What Everyone Should Know About The Drunk Driving Problem
We frequently hear that drunk drivers "cause 50% of all highway fatalities." This falls into the category of "tell a big enough lie long enough and loud enough and people will believe it."
The truth is closer to 10% of all highway fatalities are caused by drunk drivers. This certainly isn’t good, but let’s at least put the issue in perspective.
Our government and certain self serving "non-profit" organizations have exaggerated this problem beyond any sense of reality to promote an agenda that eliminates basic individual rights, undermines our system of due process and heaps onerous penalties on people who have not injured anyone and may not have met any reasonable standard of "impairment."
So where do the numbers that we hear being repeated time after time come from?
The "government speak" term is "alcohol-related." This term was created to deliberately mislead and confuse the general public about the magnitude of the drunk-driving problem.
When you hear some "expert" state that 40 or 50 percent of all fatal accidents are "alcohol-related," the intention is to make you believe that drunk drivers are responsible for causing all these fatalities. This is pure propaganda.
The federal government defines an alcohol-related fatal traffic accident as an accident where someone died and a person involved in the accident had some measurable amount of alcohol in his or her system. For example:
- A sober driver hits a pedestrian who has been drinking, even modestly. That’s considered an alcohol-related accident.
- A sober driver rear-ends a driver that has had something to drink. That’s considered an alcohol-related accident.
- A driver has a single drink and is involved in a fatal accident that he did not cause. That’s considered an alcohol-related accident.
Do these sound like "drunk-driver-caused" accidents to you? That’s what the government and the anti-drinking organizations would like you to believe.
Unfortunately, the media often parrots back the "alcohol-related" statistics to the general public which inevitably prompts people to push for more and more draconian penalties.
The common response when this misinformation is pointed out is for people to say, "Well, just don’t drink and drive and you won’t have to worry about it." This is disingenuous at best. The truth is that these laws will certainly affect many drivers who never even had a sip of alcohol.
The constant stream of misinformation over the years has created a hysteria about drunk driving. This hysteria has made normally rational people line up to give away their constitutional rights. The sad thing is that these rights are being given up for nothing. They’re being given up for the illusion of safety.
It’s worth noting that the NMA does not support drunk driving. No rational organization does.
Other Related Articles
To change the picture next to your comments, sign up at Gravatar.com. Each picture is associated with a particular email address. (This is a third-party service not affiliated with NMA.)
I like how this article ends with
“It’s worth noting that the NMA does not support drunk driving. No rational organization does.”
Well it should be a given fact that you do not support drunk driving, the fact that you put it on there gives us reason to suspect that your article was for drunk driving.
Incredible logic. If, by stating something, it means the opposite, then Lewis Carroll was right. Welcome to the world of the Jabberwocky.
.08% is not considered to be Drunk. It’s the level of presumption of impaired capacity. Simply it means that your reflexes and judgment are not as quick as when you’re sober. Very misleading since so many drivers are just as impaired at 0.0% BAC, what with cell phones, stereos, food, makeup, reading, chatting, etc. So, it’s a questionable value when people are convicted of “drunk driving,” especially with no accidents, for nothing more than reduced capacity when other “sober” drivers are guilty of the same thing.
There really are blind stinking drunk drivers that need to be gotten off the road. They’re a danger to themselves even if not driving. It’s called Public Intoxication. But to penalize someone on the basis that he MIGHT have an accident is specious, since the same basis is not applied to all other impaired drivers who simply aren’t paying attention to their driving.
