DUI checkpoint

[NHHEMI]

Originally Posted By: rshaw125
The 'everyone is now a suspect' acceptability makes the whole idea of fighting for freedom a joke. You mean the freedoms we used to have.
The vast majority of road deaths do not involve drunk drivers. 67% here in NC do not involve a drunk driver.


Then wouldn't that mean 33% do? That is a LOT! Do any of the individual causes that would have to make up that 67% even come close to 33%?

 

[javacontour]

Apparently, sobriety is linked to twice as many.
However, I do realize that correlation doesn't equal causation.

Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
Originally Posted By: rshaw125
The 'everyone is now a suspect' acceptability makes the whole idea of fighting for freedom a joke. You mean the freedoms we used to have.
The vast majority of road deaths do not involve drunk drivers. 67% here in NC do not involve a drunk driver.


Then wouldn't that mean 33% do? That is a LOT! Do any of the individual causes that would have to make up that 67% even come close to 33%?

 

[rshaw125]

My point is that they way the authorities go on about it you would think 67% of fatal accidents were caused by drunk driving. It's 33% and most of those are the drivers themselves.

Why is the 67% not being addressed? Its never even talked about.

 

[NHHEMI]

Originally Posted By: rshaw125
My point is that they way the authorities go on about it you would think 67% of fatal accidents were caused by drunk driving. It's 33% and most of those are the drivers themselves.

Why is the 67% not being addressed? Its never even talked about.


I think what you are missing here is that 67% is made up of many different types of accidents. It isn't 67% of on road deaths being caused by people looking down at their radio and slamming into someone for example. Most likely some or all of those causes are being addressed when something can be done about it.

Again, it isn't 67% of deaths caused by people texting, or 67% of deaths caused by speeding, etc... IT is all accidents not DUI related totaled up that reach that 67%. You are treating it like it is one thing/reason/cause and that is just not how it is. DUI accounting for a full 33% of on road deaths in your state is a LOT. As I said earlier, if you have the breakdown look and see what the % is for the causes that make up that 67%. I doubt any even reach 20% let alone come close to the 33% caused by drunks.

And, even if it is just the drivers being killed themselves most of the time so what? If they caused an accident severe enough to kill themselves they just as easily could have killed or injured someone else and THAT is the point. If drunks who drive ONLY killed and/or injured themselves then I wouldn't have the issue with DUI I do. Let them thin themselves out sort of along the lines of Darwinism. The problem is drunks driving injure and kill others all the time and even ONE preventable injury/death from a drunk driver( innocent victim not the drunk ) is unacceptable.

 

[Vuflanovsky]

I think it also depends on if it's urban, suburban, or rural environments. You'll likely get notably different results in each.

I find it harder to be militantly anti-drunk driving if the urban environment has more people walking against the light distracted, or with a sense of entitlement versus caution. That attitude alone would account for a significant number of fatalities where I live. Most of the vehicle fatalities where I'm located involve non-cautious pedestrians and bicyclists versus drunk or otherwise impaired drivers. I'm sure that result would differ between cities that have better pedestrian space, portals and behavior. My guess is that the 67% percent non-impaired figure referenced above would directly relate to the density, street layout, and socioeconomics of the particular place(s) involved.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
Again, it isn't 67% of deaths caused by people texting, or 67% of deaths caused by speeding, etc... IT is all accidents not DUI related totaled up that reach that 67%. You are treating it like it is one thing/reason/cause and that is just not how it is. DUI accounting for a full 33% of on road deaths in your state is a LOT. As I said earlier, if you have the breakdown look and see what the % is for the causes that make up that 67%. I doubt any even reach 20% let alone come close to the 33% caused by drunks.


You are falling into your own logic trap...

Those 33% are accidents, just like all the others, but where the driver has an illegal level of alcohol in their system...they are the same checking the radio...just with alcohol...same texting...just with alcohol.

But it's represented as, and clearly working on your psyche as "caused by drunks".

Look at the stats I posted about pedestrian deaths in Oz...I posted them for a reason.

 

[Shannow]

http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/drugged-driving

Quote:
According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s (NHTSA) 2007 National Roadside Survey, more than 16 percent of weekend, nighttime drivers tested positive for illegal, prescription, or over-the-counter drugs. More than 11 percent tested positive for illicit drugs.
.
.
.
One NHTSA study found that in 2009, 18 percent of fatally injured drivers tested positive for at least one illicit, prescription, or over-the-counter drug (an increase from 13 percent in 2005).

