Drunk driving

jspilot

jspilot

Cleared for Takeoff
Joined
Oct 22, 2011
Messages
1,337
Display Name
jspilot
So I woke up yesterday morning to find out after a knock on the door from a neighbor that a long time neighbor a childhood friend of mine was killed in a car crash by, you guessed it, someone who was driving drunk. The girl who died was just 23 years old, and had her entire life ahead of her. It's beyond tragic. Simply put, going next door and offering my support to her remaining family members was without a doubt in the top 3 most difficult things I've ever been through.

I'm not posting for sympathy, I'm not posting for pity, I'm not posting for attention, I'm posting because enough is enough. This country has a serious epidemic on its hands. I would bet that anyone reading this post has been touched somehow by a drunk driver or certainly knows someone who has( myself I had previously been involved in a crash in which the other driver left his car un-light in the left hand lane of a highway in the middle of the night because he had hit the center divider and was waiting to call the cops to report the accident until he was sober-- that is of course until I hit his car going about 40mph after slamming on my brakes to try and stop in time. It's only by God's good will that myself and my 2 other buddies in my car that night walked away un injured.)

We as pilots have a unique perspective on this issue I believe because of the very strict rules about operating a plane after having a drink. Simply put, you have a drink, you can't just go get in your plane and fly. That's after 1 drink, not even enough to be held even slightly liable as a driver. You have more than a drink as a pilot, I've always been told to wait at least 12 hours to fly. The general guideline I've always heard is " 24 hours from bottle to throttle."

On the heals of such a tragedy as what occurred in my world, I think it's time for the United States to adopt "pilot rules." for operating a car.

For those who need a refresher here are actual "pilot rules."

From Section 91.17 of the U.S. Federal Aviation Regulations:
(a) No person may act or attempt to act as a crewmember of a civil aircraft--
* (1) Within 8 hours after the consumption of any alcoholic beverage;
* (2) While under the influence of alcohol;
* (3) While using any drug that affects the person's faculties in any way contrary to safety; or
* (4) While having an alcohol concentration of 0.04 or greater in a blood or breath specimen.
 
The DDDR has been dropping for over 30 years. It's not an epidemic.
 
Sounds like you're having an emotional knee jerk reaction. There are far more dangerous folks out on the road than a guy who's had a couple of glasses of wine with dinner. quadruple bypass grandpa in a class III motor home, drowsy truck drivers, people on a plethora of prescription drugs, distracted 17 year olds etc...

The problem with DD is that it's still somewhat socially acceptable. The tide is turning a bit bit it still doesn't hold the social stigma of say getting caught with child porn.

Plus, tougher laws don't do much to push the needle in the right direction. They only enrich the profits for the prisons and create more criminals.
 
There are those out there who think they are still in complete control while under the influence. They have a casual attitude, as if to say what's the big deal? Like it's expected. Everyone does it.

I'd love to put these people in the helicopter when I'm flying a drunk to the hospital who thought they were under control as well. Or take a hard look at the victim of a drunk driver head on who is fighting for their life in the back of my aircraft. Just makes you shake your head and wonder what some of these people were thinking.

We handle enough vehicle accidents just from people making bad decisions sober. We don't need additional, completely avoidable accidents because people choose to drink and drive.
 
EdFred said:
The DDDR has been dropping for over 30 years. It's not an epidemic.
Click to expand...

1/3 of all fatal accidents in America involve a drunk driver. 1/3 of anything is 33%. 33% of the people who die in a car crash die because of a drunk driving. Saying anything has dropped is completely relative to what it once was. Just because te generation before was more irresponsible does not make your argument valid. By the way, the guy who drive drunk was much older than 23....

I always am stunned by this boards complete lack of acknowledgment and forethought. I'm becoming less stunned each time I visit.
 
Last edited:
jspilot said:
1/3 of all fatal accidents in America involve a drunk driver. 1/3 of anything is 33%. 33% of the people who die in a car crash die because of a drunk driver.

