Air bag fatality FACTS

13 views
Skip to first unread message

WRENCH99

unread,
Jun 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/1/98
to

Check these facts and not their source at the bottom. Persons properly using
their seatbelts and airbags are an INSIGNIFICANT blip on the safety radar
screen. EDUCATION will have a much greater effect on safety than turning off
safety devices and hoping for the best. Education = safety.

-Bill Ditmire

=========================================================================
Breakdown of Air Bag Fatalities

History

Since 1990, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has recorded 99
fatalities as a result of an air bag deployment. To date, 57 of these deaths
have been children, while the remaining 42 have been adults. With more than 2
million air bag deployments and over 3,000 lives saved and countless injuries
prevented, the benefits of air bags are dramatic. Still, these 99 fatalities
should be examined. See also State-by-State Breakdown of Air Bag Fatalities.

Children

Infants placed in the front seat of a car in a *****rear facing child seat have
accounted for 13 deaths*****. Placing a child in the front seat of a car in a
rear-facing child seat carries serious risks because the child's head is inches
away from the compartment where an air bag is housed. Since air bags deploy at
200 miles per hour, an infant is at serious risk should an air bag deploy.
***Two children were riding in forward facing child safety seats****. In one
case the child was not restrained within the child safety seat, and in the
other, the child was restrained, but the child safety seat was not secured to
the car.

The other 42 children who died during air bag deployments were front seat
passengers. NHTSA has concluded that *****39 of these children were totally
unrestrained or improperly restrained*****, including four who were only
wearing their lap belts, effectively negating the advantages of a safety belt.
Two five year olds weighing under 40 pounds, were wearing both lap and shoulder
belts. The correct restraint for children of this size is a child safety seat
in the back seat. An eleven year old boy was also belted and was leaning
forward at the time the air bag deployed.

Adults

*****Failure to wear a safety belt was also an issue with most of the 38 adult
drivers killed***** during an air bag deployment. Of those drivers killed, 24
of them were either totally unrestrained or improperly restrained when the air
bag deployed. Safety belt use of three others is unknown. The four adult
passenger side fatalities involved three unbelted passengers.

For the 11 drivers who were properly restrained, NHTSA's investigations
indicate that two of these drivers were small stature females who were
positioned close to the steering wheel, where an air bag is housed. Two other
fatalities involved men, who both lost consciousness before impact, moving
their bodies closer to the air bag compartment.

One solution: Upgraded Safety Belt and Child
Passenger Safety Laws and Enforcement

These fatalities have predominantly occurred when the children and adults were
positioned precariously close to the compartment where the air bag was housed.
Most of the children killed were not secured by safety belts and were thrown
forward in the pre-crash breaking, placing their heads just inches from the air
bag when it deployed. The best defense during an air bag deployment is to be
wearing a safety belt. Standard enforcement laws have proven to increase safety
belt usage rates approximately 15 percent.

Even states with strong child passenger safety laws but secondary adult belt
laws have lower usage rates. For example, Colorado's child safety seat law
covers all passengers under 16 while carrying penalties of $50. However, safety
belt use is only 59 percent, below the national average. The bottom line is
that children learn by example. As a result, if adults, particlarly the driver,
are unbuckled, child passengers are often unbuckled as well. In fact, a recent
study by Ford Motor Company, Where Are The Children Seated and When Are They
Restrained?, indicates that when the driver is unbuckled, 70 percent of the
time, children in that vehicle are unbuckled as well.

Strengthening safety belt laws and enforcement will lead to increased safety
belt use by adults and children. The ensuing result will be fewer traffic
related injuries and fatalities, including those caused by air bags.


------------------------------------------------------------------------


For more information, contact the ***Air Bag & Seat Belt Safety Campaign,
National Safety Council*****, 1025 Conn. Ave., NW, Suite 1200, Washington, DC
20036; (202) 625-2570 (tel.); (202) 822-1399 (fax); E-mail: air...@nsc.org.

Menu | Campaign News | Get Involved | Public Education | Enforcement |
Legislation

May 4, 1998


Daniel J Stern

unread,
Jun 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/1/98
to


On 1 Jun 1998, WRENCH99 posted some info from an NSC website and said:

> Check these facts and not their source at the bottom. Persons properly using
> their seatbelts and airbags are an INSIGNIFICANT blip on the safety radar
> screen.

You're either grossly misinformed, unable to count correctly, or have some
sort of an agenda you're not revealing. I note that you never did respond
when asked what possible difference it made to you if somebody else chose
not to have or use an airbag.

I'm not sure why you'd want us not to check the source of your "facts".
It doesn't speak highly of your credibility.

I am perfectly happy to share the source of my facts. Anybody who wishes
can count those airbag deaths which NHTSA has chosen to (or been
forced to) admit. All it takes is a web browser pointed at:
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/ncsa/scireps.html

This site, which you'll note belongs to NHTSA, has tabulations by occupant
position and category, belt availability and usage.

Note that NHTSA director Ricardo Martinez has recently deliberately
slowed the posting of airbag deaths to this site; this came to light when
a NHTSA staffer leaked the internal memo to the press. Sounds like maybe
everyone at NHTSA isn't buying into that agency's utterly false blanket
statement that airbags unilaterally save lives.

I wonder if there's an English word for how hateful and dishonorable the
families of those killed by US airbags would find your statements that
their loved ones' deaths were "insignificant". You, Wrench99, are partly
to blame for the fact that this kind of preventable death happens. That's
because you've already made up your mind and quite evidently don't wish to
be confused by the actual facts. If it weren't for people like you, who
wish to continue to deny people the choice of whether or not to accept the
particular defined-risk/defined-benefit package offered by US
airbags--some of those deaths most certainly wouldn't have occurred.

Shame on you for your myopic, one-size-fits-all idea of auto safety. It
does not mesh with reality.

--Daniel

Dennis

unread,
Jun 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/1/98
to

On 01 Jun 1998 03:39:38 GMT, wren...@aol.com (WRENCH99) wrote:

>Check these facts and not their source at the bottom. Persons properly using
>their seatbelts and airbags are an INSIGNIFICANT blip on the safety radar
>screen. EDUCATION will have a much greater effect on safety than turning off
>safety devices and hoping for the best. Education = safety.
>
>-Bill Ditmire
>
>=========================================================================
>Breakdown of Air Bag Fatalities
>
>History
>
>Since 1990, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has recorded 99
>fatalities as a result of an air bag deployment. To date, 57 of these deaths
>have been children, while the remaining 42 have been adults. With more than 2
>million air bag deployments and over 3,000 lives saved and countless injuries
>prevented, the benefits of air bags are dramatic. Still, these 99 fatalities
>should be examined. See also State-by-State Breakdown of Air Bag Fatalities.
>

It is my humble opinion that airbags should NOT be mandatory, but
rather an option. Many will probably disagree with this and site facts
and statistics proving the amount of lives they save versus the deaths
that occur, but the problem with this is that more than likely a lot
of incidents and indeed deaths caused by airbags are not, and can not
be reported. I remember a thread on a mailing list a while back about
airbags, and I was suprised at the number of simple accidents turned
near fatal, because of an airbag.

Let me explain the above by siting examples. In one case a member of
the list reported an incident where he struck a station wagon, then
came the deploymnet of the airbag, and being stunned and unable to
see, went under the wheels of an eighteen wheeler. Luckily for him it
was just the front the car that was squashed. If this had been a fatal
accident, I would seriously doubt it would be possible to blame it on
the airbag, but in actual fact, it was the airbag that carried it from
minor to near tragedy. In another case, a deer was struck, and true to
form the airbag deployed, the driver lost control from lack of site
and the impact of the airbag and went off the road and hit a tree
wrecking his car, he was lucky, had he gone off the other side, the
only direction would have been down. Again, it is safe to assume this
death would have not been stated as an airbag related death, had he
gone over the edge.

Luckily for me, where I live has no airbag law, because whether it is
best or not, I don't like the idea of a devise that can pop out and
hit me and temporarly blind spot me while driving, and I do like the
idea of having a choice.

Dennis.

