# Drinking and Driving **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 1, 2000, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drinking-and-driving/43601 "2000-12-01T17:46:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2000, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drinking-and-driving/43601/41 "2000-12-02T23:59:24Z")
I was quite serious about drunk drivers paying my way through school, and I was quite serious about the devestation caused by drunk drivers which I have witnessed. Quite frankly is see no justification on their part which even comes close to the damage they have caused to the people they have killed and injured, and to the families of these people whom they have destroyed. Any rational decision concerning how to deal with the problem must take the harm into consideration, and the harm can only be considered if it is brought forward, rather than tucked away and marginalized. The original post entirely avoided any mention of the devestation caused by drunk drivers. There was no attempt whta so ever to put forth balanced consideration of the harm caused by drunk drivers. Reference to the use of emotional rhetoric by me and to the need for risk analysis have been alluded to by other posters. Well, let’s step back and have a closer look, for the one merges into the other. Reducing the speed limit to 25 miles per hour, as suggested by one poster, would have a devestating effect on the economy. Strictly enforcing drunk driving prohibition would have no significant effect on the economy. The 25 miles per hour issue is at worst a straw man, and at best argumentum ab incovenienti. Both mere rhetoric. Next, it has been suggested that my position is emotional, and thus should be discounted. This is argumentum ad hominem. Again more rhetoric. If posters find my factual references to dead children emotional, I suggest that they should ask why they find it so. This is no argumentum ad captandum or argumentum ad misericordiam, holding up a Timmy in association with something unreleated. This is a very real problem of massive proportions. But in defense of rhetoric, here is the interesting bit. When a drunk is hauled up in court, who then uses rhetoric? The drunk’s lawyer. Yup. I otta know, for about a quarter of my work is criminal defence. Let’s face it, when done well, rhetoric works. Without rhetoric, even the best arguments are ignored or swept away. So I really must ask, who is using what rhetoric here? I am quite comfortable in defending the statements I have made, and have used irony in my previous post simply to drive home the point without becoming turgid. I certainly will not back away from using rhetoric to sway others, but please note that the rhetoric is used as a supplement to a very rational position, and not as mere smoke and mirrors. If, however, one wishes to absolutely objectify the matter, then let’s have at it. Take the annual number of deaths and serious injuries caused by alcohol involved motor vehicle incidents. Then take the annual amount of alcohol consumed and give it a meaningful number in terms of drinks. Determine the ratio. How many drinks by a driver is a life worth? Then look at RIDE programs concerning the frequency and duration of stops. Weigh this against the number of drunks taken off the road temporarily or for extended periods, and determine the number of lives this saves and the number of serious injuries this prevents. Again, find the ratio. How many minutes of delay is a life worth? Finally, let’s look at the artificial construct of “rights” and weigh it against tens of thousands of deaths in the US annually. A right is only a legal entity; it is not a physical entity. It is not a person. A right simply helps codify a value system. The oversimplification of rights based positions in this thread have missed a very basic point. Rights do not stand individually. They stand as an integrated system, so talking of a right to drive based on subsidization through taxes, or the right to not be stopped based on a constitution or on common law, is entirely meaningless until it is put withing the greater context, which includes the overriding right to life itself. In short, it comes down to the question of determining the degree to which the saving of life justifies the temporary limitation of enjoyment, be it enjoyment of drinking, enjoyment of driving, or enjoyment of not being occasionally stopped. I remind you that the original post posited that persons should not be arrested for high blood alcohol content, but instead only should be arrested after having harmed someone. I find this position patently absurd, for it completely ignores the basic fact that unless drunks are kept off the road, then people will die in great numbers. Yes, this statement on my part is a rhetorical argumentum ad absurdum, but pointing out that the original post entrely ignored the ruined lives caused by drunk driving is a solid and logical argumentum ad rem. I simply brought the discussion back to reality by providing typical examples of the outcome to which the position set forth in the original post would lead. If posters object to the reference to dead children, then rather than complaining about such references, they should consider if such references are factually correct, relevant to the matter at hand, and stated in proportion to the matter at hand. If my references are factually correct, relevant and proportional, as I contend, then I suggest that the concerned posters should look at their own difficulties in rationalizing fundamentally unjustifiable positions. In short, don’t marginalize the devestation caused by drinking and driving, for this is no more than false rhetoric. Instead, look at the whole picture. Look the devestation in the eye, as I did for a number of years, and then prove to me why such devestation is preferable to the alternative posited in the original post. ---
