The MADD site is worthless - no definition of ‘safe’, no research to show how they determined ranking. I can pull numbers out of MY butt, too.
I NEVER drink and drive. My father never had a DUI arrest. Nor have I.
When you drive a car, you’re responsible for the lives of others. A drunk driver is like a guy with a loaded gun. Only the lack of sobriety can get someone else killed.
And one has to live with that for the rest of one’s life. DON’T DO IT - DRIVING IS A PRIVILEGE, NOT A RIGHT AND EXERCISE IT RESPONSIBLY ALWAYS!
It’s sad when anyone dies in an accident but there’s a lot more to it then the statistics thrown out in this article.
Here’s a few more:
# Talking on a cell phone causes nearly 25% of car accidents.
# One-fifth of experienced adult drivers in the United States send text messages while driving.
# In 2008 almost 6,000 people were killed and a half-million were injured in crashes related to driver distraction.
# At any given time during daylight hours in 2008, more than 800,000 vehicles were driven by someone using a hand-held cell phone.
# 4 out of every 5 accidents (80%) are attributed to distracted drivers. In contrast, drunk drivers account for roughly 1 out of 3 (33%) of all accidents nationally.
Not every alcohol related accident means the person is over the limit. What does alcohol related mean? It means someone involved in the accident had a measurable (not necessarily illegal) amount of alcohol in their system.
Point being is we’ve got laws on the books and you either follow them or you don’t. You shouldn’t be drinking and driving and you shouldn’t be on a cell phone texting or talking when driving. We don’t need more laws...
“David’s killer had not one but two prior driving-while-intoxicated violations.”
After going to court for many years as an expert I have come to the conclusion that to eliminate these fiasco’s we need to drug test all Judges. If your not clean you can’t sit on the bench...no reformed druggies allowed. They follow the “there but for the grace of God go I” rule too often. That’s not excluding the favor for their old law buddies.
“...An average drunken driver has driven while drunk 87 times before his first arrest...”
-
I wonder what the math is to come up with that.
An interesting way to stop a LOT of DUI, which would also help budget stretched States at the same time, is an odd, non-punitive punishment.
Importantly, it is available *only* to first time DUI offenders, and then *only* if there was no harm involved in their offense.
The idea is that today, the punishment for DUI can be terribly destructive, lasting for years, even ruining a person’s life, far beyond the legal penalties. If no one else is hurt in a first time DUI, this is intolerably severe.
So why not give these first time DUI offenders a choice? If they have the money, instead of the typical punishments, let them pay a non-appealable *fine* instead. A WHOPPER of a fine, say $30,000.
For that price, they will not have a DUI on their record, they will not lose their driver’s license, or have their insurance company notified to jack up their rates. They will not lose their job, and maybe their home, spouse and family.
If they don’t have the money, nor can they raise it, no problem, they just go through the ordinary DUI process.
Sounds unfair? Actually, what it does is give the *public* something back. When a DUI is arrested and jailed, along with all the other penalties, it costs the taxpayer a lot of money.
Wouldn’t it be better if instead of costing us money, catching this type of DUI *made* the public money?
Each year California has some 100,000 first time DUI offenses, with no other harm involved. If just one quarter of these people kicked down $30k for their DUI, it would be worth $750,000,000 to the State.