The idea that an additional 300-400 people won't die annually as a result
of drunk driving seems worth some inconvenience. However, I'd like some
more numbers to crunch. And you've got to love the spin "Over 70
percent of drunk driving fatalities are caused by drivers with 0.15 or
higher"...which comes with the unstated almost 30% of fatalities are caused
by drivers with under 0.15. And if only 5% of the 32,000 annual deaths are
attributed to drivers with .08 or .09 that tells me that about 1600 deaths
result from drivers who are almost at the legal limit. I would feel much safer
if .05 were the limit and drinkers actually cared enough to find someone who
hadn't been drinking to do the driving. The false confidence in one's
driving abilities that consumption of alcoholic beverages can create is one of
the reasons that we have so many deaths. Selfish behavior at its worst.
Drunk drivers will "care" if their licenses are suspended for a first
offense and are on home confinement with an ankle monitor after a second
conviction, i.e. it hurts. How many Utah DWI offenders are guilty of causing a
serious accident on their 10th or 12 arrest?
If reducing it to 0.05 will potentially save 1000 lives due to restricting an 8%
to 10% group think about those who are 0.15 or above or 70% of the problem.
Getting them off the road could save 20,000 or more lives each year. Why are we
going after the low hanging fruit instead of the biggest problem? Let's get
tougher and enforce the laws on the 70% first.
If people would just follow the advice of "Don't drink and drive",
we wouldn't be having these drunk driving issues. Because of their choice
to drink then drive, they are the ones that cause the angst, pain, and sorrow
for many.Just don't drink and drive, folks. That's pretty
easy to understand, right?
This observation applies much more to places like California than Utah, but if
people are not supposed to drink and drive, then why do bars have parking lots?