Drinking & Driving

[SonomaCat]

Another quick note in favor of the law -- now Montana will no longer be mentioned in the context of "...along with Mississippi as the only remaining states..." that didn't have a law against drinking while driving. Anytime you can sever a connection to Mississippi in virtually any context, it is a good thing.

[Cat-theotherwhitemeat]

All this talk has got me thirsty. Where are my keys?

Here's my point.

A farmer, we'll call him Dad, has been on the tractor for 12 hours on a hot summer day. He goes home. On the drive home, he reaches in his cooler and picks up an Oly. What a refreshing way for Dad to end his day. Is this any more dangerous than if he stood outside his tractor and drank it before he got behind the wheel?

This law now says he's breaking the law simply because of location. Dad, do I have to bail you out again?

[BelgradeBobcat]

A grown person should be able to drink Old Milwaukee while smoking a pack of Camels and enjoying a #3 from McDonalds.

I disagree. If that person is sipping an Old Mil while driving-even if he isn't legally drunk...yet. I don't want to be sharing the road with him.

If he's drinking, smoking, and eating-how's he steering?

[Cat-theotherwhitemeat]

Another quick note in favor of the law -- now Montana will no longer be mentioned in the context of "...along with Mississippi as the only remaining states..." that didn't have a law against drinking while driving. Anytime you can sever a connection to Mississippi in virtually any context, it is a good thing.

This is a good point. In all seriousness, I think it's probably a good thing and I'm not unhappy that it became law.

I'm a little disappointed that no one argued my opposition on banning cell phone use while driving. I was totally ready for some debate.

[Cat-theotherwhitemeat]

If he's drinking, smoking, and eating-how's he steering?

With his knee of course. Haven't you ever driven in Los Angeles? One hand for the latte, one hand for the cell phone, one knee for the steering wheel, and a pistol on your lap.

[mquast53000]

A grown person should be able to drink Old Milwaukee while smoking a pack of Camels and enjoying a #3 from McDonalds.

I disagree. If that person is sipping an Old Mil while driving-even if he isn't legally drunk...yet. I don't want to be sharing the road with him.

If he's drinking, smoking, and eating-how's he steering?

Because this person is at home watching porn... I think that the open container law is a good law because you are protecting those not in the car with the driver.

[WYCAT]

Another quick note in favor of the law -- now Montana will no longer be mentioned in the context of "...along with Mississippi as the only remaining states..." that didn't have a law against drinking while driving. Anytime you can sever a connection to Mississippi in virtually any context, it is a good thing.

Now that one I can't argue with BAC.

However, I don't think having one beer and being well under the legal limit is any worse than driving after a fight with your wife, a bad day at the office, or any other event that also affects ones ability to drive. Do we pass legislation that prohibits driving when your blood pressure is over a certain point? Road rage is a dangerous thing as well - Worse IMO than Meat's dad and his Oly. Where do we stop? Chip, chip, chip.........

[BelgradeBobcat]

Because this person is at home watching porn...

Oh.

I would be willing to fight and die to protect our freedom to do that!

[Cat Grad]

I drive almost the entire length of Highway 2 nearly every Friday and there is nothing more enjoyable than getting to West Glacier knowing I've got to go through Coram, Hungry Horse and on into Columbia Falls knowing I'm going to be sharing the road with--can't even begin to speculate what percentage of the vehicles are being operated by fall down drunk and/or high operators Now factor in all of our county deputy dawgs having to get their quota of speeding tickets so you have to continually keep an eye on the speedometer to make sure you don't slip over 70 and it gets to be a pain to make that drive

I for one think this law is long overdue; trust me, had this law been in effect many, many years ago a large number of personal tragedies and family heartaches would have been avoided. The sight of one of your loved ones on life support, kids not even ten years old orphaned, or 23 year old spouses left to raise a family on their own...I've lived it and wouldn't wish any of this on any one person even if they're too dumb to attend school in Bozo and were forced to keep searching I-90 until they found exit 105...

[El_Gato]

Someone mark this topic & lets look at it again after the first couple of years with the new law.

I will bet ANYONE on here $20 that the rate of DUI's and/or alcohol related accidents will not drop by more than the standard deviation.

mquast, I've heard the old "if we save just one life..." argument used on this topic many times and I'm sorry, but it's BS. If we used that logic in everyday life, we'd outlaw planes, cars, guns, knives, pop machines, 5-gallon buckets, Arena football, FOOD, etc etc.... In other words, we'd have to ban EVERY product or activity that's ever killed someone in order to make sure it never happens again. The bottom line here is that POLITICIANS & BEAURACRATS WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO LEGISLATE AWAY TRAGEDY. It is NOT possible to idiot-proof a society, no matter how many laws we pass. Every time they think they're "protecting" us from ourselves by passing some new law, the "chipping" continues...

