Alcoholism is definitely a disease and should be treated as such. However, a drunk behind the wheel is a threat to public safety and neutralizing the threat comes before treating the disease.
The current threshold for drunk driving is a BAC of 0.08. For someone of my size and weight, this requires three drinks in one hour. Frankly, I can’t imagine trying to drive in that condition. Usually, I have one glass of wine or one beer during a dinner that lasts an hour. There is one annual function where I have two, but it lasts three hours and I don’t drink during the last hour. This means that, by the time I head for home, my BAC is 0.02 or less.
Many years ago, Road and Track magazine performed their own experiment with increasing levels of intoxication. They concluded that there was significant loss of skill at 0.05 BAC.
If a driver who has been drinking is rear ended at a red light by a sober jackass yapping on his cell phone, should it be called an “alcohol related” accident?
Much was made of reducing the limit from 0.10 to 0.08 BAC. Whenever the BAC of a drunk in an accident is published, it seems to be at least 0.15. This makes me wonder if people at 0.10 can still function well enough to make it home safely even though their skills are degraded. In Scandinavia, the limits are so low that even one drink is too much. Nevertheless, they still have a substantial problem with drunk drivers. Maybe the real problem is with hard core drunks who can only be stopped by putting them in prison for an extended period of time.
I used to respect MADD because it was their mission to pressure the judicial system into prosecuting drunk drivers and punishing them severely. However, MADD seems to have been taken over by fanatical teetotalers who wish prohibition had never been repealed. Even their founder, Candy Lightner, has turned against them.
There are people who can be trusted with guns and people who can’t. We already know how to distinguish between them. Start with people who have clean criminal records and run them through a class that teaches them the the law on carrying and using a gun. This is the procedure used by forty six states to issue concealed carry permits to civilians. Experience has shown that it works very well. The people who earn their permits don’t get into trouble. For one thing, they have worthwhile lives which they know will be ruined by conviction of a violent crime. The trouble causers are the criminals who have nothing to lose because they have already ruined their lives. It appears that the only way to stop them is by force during the commission of a crime or by imprisonment afterward and the latter only lasts until they are released.
You bet they vote. With their dollars. Lobbists. And now the Supreme Court has ruled that companies are citizen and can donate dollars to whomever they choose. So while this current state of affairs with Toyota is special in its rarity, it is not unheard of with cars in general.
I also agree that in this case and with posts on this forum on this subject it is sad that people do not know how to stop their car in this situation. I can understand if they panic, but the knowledge should still be in there.
Drunk driving can be clinicalized all it wants with genes relating to alcoholism, upbringing, psychology and what have you. In the end it is still a choice on whether you start that car or not. You are sober before you start drinking and that is when your personal responsibility starts. I would say that rather than imprison drunk drivers that they be identified with “whiskey plates”, have breathalizers installed in their cars so that they do not start if alchol is detected, and there are severe penalties for those who help drivers in this position circumvent the laws.
First, I accidentally flagged your post. I will flag this one so the mods know the story. Sorry about that, meant to hit the reply button.
Those breathalyzers are a good idea, but they can easily be defeated with a ballon and a bicycle pump, or failing that, a balloon and one of the tires on the automobile.
No perfect answers in this world of course. Any system could be defeated since some people have nothing but time to try and figure these things out.
Perhaps a social approach should be taken where if people see this kind fo tampering they report it. I doubt few people on this site would agree with this, but perhaps everyone watching those around them to see could help. I would rationalize this by comparison. I think it is safe to say we would watch for someone kidnapping children. Signs like screaming and kicking and such from a child trying to be abducted. We would take action because this is wrong and it is the right thing to stop or at least report. We are afraid for this child’s safety. I would draw that we should also watch for drunk drivers because someone will get hurt and it is a big safety issue. So by that rational we should all be aware of people drinking and driving because it is negligent of us to not do so.
The agrument stings you along, so feel free to disagree.
Actually, most people won’t intervene in a child abduction. A television station staged a fake abduction with the cooperation of a parent and child and the local police. A big guy grabbed a little girl by the arm and dragged her down a busy street. The girl was screaming, “Let me go! You’re not my daddy! Help!” Most people ignored them. Finally, a couple of young black guys moved in on the “abductor” who immediately dropped his act and pointed out the girl’s mother and the police officer who were supervising the stunt.
