ralph (12/16/82)
With respect to the discussion on drunk driving. I admit that it is a very difficult problem to solve fairly, but I thought that some facts might help put a persective on the problem. In Canada, the damage done every year by drunk drivers exceeds 2.2 billion dollars. In the U.S. thats probably $20 billion! In Canada, 52% of all fatal accidents are provably alcohol related. In the U.S. about 90 people a DAY are killed by drunk drivers! Thats about 9 a day in Canada. To put that in perspective, in the last six years, the number of Canadians killed by drunk drivers exceeds the number of Canadians killed in action during the six years of World War Two. Some interesting facts from Scandinavia: In Norway it is impolite for the host of a party not to provide transportation home for ALL of the guests. (Thus reducing drunk drivers). In Sweden, drunk drivers loose their license (for life) for the first offence. ALL occupants are charged, as they are all parties to the crime, as the passengers have the power to refuse to ride in the car, or insist on driving (should they be sobber). (I don't know how useful this is. I suspect that it is not often that you find many people in a car with a drunk driver). Non-facts: I don't claim to have the answers, but I think that the facts show that something must be done. Drunk drivers are committing wholesale man- slaughter on public roads.
woods (12/18/82)
Some of that stuff is really a new twist! I think it's a great idea
to implement some of that Scandinavian stuff. Making the other occupants
liable because they knew/should have known about the driver's ability
to drive is really a great idea. How many drives/rides more loaded-than-
should-have-been could have been avoided if only the would-be drunk driver
had a socially-acceptable way out? Or sometimes the passegers are all too
happy to say, "Sure, if we get nailed, it's on <generic driver>'s license!"
Have any of you others seen this type of thing happen more times than you
care to admit?
(if you mail me, I promise not to post your address to the net...)
GREG
ucbvax!hplabs!hao!woods
menlo70!hao!woods
harpo!seismo!hao!woods
decvax!brl-bmd!hao!woodsms (12/20/82)
I'm a native of England and have been in the States over 18 months now, I have noticed a considerable differenc in the attitude people have towards drinking and driving between the two countries. I don't think it is anything to do with attitudes towards the possible affects of drinking and driving but more to do with the chances of any serious steps being taken by the police if one is stopped when under the influence. In England I had a very good idea when I was over the "breathalizer" limit (approx. 2 pints of beer / 3 - 4 short drinks ) and I new that if for any reason the police stopped me ( eg bad tail-light, speeding, etc ) I would definately be breathalized and if that and the following blood test both failed I could just say "Bye bye license" for a whole year - no warnings ! I know a fair number of people in New Jersey who have been stopped while "drunk" but not one of them was even question about how much alcohol they consumed. Even if they were they probably would have just got a warning. It is just as important for most people in England to keep their licenses ( for instance if you lose your license and you try to get insurance after you get it back, you will probably pay triple - thats if you get it ! ) Also there are adverts on TV very frequently aimed especially at young people which inform them and bring home the consequences of drinking and driving. These steps certainly help and I think if these steps were taken here less people would be drunk drivers. I know I'm more guilty over here than I was in England - I hope things change, maybe I'll go back to "Think before you drink, before you drive !" - an English slogan ! Please forgive all the errors! Martin Studd BTL Holmdel (houti!ms)