What Everyone Should Know About The Drunk Driving Problem
November 8th, 2007 Posted in DUI/DWI
We frequently hear that drunk drivers "cause 50% of all highway fatalities." This falls into the category of "tell a big enough lie long enough and loud enough and people will believe it."
The truth is closer to 10% of all highway fatalities are caused by drunk drivers. This certainly isn’t good, but let’s at least put the issue in perspective.
Our government and certain self serving "non-profit" organizations have exaggerated this problem beyond any sense of reality to promote an agenda that eliminates basic individual rights, undermines our system of due process and heaps onerous penalties on people who have not injured anyone and may not have met any reasonable standard of "impairment."
So where do the numbers that we hear being repeated time after time come from?
The "government speak" term is "alcohol-related." This term was created to deliberately mislead and confuse the general public about the magnitude of the drunk-driving problem.
When you hear some "expert" state that 40 or 50 percent of all fatal accidents are "alcohol-related," the intention is to make you believe that drunk drivers are responsible for causing all these fatalities. This is pure propaganda.
The federal government defines an alcohol-related fatal traffic accident as an accident where someone died and a person involved in the accident had some measurable amount of alcohol in his or her system. For example:
- A sober driver hits a pedestrian who has been drinking, even modestly. That’s considered an alcohol-related accident.
- A sober driver rear-ends a driver that has had something to drink. That’s considered an alcohol-related accident.
- A driver has a single drink and is involved in a fatal accident that he did not cause. That’s considered an alcohol-related accident.
Do these sound like "drunk-driver-caused" accidents to you? That’s what the government and the anti-drinking organizations would like you to believe.
Unfortunately, the media often parrots back the "alcohol-related" statistics to the general public which inevitably prompts people to push for more and more draconian penalties.
The common response when this misinformation is pointed out is for people to say, "Well, just don’t drink and drive and you won’t have to worry about it." This is disingenuous at best. The truth is that these laws will certainly affect many drivers who never even had a sip of alcohol.
The constant stream of misinformation over the years has created a hysteria about drunk driving. This hysteria has made normally rational people line up to give away their constitutional rights. The sad thing is that these rights are being given up for nothing. They’re being given up for the illusion of safety.
It’s worth noting that the NMA does not support drunk driving. No rational organization does.
Other Related Articles
51 Responses to “What Everyone Should Know About The Drunk Driving Problem”
By Randy on Dec 21, 2008
Jeff as far as I a concerned you can stay up there.
By Jeff on Dec 21, 2008
Can I have a drink or 2 while I’m there? You can also buy Cuban cigars in Canada.
By Randy on Dec 21, 2008
Jeff we have enough of a problem to take care of here. You are so into Canada, you go fix it. You live closer than I do.
By Jeff on Dec 21, 2008
Why don’t you e-mail the Canadian prime minister and give him your thoughts on this subject?
By Randy on Dec 21, 2008
Pretty good Jeff. You may have one fact right out of hundreds of statements. I have not checked it though so that may also be wrong.
I did find this statement online:
The highest rates of impaired driving in Canada are among younger drivers. In 2002, drivers aged 19 to 24 represented 56 per cent of reported incidents; a stunning 44 percent of fatally injured drivers aged 20-25 had been drinking. The drunk driving problem among young adults is far from solved.
It sounds to me like Canada needs to do something about young age drinking and driving. Maybe they need to do some checks like are done in the US and do some prevention rather than wait and look at the poor statistics.
By Jeff on Dec 21, 2008
Teenagers can still legally drink in Canada at age 19.
By Randy on Dec 21, 2008
Jeff you are an idiot.
http://www.canadadui.ca/canada-drunk-driving.html
Canada Drunk Driving
Similar to other countries, Canada has a set of rules and regulations which everyone should follow while he or she is on the road. The most stern of these laws deal with drunk driving. This refers to the act of maneuvering a car while a person is intoxicated with drugs or alcohol or a combination of these chemicals. The laws regarding drunk driving in Canada have been implemented and imposed strictly in all of its provinces as this offense has become the number one cause of deaths among motorists, passengers, and pedestrians.
In general, Canada drunk driving laws state that when a person has been caught drunk driving through one of the common traffic violations, his license can be suspended at once. The period of time for the suspension may vary depending on whether the driver is a first-time or a repeat offender. Furthermore, he will be fined a certain amount, his car can be confiscated, and he may be required to attend a drunk driving school. The degree of such penalties also depends on the frequency of his offense. In addition, certain courts in Canada may allow a first-time offender to use a specific ignition interlock device. This device lets him start and drive his car only if it finds no trace of alcohol in his breath. However, if a motorist commits a DUI offense for the second, third, or fourth time, his punishment normally includes imprisonment aside from the above-mentioned penalties.