If we as a society are sincerely worried about endangering innocent lives while driving, why does our Colorado Government think it’s OK to use a cell phone and drive? How did we ever manage to get along with our lives before this miraculous device was invented? It is driving impaired as well when using a cell phone and driving, especially in a city environment, physically and mentally. One hand on the phone and more importantly, mentally engrossed with the subject of conversation with another party. Every time I see a driver with a cellphone crammed into their ear and their eyes glazed over in a day-dream state, I think to myself, they may as well be chugging a bottle of beer. The attention span of paying attention to the road significantly lessons as a conversation lengthens and intensifies in emotion. Happy, sad or mad with a business, friend or significant other. It’s as common place as a discussion with a bank official over a cancelled check, something as simple as good news that a friend is getting married or an arguement with a significant other over a break-up. Plus the time limit of these cell-phone calls could go on for 10 minutes or more. Driving 30 m.p.h. covers five mile of inattentive driving in 10 minutes. Most will say, “Oh not me… I keep my calls short and there’s no difference between a cell phone conversation and tuning in a station on my car radio.”… but what is the difference in that or when a driver who’s had a few beers says,” Oh not me… I can drive safe for a few blocks and a few beers doesn’t impair me enough not to drive…”. There is NO difference. It takes only seconds or a single second to make a poor driving maneuver and an innocent life can be taken. The insurance industry, AAA and even the “Mythbusters” TV show on the Discovery Channel did actual driving tests on their show in a controlled environment that concluded that cell phone use while driving compares equally to DUI or drug impairment. There is an emotional response and pre-occupation with cell phone use, especially if you need to think out a solution to a problem or situation mentally while on the phone and driving. Then why doesn’t the State of Colorado be more vigorous in enforcing cell phone use the same as drinking and driving?…Because then it affects their lives. The same Government officials that enforce and pass laws against DUI and DWAI offenses talk on their cell phones and drive every single day, endangering your life and mine. If you think cell phone use while driving is no big deal, tell the Mother of the nine year old Erica Forney, who’s life was recently and tragically taken by a woman driving and on her cell-phone, November 25th of 2008 in the Fort Collins area. Nine year old Erica was hit head on, while the driver of the vehicle was busy on the cell-phone and veered into Erica riding her bicycle. The woman driving didn’t even recall hitting Erica, that is how impaired one can get while on a cell-phone! The woman charged recieved a very simular punishment( Community service, probation, driving classes, letters of apology, but only a $300.00 fine) as a drunk driver, but with no jail time and she was charged with careless driving resulting in death. (Article on this case can be found here http://www.denverpost.com/ci_12312532 ) So why such a light sentence for taking such a young life? She made a conscious effort to call, be in the middle of a call, or receive a call and not pay attention to the road in front of her. She was not forced in any way to be on the phone, just like a person is not forced to drink an alchoholic beverage. She chose to be on the phone. That is a pre-meditated act of Driving While Imparied! So are we saying that type of impairment is OK since it is popular in the publics opinion since just about everyone does it and there is no specific law in the books for it yet? Do we really need to have a law passed to know it’s not the right thing to do and irresponsible? Where were the M.A.D.D. comforting the Mother of nine year old Erica and speaking out to the media in that case? Is life less of value when it’s not taken by an intoxicated driver? It seems to me that childrens lives are pretty expendable in the State of Colorado when a high percentage of its citizens do the same thing as the woman that killed Erica… using cell-phones while driving. Conversley, a first time offender of a DUI or DWAI crime who may have been driving 5-10 MPH over the speed limit or had a tail light out on their vehicle to get stopped, then found to have been drinking at, slightly over, or slightly under the BAC legal limit, would recieve a simular sentence as the woman who actually took the life of a child, primarily on the basis of what could have happened while drinking and driving, even though no major crime was committed when pulled over by police, aside for the previous consumption of alchohlic beverages? Agreed, it is not really smart to drink and drive, but if you are driving safely at the time of the stop and all that can be really charged is a tail light out, failure to signal on a turn and the Alchohol consumption, then people are being convicted on the present law that is based on “Might have’s” or the “What if’s”. If you agree with that logic to enforce law, then let’s look at this scenario… Say you are having a simple arguement or loud disagreement with your spouse over bills or that one of you is not spending enough quality time at home, ect. and Police are called by a neighbor because they can’t sleep over the racket. No evidence of physical violence or threats were acted out and acknowledged by both parties, just loud voices, but the police decide to take one of you to jail and charge you with something simular in punishment to a second degree attempted murder charge because it is common knowledge that most cases of spousal murders are committed because of an arguement or disagreement that gets blown out of proportion and physical violence or murder could happen and these laws are publically backed by a politically influenced group called M.A.M.S. (Mothers Against Murderous Spouses) to protect married couples for their own good. Charges and punishment based on “if’s” or “What could have’s”. Are we all really in agreement with that ? They made a movie in 2002 with Tom Cruise about this same subject called “Minority Report” and it’s advertisment catch phrase was “What would you do if you were accused of a murder, you had not committed… yet?
