what are 3 major issues with Drunk Drivng?

Question

ok i know the 1 out of three reasons ok cause people can get injured or die but i dont know 2 other reasons!!

Answer 1

(1) Death or injury.
(2) Financial results. Everyone's insurance rates go when payout and damage costs go up. Driving privileges are taken away perhaps causing the person to loose his/her job, and having to go on social assistance. Bancruptcy. Costs of otherwise un-necessary medical care. Cost of associated police, fire department, and ambulance personnel to attend the accident, investigate, etc.
(3) Human pain and misery. A victim's family and friends. The drunk's family and friends. The drunk himself who has to live with the fact that he caused such suffering and pain. Society itself ... perhaps the person who's life was cut short would have grown up and found a cure for cancer. Perhaps the person killed or seriously injured would have been the only one in a position to prevent another 9/11.
(4) to (999). Think about what these could be.

Answer 2

1. Other drivers, the drunk driver, other passengers, or other bystanders could be injured or killed. In fact, about 60% of fatal car crashes involve alcohol.

2. Property could be damaged in a one or multi vehicle crash.

3. Judgment is impaired which leads to poor decision making and slowed reaction time.

Answer 3

it strains our legal system, think of how much time police and courts spend enforcing this, and how many other things they could do if they didn't have to spend time on drunk drivers (not saying they shouldn't enforce it)

not sure if this is a problem, or just one of the way's it sucks, but its selfish to drive drunk, what you're saying by driving drunk is that your own convience of being able to party and drive is more important to you than other people's lives and safety.

Another crappy thing is that its always the innocent person that dies and the drunk that survives

Answer 4

Amen! Pengiun Bob....Right on..Good answer! Especially the
"Perhaps the person killed or seriously injured would have been the only one in a position to prevent another 9/11."

Answer 5

You tell someone a loved one has died as a result of a drunk driver and see if you need more than one reason to get pissed off at people for doing it.

Answer 6

Damage to property. Most people that run their cars into houses or building are drunk. Injury and death are two seperate issues also.

Answer 7

Your glossing over #1 way too easy.
#2 It is b/c the person has a substance abuse problem and needs help.
#3 see #1.

Answer 8

1. yours , Injury, 2. Ignorance, 3. Stupidity, 4. the Me syndrome, I do as I want and let others pay the bill.

Answer 9

Vision Impaired
Judgement impaired
Coordination impaired.

Answer 10

Drunk Drivers



Drunk drivers pose a serious threat to the public. This country has made great strides in reducing the number of drunk driving deaths since their peak in the early 80’s. Recently however, there has been a dramatic slow down in this reduction as the majority of social drinkers have taken the anti-drunk driving message to heart. One group is overwhelmingly responsible for the remainder of alcohol related fatalities in this country – hardcore drinking drivers. These drivers are identified as those drivers who repeatedly drive over the legal blood alcohol concentrations (BAC) limit or who drive with a BAC that greatly exceeds the legal limit. In order for states to realize any further significant declines in alcohol related fatalities, policies must be targeted at getting hardcore drinking drivers off of our streets.


Some of these strict penalties are already in effect in the states. Many states have already taken the lead by implementing strict penalties and fines aimed at reducing the number of hardcore drinking drivers on their roads. States should be free to implement the best solutions to those problems that are unique to their state. There is no need for a federal ‘one size fits all’ approach to drunk d
drivers.


The federal government has threatened the loss of highway funding for the states, if states do not universally agree to a national standard of .08 BAC as the benchmark for intoxication. A number of states had already lowered their BAC to .08; while others had implemented strict mandates aimed at punishing hardcore drinking drivers. In fact, because of states’ carefully crafted legislation, the number of traffic deaths related to alcohol use has dropped 32 percent since 1987. In fact, in 1999, the U.S. experienced the lowest number of alcohol related traffic deaths ever recorded.* Many drunk driving experts have argued that simply lowering the national BAC to .08 will only reach a small number of drunk drivers and that only by targeting hardcore drinking drivers will we be able to significantly reduce alcohol related fatalities.


The federal government threatens to further trample on the states’ sovereignty in their own affairs, if it continues on its path of imposing unconstitutional mandates on the states regarding drunk driving legislation. Instead, the states should rather be encouraged to develop their own legislation to curb drunk drivers, thereby guaranteeing a specially formulated system that will work best for each state. ALEC’s model legislation, the Drunk Driving Prevention Act is flexible enough to be altered to fit each state’s individual needs while not losing sight of the ultimate goal: to remove drunk drivers from our roads.