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 can think of a lot of good reasons to stop letting 16 year olds drive, and accidents are just one.
Would these damages that you are suffering, be less significant if the offending driver were sober when he crashed into you?
How bombed was the fellow who smacked into you?
So true. That poor mother who was found cradling her dead daughter's decapitated head, will obviously never completely recover. And neither will the police officers and EMTs who saw it. The "fun" of drinking alcohol is just nowhere near enough to pass the cost/benefit analysis.
Your attempt at equating victims of an attack on our country, hoping to destroy the entire country to the victims of an individual bad driver is very offensive. I would ask that you no longer use that argument with me.
Now, you want to talk about perspective. How many car crashes result in fatalaties per year in this country? The total number, not just the "alcohol related" number.
I would bet that improper maintenence standards are a larger cause than alcohol. Do you want to revoke driving privileges and imprison people that don't properly inflate their tires?
"Embelishing ones argument shows a lack of substance within it."
Hey pot, meet kettle.
".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."
Abortion is the law. If you oppose abortion you must be against the rule of law. I guess you would not respect the law simply due to the fact you disagree.
CSM, I will ask you this. Cut the number from over 17 thousand a year to 5 thousand, saying those are results of strictly drunk drivers by anyones standards.
This is saying that the 17 thousand number is over 300% the actual drunk driver numbers. Do you honestly think that number is augmented THAT much? Or More?
Isn't it true that 5000 dead as a result of drunk driving enough to do something about it? If you oppose the current 'what' that is being done, what is your alternative solution?
I thought being a freeper was keeping the debate real. To keep this debate real, that is to say OPPOSITE of democrat ANTI THIS ANTI THAT policy. I thought being a freeper meant being FOR something rather than opposing something. Am I wrong there?
I thought being a freeper was about callingout the bogus and offering up the truth....the positive instead of the negative.
Financial ruin obviously ins't enough to keep all people from drinking and driving. I would offer to you that the amount of the fine doesn't matter when people attempt to take the position that there is nothing wrong with doing it. The truth shows clearly that there is something wrong with doing it. I offer that people need to just accept that there is something wrong with doing it.
People say it is wrong to financially ruin a drunk driver. How about the people they hurt and kill? How about their financial ruin? Where is the protection from financial ruin in those folks argument when put to the victim rather than the offender?
I offer that as pals make themselves the victims, as terrorists make themselves the victims, drunk drivers also make themselves out to be the victims.
Where are the numbers generated for the positives of drinking and driving? You are more than happy to attack the negatives andd say they aren't true, say they are augmented, faked or some such things.
I offer to you that is akin to dems saying BUSH LIED and MISLEAD us into war. It is the same tactic, opposition without alternative solution.
When seeking to debunk someones argument, the most effective way to do it is to provide alternative solution and show why it is better.
So what is your alternative to stop so many from being killed or hurt each year? How would you express the reality that so many die simply as a result of a poor choice to drink and drive?
I offer that A first time offender, with .08 being the BAC standard, should lose ability to drive AT ALL for five years. That means NO Work permits. If they kill a person the offender is to pay the amount of the persons salary to that persons remaining family and this could be handled much as child support is today. ( this would remove the claims about augmenting budgets for politicians and remove the civil court action).
A second time offender should spend time in jail. Supervision and probation is a farce.
In LA they have sent the message to criminals that if they run AND FAST, they will not be chased. Financial penalty as it is today for DUI is akin to the same thing, if people have the money it isn't painful or punishment at all. More just a pain in the rear.
Sorry for ranting a bit here, but this issue hits me close to home. I see people opposing drinking and driving laws in so many ways, while I see noone argue this from the merits of drinking and driving. That to me is just like the democrats politics of today of OPPOSE BUSH.
If there are merits to drinking and driving I sure would like to hear them.
examples please? I need not embelish, in fact I take your position of agreeing that the claims made with "alcohol related' could be alot better than they are.
Even when cut by 2/3 the numbers are STILL outrageous. Do you honestly disagree with that statement?
The ruling in law about abortions is privacy in Choice. I would not have an abortion,that is my choice. My choice is not yours. If I had an abortion it does not affect YOU in any way ( except offending your ideology)
Abortion to defend drinking and driving?
I guess I could turn it back on you now.
If you oppose killing an unborn why would you advocate killing someone as a result of drinking and driving?
These are two sperate subjects. Show me the merits of drunk driving csm.
"Would you support equal prosectuion of all drivers causing property/personal damage to others, regardless of being sober or drunk?"
Absolutely.
"Would these damages that you are suffering, be less significant if the offending driver were sober when he crashed into you?"
No.
"The "fun" of drinking alcohol is just nowhere near enough to pass the cost/benefit analysis."
That is exactly why we do not see anyone arguing the merits of drinking and driving.
Just like we do not see democrats arguing the merits of NOT FIGHTING terrorism. ;)
"Tell that to the person that blew .123 and hurt me,.."
You got really lucky. My friend was hit by a driver that blew 0.00. He is dead. You should count your blessings you weren't hit by a sober driver.
I lost a son to a drunk driver. I thus have no sympathy for drunk drivers. You want to drink, have a designated driver or stay at home to drink.
"How bombed was the fellow who smacked into you?"
He blew a .123 and that was almost three hours after the crash. He was caught with his beer and was two lanes away from his own. He admited to the cop on the scene that 'when he came to he turned the wheel left."
We were on a two lane highway at the edge of town and the turn lane he crossed was right in front of the air national guard. We were inches from a head on collision and I thank my buddy regularly for avoiding it as much as he could.
Now with that said, it took arguing insurance companies ( four of them) just shy of three years to 'decide' who was at fault and to pay up. In the mean time y wife sued, and granted a judgment against, for the medical bills that were over 60 thousand at that time. So much for my financial security eh?
prolly a whole lot more than you wanted to know, sorry, I just thought I would offer it.
This seems to be the story with most of these 'drinking' crashes. The BAC at time of accident (add at least .6 to what you saw here) is not marginal; they're bombed out of their gourds. MADD pushed for a value which they knew for most people was down in the noise.
you ask that I no longer use that point with you cuz you can offer nothing to show that what I said isn't true.
Cuz it is. I will cede the difference being one death is intentional and one is not. But see when information is put to you that people DIE as a result of drunk driving and you still chose to do it anyway, then indeed you make a choice to possibly kill someone that is totally innocent.
"How many car crashes result in fatalaties per year in this country? "
I offered to cut the number of alcohol related by 2/3. Do you honestly think it is less than that? Really?
"improper maintenence standards are a larger cause than alcohol."
That would be why some states have inspections. I suppose you oppose those to eh? They are nothing more than yearly forced safety checkpoints right? Forced upon innocent people right?
"Do you want to revoke driving privileges and imprison people that don't properly inflate their tires?"
OH MY, now improperly inflated tires equals drunk driving.
Big difference here, when a car is improperly maintained then the car can be tagged as undrivable. That is a car issue not a person issue. I am all for cars that aren't road worthy being kept off the road. Just like I am for drivers themselves. You mix two issues in order to cloud them and the fact you cannot argue the merits of drinking and driving.
When are you going to stop beating around the bush and argue the merits of drinking and driving? Sure seems like you are trying to talk about anything BUT drinking and driving. Gee I wonder why that is.
How did that crash happen? I am sorry about your friend. Vehicles can be deadly even without alcohol as your example shows. That adds to the reason drinking and driving don't mix.
I don't have to worry because I married my designated 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.