And yet accidents are caused by non-drinking drivers, too. Hmm, let's take all drivers off the road, throw them in prison and we could cut the road/highway accidents to almost zero.
Yes, non-drinking drivers cause accidents, too. But they cause(d) far less fatalities than non-drinkers, and also aren't inherently at a higher risk for accidents, both fatal and non-fatal. You can't throw someone in jail for being an asshole. You
can throw them in jail for being under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol while behind the wheel of a car, which is basically a rolling weapon.
So, ....what causes all of those accidents by non-drinking drivers? And just for the fun of it, ...how many accidents do non-drinking drivers cause?
Accidents, or fatalities? Accidents, I don't recall the number. Far more accidents are caused just by random other things, like not paying attention. But people who are drunk or high are putting themselves and others at far more risk.
What's the percentage of non-drinkiing fatal accidents? If it's a lot, couldn't we just throw everyone in jail and save all those people, too?
You're really either an idiot or just a disagreeable troll. I can't tell which. Like I said, before we started actually enforcing these laws (and before many of them were even enacted), drunk drivers were responsible for almost 80% of all traffic fatalities.
Doesn't matter if it's 100% ....that still does NOT say that ALL drinking drivers will have accidents, fatal or otherwise. In fact there are no statistics to show any RATE of accidents for the drinking drivers on the road.
We obviously have a philosophical disagreement here. No, not all drinking drivers have accidents. But before these laws were put into place, far more drunks were responsible for deaths than non-drunks, and that was a statistic that needed to be fixed. So the governments started being tougher on drunk drivers, and guess what? Not only did alcohol-related road fatalities fall, but the overall number of road fatalities fell.
Gazillions of drinking drivers never have a single accident ....and yet you're advocating persecuting them for something that they've never done. Odd, don't you think?
Gazillions? Care to back that number up with a real number?
Gang members commit virtually all of the gang-related violent crimes in the USA. So if we imprison all gang members, there'll be no more gang-related violent crimes. Pretty good, huh? Those guys might not have done anything yet, but by god we know that they might!
Gang members commit
virtually all gang-related violent crimes? How can anyone else commit gang-related violent crimes?
And we do throw people in jail before than can do real harm. Like when we catch people in pedophile stings, or drug stings, or when we catch people trying to hire someone to kill someone else.
But really, dude, you're comparing apples to oranges.
Oh, really?! Now we're getting somewhere ...let's see those stats that show/prove what drinking drivers "will probably do". That's all I ask, then if the answer is conclusive, then I'll switch to persecuting them thar drunk bastards, too! If we have 10,000 drivers who have been drinking, how many of them will be in accidents? How many will be in fatal accidents?
Well, consider that there are far fewer drunks on the road than sober people, and then think about the percentage of road fatalities that minority accounted for
before these laws were being enforced. You're going to tell me that nothing needed to change when a vast minority of drivers accounted for nearly 80% of the fatalities on the road?
4,208 - but I give the judge a sob story and being liberal doo-gooders, they always let me right back out on the road!
I really think you've got three or four. There's no other reason you'd be talking like this. I mean, I guess it fits your normally displayed idiocy, but this is ridiculous.
