Drunk drivers kill nearly 50 people per day in the usa

Holy crap! I never knew what the actual statistics were until I looked them up today. For the year 2005, 16,885 people were killed in drunk driving accidents. I'm sure that the number of people severely injured or diabled by drunk drivers each year is huge!

For gosh sakes, if you are going to drink at all make sure you do not get behind the wheel of any vehicle!!!!!!

booze and wheels don't mix. Responsible drivers however compose the vast majority of car owners, and they are responsible in the handling of motor vehicles

A few weeks ago an Illegal Alien driving a 2007 Yukon while drunk killed Bob Clark and his son, my Christmases will never be the same again.

That truly is a tragedy. I've seen quite a few death wrecks myself during daylight hours while on my way to school in Monterey. The news reports on it later on during the evening and states that said accident was alcohol related. How sad. . .

CHC said:

That truly is a tragedy. I've seen quite a few death wrecks myself during daylight hours while on my way to school in Montery. The news reports on it later on during the evening and states that said accident was alcohol related. How sad. . .

Click to expand...

were you driving on HWY 1 where it is 2-lane around Watsonville?

I witnessed three seperate cases there of swerving-then-flip rollovers there, one nearly missing my car by about 4-5 feet.

About a week ago there was a three vehicle accident that occurred in Vancouver, Washington, which is on the southern border of Washington.

The driver of each vehicle was cited for DUI.

Frankly, I don't think the drunk driving laws are anywhere near strict enough. We're STILL hearing about people with 7, 8, 9 DUI convictions - WHY?! After the 3rd time, that person should never be allowed to drive again, period. And if someone is found driving without a license, jail the jerk for a good long time.

There's simply no excuse - none, ever - for ever driving drunk.

Agreed Biker Bear, except I think you're still being too soft. This is too obviously stupid for any first-offense leniency. First offense remove their license and ability to own a vehicle, period. Second offense, shoot them.

:buddies:

here in england, first time offenders get a 1 year ban+ fine, second time 3 year ban+fine, 3rd offence gets you a jail term and a 10 year ban

270winchesterr said:

were you driving on HWY 1 where it is 2-lane around Watsonville?

Click to expand...

South bound 101 to Salinas and that "deadly" turn after Crazy Horse and right before 156 to 1 towards Monterey (Aromas/Prunedale?). There's an overpass there now.

That's a close call there Nick!

If 50 are killed each day by drunk drivers I wonder how many are killed each day by drivers talking on cell phones. Some studies have shown that talking on a cell phone can impair one's driving ability as much as being drunk. Talking on cell phones lacks the social stigma of drunk driving and is extremely wide spread.

We could greatly reduce the number of drunk driving deaths by increasing the the penalty for the offense to a level sufficient to dissuade the conduct. Eight years (or whatever is required to do the job) in a prison camp (very cost efficient) - without the possibility for parole - for the first offense for example. Not only would it lower recitivism, it would dissuade most first time offenders too. Its a tragedy that we do not. When I rule the world, we will.

cheers

Diesel_Bomber said:

Agreed Biker Bear, except I think you're still being too soft. This is too obviously stupid for any first-offense leniency. First offense remove their license and ability to own a vehicle, period. Second offense, shoot them.

Click to expand...

I guess I am a bit soft, because that does seem like going a bit too far. Mind you, I was talking about DUIs where no one was injured or the like; I think if a drunk driver kills someone, it should be prosecuted as 2nd degree murder.

For "uncomplicated" DUIs, something like what Hendo describes would suit me; except I'd make the driving bans 1 year, 5 years and lifetime. (I'll freely admit I'm working from the "three strikes" sort of perspective.) And I'd scale the fines according to the convicted person's income, so they "hurt" a rich celeb as much as they do a blue-collar schlub.

Also - MANDATORY alcohol counseling, possibly including the most gruesome splatter film they can find showing what drunk drivers do to other people. (I don't know if that sort of thing would be useful in turning people away from driving drunk, or if it's just a revenge fantasy. I'm very much a "whatever works" kind of person, and so I'd be behind whatever approach worked best in the real world to prevent people from driving drunk again.)

I'm also fully behind VERY stiff sentences if someone who's had their right to drive lifted because of DUI is found driving anyway. (Though here I might allow a small window for leniency if there's a provable life-and-death emergency that there was no other way to handle.)