? The top five manufacturers of cars driven in the United States are General Motors, Toyota, Ford, Honda and Chrysler.
? The NHTSA’s online database indicates that every one of these five has received numerous consumer complaints of sudden unintended acceleration in more than one of its models. Each manufacturer has faced a formal investigation into these complaints by the NHTSA and as a result has had to recall vehicles to fix various conditions that led to the problem.
? Recalls due to incidents of sudden unintended acceleration are not limited to the big five manufacturers. According to the NHTSA database, recalls have also been issued for vehicles made by Nissan, BMW, Volkswagen, Mitsubishi, Subaru, Mercedes-Benz, Kia, Mazda, Land Rover, Suzuki and Volvo.
The difference is you don’t have to be an alcoholic to drive drunk. Not every drunk driver is an alcoholic, so you can’t assume they are all afflicted with the disease. You also don’t have to cure the disease to change the behavior. Alcoholics can stay alcoholics and not drive after they drink. That’s the difference.
Yet alcoholics have drivers licenses and drive drink. What is the difference?
And Mike, alcoholism is considered a disease by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.
You’re making some wild conclusions.
First off you can be an Alcoholic and NOT drive. Personally I don’t car if a person is a Alcoholic or not…What bothers me is when they get behind the wheel of a 3500 lb weapon when they’re drunk
Maybe Alcoholism IS disease…But as I said it’s self inflicted. You can’t catch it from someone…you’re not born with it…you become an Alcoholic by BAD choices you made.
I have a father-in-law that’s an Alcoholic…Doesn’t bother me…He doesn’t drive.
I also lost a Niece to a DRUNK 20 years ago. Don’t know if he was a Alcoholic or not…don’t care…just that he was drunk…and drove up on a sidewalk…killing my niece and injuring two other children as they walked home from school.
Drink all you want…just don’t get behind the wheel. If you do…I have no problem with sending you to prison…If you’re a repeat offender…I have no problem sending you to prison for life.
its like gun control, your more likely to die in a swimming pool, then in the presence of a gun
First off I’m NOT defending either position on Gun Control…However this comparison of someone being killed by a gun and someone dieing in a swimming pool is by far the DUMBEST comparison I’ve EVER heard. And I’ve heard it so many times before.
It’s comparing Accidental HOMICIDE to accidental SUICIDE. It’s NOT that the guy with the gun accidentally shoots him/her self…it’s that he/she accidentally shoots someone else. I don’t know of anyone ACCIDENTALLY killing someone else in a swimming pool.
Actually, most people won’t intervene in a child abduction. A television station staged a fake abduction with the cooperation of a parent and child and the local police. A big guy grabbed a little girl by the arm and dragged her down a busy street. The girl was screaming, “Let me go! You’re not my daddy! Help!” Most people ignored them. Finally, a couple of young black guys moved in on the “abductor” who immediately dropped his act and pointed out the girl’s mother and the police officer who were supervising the stunt.
I saw that video several years ago at my sons dojo. DOZENS of people looked on and did NOTHING. No one even called the police. Only these two young black men intervened. I hope that if I was in the same situation I’d be as brave as those young men. And the guy had to do some fast talking and show the guys the camera…cause it looked like he was about to take a good beating…and if it real…he should have.
If a driver who has been drinking is rear ended at a red light by a sober jackass yapping on his cell phone, should it be called an “alcohol related” accident?
In some places, part of the investigation would be to determine whether or not alcohol was a factor in the collision. For example, a young unlicensed driver in the Gainesville, FL area was driving her (or where they his?) siblings to school one morning. They were rear-ended by a semi driven by a driver who was tired because he had violated the hours of service rules for commercial drivers. If memory serves, all of the people in the car were killed. Police investigated, and found out the teenage driver was too young to have a license, but they also determined it wasn’t a factor in the collision.
You are going to have a hard time finding sympathy for the rear-ended drunk driver, but in some states, whether or not his intoxication was a factor will make a difference.