Family wants to cut deaths from police pursuits

On 2009-12-30, The Real Bev > wrote:
> Brent wrote:
>
>> On 2009-12-30, The Real Bev > wrote:
>>> His job didn't require too much brain power. If he could manage, why can't
>>> smarter people? Sorry, I truly believe that drug/alcohol-impaired people who
>>> insist on driving really ARE no better than would-be murderers looking for a
>>> handy victim and I have no sympathy for them whatsoever. If we could trust
>>> cops to execute (ha!) summary judgment only when it was actually warranted, it
>>> would be a much better world.
>>
>> What we are told to put up with from sober drivers makes the idea of a
>> police state to stop drunk drivers absurd. If there were a concentration
>> on poor driving that had negative effects on other road users instead of
>> profit through tickets there would not need to be any drunk driving laws
>> at all. Drunks would rack up so many other violations as to lose their
>> license rather quickly.
>
> Naah, conscientious drunks drive slowly to avoid attracting police attention.
> Easier for the cops to see some guy in a yellow vette zoom by and give chase
> than to follow a slow driver for god knows how long waiting to see if he's
> drunk rather than just overly careful.

So the drunks drive in the manner that is government approved and
generally not much different than many sober drivers.

>> On one had we are told drunk drivers are evil because they don't control
>> their vehicles well but on the other we are supposed to dodge people who
>> don't control their vehicles well for a variety of reasons and we are
>> then the bad people if we don't like it and expect competency.

> If we could figure out (a) a way to identify the totally-incompetent drivers
> before they crash through a sandwich shop; (b) a way to keep them from actually
> driving, which just yanking the license doesn't do; and (c) a practical way of
> moving such non-driving people around from place to place.

If you want to maintain the current sort of enforcement for profit then
a police state will be required to do so, just like is being done to
stop drunks. However if enforcement were geared differently those who
couldn't drive well would rack up tickets instead of those who drove
faster than an arbitrary number and/or had a car that attracted police
attention.

> My MIL never learned to drive. When she was no longer able to walk where she
> wanted to go she used dial-a-ride, which made a trip to the supermarket or
> doctor an all-day affair. What do we do with our frail elderly? Lock them in
> their homes and wait for them to die of starvation?

So we should punish those who damage their bodies with alcohol but not
those who have worn theirs out or failed to maintain them over the long
haul?

>> drunk or sober doesn't matter IMO, how well someone is driving does. If
>> some guy is drunk by BAC law but stays in the right lane and keeps it
>> between the lines and follows all the basic rules of right of way I
>> don't care. Some sober merge impaired driver on the other hand...

> Little effective difference between drunk and stupid. What kind of law do we
> write that takes care of both? There's some hope that the drunk will dry out,
> but stupid goes clear to the bone.

They are all ready written. There's no need for more laws. Just safety
based instead of profit based enforcement.

>> I just don't care why someone is a poor driver, only that they are a
>> poor driver and a danger matters IMO. Making one reason so much 'worse'
>> than others is foolish. surfing the internet or drinking vodka when they
>> cross the center line and smash into someone really doesn't change
>> things for the person they smashed into.

> No, but it's easier to prove that somebody was drinking than that he was doing
> something stupid. Cellphone/texting drivers can stop their distracting
> activities immediately, but drunks can't sober up instantaneously. I would
> guess than some/many/most of them don't even want to.

All that would require proof is something like a mechanical or medical
issue, something clearly out of the driver's control. Otherwise it
really doesn't matter much why they crossed the median. They did
something wrong. Why 'drinking' is such a much greater evil than all the
other infinite other possibilities of stupid, irresponsible, and risky
behaviors is simply absurd. Some puritianical artifact.

> Statistics used to indicate that drinking was involved in some huge percentage
> of deaths resulting from auto crashes. I wonder if cell usage has changed that
> percentage.

If a someone has a drink with dinner and while driving home is stopped
at a red signal and rammed from behind by a sober gravel truck driver
and killed in the crash, it's alcohol related. Those statistics are
probably slightly more valid than the cherry picked manipulated crap to
'prove' CO2 driven global warming.

On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 19:17:14 -0800, The Real Bev > wrote:
>Brent wrote:

>> On 2009-12-29, The Real Bev > wrote:
>>> necromancer wrote:
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>The statistics that show drinking and driving goes up during the holidays
>>>>>more than justifies the checkpoints. If the checkpoints got no arrests and
>>>>>no impounds, they would cease to exist on their own.
>>>>
>>>> All things being equal, I'd rather take the risk of encountering a
>>>> drunk driver and rely on my skills as a driver to get out of the
>>>> situation safely than to have to give up more of my rights to the
>>>> fascist police state that america (sic) is becoming in the name of,
>>>> "safety."
>>>
>>> Ditto.
>>>
>>> The only way of getting rid of drunken driving is to make it a capital offense
>>> and carry it out every single time. Eventually they'll all be dead. The
>>> intent here is NOT discouragement of drinking+driving but the elimination of
>>> those stupid enough to do it. Hey, it's a win-win situation!
>>
>> But then drunk driving would have to go back to the definition of
>> decades past.... otherwise it's effective prohibition, which is what
>> MADD wants. And we know how well prohibition works. Criminals and law
>> enforcement types love the profits.

>Of course. Both the crime and anti-crime establishments are strong. Still, a
>lot of people are religious about having a designated driver, so any drunk who
>can't manage that probably has no family or friends willing to help him out, so
>he might as well be dead.

>My uncle was a well-controlled alcoholic. He drank just enough at home in the
>evenings and weekends to keep him drunk all his conscious time but still able
>to be sober by morning and go to work. His wife stayed with him because he
>worked for UCB in the laboratory supply room (which enabled him to drink pure
>lab alcohol mixed with orange juice) and had excellent life insurance, on which
>she eventually collected when his liver gave out.

>To the best of my knowledge he never drove drunk. His family refused to go
>anywhere with him unless my aunt drove. Uncle Harold was NOT related to me by
>blood.

>His job didn't require too much brain power. If he could manage, why can't
>smarter people? Sorry, I truly believe that drug/alcohol-impaired people who
>insist on driving really ARE no better than would-be murderers looking for a
>handy victim and I have no sympathy for them whatsoever. If we could trust
>cops to execute (ha!) summary judgment only when it was actually warranted, it
>would be a much better world.

he wasn't sober when he drove in the mornings. If he had actually
sobered up, he'd be shaking too much to be able to drive.

A video showing the approach to the type of checkpoint I normally run
across:

http://blip.tv/dashboard/episode/3054055

On 2010-01-01, Brent > wrote:
>
> A video showing the approach to the type of checkpoint I normally run
> across:
>
> http://blip.tv/dashboard/episode/3054055

wrong URL... http://blip.tv/file/3034412