Oh, and no exceptions allowing driving to work, etc.; the whole point of the sentence is to make it absolutely crystal clear how rotten it is to not be able to drive in most of the USA. There are a handful of cities where it wouldn't be [San Francisco, Manhattan, etc.] but they're the exceptions.

Cars are tools, but in the hands of a drunk driver they're a deadly weapon. The punishment should be proportionate to that.

I would agree B-B, I think you're being too soft. I really can't fathom how anyone could consider driving drunk acceptable; doing so is positive proof that they're too stupid to be trusted with operating a motor vehicle. Doing so twice tells me that Darwin needs some help.

I'll step off my soapbox now. I have extremely strong opinions on this matter, and on getting intoxicated in general. I will not contribute to this thread again.

Biker Bear said:

And I'd scale the fines according to the convicted person's income, so they "hurt" a rich celeb as much as they do a blue-collar schlub.

Click to expand...

They have that system in Finland (for speeding at least, not sure about DUI); now that's a fine that would hurt:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1759791.stm

My 25 year old sister was killed a few years ago by a drunk driver. He was in his 20's and it was his second arrest fir dui. He was arrested again while he was out on bail awaiting trial. He crashed into a tree after having 12 beers. He went to jail for 4 years.

Many people seem to rack up dui's and accidents. I believe they are the biggest threat and should be locked up for a long time when they are caught driving on suspended DL's from past DUI's. I believe that would solve a lot of the problem.

For the rest of us who like to go to the bar and have 2-3 drinks to blow off steam and socialize, I would really encourage bar owners and individuals to purchase portable brethalizers. They can be had for under $100 and are much cheaper than the penalties that come with a DUI. If you blow something that will put you over the limit, call a cab or sleep it off (with the keys in your trunk) for a while until you are good. I am not against drinking and having fun. I am against making a stupid mistake that could screw up your life for a long time to come and possibly end someone else's.

Lets call for a repeal to the 21st ammendment. Who's with me?

Diesel_Bomber said:

Agreed Biker Bear, except I think you're still being too soft. This is too obviously stupid for any first-offense leniency. First offense remove their license and ability to own a vehicle, period. Second offense, shoot them.

:buddies:

Click to expand...

The first one would not work. The person would get drunk and drive anyway, it happens now. On the other hand, the second one would do the trick.

Biker Bear said:

Frankly, I don't think the drunk driving laws are anywhere near strict enough. We're STILL hearing about people with 7, 8, 9 DUI convictions - WHY?! After the 3rd time, that person should never be allowed to drive again, period. And if someone is found driving without a license, jail the jerk for a good long time.

There's simply no excuse - none, ever - for ever driving drunk.

Click to expand...

They aren't but until fairly recently, getting convictions for even more lenient laws was *very* hard. The American culture has slowly moved from joking about how drunk they were when they drove to talking about how bad it is - when others do it.
Until they start telling their friends they *will* call the police if they drive it will be a problem.

Even here with all the disapproval the talk is of being "drunk", not of drinking and driving. I've rarely seen a really drunk person involved in an accident. Just people who have been drinking.

I did respond to a drunk once. He started his car and drove about five feet into the back of a dumptruck which did not move. Minor damage to the frount of the car but the guy kept the pedal to the metal and was still burning up his rear tires when my ambulance got there late. Everybody was waiting for the car to either run out of gas or overheat and freeze up.

Beverage alcohol is without a doubt the greatest social problem the USA, if not the world, has ever seen.

Not just the deaths and injuries, which are horrendous, but the social and economic costs. Medical and rehab, broken families, lost and poor work production (not just from injuries but just from too much the night before) -- the list is long.

Think banning certain types of guns will save lives? Ban beverage alcohol and save millions of lives and billions of dollars.

I'm not a teetotaler but I am a realist so I know it will never happen.

How many people die due to regular drivers in the US? I believe it is important to compare the drunk driver figures to the sober driver figures to make any judgement on how crazy 50 deaths a day really is.

About the cell phone issue... what about adjusting the heat in your car, or messing with the stereo, or picking things up off the floor, etc? I personally think the cell phone ban is a very stupid law for that very reason. Also, now you have people trying to text message instead of talk, which is even worse. Is it really that distracting to talk to the passenger in the front seat? I don't see much of a difference between a cell phone and someone in the car. Just some thoughts. By the way, I think drunk driving as well as doing anything distracting while driving is incredibly irresponsible.

Banning alcohol? Won't work. Remember the failure known as Prohibition and the current failure of the War on Drugs?