Moving on, the Canada drunk driving laws also state that everyone who is accused of the said felony has the right to obtain the legal assistance of a lawyer. This ensures that those who are caught drunk driving will have a fair trial.
By Jeff on Dec 20, 2008
In Canada you can drink at 19. Canada does not have a drunk driving problem.
By Randy on Dec 20, 2008
Jeff it sure did. There is no where near the drinking of kids under age 21 that there used to be 30 years ago. There are far fewer under 21 driving drunk and getting in accidents. You and others here have been missing that point. You say that it is the increased speeds that have not caused more accidents but in reality it is the decrease of people driving drunk. There will always be some that do. That is because people like you encourage others to disobey all laws. In fact I would not be surprised if you were not the one buying the alcohol for them.
By Jeff on Dec 20, 2008
And raising the drinking age to 21 eliminated teenage drinking - would you agree Randy?
By Randy on Dec 20, 2008
So Elaina you are saying what we need to do is wait until someone causes an accident and then crack down on them. The current system is working. The number of accidents because of DUI is dropping in the states that are cracking down and doing something about it. The days of allowing anyone to go drink as much as they like and drive home are coming to an end.
By Elaina on Dec 20, 2008
AMEN to the OBVIOUS and clear voices of reason, intelligence and sanity on this panel: snooty writer, Wulfy and James Young!!!
The only people that would be opposed to any simple, rational and common-sense approach to reducing the occurrance of impaired driving on our roads; versus the misguided, corrupt and draconian system we have currently are those that stand to make direct -profit- from the current system, either financially, politically, professionally or all three; OR those simple-minded IDIOTS that
*only* know how to relate to the persuasive hyperbole of child-level, unfiltered, unevolved emotionality and demagoguery being constantly sourced from the “drunk-driving” propaganda machine. In short, only those that stand to gain from the current system, or those that lack the simple, basic, mental
capacity to actually see past the cheap and ever-present emotional appeals of the interest-vested organizations into the actual realm of sound science, sound *thinking* and sound reason; would be opposed to a common-sense, constitutional-rights-respecting reform of the current DUI/DWI system.
By Randy on Dec 2, 2008
Blake for one thing you need to do a lot of things to improve your writing before thinking about what you need to write about.
Second dunken drivers cost insurance companies a lot and do not forget that fact. You ask any insurance company and they would tell you they would prefer to have no one drink or speed or drive recklessly and their claims would drop in half or more and they would make a lot more money that way and also be able to drop rates.
By Blake on Dec 2, 2008
I am have been trying to collect enough information to write a research paper. It would be nice if some of you more opinionated bloggers that actually made legitimate arguements put down some of your credentials, and what makes you even semi-credible. Also, if you feel strongly about what you’ve posted, you should probably shouldn’t use a made up name. Drunk driving is serious, the only way it is going to go away is to put mandatory breath test in vehicles, that won’t let your vehicle start if you are impaired. Know way would auto insurance companies allow this to happen, they would send lobbyist straight to capital hill becuase they make a killing of jacking up insurance for those who were convictted of DUI/DWI, same with your local law enforcement and city hall.
By Shanti on Aug 15, 2008
A reasonable person assumes some direct relation between alcohol and fatality when presented with a report on alcohol related fatalities. The mere presence of alcohol tells one nothing about the cause of an accident or who was at fault. The fact that that the NHTSA’s annual FARS report includes pedestrians and bicyclists who may or may not have been drunk makes this report useless for discerning how many people are killed by drunk drivers. In defense of the NHTSA, I don’t believe that they have ever claimed the FARS database to be a useful tool to that end. The question is, why do groups like MADD use it as such? Presenting the FARS data as drunk driver caused fatalities, is a clearly deceptive tactic that makes the problem appear to be much larger than it really is. Why does a group like MADD, that collects tens of millions in tax free dollars per year, feel the need to exaggerate the drunk driving problem? I think the question answers itself. It should be noted that today’s corporate MADD is not the same grass roots organization that Candy Lightner founded years ago. The original MADD was born of necessity and this nation benefited greatly from its tireless efforts. Now, Candy Lightner has left the organization stating that MADD has lost sight of its original goals. She has been replaced by executives with six figure salaries and generous pension plans who spend their time marketing the MADD name to corporations. This is an example from MADD’s marketing department:
["What MADD Can Do For You. Aligning with MADD gives your company added credibility and increased power by:
Increasing store traffic and sales volume
Connecting with customers on emotional and logical levels to provide incremental value to the consumer and sales lift to your company
Increasing partner distribution channels
Increasing shelf space and point-of-sale display space with key retailers
Winning national marketing and media awards
Increasing consumer and media awareness during key time periods
Giving national promotions "local legs" through MADD's network of chapters
Mentioning your company during interviews in national media
Attracting national and regional media attention during sponsor-driven media events
Delivering targeted media campaigns with other MADD partners
Call MADD's marketing department at 469-420-4518 to discuss how MADD can help your company meet its marketing and public relations goals."]