Thomas R. Serrano

unread,
Jun 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/1/98
to

Daniel J Stern wrote:

> On 1 Jun 1998, WRENCH99 posted some info from an NSC website and said:
>

> > Check these facts and not their source at the bottom. Persons properly using
> > their seatbelts and airbags are an INSIGNIFICANT blip on the safety radar
> > screen.
>

I disagree with your idea of reality, Mr. Stern. "Reality" is the fact that
the federal government, private businesses, and most every organization in the
world, standardize things for simplicity's sake because it is impossible to
taylor everything individually. Governments tell you that you have to wear
seatbelts, in some cases motorcycle helmets, get an operator's license, and many
other requirements. Beyond a few fundamental rights under the Constitution,
governments are not really limited in how they create standards or requirements
in order for citizens to exercise privileges.
Personally, I support airbags; I have been through an airbag deployment and
thought it benefited my mother, who did not see the accident coming and probably
would have been injured worse. You are entitled to your opinion concerning
them. You are not required to like what our representative government has
chosen. I just think that it is you with the myopic view of reality. To
personally attack someone because they interpret the facts differently than you
is the true definition of being myopic.
If you want to choose whether or not to have airbags, seatbelts, or other
safety devices, then I say the legislatures should treat those who say "no" just
as they have the motorcyclists that ride helmetless in some states: require a
minimum level of medical payments on your auto insurance or charge you extra for
the privilege of driving "free." I also advocate this for those who crash while
driving drunk or exceed some socially-defined level of risk.

Tom


Budd Cochran

unread,
Jun 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/1/98
to

How about passing and *enforcing* a Fed law that makes it so that every
drunk that kills another person has to face pre-meditated murder charges
complete with the death penalty. I used to drink, thank God I don't now, and
I knew, as did most of my cohorts, when I was drinking to get drunk or
drinking enough to get drunk. Therefore pre-meditated murder. I knew that my
driving when I had been drinking could result in somebody's death.

I would support the same for drug dealers.

Budd

Daniel J Stern wrote in message ...


>On Mon, 1 Jun 1998, Thomas R. Serrano wrote:
>
>> I disagree with your idea of reality, Mr. Stern.
>

>Okay. That's certainly your right. Leave the airbags in your car; mine
>are on the garage shelf.


>
>> "Reality" is the fact that the federal
>> government, private businesses, and most every organization in the
>> world, standardize things for simplicity's sake because it is impossible

>> taylor everything individually.
>
>I never argued this point or disagreed with it. I stated my belief,
>backed-up with real world data, that the US government has standardized on
>a flawed bag specification, and that there exists a superior bag
>specification that provides the benefits of airbags without nearly so much
>risk. Do you understand the difference between what you seem to have read
>as "my idea of reality" and what I actually said?


>
>> Governments tell you that you have to wear seatbelts
>

>Unfortunately, the US Federal Government has no mandatory-belt-use law. I
>wish that it did. Such laws, strictly enforced, have dramatically
>improved roadway safety in numerous other countries by getting belt usage
>into the high-90 percents. As it stands in the US, States are responsible
>(or not responsible) for enacting (or not enacting) mandatory belt-use
>laws (or no such laws) and enforcing (or not enforcing) them. That's one
>reason why our belt usage rates in the USA are so low compared to just
>about any other country of equivalent development you care to name. (I'd
>also be first in line to vote for tough national driver-training and
>driver-testing requirements, but that's another issue for another thread).


>
>> license, and many other requirements. Beyond a few fundamental rights
>> under the Constitution, governments are not really limited in how they
>> create standards or requirements in order for citizens to exercise
>> privileges.
>

>You seem to have miscast me as some sort of an antigovernment radical.
>I'm no such thing. For proof, read the paragraph above this one, in which
>I argue for STRONGER Federal control over the privilege of driving.


>
>> Personally, I support airbags; I have been through an
>> airbag deployment and thought it benefited my mother, who did not see
>> the accident coming and probably would have been injured worse.
>

>I'm sorry, but the fact that you "thought" your mother "probably" would
>have been injured worse is rather meaningless, unless you've credentials
>as an auto collision injury investigator or other related professional.
>Further, I don't want to take away your right to have airbags. I never
>argue against the availability of airbags--even US type airbags. What I
>have argued for, right from the start, is the NON-MANDATORY status of such
>items, and the availability of the less risky European bags. See the
>difference?


>
>> You are entitled to your opinion concerning them.
>

>That is incorrect. As long as the US airbag mandate is in place, those
>of us who object to this particular implementation of this technology do
>NOT have a right to any sort of meaningful opinion, unless we are prepared
>to disconnect our own bags or jump through the tangled web of hoops
>presented by NHTSA to those who have a need for airbag-free
>automobiles.
>
>I've said it before, and I will say it again: It is of no concern to me
>whatsoever if you support airbags and wish them in your car. All I ask is
>the right to say "No, thanks" when buying a new car. See the difference?


>
>> If you want to choose whether or not to
>> have airbags, seatbelts, or other safety devices
>

>I'm sorry, but you may not put words into my mouth. I am a staunch
>supporter of seatbelts and the enactment and enforcement of mandatory
>belt-usage laws.
>
>> I say the legislatures should require a minimum level of medical


>> payments on your auto insurance
>

>I'm sorry, but when a safety device presents a predictable risk to a
>predictable subset of the driving public, it is by no means a unilateral
>benefit and ought not to be mandatory or "reverse punished" as you
>suggest.


>
>> I also advocate this for those who crash while driving drunk
>

>I suspect you and I share more than you realize regarding auto safety and
>responsibility. In my ideal world, drunken drivers would be left to
>suffer in the streets unless they had SPOT CASH to pay for all of their
>medical expenses. Those who survived would be taken out and shot. I don't
>imagine such a policy would take long to reduce the drunken-driving rate
>to nearly zero.
>
>Drunken driving cause innocent deaths that would otherwise not have
>happened. Not every time, but many times.
>
>US-type airbags cause innocent deaths that would otherwise not have
>happened. Not every time, but some times.
>
>Seatbelts cause injuries that would otherwise not have happened. Not
>every time, but a few times.
>
>I am willing to accept the seatbelt risk, because it is utterly trivial
>and random compared to the statistically vast benefit provided by belts.
>
>I am not willing to accept the US-airbag risk, because it is NOT utterly
>trivial, it is predictable, and it is significant compared to the
>statistically minor, incremental benefit provided by bags. (I would
>definitely accept the trivial risk presented by European-spec airbags in
>order to gain this same minor, incremental benefit, however.)
>
>I am not only not willing to accept the drunken driving risk, but I
>advocate the permanent removal of such risk from the roadways, by means of
>the death penalty if necessary.
>
>Do you see how different levels of risk inspire different reactions? Do
>you see how it's not a black-and-white issue with airbags?


>
>> or exceed some socially-defined level of risk.
>

>An interesting thought indeed. Now: Who's going to work-up that
>definition? You? Me? A committee? Who's going to be on the committee?
>
>--Daniel
>
>To write to me, make my address go:
>dastern "at" umich "dot" edu
>
>The truth is out there!
>...Or is it in here? Or is it over there someplace?
>


Thomas R. Serrano

unread,
Jun 1, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/1/98
to Daniel J Stern

What a great topic. I never imagined that topics on an auto tech discussion
group could be so exciting. Let's get the synthetic oil debate going again,
or the fuel octane. All topics better suited to argument with beers at a bar
rather than this forum.

I'm surprised abortion, religion, or OJ hasn't come up yet!

Tom


Daniel J Stern

unread,
Jun 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/2/98
to

Daniel J Stern

unread,
Jun 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/2/98
to

On Mon, 1 Jun 1998, Budd Cochran wrote:

> How about passing and *enforcing* a Fed law that makes it so that every
> drunk that kills another person has to face pre-meditated murder charges
> complete with the death penalty.

I'd vote for this.

> I used to drink, thank God I don't now, and
> I knew, as did most of my cohorts, when I was drinking to get drunk or
> drinking enough to get drunk. Therefore pre-meditated murder. I knew that my
> driving when I had been drinking could result in somebody's death.

Agreed on all counts.

I wrote:

> >Unfortunately, the US Federal Government has no mandatory-belt-use law. I
> >wish that it did. Such laws, strictly enforced, have dramatically
> >improved roadway safety in numerous other countries by getting belt usage
> >into the high-90 percents. As it stands in the US, States are responsible
> >(or not responsible) for enacting (or not enacting) mandatory belt-use
> >laws (or no such laws) and enforcing (or not enforcing) them. That's one
> >reason why our belt usage rates in the USA are so low compared to just
> >about any other country of equivalent development you care to name. (I'd
> >also be first in line to vote for tough national driver-training and
> >driver-testing requirements, but that's another issue for another thread).