Welcome to my ignore list.
Click to expand...

So less than half. Thank you for proving my point. 75% would be an epidemic, 33% is not. And even if it was 75% it still wouldn't be an epidemic. In fact, it's not even a top 10 cause of death - and wouldn't be even if it were 75%
 
Last edited:
EdFred said:
So less than half. Thank you for proving my point. 75% would be an epidemic, 33% is not. In fact, it's not even a top 10 cause of death.
Click to expand...

And what's the ratio of accidents to cars on the road or trips daily? It's almost miniscule.

That being said, my rule is 2 standard drinks. No more. If I have more than that I dont drive.
 
EdFred said:
So less than half. Thank you for proving my point. 75% would be an epidemic, 33% is not. In fact, it's not even a top 10 cause of death.
Click to expand...

I'm not here to convince you. Don't play the semantic game please. Why don't we call it a "problem."

By the way, your complete cold hearted approach to everything is stunning. I'm glad you were not there to witness the parents of this girl literally melt into hysteria right in front of me. Please show some respect for the heart felt grief this issue causes.

I'll welcome other responses.
 
I know it sucks to go through but using an emotionally traumatic event to draw attention to something, label it as an epidemic or problem, when in reality the chances are remote, doesn't make the point any more valid.

Someone disagreeing with your proposal by stating facts doesnt disrespect the heart felt grief as you stated. Grief or respect for the tragedy does not imply concurrence with your opinion or vice versa.
 
Last edited:
jspilot said:
1/3 of all fatal accidents in America involve a drunk driver. 1/3 of anything is 33%. 33% of the people who die in a car crash die because of a drunk driving. Saying anything has dropped is completely relative to what it once was. Just because te generation before was more irresponsible does not make your argument valid. By the way, the guy who drive drunk was much older than 23....

I always am stunned by this boards complete lack of acknowledgment and forethought. I'm becoming less stunned each time I visit.
Click to expand...
You're making the mistake of saying because an accident involves a drunk driver, it happened because of the driver being drunk. In other words, some lady pulls out right in front of you and you slam into her. You had a few beers, and the rest is history. In reality you would have smashed into her regardless of alcohol, but it's credited as an alcohol related accident.
 
Look I'm moving this issue back to what I originally brought up. My conclusion is this- if the FAA has a standard for us as pilots that is far more restricting than what they allow people to operate a car under, I'd suggest some real investigation into why that is. I'd argue that a drunk pilot is only a danger to himself and maybe any passenger stupid enough to get in the plane. A drunk driver is dangerous to every car he passes. Emotions away, argue with me that what I'm saying is not true.

By the way, I specifically said I did not bring this up for sympathy. I don't want it nor need it. I become infuriated when EdFred plays the semantics game, which he's done over and over and over again in similar posts. It's an absolutely pointless style of engaging in meaningful discussion.
 
EdFred said:
The DDDR has been dropping for over 30 years. It's not an epidemic.
Click to expand...
You are right; it is not necessarily an epidemic.
But it is a problem. A deadly and somewhat preventable problem. Right up there with texting while driving.

I think laws and enforcement for both should be stepped up another notch. Not as a knee-jerk reaction, but as common sense.
 
gitmo234 said:
And what's the ratio of accidents to cars on the road or trips daily? It's almost miniscule.

That being said, my rule is 2 standard drinks. No more. If I have more than that I dont drive.
Click to expand...

  • Heart disease: 611,105
  • Cancer: 584,881
  • Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 149,205
  • Accidents (unintentional injuries): 130,557
  • Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 128,978
  • Alzheimer's disease: 84,767
  • Diabetes: 75,578
  • Influenza and Pneumonia: 56,979
  • Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 47,112
  • Intentional self-harm (suicide): 41,149
Car accidents were included in the accidents. They made up 1/3 of the accident deaths. Then alcohol related made up 1/3 of those. So 14,000ish people died from alcohol related accidents. However, according to the NHTSA if any person involved - even a pedestrian that was struck had alcohol in their system that falls under alcohol related death. So the number is even lower than the 14,000


Numbers from CDC - 2013.

