It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Xtrozero
Since just about everyone NEEDS to drive for a living,
There are laws against texting but yes, there are a lot of stupid people on the road. But have you compared the fatality statistics for distracted driving to those for DUI? In 2011 there were 3,331 fatalities involving distracted drivers in the US (around 1,500 for drowsy drivers). There were 9,878 alcohol related fatalities. It's significantly more likely you will be killed by a drunk driver than by one who is texting. Three times the fatalities are alcohol related.
Personally, if someone drives into me I do not care if they have been drinking, were doing makeup, were reading a book while driving, were texting, eating a Big Mac, were on prescription medicine, or just didn't have enough sleep!
Final say. This is NOT about safety, it is NOT about removing dangerous drivers from the road, this is NOT about getting an accurate result, this is NOT about saving lives, this is ONLY about getting an increased money stream.
Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Jerk_Idiot
There are laws against texting but yes, there are a lot of stupid people on the road. But have you compared the fatality statistics for distracted driving to those for DUI? In 2011 there were 3,331 fatalities involving distracted drivers in the US. There were 9,878 alcohol related fatalities. It's more likely you will be killed by a drunk driver than by one who is texting. Three times the fatalities are alcohol related.
Personally, if someone drives into me I do not care if they have been drinking, were doing makeup, were reading a book while driving, were texting, eating a Big Mac, were on prescription medicine, or just didn't have enough sleep!
www.distraction.gov...
www.centurycouncil.org...
The thing is, you can stash your phone when you come to a roadblock or a cop pulls you over because you weaved.
Final say. This is NOT about safety, it is NOT about removing dangerous drivers from the road, this is NOT about getting an accurate result, this is NOT about saving lives, this is ONLY about getting an increased money stream.
In 1982 there were 43,945 traffic fatalities in the US. 60% of them were alcohol related.
In 2010 there were 32,885 traffic fatalities in the US. 31% of them were alcohol related.
That's 16,000 fewer alcohol related fatalities.
www.alcoholalert.com...
Alcohol related fatalities declined 38% between 1991 and 2011.
Stiffer laws and increased enforcement seems to be having some effect.
edit on 7/30/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)
What is your source for that information?
For instance, one of the things that bothered me about "alcohol related deaths" is that if alcohol was in the trunk and no one had been drinking, or their were beer cans in the trunk picked up for salvage it was listed as a alcohol related death
Don't you think there would have been more drivers on the road in 2010 than there were in 1982? There were 16,000 fewer fatalities which involved alcohol.
28 yrs later in 2010 there is only 32885 deaths a drop of 11060 deaths in ALL THAT TIME.
That explains why the number of fatalities did not increase as much as the increase in driving. It does not explain why there was a 60% decrease in the number of alcohol related fatalities while there was a 3% increase in the number of non-alcohol related fatalities. If what you claim were correct, there would have been a comparable increase in alcohol related fatalities because there were more people on the road. Unless it is your position that drunk drivers are safer than sober ones.
Between 1982-2011 the number of deaths that has dropped is ONLY 11,578. I believe most of those can be attributed to better cars, air bags both front and side, better breaks, etc.
How do prove that someone is too sleepy at the wheel? How do you prove that someone was texting? With DUIs you can test, and prove, that someone was impaired.
My question to you is how many MORE lives would have been saved if the police instead of going ONLY after drunk drivers would have gone after ALL bad drivers?
Unfortunately, yes. Fortunately, that is not so much the case with drunk drivers though of course, it does happen. But drunk drivers are not just "bad drivers".
Instead bad drivers who do not drink get to kill and kill again because they do not drink. They get a pass.
Ok.
These days, yes, most LEGALLY drunk drivers are safer then sober ones.
Then why do they cause so many accidents? More than their fair share?
most of the so called LEGALLY drunk drivers drive so carefully that they are safer.
I noticed you skipped answering my question. My question to you is how many MORE lives would have been saved if the police instead of going ONLY after drunk drivers would have gone after ALL bad drivers?
