Drunk Driving at 16-Year Peak

[Pangloss]

Drunk driving deaths in the US are at a 16-year high. Almost 18,000 people died due in alcohol-related accidents. These are 2006 numbers which just became available from the DOT last week. 43,000 people were killed in accidents, so that's about 42% of all accidents. Yikes.

 

But perhaps the real story here is that the trend is pretty flat, or so it sounds to me. The actual number of highway deaths has been gradually descending for a long time, though surely not as fast as we all would like to see. One glaring number is that 55% of the deaths involve people not wearing their seatbelts (but surely most had airbags!). Perhaps a little more spending on seatbelt education is in order -- I don't know that it's ever been well-communicated that airbags are not a panacea. The recent case with New Jersey governor Jon Corzine comes to mind. Perhaps that opened a few eyes.

 

Another interesting point made in the report (although they don't state it this way) is that highway accidents cost the public more than the Iraq War (or at least somewhere in the neighborhood, depending on how you look at it). The total cost in 2006 was over $230 billion, which makes your personal cost $820. So even if you dismiss idiots who don't wear their seatbelts, you're still impacted in a pretty significant way (wouldn't $369 be better?).

 

 

Friday's DOT Press Release here:

http://www.dot.gov/affairs/dot5307.htm

[bascule]

Not to use this to try to make a cheap political point, but doesn't this say something about America's overdependence on cars?

 

I'd really like to see a push to get Americans, particularly drunk Americans, to go pedestrian (or failing that, bring a sober friend or call a freaking taxi)

[the tree]

Not to use this to try to make a cheap political point, but doesn't this say something about America's over-dependence on cars?

Or on alcohol, or both. Obviously it's not acceptable to have both in one night so people should have the option to choose, for that to happen it has to become culturally acceptable to go to a bar and have a soft drink and physically possible to get home without a car.

[foodchain]

I have actually thought about this and in short there is no real way to safeguard against such in less you want to make some serious changes really. You can station a police officer at a bar, that could curb some damages but it wont end the problem. Private residence drinking is altogether different issue really in regards to policing for drunks driving. You can try to use apparatus in a car to stop such, but really I don’t know of anything cost effective that cant be fooled or simply gone around if a person so desires with five minutes of thought and a few more minutes on actions. Serious penalty is already existing, it could be made worse, but I don’t see any real positive kickbacks from it overall as in most everything that is a crime currently such as selling drugs does not make the problem go away really.

[the tree]

There shouldn't be a need for safeguards, people shouldn't feel compelled to drink and drive in the first place.

[foodchain]

There shouldn't be a need for safeguards, people shouldn't feel compelled to drink and drive in the first place.

 

 

I agree fully, but where do you go with that? Police or enforce moral behavior? On what level or to what extreme would you accept, or in another light, how would you bring people to acting such a way?

[the tree]

People not feeling compelled to something in the first place means that there'd be no point policing it.

 

I'd have awareness campaigns, pedestrianise more town centres, improve public transport, make sure that bars have soft drinks on display and not priced beyond all proportion.

 

If, and only if, none of that worked then it would have to be a case of policing it, perhaps by giving bouncers the right to confiscate car keys.

[JohnB]

We have similar problems down here. I'll bet that a fair percentage of those accidents were caused by repeat offenders. In Queensland we have an automatic 24 hour licence suspension when caught "over the limit" (.05) In 2005, 321 drivers were caught (again) drink driving during that 24 hour period. We have drink driving offenders here who have been banned from driving for life 5 times. Say what??

 

Part of the problem is the "Do Gooders" who argue against the confiscation of the vehicle. "What about his poor wife? How will she do the shopping?"

 

I'm hard line on this and make no apology. On the random breath test figures drunks account for less than 1% of the drivers yet cause at least 40% of the accidents.

 

Here's my solution.

 

1st Offence: 10 lashes and 2 months suspension of licence + fine.

2nd Offence: 20 lashes and 6 months suspension + heavier fine.

3rd Offence: 30 lashes, banned for life and confiscation of vehicle.

 

Any further offences incur increased lashes and the confiscation of the vehicle unless it is reported stolen. That means that you won't lend your car to someone without seeing their licence first. (Either that or you'll have to have your mate charged with stealing your car. Not a pleasant prospect, so it's better not to give him the keys.)

 

Seatbelts make a tremendous difference to the Road Toll and are compulsory in all States in Australia. The fine in Queensland is $225 and 3 demerit points (increasing to 6 points for subsequent offences in a 12 month period.) You can't educate the stupid, make wearing seatbelts compulsory.

 

And just to show our Lawmakers are as dumb as everybody elses, the fine for "Driving while a passenger is Car Surfing" is only $140 and 3 points.

[the tree]

Lashes? I'm assuming that's a language barrier and your not suggesting corporal punishment?

[JohnB]

No mistake. That's exactly what I'm suggesting.

 

Make the message simple, like to a child. "Don't touch the stove, you will get hurt", "Don't drink and drive, you will get hurt."

 

I should add that we have two separate drink drive offences here. The "Legal Limit" is .05% Blood Alcohol Content. If caught above .05 but below .15 the charge is "Driving with a BAC above .05" if above .15 the charge is "Drunk Driving". The penalties I'm suggesting are for the latter charge, not the former.

 

A fine and short suspension is sufficient for the person who has 1/2 a drink too many and goes .051, so long as they don't do it often.

