thestar.com — Alcohol-related deaths on U.S. roads rose to their highest level in 14 years in 2006, while the overall number of people killed in traffic crashes declined slightly but still topped 43,000, according to preliminary government estimates Friday.
May 28, 2007 View in Crawl 4
ubuntuedgyMay 29, 2007
This has nothing to do with drinking, or drinking ages for that matter. It has to do with personal responsibility. It doesn't matter if the drinking age is 14, there are still stupid people who will get c**ked and drive.There were a couple comments about "educating" people...please! Simple common sense: don't drink and drive. If they didn't know that before, they won't know it even after the most intensive education program one could offer. New York used to have it right (not sure if they still do). If you got caught drinking and driving, say goodbye to your car and license. Now, that is incentive to do the right thing.And if you kill someone while driving drunk, life with no possibility of parole. I bet drinking and driving drops to an all time low.
Closed AccountMay 29, 2007
This number, or statistic is a complete abomination of statistical study. f**k! The actual number of deaths isn't of any matter, really it isn't. If the US population were 100k wouldn't the number be far more scary than if the US population were 999 billion? The number that should be looked at is deaths per miles driven. Period. Note if you have more people, more miles are being driven. Then personally the more you drive the more exposure you have to traffic accidents. Any "statistic" that gives you the raw number of lives, accidents, crashes, arrests, or whatever but doesn't tell you the rate per miles driven in the USA is more than likely trying to get you to react, and therefore behave in a particular way.This is a textbook case of using statistics to prove your point, rather than using statistics to see what is really happening.
eootMay 29, 2007
Madd or any other government office doesn't really care about drunk driving, its just such an easy thing to agree that drunk driving is bad. If they REALLY wanted to lower drunk driving legalizing marijuana would be the first step. If people had a choice to either smoke pot or get drunk the drunk DUI deaths would go down dramatically. And anybody who disagrees with that should do some honest non governmental research.
socokoolaidMay 29, 2007
This is the result of the media and government encouraging reckless sex and drinking to not do drugs, forget about the war, and those long work hours that keep paying less and cutting back benefits.
bacon_skodaMay 30, 2007
well, they did say the "numbers" are on the rise..which is true. not the rate. if it is the rate, then say the rate is on the rise. nothing wrong with that.
vinividiviciMay 30, 2007
We should be applying technology to this problem. New cars should come equipped with a breathalyzer that prevents the car from running if the driver is intoxicated.
twinklyjesusMay 31, 2007
@drakensteel:>>"I really don't care to much either (I would use spell check but I always forget it is there). ">"So what if I don't follow a bunch of stupid rules with no reason behind them save to give people who don't care (like myself) a hard time? ">"It doesn't affect the vast majority of my life ">"unlike many of the people in my area (Arkansas....*shudders*) I am not an in-bread redneck. "
jdepew76May 25, 2009
Hey Veight, have you ever had a friend, Family Memeber, or someone you care about killed because someone who didn't care about their own life decided to drive then kill someone else. You also need to check you STATS yourself. For an accident to be ruled as a DUI or DWI the driver of the vehicle has to be drunk. If the driver is sober it's considered a GOOD FRIEND and a Designated Driver. But I guess you might know that if you did a little more research before posting a comment based on something you only half read!!!! :-)