Where is the uproar?
 

Today's Daily Sun printed a small article on page C-4 regarding the death of a 61 year old Homosassa woman, killed by a person who was speeding, driving under the influence, and driving with a suspended license.

Where is the uproar?

The 24 year old was clocked driving 92 mph on Interstate 75. A Florida Highway Patrol officer gave chase. The driver, a 23 year old Plant City man, exited abruptly at SR 44. He failed to stop at a red light at the end of the exit ramp and smashed into the woman's car, where she died at the scene.

Where is the uproar?

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, "Every day, almost 29 people in the United States die in alcohol-impaired vehicle crashes—that's one person every 50 minutes in 2016"

Where is the uproar?

On an almost daily basis, there are news reports in the Daily Sun or on line at that other news website that can't be mentioned, of arrests for DUI, driving on suspended licenses, etc. This includes driving golf carts here in The Villages.

Where is the uproar?

A driver's license is not a RIGHT it is a PRIVILEGE. Consuming alcohol is not a RIGHT, it is a CHOICE.

Where is the uproar?

How can people under the influence, or on suspended licenses, or even those without licenses, continue to be able to drive a vehicle? Why is there no national call to require car manufacturers to implement safety controls that prohibit any one that is not properly trained (no, mom and dad teaching their kids to drive doesn't count as driving instructors-the training should be done by licensed certified trainers) and carrying a valid license? Off the top suggestions are fingerprint readers tied into a national police database that can validate that the user is legally licensed to drive the car and of course, breathalyzers that must be used by EVERYONE when they put a key in the ignition and if they fail, it locks out the car and potentially even alert local law enforcement. Why do some states allow 16 year old children to drive? Perhaps the minimum driving age should be raised to 21, or 25. Why do we allow children to own and drive what is in essence a weapon if it is not handled safely and responsibly?

Where is the uproar?

Why do distilleries and other vendors of alcohol continue to get a pass? Why was there an article in yesterdays Daily Sun about a 17 year old detained by the police for having and consuming a beer? Why is there not a requirement that all alcohol in the home be kept locked up in a safe where children and abusers can't get to it? Why is there not a fingerprint check requirement tied to a national police database so that liquor stores can determine if the purchaser has been convicted of any alcohol related crimes?

Where is the uproar?

Where are the news pundits, the screen actors guild, the legislators, THE PEOPLE, who should be out protesting the daily death toll? Driving and alcohol consumption are privileges and choices, why aren't they being regulated?

Oh, that's right. These tragedies are "one offs". Twenty nine deaths on a daily basis are across the country. I guess this doesn't provide enough sensationalism for many of the above to sustain a protest. I wonder, do they think that the grief felt by the loved ones left behind by these "one offs" is any less traumatic?

Where is the uproar?

An uproar has to start with someone, go for it!

Your post is excellent and I agree with it wholeheartedly. Unfortunately it's another case of NOBODY CARES ENOUGH, unless it affects one personally, you really don't care.

There are numerous ignition locking devices in existence, but somehow or other they never get to be law in motor vehicles. Politicians are not going to run on that. Lobbyists for the distilleries are not going to go along with it. I don't even see the police making a big deal about it! - What's one more avoidable road death? The only people impacted by this poor woman's untimely death are her husband and her family .............. and the drunk driver gets to do it again.

There is MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving). There is the uproar!

There are state laws that prohibit drunk driving with criminal penalties for persons who are caught, including vehicular homicide.
There is the uproar!

There is RADD (Recording Artists, Actors, and Athletes Against Drunk Driving) which has done public service announcements by such persons as John Mayer, Barry Bonds, Paul McCartney, Shaquille O’Neal, Warren G, Tim McGraw, Marc Anthony and Gwen Stefani, and does free concerts to raise money for the cause.
There is the uproar!

I'm with you, friend! There are many of us who have lost someone because of drunk driving, either to death, injury, or prison. We cause uproar with our actions and our money.

My sister-in-law and her daughter were killed last Christmas Day by a drunk driver on I-75. The drunk driver of course was not injured. They never are. The Drunk had numerous DWI convictions. So the system does NOT keep drunks (after being caught) off the road (until they kill somebody.)

