woods (12/13/82)
I strongly object to being called a bad risk. I am NOT a bad risk. And where
the hell do you (cwruemp!krm) get off on taking the law into your own hands?
Everyone is presumed innocent until *proven* guilty *in a court of law*,
remember? Not when declared guilty by some asinine vigilante who thinks he can
impose his own moral and legal judgments on everyone else.
For those of you I mailed replies to, this is redundant, but I am still
getting flames (enough to make me wish I weren't so honest), and I am tired of
typing the same answer over and over, so here it is on the net.
We need to take a more realistic approach to the drunk driving problem. The
magnitude of the problem makes it clear that we cannot solve it by
just thorwing laws at it (remember prohibition?). As for different color plates,
how does that help? Ignoring the potential for harrassment plus the fact that
others besides the guilty party might drive the car in question, I don't see
how it will curb the problem at all. In my own case, the education I had to
go through as part of my probation is doing a lot more to keep me off the road
after drinking than fear of jail. I think we need to take a *constructive*
approach. This involves two things: Firstly, we must admit that we can't just
throw everyone we would like into jail. There isn't enough space. And those who
yell the loudest about stiff penalties are also the ones who refuse to vote
themselves higher taxes to pay for more jail cells. A classic example of a
totally unrealistic attitude. What we should do, then, is concentrate on the
repeat offenders. Given that we don't have room in jail for everyone, doesn't
it make sense to concentrate on those *most likely* to be a public menace?
Statistics show that not all people who are convicted of drunk driving
repeat the offense, but the vast majority of the people killed or injured
by drunk drivers are hurt by someone who has many times previously driven
while drunk. It is true that a first offender could hurt someone (which is why
it is such a stupid thing to do in the first place), but habitual drunk drivers
are much, much more likely to hurt someone, so I say, let's concentrate our
*limited* resources on the repeat offenders.
Secondly, we should take a good look at some *constructive* programs that
try to *prevent* the drunk from driving at all, rather than punishing him after
the crime has already been committed and the damage already done. One such
program recently undertaken in Gunnison, Co., is called "Tipsy Taxi", and
it is paid for by local bar owners with a little help from the town.
Here, if a bartender thinks one of his customers is too intoxicated to drive,
he can call the Tipsy Taxi who will come drive the potential drunk driver
home, thus keeping him off the road. This is a realistic approach. It admits
that alcohol use *is* encouraged in our society, and also admits that
transportation via the automobile is essential. It also works. The drunk driving
in Gunnison has dropped to practically nil since the Tipsy Taxi program was
started. (My source for info on Tipsy Taxi was a recent segment on the local
Denver TV news program).
Let's try to approach the problem in a practical, *realistic* manner and
stop throwing useless laws and damaging emotions at it.
Slipping permanently into my asbestos suit,
GREG
ucbvax!hplabs!hao!woods
harpo!seismo!hao!woods
decvax!brl-bmd!hao!woodsburris (12/15/82)
#R:hao:-38000:ihlpb:4100004: 0:581 ihlpb!burris Dec 14 12:32:00 1982 Bravo, the people with enough insight to establish the "Tipsy Taxi" should be commended for their realistic approach to the drunken driving problem. One thing some of you self-ordained vigilantes have neglected is to carry around a rope to hang the bartenders who allow the person to become too intoxicated to drive in the first place. It is a bartender's legal responsibility to refuse to serve any person who he believes to be intoxicated. How many do you know that actually do this unless you try to start a fight while in the bar? Dave Burris ihopa!burris BTL - Naperville
mes (12/16/82)
#R:hao:-38000:zeppo:5300008:000:967
zeppo!mes Dec 15 17:03:00 1982
I believe that it can be argued that someone who has imbibed enough
of any mind-altering substance such that their reaction time has been
significantly slowed may not be *apparently* drunk. Therefore, the
Tipsy Taxi program would probably be of help only in those severe
cases that are outwardly noticeable by a bartender with 20-200 other
patrons.
Indeed, that is a good help, and anything that lessens the number of
senseless injuries and deaths is good, however, I postulate that the
only thing that will reliably work in stopping drunk driving is every
individuals own sense of personal responsibilities. Nothing else. No
laws, no taxis, no tv commercials, no vigilanties - nothing but every
person telling her/himself that "I will not drive intoxicated.", and
then holding to that self-promise.
Why do I not think that our society is capable of this?
Pessimistically,
Michael Sajor, BTL WH, zeppo!mesbentson (12/18/82)
The "Dram Shop" laws establish a burden upon the bar (or whatever) to NOT sell to those that are drunk (or whatever). The principle is that the bar is contributing to the impairment of a customer's ability and thus the actions of the customer while impaired. Since this is grounds for a civil suit, and the bar can loose its shirt, the bars are becoming more cautious in serving. This might be part of the motivation behind the "Tipsy Taxi", I don't know. I just am glad to hear that some community has found a way to party safely. Randy Bentson, Colo State U - Comp Sci