In the future, criminals are caught before the crimes they commit” . How prophetic. Each DUI or DWAI case needs to be judged and punished on an individual case basis, not a, “Once a drunk driver, always a drunk driver” umbrella and not over-punishing one person to make a public community service statement or over-compensate in harsh sentencing to pay the price for the past of others who actually took a life while intoxicated or habitual offenders who have gotten off easy. Ruining a life of a first time offender who has never been in trouble in their life and may have been on the bubble, a little over, or under the .08 BAC and making a poor choice to drink and drive and nothing else, will now pay for this crime on a personal, financial, criminal, emotional and social bases for years to come as if they were some sort of habitual criminal and is now common place in our society as the modern Scarlet Letter. In my case, I had a perfect and immaculant lifetime record up until my DUI stop in March of 2009. My Commercial drivers licence was taken from me for one year( I was not working at the time, but driving my car home after a few beers and was pulled over 300 yards from my home for doing 48 MPH in a 40 MPH zone and was paced by speedometer in a distance of 0.18 miles as stated by the officer), so I can’t work at my proffesion, needless to say, I’m now I’m unemployed. My secondary choice of work is coaching athletics, primarily track and field which I dedictated my life to and now no College will touch me with a DUI or DWAI on my record, so the reality of coaching at the level are out the window. My Auto insurance rates went up dramatically which I had to pay imediatley to even have the chance to drive with a restricted license. I’ll need to file for banckrupcy when my funds are depleted soon. My self respect and honor amongst friends, athletes and fellow coaches are tarnished for life. My social life as a single man is non-existant because I’m unemployed and considered an irresponsible person and a lush (Even though I drank rarley). I pay monthly for a BAC breath machine for my vehicle which truly is a physical example of a Scarlet Letter to the public so that when it beeps randomly as I drive and I have to blow into it to prove my sobriety, I’m also telling the world, “Hey, Look at drunk boy here!!” All that and I haven’t even gone to Criminal court yet which yields more fines , court cost, alchohol classes, community service and supervised probation. My mental health is taking a huge hit as well with alI that comes with this charge. So, at 47 years of age, where I still have a few good years left, my life’s not just being punished, but totally inialated and dismantled of finances, social status and interaction, personal mental well-being and future dreams and goals I may have had. Is this just punishment for a first time offender, who didn’t hurt, kill anyone, crash into anything, wasn’t weaving in and out lanes, running through lights or stop signs, co-operated fully with law enforcement when stopped never having a criminal problem in my entire life…? Not all people who get stopped for DUI or DWAI are daily drunkards, second-time offenders of lifetime offenders and should not be judged as so. Most DUI or DWAI offenders are ashamed with the charge brought against them and are harder on themselves than the court and criminal system could ever be, but the State laws don’t see it that way. They think the laws for first time offenders need to be even tougher. Most know, and feel, that they made one poor choice and learned from their mistake. The media always publishes all kinds of statistics on re-offenders of DUI’s or DWAI’s to justify making drinking and driving laws more potent in their punishment, but you never read about the extremely high percentage of drivers that learned from their first-time mistake and never got even as much as a parking ticket ever again. There are always a few politicians, lawmakers and police that break laws as well and I never see the Government making harsher laws to prevent these officals or others in those departments, who really should know better, from doing the same thing again. On the contrary…for the most part, they get leniancy. Let’s look at the case of former Mayor of Colorado Springs, Mary Lou Makepeace in December of 2008 when she was caught weaving in and out of the center line with her adult daughter and a four year old boy as passengers in her vehicle at 9:15pm. She had watery, bloodshot eyes, smelled of alchohol, refused the roadside sobriety tests and blew a . 