Drunk Driving - Research Paper Example

Drunk Driving The term itself may not sound lethal, but statistics would say otherwise, because studies in the US show that drunk driving “continues to kill 48 people every day… and more than 17,000 deaths annually” (Mejeur 10). In addition, an aggregate 2007 data shows that nationwide, 37% of annual fatalities account for drunk driving with the states of Wisconsin (49%), Hawaii (48%), South Carolina (46%), Rhode Island (46%), and Montana (45%) taking the lead (“2007 Drunk Driving Statistics” par. 4-5). Statistics also paints “the shocking reality… that, year in and year out, there are more alcohol-related traffic fatalities than there are murders, and that drunk drivers maim more innocent victims than all assaultive street criminals combined” (Robin 6). To paint it more vividly: “almost as many Americans die in drunk driving incidents as were killed on the battlefield during the entire ten-year Vietnam War” (Robin 4). It would surely be more horrifying to realize how dreadful drunk driving is if one would try to visualize the agonizing pain of losing a loved one, especially those who are at their prime years, due to a senseless death brought about by drunk driving. Remember, the dreadful consequences of drunk driving are not just plain numbers or dry statistics; they are real people; they are real lives – people’s lives that could have been very productive if it were not cut short by drunk drivers. On May 3, 1980, thirteen-year old Cari Lightner was on her way to a church carnival in Fair Oaks (Calif.), walking inside the bicycle path, when a car swerved out of control, killed her, and sped away. The driver, Clarence Busch, had a long record of DWI arrests, for which he had spent a grand total of two days behind bars. Just the week before he killed Cari, Busch was released on bail in connection with another hit-and-run drunk driving charge. (Robin 9-10) Oct 25th 1973 Kim was out with some friends on a ride in the country when a Mack truck hit him head on while negotiating a tight curve on a winding road up north from Montreal. Although they did their best getting him to the hospital, he died a few days later from extreme internal injuries. The truck driver was drunk. (“Bikers Against Drunk Drivers” par. 1) Just, imagine yourself being one of the victims or the family of the victims – would it be consoling to you to hear the reasoning that accidents are accidents; nobody wants them. But Hanson has this to say: “Every single injury and death caused by drunk driving is totally preventable” (“Drinking and Driving” par. 2). To which Jason Barber had painfully realized: “Drunk driving is not an accident… drunk driving is a choice” (“The Consequences of Drunk Driving” 1). So, accidents caused by drunk driving could have been avoided if only intoxicated drivers were gotten rid off the road. Knowing this, would it not pain you to realize that your daughter or your son would have not been dead yet if not for drunk drivers? Or would it not agitate you to act knowing that there could have been lesser road accidents if not for drunk driving, which account for almost 40% of it? Or worst, would you be able to live peacefully, knowing that you caused the senseless death of someone, much more your loved one? In 1991, Jason was street racing with friends and drinking alcohol. They all thought they were just having a good time, but that changed in a split second when he caused a crash that killed his passenger, Jason's 15 year-old brother, Aaron. Jason was convicted of vehicular manslaughter for the death of his little brother, and sent to California State Prison on a six year sentence. He was released in November of 1995 after serving almost four years. (“The Consequences of Drunk Driving” par. 1) It would not be surprising to know then that the lethal and devastating consequences of drunk driving would have in fact create movements against drunk driving – the Remove Intoxicated Drivers (RID) founded by Doris Aiken in 1978, the Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) founded by Candy Lightner in 1980 (Robin 10-11), the Bikers Against Drunk Driving (BADD) founded by Danny Perkins in 1986 – that have determinedly worked hard to change the public’s reluctant attitude to drunk driving and the justice system’s compassionate attitude toward the offense and the offender to a more stiffer stand. These movements have in fact been pivotal in transforming public awareness and in enacting stricter laws against drunk driving today. So what is drunk driving? When would an individual know that he/she is no longer legally allowed to drive? Why is drunk driving resulting to such dreadful accidents? And what is the attitude of the American people to drunk driving? Can we really stop drunk driving? Drunk driving is defined by the level of alcohol intoxication of the driver commonly measured through a blood test, urine test or by simply smelling the breath of the drunk driver. But, the question is, how high is the level of alcohol intoxication considered dangerous for driving? It is with this question that the definition of drunk driving varies among the states of US. Although generally, state law had adopted .10 Blood Alcohol Level (BAL) to be the defining level of drunk driving or driving while intoxicated (DWI) on the basis that at this BAL, practically anyone’s driving skills are considerably reduced because a .10 Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) was found to produce negative effect on one’s “reaction time, vision, judgment, and the ability to brake and control speed (needless to say that) as a depressant, even