> >In my ideal world, drunken drivers would be left to


> >suffer in the streets unless they had SPOT CASH to pay for all of their
> >medical expenses. Those who survived would be taken out and shot. I don't
> >imagine such a policy would take long to reduce the drunken-driving rate
> >to nearly zero.

--Daniel

Richard Berkeley

unread,
Jun 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/2/98
to

Daniel J Stern wrote:

> On Mon, 1 Jun 1998, Budd Cochran wrote:
>
> > How about passing and *enforcing* a Fed law that makes it so that every
> > drunk that kills another person has to face pre-meditated murder charges
> > complete with the death penalty.
>

> I'd vote for this.


>
> > I used to drink, thank God I don't now, and
> > I knew, as did most of my cohorts, when I was drinking to get drunk or
> > drinking enough to get drunk. Therefore pre-meditated murder. I knew that my
> > driving when I had been drinking could result in somebody's death.
>

> Agreed on all counts.

I don't know about this one due to the fact that 0.08 is pretty low for most
people. Some are out of control at this point, most are still pretty much in
control at this point. As for charging premeditated murder, I think the BAC would
have to be higher - at 0.2 or so. Once a person drives in this condition and
kills another person, this person should be shot like a dog in public. I've seen
how Germans do it. They treat you like shit in public and I saw one being strip
searched outside in Berlin once. The police kept the man's underwear on, but went
through EVERYTHING in his car and then dragged him into the police car. I asked
my German friend what happened and he told me about how Germany was strict with
drunk driving. I think they should have been harder on that man because he'd hit
2 parked cars and could have KILLED a pedestrian!

Richard


Tony Pelliccio

unread,
Jun 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/2/98
to

In article <35740ACD...@ix.netcom.com>, bum...@ix.netcom.com
says...

> I don't know about this one due to the fact that 0.08 is pretty low for most
> people. Some are out of control at this point, most are still pretty much in
> control at this point.

A good point was made by one of Rhode Island's Representatives that
lowering the limit to 0.08 would only server to give the police much
wider latitude in pulling people over for no good reason. She also went
on to state the most if not all vehicular accidents due to alcohol use
involved operators who's BAC was greater than 1.0.

> As for charging premeditated murder, I think the BAC would
> have to be higher - at 0.2 or so. Once a person drives in this condition and
> kills another person, this person should be shot like a dog in public. I've seen
> how Germans do it. They treat you like shit in public and I saw one being strip
> searched outside in Berlin once. The police kept the man's underwear on, but went
> through EVERYTHING in his car and then dragged him into the police car. I asked
> my German friend what happened and he told me about how Germany was strict with
> drunk driving. I think they should have been harder on that man because he'd hit
> 2 parked cars and could have KILLED a pedestrian!

Seems appropriate to me. Here in the U.S. you get slapped down hard for
simple things like speeding, but nothing really happens to drunken
drivers, even with the tougher laws. I suppose it's all because when
you're speeding you're an easy mark for the police.

Tony

Matthew T. Russotto

unread,
Jun 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/2/98
to

In article <6kvri6$e7r$1...@supernews.com>, Budd Cochran <ctre...@ris.net> wrote:
}How about passing and *enforcing* a Fed law that makes it so that every
}drunk that kills another person has to face pre-meditated murder charges
}complete with the death penalty. I used to drink, thank God I don't now, and
}I knew, as did most of my cohorts, when I was drinking to get drunk or
}drinking enough to get drunk. Therefore pre-meditated murder. I knew that my
}driving when I had been drinking could result in somebody's death.

Because "could" isn't enough for premeditated murder, or murder of any
sort. Though few people seem to see a distinction between intentional
risk and intentional harm nowadays, the law still does. To have
premeditated murder, you must have intended to kill the victim and you must
have formed that intent prior to the act of killing.
--
Matthew T. Russotto russ...@pond.com
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue."

Lloyd R. Parker

unread,
Jun 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/2/98
to

Daniel J Stern (das...@ftp.japan.com) wrote:
: On Mon, 1 Jun 1998, Budd Cochran wrote:
:
: > How about passing and *enforcing* a Fed law that makes it so that every

: > drunk that kills another person has to face pre-meditated murder charges
: > complete with the death penalty.
:
: I'd vote for this.

Me too! But the alcohol industry prevented Congress from putting in the
transportation bill a section that would withhold 5% of a state's highway
funds if they didn't set a 0.8 DWI/DUI limit. So obviously stricter laws
are impossible, on the federal level, as long as Congress votes with one
hand while the other hand is pocketing money.

Lloyd R. Parker

unread,
Jun 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/2/98
to

Tony Pelliccio (nospam...@nospam.ultranet.com) wrote:
: In article <35740ACD...@ix.netcom.com>, bum...@ix.netcom.com
: says...
: > I don't know about this one due to the fact that 0.08 is pretty low for most
: > people. Some are out of control at this point, most are still pretty much in
: > control at this point.
:
: A good point was made by one of Rhode Island's Representatives that
: lowering the limit to 0.08 would only server to give the police much
: wider latitude in pulling people over for no good reason.


And the existing limit doesn't?


: She also went

: on to state the most if not all vehicular accidents due to alcohol use
: involved operators who's BAC was greater than 1.0.

Most bank robberies are by already convicted felons too. Does that mean
we shouldn't try to stop the ones commited by first-time robbers?

Sounds like this representative was more concerned with keeping the
alcohol industry happy than keeping the citizens of RI alive.

Rexven

unread,
Jun 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/2/98
to

lpa...@paladin.cc.emory.edu (Lloyd R. Parker) wrote:

>Me too! But the alcohol industry prevented Congress from putting in the
>transportation bill a section that would withhold 5% of a state's highway
>funds if they didn't set a 0.8 DWI/DUI limit. So obviously stricter laws
>are impossible, on the federal level, as long as Congress votes with one
>hand while the other hand is pocketing money.

Agreed. Look at the tobacco industry and the amount of straight faced
lies they are saying. The Congressmen aren't that stupid that they
believe the hype these tobacco reps are giving them. Can you imagine
if there had been no such thing as smoking/tobacco products until now
and this new business applied to win approval? It wouldn't have a
chance in hell. If they didn't have the sheer financial backing behind
them the Tobacco industry would be long gone. Seems that the alcohol
companies are playing the same game. Everyone has a goal to keep, how
much can you spend towards it?


...................
Why is 'abbreviation' such a long word?


http://www.mindspring.com/~vdragon
Remove *nolamers* to e-mail.


Rexven

unread,
Jun 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/2/98
to

>> > How about passing and *enforcing* a Fed law that makes it so that every
>> > drunk that kills another person has to face pre-meditated murder charges
>> > complete with the death penalty.
>> I'd vote for this.

Personal opinion: If they hit and kill someone it's automatically
pre-meditated murder as above. If they are caught DUI and convicted it
should be attempted murder. Why? They know what they are doing. It's
the same to me as grabbing a gun and going to shoot someone and the
gun jams. Should they actually have to hit someone (shoot someone) for
them to have attempted to do it? Also, I believe they need to remove
the majority of the loopholes that the slime..err.. lawyers use to
defend these idiots. Lastly, if they have had the license suspended
or revoked for prior DUI/DWI and are caught again they should be sent
straight to prison.

>I don't know about this one due to the fact that 0.08 is pretty low for most
>people. Some are out of control at this point, most are still pretty much in

>control at this point. As for charging premeditated murder, I think the BAC would


>have to be higher - at 0.2 or so. Once a person drives in this condition and
>kills another person, this person should be shot like a dog in public.

<german story snipped>

Richard, .08 is not as low as you might think. It's proven that it is
a point where the general populace is impaired to a point where
driving becomes risky. This is why they use the number. In some cases
(mine for instance) the person would be well into the danger zone
before they got anywhere close to .08. Also, when you are drinking
you don't know how drunk you are. Many people who can barely even
stand up seem to think they are still in perfect control. This is one
of the greatest dangers of drinking regardless if you drive or not.