I'm also with you, although for me it is now only ONE drink for me because my limit due to concealed permit is 0.02 - and I won't even have a single one if I ride my motorcycle.
 
Last edited:
JOhnH said:
You are right; it is not necessarily an epidemic.
But it is a problem. A deadly and somewhat preventable problem. Right up there with texting while driving.

I think laws and enforcement for both should be stepped up another notch. Not as a knee-jerk reaction, but as common sense.
Click to expand...

The problem is making laws and punishment more severe isn't going to do anything. We have laws against a great number of things and it doesn't stop people from breaking them, even when the punishment is death.
 
jspilot said:
My conclusion is this- if the FAA has a standard for us as pilots that is far more restricting than what they allow people to operate a car under, I'd suggest some real investigation into why that is.
Click to expand...

I think it would be wholly unrealistic to expect the public to get behind 8hrs bottle to throttle. Go to any restaurant and look around, many like to have a drink with dinner. Heck, I like to enjoy a cold beer with dinner, but I restrict it to only one. So, I should hang at the restaurant for 8hrs before driving home after having one beer? Unrealistic.

That said, I think drunk and distracted drivers need to be off the road.
 
jspilot said:
Look I'm moving this issue back to what I originally brought up. My conclusion is this- if the FAA has a standard for us as pilots that is far more restricting than what they allow people to operate a car under, I'd suggest some real investigation into why that is. I'd argue that a drunk pilot is only a danger to himself and maybe any passenger stupid enough to get in the plane. A drunk driver is dangerous to every car he passes. Emotions away, argue with me that what I'm saying is not true.

By the way, I specifically said I did not bring this up for sympathy. I don't want it nor need it. I become infuriated when EdFred plays the semantics game, which he's done over and over and over again in similar posts. It's an absolutely pointless style of engaging in meaningful discussion.
Click to expand...

Why don't we go ahead and implement the same level of training needed to obtain a license and stay current? I'd be for that. Then reduce the patrolling police down to a size similar to the number of FAA types out enforcing laws. (I've never actually seen an FAA officer anywhere in 7 years of flying)

Your average male with 2 beers in him typically isn't a threat. Not sure why we'd want to make him into a criminal.
 
Yes, drunk driving is dangerous. Thats the fact that cant be argued. But what exactly will stricter laws accomplish? Current laws don't stop people.

I dont want to take the time to do some research but I'd be willing to bet childhood obesity (into adulthood) kills more people, its just more subtle. It's also probably just as correctable or even more
 
Sure, it's sad when it happens. But your proposal criminalizes a glass of wine with dinner. Bad overreach IMHO.
 
And as far as annoyances with other members.... I quit tracking that. I learned VERY early after joining that at any given time, any given member is probably going to just annoy the **** out of you and sometimes on purpose. I've no doubt done the same to others. I've saved a couple of messages and threads that are good examples. Eventually I just quit responding. My favorite so far is someone who enjoys answering questions with questions.
 
There is a greater epidemic, and it's at the core of this very problem, selfishness. When you base your society on the right to do what you want and **** everybody else making money, that ethos spreads through all of society. The national slogan here is "**** you, you can't tell me what to do!"

Want a country where the rugged individualist reigns supreme? Well, you've got it.
 
jspilot said:
Look I'm moving this issue back to what I originally brought up. My conclusion is this- if the FAA has a standard for us as pilots that is far more restricting than what they allow people to operate a car under, I'd suggest some real investigation into why that is. I'd argue that a drunk pilot is only a danger to himself and maybe any passenger stupid enough to get in the plane. A drunk driver is dangerous to every car he passes. Emotions away, argue with me that what I'm saying is not true.

By the way, I specifically said I did not bring this up for sympathy. I don't want it nor need it. I become infuriated when EdFred plays the semantics game, which he's done over and over and over again in similar posts. It's an absolutely pointless style of engaging in meaningful discussion.
Click to expand...

