Opinion Talk

By Lyrazel

January 6, 2006 08:40 AM | Link to this

Actually more deaths and traffic accidents are being caused by drivers using cell phones than drinking.

By RWH

January 6, 2006 08:46 AM | Link to this

Alcohol enters the bloodstreams of those who drink and climb behind a 2,000 lbs. vehicle is like a 767 hitting the runway making every effort to stop. When it does, it has burned its brakes hot enough you can smell the smoke from it! So is the alcohol on drivers’ breath; so strong that you can hardly face he/she…and the sad part of it all is, we lose lives and most of them here in Georgia have been somebody’s son or daughter; let alone those who are innocent people who are just on the highways. Drunk drivers must not be permitted to return to the highways. Period!

By candide

January 6, 2006 09:12 AM | Link to this

Georgians cannot drive drunk or sober. You can’t lock all of them up.

By ltc

January 6, 2006 09:12 AM | Link to this

The only problem I have with the DUI law is that most people charged with DUI just were slightly over a very low alcohol level. Most over-the-counter drugs have more effect on behavior than the mandated DUI level. I disagree with the prohibitionist. However, I agree someone charged with a high level of blood alcohol should not be driving. This lawyer wants to send people to jail. I thought alcoholism was a sickness. Has the mainstream changed its mind about alcoholism or is this a prohibitionist using an avenue to do away with alcohol?

By Carlton Wyatt

January 6, 2006 09:24 AM | Link to this

Why is it laws are so lenient on drunk drivers? Is it because so many who make the laws know they are guilty of the same offense? People who drink and drive are disregarding the safety and lives of everyone else around them for their own pleasure. They are not worthy of leniency. They should be convicted of attempted murder and punished accordingly. Yet we give them a slap on the wrist and allow them to continue their wanton Russian Roulette game with everyone else’s lives. Why?

By johnnatlanta

January 6, 2006 09:31 AM | Link to this

YES, Georgia’s laws against drunk driving are in dire need of updating. We continue to be at the top of the list when it comes to the number of people killed by a drunk driver. People with multiple convictions must be removed from our roads and if they continue to drive they should be put under the jail.

There is no excuse for anyone to drink and drive, no excuse. Having two drinks is at least one too many to then get behind the wheel of a car and drive.

Having been the State Director for Mother’s Against Drunk Driving here in GA I have heard and seen way too much about the death and destruction caused by people who drink and drive. If our state legislators will not enact stiffer penalities we need to elect new legislators.

Take a moment and tell your legislator today you want them to take action and pass laws with tougher penalities for those who have past DUI offenses. PLEASE contact your legislator.

There was a young couple in Gwinnett County a few years back who were hit by a drunk driver. The couple escaped from their burning car but could not rescue their two lovely little daughters. The drunk driver sat on the side of the road and laughed while the parents listened to the screams of their daughters as they died in the fire. If that doesn’t make you take action nothing ever will.

johnnatlanta

By Stephen Leonard

January 6, 2006 09:57 AM | Link to this

Kevin Levitas’ contention that we need still stiffer DUI laws is contrary to all available evidence. Ever since the aggressive vigilantism of Mothers Against Drunk Drivers began in the 1980’s, ever-more draconian penalties have been assigned to ever-lower standards of “impaired driving.” Initial suggestions to place the punishable blood alcohol limit at 0.2% were quickly replaced by 0.1%, then by 0.08%. There are those pushing for 0.04%, and even zealots advocating 0.00% (which is physiologically impossible to achieve).

The National Motorists Association has published extensive expert research on the subject at [http://www.motorists.org/issues/dwi/index.html] but, to summarize quickly, the statistics on drunk driving are grossly exaggerated by the inclusion of all accidents in which someone had a BAC over the limit, even if that person did not cause the accident, and evidence from states that have lowered BAC limits from 0.1% to 0.08% does not support the claim that this has increased safety.

People who are truly drunk, which means 0.2% to 0.3% or above, are clearly impaired, and clearly a menace. They also make up the great majority of those who can honestly be claimed to have caused drunk driving accidents, as opposed to being in some way “involved” in a “drinking-related” accident. Neither I nor any sane person would argue against strong measures to keep those people off the roads. But objective neurophysiologic and driving simulator testing has confirmed that most people between 0.08% and about 0.12% are unimpaired.

Further lowering of the legal limit, or ratcheting up of the penalties, will satisfy vengeful zealots and make money for lawyers, and ruin the lives of those convicted, but will do little or nothing to advance public safety.

