[cologal]

Originally Posted by sail33or

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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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?

[vintageogauge]

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.

[Madelaine Amee]

Originally Posted by vintageogauge

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.

[Bogie Shooter]

I75 a death every day? Hyped!

[vintageogauge]

Originally Posted by Madelaine Amee

"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.

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.

[Trayderjoe]

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?

[Polar Bear]

Originally Posted by Trayderjoe

...A car is as much a weapon as a gun...

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.

[Kenswing]

Originally Posted by Polar Bear

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

[Polar Bear]

Originally Posted by Kenswing

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.

[Trayderjoe]

Originally Posted by Polar Bear

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Kenswing

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

[Trayderjoe]

Originally Posted by Polar Bear

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.

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?

[bob&Gail]

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

[Panthers]

Originally Posted by bob&Gail

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.

[Trayderjoe]

Originally Posted by Madelaine Amee

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.

Originally Posted by Madelaine Amee

"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.

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?

[Kenswing]

Originally Posted by Panthers

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.

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