> Regular drivers aren't collectively paying for the damages of drunk drivers.
Not, primarily, via payment to the state for using the road, true.
They do, however, pay for liability of general road rules violations, instead, through mandatory insurance, also a general legal requirement for using public roads, though you can opt out from the risk pooling nature of insurance in most (all?) states by assuring (via a personal liability bond) that you will pay for the damages you cause up to the threshold amount of required coverage.
Public road use simply isn't something that is cost free with the idea that “well, a bunch of people will be damaged, but there is no need to assure that those damages are reasonably covered because other people will benefit”, it has lots of costs associated with use, and a number of them (both the licensing regime and the insurance regime) are about limiting harms even at the expense of potential beneficial use and assuring compensation is available for those that are harmed. Yes, its an elaborate and different regime than paying to the supplier who pays for damages, but a regime exists, so its hardly an example of how no such regime is necessary for a service that has benefits for most users and acute harms for some.
Yeah, it's a seller's market. If you get a DUI and have to drive to get to work, you have to pay it. And the public is (understandably) largely unsympathetic to extraneous costs for drunk drivers.
> I imagine it's more about avoiding the ticket & punishment rather than avoiding endangering lives on the road.
I wonder about that.
We always hear the trope about the drunk driver usually not dying because they're "relaxed," but being relaxed isn't going to do jack when you smash into an overpass at highway speeds or dump your car over a cliff.
Keep telling everyone that drunk driving is dangerous and they're easily going to infer that it's dangerous for themselves. And then which is more of a deterrent, a nasty fine, or death?
>the large majority of drunk drivers are chronic drunks and drunk driving rules are pretty effective at taking them off the road.
That's a good point. Aren't you now arguing though that the vast majority of drinkers, who are not chronic drunks, be punished for the actions of a few?
> if you then hop in your truck and run into a tree, you can't sue the bar
Actually I don't think that's entirely true. I'm pretty sure there are laws in some places that if the bar knows a person is drunk and knows that they will drive, and does not prevent it, then the bar or the bartender (or both) can be held liable if the person then gets into an accident.
>If you are drunk, you can get arrested in some places (indiana) for walking home - instant public intoxication charge.
If you're so drunk that you'd get pulled over as a pedestrian, then you most certainly should not be driving.
>Still more places don't have safe options to walk or ride bikes if you are impared. These things need fixed to be able to do what you are encouraging.
How about some personal responsibility? Society isn't responsible for enabling people's drinking. If you can't get home without driving, then don't drink (or if it's a long visit, have only one or two, at the beginning).
> People still might get lucky and make epic money, but it is in the same zip code as driving drunk and not getting into a crash.
The rest of your post notwithstanding, this is a moderately common misconception. Most drunk driving does not result in crashes, and that's part of the danger -- after dozens of successful trips you might delude yourself into thinking you're somehow able to overcome the reduced reflexes and whatnot, but as soon as anything atypical hits the road (like a family crossing) you probably won't be able to respond adequately.
I was commenting on the insurance part, not the drunk driving. But we don't even have to go that far, we require licenses to drive, and if you aren't fit to drive, you can be denied that privilege outright.
> It’s already illegal to drink and drive. Now you want it to be illegal to modify vehicles?
I mean, it's hardly without precedent. You can't remove your license plate, you can't remove the seatbelts, you can't remove the muffler, you can't remove the catalytic converter, you can't remove the side or rear view mirrors. My state requires an annual inspection to confirm these things are all in place and working.
> Who do I get to sue when I can’t bring my dad to the hospital because he had a heart attack after I had a glass of wine.
General advice is that if it warrants drunk driving, it warrants a 911 call for an ambulance.
> The odds of hurting someone else when youre driving after drinking are ridiculously high.
No. They are not ridiculously high. They are minuscule.
"In 2015, nearly 1.1 million drivers were arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol or narcotics. That’s one percent of the 111 million self-reported episodes of alcohol-impaired driving among U.S. adults each year"[1]
Assuming that all the drunk drivers that hurt someone else are arrested and most arrested ones haven't hurt anyone, odds of hurting someone when drinking & driving are way less than 1%.
(This is not to imply that I would like to allow drunk driving.)
You've clearly never seen the damage a person can cause to the driver when hit by a car. If a person is in the road and intoxicated they can still cause injury or death.
>we've had drunk driving in the "bad" bucket for how many decades now?
I think you'll find that outside of larger urban areas in the US, drunk driving tends to fall into a gray area of morality, or in some cases (in my experience, very rural locales with very little meaningful road traffic), an accepted norm.
Almost nobody I know that lives in an urban US area drives drunk or finds it acceptable. This becomes more lax among my suburban friends and acquaintances. For some of my more rural acquaintances, taking a 6 pack along for consumption during a drive is typical behavior that nobody in their community even bats an eye at.
> Since the US hasn't shown many signs for cracking down on drunk driving…
Kind of curious where you live because the police seem to only look for drunk drivers these days, for the money.
In Phoenix you have to make the police do their job (like take their bumper off) if they don’t think you’ve been drinking because they know they just have to wait a bit to write up a big-dollar ticket.
Not, primarily, via payment to the state for using the road, true.
They do, however, pay for liability of general road rules violations, instead, through mandatory insurance, also a general legal requirement for using public roads, though you can opt out from the risk pooling nature of insurance in most (all?) states by assuring (via a personal liability bond) that you will pay for the damages you cause up to the threshold amount of required coverage.
Public road use simply isn't something that is cost free with the idea that “well, a bunch of people will be damaged, but there is no need to assure that those damages are reasonably covered because other people will benefit”, it has lots of costs associated with use, and a number of them (both the licensing regime and the insurance regime) are about limiting harms even at the expense of potential beneficial use and assuring compensation is available for those that are harmed. Yes, its an elaborate and different regime than paying to the supplier who pays for damages, but a regime exists, so its hardly an example of how no such regime is necessary for a service that has benefits for most users and acute harms for some.
reply