Also , I-75 is really a "death" highway. I now notice deaths on that highway just about every day.

I am outraged that DUI/DWI brings such little punishment until they kill somebody and that I-75 can't be made safer will a patrol car every few miles and lots of guard rails. Avoid I-75 at Night!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The uproar starts at home. My daughter was taught that a car was the most lethal weapon she would ever own and to treat it accordingly. My grandson, now 8-1/2, is being taught the same thing. A licensed driving instructor is not enough. Every driver should take at least one defensive driving class, preferably at a racetrack.

If we all treated a car as a deadly weapon, accidents would be far fewer in number. If drunk drivers were treated and convicted as felons, accidents would be reduced. If there was more of a police presence on public roadways, there would be less speeders and, thus, less accidents. If only there weren’t so many ifs....

The uproar is out there. It is just ignored by drivers, police, judges, legislators.

I miss reading your posts. :wave:

More people, more cars and trucks, and busier highways mean more accidents. Add to that more irresponsible people and cheap alcohol (also drugs) and you have a serious situation. There are few, if any, answers. In recent years we put a heavy tax on tobacco and with part of the money have advertised the problems of tobacco. We now have fewer smokers. Perhaps making it more expensive to consume too much alcohol could help.....(opening the door for naysayers now) “Government is not charged with the duty of redressing or preventing all the wrongs in the world”. Abraham Lincoln 1859. The lack of personal responsibility didn’t start recently.

That bears repeating, so I will.

The lack of personal responsibility didn't start recently.

The major impediment to getting anything done/changed/enforced/etc is a function of the silent majority that predictably remains silent/do nothing/not in my back yard/or involved personally.

The reason special interest, minority and lobby groups are so successful....their FEW do in fact do something and are recognized.

Until the silent majority is affected there will be no difference going forward.

UNFORTUNATELY!!

I appreciate your post, but would have to respectfully disagree.

I have been checking the news today, and I haven't heard/seen any uproar over this tragedy. MADD hasn't come out to condemn the perpetrator of this crime, or to espouse car/alcohol control. I haven't seen one discussion panel generated to discuss this tragedy or to lobby for change on the various news show. Why are the various talk show hosts, or members of the Screen Actors Guild who seem to have much more influence on people's opinions, not coming out today to talk about this tragedy or even one in their own state? So I ask again, where is the uproar?

Good post, and I agree 100% with you, but if the message is ignored, how is it an uproar?

100% agree that there is a lack of personal responsibility and wish to re-emphasis the quote by Abraham Lincoln regarding the government.

I am sorry for your loss.

Not sure what uproar you are looking for. You can't force personal responsibility, most of us are in favor of what you are asking until someone reminds us that we need to pay for it, more police, clogged court rooms filled with lawsuits, infringement on individual rights. An uproar accomplishes nothing without action and acceptance of the individual costs, forced personal responsibility. How do we do that?

We just drove back on I-75 from Nashville! While attempting to merge on to the highway I was run off by a semi-tractor trailer... I have the truck number and license my intent is to call the company to complain! Have you ever noticed that when one of these trucks put on their blinker it's NOT request but a demand?

One out of every 4 accidents are caused by texting while driving, 6 times greater chance of getting into an accident than driving drunk. Where is the uproar???? Is there a Mother's against Texting While Driving? Are there any organized groups against this insanity? I don't think so. Society has been trying to stop drunk driving for decades, remember when you could have a BAC of under 12 and not be considered drunk? Nothing seems to be working as far as reduced BACs, penalties, enforcement, incarceration, etc. Technology is the answer, sensors could be developed that would not allow cars to start or would disable them if even a slight scent of alcohol was detected, it could be done. Cell phones could be disabled when in motion, it could be done. BUT BUT BUT do we have the right to take away freedom of choice??? Let's here it for the ACLU another out of control group. Where is the uproar? I doubt very much that anything will be done while we are still around. Just gotta be as defensive as possible on the road and even that won't always help.