So you think there are no arrests for bad driving? Only drunk drivers are targeted? That can't be your point. And it also sort of doesn't make sense if your claim is that it is only about collecting revenue. If it was only about bringing in money, why wouldn't they go after everyone the could?
My question to you is how many MORE lives would have been saved if the police instead of going ONLY after drunk drivers would have gone after ALL bad drivers?
So then you agree that it does help to remove dangerous drivers from the roads.
I never said drunk driving laws do not work against drunk drivers.
If it were just about an "increased money stream" why not be just as harsh with every "bad driver"?
Final say. This is NOT about safety, it is NOT about removing dangerous drivers from the road, this is NOT about getting an accurate result, this is NOT about saving lives, this is ONLY about getting an increased money stream.
And, like your claim about what constitutes "alcohol related" I'm sure you have something to back that claim up with.
If it was not then the DUI checkpoints would have stopped a long time ago as they get almost no drunk drivers that way.
What are you talking about? You think drivers are only arrested for drunk driving?
When this was first started a case was started to allow the police to ONLY go after drunk drivers. You know, the given REASON for them? Illegal search and seizure?
Alcohol related fatalities are defined as fatalities that occur in crashes where at least one driver or nonoccupant (pedestrian or pedalcyclist) involved in the crash has a positive Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) value
In New Mexico, only on state and federal roads. County and city roads are another matter.
In the state of NM it is illegal to use red light cameras the same as it is now in many states.
Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Jerk_Idiot
Oh. By the way:
Alcohol related fatalities are defined as fatalities that occur in crashes where at least one driver or nonoccupant (pedestrian or pedalcyclist) involved in the crash has a positive Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) value
www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov...
So no. Empty bottles don't do it.
edit on 7/30/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Jerk_Idiot
In New Mexico, only on state and federal roads. County and city roads are another matter.
In the state of NM it is illegal to use red light cameras the same as it is now in many states.
www.iihs.org...
Ok. You win.
Let's leave the drunk drivers alone. They're safer than anyone else on the road because they drive so carefully.
edit on 7/30/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Jerk_Idiot
Those camera's have been proven to DECREASE safety and cause more accidents then before,
Originally posted by hellobruce
Originally posted by Jerk_Idiot
Those camera's have been proven to DECREASE safety and cause more accidents then before,
Source for that claim?
Red light/speeding camera fines are known as the stupid tax here, as only stupid drivers get caught by them!
Originally posted by Jerk_Idiot
Originally posted by hellobruce
Originally posted by Jerk_Idiot
Those camera's have been proven to DECREASE safety and cause more accidents then before,
Source for that claim?
Red light/speeding camera fines are known as the stupid tax here, as only stupid drivers get caught by them!
University of New Mexico.
....
While there was very little change in the count of total crashes there were larger and statistically significant differences between crash type and injury type. Angle crashes and injury crashes statistically significantly reduced from the before time period to the after time period
The primary finding of a moderate net cost benefit supports the continued use of RLCs in Albuquerque. The moderate net cost benefit primarily derives from the reduction in the number of injury crashes relative to the increase in PDO crashes.
The finding that this benefit varies by intersection suggests a more targeted approach to the use of RLC systems. This is further supported by the finding that the mix of injury and PDO crashes also varies considerably by intersection.
The reduction of red light running citations and speeding citations provides evidence and parallels the findings of other studies that RLC programs reduce the number and rate of red light running violations.
Yes. Because in using public roads you are expressing implied consent to testing.
Originally posted by Xtrozero
Originally posted by benrl
Driving is a privilege not a right.
As someone that lost a best friend to a drunk driver (19 year old college freshman walking home after studying) I would say harsher fines the better.
Take the car as well, If you drive drunk you deserve everything you get.
You know that ANY accident with a BAC above .00 is registered as a drunk driver, no matter if the driver is at fault or not. I would bet that fatigue leads to more, but we all just think of the guy that is drunk and can barely drive as our one example to justify anything.
I guess we can all ALL meds and if the driver has not had 8 hours or rest too to put people in prison to fine them until their life is ruined.
edit on 30-7-2013 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Xtrozero
Perhaps then you can provide a link showing that the new law does not require a breath or blood test.