[Pangloss]

Not to use this to try to make a cheap political point, but doesn't this say something about America's overdependence on cars?

 

I think it does, especially when I look at further potential enforcement measures. MADD and Nader want to see mandatory breathalyzers on every car, but there are so many holes in that argument it's not even funny. And nobody wants to live in a police state, with more roadblocks and random checks.

 

You see a lot of people (including posts above) suggesting harsher punishments, but how's that worked out so far? The punishments have been getting harsher for 40 years and yet here we are. Do people think there's just some sort of magical punishment amount that will suddenly and drastically reduce the number of these deaths? Seems kinda unlikely to me. Though in fairness the number of deaths seems somewhat flat, and I suppose an argument could be made that harsher punishments has produced that curve.

[the tree]

People are already likely to get hurt as a result of drink-driving, there is already the biggest possible deterrent in the form of simple reality. We don't need harsher punishments, we need to stop drink-driving before anyone gets in the car.

[Glider]

I think there should be many, many more pubs and bars, at least one on every corner. That way, people wouldn't have to drive to get to them.

[Saryctos]

the only way to 'solve' this problem is with computerized compensation. they already have technology that puts the breaks on if a collision appears imminent, why not simply have steering wheels that detect when someone is swurving, then attempt to keep it a little straighter by putting some artificial play in the wheel.

 

Fixing the drunk driver problem won't likely happen with preventing the drunks from driving, one can only attempt to lessen the effects their stupidity has.

[ecoli]

what if it's a swervy road?

[Saryctos]

what if it's a swervy road?

Have faith in the design team, I'm sure there's ways to make it work.

[Pangloss]

Now there's a beta test I won't automatically sign up for....

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I think there should be many, many more pubs and bars, at least one on every corner. That way, people wouldn't have to drive to get to them.

 

Suddenly there will be a new campaign: Mothers Against Drunken Pedestrians Falling Off Bridges.

 

Next there'd be government regulations requiring lampposts to be padded.

[Glider]

Dammit!

 

I've been drunk many times, but never done harm nor foul. I don't think alcohol is the problem here. I think stupid is the problem. Why don't they ban stupid? Stupid is the cause of more crap than alcohol I think, but the combination is lethal.

[the tree]

Thinking about it, I'm starting to actually like my idea of giving bouncers the right to confiscate car keys if they believe someone is intending to drive.

 

I read in letters page of the-worst-newspaper-ever-published London Lite, that the alcohol limit should be zero, I laughed at this for a while, there is no way the alcohol in your blood will ever be zero even if you've never seen an alcoholic beverage in your life.

[Royston]

Thinking about it, I'm starting to actually like my idea of giving bouncers the right to confiscate car keys if they believe someone is intending to drive.

 

It would work if they could confiscate 'everybodies' car keys as they left, and whether you were going to drive or not, you'd have no choice but to pick them up in the morning. Or alternatively everyone could be breathalized as they leave, and if they don't pass, then they would have their car keys confiscated.

 

15 lashes if they refuse

[JohnB]

You see a lot of people (including posts above) suggesting harsher punishments, but how's that worked out so far? The punishments have been getting harsher for 40 years and yet here we are.

Are they actually getting harsher? The fines get a bit heavier, maybe the jail sentences get a bit longer.

 

Or do they? A TV head honcho got booked for Drink Driving, Avoiding Arrest and he tried to run over the two cops on the breathalizer. His sentence was 14 months weekend detention. As in he spends every weekend in jail for 14 months. I don't call that "harsh".

 

My point was that fines, jail and "giving them a stern talking to" haven't worked. Enforced rehab hasn't worked. Taking away their licence doesn't work, they drink and drive anyway. The current punishments aren't working, nor is there any reason to believe that increasing those punishments will work any better. I'm suggesting different punishments. At least take the damn car away.

And nobody wants to live in a police state, with more roadblocks and random checks.

We have random checks and we don't live in a police state. The slogan for the RBT (Random Breath Test) is "Anywhere, Anytime".

Thinking about it, I'm starting to actually like my idea of giving bouncers the right to confiscate car keys if they believe someone is intending to drive.

Or alternatively everyone could be breathalized as they leave, and if they don't pass, then they would have their car keys confiscated.

You want to give police powers to nightclub bouncers? That would have to be a recipe for disaster.

[the tree]

The current punishments aren't working, nor is there any reason to believe that increasing those punishments will work any better. I'm suggesting different punishments.

You're still suggesting a retroactive response, nothing you suggest could be done before a drunk person gets behind the wheel.

You want to give police powers to nightclub bouncers? That would have to be a recipe for disaster.

I don't see why. They are already trained to perform citizen's arrests, they know everything to know about what constitutes reasonable force, they're practically like a very specialised police force already.

[Royston]

You want to give police powers to nightclub bouncers? That would have to be a recipe for disaster.

 

All they're doing is confiscating car keys...if it results in a scuffle, then the police are called, which would happen anyway. If you're worried about bouncers abusing their new powers, don't many abuse the rights of being a bouncer anyway, so I'm not sure much would change. Unless you had something else in mind.

 

We have a community police project in the UK, where members of the public can volunteer to act as 'bobbies on the beat', they have no powers of arrest, but perhaps something like that for night clubs et.c would be more appropriate.

[Saryctos]

..., so I'm not sure much would change. Unless you had something else in mind.

 

your 60,000$ car ends up on the tracks as opposed to getting your ass beat.