 

[NHHEMI]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
Again, it isn't 67% of deaths caused by people texting, or 67% of deaths caused by speeding, etc... IT is all accidents not DUI related totaled up that reach that 67%. You are treating it like it is one thing/reason/cause and that is just not how it is. DUI accounting for a full 33% of on road deaths in your state is a LOT. As I said earlier, if you have the breakdown look and see what the % is for the causes that make up that 67%. I doubt any even reach 20% let alone come close to the 33% caused by drunks.


You are falling into your own logic trap...

Those 33% are accidents, just like all the others, but where the driver has an illegal level of alcohol in their system...they are the same checking the radio...just with alcohol...same texting...just with alcohol.

But it's represented as, and clearly working on your psyche as "caused by drunks".

Look at the stats I posted about pedestrian deaths in Oz...I posted them for a reason.





I am falling into no trap. The guy posted a stat that 33% of on road deaths in his state were due to/related to DUI. That is a specific type of accident with a known cause = alcohol was involved and was determined to be the cause. The 67% is made up of many causes/types of accidents. The 33% is DUI. So you make no sense and I fail to see your point here?

Driving while under the influence is not an "accident". It is a purposeful act. Sure the crash can be called an "accident" in a descriptive term but in reality it was caused by the driver drinking and then getting behind the wheel impaired( excluding any case were they actually weren't at fault somehow in the accident ). There is a HUGE difference between someone who is DUI crashing and someone sober who looks down to change the radio and gets in a crash. I do not believe you can group alcohol related accidents with sober accidents. Maybe the texting one because both( i.e DUI and texting while driving )are irresponsible acts that impact your ability to drive.

The people were driving with illegal levels of alcohol in their system. To me that makes them drunks. I use the term not as a description( i.e. falling down drunk )but rather as a derogatory remark( along the lines of being a loser ). People that knowingly get behind the wheel after consuming alcohol, without enough time passing for it to clear their system, to me are extremely irresponsible. I won't use some of the terms I would like to describe them further because many in this thread have admitted to doing so and I am not breaking site rules and making personal attacks.

You pro drink and drive guys can go on and on about personal freedoms being taken away, I only had a couple with my dinner, and how you can handle your liquor all you want. I only hope someday you don't hurt or kill someone because of it.

 

[turtlevette]

Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
You pro drink and drive guys can go on and on about personal freedoms being taken away, I only had a couple with my dinner, and how you can handle your liquor all you want. I only hope someday you don't hurt or kill someone because of it.


Well that's why there is a defined limit not any detectable alcohol.

You think there aren't millions that have a couple drinks then drive a car every night?

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
You pro drink and drive guys can go on and on about personal freedoms being taken away, I only had a couple with my dinner, and how you can handle your liquor all you want. I only hope someday you don't hurt or kill someone because of it.


How is anti manufacturing a fake road works on an arterial road, then pulling over every vehicle traversing that road for a week, to harvest three DUIs being "pro-drink driving"...?

 

[NHHEMI]

Originally Posted By: turtlevette


Well that's why there is a defined limit not any detectable alcohol.

You think there aren't millions that have a couple drinks then drive a car every night?




Yes, I do think there are MILLIONS who drink( amount doesn't matter )and then drive every night. Totally irresponsible. How many times has someone caused an accident and said "but I only had a couple drinks with dinner"?

If you are going to be the one to drive, and you can't abstain from having alcohol with your meal for safety reasons, when you go out then you have a problem. Plain and simple.

The I only had a couple drinks defense is lame and doesn't cut it.

 

[turtlevette]

Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
( amount doesn't matter )


Extremism. Seems to be a lot of that up your way.

 

[NHHEMI]

Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
( amount doesn't matter )


Extremism. Seems to be a lot of that up your way.


I am sorry but I do not believe I am being extreme. The amount doesn't matter is related to people who drink then drive not just who drink in case you missed that.

IMO, if I was an extremist on this topic as you label me I would have been saying all along not to drink at all which I have never said. I simply do not believe people should drink and then drive before it has time to leave their system. I d not believe there should be any kind of "ok" # to have and then drive either. IMO drinking and driving do not mix in any amount. I don't think that is extreme but rather common sense and reasonable.

What's with this "up your way" comment? You live in MA and I live in NH? I can be in your state in less than 15 minutes driving.

 

[Doog]

I think a lot of people who have never been involved with a drunk driving accident don't have the same perspective as those who have. I have been hit 3 times by drunk drivers. One time I was seriously injured ( 2 broken vertebra in my neck, separated ribs, 5 broken fingers, nerve damage, and superficial road rash)as I was on a motorcycle. The driver got off with 3 days in jail and a $500 fine because he knew someone. I got a new bike and medical bills and for 10 years had severe nerve damage that finally healed a decade later. The DUI guy went on the kill a teenager a year or two later and got 4-5 years in prison.

