ark (12/14/82)
Every time I think about what measures are appropriate for the government to deal with drunk driving, I come up with problems. For instance, what is "drunk"? While several states have specific limits for blood alcohol, I refuse to believe that someone with X percent blood alcohol will display an "amount of drunkenness" that is independent of the individual involved. To put it differently, whatever threshold you choose, there will be some people who are incapable of controlling a car with much less alcohol than that, and others who are perfectly competent with considerably more. Unless you believe that people should be prohibited from driving after ingesting any alcohol at all, you have to admit that this approach causes problems. I have another suggestion. Let the free market take care of it, as follows: A driver is responsible for any damage caused by his actions behind the wheel. Being drunk, stoned, or insane is no defense. Now, let (encourage, but do not require) insurance companies base their rates, in part, on the driver's past history of being involved in alcohol-related accidents. I'll bet that the insurance companies will be a lot tougher than any state governments, especially as they are not bound by all this "due process" stuff. If you can't find anyone to take on your risks (insure you), and you aren't willing to post a financial security bond, you can't drive. If you drive without evidence of financial responsibility (insurance card or posting bond), that should be a felony, like fraud.
lrd (12/15/82)
Andrew Koenig proposed insurance premiums to reflect a driver's history of involvement in alcohol-related incidents. This won't do a thourough enough job. I have recently been involved, as a victim, in two accidents caused by drunk drivers -- a hit and run, while my car was parked, witnessed by three attorneys who recorded the offender's license number. The police were unable to locate the driver! In the second, the driver ran a red light and did $1500 worth of damage to my car. He was obviously under the influence. I asked the cop to administer a breathalyzer test; instead, he administered a "field test" -- a series of coordination excercises, and claimed that although the offender had been drinking, he would not be shown to be at or even near the legal limit if the breath- alyzer test were given. No record was made on the accident report of alcohol involvement. The insurance solution would not apply to either of these cases. Alcohol is involved in about 40% of serious car accidents, and about 60% of motorcycle accidents. Why do we have a permissible limit? Why not laws that will provide meaningful penalties for drivers who are involved in traffic offenses or accidents with any detectable amount of alcohol? Why is it necessary to say that x% is OK? Many countries have severe penalties for driving after drinking any amount. Why not here? Why should my life and property be endangered by some idiot who insists on drinking (or playing with other substances) and then driving? We, in this country, are far too tolerant of people who drive with flagrant disregard for the safety of others. Twenty thousand lives are sacrificed annually on the alter of drunk drivers. Do we really need this? On the same topic, the Motorcycle Safety Program at Northeastern Illinois University (I am an instructor for this program) is discussing an experiment. We haven't made a final decision, but the experiment would be to have some of the instructors (volunteers) perform the Motorcycle Safety Foundation's skill test under progressively increasing amounts of alcohol intake. This would be in a controlled environment, with the use of a breathalyzer (and someone to drive the participants home). If we do it, I'll keep this newsgroup informed. L. R. DuBroff BTL -- Naperville, Illinois
wagner (12/15/82)
The simple solution to the drinking problem put forward here (if you can't get insurance or post a bond, you have a history of drinking and therefore shouldnt drive) is unworkable, because it gives licence(sp?) to the wealthy to drive when drunk. Michael Wagner, UTCS
hsc (12/15/82)
One bright spot is that a large chunk of moped sales are to people with auto licenses suspended for drunk driving. I think that depriving drunk drivers of 90% of their armor and 90% of theirhorsepower is wonderful. Now if we could just forbid them from wearing helmets ... Harvey S. Cohen 1C314 American Bell, Lincroft, NJ 07748 (201)576-6059 hogpc!hsc