I got an idea. Suppose we just post armed guards outside of bars, clubs, and people's houses, and have the guards shoot them if they think they're drunk?

Although I suspect MADD still wouldn't be satisfied, they'd want the bars and clubs torn down, and the armed guards INSIDE people's houses.

And forget about fuel with ethanol in it, ethanol=alcohol and someone might try to drink it.

Oh and, let's ban foods that make people want a beer: pizza, hamburgers, and peanuts. Hey, they're bad for you too right?

Anything I missed? Barley and wheat can be used to make beer, corn and potatoes can be used to make vodka... Burn the fields. Who cares if millions starve - we're trying to keep people from driving drunk aren't we?

Give me a break...sheesh.

Yes and no. Sorry.

Look, it really isn't as crazy as it sounds.

The point I'm trying to make is, MADD is run by the type of people who, no matter how much anti-drunk-driving, anti-alcohol, or anti-anything-but-MADD legislation is passed as a result of their lobbying, they will always want more.

Mar. I really think you are going over the top with this, everyone here can appreciate that you have your opinion, and although most people disagree with you we all respect your opinion as your own.

But really, burning the fields......... please

If MADD get their legislation passed they might carry on with trying to make the roads safer, but they are only going to ridicule themselves if they try to have Alcohol banned.

They would be much better of adding their weight to banning "Drug" driving or "Mobile Phone" driving, something that can actually make a possitive difference.

But I am guessing that you are all for driving down the road chatting to a friend on the phone while high and pissed. That is what you like doing isnt it.??? Or have you managed to give me a the wrong impression.???


Andy

Heck, I enjoy that myself, especially when I'm in one of my Hummers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbole

No, that's reckless driving. So is driving drunk.

I have zero respect for drunk drivers - there's simply no reason to do it.

What I'm against, other than the evil that is MADD (yes, hyperbole, omg) is the idea of BAC measurements being the determining factor for DUI arrests. It is simply not that cut-and-try: one person at .08 isn't as impaired as another.

As long as you're admitting it, I'm cool with that.

Isn't that because people continue to die from the problem?

Where I am it's still very common. Each new person on the roads starts from scratch knowledge-wise.

Mar, you are quite right that everyone has different limits to the affects of Alcohol and the way the UK is going ANY alcohol will be banned.

The only solution is to ban drink driving full stop, then its a really simple solution, ANY booze and your over the limit, that way there is no question of whether that individual is over the limit when the guy next to him has had as much to drink but is not over the limit. Everyone is over the limit.

If the govenrment changed the limit then MADD wouldnt want this implemented to control those who have "just one", as anyone having anything would be illegal to drive.

Here is a list of different countries limits and how there are measured.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drunk_driv ... ted_States


Andy

That's from Wikipedia, and I find this version of the law the most well thought out, but these drivers can still hit another vehicle loaded with passengers.

Which is why a total ban is the only solution.

The main problem with a total ban is that huge amounts of people would be over the limit the next morning for a breathylizer, which means that everyone would argue, and then they would have to go to a police station and have a blood test which is far more accurate especially the morning after.

Targeting drug-drivers, smoking-drivers, female-passenger-drivers and mobile-phone-drivers would be the next sensible places to start.


Andy

Just ban all private automobile ownership, and yes I am being serious here.

A much better solution in my opinion, would be to treat drunk driving like what it is, reckless driving. There is no need for a separate law with separate penalties.

All drivers, whether drunk or sober, are equally responsible for their actions behind the wheel. If you run someone over it shouldn't matter if you're drunk or just an idiot. It's vehicular manslaughter either way - nobody forced you to get behind the wheel - and it should be dealt with accordingly.

However, this doesn't really address the issue of determining impairment by BAC... Even if impaired driving is the same as reckless driving, how much alcohol can you have before you're "reckless"?

One possible alternative would be standardized sobriety tests, based on actually determining impairment... as in, not "touch your toes and say the alphabet backwards while walking a straight line", which are more suitable as tests for amusing police officers than deciding whether someone is under the influence.

I want to point out that my stance is NOT one of trying to weaken legislation that would prevent drunk driving - I am very against the idea of a drunk person behind the wheel. Then again, I would not favor a 0.00% BAC because that's discombobulatingly devastating to my keg parties.

Once on a TV show (Cops?) I saw a cop administer this test on a drunk teenage girl. Upon completion of the instructions the girls blurts out:

"I can't do this when I'm sober!"