The drunk driving problem is still very real, but {”MADD has become big bucks, and that’s it.” It’s a big corporation.” Sandy Kaufman,
former MADD chapter President.}
By NYOB on Jul 18, 2008
Regarding the link posted by Curtis. I am suspicious of any research conducted by a organization that profits from selling addiction recovery programs.
Quoted directly from their website. “Clear Haven Center, a prominent drug and alcohol rehabilitation center just outside Montreal, Quebec, generously sponsors search frequency research”
I no more believe the “research” from them as I believe the commericals for AXE make me irrestible to all women. But I must say I am quite handsome. =)
By Curtis on Jun 24, 2008
Some new statistics are out regarding drinking and driving, but from a source I’ve not seen elsewhere. This research is looking at what people are searching for in Google and other search engines about topics like “drinking and driving”, “drunk driving”, “DUI”, etc. This information is informative and challenged a few of my assumptions about how drinking and driving affects our culture.
Information here: http://www.clearhavencenter.com/addictions-research/drinking-and-driving/
By snootywriter on May 15, 2008
I’ll tell you why .10 is bunk.
Does anyone know what has been going on over the last decade? Cell phones! Conventional wisdom, research, or whatever voodoo magic that people conjure up say that talking on the cell phone is like having a BAC of .10. A BAC of .10 is HIGHER than the .08 limit.
Anyway, you have flooded the streets with people who talk on their cell phones (which is like flooding our streets with a bunch of people with a .10 BAC), but guess what? Although there may be SOME accidents, it’s not like our streets have been clogged with accidents and deaths from their use….and I will say that, from my own experience, I’ve visibly seen a bunch of people on their cell phones. Nearly every day of the week, I see somebody yapping. There are probably more of these losers out there than there are drunk drivers. For one thing, people talk on their cell phones 24 hours a day while DWI is mostly confined to evenings or late at night.
Even so, how many times do you hear on the news, “this weekend, there was another tragic death from cell phone use”?
Yet, while accidents do happen from cell phone use, there aren’t memorials to people who needlessly died because somebody had to get on the phone and talk about last night’s episode of Gilmore Girls and couldn’t wait 15 minutes before they got home to call that person.
Basically, it says to me that lower BAC arrests are like snipe hunts. Chances are, you MAY save some lives, but you will save lives any time you go out and arrest a million sober people and keep them from driving anywhere.
By Andy on May 15, 2008
“I have lost two sons, they were just kids and they rode with drivers that were *very drunk*. We need to really instill in everyones minds, NOT to ride with anyone who has been drinking *anything* or in *any amount*.”
This is the attitude that is so completely misguided. It combines several logical fallacies, appealing to emotion instead of reason, and places everyone into a “completely sober” or “completely drunk” group, creating a false dilemma.
If someone is *really drunk* they probably are not operating the vehicle safely. This does NOT mean that everyone who consumes any amount of alcohol at all cannot operate another vehicle safely. Why not claim that since a person having 25 cups of coffee will be impaired that no one should ever drive an automobile after drinking any amount of caffeine at all. Yeah, that’s logic to a T.
Again, take away the money and this ridiculous pattern of having cops on overtime tailgating and intimidating every driver on the road from midnight to 3am would stop.
By Andy on May 15, 2008
DUI laws, and their enforcement, can be broken down (in terms of motivations) in the following parts:
- 10% Promoting safety/preventing accidents
- 20% Appeasing people impacted by actual drunk driving accidents/fatalities
- 70% Revenue generation
One thing that should be done is to totally remove any financial incentive for police to roam the highways at night, tailgating and intimidating drivers to find an excuse to pull them over, and then claim they were “impaired.”
What would be really funny is an accurate stat sheet on the average BAC of all people nailed for “drunk” driving. This number will closely track through history, from the start at .15, to .13, to .10, down to .08, as the laws were changed to make sure people were convicted.
A return to sanity, where there must be evidence that the person is driving unsafely is long overdue.
By Chuck on Apr 30, 2008
DUI laws are counterproductive. I have(had) a job, but am now unemployed due to a license suspension. I have thousands of dollars in legal fees, alcohol school, fines, impoundment fees, and my insurance will go up 200%-300%. Gee, just what you want, a person without insurance, depressed because they have lost their job, and might have a drinking problem. Think they might drink? Think they might drink and drive, since they have so little to lose at that point? DUI laws that don’t provide help and rehabilitation, and distinguish between a productive member of society who made a mistake and a hard core alcoholic who is a menace on the road, just ask for more trouble. By the way, I quit drinking for good. Any punishment I get won’t help - it just adds to the misery.
By snooty writer on Apr 29, 2008
Interesting you mention mixtures of drugs:
As a person who has worked in an area that deals with DWI a bit, my guess is that most people don’t know about mixing legal drugs with alcohol and DWI.