"Technology is the answer, sensors could be developed" -please see my early post here on using sensors to de-activate a car. They have been developed, but are not mandatory and I have no idea why.

New car tech could stop drunken drivers

Anti-drunk driving technology won't start the car if you're smashed

Do your own search, there are dozen of ways to stop a drunk in a car. For some reason we are not making them mandatory.

I75 a death every day? Hyped!

Do we have the right to make them mandatory for everyone as very few drunk drivers get caught. I cold see them being used after a conviction but I don't think we're there yet as far as all cars being produced. Also, why not come up with technology that can sense any impairment or distraction, alcohol, drugs, drowsiness, texting, etc., etc? It may take another generation to end this, possibly further development of self driving vehicles, that would certainly do the trick. In the mean time think defense.

Thank you for reading these posts and your responses!
 

I want to thank you all for your time to read and respond to my posts. Let me be clear that I too am frustrated by the issues with alcohol and driving, as well as our new found penchant for texting while driving-thanks to the poster for bringing that point up in the discussion! I do want to ultimately put forth a corollary that I think needs to be considered when talking about DUI.

If we consider some of the issues with drinking and driving, some points I wish to make are:

1) Deaths and injury caused by people under the influence of alcohol, while on a daily basis out number the recent loss of life at a Florida school, are not sensational enough to bring constant light to bear on the issues at hand.

2) Any motor vehicle is a potential weapon, yet children as young as 16 can obtain at least a permit to drive.

3) A person convicted of a motor vehicle offense involving alcohol has NO real checks or balances to actually prohibit them from being repeat offenders, putting innocent lives at risk every day.

4) Driving a vehicle is a privilege, not a right.

5) Consuming alcohol in any quantity is a choice, not a right

6) One only needs to be of legal age to purchase alcohol.

7) There are no background checks for the purchase of alcohol. Does the purchaser have a criminal history involving alcohol? Why are there no laws to prohibit a person convicted of an alcohol related crime from purchasing alcohol?

The above points aren't meant to be all inclusive or exclusive of others points that can be made (for example, there was no call on the auto industry when a person ran down at least 8 people in New York last year)

Now for the corollary (and I am sure this is going to make me real popular):

The purchase of firearms:

1) Requires a background check. Felons are prohibited from gun purchase.

2) People with mental health issues would fail a proper background check (multiple legal systems failed in the recent school shooting)

3) Contrary to inaccurate reporting by the media, assault weapons have not been legal to own since the 1930's. Unfortunately people seem to believe that the letters "AR" as in "AR-15" stand for "Assault Rifle". Actually AR" stands for "Armalite Rifle". Armalite was the name of a company that designed an innovative look rifle in the 1950's.

4) Due to sensationalism, there is an effort to impact second amendment rights, however there seems to be a reluctance to impact privileges (a driver's license) or choice (consuming alcohol where you qualify as under the influence).

5) A car is as much a weapon as a gun. It is the user whose actions determine how that object is used, yet the one that is the easiest weapon to obtain is also the one regulated the least: the car.

The bottom line of my post is that not only is the school shooting a tragedy, but so is the DAILY senseless, but sensational-less loss of life through alcohol that occurs on a daily basis.

So I ask the media, the pundits, as well as anyone who is stepping up to the line with protests and calls for controls that involve second amendment rights, where is the uproar for those victims killed senselessly ON A DAILY BASIS where it regards privileges and choices?

You make some good points, and then you blow it with a statement like that.

So anything, such as a <fill in with absolutely any item on the face of the planet> is as much a weapon as a gun because it can accidentally or when used by an evil person kill somebody.

Yeah. Right.

86 people were killed at the Bastillo Day celebration in Nice, France when a truck purposely ran into the crowd. I'd say a motor vehicle can be every bit as effective of a weapon as a firearm can.

Here's a list of attacks with vehicles.. Terrorist Attacks by Vehicle Fast Facts - CNN

Post all you want. Cars are not "as much a weapon as a gun". And when you make such statements, you lose potential advocates...such as me.

As Kenswing demonstrates in his post, motor vehicles can and are used as weapons.