The reason for the Swedish .02% limit is that some people have a naturally high BAC (without drinking), which means that with an absolute 0 limit they might not be allowed to drive even if they have not ever had an alcoholic beverage. One drink brings most people over this limit, so in practice it's as good as a 0 limit.

Falling asleep behind the wheel kills just as many people as drunk driving each year. Getting behind the wheel while tired is just as irresponsible as driving while intoxicated, yet we don't seem to vilify those people who fall asleep and drift into an oncoming church bus nearly as much.

Right, so in addition to devices that detect if you've been drinking and refuse to allow the car to start, we should have devices installed in cars that every five seconds, emit an ear-piercing shriek. Try to fall asleep, I dare you.

Well devices that check your eye movement and howl when you are falling asleep do exist... at least as a working concept.

I don't like the idea of bans and restrictions. On one hand it would be good if nobody died in traffic, but you have to draw the line somewhere. If we made rollcages, safetyharnesses, helmets and fire retardant clothing mandatory, along with limiting the top speed of cars, dramatically improving handling and not trying to fix crappy handling with electronics like today, building rails between every two lanes, only building elevated junctions, build fences so deer and moose dont wander on the roads, fix the damn potholes and grooves, offer extensive and continuous traning to drivers and raising the minumum legal age to 25, with zero tolerance for any kind of medicine or drug including caffeine, there would probably still be deaths.

Im not saying let them die, i dont like innocent people getting killed in traffic or otherwise, but i can't figure out how safe is safe enough.

I can't remember which, but some board in Finland anyway, just said that the "zero casualties" thing which is the governments goal here, is quite simply impossible with the current state of the roads. The roads are not crap, but there are problems in how the roads deteriorate, lowering speed limits has not worked at all. The ones who drive at warpspeed dont care if the limit is 80 or 100kph, anyway.

Funding for road maintenane goes down all the time, and has been for a very long time, even though both private and commercial traffic is increasing. And the taxing on buying a car is so damn huge here, that the average car is 12 years old i think, cars older than ten years are not particularly safe by todays standards. They are shockingly bad, quite honestly. A good eample was an article explaining a crash where two VW Golfs crashed head on, one Mk3 and one Mk4, both driving at the same speed in opposite directions, two people in the Mk3 died, the people in the Mk4 only got some bruises and thats it for physical damage. All were wearing seatbelts IIRC.

That crash was investigated by an "accident board", they study the causes and effects of every lethal crash in Finland. The drivers background, eyewitnesses, technical data, weather, time of day, everything. And write a long report about it, with clear data on why it happened, how it happened, what it lead to, and what could have avoided it. The most common causes by far is alcohol and excessive speed, after that is probably passive safety of the cars. The most common thing that would have saved lives is a seatbelt, which is often not used by those who drive drunk. They even mention if someone was saved because of not wearing a seatblet, thats very rare though. Has the board lead to an improvement in safety? I have no idea, but this has been done for ages now. Since the sixties or seventies IIRC.

What is my point? i forgot.

What's this safety kick all about anyway? Are people really THAT afraid to die?

Not really. If i die im not around to worry about it, i just dont want to die a slow and painful death with a steering rack sticking out of my chest. Yeah.

Really?

Not to get TOO off-topic but, I've always thought something like that would be the perfect way to go, not drugged up hooked up to a machine but actually facing death completely aware.

Well it would be quite horrible to lay in a bed completely unable to move or talk but my brain still functioning correctly, yes. Compared to that the metal pole in my chest is a good option. I would probably be in shock anyway, and would not feel the damn thing. Of course it would be ideal to go on a motorcycle, instead of getting chewed into small bits in a tincan you would fly in a large arc and get cut in half by a telephone pole or something. So now we are talking about how we prefer dying, what's next? Just to make this off topic, lets assume there was drunk reindeer on the road that caused me to have the fatal accident.

Well, that depends... on whether it's one of Santas' reindeer and it's claiming diplomatic immunity because it's in another country... or not.....

And somehow it's Bush's fault.

Oh, c'mon, quit beating around "bush". You know it's Rudolph fault!

That's not a valid comparision, tiredness occurs naturally, it's just there, its not something you can option; yes or no.

We all knew that, so why did I have to say it?

People chose to drink, talk on the cell, pretend other cars are their personal pylons, assume they can drive adequately.

And don't blame sleep, you can nod off after a heavy meal. And eating is essential, drinking isn't.

Blindness occurs naturally as well. If you know you're tired, you shouldn't be driving any more than a drunk person should.