Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbatt!cbosgd!ihnp4!ihlpa!animal From: animal@ihlpa.UUCP (D. Starr) Newsgroups: net.auto,net.cycle Subject: Re: Re: slow cars in left lane Message-ID: <1570@ihlpa.UUCP> Date: Thu, 24-Jul-86 16:09:54 EDT Article-I.D.: ihlpa.1570 Posted: Thu Jul 24 16:09:54 1986 Date-Received: Sat, 26-Jul-86 06:27:50 EDT References: <345@valid.UUCP> <246@njitcccc.UUCP> <14522@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Lines: 79 Xref: watmath net.auto:11836 net.cycle:1854 > > But you're a fool if you think drunk-driving test points are a bad > > idea. I once saw the car in front of me weave into a guard rail a > > number of times. (It's a miracle he was able to 'drive' at all) > > > > Amazingly, the cops had a testing point on that road, and needless to > > say, he was busted. I hope they took his license away for the rest of > > his life. > > > > Absolutes are idiotic. Sometimes you've *got* to give in to a few > > inconveniences for your own safety. The police were INSURING my RIGHT > > to live by getting that idiot off the road. > > Dave Bloom > > What SHOULD have happened in this situation is one of the > (should be) many cops PATROLING the road should have pulled this > drunk over, probably long before you ever saw him. (With probable > cause, having seen the drunk weave.) Instead, the police caught > him at a random check point, where you are required to prove you > inocence! This is the problem. > Few check points are not random. However in some states > they park a car up the road a mile or so, and call in the cars to be > checked. This includes what I require in the way of probable cause, > and I think this version (non-random) is fair. > Random testing, thought, assumes guilt on a ramdom basis, > then requires you to prove your inocence. (If you say that it > doesn't really assume your guilt, than how come many states will > "give you a ride downtown" for refusing to take the test, even if > you don't appear drunk!) > > Who are these strangers that come in the door, > cover your action, and go you one more? > > ...ihnp4!ltuxa!ll1!cej Llewellyn Jones What REALLY should be happening is that we should be coming up with ways to keep people who have been drinking excessively from driving. Putting a million patrol cars on the road or setting up checkpoints every block will not do that, except in the crudest scare-tactic way. We need to acknowledge some basic realities: (1) people like to drink alcohol on occasion. This human/booze relationship has gone on for at least 5000 years and is unlikely to stop. (2) people like to drink with other people. Only the most confirmed alcoholics get drunk alone. (3) because we are a mobile society, people end up drinking some distance from their homes in order to enjoy other people's company. Given those three postulates, the problem becomes one of giving people some alternative to driving home when they've had too much. That is, arrange some alternate transportation or put them up for the night. Two recent examples of such solutions: over the New Year's Eve weekend this year, a group of Chicago hospitals and radio stations sponsored a "free ride home" service--if you couldn't drive, you called a phone number (prominently displayed in most taverns) and got a cab ride home, free of charge. Just this week, Mike Ditka (the Chicago Bears coach, who also owns a bar) announced that his bar would offer a "sleep it off" program. Customers who were judged unfit to drive would be taken by the valet (in their own cars) to a nearby hotel, tucked into bed and given a continental breakfast come morning (with plenty of coffee and aspirin), and would be charged $25 for the service. I think schemes like this ought to be institutionalized by the state, possibly subsidized from license-renewal liquor or road-tax funds. It would be more cost-effective than massive enforcement (cabbies work cheaper than cops), and would reduce the number of drunk drivers before they got on the road, rather than trying to pinch them before they kill somebody. The question is, would it work? Will people take advantage of such services? The hospital-sponsored cab service reported brisk business over the holiday weekend, and traffic accidents and deaths were lower than expected (even taking into account the new Illinois DUI law). I would expect most reasonable people to take advantage of a ride home, especially if the penalties for being caught on the road drunk were stiffened further. For the unreasonable people, especially the repeaters (who make up about 20% of those pulled in for DUI), genuinely Draconian measures could be taken with the intent of keeing them out of cars for a long time. Disclaimer: My employer doesn't know that I have opinions; and therefore certainly does not agree or disagree with them.