Stupid drunk drivers...... (page 3)

Comf I understand about addictions. My addiction was very common and very uncontrolable for many years. It was simply food. I know how difficult any addiction can be. Of course I was only killing myself and no one else.

Sadly all too many alcohalics fail with their first treatment. Many fail all of them. I guess I just want the punishment along with treatment.

COMF

LB, nothing can undo what's been done to you and your loved ones. I know that you're already painfully aware of this; I only say it so that I can acknowledge it myself. Any apology is doomed to fall flat, because it will come across as an attempt to make things right with words; and of course nothing can make things right, so it's only an insult that anyone would try to do so, would think it was possible to do so, with nothing more than a spoken sentence. An apology can't balance the scales of justice, either. Nor bring you any relief from your loss.

I feel strongly moved to apologize to you anyway, standing in for the person who caused the deaths, because something is owed. Something is due you and those with you who suffered loss. And yet, for the reasons above, I hesitate to say it. If I say it, then whatever it is I say, it won't be enough; could never be enough. What is owed is the lives back, that were lost.

Please know, then, that I do not defend, condone or excuse the drunk driving behavior that leads to the deaths of innocent people. While your focus is on punishment, and understandably so, my focus is on prevention and correction.

You are right that many alcoholics fail. And when it comes down to the wire, we all reap the result of our actions regardless of circumstances. But to imagine that an alcoholic has the same power over his choices that a normal person does, is to be ignorant of the facts. Of course, lots of folks choose to remain that way--ignorant of the facts--because it's so much easier to dismiss the problem with "assholes. Scumbags. Shove 'em off somewhere out of our way so we don't hafta think about 'em, willya?" than it is to recognize the situation for what it is, and seek genuine solutions.

scootergirl

My first husband was killed by a drunk driver. He was 24 years old. We were married just 8 months and I had just found out that I was pregnant 10 days before he was killed. At 22 I had to do something that I wasn't prepared for. I have NO tolerance for drunk drivers.

jws

Man, reminds me of my JW days. One guy in our hall was an alcoholic. Got 3 DWI's, even spent a month in jail as a result. And not only DWIs but he crashed his car a few times and managed to avoid the DWI by fleeing. Never any injuries to himself or others. And no judicial action stronger than reproof (which may have been private now that I think about it). I guess because he was an alcoholic and couldn't control himself.

Then he sobered up and a few years later and perfectly sober, he went through an intersection when he shouldn't have (ran a stop sign or red light), hit another car and killed the person.

I can't say I didn't have my times of driving home when I was over the limit. But, I felt I always drove safely and never had any incidents. And I truly believe that some people can do this. You have to be alert. The problem with drinking, especially late at night is it makes some people drowsy, which lowers their alertness. Let's face it, some people aren't too alert stone-cold sober and bad drivers to begin with. Imagine them drunk.

I don't say the danger isn't out there, but not everyone who drives home with a little too much is dangerous. In fact, I was, I believe more alert because I knew the dangers of getting caught. I watched my speed and was over-alert to where on the road I was driving.

I eventually did get a DWI. I was coming home from a business convention some 90 miles away. I was drinking at the convention, stopped to eat, had a few beers, stopped at a bar on the way back, dropped my friend off, and went home. By this time, it was pretty late, nearly 1 or 2 am and I had to work the next day. So, I stepped on the gas a little and got pulled over for speeding. I got pulled over right outside the entrance to my apartment complex - SO close. Then I guess the eyes gave it away. Got the test and got busted. Scored a 0.010 - the borderline at that time. Seeing as though I had been on the road for at least an hour since my last drink, my BAL must have been declining and was higher at one point. But the drive was without incident until I went too fast - even my friend (who didn't drink much) thought I was driving fine.

Well, the DWI scared me at least. After a few beers I stopped and made sure I was sober enough to be under the limit before I drove. And I know that now, after several years, I am probably not as alert and good at driving after a few beers, so I don't do it. But back then, I believe I drove pretty well after a few drinks.

