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 do Victim impact panels for MADD. I always make a point of saying that I would have a drink with any one of the folks I am speaking to. Noone involved has ever said that is out of line with what MADD seeks to do. One fella I speak with on occasion is a victim of his own drinking and driving. He sits in a wheel chair today. His story is powerful but he never asks people not to drink.
Some people involved with MADD do oppose any drinking, I am not one of them and to be truthful most I have met are not.
What all people involved with MADD have in common is a loss due to a person that mixes drinking and driving. The common goal is to see that curbed to as a low a level as it can be.
"I don't have to worry because I married my designated driver."
Awesome.
Isn't it nice to be able to party and not worry about a DUI, the fines, or worse....hurting/killing someone?
Thanks for taking personal responsibility. It is quite honorable.
Check points make me wish I owned a belt fed. Got caught in one once, perfectly innocent, totally sober, belted in, taking my kids home by a "short cut" on a Saturday night, and got stuck for an HOUR. GRRR!!!!
"I lost a son to a drunk driver."
For that, I am truly sorry.
"I thus have no sympathy for drunk drivers."
Nor should you.
"You want to drink, have a designated driver or stay at home to drink."
It really is that simple.
"got stuck for an HOUR. GRRR!!!!"
Being that roadside safety checks are announced prior to happening, I would offer that you had warning to avoid it if you wanted to.
Where was this by the way?
Those that took part in that safety check value the information of waiting times.
When they are done here your stop lasts about thirty seconds unless they seek to question you further. In that event, you are directed to pull over and the other traffic goes on. Did your wait consist of additional questioning? Was that time just in line waiting?
"Absolutely."
That is my proposed solution to these issues. Aggressively prosecute ALL drivers that cause crashes resulting in damage to persons or property. Stop aggressively prosecuting one specific type of potentially dangerous driving. Let's quit this punishment for potential and enhance the punishment for actual.
"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."
No. I asked you to no longer use it because it offends me.
"I offered to cut the number of alcohol related by 2/3. Do you honestly think it is less than that? Really?"
I'll ask the question again, just so you might want to actually read it and try to answer it. What is the total number of car crashes that result in fatalaties or injuries? All crashes, not just "alcohol related" crashes.
"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."
Car issue? Isn't the driver responsible for the condition of the car? Isn't the choice to drive a car an irresponsible choice that has the potential to cause a fatality of an innocent party?
"When are you going to stop beating around the bush and argue the merits of drinking and driving?"
No one has advocated an advancement of drinking and driving.
"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?"
Yes you are wrong there.
Now I understand your vested interest in stricter DWI laws.
How much do you get paid by these church ladies??
You sir offer a red herring here, if you had a glass of whine with supper you are abiding by the law and have ZERO to worry about.
Single Glass of Wine Immerses D.C. Driver in Legal Battle
Debra Bolton had a glass of red wine with dinner. That's what she told the police officer who pulled her over. That's what the Intoxilyzer 5000 breath test indicated -- .03, comfortably below the legal limit.
She had been pulled over in Georgetown about 12:30 a.m. for driving without headlights. She apologized and explained that the parking attendant must have turned off her vehicle's automatic-light feature.
Bolton thought she might get a ticket. Instead, she was handcuffed, searched, arrested, put in a jail cell until 4:30 a.m. and charged with driving under the influence of alcohol.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1501336/posts
I'd also like to know how a person who just has to yak on their cellphone (or apply makeup, or any of the other stupid things that people do while driving) and veers across the yellow line while not paying attention, causing a head-on collision, is any better than the drunk driver who causes one (never mind the "drunk" driver stopped at a checkpoint who blows a BAC of .10 but hasn't hurt anyone). But one is a criminal offense, while most people would chalk up the second as "just an accident", when in fact it is an example of negligence.
So, would it make you feel a lot better if you'd been injured in an accident caused by just run of the mill carelessness? Some moron with a cell-phone glued to their ear. Some twit that should never have been licensed in the first place? Some unlicensed illegal? You sound angry and bitter - excessively so.
"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."
What would be interesting to know is what percentage of accidents and fatalaties are CAUSED by a driver with a BAC of less than .10%. I suspect it is actually quite low. I don't think anyone here supports having drunken idiots behind the wheel, but to extrapolate from that, from a public safety point of view, that any alcohol before getting behind the wheel is too much, is going too far. Make the limit too low and people will ignore it. I actually think .08 is pretty reasonable. I've run the numbers and for me (190 lbs male) to get to that point I'd have to drink enough (4 or 5 regular 5% v/v beers in an hour) that I'd be feeling pretty good.
"What all people involved with MADD have in common is a loss due to a person that mixes drinking and driving. The common goal is to see that curbed to as a low a level as it can be."
But, as has been noted, the great majority of the collisions caused by alcohol involve drivers well in excess of the legal limit, which is already fairly generous at .08, IMO. How does harshly punishing those just barely over the limit, or as can happen, below it, stop these hard core drunk drivers?
I'm sure the nanny staters are just cackling with glee at the prospect.
For once, you and I agree. He must love to see us cowering in fear.
Anyone who drinks away from walking distance of their home is "sorry"? Anyone who does so isn't sober?
It reads that way even if you didn't intend to say that.
While I agree with your point to punish actual, I offer to you that you ignore the proven potential and this is the very mindset that brought us 9 11.
When you refuse to take any action prior to the 'actual' then you have no choice but to accept it when it happens.
I do not advocate waiting to respond to a problem that is known to exist.
Shall we wait till al qaeda attacks us here at home again? Shall we wait for that eventual 'actual' or should we take notice of the fact they ARE coming and do something about it BEFORE it happens?
I would offer to you that the ractionary method failed us on many occasions and to continue that is asking for more of the same. With drinking and driving it is no different. We all KNOW that people will die and people will be hurt when drinking and driving is mixed. Just as we know that terrorists will attack us. Do you sir, offer that we should not fight this war on terrorism? Do you offer that we should stand idle and do nothing until after they attack?
That is the same logic you use to the known effects of mixing drinking and driving. I offer you need to rethink your positions as you take a different one for one than from the other.
But hey, that is just my suggestion, your position is for you to chose, I just hope you have thought it thru to see how it applies across the board of contexts.
It was meant as the sorry state of affairs where a person can't have a beer without being a target of the confiscatin-incarceration state.
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.