**Author:** ![Crafter\_Man](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crafter_man/32/458_2.png) [@Crafter\_Man](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crafter_Man)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2000, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drinking-and-driving/43601/42 "2000-12-03T00:12:11Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by wolfman \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > You can’t be pulled over without probable cause. > > Ever heard of a random stop? They are legal in many places in this country, I personally got a DWAI from one of these things. \*\* But the question is: _Should_ it be legal? ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2000, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drinking-and-driving/43601/43 "2000-12-03T00:23:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Muffin \* > \*\*Look the devestation in the eye, as I did for a number of years, and then prove to me why such devestation is preferable to the alternative posited in the original post. > \*\* Change that last line to read: “Look the devestation in the eye, as I did for a number of years, and then prove to me why such devestation is preferable as an outcome of the alternative posited in the original post.” ---
**Author:** ![Dignan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f07891/32.png) [@Dignan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dignan)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2000, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drinking-and-driving/43601/44 "2000-12-03T00:56:04Z")
Since this argument doesn’t seem to be coming across to some people, let me borrow a line from Liar Liar: STOP BREAKING THE LAW ASSHOLE! You know it’s illegal, rightly so. It is dangerous to drive while under the influence, it is not fair to put other people in danger just because you think you can drive while you’re a little buzzed. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2000, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drinking-and-driving/43601/45 "2000-12-03T01:47:20Z")
Amen. YOU may think you’re okay to drive…but drinking impairs your ability to think RATIONALLY. D’uh. As for drunk testing, why BOTH the breathalizer and the field sobriety test together? ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2000, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drinking-and-driving/43601/46 "2000-12-03T02:33:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Crafter\_Man \* > > > [@](#): > > > > Ever heard of a random stop? They are legal in many places in this country, I personally got a DWAI from one of these things. > > But the question is: _Should_ it be legal? As a card-carrying member of the ACLU, my personal opinion is “Yes” (although I wouldn’t be surprised if the ACLU had taken the other side on this.) Driving is such a serious and dangerous thing that I think the police need pretty broad latitude in insuring those behind the wheel are fully competent to drive. You just do not have the right to wrecklessly endanger other people’s lives. And, in fact, I think that by driving you even have to give up a certain amount of privacy…or whatever you feel is offended by having these random stops…for the privilege. [diatribe] In fact, I think one of the worrisome things with the current culture on drinking and driving, at least among kids, is that too much emphasis is placed on the “drinking” part and not enough on the driving part. I.e., it boggles my mind that some 18 year-old kid might drive home buzzed because he is afraid he’d get in trouble if his parents knew he had been drinking. For God’s sake, when a society starts equating “crimes” like that…Why don’t we just equate shoplifting and murder too? [/diatribe] ---
**Author:** ![2sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/e47774/32.png) [@2sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2sense)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2000, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drinking-and-driving/43601/47 "2000-12-03T03:32:34Z")
**Muffin** : My 25mph speed limit point was not rhetorical. I was using the absurdity to point out that a big picture existed, something your first post demonstrated no understanding of. I felt that the consequences in human misery had already been brought up by previous posters and should be obvious in any case and that you were just piling on without adding anything. Now that you have added your vision of the big picture I am forced to, unfortunately, agree with it. It is well thought out and quite compelling. I am undone. Thank you. ---
**Author:** ![Lazlo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lazlo/32/9678_2.png) [@Lazlo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lazlo)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2000, 7:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drinking-and-driving/43601/48 "2000-12-03T07:40:17Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Crafter\_Man \* > \*\*Hmm. I think you’ve hit on something there, Lazlo. > > Perhaps this would be a good compromise: > > 1. Police should not be allowed to entrap drivers, such as waiting outside bars (which is “guilt by association”) or setting up sobriety check-points. In other words, you _must_ be doing something against the law (“probable cause”) in order to be pulled over. Examples include speeding, weaving, and failure to stop at a traffic signal. > > 2. If a police officer pulls you over (because you broke a law; see above), and _if_ the officer has reason to believe you are not able to safely operate a motor vehicle (for _any_ reason), the officer is allowed to perform a standardized test that evaluates your physical judgment, stability, reaction time, and motor skills. (No breathalyzer test allowed.) If you pass, you drive off. > > How’s that? > \*\* That sounds resonable to me. Personally, I hate the roadblocks because they make me _feel_ guilty of something, even when I’ve done nothing wrong. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Muffin_ > \*\*I remind you that the original post posited that persons should not be arrested for high blood alcohol content, but instead only should be arrested after having harmed someone. \*\* What I got from the OP was more akin to what I posted about earlier: That BAC shouldn’t be what determines that a person is impaired, but rather a dexterity / reaction time type of test. Another thing I think is important is that police should not be allowed to stop you _ **unless you are caught breaking the law.** _ This means speeding, driving carelessly, or yes, unfortunately, hitting another vehicle. I’ve been pulled over for no reason before, and it makes me wonder if I’ll be needing to carry “citizenship papers” sometime in the future. Okay, Now I’m going OT, so I’ll stop on that note. ---
**Author:** ![casdave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c6cbf5/32.png) [@casdave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/casdave)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2000, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drinking-and-driving/43601/49 "2000-12-03T15:42:10Z")
In Australia I believe that police can set up road blocks and test drivers for alchohol without any more ado. If someone leaves a bar and steps straight into their car then there must be reasonable suspicion that an offence is being committed. Entrapment is when the police deliberately puts somebody in the position of being likely to commit an offence, waiting outside a bar is hardly that, the drinker did that all by his/her self. Yes there may not be any offence at all but police generally have the power to investigate justified suspicion. > [@](#): > > Another thing I think is important is that police should not be allowed to stop you unless you are caught breaking the law But the law has been broken, simply by being above the BAC limit, there is no need to wait for any further evidence of impairment. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2000, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drinking-and-driving/43601/50 "2000-12-03T17:13:25Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Guinastasia \* > \*\*Amen. YOU may think you’re okay to drive…but drinking impairs your ability to think RATIONALLY. D’uh. > > As for drunk testing, why BOTH the breathalizer and the field sobriety test together? \*\* The more legally-admissible evidence, the better, in case it goes to court. A field test can be attacked on the grounds of subjectivity, but a videotape of it is convincing. The breathalyzer test gives an absolute number, but can be attacked on other grounds. I understand that some police departments simply show the video to the arrested driver when he sobers up, and generally he stops talking about court when he sees how drunk he was and how much danger he represented to others and himself. I do agree that probable cause must be present for a police stop, but that doesn’t take much. ---
**Author:** ![Lazlo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lazlo/32/9678_2.png) [@Lazlo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lazlo)\ **Post date:** [December 3, 2000, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drinking-and-driving/43601/51 "2000-12-03T22:44:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by casdave \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > Another thing I think is important is that police should not be allowed to stop you unless you are caught breaking the law > > But the law has been broken, simply by being above the BAC limit, there is no need to wait for any further evidence of impairment. > \*\* I meant in general, not just when you’ve been drinking. Like I said, I’ve been pulled over for no reason whatsoever, and it really pisses me off. Here I go… OT again… ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2000, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drinking-and-driving/43601/52 "2000-12-04T04:09:55Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ElvisL1ves \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by Guinastasia \* > > \*\*Amen. YOU may think you’re okay to drive…but drinking impairs your ability to think RATIONALLY. D’uh. > > > > As for drunk testing, why BOTH the breathalizer and the field sobriety test together? \*\* > > The more legally-admissible evidence, the better, in case it goes to court. A field test can be attacked on the grounds of subjectivity, but a videotape of it is convincing. The breathalyzer test gives an absolute number, but can be attacked on other grounds. > > I do agree that probable cause must be present for a police stop, but that doesn’t take much. \*\* D’OH!!! That should read, why NOT both together! Sheesh, I’m sorry! Carry on! :embarassment: ---
**Author:** ![Typo\_Negative](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/typo_negative/32/484_2.png) [@Typo\_Negative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Typo_Negative)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2000, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drinking-and-driving/43601/53 "2000-12-04T15:05:29Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Lazlo \* > What I got from the OP was more akin to what I posted about earlier: That BAC shouldn’t be what determines that a person is impaired, but rather a dexterity / reaction time type of test. > > ] **It’s time we heard from someone who used to drink and drive a lot.** That would be me. I used to drink and drive a lot. I was never in collision with another car while drunk. I did, however, wake up in my car, in the bushes of someone’s front yard. After 3 beers, my dexterity / reaction time would not be much impaired. But my _judgement_ would be seriously impaired. I would be much more inclined to take risks that _should not_ be taken. I was never arrested for DUI, was never stopped at sobriety check point, never was involved in a collision while drunk. This is purely a matter of luck. I’ve known people who weren’t nearly so fortunate. Drunk driving should definately be illegal. BTW, we all have a right to use the roads. We can walk down them on the sidewalk, take a cab or a bus on them, even ride a bicycle down them. We pay for the roads because we all benefit, directly and indirectly, from them. But there is no right to drive. ---
**Author:** ![yojimbo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/yojimbo/32/232_2.png) [@yojimbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yojimbo)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2000, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drinking-and-driving/43601/54 "2000-12-04T15:58:07Z")
Well **Crafter\_Man** you say you are a safe driver after a few beers in a 1 hour period. Would you be happy with everybody on the road driving on a couple of beers? Would you feel safe on the road in these circumstances? How about a pilot of a passenger plane. Would you fly on the plane if you knew he/she just drank 4 beers inthe last hour? It is not just your life in danger when you take these risks and the grave yards are full of people who were very confident in their drink driving ability. ---
**Author:** ![woolly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/ebca7d/32.png) [@woolly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/woolly)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2000, 4:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drinking-and-driving/43601/55 "2000-12-05T04:26:39Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by casdave \* > \*\*In Australia I believe that police can set up road blocks and test drivers for alchohol without any more ado… > \*\* Random breath testing is an integral part of driving conscience in Australia. It is claimed that your chances of being subject to RBT in NSW in any year is over 30%. It is also mandatory for all drivers involved in any vehicle accident to be tested (unsure if this applies in all states). The action might be in breach of the presumption of innocence but RBT has also been instrumental, in combination with some gruesome and effective advertising campaigns i.e. “Drink, Drive, Bloody Idiot” in reversing the Australia’s national hobby of getting a skinful, driving home plastered and killing yourself on the road. Australia’s national road toll is now, IIRC, at the levels experienced in the 50’s and trending down. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/drinking-and-driving/43601.md?page=2)