Curiosity, how many of you have lost someone to DUI/DWI? Friend,
relative, wife, etc.? Assuming they were not the drunk driver at
fault, what happened to that driver? Did they survive or did they die?
What were the penalties involved (if known)?

Richard Berkeley

unread,
Jun 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/2/98
to

Rexven wrote:

> Richard, .08 is not as low as you might think. It's proven that it is
> a point where the general populace is impaired to a point where
> driving becomes risky. This is why they use the number. In some cases
> (mine for instance) the person would be well into the danger zone
> before they got anywhere close to .08. Also, when you are drinking
> you don't know how drunk you are. Many people who can barely even
> stand up seem to think they are still in perfect control. This is one
> of the greatest dangers of drinking regardless if you drive or not.
>

> [friends dying from drunks snipped]

Numbers itself are irrelevant to me. I can do the alphabet at 0.30 while the guy next
to me is already passed out at 0.08. I still don't drive after taking 2 cans of beer,
though, but I know for a fact I'm almost immune to alcohol. If I take a 12 pack, then,
yes, I'm in no condition to drive, but after 2 cans, I'm pretty sure I could but
won't. That's why I think MADD is out of control.

Richard


Corey Heim

unread,
Jun 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/2/98
to

In article <6l1bur$q...@paladin.cc.emory.edu>, lpa...@paladin.cc.emory.edu
(Lloyd R. Parker) wrote:

> Daniel J Stern (das...@ftp.japan.com) wrote:

> : On Mon, 1 Jun 1998, Budd Cochran wrote:
> :
> : > How about passing and *enforcing* a Fed law that makes it so that every


> : > drunk that kills another person has to face pre-meditated murder charges
> : > complete with the death penalty.
> :

> : I'd vote for this.


>
> Me too! But the alcohol industry prevented Congress from putting in the
> transportation bill a section that would withhold 5% of a state's highway
> funds if they didn't set a 0.8 DWI/DUI limit. So obviously stricter laws
> are impossible, on the federal level, as long as Congress votes with one
> hand while the other hand is pocketing money.

Reducing the limit to .08 is NOT the point. That just makes MORE people
susceptible to the weak penalities. Besides, I have seen studies that
showed the majority of alcohol accidents that resulted in death had
drivers with BAC's over .15%. I will make an effort to try to find this.
Anyway, .1% works just fine if governments would penalize the hell of
someone caught at .1%. I believe WI's should be even tougher, but as they
are, WI drunk driving laws are some of the most strigent in the nation.
1st offense costs upwards of $1500 due to fines, court costs, and the
mandatory alcohol counseling sessions. This is aside from the higher
insurance costs and the fact that you don't have a license for 6 months.
The main problem is that addicts will keep driving, despite having a
lifetime revocation and thousands of dollars in fines. The only solution
is really jail time, IMO.
--
Corey Heim--...@students.wisc.com----------------------UW-Madison
Free DVD! Fight DIVX!---Make obvious change to address to send email.
Given the choice between accomplishing something, and just lying around, I'd rather just lie around. No contest. --Eric Clapton

Lloyd R. Parker

unread,
Jun 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/3/98
to

Corey Heim (cah...@students.wisc.com) wrote:
: Reducing the limit to .08 is NOT the point. That just makes MORE people

: susceptible to the weak penalities.


I'd rather have more DUI drivers susceptible to weak penalties than fewer
DUI drivers susceptible to weak penalties.

:Besides, I have seen studies that


: showed the majority of alcohol accidents that resulted in death had
: drivers with BAC's over .15%.


The majority of bank robberies are from repeat offenders. By your logic,
then, we shouldn't try to prevent robberies by first-time robbers.

: lifetime revocation and thousands of dollars in fines. The only solution


: is really jail time, IMO.

Agree totally.


Paul

unread,
Jun 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/3/98
to

Budd Cochran wrote:
>
> How about passing and *enforcing* a Fed law that makes it so that every
> drunk that kills another person has to face pre-meditated murder charges
> complete with the death penalty. I used to drink, thank God I don't now, and
> I knew, as did most of my cohorts, when I was drinking to get drunk or
> drinking enough to get drunk. Therefore pre-meditated murder. I knew that my
> driving when I had been drinking could result in somebody's death.
>
> I would support the same for drug dealers.
>
> Budd
>

Why stop at drunk drivers. Not all vehicle deaths are alcohol
related. I say if you drive, whether drinking or not, and you
kill someone, you should be executed. So you cell phone users,
you boom box like stereo systems, those who apply make up while
driving or read the paper, or engage in sexual activity while
driving or any other concentration impairing activity, should
be shot if you kill someone while driving. Goes for you dopers
and pot heads too.


It's a conscious thought to get in a car and drive, whether
sober or not. Therefore, it's premeditated murder if you kill
someone while driving.

P.

Justin Andrus

unread,
Jun 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/3/98
to

> Curiosity, how many of you have lost someone to DUI/DWI? Friend,
> relative, wife, etc.? Assuming they were not the drunk driver at
> fault, what happened to that driver? Did they survive or did they die?
> What were the penalties involved (if known)?
>
>

Four friends killed at once. The driver got a weekend in rehab.

Justin


Rexven

unread,
Jun 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/3/98
to

Justin Andrus <jan...@bates.edu> wrote:

I know that you and I can't be the only ones in this newsgroup that
have lost friends/relatives to DUI. Rather wondering who else out
there has? It's amazing that some peoople will happily tell you how
nice the penalties are now when they have never had any problems, or
worse yet those who decry the 'unfair penalties put on us' when they
get caught.

Rexven

unread,
Jun 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/3/98
to

Richard Berkeley <bum...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:


>Numbers itself are irrelevant to me. I can do the alphabet at 0.30 while the guy next
>to me is already passed out at 0.08. I still don't drive after taking 2 cans of beer,
>though, but I know for a fact I'm almost immune to alcohol. If I take a 12 pack, then,
>yes, I'm in no condition to drive, but after 2 cans, I'm pretty sure I could but
>won't. That's why I think MADD is out of control.

Rich, numbers may be irrelevant to you but the sure stand up in court
and that is where they base the laws. You might be able to do the
alphabet at .30 (I'd love to see the video tape. If you can do it
absoltely straight then good on you). I'm glad you don't try to drive
that way. Why exactly do you think MADD is out of control? They don't
go out of their way to test everyones alcohol tolerance individually
and put their maximum limit on their drivers license? How about this,
how about we drop it to .05 and nail everyone with the full penalties
available and remove the loopholes retroactively. How does that sound
to you? Sounds damned good to me! Also, anyone under the age of 21
that is caught with any amount of alcohol is already supposed to lose
their license until 18 or 21 (depending on state) how about we drop
that back to 25-30 and see how they like not being able to drive for
the first half of their life? They have already shown their lack of
responsibility. I certainly don't want to share the road with them.

Paula

unread,
Jun 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/3/98
to


Let's drop the pretense altoghether, just make .001 the legal
limit, after all it's "irresponsible". While we're at it, let's
nail everyone who's ever gone 1 mph over the legal speed limit,
they *irresponsible* you know. Speed is a factor in a lot
of crashes. Let's make felons out of those maggots who drive
56 mph in a 55mph zone, those bastards!

I'll be damned if I can't be allowed to drive after 2 beers.
Driving with 2 beers under your belt is not driving while
impaired. If they take my license away for that, so be it. I'll
drive anyway, they'll never catch me.

Paula

Richard Berkeley

unread,
Jun 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/3/98
to

Rexven wrote:

> Richard Berkeley <bum...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >Numbers itself are irrelevant to me. I can do the alphabet at 0.30 while the guy next
> >to me is already passed out at 0.08. I still don't drive after taking 2 cans of beer,
> >though, but I know for a fact I'm almost immune to alcohol. If I take a 12 pack, then,
> >yes, I'm in no condition to drive, but after 2 cans, I'm pretty sure I could but
> >won't. That's why I think MADD is out of control.
>
> Rich, numbers may be irrelevant to you but the sure stand up in court
> and that is where they base the laws. You might be able to do the
> alphabet at .30 (I'd love to see the video tape. If you can do it
> absoltely straight then good on you). I'm glad you don't try to drive
> that way. Why exactly do you think MADD is out of control? They don't
> go out of their way to test everyones alcohol tolerance individually
> and put their maximum limit on their drivers license? How about this,
> how about we drop it to .05 and nail everyone with the full penalties
> available and remove the loopholes retroactively. How does that sound
> to you? Sounds damned good to me! Also, anyone under the age of 21
> that is caught with any amount of alcohol is already supposed to lose
> their license until 18 or 21 (depending on state) how about we drop
> that back to 25-30 and see how they like not being able to drive for
> the first half of their life? They have already shown their lack of
> responsibility. I certainly don't want to share the road with them.