It's not a semantics game. You declared it an epidemic because of a personal connection, and I bet 3 days ago you wouldn't have used the term epidemic. Heck, breaking the numbers down, I don't even know if I would call it a problem.

In 2013 there were 2,596,993 deaths. (CDC)
10,076 deaths from drunk driving accidents (also from the CDC)
So 0.38% of the deaths in this country in 2013 were drunk driving accidents. An epidemic? Not even close. A problem? I don't even know if I would consider it that when I look at the numbers.

For the record my neighbor's 29 year old daughter was killed last month by a drunk driver. So yeah, I saw him in that state. Things happen. And preventable things happen, but hyperbole doesn't help solve anything. As far as the FAA, they are the most CYA agency out there. Can't go bleow glide slope, can't land with partial flaps, do I even need to bring up their 3rd class medical requirements on who can't fly because of some imaginary issue?

Are drunk driving accidents preventable? Absolutely, 100% of them are. But it's not as much of a problem as is it's made out to be when you look at the data rather than just react.
 
Last edited:
gitmo234 said:
But what exactly will stricter laws accomplish? Current laws don't stop people.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Do you think that people who slam 6 at happy hour after work and then drive home are going to quit doing it because there is another law on the books? No. To think they would is just silly.
 
Thanks everyone for helping getting this thread back on track and I'm sorry for any emotional driven discussion.

Here's where I'm at in my thinking. People are saying, " why make a criminal out of a glass of wine." That's not exactly my line of thought. My line of thought is this, how many of you have ever had a drink and then immediately gotten behind the yoke and flown? Why have the vast majority of us not, because it's against the law. Even my buddy EdFred said above that he limits his intake to one drink because his one permit restricts it to that. I applaud that. My point is, I hate overly restrictive laws just as much as anyone. Yet, very strict laws that are respected serve a point. We don't need to lock away everyone, just take away their license for 1 drink still in your system while driving and I'd imagine the deterrent to risk it would be enough. Lock away those that go far above the 1 drink limit.

I'm fascinated by the thinking that exists amoungst the pilot population, even though you are far less likely to be caught flying while drinking than you are to be caught driving while drinking almost never do pilots drink and fly. Does that decision stem from the respect of the license, a respect for the inherit danger of flying or a combination of that and personality traits you need to be a pilot? I'm
Not sure but it is very interessting to think about.

Just because someone does not become involved in a crash while driving under the influence is not a reason to excuse the poor choice.
 
Last edited:
timwinters said:
Exactly. Do you think that people who slam 6 at happy hour after work and then drive home are going to quit doing it because there is another law on the books? No. To think they would is just silly.
Click to expand...

Plus - at least here in Michigan - you can't even be in your car and wait it off. Sister of a girl I dated got a DUI/OWI while she was 'sleeping it off' in the BACK SEAT of her car in the bar parking lot after it closed.

Also here, a canoe is also considered a vehicle, and yeah, you get points on your drivers license for drinking on a river float trip if caught. I played ball with two cops who were laughing about how many people they issued DUI/OWI tickets to on the river the previous weekend.
 
Sorry for the loss. It's tragic when it happens, I think because of the preventability of it all. If someone falls off a ladder and dies, it's tragic but maybe not as preventable? I mean, we need to get on ladders for servicing things, but when it comes to DD, it's just so preventable.

Having said that, I don't know what more to do? I counsel my kids to stay off the highway on Fri & Sat after 10PM, but sometimes you just have to drive then. Although the OP doesn't mention it, sounds like a Sat night accident.

What are the solutions? I really don't have an answer. I'm stymied. We live in a free society, and there are already serious penalties for DUI. There's also education, and a lot of social pressure these days on a drunk who's going to go out, but all that together isn't going to stop it completely. We have to live with some level of carnage or turn into some form of N Korea. While I think moving the goalpost to some form of the FAA mandate would help, I can't image the driving public, many of whom have a drink would put up with any time limit on operation after having a drink. It's unworkable, even if it would improve the DD fatalities stats.
 
jspilot said:
Thanks everyone for helping getting this thread back on track and I'm sorry for any emotional driven discussion.

