How government encourages drunk driving.

[kcchiefs6465]

I miss the days where me and a few friends could fill my cooler with ice, buy a 12 pack, (or 30 pack ) and drive around country roads drinking a few beers, listening to some music. Best times of my life. No one dares think of doing that now. The risks are too great. (and I'm not talking about the risks of a fatal car crash)

 

[Antischism]

It would be nice to compare the millions of people that have a drink (or a few) and drive home without incident daily.

And the actual number of people that have accidents.. and their cause.
(But I wouldn't want anyone having that much information about anyone)

The widely skewed statistics have been pounded into people for so long they actually believe it is a problem.

Most accidents (by far) are caused by sober drivers.

Of course most accidents are caused by sober drivers, there are infinitely more sober drivers on the road at any given time than drunk. And even still, you get statistics like this:

In 2010, 10,228 people were killed in alcohol-impaired driving crashes, accounting for nearly one-third (31%) of all traffic-related deaths in the United States.

It's shameless to say drunk driving and driving while sober both result in a similar rate of incidence when the amount of people driving drunk or sober at any given time is nowhere near close.

 

[acptulsa]

APC (Actual Physical Control, or sitting drunk in a car with the keys accessible) is clearly a thoughtcrime. I'm at a loss to explain how this was never declared unconstitutional. And there can be no doubt whatsoever that it's a law specifically designed to persecute the poor more than the rich. And it most certainly does encourage people to drive while impaired. Damned if you do, damned if you don't--so why not?

As for drunk driving, this is something the federal government should never have touched at all. To say that driving drunk in the Bronx, where potential victims line the roadways and taxis are plentiful, is the same thing as driving drunk in Wewoka, Oklahoma is purely insane. The federal government needs to butt out. Their habit of refusing states highway funds (which were, lest we forget, collected from gas taxes levied on the citizens of their victim states) on the basis of a state not sticking enough people in jail for this completely ignores the reality that some jurisdictions may simply not have such a problem as others. The crooked sow in Utah comes to mind--if a large percentage of the population belongs to a religion that discourages the consumption of alchohol, how much of a denial of freedom of religion is it for the feds to come along and demand a set number of arrests for it?

Whether it should be done or shouldn't be done, there's one thing I would hope all here can agree on--it should never be done the way we're doing it.

 

[Anti Federalist]

I miss the days where me and a few friends could fill my cooler with ice, buy a 12 pack, (or 30 pack ) and drive around country roads drinking a few beers, listening to some music. Best times of my life. No one dares think of doing that now. The risks are too great. (and I'm not talking about the risks of a fatal car crash)

And that should really just sort of end the debate right there.

At some point while chasing Safety Über Alles you reach a point of diminishing return, and really negative consequences start to manifest themselves.

In business, you become so safety conscious that you are no longer profitable.

In law, you build a tyrannical nanny state.

And in life, you become so hung up on "Zero Tolerance" of anything that may shorten your life, that you lose sight of the fact that the purpose of life is to live.

 

[pcosmar]

You're taking the analogy far too literally,

I don't think so.
I have had two DUIs. The first one I was not driving at all..and the second I was no where near drunk.
I have never wrecked a car, (I repaired them for a living)

I also was arrested and convicted for a gun, that I did not own, because it was simply hanging on the wall in my home.

I am aware of the very literal realities.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Of course most accidents are caused by sober drivers, there are infinitely more sober drivers on the road at any given time than drunk. And even still, you get statistics like this:

In 2010, 10,228 people were killed in alcohol-impaired driving crashes, accounting for nearly one-third (31%) of all traffic-related deaths in the United States.

It's shameless to say drunk driving and driving while sober both result in a similar rate of incidence when the amount of people driving drunk or sober at any given time is nowhere near close.

It's also shameless to quote that government statistic.

All that number means is that somewhere in the "evidence trail" somebody introduced the "fact" that there was a presence of alcohol detected.

Not that it was directly responsible for impairment that caused an accident.

Correlation does not equal causation, amirite???

 

[TheGrinch]

I don't think so.
I have had two DUIs. The first one I was not driving at all..and the second I was no where near drunk.
I have never wrecked a car, (I repaired them for a living)

I also was arrested and convicted for a gun, that I did not own, because it was simply hanging on the wall in my home.

