Drunk Driving Enforcement Is A Racket

From the op:

This statement is quite inane and without foundation. There is no real logic to follow only an emotional rant.

Checkpoints do not mean only having contact with those who aren't driving dangerously. There is no reasonable logic to justify that statement. Maybe the author should actually speak to law enforcement about why they do this before commenting on it.

 

From http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/Controversies/1098894305.html


National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) falsely reports that there were 17,419 drunk driving fatalities in 2002. 2 That’s a gross distortion. In reality, NHTSA estimates that there were that number of alcohol-related traffic fatalities. Only a minority of alcohol-related fatalities are drunken driving fatalities. Of course, any alcohol-related traffic injury or death is one too many.

Nationally, 12.8% of all drivers involved in fatal accidents during 2001 are known to have been intoxicated according to the BAC laws (.10 or .08) of their state at that time. This number is based on a systematic examination of the official records of each and every accident involving a fatality during that year in the US. It is based on factual evidence rather than on estimates or even guesses. 3

The higher number (about 40%) generally reported refers to accidents in which there was believed to have been some alcohol consumed by anyone associated with the accident. For example, if a person who was believed to have consumed any alcohol is stopped at a red light and is rear-ended by an inattentive completely sober driver, that accident is considered to be alcohol-related.

For More, Visit:

Alcohol-Related Doesn’t Equal Alcohol-Caused
The federal agency converts estimates of alcohol-related traffic fatalities into reports of drunk driving deaths. By equating "alcohol-related" with "drunk driving," NHTSA distorts the extent of the problem with impaired motorists, creating an impression of widespread drunk driving that isn't factually supportable -- but which is used with great effectiveness for propaganda purposes by temperance-oriented groups.

Department of Justice

The Department of Justice (DOJ) recently announced an alleged breakthrough in research on alcohol policy. According to the DOJ, a comparison of drinking rates among American and European teenagers proved that those in Europe, with its generally more moderate alcohol attitudes and laws, lead to more alcohol problems. (A)

Yet even a quick analysis of the DOJ’s report reveals that it does not stand up to scrutiny. The report never went through peer reviews, the process in which other researchers evaluate a study’s legitimacy before it can get published. In fact, the DOJ report was never published. The Department used outdated survey numbers even though newer ones were available, and its European figures left out several important countries.

What’s more, even the numbers the Department did use don’t back up its claims. American teenagers had a higher rate of intoxication than did their counterparts in half of the European countries. When compared with teenagers in Southern Europe, which has very liberal views and practices regarding alcohol, American teenagers were more likely to have been drunk in the last 30 days (21 percent vs. 13 percent). And while more than half of the American teenagers who drank reported getting drunk, less than a fourth of young Southern Europeans said they had been intoxicated.

 

The article is silly.

Want to stop a lot of drunk drivers? Pick a different bar each night around closing time and stop the ones swerving away on their way home.

Do this every single night at a different bar so nobody can accuse the department of "attacking" their business and driving off customers.

THAT would be fast and easy money.

Going through all the hassle of lowering the limit and then having checkpoints might be a decent idea, but my idea is better and more cost-efficient.

It's not politically correct though and would have business owners screaming foul. I personally wouldn't care though. Do it anyhow. My guess is that the majority of people walking out of a bar at closing time are drunk and will be getting behind the wheel with levels well over the legal limit.

It's not government interference in our lives to stop drunks from killing non-drunks on public roads. That's more the type of thing that we have officers for.

Speaking of alcohol meaning money for the state, I was really surprised to find that in some states, the liquor stores are owned by the state. All of them. I don't know why that surprised me so much. It just did. Kinda like finding out that your local police station sells girlie magazines or something. Weird.

 

Clearly faulty data.

 

>So should We might as well as make EWD (eating while driving) a crime

In WA could be charged under "Inattention To Driving" (misdemeanor).

 

Say again??? Most drunk drivers are arrested in connection with a motor vehicle on a public road.