Anyone who really cares about driving safety, as opposed to reimposing Prohibition, should focus on cell-phone use instead of further DUI legislation.

Lest anyone doubt my intentions, no, I have never been charged with DUI, and, though I certainly did my share of drinking as a college kid, I probably haven’t personally had a BAC over 0.04 in decades, behind the wheel or sitting at home.

One thing that can be stated with certainty is that more innocent lives are destroyed by attorneys every year than by drunk drivers. Mr. Levitas’ column is self-serving, but does the public a disservice.

By chuck crider

January 6, 2006 09:58 AM | Link to this

Georgia has a totally stupid attitude toward driving and specifically toward drunk driving. Drunk drivers should be locked away immediately. In Finland an offense over .05 gets jail time - and guess what, no one drives after drinking and the roads are safe. But in Georgia, few even know what road signs mean or care. We need to begin educating our drivers and then enforce all driving laws. AND take drunk drivers off the road.

By Glenn

January 6, 2006 11:07 AM | Link to this

I couldn’t agree with you more Lyrazel. We are so up in arms over driving under the influence but seem so apathetic toward driving while talking on a cell phone. It seems so hypocritical. Most people who are drinking socially & drive could easily be over the legal limit but still be more than capable of driving a vehicle . Probably in much more control of the vehicle than if they were sober & talking on the phone. I don’t condone drinking & driving but to say that the consequences of a DUI are to soft seem kind of silly. A DUI stays on your record , costs several thousand dollars, & will influence any sort of future or current employment. I’m not trying to belittle the safety of the people on the roads .It just seems ,in my humble opinion, that if you really want to make a fair law with true safety in mind you would raise the legal limit from .08 which is the lowest in the country to a higher limit & then stiffen the law. Also , A law that would force people to pull over while talking on the cell phone would be good. The concern is safety & not drinking right.

By Glenn

January 6, 2006 11:40 AM | Link to this

The goal of DUI laws is not to make the roads safer . It is to raise funds for working on the states roads & highways. Does any state have better paved roads ? If we lower the state DUI blood alcohol level just a little more I think we can completely eliminate potholes !

By The Grinch

January 6, 2006 02:31 PM | Link to this

If you think road blocks and the local cops stopping people on the interstate for speeding is their way of making the roads safer, you are an idiot. It is purely revenue generating.

By Gary

January 6, 2006 03:39 PM | Link to this

No, Georgia is not too lenient…the laws are not fair now. The punishment should fit the crime. Someone that is caught at a roadblock and found to be .081, who had two glasses of wine without eating is not as guilty as the person who drink 12 beers and is .25 driving the wrong way down a highway. Should the .081 person be punished..of course, but not to the degree that the blitzed-out-of-his-mind drunk should be punished.

By Carolyn Wilder

January 6, 2006 03:42 PM | Link to this

I don’t know If GA is too lenient on drunk drivers. But I know for certain they are too lenient on speeders, tailgaters, and other infractions of the law. I like my chances on the road with one drunk driver better than with a whole roadful of scofflaws.

By anonymous

January 6, 2006 11:32 PM | Link to this

No, I’m going to contact my legislator and tell him that passing more DUI laws and stiffer penalties is going to do absolutely nothing but waste taxpayers money and add more bureaucracy to an already ineffective and racket of a system. Making a felony DUI law is going to do nothing to stop someone with a drinking problem. Yes, normal, healthy people with productive lives would be scared to death of getting a felony stamped on their record, but that’s not the type of people you’re dealing with. Just ask any former alcoholic. It would be like telling someone wearing a blue shirt to instead wear a red shirt - meaningless.

The problem is our judicial system can’t take care of its citizens in trouble. It only knows how to punish. The answer is in your own writing. Repeat offenders don’t care how much they’re punished because they are already consumed in self destructive behavior and live in a distorted world.

Not to mention a repeat offender is already riddled with debt in attorney and court fees and fines, be best friends with their probation officer, and not even possess a driver’s license. I’m curious to know how repeat offenders get behind the wheel anyway – are they cheating the Sentence Enforcement Unit?

Society needs to find intelligent and compassionate ways to help those with problems. How are we making it easier for people to get help? Driving is a vital element to survive in our city and support a healthy life that consists of a job, rehabilitation support, and other healthy activities. We need to make a better life available, not unavailable.

If you want to make change, elect officials who can change the system for the better. Ask advertisers to stop glamorizing alcoholic drinks. Start taxi companies that actually have good and safe drivers. Ask restaurants and bars not to train their staff to push alcoholic drinks. Whatever, just more impactful solutions.