So, when I go through a DUI checkpoint, I roll down my window and say "Thank you" for trying to save someone from being really hurt or even killed by some jamoke who couldn't call a cab.

Now I tell my kids that I will reimburse them for their cab or Uber fares if they leave the car and take a cab home. They never ask for reimbursement but have now developed the habit of using alternative transportation or a DD when going out on the town. It's an easy decision.

So, before I get off my soap box I can only say that drinking and driving is a decision. A very poor decision that is easily changed by calling a cab or Uber car.

trust me...you can ruin your life and the lives of many others by making a bad decision.

I am one of the lucky ones.

 

[rshaw125]

Originally Posted By: Doog
I think a lot of people who have never been involved with a drunk driving accident don't have the same perspective as those who have. I have been hit 3 times by drunk drivers. One time I was seriously injured ( 2 broken vertebra in my neck, separated ribs, 5 broken fingers, nerve damage, and superficial road rash)as I was on a motorcycle. The driver got off with 3 days in jail and a $500 fine because he knew someone. I got a new bike and medical bills and for 10 years had severe nerve damage that finally healed a decade later. The DUI guy went on the kill a teenager a year or two later and got 4-5 years in prison.

So, when I go through a DUI checkpoint, I roll down my window and say "Thank you" for trying to save someone from being really hurt or even killed by some jamoke who couldn't call a cab.

Now I tell my kids that I will reimburse them for their cab or Uber fares if they leave the car and take a cab home. They never ask for reimbursement but have now developed the habit of using alternative transportation or a DD when going out on the town. It's an easy decision.

So, before I get off my soap box I can only say that drinking and driving is a decision. A very poor decision that is easily changed by calling a cab or Uber car.

trust me...you can ruin your life and the lives of many others by making a bad decision.

I am one of the lucky ones.

But.... If you are involved in a fatal accident chances are the driver will not be drunk. Sadly the sober drivers are just bad drivers. Speeding,reckless distracted. Why should they get off easier?

 

[HerrStig]

Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
Originally Posted By: turtlevette


Well that's why there is a defined limit not any detectable alcohol.

You think there aren't millions that have a couple drinks then drive a car every night?




Yes, I do think there are MILLIONS who drink( amount doesn't matter )and then drive every night. Totally irresponsible. How many times has someone caused an accident and said "but I only had a couple drinks with dinner"?

If you are going to be the one to drive, and you can't abstain from having alcohol with your meal for safety reasons, when you go out then you have a problem. Plain and simple.

The I only had a couple drinks defense is lame and doesn't cut it.
The "just a coupla beers" defense often turns out to be a "coupla" six packs.

 

[HerrStig]

Originally Posted By: rshaw125
Originally Posted By: Doog
I think a lot of people who have never been involved with a drunk driving accident don't have the same perspective as those who have. I have been hit 3 times by drunk drivers. One time I was seriously injured ( 2 broken vertebra in my neck, separated ribs, 5 broken fingers, nerve damage, and superficial road rash)as I was on a motorcycle. The driver got off with 3 days in jail and a $500 fine because he knew someone. I got a new bike and medical bills and for 10 years had severe nerve damage that finally healed a decade later. The DUI guy went on the kill a teenager a year or two later and got 4-5 years in prison.

So, when I go through a DUI checkpoint, I roll down my window and say "Thank you" for trying to save someone from being really hurt or even killed by some jamoke who couldn't call a cab.

Now I tell my kids that I will reimburse them for their cab or Uber fares if they leave the car and take a cab home. They never ask for reimbursement but have now developed the habit of using alternative transportation or a DD when going out on the town. It's an easy decision.

So, before I get off my soap box I can only say that drinking and driving is a decision. A very poor decision that is easily changed by calling a cab or Uber car.

trust me...you can ruin your life and the lives of many others by making a bad decision.

I am one of the lucky ones.

But.... If you are involved in a fatal accident chances are the driver will not be drunk. Sadly the sober drivers are just bad drivers. Speeding,reckless distracted. Why should they get off easier?
There are "great" driver training schools "south a de border".

 

[HerrStig]

Based on certain experience I have in the "night court" business it appears that the average non-alcoholic will not make mistakes which bring him or her to the attention of law wnforcement until they get above .08. Those who have an alcohol "problem" can develop an amazing tolerance to high BAC. Most of the .08s or below invloved in accidents were not the CAUSE of them but the police around here test everybody invloved, especially if personal injury is involved.
.08 can be reached with one beer depending on several factors including last meal and weight. Personally, I DON'T drik and drive. Period.