If the government MUST protect us from ourselves, I've determined the simplest and cheapest way would be for every American to post the following sticker by their front door, so that it is visible every time you leave your home:

WARNING!!

If you leave your home, something or someone might kill you.
If you stay home, something or someone might kill you.

Carry on.

[Bleedinbluengold]

Anyone remember that joke about the gubmint putting 'black boxes' in vehicles in order to get more information about traffic accidents. The joke goes on to compare the data from the other 49 states to the data from Montana....hilarious...

I'd make an attempt at it, but I'm not a good joke teller...and I'm afraid I wouldn't do the joke any justice.


EDIT:
Found it on the net...

NTSB – News Release 04.07.2005

The National Transportation Safety Board recently divulged they had covertly funded a project with U.S. Automakers for the past five years, whereby the Automakers were installing “black boxes” in four wheel drive pickup trucks and sport utility vehicles in an effort to determine, in fatal accidents, the circumstances in the last 15 seconds before the crash.

They were surprised to learn in 49 of the 50 states the last words of drivers in 61.2 percent of fatal crashes were, “Oh, $hit!”

Only the State of Montana was different, where 89.3 percent of the final words were, “Hold my beer and watch this!”

[mquast53000]

El Gato, I am against laws that are created to protect people from harming themselves; ie Seatbelt & Helmet Laws. I do see the need to create laws to protect people from other people; ie Open Container Laws. The idea behind the law is to limit the number of alcohol related accidents, and I think that it is a need law in Montana.

COWM made a comment about a farmer having a beer while driving his tractor home. I would have to say that the law enforcement in that town would most likely let that slide. Where it will be enforced are in the larger towns were the issue is a legitimate concern.

I also would like to add that I am glad we were able to find a good topic to discuss in this slow period for Bobcat Athletics… What a relief, otherwise I would have to be working right now!

[Cat Grad]

Love BBG's comment about Black Boxes Working over here where I was born by the old Glasgow Air Farce Base, have a lot of fun talking to relatives about the security when the Stealth was being developed and it was just a rumor that we had the thing in our military arsenal. Maybe that's why Montana was so long in getting the open container banned? Uncles talk about the town drunks reporting what they saw and of course nobody believed them

On a serious note, how many of you have on-star in your vehicles? How long do you think we'll see legislation slid in where law enforcement can use on-star to track your speeding like we have surveilance cameras attached to radar guns now in several of our cities? I'd much rather take my chances with on-star than one of our deputy sheriffs that I doubt can calibrate a radar gun 3 out 4 times.

[SonomaCat]

Someone mark this topic & lets look at it again after the first couple of years with the new law.

I will bet ANYONE on here $20 that the rate of DUI's and/or alcohol related accidents will not drop by more than the standard deviation.

mquast, I've heard the old "if we save just one life..." argument used on this topic many times and I'm sorry, but it's BS. If we used that logic in everyday life, we'd outlaw planes, cars, guns, knives, pop machines, 5-gallon buckets, Arena football, FOOD, etc etc.... In other words, we'd have to ban EVERY product or activity that's ever killed someone in order to make sure it never happens again. The bottom line here is that POLITICIANS & BEAURACRATS WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO LEGISLATE AWAY TRAGEDY. It is NOT possible to idiot-proof a society, no matter how many laws we pass. Every time they think they're "protecting" us from ourselves by passing some new law, the "chipping" continues...

If the government MUST protect us from ourselves, I've determined the simplest and cheapest way would be for every American to post the following sticker by their front door, so that it is visible every time you leave your home:

WARNING!!

If you leave your home, something or someone might kill you.
If you stay home, something or someone might kill you.

Carry on.

The usual problem with the "if we save just one life" argument is that it doesn't hold up under the relative costs model. That is, the costs of "saving just one life" are higher than the one life (heartless, yes, but true). That's where we come up with the hyperbole arguments such as, "Well if we made everyone drive 10 miles per hour, we would save at least one life, so maybe we should make that law as well."

Clearly, examples like that point to a case where the negative impact on society of saving just one life is out of whack with the life saved. The costs are higher than the gain.

In our immediate example, there is ZERO cost on society. The loss of the right of drinking a beer while driving hurts nobody, yet it has the potential to save many lives.

I know some people will argue that their right to drink a beer while driving is near and dear to them, and that giving that up is a huge social cost to them. I respectfully disagree. Not putting that beer into your body while driving will never result in you being worse off than if you had put it into your body while driving. There is only a downside and no upside.

And, unlike driving while angry over life events, it is entirely preventable and quantifiable.

[Cat Grad]

...now I am pissed! And I have to drive down to the area BAC grew up in so I can live where I hunt and fish next year Hope none of those SOBs get in my way there because I don't need any decorations on my front bumper!