small quantities of alcohol in any form reduces sensorimotor coordination” (Robin 1). In fact, studies on drunk driving related accidents show that the possibility of getting into road accident gets higher as the drunk driver’s BAC increases: a .10 BAC is seven times the risk; a .15 BAC, which is more or less equivalent to eight drinks an hour, is twenty-five times riskier; and at .20 BAC the risk rises to one hundred-fold. Not only this, what is more frightening is the fact that as the BAC increases the crash likewise becomes more severe thus increasing the possibility of death. (Robin 2) To put it simply, a driver with a .10 BAC while driving is most possibly to crash, but may not necessarily end up dead, but, a driver with .20 BAC would not only most expectantly crash but also would surely end up dead. Cognizant of the fact that alcohol content generally at any level negatively affect one’s agility in driving, all the 50 states in the US has now enacted two legal offenses to drunk driving: the original offense – driving under the influence (DUI), driving while intoxicated/impaired (DWI), or operating [a motor vehicle] while intoxicated/impaired (OWI), and the second offense – illegal per se, which makes driving with a 0.08 BAC or higher illegal since 2002 (“2007 Drunk Driving Statistics par. 3). However, alcohol is not the only thing that makes one drunk. Three factors contribute to people’s drunkenness: “the amount of food in the stomach (more food slows the rate at which alcohol is absorbed into the bloodstream), the rate at which liquor is consumed over a given time period and body weight” (Robin 2). This explains why alcohol tolerance differs on different individuals. Just for instance, a 150-pound person, who has not yet eaten, could take in about five drinks in an hour to be legally intoxicated compared to a person whose weight is lesser 30 pounds could already reach .10 BAC at only four drinks in an hour. But if the same persons drunk with their stomach full, they could consume more drinks before reaching the allowable .10 BAC. To anti-drunk driving, this data does not give any difference because the truth remains that even under .05 BAC most people become observably driving impaired and much more, compared with nondrinking drivers, .05 BAC drivers are far more prone to vehicular accident. (Robins 3) Thus the logic of the matter is very clear: Do not drive when you are drunk – very simple, yet very complicated. It should be very simple, because considering the devastating consequence of drunk driving, it would have been very easy to opt not to drive when drunk, but it turns out that stopping drunk driving is in fact not that simple because despite national campaign and proliferation of laws against drunk driving, it remains a common occurrence and a large problem confronting the American people. Although statistics show that there is a significant decline in drunk driving related fatalities from 60% in 1982 to 37% in 2007 (“2007 Drunk Driving Statistics par. 4), the figure still remains high. This alone proves that although a large number of the American population recognizes the high risk posed by drunk driving not only to the drivers themselves but most especially to their innocent victims, a significant number remains unworried with this frightening truth. However, this could be understood in varied ways. First, it should be noted that those who caused thousands of drunk driving fatalities are the so-called ‘hard core drinking drivers’ or the extreme or repeat offenders (“Hardcore Drinking Drivers Are a National Plague” 8). In fact the Bureau of Justice Statistics reveals that “about two-thirds of those incarcerated for drunk driving were repeat offenders. A third of those on probation for drunk driving also had prior drunk driving offenses” (“All You Ever Wanted to Know about Drunk Drivers” 7). This could mean that what confronts the country regarding the hazards of drunk driving is not only the violation itself but the rehabilitation of the so-called ‘hard-core drinking drivers’ who are significant in number as statistics show. This information could also explain why the Deterrence Theory doesn’t seem to work. It is because the ‘hard core drinking drivers’ are used to the penalty having been apprehended twice or thrice. And it could be possible that being incarcerated did not deny them their drinking pleasure. On the other hand, this could also mean that the Deterrence Theory did work to the first offender, that's why the occurrence of drunk driving did reduce dramatically since 1982. Second, it may help to consider that majority of the American people are social drinkers. In fact, social drinking is deeply ingrained in the American culture that wines and liquors are a common sight, that drinking by minors is also a growing problem, and “as evidenced by the repeal of Prohibition, an annual per-capita consumption of alcoholic beverages of 27.6 gallons (1985), and a $36 billion-per-year liquor industry. Drinking is not only big business but is also an integral part of doing business” (Robin 8). Drinking and driving are very much a part of Americans daily life that drunk driving was almost ignored not until its death toll had deeply hurt and awakened society’s sensibilities enough to mobilize the public to act against it. With these conflicting realities, can drunk driving be stopped? The answer to this question is a big yes, as has been proven by the statistics where occurrence of car accidents due to drunk driving declined dramatically. However, the remaining sad truth tells that there is still more to do to stop this. Although, it