Alcohol, driving and accidents in the USA

It's very hard to read your piece, what with the weird dull red italic font, crazy paragraphing, and what looks like a botched copy-and-paste job with many broken lines. Did you write it yourself?

The law is quite specific in PA and the rule against DUI is a rule against IMPAIRMENT. Being drunk is easily detected by a chemical vapor "sniffers" and is usually only gotten as a result of
1. Random road blocks and alcohol screening and testing

2. A driver who is noticeably driving erratically.

The rule is one of impairment and anywone who is at a legal level of drunk, is also driving impaired. The number of fatalities in which alcohol is involved is a very high percentage of all fatalities each year. SO the rule is good and its fair. Idiots who break the law by driving while drunk are a danger to themselves and others.

Remember driving isnt a right protected by any Constitutional Provision.

3 bottles of patron, seriously HOW THE EFF DID I GET HOME? whos car is that yo?


oh well.

Personally I view it as a misapplication of perceived risk. The problem is that any energy has hazards, consequently when energy is encountered it should be accompanied with systems and actions to minimize that hazard. Mow most energy hazards are almost minimized by reaction--you don't touch hot objects more than once or play with fire without protective equipment, electric energy is minimized by automatic systems (circuit breakers) and barriers (insulation), the energy of firearms (explosions and projectiles) are easily recognized and mitigated by emotionalism, training, and respect. But automobiles are so mundane and usual, most people have a casual disregard to the energy contained in a high speed mass of metal.

Mow to relate energy--a 44 magnum fired from a handgun is an respected hazardous energy source. Physics also recognizeds and quantifies that energy (in the form of momentum). Physics can also do the quantification to a 2000 pound moving mass. So here's am easy relation between the two, a automobile moving at about 3 mph has as much knockdown power as a 250 grain 44 magnum bullet fired from a revolver. Consider that as you're walking around the Mall parking lot----each of those moms with a car full of kids and talking on a cell phone is effectively armed with a large bore handgun shooting at random. But you routinely accept that hazard and assume that they aren't shooting your way.

Now as for risks of automobiles--I'm a great believer in performance testing before operation. A mental dexterity test along with a coordination test should be required before and during operation---say something like that required for locomotive drivers, a little blue light that appears at random and requires a response within a reasonable period of time for continued operation, or a blast of air and earshatter.

Now don't get me wrong, the personal vehicle is a great piece of convenience that has made the western lifestyle the envy of the world---but it also is a hazard that requires risk recognition and mitigation in all situations.

Rap

i hate cars they destroyed america, henry ford is satan.

The recitivism for DUI is almost infinite. Impaired folks feel that, since thye made it safely last time, theyll be able to do it again. We just had a babe in Lancaster Pa get 25 to life for vehicular homicide. She had been driving at a DUI of 3 X the legal limit and shed lost her license two years ago and had been ROR for several DUI's subsequent to losing her license. SHe killed a family of four and then continued driving . She was aware of what she did because she hid her vehicle in a large garage.
She was in her 20's and had no remorse. She should rot in jail for what she did to that family of AMish.

**I agree totally with the utter disgust regarding that remorseless woman who killed a family. I once met someone exactly like that and it sickened me because she actually had the audacity to say; "If the kid's parents made those kids wear their seat belts, they'd still be alive today." She
had killed the 2 grandparents and 2 children actually. It's very hard to stomach that MUCH denial of personal responsibility for a blatant case of vehicular homicide. But STILL, our entire system of what can be done, what is being done, what is not being done regarding drinking & driving seems to fall apart and fail & no matter WHAT our state & local police, governments, etc. try to do to contain it, to stop it, and to make people stop drinking & driving, to make the roads safer for non drinkers, it never seems to correct the basic bottomline problem. Even if EVERY car in the entire country had a breathalyzer inside of it - who would be there to stop a drunk from getting somebody else to blow into the one in their car??
If ever there was a "catch 22" situation, this certainly seems to be one of the biggest. A former boss of mine had one son, his wife is a very sick woman and they were fortunate to have one child. On one day his son was outside playing in their very large front yard when a drunk driver ran up into their yard and resulted in killing their son.
I could not even begin to comprehend the depth of loss he & his wife must have endured. It was so horrible.
**PS To the person who complained about the way my paragraphs and print turned out - Hey buddy, if you can't read it, don't waste your time trying!!