don't drink and drive

November 19, 2003 10:29 AM

don't drink and drive
posted by crunchland (54 comments total)

Thought the last link to her story was more interesting...
posted by jburka at 10:32 AM on November 19, 2003

AgendaFilter?
posted by rushmc at 10:34 AM on November 19, 2003

I dunno rushmc, you'd have to go a long way to find someone in favor of drunk driving.
posted by jonmc at 10:38 AM on November 19, 2003

Dag. Nice message, but sheesh - you shoulda mentioned that you shouldn't view this while you are eating, crunch. That was just freakin' nasty.

Ah well... needed to diet anyway...
posted by Perigee at 10:41 AM on November 19, 2003

wow

come on rushmc, don't be a prick
posted by jmgorman at 10:42 AM on November 19, 2003

now i need a drink
posted by hackly_fracture at 10:45 AM on November 19, 2003

Do messages like that dissuade anyone from driving drunk? I saw a bunch of poignant, clever or grisly PSAs about the topic when I was a kid. I still drove while intoxicated a few times in college, because I was young, stupid, hungry and drunk.

Seriously, what's a good deterrent for that behavior besides the laws already in place and more responsible friends than yerfatma, who was always riding shotgun when I did it?
posted by Mayor Curley at 10:48 AM on November 19, 2003

As someone who has unwisely driven intoxicated in the past... I thank my lucky stars nothing bad has resulted. Imaginie having that on your conscience for the rest of your life. It's kindof a selfish way to an end, but if it keeps something like this from happening even just 1% of the time...
posted by LoopSouth at 10:48 AM on November 19, 2003

Here's the link for the public service announcement and poster she did.
posted by gummi at 10:50 AM on November 19, 2003

I have to agree with rushmc - crunchland's post brings up a worthwhile topic, but it's presented more in the manner of a typical "check it out" link at madville, fark or even the somethingawful forums.

On preview: gummi's post adds a better sense of context to the victim's story. Kudos.
posted by Smart Dalek at 10:55 AM on November 19, 2003

come on rushmc, don't be a prick

You must be new here.
posted by Skot at 11:00 AM on November 19, 2003

...crunchland's post brings up a worthwhile topic, but it's presented more in the manner of a typical "check it out" link at madville, fark or even the somethingawful forums.

I tend to think crunch avoided the "public service announcement" format with good reason, and more people will see the link because of it.

Jacqueline is a brave kid.
posted by Shane at 11:02 AM on November 19, 2003

An friend of mine sat on the jury for the trial of the guy who hit Jaqueline (and several friends who were killed). Between having to sit there all day long for three weeks looking at Jacqui's ravaged face across the room, and just hearing all the testimony, it was a very rough experience for my friend.
posted by tippiedog at 11:06 AM on November 19, 2003

Jeezus. One of my greatest fears in life is that my children or wife will be struck by a drunk driver.

If you injure or kill someone as a result of driving while intoxicated, I have no problem with the death penalty. There is never - NEVER - an excuse or reason to drive while drunk (or stoned, etc).
posted by davidmsc at 11:06 AM on November 19, 2003

I have just one question:

How come you never hear about losers getting killed or disfigured because they were in an accident with a drunk driver? It's always the people who were "special", "movitivated", "good athletes", or "excellent students", not the guy with an IQ of 90 who worked a shit job at the local KFC for six years and had absolutely nothing going for him?
posted by Captain_Tenille at 11:09 AM on November 19, 2003

My heart goes out to tippiedog's friend. Hopefully he or she has been able to cobble together some semblance of a normal life in the wake of this tragic three-day experience.
posted by stupidsexyFlanders at 11:14 AM on November 19, 2003

Timely. Jacqui was just on Oprah on Monday. (Kudos to the Austin-American Statesman for keeping its special report updated.)

OnPreview: Capt. Tenille, it's human nature in cases like these to focus less on the person that was than the person that could have been. A KFC employee killed under tragic circumstances could still have made a difference - we'd just never know.
posted by pzarquon at 11:17 AM on November 19, 2003

Like many people, there was a time that I was dumb enough to drive drunk, and to be driven by drunks.

Now I won't tolerate it, and I'll pay for taxis and/or hotel rooms before I let me or my friends drive drunk. It's a small price to pay compared to the alternative.
posted by mosch at 11:17 AM on November 19, 2003

Oh, and Captain_Tenille: If we have learned anything from the New York Times' 9/11 "Portraits Of Grief," it is that no people with unattractive traits ever die. I find this very comforting, personally.
posted by stupidsexyFlanders at 11:17 AM on November 19, 2003

Jesus. Thanks, crunchland. I hope there's no denial going on amongst some in this thread.
posted by carter at 11:25 AM on November 19, 2003

There is never an excuse or reason to drive while ... stoned.