I am aware of the very literal realities.

How many times do I have to say that I'm not advocating for the current overreaches that actually inhibits my livelihood at risk of getting a DUI she. I'm fine to drive, but that's not what I'm arguing for, so its misrepresenting my view that truly drunk driving should not be tolerated as "no harm no foul" to morph that into some statist argument I'm not making.

 

[phill4paul]

Of course most accidents are caused by sober drivers, there are infinitely more sober drivers on the road at any given time than drunk. And even still, you get statistics like this:

In 2010, 10,228 people were killed in alcohol-impaired driving crashes, accounting for nearly one-third (31%) of all traffic-related deaths in the United States.

It's shameless to say drunk driving and driving while sober both result in a similar rate of incidence when the amount of people driving drunk or sober at any given time is nowhere near close.

It's shameless to quote statistics that are derived from NHTSA statistics.

If a person on a bicycle, over .08, rides into traffic and is struck by a SOBER driver then it is considered an alcohol related traffic death.

Jesus Christ, by order of Congress, police forces are supposed to report on the number of citizens killed and the reason.

Why is it I can find ALL kind of statistics regarding DUI and yet there is not ONE government source regarding citizen fatalities at the hands of police?

 

[Anti Federalist]

In 2010, 10,228 people were killed in alcohol-impaired driving crashes, accounting for nearly one-third (31%) of all traffic-related deaths in the United States.

Over twice that many people died in falls around the home.

http://www.nsc.org/safety_home/HomeandRecreationalSafety/Falls/Pages/Falls.aspx

I demand the instant passage of the following:

Mandatory helmet use while not sitting or in bed.

Anti Fall flooring in all new homes.

Safety harnesses and retention systems.

Foam backed flooring and partition covering in all rooms designated for occupancy by anyone over 65 or under 18.

Random law enforcement inspections, neighborhood sweeps and in home surveillance to monitor for compliance.

 

[Antischism]

It's also shameless to quote that government statistic.

All that number means is that somewhere in the "evidence trail" somebody introduced the "fact" that there was a presence of alcohol detected.

Not that it was directly responsible for impairment that caused an accident.

Correlation does not equal causation, amirite???

I'd take these statistics over anecdotal evidence any day. You can sit there and make excuses for those who cause accidents due to excessive drinking all you want, though. Do I think the penalties are too harsh currently? Yes. I also don't think people who are very intoxicated have any business operation a motor vehicle, unless it's a lawn mower.

Also remember that the amount of alcohol in a person's system and how it affects them will vary from person to person, which makes it difficult to set a "bar" at all. You may be able to drink a hell of a lot more alcohol than Johnny and feel fine/well enough to drive, but Johnny gets wasted after 2-3 rum and cokes.

 

[pcosmar]

Of course most accidents are caused by sober drivers, there are infinitely more sober drivers on the road at any given time than drunk. And even still, you get statistics like this:

In 2010, 10,228 people were killed in alcohol-impaired driving crashes, accounting for nearly one-third (31%) of all traffic-related deaths in the United States.

It's shameless to say drunk driving and driving while sober both result in a similar rate of incidence when the amount of people driving drunk or sober at any given time is nowhere near close.

I will have to disagree with your posted statistic, simply because it has been proven to be horribly skewed.

Alcohol related crashes statistics include any incident where alcohol was in any way related.
For example.
Sober driver hits drunk,, driver or pedestrian.
Sober driver has a drunk passenger.
And other variables

The actual cases where a drunk driver was actually at fault is considerably less than statistics show.

 

[Antischism]

It's shameless to quote statistics that are derived from NHTSA statistics.

If a person on a bicycle, over .08, rides into traffic and is struck by a SOBER driver then it is considered an alcohol related traffic death.

Jesus Christ, by order of Congress, police forces are supposed to report on the number of citizens killed and the reason.

Why is it I can find ALL kind of statistics regarding DUI and yet there is not ONE government source regarding citizen fatalities at the hands of police?