Fyi for everyone looking to stay DUI and jail experience-free, if you look at the detail of the Georgia laws, you can be arrested for DUI for as little a BAC of .05%. That’s basically 1 or 2 drinks for most of us out there.

By Flibberdigibbit

January 7, 2006 03:00 AM | Link to this

Look beneath the skin of Georgia DOT’s highway design standards and maintenance practices and you’ll find a state, not only too lenient on drunk-drivers, but that rewards them with extra-wide medians and extra wide mowed shoulders.

Seriously! The state follows nationally-generated safety design standards that speak to worst-case scenarios and actaually accomodate drivers too intoxicated to stay properly on paved surfaces. So, when they do eventually leave the road, they have a deep, grassy, plush, obstacle-free landing-strip to soften their departure from the highway.

Run-off-the-road accidents, as they are referred to in the highway trade, are a significant source of sobering numbers for statisticians and transportation planners.

Of course, there are those who wind-up on the grassy shoulder because they swerved to avoid someone or something that does not belong on the road, but more often, it’s a refuge for those who are either too tired or otherwise have no business operating a motor-vehicle.

Rather than weigh-in harshly on impaired drivers, the consequence is our tax-dollars being used to condemn extra private property to provide wider rights-of-way, which reward errant drivers for venturing forth in the first-place!

By Matthew M.Hay

January 7, 2006 02:59 PM | Link to this

I hope in the upcoming session of the State Legisature , that the elected officals will condsider hiring more State Troppers and rasing there pay too, I just think the State roadways have become too dangerous and that we need alot more enforcement from the State Level to combat this problem , especailly around metro atlanta , The State Patrol might want to consider making up a motcycle unit to combat this and also just alot of more troopers in metro atlanta and the rest of the state would be a big plus not only for them but as a State as a whole , Thank you.

By Brian

January 7, 2006 05:15 PM | Link to this

Is drunk driving the problem or the symptom? If it is the symptom, how do we solve the problem? What is the problem? Do people intentionally drink, drive and kill? In DUI deaths did the driver have some premeditated wish to injure another person? Probably not.

The problem isn’t the drinking and driving it is that when one drinks 3 drinks (a common event) in order to get home they must drive. At this time they are most likely breaking the law.

Maybe if we focus on the “driving” more and the “drinking” less we can find a solution to our problem that doesn’t punish the sinners and still saves lives.

I live inside I-285 but I have to walk more than 1/2 a mile to catch a bus if I choose to use public transportation. I have yet to visit a bar or restaurant that doesn’t have parking spaces in front of it. How can we expect people to drink and not drive when clearly we expect drivers to frequent places that sell alcohol?

Passing laws is cheap and easy. Creating a culture where people walk and use public transportation is slow and expensive. We would all live longer but we all would live a little slower.

As for me, I walk 1.2 miles on Wednesdays for margarita night. I usually have only 2 or 3 but I enjoy the walk and have little chance of harming anyone.

Cheers, Brian

By Dan

January 9, 2006 08:19 AM | Link to this

Well if Finland does that it must be right, we should all aspire to be like the Finns.

By Van

January 9, 2006 09:54 AM | Link to this

Brian, you show a marked degree of responsibility in your thinking about drinking. Sad that others don’t take the same approach to life.

But then again, if everyone was responsible, we would not have the problem, and the General Assembly would not have that much work to do.

By Robert Caulk

January 9, 2006 02:38 PM | Link to this

Yes, Georgia is WAY TOO LENIENT on drunk drivers. But Georgia isn’t alone. So is most of the country. Drunk drivers are potential, and frequently, killers. If I had my way, we’d lock them up and throw away the key. They are a menace on the road. What really galls me, is they usually walk away from the accident,and the innocent party is killed.

By jen

January 9, 2006 03:48 PM | Link to this

Yes, the laws are way too lenient on drunk drivers. Most of the young people I know who have gotten DUIs still drink and drive. Why would we have so many repeat offenders (which there are many) if the laws were strict enough??

Drunk drivers need to be punished and take responsiblity for their actions.

By Peaches

January 12, 2006 01:34 PM | Link to this

DUI laws are a distraction. The right solution is not to pass more or more stringent laws, the solution is to make sure that when people are arrrested and accused of driving while intoxicated that they are tried for that offense. I’d like to see a restriction on the ability of the procecutors and judges to reduce offenses and fewer opportunites to plead to lesser offenses when drunk driving is involved. Traffic courts are far too lenient on drunk driving cases with the result that offenders are just recycled onto the roadways.