My argument was not that the primary purpose of a car is a weapon, but it is just as deadly and if you don't think so, ask the relatives of the woman from Homosassa who was killed yesterday. While a gun can be used to kill people, there are other uses for it (hunting to eat, and competition shooting as examples). It is the deliberate improper use of the object that makes it a weapon if the intent is to harm or kill.

From Werriam-Webster, the definition of a weapon is: something (such as a club, knife, or gun) used to injure, defeat, or destroy.

And just to be clear, the term "such as" in the definition is not all inclusive. Given that vehicles have been used to injure, defeat, or destroy, I would propose that, yeah I am right.

So, because of the proposal by myself or Kenswing that cars can be used as weapons just like guns, you would chose to not to be a potential advocate for improvements for reducing/eliminating driving under the influence? Or am I reading something wrong here?

Because of criminal activity they want to take our guns away. They haven’t addressed how to take only the bad guys guns but only those of responsible owners. How did that work for China, Germany, and North Korea. Drunk drivers should off road also but telling me to blow in a drunk meter or use fingerprints when I’m a responsible adult is against my rights. Maybe like gun control everyone should give up their cars because more people die from auto accidents than guns. The world would be a better place

Fatty foods should all be banned. Better yet, incarcerate all the fatties. Put the smokers and druggies in jail with them. Release them when they are fit and withdrawn.

I would propose that one big reason it is not being made mandatory is NIMBY (not in my backyard). If a change will impact all, then it is less appealing than the impact on the fewer. In other words, do as I say, not as I do.

The other reason is that gun control is the hot topic of choice, and rather than address alcohol consumption and driving, the media is driving a different agenda. Or could it be that they don't like what they see in the mirror when talking about drinking and driving?

The leading cause of death in this country is cardiovascular disease. We should ban the fork and knife for making people fat..

There have been some great posts, some drifting off of the original topic, which I would attribute to my corollary.

Ultimately the bottom line, in my opinion, is that people are not being held accountable for their decisions. There are many examples which would take this discussion way off topic, but if we did a root cause analysis, we might find a commonality that points to personal accountability. Is this a contributory cause or a root cause? I suppose that is another debate.

Back to my original post. A woman was killed, one of approximately 29 that day due to alcohol related driving, yet we hear nothing because it is not sensational enough. Is there another reason the media, the pundits, or the Screen Actors Guild is not speaking up? And if not, how sad is that?

Yes, you are reading something wrong in what I've said in my previous replies...

First off, I am very much in favor of the improvements you suggest. Absolutely.

However, the statements "cars can be used as weapons" and "cars are as much a weapon as guns" are two totally different statements. I agree with the first. I would never agree with the second. And personally I think your cause suffers when you try to equate the two.

Thanks for your reply, however we are going to have to agree to disagree. The statements are separate, but no less true statements. I go back to your post (highlighted in bold red) where you speak to an evil person using something to kill. In that case, it is the weapon of choice by the perpetrator of that crime to kill/harm all of those people. We don't know why they chose to use a motor vehicle, but regardless, they chose to drive that vehicle into a group of people with the sole purpose of killing people. By definition alone the vehicle is a weapon and as such, is as much a weapon as a gun.

Very simple!!!
Because there is no personal gain for them.
And it is insignificant to their political/special interest/minority/lobbyist agenda.

Thanks, i couldn't agree more.

The gun is designed to shoot things. It is used for nothing else. The automobile is used for...naaahhh...I'm not going to complete saying something that is so patently obvious.

By the way, I noticed your avatar. You know dogs kill a lot of people. And yet you display those weapons as though they're just some innocent objects.

Thank you for once again making my point for me. Yes dogs can and have killed people, and when they are used by people to kill or hurt someone, at that point they would be considered weapons. As to my two little guys, they might think that they are larger breeds at times, but unless someone has an absolute fear of dogs, I find it hard to believe that either of my dogs would strike fear in the heart of a perpetrator.

Please show me where I even alluded to guns not being designed to shoot, or that cars were designed to kill?

Yes guns shoot and cars do not. Your position appears to be that the design/intent of the object is the basis for whether it is a good thing or a bad thing. Is this correct? Please tell me when and where an honest, law abiding citizen has taken a gun and randomly shot someone?

