paul (12/15/82)
The big push against drunk drivers I see as a basic assault on personal freedom. If people invested that much time reforming the the criminal justice system with regard to murderers and rapists, we would all be better off. 1. Proposed penalties against drunk drivers are way out of line. Unusual punishment sort of thing. 2. Infringement of trade for tavern/restaurant owners. 3. Harrassment of drivers. 4. There are manslaughter laws, and the agrieved party has recourse to civil action. The penalties are too tough on first time offenders, and I think driving is a right, and not a privilege. It's a different story with 18 time offenders, but a few cases get sensationalized. The business about special license plates, etc. is ridiculous. Let's just slap on those yellow stars while we are at it. Waiting for the flames, I remain, etc. PS When I was 16, on a learner's permit, a drunk smacked into me. No fatalities, but the car was totaled, my dad and myself were hurt, etc. Loss of car for traveling salesman, etc. Paul Killey University of Michigan Ann Arbor
wg (12/16/82)
In response to Pual Killey's comments re drunk drivers: I am overwhelmed with relief to know that, if my wife or child were killed by a drunk driver, I have the recourse of whatever manslaughter laws exist in my state. That will go a long way in comforting me in my grief; it'll go even further if I stop to think that perhaps it could have been avoided by murderer being smart enough to stay off the road and by laws that encourage him/her to do so.
shauns (12/17/82)
Arrgh! Full goose loony flame on!
"...driving is a right, not a privilege..."
There is nothing
in our `human essence' that says we are born to drive cars on public roads.
This is one of the reasons that America has so much problem with
irresponsible drivers.
We have had the resources to provide for the personal auto and roads for
so long, and have integrated the auto so much into our lifestyle, that
we forget that driving on public roads isn't an integral part of the
'human essence' and therefore not a right..
When government speaks of `privilege', it is saying this: If you wish
to drive when drunk, that's your RIGHT-if it doesn't endanger the rights
of others-if it isn't on public facilities. Society
has determined that public roads are a good thing, and that, as owner,
it has the right to require certain criteria be met to ensure good
operation of the roads. If you don't meet the requirements, you don't use
the facilities.
I also seem to detect a bit of utilitarian sentiment in the author's
comments involving existing laws on the books covering the effects
of drunken driving. Yes, true enough. It does seem that the laws
outlawing drunken driving do so on a moralistic
basis-"It's bad 'cause it is".
But government has the power to PROTECT the rights of others, not just
compensate the wronged. Therefore the government can pass laws that are
designed to prevent the occurence of a condition that will directly
cause personal/property damage. If the law is very severe, it's because
the consequences of that condition are very onerous. In the case of
drunk driving, American drivers haven't got it through their head that
they have to think of others while behind the wheel, so the disincentives
have to be strong enough to make them think twice.
It would be better to try and change the social factors that
promote drunken driving, such as deemphasizing its role as a social
lubricant and the implications of `adultness' or `sophistication' in its
consumption-but since we are rather loathe to apply common sense and
maturity to a problem, the backwards approach of a punitive law will have
to suffice.
By the way, Scandinavian countries have had for years far stricter
drunk driving laws than we are contemplating. It hasn't reduced the
level of freeom of expression there, and the roads are much less stressful
to travel.
There, I feel better now.
Shaun Simpkins
uucp: {ucbvax,decvax,chico,pur-ee,cbosg,ihnss}!teklabs!tekcad!shauns
CSnet: shauns@tek
ARPAnet:shauns.tek@rand-relaywhite (12/18/82)
I read with interest the comments on drunk drivers. I, for one, do NOT feel that the laws for second offences are too severe. I think that they are far too lenient. Perhaps there should be a time limit beyond which the second offense ceases to exist, perhaps not. AS far as comparing durnk driving laws to rape lawsL: Drunk driving laws are almost severe enough, in the second offense case at least. Rape and murder laws should be scaled to that they are PROPORTIONAL to the drunk driving laws, in other words, much more severe. I thnk that the first DWi offense, IFF it concerns no death or severe injury, should be more espensive, and less restrictive to the person's freedom. That would get the point across in today's selfish, materialistic, and apathetic world that YOU BLEW IT, SH*THEAD! but without making the person lose their job, drop out of the productive part of society, and so on. I propose that drunk drivers have to work, for the first offense, for 1 year, every other weekend, for an ambulance squad, and provide nurses aide/orderly services for 1 week for an alcohol detox hospital. That sort of sentence will teach anyone with any perceptiveness at all the sort of things that happen to alcoholics if they don't handle themselves. (P.S. DWI's are not necessarily alcoholics, but the example cannot hurt in any case!)
trb (12/19/82)
The car in which I was riding last night was stopped for a drunk driver random spot check. The Chatham (NJ) policeman asked the driver if she'd had anything to drink, he explained that Morris County had the worst record in the state for drunk driving offenses, he handed us an explanatory note and we were off. These spot checks will cause some drivers to take greater care this season, I'm glad the policemen were out there doing something constructive about the problem. I think the note (which I don't have handy) said that 67% of driving accidents (or was that fatalities?) in Morris County were the fault of drunk drivers. If you drunks get into fatal auto crashes this season, I can only hope that you collide with other drunk drivers. Might as well make the best of sad circumstances. Andy Tannenbaum Bell Labs Whippany, NJ (201) 386-6491
3131kmh (12/21/82)
Death is not determined by the number of offenses of the drivers. Manslaughter laws and civil action are almost useless, given the number of loopholes in the current laws. (4 1/2 years of following a case in the court maze has proven that to me.) The laws do indeed need to be changed; and the current "push" just may provide the needed legislation, and at the same time, a public awareness of personal responsibility.
berry (12/30/82)
#R:uofm-cv:-11400:zinfandel:3200007:000:250 zinfandel!berry Dec 17 10hu Dec 30 01:17:28 1982 #R:uofm-cv:-11400:zinfandel:3200007:000:250 zinfandel!berry Dec 17 10:37:00 1982 I seem to recall reading somewhere (Guiness BoWR?) the that the world's toughest drunk driving laws are in El Salvador, where the penalty for drunken driving
berry (12/30/82)
#R:uofm-cv:-11400:zinfandel:3200007:000:250 zinfandel!berry Dec 17 10:37:00 1982 I seem to recall reading somewhere (Guiness BoWR?) the that the world's toughest drunk driving laws are in El Salvador, where the penalty for drunken driving is death by firing squad. Afraid to drive in El Salvador even sober, --Berry Kercheval