Here's where I'm at in my thinking. People are saying, " why make a criminal out of a glass of wine." That's not exactly my line of thought. My line of thought is this, how many of you have ever had a drink and then immediately gotten behind the yoke and flown? Why have the vast majority of us not, because it's against the law. Even my buddy EdFred said above that he limits his intake to one drink because his one permit restricts it to that. I applaud that. My point is, I hate overly restrictive laws just as much as anyone. Yet, very strict laws that are respected serve a point. We don't need to lock away everyone, just take away their license for 1 drink still in your system while driving and I'd imagine the deterrent to risk it would be enough. Lock away those that go far above the 1 drink limit.

I'm fascinated by the thinking that exists amoungst the pilot population, even though you are far less likely to be caught flying while drinking than you are to be caught driving while drinking almost never do pilots drink and fly. Does that decision stem from the respect of the license, a respect for the inherit danger of flying or a combination of that and personality traits you need to be a pilot? I'm
Not sure but it is very interessting to think about.

Just because someone does not become involved in a crash while driving under the influence is not a reason to excuse the poor choice.
Click to expand...

Rules aren't respected because they are laws, rules are respected because they are considered correct. If making them laws earned them respect, we wouldn't have more people incarcerated that the rest of the world combined.

People follow rules when they want to, simple as that, and as Ed's numbers show, enough people respect the position that it's not really a problem. The laws are already draconian enough to provide deterrent if deterrent is being sought. Obviously it's not 100% effective, nothing is.

The reality is we will each die, quit worrying about it, it's more interesting than being stuck here.
 
gitmo234 said:
Yes, drunk driving is dangerous. Thats the fact that cant be argued. But what exactly will stricter laws accomplish? Current laws don't stop people.

I dont want to take the time to do some research but I'd be willing to bet childhood obesity (into adulthood) kills more people, its just more subtle. It's also probably just as correctable or even more
Click to expand...
Yeah, there probably are more people that are killed by their own obesity. The problem with drunk driving is that OTHER people are killed by your drunk driving.

But I agree that harsher laws rarely work. That is why I often propose that we do more to publicize those that are convicted. If you see the pictures of a few of your friends and neighbors in the paper that have been arrested and convicted of various offenses (drunk driving, prostitution, shoplifting, domestic abuse etc...), or if your picture is seen in the paper, it may more easily enter your decision process the next time you make a decision to do one of those acts.

But regardless, choosing to commit a crime is different than choosing to put down that cupcake because you may have a heart attack or get diabetes. They are each a problem, but they are unrelated.
 
JOhnH said:
Yeah, there probably are more people that are killed by their own obesity. The problem with drunk driving is that OTHER people are killed by your drunk driving.

But I agree that harsher laws rarely work. That is why I often propose that we do more to publicize those that are convicted. If you see the pictures of a few of your friends and neighbors in the paper that have been arrested and convicted of various offenses (drunk driving, prostitution, shoplifting, domestic abuse etc...), or if your picture is seen in the paper, it may more easily enter your decision process the next time you make a decision to do one of those acts.

But regardless, choosing to commit a crime is different than choosing to put down that cupcake because you may have a heart attack or get diabetes. They are each a problem, but they are unrelated.
Click to expand...

Well, unless you are a fat person that fall on someone else and smothers them to death. I would also be behind public shaming - but we can't have that because then not everyone can have their participation ribbon. But the other issue is that if we do go the shaming route the laws need to be rewritten.

Sleeping it off in the back seat shouldn't be a DUI, just like me having to take a leak, and having a cop happen to walk up on me while doing so shouldn't result in me being on the sex offender list.
 
EdFred said:
Well, unless you are a fat person that fall on someone else and smothers them to death. I would also be behind public shaming - but we can't have that because then not everyone can have their participation ribbon. But the other issue is that if we do go the shaming route the laws need to be rewritten.

