Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site burl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!rcj
From: rcj@burl.UUCP (Curtis Jackson)
Newsgroups: net.legal,net.auto
Subject: Re: DWI Roadblocks
Message-ID: <761@burl.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 26-Jun-85 09:16:12 EDT
Article-I.D.: burl.761
Posted: Wed Jun 26 09:16:12 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 27-Jun-85 06:42:10 EDT
References: <979@homxa.UUCP> <3893@alice.UUCP> <3108@drutx.UUCP>
Reply-To: rcj@burl.UUCP (Curtis Jackson)
Organization: AT&T Technologies, Burlington NC
Lines: 59
Xref: watmath net.legal:1790 net.auto:7167
Summary: 

In article <3108@drutx.UUCP> qwerty@drutx.UUCP (Brian Jones) writes:
>I frankly think the Court is right on target, considering drunks are involved
>in roughly half of the 50,000 yearly fatalities from auto accidents this
>country experiences.

If you really meant what you said, then I will simply say that your figures
are exagerrated for the point you are trying to make.  If you mean that
half of the 50,000 yearly fatalities from auto accidents involve drunk
drivers (that's what I think you really meant), then NO NO NO NO NO!!!!

This is how statistics are used to LIE.  I don't mean deceive, I mean
LIE.  The 'official' rules for determining those statistics for 'alcohol-
related deaths' are that if ANYONE involved in the accident has even
a slight alcohol content (I believe it is .05, not sure though), then
it is an alcohol-related accident.  This includes passengers and
pedestrians involved in an accident; it also includes almost any person
who has had as little as ONE drink and is anything close to relatively
normal build and body weight.  And, as drunk driving becomes a political
issue, they are testing more and more drivers involved in accidents,
hence the low alcohol content necessary to qualify for an 'alcohol-related
accident' and the higher rate of testing combine to send the figures
sky-high.

I do not advocate or like drunk driving by any means, but I'll let you
in on a little secret:  people drink in bars and then they have to get
home.  How much money would the various city/state governments save
if they simply provided good low-cost transportation systems to get
people home?

People are always pointing to the stiff drunken driving laws in Europe
and the low incidence of drunken driving there.  A friend recently
asked me to consider a valuable point -- in Germany or Belgium or
France or England you typically WALK down to your local pub and WALK
home.  People in the US are so damn prudish about drinking
and make it something forbidden until you are old enough to sneak around
to go chugging beer and joy-riding; they blanch at the thought of a
pub/bar only 2 or 3 blocks away from their nice religious middle-class
neighborhoods.  When I was in college I never had to think about
driving drunk; my local bar was two blocks from my house.

In short, and to stop my ravings without (I hope) having done too much
damage, let me introduce a novel concept:

Drinking and driving don't mix.  You can't stop drinking; drinking of
itself is not (but well can be, I know) the problem.  You also CANNOT
STOP DRUNKEN DRIVING WITHOUT OFFERING A REASONABLE ALTERNATIVE.  Throwing
all drunk drivers in jail is not (in my view) a reasonable alternative;
trying to get them home safely and thereby keep other people safe is.
Casa Gallardo (a chain Mexican restaurant here in Greensboro) stopped
serving their 1-liter margaritas, and they also have a sign prominently
displayed on the wall in nice warm prose telling you that if you are
too drunk to drive home, the bartender will call you a cab and give
you a nice cup of coffee while you wait and THE RESTAURANT WILL PAY FOR
YOUR CAB RIDE HOME.  I like it; keep them off the road in the first place!
-- 

The MAD Programmer -- 919-228-3313 (Cornet 291)
alias: Curtis Jackson	...![ ihnp4 ulysses cbosgd mgnetp ]!burl!rcj
			...![ ihnp4 cbosgd akgua masscomp ]!clyde!rcj