Or is your position that the presence of guns makes it easier for the "evil" person to obtain them? If that is the case, then please explain:

1) The use of vehicles to kill more than 1 or 2 people at a single time (note that there were two separate examples already provided in earlier posts). Why didn't the perpetrators of those crimes grab assault rifles and use them instead? Perhaps they thought that the criminal penalties would be less since they didn't use a gun?

2) Chicago, which has very strict gun laws, still has over 500 gun related homicides a year. I am sure that if every gun, or even a narrow majority of the guns used by the bad guys were obtained legally, that would be part of the headlines. Oh and by the way, the vast majority of those killings involve a handgun, not a rifle.

I will again return to the original topic of this string which has to do with driving under the influence. Why do you continue to refuse to accept that when a car is being driven by someone who is intoxicated and not able to drive the vehicle in a safe, law abiding manner, that they are in possession of a potential weapon? Once they hurt/kill someone, by definition the car was the weapon used, or is Merriam-Webster wrong in regards to the definition of a weapon? Remember that the offender in this case not only was speeding, but also DUI, and driving under a suspended license. This person would appear to be in callous disregard not only of the driving laws, but of the lives of other people on the road. Please explain how his motor vehicle was not a weapon.

How can you continue to argue that something involved in 29 deaths per day is not a potential weapon? My point is you can't.

Why is this not being addressed in as rabid a manner as the anti-gun campaign? Are the lives of people killed by drunk drivers less worthy than those killed by a gun?

Automobiles are a way of life so they get a "pass". No enforceable regulations or safety devices to prevent criminals from repeatedly drinking and driving. Cars get a "pass" because if Joe Smith had to blow in a breathalyzer each time he went to turn on the ignition, well that would be inconvenient and add to the costs of the car purchase. Perhaps if instead of a slap on the wrist, a drunk driver spent a significant amount of time in jail, including a life sentence when they take a life, things will change. If only the anti-drunk driving campaign had as rabid a base as the anti-gun campaign, perhaps we would see changes. Maybe if there was the same type of regulations for drinking and driving that there were for owning a gun, that might make a difference as well-or not. There will still be people who don't follow the law, be it a gun law or drinking and driving. In either case, when they are not obeying the laws, we are talking about criminals, not law abiding citizens.

You are fixated on guns as murder weapons. What do you think people used to kill each other before guns existed? Do you think murder rates were lower before guns were available to the masses?? Tricky question to answer because you need a country that kept murder stats pre gun and post gun.

One such country is England.

Professor Stone has estimated that the homicide rate in medieval England was on average 10 times that of 20th century England. A study of the university town of Oxford in the 1340's showed an extraordinarily high annual rate of about 110 per 100,000 people. Studies of London in the first half of the 14th century determined a homicide rate of 36 to 52 per 100,000 people per year.

By contrast, the 1993 homicide rate in New York City was 25.9 per 100,000. The 1992 national homicide rate for the United States was 9.3 per 100,000.



After examining coroners' inquests, Barbara A. Hannawalt, a professor of medieval English history at the University of Minnesota, concluded that most slayings in medieval England started as quarrels among farmers in the field. "They were grubbing for existence," she said. Insults to honor were taken seriously, and violence was the accepted method of settling disputes, since the king's courts were slow, expensive and corrupt.

The knife and the quarterstaff, the heavy wooden stick commonly carried for herding animals and walking on the muddy roads, were the weapons of choice. "Everyone carried a knife, even women," she said, since "if you sat down somewhere to eat, you were expected to bring your own." Given the lack of sanitation at the time, even simple knife wounds could prove deadly.

Historical Study of Homicide and Cities Surprises the Experts - NYTimes.com

I am sure there was a "great uproar" against knifes and quaterstaffs back in the day!

And round and round we go

I think it was an Alfred Hitchcock episode where a woman killed somebody by beating them with a frozen leg of lamb......then served it for dinner that evening!!!

The discussion of what is OR what can be a weapon really has only one conclusion....some devices were designed and built to be a weapon everything else can be.