Flag on the play. This is an unsupportable statement.
posted by sudama at 11:27 AM on November 19, 2003

Flag on the play. This is an unsupportable statement.

Yeah, totally. What if you had, like, glaucoma and shit and you got really tense when you were driving? Also, if that were true it would, like, totally suck to listen to Primus in the car. Plus, a completely objective article from the Center For Kind Bud Research said that pot makes you drive a million times better.
posted by Mayor Curley at 11:35 AM on November 19, 2003

I've read Jacqui's story before, and it's heartwrenching. But, like Perigee said, it might've been nice to put some sort of advisory. Just like the current crop of Ronald McDonald House commercials...OK, I'm glad the cleft palate baby got the necessary treatment, but that doesn't mean I want to see pictures while I'm eating dinner. I suppose that makes me cruel and unfeeling.
posted by Oriole Adams at 11:36 AM on November 19, 2003

Flag on the play. This is an unsupportable statement.

I think there is no excuse for driving while unnecessarily engaging in behaviour that reduces your reaction time in any way. This includes intoxicants but also making cell phone calls, fiddling with radio/stereo, feeding/drinking, feeding kids, hair/make-up, etc. Very roughly, every 1 mp.h. equals 1.5 feet per second. So, 50 m.p.h. (not an uncommon speed to try to beat a red light in an urban area) = approximately 75 fps. Every 0.1 second you lose. e.g. through having had a beer or spliff, or pressing redial = 7.5 feet; miss by 0.2 sec, that's the length of a car. Maybe 0.2 seconds would have made a difference to Jacqueline.
posted by carter at 11:37 AM on November 19, 2003

When I was younger, there's no doubt, there were times I shouldn't have been driving. But nowadays, anything more than a beer, and I'll call a taxi or just walk. I think sometimes it surprises people when I have three beers and say, I'll just walk home.

We all know drunk driving is STILL NOT being taken seriously in this country. People think unless they're stumbly drunk, they're fine to drive, when in reality they're not. Go into any bar in America and count the number of people who have 3+ beers and get in their car/pickup and drive home. The only way I know to change this in the slightest is to control what you can: yourself and the people you're with.
posted by patrickje at 11:45 AM on November 19, 2003

I think there is no excuse for driving while unnecessarily engaging in behaviour that reduces your reaction time in any way.

Does that include being old?
posted by rocketman at 11:47 AM on November 19, 2003

Yes, I guess so, if you have bad eyesight or reaction times. And why not, if you could be driving around in a three ton truck? But a very good point. Of course, I also think that people who could or should not drive, either temporarily or permanently, should be offered realistic transport alternatives, e.g. public transport, dial-a-ride for older folks, etc., so they can get on with their lives without endangering their fellow citizens.
posted by carter at 12:00 PM on November 19, 2003

Drunk Driving = BAD

However I also have to wonder if another moral of this story is that sometimes you can't control things that happen to you. She was not intoxicated and there was nothing she (or any of the rest of us sober, alert drivers) could do to prevent some other idiot from taking our lives in their hands.
posted by aaronscool at 12:04 PM on November 19, 2003

I think there is no excuse for driving while unnecessarily engaging in behaviour that reduces your reaction time in any way.

The judges will accept this answer.
posted by sudama at 12:04 PM on November 19, 2003

I was in high school in the late 70s, and I have to say that it seems there is a HUGE difference in the culture now vs. then re: impaired driving. Not enough, obviously, but judging at least by the PSAs, by the aggressive criminal penalties and by threads like this one, it seems much less acceptable now to get behind the wheel drunk or stoned. Back then you had Hunter Thompson yammering on and on about the joys of driving stoned; you had the sitcom MASH, basically an ode to being drunk; you had the "one-more-for-the-road" mindset passed down from our parents' generation... Can I get a reality check from someone younger -- do HS'ers and college-age kids really care about this today? It's hard to tell from law enforcement stats, which are skewed by changing focus on enforcement over time.
posted by stupidsexyFlanders at 12:07 PM on November 19, 2003

At my kids' high school there are a lot of drinking parties on the weekends. A lot of these kids have well-off parents who really don't provide them with enough supervision.

