This is pretty horrifying. Seems to me that it would be a pretty useful tool for discouraging drunk driving. Do you agree? I wonder if it’s so horrible that people (especially young people?) would, consciously or unconsciously, dismiss it/take the “that (the driver’s OR the victim’s experience) would never happen to me” mentality. On the other hand, maybe these images would stay with people longer than the usual messages that indicate that the victim died and show only the victim’s smiling face, in life. (I’m NOT suggesting that those messages should show anything else, of course.)
goddamn…that is very, very discouraging, to me anyway. why you may ask? well, i was convicted last year on a dwi charge. i also was arrested for the same thing ten years ago and had it reduced. i would imagine showing that on tv and in magazine ads would affect some, but to those that are just completly slaves to alcohol, it wouldnt do squat…also, not meaning to take away from your post, execute murderers in the streets and i believe strongly that things would change over time…
I’m not sure I understood your post. Are you saying that those images (or any images) would not influence you in deciding whether or not to climb behind the wheel after drinking? Or are you speaking of others? What, in your opinion, would stop those who are “slaves to alcohol” from doing so?
Damn… I think they ought to make it mandatory for high schoolers to be exposed to things like this. They need to be hit hard, really hard.
I’m not Bindrah, of course, but in MY opinion, there are as many answers to your last question as there are slaves to alcohol, and for some of them, I think the answer is “Nothing.” FWIW, I think I was mostly thinking of discouraging the “non-slaves” to alcohol – people who drink casually or socially or rarely and simply make a very bad decision. A series of pictures like that would surely make some of those folks think twice before making that decision, at least for the months (or weeks maybe – how quickly we forget) after they saw it, I would think…
I used to drive drunk, but never really paid that kind of price.
I don’t drink anymore.
I’m sure that life has some cup of sorrow which one day I must drink, but mercifully it will not be that one.
I am very saddened by those photos. My cousin lost his life driving drunk. Thank God he didn’t kill anyone else in the process. I think these photos is something every driver should have to see in hopes that it would deter them from ever getting behind wheel while intoxicated or letting a friend drive drunk.
wow. I drove drunk the first time I got drunk (to 7 11 to get more alcohol in fact :smack: ) and it wasn’t that long ago. In retrospect, it was dumb, and after seeing that…whew boy I’m DEFINITELY never doing it again…
To be honest, I’ve not really seen a particularly convincing case ever made against drinking and driving. It should be possible to do, but I’ve never seen one.
Clearly this is a tragic story (I’m assuming it’s true) and I think it is right to emphasise the victim’s injuries - there’s no point condemning drunk driving while sanitising the consequences. What it doesn’t say is whether the “drunk driver” caused the accident or not, whether the fact they had been drinking caused the accident, whether they were drunk or even whether they were over the legal limit for driving. After two beers, most men are still stone cold sober.
As a campaign, it’s a more graphic example of the same kind of thing that we are bombarded with every Christmas - appeals to emotions rather than reason. I’ve seen worse - the one that sticks in my mind is a sanctimonious chain email which contained the line “if you don’t (forward the email), your selfishness knows no bounds”. I was furious when I received that (I kept my mouth shut though as it came from a director of the company).
I would like to see more rational explanations of why we shouldn’t drink and drive - with statistics to back it up. Individual cases may have impact but they don’t prove anything. And we shouldn’t forget that the vast majority of accidents every bit as horrific as this one happen without the assistance of alcohol.
A more complete story of the accident and the people involved can be found from the Austin American-Statesman. The driver’s blood alcohol level tested at 0.13 three hours after the accident, but the legal limit is 0.08. Evidently a jury found him guilty of causing the accident, since he was convicted of intoxication manslaughter for the deaths of 2 occupants of the car, and still faces assault charges in the injuries of the girl in the pictures and two others.
You are right. Many horrific accidents occur without the assistance of alcohol, many of them due to carelessness or reckless aggression. We should never forget that when we climb behind the wheel of a car, we are operating a deadly weapon. Why would you operate a deadly weapon when your judgement and physical abilities are impaired by alcohol or sleeplessness? Why do you need to have a case proven against something common sense tells you not to do?
Respectfully, I disagree; young drink drivers are not the slightest bit interested in logical proof or reams of statistics; they can dismiss those with a wave of the hand and “it won’t happen to me because I’m a great driver, even when I’ve been drinking”.
Yes, this message appeals to emotions; that’s precisely why I think it would be effective; IMHO it is far more likely to have a lasting impact on the minds (and therefore behaviours) of young, reckless drivers than any dry table of numbers.
I completely agree, what I meant is that I personally would like to see more intelligent messages. I find it easier to dismiss individual cases with a wave of the hand than thousands of cases.
I’m not sure though that drunk driving is primarily done by young drivers. I suspect that the opposite is the case. My generation has grown up with the practice being demonised, yet many of the older generation seem to view it the way we do speeding - everybody does it, don’t get caught. Maybe the next generation will view speeding as ‘evil’.
Because “common sense” is subjective, not absolute. Why should a driver who considers themself fit to drive take the word of an anti-drink driving campaigner who has no idea of that individual’s capacity for alcohol? If the campaigner can produce evidence as well as (admittedly effective) scare stories, aren’t they standing on much firmer ground?
Not that I recommend drinking and driving, just that I like to see people who make strong assertions back them up with facts.
Even just two beers (BAC of 0.04 for a 150lbs man) can impair your judgment/ability to drive - Cite.
I think the point they’re trying to make, cart, is that a person who is rational enough to be more affected by facts and statistics than emotional appeals is probably rational enough not to be driving while impaired anyway. (That’s not certain, of course, but very probable.) So the most effective advertising in a public safety campaign against drunk driving will be emotional appeals. Sad but true.