mzal@pegasus.UUCP (Mike Zaleski) (06/25/84)
Re: Highway funds
"I read an artical in Popular Mechanics that stated that 7 (I think,
somewhewe around that number) states are considering losing their
federal funding and raising the speed limit on the Interstates back
to 70. One of the states was Colorado, I think that the others were
all mid-western states."
For many eastern states, where highway construction and repair is
big (political) business, this is not a practical idea. In general,
it is politically unwise to decline any federal support at the
state level.
Re: Roadblocks
"Beginning next week, Indiana State Troopers, county sherrifs and state
Conservation Department police will be manning roadblocks in a five county
area: Looking for drunk drivers.
Times and locations of the roadblocks will not be made public (as are radar
locations), and each roadblock will attempt to stop all vehicles that pass
the checkpoint. Officers will then "check for signs of alcohol in the car
or truck and for behavior that indicates a driver might have been drinking.""
I am not sure this is illegal search and seizure (as previous postings
have pointed out), but my understanding is that in New Jersey a similar
scheme was quietly dropped after it was challanged on a lack of "probable
cause".
The plan was to check every tenth car or so going into NY at the
different NJ/NY bridge crossings. (For you non-residents, NY has a
lower drinking age than NJ. Also, access to NY from NJ is pretty
much limited to a few major bridges.) This was also an interesting
example of political doubletalk. NJ's governer claimed that we
were going to make sure NJ residents (especially teenagers) weren't
going into NY and coming back drunk. Unfortunately since all the
roadblocks were set up on the outgoing (to NY) roads, there would
be no checking of people coming back, only people going in. Hence,
the governer's stated purpose would not be achieved. But it was a
nice way to get publicity anyway....
Re: Legal drinking age
"However, what do you have against a National Drinking Age?
IF IT SAVES LIVES, why not?"
The notion that we should do anything to save lives is one with
which I simply cannot agree. Especially when the numbers are so
small. Should we outlaw anything that would save 50 lives a year?
"Here in Jersey, the death rate
for teenaged drivers has dropped by 20% for those involved
with alcohol."
Clever use of numbers. The figures I saw in The Star Ledger for
this year and last year were both less than 50 per year. (Yes,
the number of alcohol related fatalities dropped by about 20%, but
given the recent rise in NJ insurance rates, this seems like white
noise in the grand scheme of things - not the slaughter on the
highways one might be led to believe.)
"Since most of the pressure to stop the
raising of the drinking age is coming from liquor lobbyists,
why shouldn't pressure to save lives come from the rest of
us - parents, other drivers, etc.?"
According to the liquor lobbyists, 99 percent of all teenagers
never have any alcohol related accidents. If this is true, it
seems a bit unfair to penalize all these people for the offenses
of a few. (Innocent until proven guilty, remember that one?)
Also, some of the people represented by the liquor lobby are
probably owners of small bars. Consider what your investment
in a bar in a college town might be worth after such a law was
passed.
"Perhaps New York will finally see the light and pass the
21 drinking age bill."
This bill was defeated.
"They seem to have had enough enlightenment
to require seat belt use."
As of today, this remains to be seen.
"Until New York passes the 21 law,
I would advise anyone to not drive in the Lake Greenwood or
Staten Island areas after 1:00am on a weekend when all of
the New Jersey teenyboopers are weaving back from a night
of drinking."
Speaking of parents, who gave the kids the car keys? In any
case, my experience is that the traffic into NJ on 440 from
Staten Island around 1 AM seems no worse than traffic anywhere
else at that time.
-- Mike^Z Zaleski@Rutgers allegra!pegasus!mzalwetcw@pyuxa.UUCP (T C Wheeler) (06/26/84)
It seems that Mike Zaleski is against saving lives on the highway. He says that the "numbers are too small" to make any difference in raising the drinking age. Is even one unnecessary death due to drinking and driving by teenagers To small? Talk about white noise, what in the heck does insurance rates going up have to do with a 20% drop in teenage alcohol related driving deaths? By the way, both houses of the New York Leg. have passed the mandatory seat belt law. It only remains for the Governor to sign the bill. And, yes, the 21 drinking age was defeated the last time around, BUT, it is back before the leg. again. Several key members of the Leg. have indicated that they will now vote FOR the bill. And, for your information, the main entrance and exit point for teenyboppers from Staten Island is the Goethals bridge, not the Outerbridge crossing. Check it out. Not much chance to get to New York except by bridge or tunnel? The whole northern border of New Jersey rests slam bang up against New York. Ever tried to negotiate highway 17 on a summer evening or late at night. The carnage on this one is legendary. The state has NOT given up the practice of checking for drunk drivers. They have just moved the operation down to the Jersey Shore for the season. The stopping of cars to check out the drivers is quite legal in New Jersey. The reason you don't hear so much about it is that the media finds it old news now. If you had been on route 9 last Friday, you could have seen the operation in action. It is just too bad they weren't working highway 35 on Sunday. They could have prevented the MURDER of a 14 year old boy who was struck down by a drunk driver in Eatontown. The drunk drove up on the sidewalk to kill the boy. I won't even comment on the left lane controversey since the writer obviously did not read the article he was flaming with any understanding. T. C. Wheeler
mzal@pegasus.UUCP (Mike Zaleski) (06/27/84)
[All indented excerpts are from T.C.Wheeler]:
It seems that Mike Zaleski is against saving lives on the highway.