would be essential to recognize that the problem is not only a problem of individual irresponsibility, whereby the solution to the problem is solely the burden of drunk drivers. It is also a social problem given its cultural and economic justification so well ingrained in the American way of life, shaping the people’s benign attitude and perception. Therefore, the public and the government should work together against drunk driving, seeing this as their moral obligation to save lives, to provide a safer habitat, and to support quality life. Although it is true that drunk driving can be stopped, it would be wrong to assume that it could be stopped abruptly or that it could be stopped simply by penalizing this offense more severely. Like most social ills, that in one way or another are being condoned by society, there is no single solution to stop drunk driving, however there are different sets of actions that could positively contribute to reduce this dreadful problem. Guiding these actions is the proper understanding of the problem. First and foremost, always remember not to do drinking and driving at the same time. It is here that the problem comes in. Drinking is one thing, and driving is another thing, but, when combined together, that’s the other dreadful thing. Therefore to avoid this, if you are drunk, better designate another driver. “A designated driver is simply a person who agrees to abstain from alcohol and be responsible for driving others home” (Hanson “Drunk Driving Can Be Stopped” par. 2). This practice has proven effective. The Associated Press reports that “designated drivers have probably saved nearly 50,000 lives and spared many more thousands of people from suffering injury from drunk driving (qtd in Hanson “Drunk Driving Can Be Stopped” par. 1). Moreover, the Gallup polls reported in National Commission Against Drunk Driving that “over nine out of 10 Americans who attend social events where alcohol is served would like to see designated drivers used. And the proportion of people using or being a designated driver has increased dramatically over time” (qtd in Hanson “Drunk Driving Can Be Stopped” par. 1). Furthermore, “each year over 73,000,000 Americans either serve as a designated driver or are driven home by one” (“Designated Driver Campaign Working, Says Inventor,” qtd in Hanson “Drunk Driving Can Be Stopped” par. 1). Or much better, if you knew that you are going to drive, do not intoxicate yourself. One time of restraint from drinking will save you yours and others lives. But in cases where you have no choice but to drive after drinking, be sure to drink only moderately. There are lots of ways to do this: “Know your limit… eat food while you drink… sip your drink… don’t participate in drinking games… (keep your) consumption of alcohol beverages to one drink per hour… keep active… beware of unfamiliar drinks… use alcohol carefully with pharmaceuticals” (Hanson “Drinking and Driving” sec. 5). Second, always remember that there are only two ways of the road yet many people use it, so make the road safer for everybody. Making the road safe is both a public and government concern. But primarily this is the government’s which may mean many things: public works, early warning devices, traffic rules and regulations, law enforcers, etc., but among these, as it is related to drunk driving, hard core drunk drivers should be dealt with appropriately. “For their own safety and that of others, it's important to identify such drivers, remove them from the road, provide effective treatment, and bring about behavior change before permitting them to drive again. (Hanson “Drunk Driving: We Can Prevent It” par. 1) And to the public, a safer road could mean: following traffic rules and regulations and helping police stop drunken drivers, as police cannot be everywhere at the same time. “Call 911 on your cell phone if you observe a driver who appears to be driving while intoxicated” (Hanson “Help Police Stop Drunken Drivers” par. 2). Drunk driving is fatal. It must be stopped. But this could only be possible if both the government and the public work together to stop it starting from the raising of public awareness against drunk driving to concrete practical solutions. But come to think of it, considering the lethal and devastating consequence of drunk driving would it not qualify for serious crimes? However, would qualifying it as such help stop this problem? Works Cited “All You Ever Wanted to Know about Drunk Drivers.” State Legislatures. March 2000: 7. “Bikers Against Drunk Driving.” 2007. Baddcentral. 22 November 2009 Hanson, David J. “Drinking and Driving.” 2007. Alcohol Problems and Solutions. 9 November 2009. -------- “Drunk Driving Can Be Stopped.” 2007. Alcohol Problems and Solutions. 22 November 2009. < http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/PreventingDrunkDriving.html> -------- “Drunk Driving: We Can Prevent It.” 2007. Alcohol Problems and Solutions. 22 November 2009. -------- “Help Police Stop Drunken Drivers.” 2007. Alcohol Problems and Solutions. 22 November 2009. < http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/DrivingIssues/1136909229.html> “Hardcore Drinkers Are a National Plague.” USA Today. November 2005: 8. Robin, Gerald D. Waging the Battle against Drunk Driving: Issues, Countermeausres, and Effectiveness. New York: Praeger, 1991. Mejeur, Jeanne. “Drunk Driving: Still a Killer.” State Legislatures. April 1994: 10-11. “2007 Drunk Driving Statistics”. 2009. Alcohol Alert. 09 November 2009. “The Consequences of Drunk Driving… a True Story.” 21 November 2009 itsnotanaccident. 21 November 2009 Read More