like to see commercial truck drivers be allowed to drive when they drink. I suppose you would see logbooks for those folks go away so they could drive 36 hours straight too eh? (that goes to the tired arguement.....I didn't see anyone opposing that law as they do the .08 law. Funny how that is eh?
Sir understand this, your rights stop where mine begin.
That is to say your right to throw a right hook stops at my nose.
Did the person that crashed into me violate my liberty?
Seems to me you think ANY law means nanny state. That is a trait of an anarchist. Choice isn't what I fear.
You removing mine with one of your own is what I fear. It is what I have experienced. I sure hope you never have to experience it.
What other laws do you oppose? Is there no end?
"You're splitting hairs. The overwhelming majority of alcohol-related vehicle accidents are directly caused by a drunk driver. No doubt a few are caused by a drunken pedestrian stumbling out into the path of a vehicle driven by a non-intoxicated driver, or a drunken passenger grabbing the arm of a non-intoxicated driver, but that's an insignificant portion of the problem."
Not true at all. If it were true, then their claim could simply be that drunk drivers caused x numbers of crashes/fatalaties. Instead, it is necessary to change the phrase to mean something else to further the claim. It is an elegant flavor of kool aid, but it is still kool aid.
I would think that being a freeper would have made you aware of these subtle weapons.
Would you support equal prosectuion of all drivers causing property/personal damage to others, regardless of being sober or drunk?
You're still splitting hairs. The statistic include all fatal vehicle accidents in which one or more participants in the collision were intoxicated. In some cases, it is impossible to determine whether the "cause" was a drunk driver, whether a contributing cause was a drunk driver, or whether an accident would have happened anyway even if the driver hadn't been drunk. If a drunk driver hits and kills a drunk pedestrian, there's no way to know if the fatality might have been avoided if either the driver or the pedestrian hadn't been drunk. It makes sense to group the statistics this way, for that reason, and it doesn't change the fact that most of these fatalities are caused in whole or in part by a drunk driver.
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.