You'd be surprised. I've seen some people get totally plastered after one can of beer, some
take 6.

Also, I believe drinking age should be lower than driving age, or the same. It works just
fine in England and Germany. Kids wouldn't have to resort to illegal drugs.

0.05? That'd mean one beer. Forget it. I go after level of impairment, not amount of
BAC. The BAC's crock.

Richard


Jeffrey J. Potoff

unread,
Jun 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/3/98
to

Rexven wrote:
>
> Justin Andrus <jan...@bates.edu> wrote:
>
> >> Curiosity, how many of you have lost someone to DUI/DWI? Friend,
> >> relative, wife, etc.? Assuming they were not the drunk driver at
> >> fault, what happened to that driver? Did they survive or did they die?
> >> What were the penalties involved (if known)?
> >>
> >>
>
> >Four friends killed at once. The driver got a weekend in rehab.
>
> I know that you and I can't be the only ones in this newsgroup that
> have lost friends/relatives to DUI. Rather wondering who else out
> there has? It's amazing that some peoople will happily tell you how
> nice the penalties are now when they have never had any problems, or
> worse yet those who decry the 'unfair penalties put on us' when they
> get caught.

Uh yeah, whatever, but what is this doing posted in rec.autos.tech ?

Jeff

Alain Lachapelle

unread,
Jun 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/3/98
to

Paul wrote:

> It's a conscious thought to get in a car and drive, whether
> sober or not. Therefore, it's premeditated murder if you kill
> someone while driving.

Er, something's missing there. The plain accident. Accidents do
happen, with sober drivers behind the wheel. How then would you rate
one's ability to drive and then push forward the premeditated murder
case?


Alain

BBQKing

unread,
Jun 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/3/98
to


Every person has their own individual limits before they become
impiared. ITs not the physical PERCENT of BAC that makes a difference.
A social drinker is much more likely to become impaired at .10 or less
than a person who suffers from alcoholism, who may register a BAC of
well over .10% 24hours a day.

I personally feel that .08 is not unreasonable. All the posts
regarding the intrusion of ones civil rights a .08 BAC limit would
impose do not consider the chain of events that happen to make an
enforcement stop. There MUST be PROBABLE CAUSE. An officer can't tell
you are driving with .08 or any other BAC unless you exhibit some
indication you are under the influence. Unless of course you are the
unlucky one that is in line at a traffic checkpoint. Those are a whole
other issue.

We shouldn't concentrate so much on penalties. We should concentrate
our efforts on educating people on their limits and helping those with
alcoholism to fight the disease so they may motor safely. Educating
servers and making establishments more responsible for their actions
would also help in fighting this needless tragedy.

Thats all for now...
________________________________________
Stop by and say "HI" on the SuperHiWay!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Deputy Dog aka.BBQKING
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
http://www.glasscity.net/users/mharmon
________________________________________

Corey Heim

unread,
Jun 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/3/98
to

In article <6l3kj4$d...@curly.cc.emory.edu>, lpa...@curly.cc.emory.edu
(Lloyd R. Parker) wrote:

> Corey Heim (cah...@students.wisc.com) wrote:
> : Reducing the limit to .08 is NOT the point. That just makes MORE people
> : susceptible to the weak penalities.
>
>
> I'd rather have more DUI drivers susceptible to weak penalties than fewer
> DUI drivers susceptible to weak penalties.

I think you miss my point, Lloyd. The problem with reducing the level of
intoxication through federal action does nothing to increase the
effectiveness of the penalties. My point is NOT to defend driving after
drinking in any way (I'd much rather prefer that anyone who drinks at all
simply not drive) but rather that energy directed in reducing the legal
BAC does 2 things: 1) means cops are pulling over more DUI's overall, but
2) the people that are pulled over at the .08 to .10% level aren't as
likely (I don't mean "not likely") as the over .10% drivers are to cause
accidents and kill. You want true effectiveness? Increase the penalties
to the point of being draconian. That way, NO ONE will want to drive
after drinking. This allows cops to devote more attention to DUI's over
.10% and slap the huge penalties on them (the people that have the problem
with alcohol anyway). One thing I would like the federal govt to pass (if
there was one thing I wanted) is a federal seat belt law. (Not state
mandates, etc., but an actual federal law that requires everyone to buckle
up).

I only hope that you don't think I am trying to defend social drinkers or
whatever by opposing a reduction to .08%. It is only to direct the
resources we have to taking out the people most likely to cause death or
injury.

Nathan J Nagel

unread,
Jun 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/3/98
to

Excerpts from netnews.rec.autos.makers.chrysler: 2-Jun-98 Re:
Drunken-Driving penalties by Lloyd R. Parker@paladin.
>
> Daniel J Stern (das...@ftp.japan.com) wrote:
> : On Mon, 1 Jun 1998, Budd Cochran wrote:
> :
> : > How about passing and *enforcing* a Fed law that makes it so that every

> : > drunk that kills another person has to face pre-meditated murder charges
> : > complete with the death penalty.
> :
> : I'd vote for this.
>
> Me too! But the alcohol industry prevented Congress from putting in the
> transportation bill a section that would withhold 5% of a state's highway
> funds if they didn't set a 0.8 DWI/DUI limit. So obviously stricter laws
> are impossible, on the federal level, as long as Congress votes with one
> hand while the other hand is pocketing money.
>

What's the problem with a 0.10 DUI limit? At that BAC you should still
be able to pilot a car safely if you're not a complete idiot (i.e. think
that you're still crystal-clear alert and have the reflexes of
Schumacher) - at that BAC you're probably still safer than if you were
dead tired, or pissed off at someone, or whatever. And for the average
American, 0.08 is less than two drinks - which would pretty much kill
business at any bar, if enforced.

Don't get me wrong, though, I'm not condoning in any way dangerous
driving - it's just that the majority of people involved in DUI-related
accidents have a BAC far higher than 0.08 or 0.10. Lowering the BAC
level will not solve anything, cracking down HARD on people that do
exceed it just might. I like the idea of premeditated murder charges,
myself, although I doubt it'll ever happen.

nate

Nathan J Nagel

unread,
Jun 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/3/98
to

Excerpts from netnews.rec.autos.driving: 4-Jun-98 Re: Drunken-Driving
penalties by aa...@cs.adfa.oz.au_spam
> >
> >What's the problem with a 0.10 DUI limit? At that BAC you should still
> >be able to pilot a car safely if you're not a complete idiot (i.e. think
> >that you're still crystal-clear alert and have the reflexes of
> >Schumacher) - at that BAC you're probably still safer than if you were
> >dead tired, or pissed off at someone, or whatever. And for the average
> >American, 0.08 is less than two drinks - which would pretty much kill
> >business at any bar, if enforced.
>
> Here in Australia the limit is 0.05% We have lower limits for younger
> <21? and inexperienced drivers. I can't believe that some of you
> people are saying that 0.10 is safe because _you_ feel that you're
> safe behind the wheel.

Truly, for someone of my body weight (about 150 lbs.) 0.10 isn't that
hard to achieve. I don't feel any impairment at all until about my
third drink or so, which according to "the charts" is well over 0.10.
So that probably means that I'm impaired in real life after a drink and
a half. I can live with that. Not that it really matters, because I
never have more than two drinks if I know I'm going to be driving
somewhere.

>
> Here in Aus we get a lot of little TV stories and stuff about testing
> peoples abilities after as little as one beer and yes there's an
> effect towards poorer concentration, poor judgement and other things.

True, but my point was that there are other factors that come into play,
such as whether you've had enough sleep the previous night - and AFAIK
it's not illegal to drive anywhere even if you've been up for 48 hours
straight. (I've done it - and I'm never going to do it again!)
>
>
> Personally I can't condone anyone drinking and driving. 0.05 is
> enought to have a social drink and not get done. If anyone wants to
> do more they should leave the car at home.
>
> And yes, they should shoot 'em in public if someone drives and hamrs
> someone while intoxicated.

