Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ttidcc.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!ttidca!ttidcc!hollombe From: hollombe@ttidcc.UUCP (The Polymath) Newsgroups: net.flame Subject: Re: DWI Crackdowns (Pull pin ... wind up ... throw!) Message-ID: <599@ttidcc.UUCP> Date: Fri, 26-Jul-85 22:03:32 EDT Article-I.D.: ttidcc.599 Posted: Fri Jul 26 22:03:32 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 28-Jul-85 02:53:26 EDT References: <378@kontron.UUCP> <6700025@pbear.UUCP> Reply-To: hollombe@ttidcc.UUCP (The Polymath) Organization: The Cat Factory Lines: 103 Summary: In article <6700025@pbear.UUCP> peterb@pbear.UUCP writes: > Being a convicted first offense drunk-driver here in MA, I can state >FOR THE RECORD that all of you're plans won't make a dent in stopping the >rampant problem of drunken driving. First people have to realize that drunken >driving is not a social problem, it it a disease like venerial disease. Addictive personality is a disease. Alcoholism is a common symptom of it. Drunk driving is a crime. Saying a person, couldn't help it because they're sick and their disease caused them to drive drunk doesn't cut it. In California we have a place for people whose diseases cause them to do things that endanger or hurt others. It's called the Atascadero State Hospital for the Criminally Insane and it's part of the state prison system. >Here in MA every 12 MINUTES a person is arrested for OUI(Operating Under the >Influence). That's 5 every hour, 140 per day, and 38000 per year! And this >is just in the STATE of MA. I'd love to see qhat it is like in the US. In a typical year in the US of A ~25,000 people are _killed_ by drunk drivers. That's about one every 20 minutes and says nothing about the hundreds of thousands more who are maimed for life, or about the ruined lives, families, and friends who have to live with the loss. >I am not condoning the activity of drinking and driving, and I am not saying >it is bad or good; what I am saying is that it is something that has to be >reckoned with. ... I've never heard anyone suggest drunk driving is a good, or even neutral, activity. >Do me a favor, get off your high horses and do some serious thinking. Don't >condemn a person without knowing the facts. Think of the extent of the impact >your idea may have on them(and yourself!). Presumably the court that found you guilty did so. > I think the sentences here in MA >are quite nasty by themself. For a first offense(with no extensions such as >accident/moving violations), the sentence I recieved is: > > 150$ fine, > 30 day AUTOMATIC suspension (90 day if I refuse a breathalyzer > test), > 480$ enrollment charge for MA's Alcohol enrollment course, > and 1 YEAR's probation. > >This sits on my record for 7 years. Then it is expunged. This sounds pretty mild to me. In most European countries first offense gets you a mandatory 1 year suspension. Second offense gets you suspension for _life_. In California a DWI sits on your record for 10 years and does pretty awful things to your insurance rates. Driving without insurance gets you a fine and possible jail sentence. > Sentencing a drunk driver to riding a motorcycle is not smart. I >have a license for both, and I can tell you that you gotta be sober to drive >a bike. I got picked off in a car, but if I had to drive a bike, I would not >have had those last few beers. Which side are you arguing here? Not having those last few beers might have saved you getting "picked off" in your car. If riding a motorcycle would keep a drunk sober I'd be all for it. Unfortunately, I know better. In any case, you've admitted you had a choice. You didn't have to have those beers but you chose to anyway _knowing it was a bad idea_. (That last fits the definition of "legally sane" in most jurisdictions). > But don't construe that as a deterent. If a person was impaired and >had his choice, he'd choose the car each time since his life would be safer >and his chances would be better. But if forced, then more people would die >needless deaths. If you think this is good since it removes another drunk >from the road, think about it; you're bringing yourself down to the level of >Hitler in that you are expunging a bad attribute from the "race". Hitler didn't offer his innocent victims any choice. Drunks can choose not to drive and if they choose to drive drunk they're not innocent, by definition. Unfortunately, their victims usually are. > Also since a motorcycle can travel FAR faster than the speed limit, >and can kill far more than a car would... A FJ1100 by Yamaha can truck along >at about 150 mph, and weighs about 790 pounds(depending on accessories). >With the formula of 1/2 M V^2, it would have about the same impact as a car >that weighed 7110 pounds travelling at 50 mph. This is about twice the >impact of a standard car of this year's make at the same speed. It's not >just the weight of the vehicle, but the speed is relavant also. You seriously think drunk drivers of cars don't exceed the speed limit? The average mid-sized beast from Chrysler or GM can do 100 mph without straining too much, in spite of 80 mph speedometers. A Nissan 300ZX will leave most police "rod-chasers" in the dust (as a friend found out when hers was stolen). >I am open to ideas regarding public awareness of the issue and ideas to >preventive/corrective measures. So am I. -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe) Citicorp TTI Common Sense is what tells you that a ten 3100 Ocean Park Blvd. pound weight falls ten times as fast as a Santa Monica, CA 90405 one pound weight. (213) 450-9111, ext. 2483 {philabs,randvax,trwrb,vortex}!ttidca!ttidcc!hollombe