Let’s say that you had a cold and you took a Contac. Then you had a beer. Guess what? They’re going to go to the jury and say that because you mixed the two substances, that one beer was like if you had three beers…or whatever. They’re not going to feel sorry for you because you had a cold. They’re not going to feel sorry for you because you only had one beer. If they pull you over for something, and even though you might have been driving poorly because you actually felt really bad from your cold, you’re pretty much as good as dead as far as a DWI goes.
and do you know what else? in some areas, they don’t have to put on expert testimony to explain to the jury what happens when the two drugs mix with one another. they’ll let the jury’s imagination run away with the idea that you are a drug-abusing pillhead.
“AHA! you took a drug about 9 hours before you had a drink! even though all of the literature on this drug says that it flushes out of your system in four hours, we’re going to create the illusion that it’s in your system in vast enough quantities to make you a falling down drunk!”
yeah, so keep that in mind before you admit to the officer if you’ve taken any other medications which might cause your symptoms.
By tracker on Apr 29, 2008
4/29/08:
11/13/07- John B.,
I just pulled up this article and agree with you. I suffer from an acute anxiety condition which makes me quite high-strung. Years ago I would have a few ( two and no more beers because three gives my head the buzz) drinks. Mixed drinks are another story.
I do not drink any alcoholic beverage excessively. I never realized the difference alcohol and drugs made in peoples attitudes and performance until the laws concerning drinking legally and prescription drugs affected not only my driving, but all driving on public roads in general.
12/8/07: Candy LaChance has a great comment. It fits me to a tee. Over two decades ago I stopped and had two beers over a one hour period at a bar and drove home. I was going 72 mph in a 65 zone on a state highway and saw a State Trooper coming from the opposite direction. I knew I was in trouble because fresh beer on ones breath will automaticall y register .08% and legally drunk. I do not know if newer equipment will do this. I pulled into a hidden drive and hid in the woods and let him pass several times before I came out of hiding. I was not worried about the speeding ticket, but the fact that it would have taken a lot of explaining about beer on my breath caused me to panic. This panic is a source condition of Anxiety Disorders. Lawyers love these cases because people who have the money to confuse the issue do so. When I thought I was safe I came out and continued when he pulled in behind me.He was a good guy. The cat had won in in our cat and mouse game. He asked me if I knew I was going too fast and I told him I did. He then asked me embarrassing questions concerning my hiding behind the barn on the road. He tried to let me off the hook concerning the fact that I kept trying to keep him from smelling my breath so finally I told him the truth. I am 76″ tall and 220 lbs and had two beers over an hour and a half before my stop and registered well over .08% and the bar tender verified my consumption. We did not go to court because I was only ticketed for speeding 72 in a 65 zone. Those beers were drank over a one hour period. The fact that alcohol and prescription drugs are legal creates a good argument in DUI/DWI, vs. alcohol-related incidents. The D is for Driving, the U is for under and the I is for the influence. Why is alcohol the criminally motivated instigator? I have discovered over the years that alcohol is better than drugs when used in moderation for the majority of problems We allow legal drugs to be used as substitutes for. Mix drugs and alcohol and we have Jekyll and Hyde drivers cruising our streets. There was no problem with my driving capacities in this incident, but if there had been an accident I was speeding. The local area I was stopped is not on our list of speed-trap areas.
By snooty writer on Apr 28, 2008
I know people who have been in multiple accidents because they can’t drive while being sober. What is their excuse? Do you know why a lot of those people haven’t killed anyone? Because they drive in the daytime. The roads are more congested with commuters. Therefore, they are probably only traveling at 30 MPH and driving attentively before they hit someone versus someone who is flying down the road and being distracted by their rowdy friends and loud stereo late at night.
Face it: many of these “DWI incidents” were bound to happen because of the circumstances. At night people are relaxed, not on guard for problems, have poor night vision, probably have a car full of friends, are tired because it’s past their bedtime, are probably texting their buddies to see where the party is. Granted, someone who is completely wasted and driving down the wrong way has no excuse, but in all of my years of driving, I think there has only been two times when I saw how somebody is driving and thought that they needed to be pulled over for being a menace because they were obviously drinking. That’s it. When I go out at night, I don’t see throngs of people who are engaged in “drunk driving.” Most of the time when I see somebody weaving or driving slow, they are either some old person or they are on their cell phone. That’s the harsh truth, folks.
By Bob on Apr 25, 2008
The assumption that Bad driving is a killer is generally accepted. Government is trying to make you believe that Drink driving = Bad driving. This falsity implies/leads to another, even more dangerous one: Sober driving = Good driving. The latter falsehood of the conclusion causes way more crashes than alcohol consumption. If tomorrow we all stop drinking and driving the road toll will be practically the same, that is for sure.