We are blessed that none of these kids are dead from drunk driving the past few years.
posted by konolia at 12:22 PM on November 19, 2003

I've been a volunteer firefighter over 24 years, and I can't recall seeing an accident where the car(s) has caught fire. But it can happen, and the combination of a gasoline-fueled fire and wreakage that is difficult to escape from is a horrible thing.

Anything that can take away from your ability to drive is a danger to you and others on the road. Drunk driving gets a lot of attention because it's detectable after the fact and doesn't rely on eyewitness testimony to show there was impairment at the time of the accident. It's also an easily preventable cause, and perhaps Jacqui's story can do something to prevent someone from doing so.
posted by tommasz at 1:07 PM on November 19, 2003

And from more than a year ago...
posted by gramcracker at 1:19 PM on November 19, 2003

Hey! Smoking pot and driving can reduce your reaction time but it doesn't happen like you see it in the commercials. A bunch of black guys hitting on a white fast food clerk, then plowing over a 5 year old white girl on a pink bicycle?

No dude, pot didn't do it. It's happening so slow that everyone gets used to it, but its PROPAGANDA.
posted by Keyser Soze at 1:27 PM on November 19, 2003

Some stats on "who's really doing the killing around here". Not that I'm a drunk-driver apologist, far from it, but 71% (ND) to 98% (DC) of fatality accidents are not caused by drunks.

Other than the fact that DUI is fairly preventable and tied with other social evils, why don't we hear more about some of these other causes? 'round these parts, tailgaters make up the majority of massive multiple-car pileups -- where's their PSA?
posted by Ogre Lawless at 1:35 PM on November 19, 2003

thanks for the link, Ogre.

"Speeding is a deliberate and calculated behavior where the driver knows the risk but ignores the danger. Fully 90% of all licensed drivers speed at some point in their driving career; 75% admit to committing this offense regularly."

so where are the PSAs for "don't speed"?
posted by mrgrimm at 2:07 PM on November 19, 2003

gramcracker, quite a different thread.
posted by tomplus2 at 2:10 PM on November 19, 2003

I don't know if anyone else noticed this, but there's another issue at play here. Jacqueline was driving a 60's to early 70's vintage car (I'd guess it to ge a Mustang perhaps). Cars still burst into flames a fair amount (2004 models too) but we can thank Ralph Nader for the vastly safer - and less combustible - cars we drive today. BTW, I'm not blaming Jacqueline for the tragedy at all, and I used to drive very flammable air-cooled Volkswagens myself. But "classic" cars, cool as they are, are a hell of a lot more dangerous to drive than modern cars.

To second Ogre Lawless' comment - One recent British study found cell phone use while driving to be more hazardous than drunk driving. This does not surprise me at all - whenever I try to do it, I'm all over the road. Eating while driving also ranks as very hazardous. Especially eating soup. In short, driving should not be mixed with any other type of activity.

Oh, and one more thing - SUV's have been determined to be extremely hazardous to other, smaller vehicles on the road due to their height and overall mass.

I find it typical of our society that we obsess over issues of personal responsibility while largely ignoring systemic factors which are wreaking far more mayhem, in terms of human suffering and death. Take auto pollution - Carbon Monoxide, airborne particulate, and ozone levels in cities and urban areas (and even in suburbia) wreak staggering havoc in terms of increased mortality rates and damage to health.

To quote the American Lung Association - "Air pollution contributes to lung disease, including respiratory tract infections, asthma, and lung cancer. Lung disease claims close to 335,000 lives in America every year and is the third-leading cause of death in the United States. Over the last decade, the death rate for lung disease has risen faster than that of any of the top five causes of death."

The numbers at question are not insignificant: " In California alone, particulates cause 3,000 deaths per year and an additional 60,000-200,000 cases of respiratory infections in children. "

And then there's the impact of the Carbon Monoxide, Ozone, Sulfur Dioxide...............But, hey: if those inner city 3 year olds are so irresponsible as to not be wearing organic vapor masks, well I guess it's their own damn fault if they develop severe asthma.
posted by troutfishing at 2:23 PM on November 19, 2003

Yeah, but it's faster and easier to stop the quick deaths.
posted by agregoli at 2:25 PM on November 19, 2003

agregoli - Really? The anti-drunk driving campaign has been going on for about 2 decades, I'd say, and I'd be willing to bet that the same energy applied to reducing pollution would have saved many more lives. Best to do both though.