Sleeping it off in the back seat shouldn't be a DUI, just like me having to take a leak, and having a cop happen to walk up on me while doing so shouldn't result in me being on the sex offender list.
Click to expand...
Then stop peeing on little children or old ladies! :D
 
JOhnH said:
Then stop peeing on little children or old ladies! :D
Click to expand...

Well, I haven't been caught, but there have been times where I was not going to make it to the next exit (traffic jam) or other rest room. So, I've done the open the door pee on the side of the road routine once or twice. But had a cop been present I could be on the list. Which I think is ridiculous.
 
Since I don't have more than a beer or two each year I'm probably biased. I think the .08 laws are too low. And the feds tried to bring it down to .06, which is absurd. With that said, I'm also for 20 skin-tearing lashes for anyone at their 1st DUI, 200 at their 2nd.
 
EdFred said:
Well, I haven't been caught, but there have been times where I was not going to make it to the next exit (traffic jam) or other rest room. So, I've done the open the door pee on the side of the road routine once or twice. But had a cop been present I could be on the list. Which I think is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

I've sat in a lot of traffic jams and have never seen someone busted for peeing. You gotta go, you gotta go.
 
JOhnH said:
I think laws and enforcement for both should be stepped up another notch. Not as a knee-jerk reaction, but as common sense.
Click to expand...

I am not going to retire in the United States. My country has ceased to become free. It is now an over regulated, over policed, socialist hell hole that my relatives, parents, and buddies that died in combat fought to keep us from becoming. All because of well intentioned groups like MADD that espouse regulating every aspect of your life including how many sheets of toilet paper you can use.

Oh I agree drunk drivers should be held accountable. Just not by some arbitrary metric that may or may not apply.
 
Sac Arrow said:
I am not going to retire in the United States. My country has ceased to become free. It is now an over regulated, over policed, socialist hell hole that my relatives, parents, and buddies that died in combat fought to keep us from becoming. All because of well intentioned groups like MADD that espouse regulating every aspect of your life including how many sheets of toilet paper you can use.

Oh I agree drunk drivers should be held accountable. Just not by some arbitrary metric that may or may not apply.
Click to expand...
There are things that are regulated but shouldn't be and there are things that aren't regulated that should be. Drunk driving is one that should be regulated/prohibited.
 
You can DD rates are dropping, but that could be because the cops aren't catching as many as well.

I run and bicycle a lot. Around here, a majority of the trash on the side of the road is alcohol containers. Beer, wine, nip bottles.... When they're picked up, they're replaced within a week. There's quite a few people driving around and drinking. Are they above the 0.08% threshold? Dunno. But there sure are quite a few people driving around and drinking.

There's also quite a few people who go out to eat, have more than 1-2 drinks, and drive home. You get outside of a major city, and those people aren't walking home...
 
Sac Arrow said:
I am not going to retire in the United States. My country has ceased to become free. It is now an over regulated, over policed, socialist hell hole that my relatives, parents, and buddies that died in combat fought to keep us from becoming. All because of well intentioned groups like MADD that espouse regulating every aspect of your life including how many sheets of toilet paper you can use.

Oh I agree drunk drivers should be held accountable. Just not by some arbitrary metric that may or may not apply.
Click to expand...

How can you call America Socialist? Fascism is when the society revolves around growing big business. You can have totalitarianism under any system, same as you can have freedom. Economic systems and systems of societal controls are not the same thing nor necessarily intertwined. America is a fascist country, not socialist.
 
UngaWunga said:
You can DD rates are dropping, but that could be because the cops aren't catching as many as well.
Click to expand...

Fatalities and accidents from DD are down, as well as rates of DD are down. These two stats taken in concert, along with the increase in enforcement since MADD, and a few state campaigns tells me that DD arrests are a fair indicator of the reduction in DD accidents and deaths.

http://responsibility.org/wp-conten...te-of-Drunk-Driving-Fatalities-in-America.pdf (pg8-9)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top