I hope it was just for brevity's sake that you edited out the part of my
post where I said about the same thing... I don't want to give the
impression that I'm in favor of leniency towards drunk drivers, I just
think that enforcing the laws we already have would do more than
creating new laws that may or may not be enforced (and are of dubious
merit.)

nate

>
> Aaron
>
> Aaron!
> Yep, a Neon owner.....scary huh?


Ali Nabeel

unread,
Jun 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/4/98
to

Nathan J Nagel (gear...@andrew.cmu.edu) wrote:

: What's the problem with a 0.10 DUI limit? At that BAC you should still


: be able to pilot a car safely if you're not a complete idiot (i.e. think
: that you're still crystal-clear alert and have the reflexes of
: Schumacher) - at that BAC you're probably still safer than if you were
: dead tired, or pissed off at someone, or whatever. And for the average
: American, 0.08 is less than two drinks - which would pretty much kill
: business at any bar, if enforced.

:

For a 70kg man of average muscular build, .08 is not a lot. He will
probably not show too many effects, although cognitive impairment is
detectable at around .03. A long-time alcoholic can even tolerate levels
near .2 without significanty impairment. On the other hand, for 90 pound
5'4" woman, .08 is pretty much a general anesthetic. Alcohol tolerance
varies greatly with sex, age, weight, body composition and race. Where do
you want to set the limit? Do you wan't to set it at a value where the
average person is intoxicated, and let half the population be legal
although intoxicated? At the 10th percentile? At the 3rd percentile? There
is no way of predicting a persons limit, short of trial and error. .1 is
arbitrary, just as .08. I have no objection to either. While we are at it,
we should go after all the people driving under the influence of sleeping
pills.

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Sometimes the only way to feel good |Nabeel Ali
about yourself is to make others look |
bad, and I'm tired of making others |
feel good about themselves" |al...@magellan.umontreal.ca
|
- Homer J. Simpson |http://alcor.concordia.ca/~stali
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lloyd R. Parker

unread,
Jun 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/4/98
to

Nathan J Nagel (gear...@andrew.cmu.edu) wrote:
: >
:
: What's the problem with a 0.10 DUI limit? At that BAC you should still
: be able to pilot a car safely if you're not a complete idiot (i.e. think
: that you're still crystal-clear alert and have the reflexes of
: Schumacher)

Simply not true. Numerous studies have shown significant impairment well
below 0.10.

:- at that BAC you're probably still safer than if you were


: dead tired, or pissed off at someone, or whatever. And for the average
: American, 0.08 is less than two drinks - which would pretty much kill
: business at any bar, if enforced.

No, it would only "kill" those people driving and killing other people.

:
: Don't get me wrong, though, I'm not condoning in any way dangerous


: driving - it's just that the majority of people involved in DUI-related
: accidents have a BAC far higher than 0.08 or 0.10.

And as I said, the majority of bank robbers are repeat offenders, but that
doesn't mean we shouldn't try to apprehend first time robbers too.

: Lowering the BAC


: level will not solve anything,

Well, it will mean a lot more impaired people will (a) get arrested and
(b) find out there's a penalty to their driving while impaired.

Lloyd R. Parker

unread,
Jun 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/4/98
to

Corey Heim (cah...@students.wisc.com) wrote:
: effectiveness of the penalties. My point is NOT to defend driving after

: drinking in any way (I'd much rather prefer that anyone who drinks at all
: simply not drive) but rather that energy directed in reducing the legal
: BAC does 2 things: 1) means cops are pulling over more DUI's overall, but
: 2) the people that are pulled over at the .08 to .10% level aren't as
: likely (I don't mean "not likely") as the over .10% drivers are to cause
: accidents and kill. You want true effectiveness? Increase the penalties

But they ARE impaired. Again, your argument is like saying we should only
arrest bank robbers who make off with $100,000 or more, or like saying a
kid who brings a handgun to school isn't a worry because he's not as
likely to kill as many as someone who brings an Uzi.


Craig LeMoyne

unread,
Jun 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/4/98
to

The fact is, all cars should have airbags, but there should be some kind
of switch, or a fuse that can be pulled so they won't deploy. Ford
F-150's have these on the passenger side. This way, 5 ft tall people
won't have to worry about sitting so close to the wheel.

Craig

pio...@newsguy.com wrote:
: On 01 Jun 1998 03:39:38 GMT, wren...@aol.com (WRENCH99) wrote:

: >Check these facts and not their source at the bottom. Persons properly using
: >their seatbelts and airbags are an INSIGNIFICANT blip on the safety radar
: >screen. EDUCATION will have a much greater effect on safety than turning off
: >safety devices and hoping for the best. Education = safety.
: >
: >-Bill Ditmire
: >
: >=========================================================================
: >Breakdown of Air Bag Fatalities
: >
: >History
: >
: >Since 1990, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has recorded 99
: >fatalities as a result of an air bag deployment. To date, 57 of these deaths
: >have been children, while the remaining 42 have been adults. With more than 2
: >million air bag deployments and over 3,000 lives saved and countless injuries
: >prevented, the benefits of air bags are dramatic. Still, these 99 fatalities
: >should be examined. See also State-by-State Breakdown of Air Bag Fatalities.
: >
: It is my humble opinion that airbags should NOT be mandatory, but
: rather an option. Many will probably disagree with this and site facts
: and statistics proving the amount of lives they save versus the deaths
: that occur, but the problem with this is that more than likely a lot
: of incidents and indeed deaths caused by airbags are not, and can not
: be reported. I remember a thread on a mailing list a while back about
: airbags, and I was suprised at the number of simple accidents turned
: near fatal, because of an airbag.

: Let me explain the above by siting examples. In one case a member of
: the list reported an incident where he struck a station wagon, then
: came the deploymnet of the airbag, and being stunned and unable to
: see, went under the wheels of an eighteen wheeler. Luckily for him it
: was just the front the car that was squashed. If this had been a fatal
: accident, I would seriously doubt it would be possible to blame it on
: the airbag, but in actual fact, it was the airbag that carried it from
: minor to near tragedy. In another case, a deer was struck, and true to
: form the airbag deployed, the driver lost control from lack of site
: and the impact of the airbag and went off the road and hit a tree
: wrecking his car, he was lucky, had he gone off the other side, the
: only direction would have been down. Again, it is safe to assume this
: death would have not been stated as an airbag related death, had he
: gone over the edge.

: Luckily for me, where I live has no airbag law, because whether it is
: best or not, I don't like the idea of a devise that can pop out and
: hit me and temporarly blind spot me while driving, and I do like the
: idea of having a choice.

: Dennis.

Paula

unread,
Jun 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/4/98
to

BBQKing wrote:

> I personally feel that .08 is not unreasonable. All the posts
> regarding the intrusion of ones civil rights a .08 BAC limit would
> impose do not consider the chain of events that happen to make an
> enforcement stop. There MUST be PROBABLE CAUSE. An officer can't tell
> you are driving with .08 or any other BAC unless you exhibit some
> indication you are under the influence. Unless of course you are the
> unlucky one that is in line at a traffic checkpoint. Those are a whole
> other issue.
>


I beg to differ on the PROBABLE CAUSE. In NC, they have
"Click it or Ticket" random traffic check points. Everyone gets
pulled over with NO PROBABLE CAUSE whatsoever. If they smell
an odor of alcohol, then you get tested, hassled, maybe busted.
This is an invasion of one's civil rights pure and simple.
Welcome to the Police State.

Paula

Tony Pelliccio

unread,
Jun 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/4/98
to

In article <35766F...@not.com>, spa...@not.com says...

> I beg to differ on the PROBABLE CAUSE. In NC, they have
> "Click it or Ticket" random traffic check points. Everyone gets
> pulled over with NO PROBABLE CAUSE whatsoever. If they smell
> an odor of alcohol, then you get tested, hassled, maybe busted.
> This is an invasion of one's civil rights pure and simple.
> Welcome to the Police State.

Surprisingly that type of activity has gone over well in the south, but
here in the northeast I think there's just far too much traffic to start
doing roadblocks.

Tony


Matthew T. Russotto

unread,
Jun 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/4/98
to

In article <3577d882...@news.glasscity.net>,

BBQKing <REMOVE_...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
}
} I personally feel that .08 is not unreasonable. All the posts
}regarding the intrusion of ones civil rights a .08 BAC limit would
}impose do not consider the chain of events that happen to make an
}enforcement stop. There MUST be PROBABLE CAUSE.

