Liquid Courage
- 22 December, 2011 //
- Marketing, Politics, Randoms //
- Tags : Blood alcohol content, Breathalyzer, Driving under the influence, Drunk Driving Defense
- 14 Comments
If we really wanted to make a dent in drunk driving deaths, we’d go about it differently.
If we were truly committed to saving lives, and it was actually important to us, we’d be taking more serious steps to do something about it.
Imagine what would happen if all cars had one of those breathalyzer locks on the ignition – the kind that won’t allow you to start the car if your blood alcohol level is above a certain point. The technology obviously exists, and the units cost about as much to install as a driver’s-side airbag. Privacy advocates would no doubt scream in opposition, and the market would complain about what a pain it is.
…sorry to inconvenience you.
Imagine what would happen if a single drunk-driving offense carried an automatic license suspension of ten years, with a repeat offense resulting in a lifelong driving ban; and imagine if a person caught driving with a license suspended for drunk driving were given an automatic ten-year jail sentence.
…but hey, wouldn’t want to keep you “business” people from getting loaded with your corporate Platinum cards (that get paid for with the shareholders’ money). Forcing you to behave responsibly might impact your ability to close that big deal.
Imagine what would happen if a car manufacturer instituted a policy in their contracts where a single drunk driving conviction meant you had to give the car back. No replacement provided, you simply forfeit the right to drive that manufacturer’s car, and you couldn’t buy a car from that automaker again. Imagine if Ford said, “You’re not the kind of person we want driving our cars.” It would carry the implied message that every person behind the wheel of a Ford was simply a more responsible driver, and on some level, a better human being. Personally, I’d pay a premium to be a member of that club.
Look, people are going to continue to get behind the wheel after too many drinks. It’s human nature to occasionally behave like a completely reckless, careless, selfish, ignorant piece of scum. (Apparently.) And so, people are going to continue to mark Thanksgiving, Christmas and New Year’s by attending funerals.
One in three people will be involved in an alcohol-related crash during their lifetime. And according to the Centers for Disease Control, the average drunk driver has driven drunk 80 times before the first time they get busted. (That’s eighty, as in eight times ten, in case you thought it was a typo.)
To really do something about it is going to take courage.
I wonder when the public, the Government or the auto industry is finally going to summon the courage to say “enough” in a way that actually matters.
Bravo! My wife and I were talking about the breathalyzer idea just other day. One other thing…
Stiffer sentences have been proven over time to have little effect as a deterrent. Despite that, I would like to see DUI changed to attempted murder or 2nd degree murder in the case of a fatality. Perhaps the message would get through then but what do I know.
Steve, your idea has merit too! A bunch of ideas have merit, and I bet the longer this comment section sits, the more of them we’ll see. Anything is better than what we have, which doesn’t seem to be accomplishing much.
Let me put it this way: If a manufacturer’s defect was causing one out of every three drivers to crash their cars, there would be class action lawsuits, the manufacturer would be forced out of business, and the public outcry would reach truly epic proportions. In this case, though, WE are the defect, and we don’t seem to care.
AMEN, what a fantastic article Neil, it’s time for ZERO tolerance!
Julie – I’m with you 100%, zero tolerance is long overdue. I wish somebody had the balls to bring it about. But making change that actually matters sometimes jeopardizes re-election bids. Would be fun to see a politician with the chutpah to put their constituents above their careers, but I don’t see enough of those sitting in an elected body on EITHER side of the border to actually bring it about.
Great post Neil! Kudos for speaking up. Perhaps if enough of us were heard, there might be a real desire to change the laws. D & D has entered the world where it is no longer socially acceptable, but still too many chose to do it…they just no longer brag about it by the water cooler.
My simple suggestions…treat impaired for what it is. Kill someone? Murder. Seriously injure someone? Aggravated Assault with a weapon. Hurt someone? Assault bodily harm with a weapon.
As soon as you make the conscious decision to drink and drive, you have also made the choice that you are trying to kill yourself or someone else. The only thing that remains is whether you follow through on it.
Wow. It’s a comment like this that makes me happy I wrote the post. Thank you, Tim.
I agree with you that D&D needs to stop!
An Automatic ten year suspension upon conviction makes perfect sense to me. Same with the car return idea (though I doubt you could make it stick in the courts) Instead what about having the car seized by the courts and sold with the procedes going to road safety programmes and victim funds? I think that is a brilliant idea.
Perhaps a public drunk driver list. I know that were I employing someone who chose to drive drunk I would want to know so that I could remove such a irresponsible person from my employ.
I will however, disagree with you on the breathalyzer in every car. Though likely not for the reason you would think. I know I would never drive drunk. Hell my rule is one drink and 3-4 hours then I can drive and any more then that I don’t drive at all. My concern, having worked over 12 years in the automotive service and parts world is that technology such as that breaks and breaks more with more use. Also they require re-calibration as often as every 6 months due to contamination from automotive fumes and outgassing of plastics and vinyls used in automotive construction. There are things out there that are well documented to be able to cause false positives such as inhalers (like those for asthma), high acetone levels (often caused by diabetes) or working in a shop that uses solvents that get on your clothes can cause a false positive.
Basically I agree with the sentiment but feel that in the greater scheme it would be difficult to compensate for the drawbacks.
Amos, I didn’t know about the false positives. Fascinating.
Mind you, I wonder if a motivated team of engineers could get around the problems. Seems the NASA guys might have time on their hands lately, and they seem able to pull off the impossible on a daily basis.
As someone who was in a head on collision with a drunk driver–WITH MY CHILDREN IN THE VAN–on a Sunday afternoon (Mother’s Day, no less), I am for every thing you’re suggesting.
Thank you Sharon – I hope everyone came out of it okay?
Agreed. And won’t happen. The blame pointing privacy not my fault onslaught would crush these ideas like a bug, oh wait, done and done.
Is food, dvd players in the back, coffee, talking with hands, texting, over tired or getting to work with no recollection of half of the trip because of mind wander next on the Hedley hitlist?
Would be if I could find a snazzy title.
It is difficult to get your changes implemented when those passing the laws are “slip and fall” lawyers who make their money from the accidents caused by the drunk drivers. To be sure, more peer pressure is needed in the public sector and lobbying of politicians by the liquor industry needs to be outlawed. Everyone knows that drunk driving kills, everyone claims they never drive drunk, yet every year hundreds are killed by those who claim they never drive drunk (most of the time). MADD has made a small dent (more like a chip in the paint) in the DD laws, but gets too little support from a public that is afraid to be the first ones caught by the new laws. It is time to start charging drunk drivers who kill with their car the same way as those who kill by pulling the trigger. If you drink and drive, you are willfully pointing a loaded gun at the public. It is time to get tough.
Neil, thanks fow bringing up such an important topic.
As always, Barry, thanks for weighing in. Couldn’t agree more.