Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
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 ...
Thank you.
Ah...friendship, friendship, such a perfect blendship...
...(snicker)...
Why don't you two trolls get a private room?
Thank you, MADD!!!
elkfersupper, you should start a ping list.
ping
Uh, about your nick... For some reason, I keep thinking that I've seen the phrase "a jovial cad" somewhere in relation to anagrams, but I can't remember what it was. I can't seem to come up with any single words that fit it. Care to hit me with a cluebat?
Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
"elkfersupper, you should start a ping list."
I'll second that.
"Drunk driving" isn't nearly the problem it is often made out to be, and the issue would nearly disappear if people were simply prosecuted for violating motor vehicle laws on a regular basis regardless of whether they were sober or drunk at the time.
Author: Randy S. Chapman
http://www.malawyersweekly.com/boe.htm
Chapman is the president and CEO of the law firm of Chapman & Chapman, which concentrates in criminal defense work. He is currently on the Board of Directors for the Massachusetts Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers as well as the Superior Court/Massachusetts Bar Association Bench/Bar Committee. Recently, the Supreme Judicial Court at the request of Bar Counsel appointed him a Commissioner. A former prosecutor in Essex County, he is currently legal analyst for New England Cable News. Chapman is a graduate of U. Mass Amherst and Suffolk University Law School.
"I understand why that is considered a crime, but in fact people do that legally all the time. They drive when they are exhausted, they talk on the phone, they don’t concentrate on the road. The presence of these drivers on the road increases everyone’s risk, yet our legal system rarely touches them."
In fact, the concentration on DUI has actually caused the roads to be more dangerous. People forget that driving is a serious activity and they now fail to take the proper care. Society seems to think that if you aren't drunk, then all driving is safe.
My solution, prosecute all drivers causing damage to property or other persons to the same standard. Then all driving would be treated with the appropriate care.
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).
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.
I think that any societal custom that is resulting in thousands of deaths of innocent people, is cause for great concern.
I'll third the proposal, but I want to be first on the list!
"A lot more Americans are killed by drunk drivers every year,...."
"17,448 people died in alcohol-related vehicle accidents,..."
Which is it? Drunken drivers or alcohol related? Why specifically change definitions in the middle of a claim?
Trouble is, drunkenness is on top of all those other factors, not an alternative. And drunkenness has an effect of causing people to unrealistically underestimate the risks associated with many of the other factors, an dthus be less cautious than they otherwise would be. IOW, yes a 75 year old driver is statistically equivalent to the mildly intoxicated middle aged driver. But the 75 year old whose had a drink or two, is not only more impaired than before, but also less able to perceive the degree of risk associated with either form of impairment. An unintoxicated 75 year old is usually well aware that his/reflexes aren't what they used to be, and that he/she needs to be extra careful while driving. A mildly intoxicated 75 year old will often be oblivious to those facts.
I just love this:
http://www.moderndrunkardmagazine.com/issues/07_02/madd_dog.htm
I didn't propose prohibition. However, I do think our legal system needs to be changed to hold intoxicated people (alcohol or any other drug) 100% responsible for their actions, just as if they had not been intoxicated. That is not currently the case. I also think that any private individual or company should be free to "discriminate" on the basis of alcohol/drug usage. For example, as far as I know, there isn't any place in this country where a landlord can legally prohibit any alcohol use on his/her rental property and promptly evict any tenant who violates the policy.
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.
Maybe. LOL.
I'd be willing to bet, however, that in your specific case you far exceeded a blood/alcohol level of 0.08%.
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.