Not so. The United States Supreme Court has endorsed drunk driving
roadblocks. Furthermore, violating any other traffic law can be cause
to pull you over, as can a "profile" which includes such things as
"scrupulously obeying the speed limit".

}We shouldn't concentrate so much on penalties. We should concentrate
}our efforts on educating people on their limits and helping those with
}alcoholism to fight the disease so they may motor safely. Educating
}servers and making establishments more responsible for their actions
}would also help in fighting this needless tragedy.

The only method of "educating" the state has available to it is the
cop's billy club and the iron cage.

--
Matthew T. Russotto russ...@pond.com
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue."

Lloyd R. Parker

unread,
Jun 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/4/98
to

Tony Pelliccio (nospam...@nospam.ultranet.com) wrote:
: In article <35766F...@not.com>, spa...@not.com says...
:

I believe Massachusetts was one of the test cases for this. The courts
ruled as long as every car, or every other, or every third, etc., car got
checked, it was constitutional. The basic argument is that operating a
vehicle (a privilege) on public roads doesn't carry the same expectation
of privacy as you would have in your home.

TheCentralSc...@pobox.com

unread,
Jun 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/4/98
to

In article <6l6ei5$e...@curly.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd R. Parker wrote:
>I believe Massachusetts was one of the test cases for this. The courts
>ruled as long as every car, or every other, or every third, etc., car got
>checked, it was constitutional. The basic argument is that operating a
>vehicle (a privilege) on public roads doesn't carry the same expectation
>of privacy as you would have in your home.
>

nor one's constitutional rights like that pesky fourth ammendment banning
searches without probable cause.


greg szekeres

unread,
Jun 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/4/98
to
>Let's drop the pretense altoghether, just make .001 the legal
>limit, after all it's "irresponsible". While we're at it, let's
>nail everyone who's ever gone 1 mph over the legal speed limit,
>they *irresponsible* you know. Speed is a factor in a lot
>of crashes. Let's make felons out of those maggots who drive
>56 mph in a 55mph zone, those bastards!
>
>I'll be damned if I can't be allowed to drive after 2 beers.
>Driving with 2 beers under your belt is not driving while
>impaired. If they take my license away for that, so be it. I'll
>drive anyway, they'll never catch me.
>
>Paula

And make parking lots illegal for bars or anything that distributes
alcohol, even beverage stores.

Funny, it seems like people who make all these laws, probably
don't even go our drinking at their favorite bars listening to their
favorite band on a saturday night. I think all people caught at home
on a saturday night should pay a penelty fee of $100.

greg

Lloyd R. Parker

unread,
Jun 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/4/98
to

TheCentralSc...@pobox.com wrote:
:

"Secure in their homes and persons..." is what the 4th am says. Nothing
about cars in a public place. Also says "from unreasonable searches...",
not from all.

greg szekeres

unread,
Jun 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/4/98
to

In article <MPG.fe0764e2...@news.ultranet.com>, nospam...@nospam.ultranet.com (Tony Pelliccio) wrote:
>In article <35766F...@not.com>, spa...@not.com says...
>
>> I beg to differ on the PROBABLE CAUSE. In NC, they have
>> "Click it or Ticket" random traffic check points. Everyone gets
>> pulled over with NO PROBABLE CAUSE whatsoever. If they smell
>> an odor of alcohol, then you get tested, hassled, maybe busted.
>> This is an invasion of one's civil rights pure and simple.
>> Welcome to the Police State.
>
>Surprisingly that type of activity has gone over well in the south, but
>here in the northeast I think there's just far too much traffic to start
>doing roadblocks.


Random roadblocks would include rush hour and sunday morning
church hours. If they don't do it, its not random.

greg


Daniel J Stern

unread,
Jun 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/4/98
to

On Thu, 4 Jun 1998, Craig LeMoyne wrote:

> The fact is, all cars should have airbags, but there should be some kind
> of switch, or a fuse that can be pulled so they won't deploy.

Craig:

That's not a fact. It's an opinion.

--Daniel

To write to me, make my address go:
dastern "at" umich "dot" edu

"The Romans did not create a great empire by having meetings. They did it by
killing all those who disagreed with them."

Anonymous

unread,
Jun 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/4/98
to

In article <6l6o24$r...@paladin.cc.emory.edu>, lpa...@paladin.cc.emory.edu
(Lloyd R. Parker) wrote:

That would be an arguement for allowing cops to search for open liqour
containers.. but a breath-analyser certainly falls under the "persons"
clause.

Jerry Michael

unread,
Jun 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/4/98
to

I have seen people wild and totally out-of-control after only 1 beer.
Berserk is the term.

Paula <spa...@not.com> wrote in article <35755E...@not.com>...

Richard Berkeley

unread,
Jun 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/4/98
to

Jerry Michael wrote:

> I have seen people wild and totally out-of-control after only 1 beer.
> Berserk is the term.
>

That's PRECISELY my reason as to why I give the BAC no relevance. The numbers
are not important. I only go after how the person acts. I'm pretty big myself
so I'm hardly affected by booze.

However, in the Czech Republic, having at least a hint of alcohol on your breath
gives police the right to arrest you. Same thing goes for East Germany but
after the reunification of Germany, I'm still told that in eastern Germany,
they're VERY strict with alcohol.

Richard


Nathan J Nagel

unread,
Jun 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/4/98
to

Excerpts from netnews.rec.autos.driving: 4-Jun-98 Re: Drunken-Driving
penalties by Lloyd R. Parker@paladin.
>
> Nathan J Nagel (gear...@andrew.cmu.edu) wrote:
> : >
> :
> : What's the problem with a 0.10 DUI limit? At that BAC you should still
> : be able to pilot a car safely if you're not a complete idiot (i.e. think
> : that you're still crystal-clear alert and have the reflexes of
> : Schumacher)
>
> Simply not true. Numerous studies have shown significant impairment well
> below 0.10.

"significant" in what way? More so than driving to work without your
morning coffee?

>
> :- at that BAC you're probably still safer than if you were
> : dead tired, or pissed off at someone, or whatever. And for the average
> : American, 0.08 is less than two drinks - which would pretty much kill
> : business at any bar, if enforced.
>
> No, it would only "kill" those people driving and killing other people.

Think about it... unless you live right around the corner from a bar,
how are you going to get there? What bar is going to stay in business
when all the patrons consume two drinks, sit around for another hour,
and then leave? I'll admit it, I like a good friendly bar and would be
saddened if they all disappeared.

>
> :
> : Don't get me wrong, though, I'm not condoning in any way dangerous
> : driving - it's just that the majority of people involved in DUI-related
> : accidents have a BAC far higher than 0.08 or 0.10.
>
> And as I said, the majority of bank robbers are repeat offenders, but that
> doesn't mean we shouldn't try to apprehend first time robbers too.
>
> : Lowering the BAC
> : level will not solve anything,
>
> Well, it will mean a lot more impaired people will (a) get arrested and
> (b) find out there's a penalty to their driving while impaired.

As if that's happening now. Look at all the DUI repeat offenders out
there at a 0.10% BAC. Apparently the current penalties are not
deterring THEM from driving drunk. My whole point is, there's no sense
lowering the BAC level when the one we've got isn't doing the job.
Enforcement first, then change the legislation if necessary.

nate


Corey Heim

unread,
Jun 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/4/98
to

In article <6l67qf$5...@paladin.cc.emory.edu>, lpa...@paladin.cc.emory.edu
(Lloyd R. Parker) wrote:

Yeah, Lloyd, it's JUST LIKE that....pretty nice to compare my argument to
defending a kid bringing a gun to school...thanks for showing your true
self again. I don't argue that they AREN'T impaired. Where do you see
that? I wrote that someone at .15 more likely to cause a fatal than
someone at .08. For the sake of argument, let's say that of all the
accidents caused by a drunk driver, 50% of the fatals are caused by a
drunk driver at .15%. 25% are caused by .08% (again for the sake of
argument). Given limited resources, which driver do you want off the
street? Do you see my argument now? It isn't about saying this guy isn't
impaired at .08, so leave him alone...it's about the reality that people
still drink and drive and we only have so many cops. So why not
concentrate on the people the most likely to cause the fatals? And
comparing the pulling over of drunk drivers (whatever their BAC) and the
result of that (pulling over compared to accidents) to bank robbers or kid
gun toters is untenable.

