openeyes

I don't think the problem of drinking and driving is overdone.

One of the reasons is that in most states the legal limit of DUI is 0.1% or 0.08%.

In Minnesota, is 0.1% (I think still). Because of some sort of federal funding connection there is often talk about lowering it to 0.08%.

A local TV station decided to test how people reacted at the lower level. They took them out on a closed course and tested their driving without any alcohol and with varying concentrations until they reached 0.08%.

Nobody could drive well at the highest level. Many were impaired before they reached 0.08%. Everyone agreed they shouldn't be driving at 0.08.

Cars can do so much damage so quickly when not controlled. We need to emphasize that alcohol does impair your abilities to control your car and therefore you have a responsibilty to avoid being behind the wheel if you have imbibed recently. If you need to get someplace, skip the alcohol.

viscousmemories

This is really the point I’m making in my OP. There is a tremendous amount of government, media, and grass-roots organization attention given to drunk driving, and not a fraction of the amount given to discouraging other reckless behaviors.
If this is true, then it would seem that by the same reasoning the amount of attention given to drunk driving should be steadily decreasing, since drunk driving is now getting vastly increased attention. However, I see the opposite happening. Tougher penalties, more media exposure, more legislation. Meanwhile, there has been almost no effort (from what I’ve seen) to reduce the number of people who are otherwise careless and/or reckless.
Do you have sources for these statistics? I have found some data at various government sites but nothing that indicates what you have claimed. I’m not saying I don’t believe you, I’m just interested in seeing the numbers.

I suppose you may be able to reasonably assume that “in general” drunk driving is premeditated, but I’m not sure I’d go along with that. I know plenty of people who have gone out with no intention of drinking and driving, but have ended up doing it anyway. One downfall of excessive alcohol consumption is that it impairs your judgment, which sometimes results in you doing things you wouldn’t normally do.
It’s funny you should mention this, because if I had to choose a second place runner up for what issue related to driving accidents gets the most media, government, and social condemnation, I would pick cell phone users. I don’t understand this either. Cell phones haven’t even been around very long. How is it that cell phone users have garnered more negative attention than people who are otherwise careless and/or reckless?
Okay, unless the cell phone user is on the phone from the start to the finish of their trip, which I’ve seen many people do. Also, what about the other careless/reckless drivers? Some examples are people who are aggressive drivers at all times, and people who are sleepy from when they get behind the wheel until…
What argument is your visual evidence intended to prove? That some people are horribly disfigured in automobile accidents involving drunk drivers? I don’t think anyone here has disputed that. Many people know other people who have been maimed and/or killed by drunk drivers. What relevance does that have to the question stated in my OP?
I started this thread with the exact intention stated in the OP; to discuss some questions I had after reading a couple of interesting articles. If you want to have a reasonable discussion about an issue you should respond to what I say, not what you think I meant by it. I never said “drunk drivers aren’t that bad” and I never said “all reckless drivers are bastards”. Regardless of what I actually think, both of those statements are, to me, pointless generalizations.

The simple point of my OP is that there are many causes of car accidents, including (but not limited to) drunk driving, inattention, sleepiness, and aggressive driving. What I would like to know is why 98% of the attention given to automobile accidents focuses on drunk driving, when the available data suggests that a much smaller percentage of auto accidents can actually be blamed on drunk driving.
Again, people who are drunk have impaired judgment and may make choices that they would not make otherwise. Which, in a sense, really isn’t much different than a person who is sleepy thinking they’re not too sleepy, or someone having an argument thinking that they aren’t too distracted.
I don’t think “provability” should come into play when trying to determine whether or not something is immoral. Or illegal, for that matter. If driving drunk is illegal because drunkenness impairs your coordination, then why shouldn’t driving while sleepy be illegal? Sure, it may be hard to prove that someone was sleepy, but it’s hard to prove someone committed murder. Murder is still illegal, though.
I think this is a really interesting point. Just to keep it apples to apples, what about a drunk who gets pulled over a block away from his house and blows a .15, versus a drunk who crashes into another vehicle, killing two people, who blows a .15? Given the fact that the death of the two people was incidental, should the punishment be similar? I see the holes (some anyway) in this reasoning, but I’m really sleepy so I’ll let it stand as is.
I’m not really sure I understand your point with this statement. Are you saying that it’s your opinion that these limits are too low, too high or just right?

integral domain

wow... you people are hardcore.

openeyes

I'm meant to say that driving with alcohol "on board" does impair most at the current legal limits. It doesn't seem to me that we are placing too much emphasis on its danger.

That's not to say that other irresponsible driving behavior should be overlooked. If other problems such as cell phone use are found to be a factor in accidents, especially deadly ones, then we should perhaps penalize their use in vehicles also.

Loren Pechtel

And when the situation starts to go to shit the cell phone user can drop the phone and worry about the road. (Which is exactly what I did when the moron went straight from the left turn lane.) The drunk can't drop his alcohol.

Loren Pechtel

Originally posted by viscousmemories
Do you have sources for these statistics? I have found some data at various government sites but nothing that indicates what you have claimed. I’m not saying I don’t believe you, I’m just interested in seeing the numbers.[/QUOTE]

Well, since I didn't have info on distractions I was curious myself. Unfortunately, the only link that I found that looked any good 404'ed on a government website. Looks like Bush doesn't want that data known.

Walross

integral domain wrote:

Thanks, I guess... *Walross scratches head*

abe smith

If my recollection is correct, my old Danish friend, Grandpop, told me a couple of decades ago that any driver in Denmark who is taken while drunk-driving loses their license FOREVER. I think that solution (similar to the death-penalty) wd get the perp off the road >>> prevent recurrence.
*BUT* of course it does NOT inhibit drunks- drivers one iota; there are numberless (potential) murderers out there who have lost their licenses, and they are still DRIVING DRUNK.
My suggested solution is that anyone convicted of drunk-driving shd be shot dead. That, at least , wd get rid of ONE killer.

In the meantime, I have a proposal: that persons who have been diagnosed as terminally-ill and w/o hope of survival could do their fellow-persons a real favor = a parting gift, by removing certain other members of the human community whose behaviours have established their total uncaring for others's lives & happiness == as, by driving drunk repeatedly and continuing to do it. Some law enforcers DO NOT do their jobs; and their omissions need thinging.

Loren Pechtel

One thing I would like to see: If you are caught driving on a suspended/revoked license the punishment is at least as great as if you were guilty of whatever caused them to take the license, including any repeat offense peanlties.
Get your license suspenended for DUI and get caught driving and you get the punishment of a second DUI--and in the places strict about DUI that can be substantial time in the greybar hotel.

Vandrare

a few interesting points here about the driving laws in australia:

1) the legal Blood Alcohol limit here is 0.05%, and we often have RBT's (random breath tests) all over the roads so the law is strongly enforced

2) driving while on the mobile phone is illegal unless you have a hands free kit installed in the car

3) driving, or having any passengers without their seatbelts on in the car is illegal

4) over here we have very strong advertising campaigns often with pretty gruesome visuals about drink driving, not wearing a seatbelt, driving tired (we also have stop, revive, survive driver stops around the state), and talking on the phone

5) speeding is also treated in the same way as drink driving with graphicly disturbing adds about every K (km) over is a killer, and there are radar traps all over the place to enforce this

in general all these things are shown to us in the add campaigns in a way as to make us feel totally responsible for putting everyone's lives at risk on the roads if we break the laws.
*just thought this might interest you*