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