And how many people do you honestly think go around driving under the influence on bicycles? Of those people, how many do you believe are involved in accidents? Certainly not enough to make those statistics much different.

Do these people who go around "drunk biking" kill others? What's the risk factor?

 

[Anti Federalist]

How many times do I have to say that I'm not advocating for the current overreaches that actually inhibits my livelihood at risk of getting a DUI she. I'm fine to drive, but that's not what I'm arguing for, so its misrepresenting my view that truly drunk driving should not be tolerated as "no harm no foul" to morph that into some statist argument I'm not making.

As many times as you like, but I think we all understand that, at least I do.

What we are trying to point out is that, once having granted the premise "overreach" is guaranteed.

It. Will. Happen.

With all that follows, loss of liberty, roadside checkpoints and all the rest that is now being rolled out for other "prohibitions".

My point, and I won't speak for others, is simply this:

All things being equal, I prefer the risk of a drunk driver as opposed to the police/nanny state alternative.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Also remember that the amount of alcohol in a person's system and how it affects them will vary from person to person, which makes it difficult to set a "bar" at all. You may be able to drink a hell of a lot more alcohol than Johnny and feel fine/well enough to drive, but Johnny gets wasted after 2-3 rum and cokes.

You've just defeated your own argument, since any law that cannot be specifically quantified as to what, exactly and precisely a violation entails, is ripe for abuse and a hallmark of a tyrannical regime.

Define "supports terrorism".

 

[kcchiefs6465]

It's also shameless to quote that government statistic.

All that number means is that somewhere in the "evidence trail" somebody introduced the "fact" that there was a presence of alcohol detected.

Not that it was directly responsible for impairment that caused an accident.

Correlation does not equal causation, amirite???

If I recall correctly there are 'per se' DUI laws that state should you have any detectable level of drugs (I believe it is 35ng) you can and will be charged with a DUI even if and when you are not under the influence. (Michigan being extreme but Ohio does come to mind) There was a man who was charged with negligable homicide with marijuana amounts similar to those of someone who hadn't smoked in a week or two.

 

[phill4paul]

I also don't think people who are very intoxicated have any business operation a motor vehicle, unless it's a lawn mower.

THAT is incrementalism..........

230+ years worth. Happy Precedence Day.

 

[Antischism]

I will have to disagree with your posted statistic, simply because it has been proven to be horribly skewed.

Alcohol related crashes statistics include any incident where alcohol was in any way related.
For example.
Sober driver hits drunk,, driver or pedestrian.
Sober driver has a drunk passenger.
And other variables

The actual cases where a drunk driver was actually at fault is considerably less than statistics show.

Can you show me the break-down of the statistics? I'd like evidence, so it can clear that up for me.

 

[AGRP]

Or the man could just not drive. I don't feel comfortable driving when only having 2 beers, so I don't

What a sane and logical approach...

This:

City planners encourage drunk driving. If businesses were intermingled with housing then people wouldnt have to drive home from the bar, schools, shopping, etc.

There used to be things called communities where people worked, shopped, and drank together in the same neighborhood. Im willing to bet the rate of drunk driving is drastically less in an average european or nyc community compared to an average american city. It would be great if neighborhoods would get back to how they were were you could walk to the neighborhood market, but its against 99% of zoning laws.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

And how many people do you honestly think go around driving under the influence on bicycles? Of those people, how many do you believe are involved in accidents? Certainly not enough to make those statistics much different.

Do these people who go around "drunk biking" kill others? What's the risk factor?

Quite a lot acutally. Probably more than you'd imagine. Were you aware that they will arrest you for drinking and riding a bike? Or I believe someone mentioned a lawnmower, but that too.

ETA: I've always been somewhat curious, though I think I know the answer, but can't you be charged with a DUI for riding a horse drunk? Even though the horse has interest in it's own not to randomly stray into traffic.

 

[Anti Federalist]

This:



There used to be things called communities where people worked, shopped, and drank together in the same neighborhood. Im willing to bet the rate of drunk driving is drastically less in an average european or nyc community compared to an average american city. It would be great if neighborhoods would get back to how they were were you could walk to the neighborhood market, but its against 99% of zoning laws.

South Amboy NJ.

'Nuff said.