I almost flunked the mandatory class too. At the interview with the teacher at the final class, he asked me whether I believed anybody could safely drive a vehicle while intoxicated. I said yes. I had done it, I had no accidents. It can obviously be done safely. After realizing this isn't what he wanted to hear and I'd flunk and lose my license, I changed my story and passed.

What scares me even more is people falling asleep at the wheel - people who haven't even been drinking. I used to work second-shift and had one incident in winter, heater going, long day, I blinked and found myself in another lane. Stone-cold sober, but a lot more dangerous than I ever was when I was drinking.

COMF

And I truly believe that some people can do this. You have to be alert.

This is the thinking that gets people killed.

SixofNine

jws *shakes head*

I had done it, I had no accidents. It can obviously be done safely.

I'm not even going to comment on your post.. it's to rank. But if anyone reading thinks it has merit, please, go shoot yourself in the head right now.

LB

Comf no apology is necessary at all. I think we're on the same page on this matter.

jws

I'll stand by my words. Some people can drive safely even though, by legal terms, they are over the legal limit.

I truly believe driving impairment varies from person to person, depending on a wide range of factors. How old are they? How well can they see? How much sleep did they get? How much did they eat? How fit are they? How much did they have to drink? How alert are they to begin with? What medications (prescription or non) are they taking? What other drugs may they have taken? What is their psychological state of mind? All of these things add up to a total impairement level.

While people will villanize somebody who has been drinking for being less alert than he normally is, that does not mean he is still not more alert than the 80 year old guy with cataracts and has a hard time concentrating. Yet he still has his drivers license and still drives. One elderly elder in our cong. could hardly read and wore real thick glasses, yet drove (scaring everyone who went in Field Service with him). Yet society does not make as big of a deal about these people as it does with drunk drivers. They scream about taking away their personal freedom. Though which one is more impaired? We have field sobriety tests that measure your impairment, and, failing those, you get a breathalizer or some other BAL test - and if you measure under a certain amount, you're generally free to go.

It's not a matter of a personal choice to drink or whether you are at your personal best. If I drink, it will impair me at some level. I don't dispute that. But how impaired? The 80 year old guy may be at his personal best, but still be more dangerous and he won't go to jail or get fined for driving. It's a total level of impairment. To say one factor alone should villianize somebody for driving is simply avoiding the whole picture.

What's more, here in the US, we use blood-alcohol level. In France, there's another method of measuring that I believe factors in things like weight. The same person may be judged impaired in the US while be judged just fine in France. Or vice-versa. And even what we define as "over-the-limit" varies from state to state. So we are also villianizing people on arbitrary scales chosen by local law enforcement. Scales that don't even measure total impairment.

I am talking specifically about these laws and limits and the legal definition of "drunk". Where I came from, if you were under the legal BAL limit as defined in that state, nobody seemed to have a problem that you had a beer or two. You were OK to drive and nobody seemed to question the alcohol. And IF some accident did happen, no big deal because you were under the limit. And that's BS too. That person, though under the legal limit could be more impaired than somebody over.

I'm saying it all varies. Some people are not as impaired at 0.010% as other drivers who haven't had a drink, but one is a villian and the other is not. And people who are truly impaired should not be allowed behind the wheel of a vehicle.

So what I'm arguing against is the legal definition of "over the limit" as the sole determining factor of being impaired or not. I believe each person for their situation at that time has their own "over the limit" that is very different from a mere BAL test and can differ greatly from it.

LB

I'll stand by my words. Some people can drive safely even though, by legal terms, they are over the legal limit

All I can say is I hope they bust your ass and throw you in jail before you kill someone. Maybe you'll learn that way.

Stupid drunk drivers......

FiveShadows

LB

COMF

scootergirl

jws

COMF

SixofNine

LB

jws

LB

Share this