Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site pegasus.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!mgnetp!ihnp4!pegasus!mzal
From: mzal@pegasus.UUCP (Mike Zaleski)
Newsgroups: net.auto
Subject: Re: Highway funding, roadblocks, and the drinking age
Message-ID: <1450@pegasus.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 26-Jun-84 17:24:20 EDT
Article-I.D.: pegasus.1450
Posted: Tue Jun 26 17:24:20 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 28-Jun-84 03:29:54 EDT
Organization: AT&T Information Systems, Lincroft NJ
Lines: 106


  [All indented excerpts are from T.C.Wheeler]:
  It seems that Mike Zaleski is against saving lives on the highway.
  He says that the "numbers are too small" to make any difference
  in raising the drinking age.  Is even one unnecessary death due
  to drinking and driving by teenagers To small?  

I am not against saving lives, but I do not believe no cost is too
great to prevent even one unnecessary death.  I am concerned about
establishing a precedent for government intervention whenever a few
people are killed.  The same kind of thinking could be used to
completely ban the sale of alcohol at any eating establishment,
bar, or entartainment facility; ban cigarette smoking; ban
unhealthy foods; ban motorcycles; ban bicycles; ban power mowers;
ban guns; lower the speed limit even more; and on and on.

  By the way, both houses of the New York Leg. have passed the
  mandatory seat belt law.  It only remains for the Governor to
  sign the bill.

This happened at about the time I posted my article.

                  And, yes, the 21 drinking age was defeated the
  last time around, BUT, it is back before the leg. again.  Several
  key members of the Leg. have indicated that they will now vote
  FOR the bill.

Ah, politics.

  And, for your information, the main entrance and exit point for
  teenyboppers from Staten Island is the Goethals bridge, not the
  Outerbridge crossing.  Check it out.  Not much chance to get
  to New York except by bridge or tunnel?  The whole northern border
  of New Jersey rests slam bang up against New York.

I clearly stand corrected on this point.  I was thinking about
New York City when I wrote that, but of course there is really
a whole state out there.

  The state [NJ] has NOT given up the practice of checking for drunk
  drivers.  They have just moved the operation down to the Jersey
  Shore for the season.  The stopping of cars to check out the
  drivers is quite legal in New Jersey.  The reason you don't
  hear so much about it is that the media finds it old news now.

I haven't heard anything about it from any person, news media, or
heard anything on the CB.  However, if you say they are still
around, I am misinformed.

  If you had been on route 9 last Friday, you could have seen
  the operation in action.  It is just too bad they weren't
  working highway 35 on Sunday.  They could have prevented the
  MURDER of a 14 year old boy who was struck down by a drunk
  driver in Eatontown.  The drunk drove up on the sidewalk
  to kill the boy.

This is the kind of emotional argument I object to.  Unfortunately,
people die.  They die from all kinds of things, including things
that are not their fault.  This can even happen to me.

Now, as a member of society, I give up certain rights to do what
I want in return for some measure of protection from having things
happen to me which are not my fault (or those which are, for that
matter).  But, because we have some measure of control over the law,
we can weigh the personal costs against the benefits to society
and/or self for any given law.  

In this case, what I see in favor of police roadchecks is the
possibility of catching a few more drunk drivers (as well as
other criminal types, I suppose) and hence making the world
safer.

The negative side of this is that I feel it contributes to a
"police-state" like atmosphere more befitting a South American
dictatorship, it will unquestionably delay traffic, and it
denies a large number of people the right to do something for
no other reason than their age.

I don't preceive the risk of drunk drivers to be particularly high,
but do value fewer traffic jams and a greater sense of freedom in
society.  Using these criteria, I conclude that the 21 year old
drinking age and floating roadblocks are not very good ideas.

What do I favor, you may ask?  Personally, I don't believe in
having any legal drinking age at all.  However, I would also
favor allowing establishments which serve liquor to set their
own guidelines on what minimum age patrons should be.

Two final thoughts: (1) Perhaps the problem could be partially
solved by lowering the legal definition of impaired/drunk for
the (presumably less experienced) 18 to 21 year old group?
I would find this solution more reasonable than the current
situation.

(2) I wonder if the number of teenage drunk driving deaths
would stay the same even if the drinking age was eliminated
and roadblocks were dropped.  The fines and consequences are
still pretty nasty for any conviction.  And all those police
will still be out there - somewhere - and still looking for
drunk drivers.

I would welcome more discussion with T.C.Wheeler or anyone
else on these subjects.  (Privately if net.auto readers are
sick of it....)

-- Mike^Z     Zaleski@Rutgers       allegra!pegasus!mzal