viscousmemories

Several years ago, I came across a couple of articles in Car and Driver magazine that got me thinking about the relatively recent trend in society to demonize people who drink and drive. One of the articles, for example, suggested that reports of "alcohol-related" accidents are grossly exagerrated. Specifically, the article said that in a typical police accident report, an accident is labeled "alcohol-related" if any of the involved drivers has been drinking, regardless of whether or not the intoxicated person was the one at fault.

Another article suggested that sleepy drivers are as dangerous as drunk drivers. Yet another pointed the finger at "distracted" drivers (i.e. applying makeup, bending over to pick up something dropped, talking on a cell phone, etc.)

So, I started wondering this:

Is drunk-driving inherently more or less wrong, dangerous, or morally repugnant than any other form of careless or reckless driving? If not, why are drunk drivers isolated, ostracized and often times punished to the full extent of the law, when other careless and reckless drivers are not?

Walross

Well, I for one find dangerous driving to be morally repugnant. I really don't care what the mechanism is that causes you to drive badly - if you are doing so, you shouldn't be on the road. People should know better than to drive drunk, stoned, while talking on a cell, while putting makeup on, etc. If they don't know better, then they are an idiot. I am often frustrated by society's demonization of drinking and driving not because I don't think it should be discouraged (it should), but because it seems to be the only thing anyone ever focusses on. Anything that increases your chances of killing someone else on the road should be discouraged in the strongest possible terms, not just drinking.

I have had far more close calls with people talking on cell phones than any other situation. Then again maybe they were both drunk and talking on the phone . Regards,

Walross

Toto

Drinking and driving has been demonized because for too long it was treated as a trivial offense. It has taken a bit of overkill to get society to give it the serious attention that it deserves. Unfortunately that's how things work. To get any social action you sometimes need to dramatize, demonize, overreact. But think of the lives that have been saved.

I was a juror on a drunk driving case a few years ago. It was very educational. A forensic scientist described the exact physiological mechanisms which make alcohol so dangerous. It not only impairs reaction time, but it impairs the drivers' fine motor coordination. Several men on the jury decided that they would no longer drive after "two beers."

Loren Pechtel

Drunk drivers are a bigger problem than the other things you list. Also, drunk driving is easy to prove, the others are not. Sleepy drivers are #2 on the death rate but much of that is due to the high lethality of sleeping accidents--in most accidents you are able to shed some energy before impact. Asleep you probably shed none. IIRC #3 is aggressive driving, although this is often mislabelled as speeding.

I do agree that the other actions are just as serious although in general drunk driving is premeditated, the others are not.

Loren Pechtel

I don't think cell phones are an inherent danger like alcohol is. I've seen plenty of people who get too involved in a cell call but I've also seen people get too involved in an argument with a passenger. However, I don't see the phone as an inherent risk, I see it as a source of possible risk. A responsible driver does not get too involved in a conversation whether it's with a fellow passenger or someone on the phone. Drivers should be willing to either pull over or tell the person that they will discuss it later when they aren't on the road. That doesn't mean the 95% of calls that aren't involved are any more risk than talking to a passenger would be.
I've had to pull over a few times, several times I've told them we would talk about it later. When the moron suddenly moved into my lane (he drove straight from the left turn lane!) I reacted properly.

I do think long-range scanning suffers somewhat from cell phone use but that only keeps you out of messes, it's not neccessary to avoid accidents. (At least since we don't have fog here. If avoiding fog pileups were an issue I wouldn't dismiss this.)

Mageth

Don't drink and drive - you might spill your drink!

Seriously, a significant difference between cell phones and drunk driving is that, before and after a cell phone call, the driver is probably a normal, competent, relatively safe driver. A drunk driver, however, is a risk from the time he or she gets behind the wheel until they reach their final destination - whether that is their driveway or the emergency room.

integral domain

People who drink and drive are the scum of the earth. You may all take it lightly... but I know someone who was killed by a drunk driver. And, if killing people isn't bad enough for you... look at this...

"Not everyone hit by a drunk driver dies"
http://www.radioenergie.com/Multimed...l_conduite.pps

(the first page is text in French (I think)... but click on it and it's a photo journel type thing)

Mageth

People who drink and drive are the scum of the earth. You may all take it lightly... but I know someone who was killed by a drunk driver.

Umm, hold on. Who's taking drunk driving lightly? I've known more than one person killed by a drunk driver. Drunk driving should never be tolerated.

And, if killing people isn't bad enough for you... look at this...

Yes, that's horrible, and happened a few miles from my house, on a road I sometimes drive. Texas even had an anti-drunk-driving advertisement campaign featuring Jacqueline.

Here's Jacqui's story, in length, and in English, if you're interested.

integral domain

The original post seemed to be in the spirit of "oh... drunk drivers aren't that bad." But maybe it's more "all reckless drivers are bastards."

Thanks for the website

christ-on-a-stick

Actually I saw the spirit of the OP as being what is explicitly *asked*: Nothing about drunk driving not being "that bad" and I don't think anyone has said anything here to imply that drunk driving is to be "taken lightly".

I think it's a thought-provoking question.

In many cases I think there is an issue of premeditation. I.E., someone who has had too much to drink (should) know that they are a) breaking the law and b) potentially endangering others, while someone may not realize they are too sleepy to drive or not expect to be distracted by a heated discussion initiated by a passenger, etc.

HOWEVER, an more comparable scenario would be someone who's, say, driving cross-country and wants to get to their destination as quickly as possibly. After driving for fifteen hours, they stop for gas and debate continuing to drive... only a few hours to go... or getting a room at the Motel 6 and grabbing a short night's sleep before getting back on the road. Despite the fact that their eyes are heavy and reaction time is already slowing, they decide to get back on the road. An hour later, their eyes close "just for a second" and they cross lanes, jump the median and kill a family of four on their way home from vacation.

Is this kind of clearly premeditated carelessness more or less immoral or unethical than drunk driving? It seems that the "provability" could be problematic as far as a court-of-law goes.

One thing that springs to mind as being somewhat inequitable is the likely punishment for the above sleepy-driver scenario who accidentally kills someone(s) - quite likely nothing, possibly a citation/fine - versus the punishment for a driver over the legal limit who DOESN'T have an accident/kill anyone/etc. (pulled over randomly or for breaking a traffic law etc.) Again I suppose provability would be the biggest issue... I am interested in others' thoughts on this.