But you're still basically correct - outlawing cellphone use while driving would be very quick, easy, and cheap to do (but for the cellphone lobby in D.C.).
posted by troutfishing at 2:48 PM on November 19, 2003

Here's another good piece on Jacqui.
posted by jennak at 2:51 PM on November 19, 2003

it seems there is a HUGE difference in the culture now vs. then re: impaired driving. . .Can I get a reality check from someone younger -- do HS'ers and college-age kids really care about this today?

I'm 24. When I was in high school I was a member of "Safe Rides," an organization thats sole purpose was to provide rides home, no questions asked. The hours were something like 10-3AM on Fridays and Saturdays and we'd have someone answering the phones and dispatching the drivers (several a night) and in each car a driver and a rider of the opposite gender. Buckets were provided for the backseat. I loved working Safe Rides, it was really fun to drive around or ride around all night.

One recent British study found cell phone use while driving to be more hazardous than drunk driving.

I love that in NY state a law has been passed prohibiting using a hand-held cell phone while driving, but studies have shown that hands-free cell phone usage is just as dangerous... how frustrating! Please do not use a cell phone while driving, period. Thank you.

Oh, and one more thing - SUV's have been determined to be extremely hazardous to other, smaller vehicles on the road due to their height and overall mass.

No comment.
posted by palegirl at 5:21 PM on November 19, 2003

That link should be posted yearly.

I think if I caused that sort of devastation to someone, I'd have to kill myself.
posted by five fresh fish at 7:11 PM on November 19, 2003

That link should be posted yearly.

Yes, because we all adjust our moral frameworks to accommodate pleas on websites. Particularly on unknown issues like driving while drinking, which none of us have ever had brought to our attention before.

In other news.....
posted by rushmc at 7:18 PM on November 19, 2003

Right. Far better to assume that posting the link would be futile, and let the chips fall where they may.
posted by five fresh fish at 7:25 PM on November 19, 2003

in other news, rushmc is an even bigger prick than anyone previously imagined.
posted by crunchland at 7:54 PM on November 19, 2003

palegirl (re: cellphones) - the basic problem is.......our brains just aren't big enough to accommodate the extra load! (though we wish, in the same way that my 20 pound dog wishes he could just raid the refrigerator at will).
posted by troutfishing at 7:59 PM on November 19, 2003

troutfishing: The car Jacqueline Saburido was riding in (she was in the passenger's seat, not the driver's) was a 1990 Oldsmobile, not a vintage car; although she did later file a lawsuit against General Motors claiming there was a design flaw in the fuel line of the car.
posted by Zulujines at 10:39 PM on November 19, 2003

No comment.
posted by palegirl at 8:21 PM EST on November 19

what?
posted by Zulujines at 10:42 PM on November 19, 2003

Hey, if it makes you feel all squishy and socially responsible inside, go for it.

Be sure to post PSAs instructing us to brush our teeth, sit up straight, and not talk with our mouths full, too.
posted by rushmc at 5:38 AM on November 20, 2003

Argue the post, rushmc. Which part of the guidelines was so egregiously ignored that you felt the need to chip in your sanctimonious two cents? Wasn't it you that felt that comments discussing post quality should be kept on MeTa? Didn't you, with your comment, attempt to derail a thread before it even began? Why not start holding yourself accountable?
posted by BlueTrain at 6:12 AM on November 20, 2003

Argue the post, rushmc.

That's the point, there's nothing to "argue" or discuss here. It's just a feel good (by feeling bad) love-in, in which we all agree, once again, that DUI is a bad, bad thing with bad consequences and congratulate ourselves on being so enlightened.

Which part of the guidelines was so egregiously ignored

A good post to MetaFilter is something that meets the following criteria: most people haven't seen it before, there is something interesting about the content on the page, and it might warrant discussion from others.

Just say no to witless, patronizing "Just Say No" soapbox agenda posts.
posted by rushmc at 6:22 AM on November 20, 2003

Zulujines - Oops. My bad. It was that pleated red vinyl seat that threw me off. But they tend to burst into flames, you say? I've wondered about why manufacturers can't put in a fail-safe on fuel injected cars to depressurize fuel rails in case of collisions.
posted by troutfishing at 7:41 AM on November 20, 2003

troutfishing: I don't know a thing about cars, to be honest. I think the lawsuit may just have been a way to help pay the medical bills, which are estimated to be somewhere around $10 million, total.

(and although no one asked for my sanctimonious two cents...)
rushmc: I see your point and I agree with it to a certain extent, although seeing as how this was a "feel good love-in", you had to know your comments were just going to piss everybody off.
posted by Zulujines at 2:01 AM on November 21, 2003