From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Repost from alt.beer(Beer laws in Texas)
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Distribution: tx
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 14:12:18 GMT

In <exuptr.725.0@exu.ericsson.se> exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (Sunbird a la 400ci) writes:

>In article <1993Jan12.214957.57888@watson.ibm.com> johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:
>>From: johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
>>Subject: Re: Repost from alt.beer(Beer laws in Texas)
>>Date: 12 Jan 93 21:49:57 GMT

>>In article <exuptr.600.0@exu.ericsson.se>, exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (Patrick Taylor) writes:
>>|> Oh get real.  The idea is not to stop the odd 1/1,000,000th accident.  Drunk 
>>|> drivers kill *many* people every day.

>>NON-drunk drivers kill even more people every day.  Non-drunk Non-drivers kill
>>even more.  Gee, maybe the crime should be *killing* people.

>Actually, not.  Drunk drivers kill more people than non-drunk drivers.  
>Careful, now, I'm talking number of fatalities per drunk driver, not just 
>some raw number.  But what's the difference?  We know that people who get 
>behind the wheel will inevitably kill someone.  Killing people is a crime, 
>acting in a way that you are much more likely to kill someone is criminal 
>negligence at best.

I'd like to see those numbers on this one, because they don't match
what I've seen in the past.  I do have to wonder if someone is
fiddling the numbers.  Anyway, I also have to question the "inevitably
kill someone" if you "get behind the wheel".  I've been driving for a
long time and have never killed anyone with a car.  Do you have some
evidence that says that EVERY driver (or even everyone who drives
sometimes after drinking) is going to kill at least one person with
their car?  That one just doesn't seem to make the reality check.

>>|> It is statistically obvious that 
>>|> alcohol abuse is the cause of a very large proportion of accidents/deaths/
>>|> financial loss.

>>Not obvious at all.  For one thing the numbers are padded.  If you got drunk
>>and jumped out in front of my car on I-35 and got killed, they would count
>>that as an "alcohol-related" motor vehicle death.  This, of course, has 
>>nothing to do with DWI.  Also there is no way to tell if alcohol was a 
>>contributing factor in any accident, so they just assume that it always is.

>Oh, sorry, I didn't know that half of the 50,000 people killed last year in 
>alcohol related traffic accidents tied one on and jumped in front of a 
>truck.  You're just being contradictory here.  If you're going to pick nits 
>out of every bit of information there is to govern by, then you obviously 
>prefer driving at night with the lights off as well, cause you don't want to 
>see what you might hit.

Not exactly a constructive rebuttal, Patrick.  Do you dispute that if
a drunk is involved ANYWHERE, either as a driver, a passenger, or a
pedestrian, that it will be categorized as 'alcohol-related'?  That
certainly seemed to be his point, and I don't see the dripping sarcasm
as refuting that.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: tx.politics