077 in the officers portable BAC device. Barely under the .08 of a D.U.I. but still way over the .05 for a DWAI. Officers on scene let her call a relative to come pick her and her passengers up when Mrs. Makepeace, herself, told officers she was too impaired to drive. No Arrest was made, or ticket given out.. Amazing isn’t it ? (Info on this case can be found here…http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4191/is_20090201/ai_n31401490/ )Colorado Government, let’s not be hypocrytes. If the State or M.A.D.D really want to do something significant to save innocent lives, pass laws against any form of cell phone use while driving, at any age. Initiate a law for alchoholic drink maximums per customer in restaurants and bars, or better yet… eliminate drinking at public establishments completely. Can’t have your Sauvignon Blanc with your veal? Tough luck. Want a beer to watch the game with your buddies at the bar? Too bad, so sad, drink coffee or a Coke. Want an alchoholic drink? Have it in the privacy of your own home. Sound a little excessive? Well, it shouldn’t if the heartfelt and sincere goal of the Government is to save an innocent life. The Colorado Government didn’t blink an eye in banning smoking in Colorado restaurants and bars because it endangered the health of innocent lives. If restaurant and bar owners claim their business will suffer by the non-sales of alcholic beverages, Colorado Government should use the same arguement as they did with the smoking ban that they all gobbled up in delight when it suited them then, “The saving of health and innocent lives…”. It was OK for smoking to be banned, so what’s the difference between that and endangering a life from behind the wheel of a vehicle? Nothing but the time it takes…
Post Script-Nine year old Erica Forney, killed on November 25th, 2008 in the Fort Collins, Co. area, was hit head on while riding her bicycle by a driver distracted using her cell phone. The driver was fined only $300.00 by a Colorado court, ordered to perform community service, probation and write a letters of apology with no jail time served.
In the later 1970′s, there was a national push to raise the drinking age from 18 to 21. The reason given was that a highly disproportionate percentage of drunk driving accidents were causde by drivers under 21. Statistics were given, philosophical arguments were provided, basically it must have made a good case, since all 50 states eventually raised the drinking age to 21. Extortion by the federal government to withhold highway funds from states that didn’t comply probably had a major effect, too.
Interestingly, the anti-booze crowd didn’t stop there. On military installations, if you were old enough to die for your country, you were old enough to drink. But the pressure extended to the military, too. Why? Who knows, since the under-21 crowd could not leave the base since they’d then be in violation of state laws. So there was no worry about drunk driving by those people. So, as I’ve said elsewhere, it’s not the drunk driving, but the Carrie Nation mentality that led to Prohibition. But that’s beside the point.
So, by raising the drinking age, we’ve eliminated the major component of the drunk driving accidents. That was the stated goal of raising the age limit. Hmm, that didn’t work. Shhh, don’t tell anyone. NOW we’ll lower that BAC standard. But wait, there are still just as many drunk driving accidents as there ever were, even though more people are being prosecuted for the lower BAC. I got it, let’s lower it MORE. By golly, we’ve GOT to hit the solution eventually. If I hit my head against the wall long enough and hard enough, the wall just HAS to break down, right?
People, you’re trying to eliminate a problem of human nature, which ain’t gonna happen. All you can do is prosecute those that cause damage, injury or death. To attempt avoiding such incidents before they ever occur is a pipe dream.
Do I advocate driving drunk? Hell, no! But your definition of drunk driving is different than mine. You thought that .10% BAC determined drunk driving. Too many accidents. So you lowered it to .08%. Still too many accidents. Now there’s talk of lowering it to .02% or even .00%. What’s next, testing hair follicles to see if you’ve had a drink in the last 3 months?
Prosecute for the actual act of destruction, not the potential possibility that is never realized.
Jeff as far as I a concerned you can stay up there.