Stylish Gent

unread,
Jun 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/5/98
to

TheCentralSc...@pobox.com () wrote:
>In article <6l6ei5$e...@curly.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd R. Parker wrote:
>>I believe Massachusetts was one of the test cases for this. The courts
>>ruled as long as every car, or every other, or every third, etc., car got
>>checked, it was constitutional. The basic argument is that operating a
>>vehicle (a privilege) on public roads doesn't carry the same expectation
>>of privacy as you would have in your home.
>>
>
>nor one's constitutional rights like that pesky fourth ammendment banning
>searches without probable cause.
>


I am fed up with drunk drivers killing and maming people, I say we hang
them from the nearest tree and swinging in the wind.


Jerry Michael

unread,
Jun 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/5/98
to

You guys really should take this discussion off-line or put it in GM or
Ford. Same with the Air-Bags Bongos.

Stylish Gent <sk...@erols.com> wrote in article
<6l7mve$e4n$2...@winter.news.erols.com>...

Paula

unread,
Jun 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/5/98
to

Jerry Michael wrote:
>
> I have seen people wild and totally out-of-control after only 1 beer.
> Berserk is the term.
>


I've seen people go beserk with 0 beer/drinks. Therefore, no
body should be allowed to drive because someone *might* be
out of control for no good reason. If you're suspectible to
going beserk after 1 beer and you're under the legal limit, you
can still be charged and convicted for DWI. If I drink two
beers and am under the limit and not beserk, I shouldn't get
DWI. I will not suffer for other people's lack of control.

Paula

Lloyd R. Parker

unread,
Jun 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/5/98
to

Corey Heim (cah...@students.wisc.com) wrote:
: In article <6l67qf$5...@paladin.cc.emory.edu>, lpa...@paladin.cc.emory.edu

: (Lloyd R. Parker) wrote:
:
: > Corey Heim (cah...@students.wisc.com) wrote:
: > : effectiveness of the penalties. My point is NOT to defend driving after
: > : drinking in any way (I'd much rather prefer that anyone who drinks at all
: > : simply not drive) but rather that energy directed in reducing the legal
: > : BAC does 2 things: 1) means cops are pulling over more DUI's overall, but
: > : 2) the people that are pulled over at the .08 to .10% level aren't as
: > : likely (I don't mean "not likely") as the over .10% drivers are to cause
: > : accidents and kill. You want true effectiveness? Increase the penalties
: >
: > But they ARE impaired. Again, your argument is like saying we should only
: > arrest bank robbers who make off with $100,000 or more, or like saying a
: > kid who brings a handgun to school isn't a worry because he's not as
: > likely to kill as many as someone who brings an Uzi.
:
: Yeah, Lloyd, it's JUST LIKE that....pretty nice to compare my argument to
: defending a kid bringing a gun to school...thanks for showing your true
: self again. I don't argue that they AREN'T impaired. Where do you see
: that?


You admit they're impaired, but you don't think it's important to get them
off the road?

: I wrote that someone at .15 more likely to cause a fatal than
: someone at .08.


True, but there are a lot more people with 0.08 than 0.15, so you can't
say anything about the number of accidents either group will cause.

: comparing the pulling over of drunk drivers (whatever their BAC) and the


: result of that (pulling over compared to accidents) to bank robbers or kid
: gun toters is untenable.

Why not concentrate on bank robbers and let convenience store robbers go?
Bank robbers get more money, and given limited resources...

Ask Ken Starr why the federal gov't doesn't concentrate on violent
criminals, considering the limited resources...


Jeffrey J. Potoff

unread,
Jun 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/5/98
to

Hey, wrong newsgroup. This has nothing to do with rec.autos.tech.

Jeff

David

unread,
Jun 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/5/98
to

Hey college? Drunk driving is so much less of a crime than robbing a
BankBoston or 7-11?

My wife and Niece were recently killed by a drunk driver. I became
parental guardian of my Niece when my Sister and Brother in Law were
killed by, a drunk driver. Which is the bigger crime?

Back to school for you.

Greg Szekeres

unread,
Jun 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/6/98
to

In article <6l6ei5$e...@curly.cc.emory.edu>, lpa...@curly.cc.emory.edu (Lloyd R. Parker) wrote:

>Tony Pelliccio (nospam...@nospam.ultranet.com) wrote:
>: In article <35766F...@not.com>, spa...@not.com says...
>:
>: > I beg to differ on the PROBABLE CAUSE. In NC, they have
>: > "Click it or Ticket" random traffic check points. Everyone gets
>: > pulled over with NO PROBABLE CAUSE whatsoever. If they smell
>: > an odor of alcohol, then you get tested, hassled, maybe busted.

All you need to do is reverse the air flow for the ventillation system and
they will never know! Yes I think many get tested from the smell
seeping out the window. This is really getting auto.tech now!


>: > This is an invasion of one's civil rights pure and simple.

>: > Welcome to the Police State.
>:
>: Surprisingly that type of activity has gone over well in the south, but
>: here in the northeast I think there's just far too much traffic to start
>: doing roadblocks.

>:
>: Tony
>:

dro...@worldnet.att.net

unread,
Jun 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/6/98
to

Gee.....imagine that......another silly-assed thread that gives more
reason than doubt ......to cleaning the gene pool.


David

unread,
Jun 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/6/98
to

Massachusetts was one of test States in this issue, the infamous "Road
Blocks". Set up here on Cape Cod July 4th weekend on rte. 28 going
toward Falmouth (a heavily travelled route) we approached a Police
road block made up of State and local Police. A black BMW 318i made a
U-turn directly in front of me. Three Falmouth Cops immediately
abandoned the road block sight to chase this guy. The cops pulled him
over, dragged him out of the Beamer, and beat him within an inch of
his life.

Said three cops were recently released from MCI (Massachusetts
Correctional Institute, Razor wire, you get the idea) Cedar Junction
wondering if they are still hetero.

Okay, what happened here?

Matthew T. Russotto

unread,
Jun 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/6/98
to

Evidentally, someone videotaped the incident.

David Kelly

unread,
Jun 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/6/98
to


Tony Pelliccio wrote:

> In article <35740ACD...@ix.netcom.com>, bum...@ix.netcom.com
> says...
> > I don't know about this one due to the fact that 0.08 is pretty low for most
> > people. Some are out of control at this point, most are still pretty much in
> > control at this point.
>
> A good point was made by one of Rhode Island's Representatives that
> lowering the limit to 0.08 would only server to give the police much
> wider latitude in pulling people over for no good reason. She also went
> on to state the most if not all vehicular accidents due to alcohol use
> involved operators who's BAC was greater than 1.0.
>

Maybe it sounds like a good point, but it has no basis in reality. A cop does not know
the BAC of a driver before they are pulled over. The .08 level would only come into play
after the stop, thus making no difference whatsoever if the person actually gets pulled
over.


David Kelly

unread,
Jun 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/6/98
to


Richard Berkeley wrote:

> Rexven wrote:
>
> > Richard, .08 is not as low as you might think. It's proven that it is
> > a point where the general populace is impaired to a point where
> > driving becomes risky. This is why they use the number. In some cases
> > (mine for instance) the person would be well into the danger zone
> > before they got anywhere close to .08. Also, when you are drinking
> > you don't know how drunk you are. Many people who can barely even
> > stand up seem to think they are still in perfect control. This is one
> > of the greatest dangers of drinking regardless if you drive or not.
> >
> > [friends dying from drunks snipped]


>
> Numbers itself are irrelevant to me. I can do the alphabet at 0.30 while the guy next
> to me is already passed out at 0.08. I still don't drive after taking 2 cans of beer,
> though, but I know for a fact I'm almost immune to alcohol. If I take a 12 pack, then,
> yes, I'm in no condition to drive, but after 2 cans, I'm pretty sure I could but
> won't. That's why I think MADD is out of control.
>

> Richard

And at 2 beers you would not be at .08, despite what the alcohol industry says. Your
motor skills are the ones that people are concerned about at .08, not your ability to
recite the alphabet.


David Kelly

unread,
Jun 6, 1998, 3:00:00 AM6/6/98