[Cat Grad]

Here's another response to Meat's query. I had an uncle get off his tractor up in Richland, forget to set the brake and was killed when the tractor crushed him against the fencepost; he was only a few hours removed from leaving the Silver Dollar (?) Yeah, he was still under the influence. Bad decision to not set the brake, or impaired judgement? Another uncle lost his thumb branding--you know when everybody gets together and has more than a few--because he wrapped the rope around his thumb.

[BelgradeBobcat]

This is all really interesting.

It is widely reported that Montana has the highest per capita rate of drunk driving deaths in the country-so there is a problem. If the open container law won't make a statistical dent what will? What solution would knock us off that #1 spot?

On another note, re: the saving one life argument. The events of 9-11-01 caused the deaths of around 3000 people. Understandibly, that terrible day brought on numerous changes-especially in the airline industry (talk about a loss of personal freedoms). Was the cost of all that worth it? I know I don't want to see something like that happen ever again.

So how about driving? As I said before, we kill nearly 40,000 people every year in motor vehicle accidents-yet we don't have the out cry we had when 3000 people were killed by terrorists. Are we out of whack? If a particular product or food, or whatever killed 40,000 people every year what would we do? If particular disease occured that killed 40,000 people a year what would our reaction be? Yet driving is so integral to our very existance-we hardly think about it-and the danger we're in every time we take to the road.

Just a thought-be careful out there.

[Cat Grad]

...and remember how many vehicles you meet are being operated by impaired drivers...

[grizbeer]

The idea behind the law is to limit the number of alcohol related accidents, and I think that it is a need law in Montana.

COWM made a comment about a farmer having a beer while driving his tractor home. I would have to say that the law enforcement in that town would most likely let that slide. Where it will be enforced are in the larger towns were the issue is a legitimate concern.

But larger towns already have the law in place, so it is already illegal. It is also in place in all of Ravalli County, so it seems like it should be pretty easy to check the statistics in Ravalli County vs other Montana counties to see if the law makes a statistical difference in the number of deaths.

This law does not make anything safer - it was already illegal to drive impaired. Funny side note, though, I was watching the news and they said they reported Montana had 17 alcohol related deaths per year, and this law was expected to reduce that by 10%, so maybe it will save exactly 1 life. The MHP spokesperson they interviewed agreed with that analysis, but then said he expected this to save 10 lives, so either he is bad at math or he somehow expects this to cut drunk driving deaths by 59%. That seems a stretch though.
IMO this law was passed for 3 reasons:
1) Keep the highway money, which is the primary reason I don't want the law. What good is to have state rights if the Federal Government can dictate them to you anyway.
2) tired of being mocked as BAC points out - who gives a sh!t what the rest of the country thinks about us? What other things would you do to conform so the rest of the country stops teasing us?
3) Pressure from MADD as a step towards national prohibition.

Gato in your list of dangers you forgot aluminum bats, which were almost made illegal in Montana. If aluminum bats had been made illegal years ago it would have saved 1 life.

[SonomaCat]

The idea behind the law is to limit the number of alcohol related accidents, and I think that it is a need law in Montana.

COWM made a comment about a farmer having a beer while driving his tractor home. I would have to say that the law enforcement in that town would most likely let that slide. Where it will be enforced are in the larger towns were the issue is a legitimate concern.

But larger towns already have the law in place, so it is already illegal. It is also in place in all of Ravalli County, so it seems like it should be pretty easy to check the statistics in Ravalli County vs other Montana counties to see if the law makes a statistical difference in the number of deaths.

This law does not make anything safer - it was already illegal to drive impaired. Funny side note, though, I was watching the news and they said they reported Montana had 17 alcohol related deaths per year, and this law was expected to reduce that by 10%, so maybe it will save exactly 1 life. The MHP spokesperson they interviewed agreed with that analysis, but then said he expected this to save 10 lives, so either he is bad at math or he somehow expects this to cut drunk driving deaths by 59%. That seems a stretch though.
IMO this law was passed for 3 reasons:
1) Keep the highway money, which is the primary reason I don't want the law. What good is to have state rights if the Federal Government can dictate them to you anyway.
2) tired of being mocked as BAC points out - who gives a sh!t what the rest of the country thinks about us? What other things would you do to conform so the rest of the country stops teasing us?
3) Pressure from MADD as a step towards national prohibition.

Gato in your list of dangers you forgot aluminum bats, which were almost made illegal in Montana. If aluminum bats had been made illegal years ago it would have saved 1 life.

Well, on point number 1, maybe it isn't such a bad idea to come into line with the rest of the country on something as trivial as highway safety when the state receives so much more in federal funds than it pays in federal taxes. It sure beats having to live subsidy-free. There are a lot of roads to pave in the state, and not many people to pay for it. Better to not raise too big of a stink over the freedoms to drink and drive than to have been to pave one's own roads. Without the federal money, the roads would get bumpy, and you'd spill your beer before you got to drink it anyway. Same end result with or without the law.