He says that the "numbers are too small" to make any difference
in raising the drinking age. Is even one unnecessary death due
to drinking and driving by teenagers To small?
I am not against saving lives, but I do not believe no cost is too
great to prevent even one unnecessary death. I am concerned about
establishing a precedent for government intervention whenever a few
people are killed. The same kind of thinking could be used to
completely ban the sale of alcohol at any eating establishment,
bar, or entartainment facility; ban cigarette smoking; ban
unhealthy foods; ban motorcycles; ban bicycles; ban power mowers;
ban guns; lower the speed limit even more; and on and on.
By the way, both houses of the New York Leg. have passed the
mandatory seat belt law. It only remains for the Governor to
sign the bill.
This happened at about the time I posted my article.
And, yes, the 21 drinking age was defeated the
last time around, BUT, it is back before the leg. again. Several
key members of the Leg. have indicated that they will now vote
FOR the bill.
Ah, politics.
And, for your information, the main entrance and exit point for
teenyboppers from Staten Island is the Goethals bridge, not the
Outerbridge crossing. Check it out. Not much chance to get
to New York except by bridge or tunnel? The whole northern border
of New Jersey rests slam bang up against New York.
I clearly stand corrected on this point. I was thinking about
New York City when I wrote that, but of course there is really
a whole state out there.
The state [NJ] has NOT given up the practice of checking for drunk
drivers. They have just moved the operation down to the Jersey
Shore for the season. The stopping of cars to check out the
drivers is quite legal in New Jersey. The reason you don't
hear so much about it is that the media finds it old news now.
I haven't heard anything about it from any person, news media, or
heard anything on the CB. However, if you say they are still
around, I am misinformed.
If you had been on route 9 last Friday, you could have seen
the operation in action. It is just too bad they weren't
working highway 35 on Sunday. They could have prevented the
MURDER of a 14 year old boy who was struck down by a drunk
driver in Eatontown. The drunk drove up on the sidewalk
to kill the boy.
This is the kind of emotional argument I object to. Unfortunately,
people die. They die from all kinds of things, including things
that are not their fault. This can even happen to me.
Now, as a member of society, I give up certain rights to do what
I want in return for some measure of protection from having things
happen to me which are not my fault (or those which are, for that
matter). But, because we have some measure of control over the law,
we can weigh the personal costs against the benefits to society
and/or self for any given law.
In this case, what I see in favor of police roadchecks is the
possibility of catching a few more drunk drivers (as well as
other criminal types, I suppose) and hence making the world
safer.
The negative side of this is that I feel it contributes to a
"police-state" like atmosphere more befitting a South American
dictatorship, it will unquestionably delay traffic, and it
denies a large number of people the right to do something for
no other reason than their age.
I don't preceive the risk of drunk drivers to be particularly high,
but do value fewer traffic jams and a greater sense of freedom in
society. Using these criteria, I conclude that the 21 year old
drinking age and floating roadblocks are not very good ideas.
What do I favor, you may ask? Personally, I don't believe in
having any legal drinking age at all. However, I would also
favor allowing establishments which serve liquor to set their
own guidelines on what minimum age patrons should be.
Two final thoughts: (1) Perhaps the problem could be partially
solved by lowering the legal definition of impaired/drunk for
the (presumably less experienced) 18 to 21 year old group?
I would find this solution more reasonable than the current
situation.
(2) I wonder if the number of teenage drunk driving deaths
would stay the same even if the drinking age was eliminated
and roadblocks were dropped. The fines and consequences are
still pretty nasty for any conviction. And all those police
will still be out there - somewhere - and still looking for
drunk drivers.
I would welcome more discussion with T.C.Wheeler or anyone
else on these subjects. (Privately if net.auto readers are
sick of it....)
-- Mike^Z Zaleski@Rutgers allegra!pegasus!mzalheahd@tellab1.UUCP (Dan Wood) (06/27/84)
I have some thoughts on this subject which I will post in net.politics because
the discussion seems to be more about civil liberties than automobiles.
--
Yrs. in Fear and Loathing,
DW @ ...!ihnp4!tellab1!heahd
Thus always to tyrants. Won't get fooled again!