RSS
Twitter
Facebook
YouTubeThis is one of those random polls that don't really mean anything and can easily be de-bunked, but I think its an interesting question.
Columbus Underground Messageboard » General Columbus Discussion
Columbus is 5th in the nation for Drunk Driving.
[28 posts] [13 contributors]
Topic Rating:
(Total Ratings: )
Rate this topic:
Rate this topic:
-
cyclist II
Short North & Peach District
Login to Send PM
Posted 1 year ago # -
cc
Login to Send PM
Cookie wrote >>
cyclist II wrote >>
This is one of those random polls that don't really mean anything and can easily be de-bunked ...It really isn't.
????
What pushes one city to the top over another? A city's record for drunk driving convictions could have many reasons:
More drinkers and partiers in general
Less public transportation, so more bar-hoppers are driving home
Better enforcement of DUI laws, so more convictions
----
Their 'methodology' was to look at data on people admitting to an alcohol infraction while looking for an insurance quote at insurance.com...There are a lot of reasons why this is flawed, especially since many drunk drivers (esp repeat offenders) do not have insurance.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Core_Models
Columbus
Login to Send PM
Strange too, because with convictions being public record, I wouldn't think it would be that hard to do these numbers the right way.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Joseph L. Harris
Dublinish
Login to Send PM
WOOOOO!! OSU!
Posted 1 year ago # -
CrossXCountry
Fairfield
Login to Send PM
I just read on roadrunner.com the top 20 most dangerous states for drivers, and ohio wasnt even mentioned. So i dont know if columbus is really 5th in the nation...
Posted 1 year ago # -
Joseph L. Harris
Dublinish
Login to Send PM
-
thefiercelime
the 4th Dimension
Login to Send PM
I'd love to live in a city where I could hit the subway or train 24/7. DUIs are fundraisers for the state, right? Anyone know where those funds are applied?
Is this for real? (Source: HPD officer's pay tops $172,000 (Houston Chronicle, 4/23/2006):
"Houston Police Officers Make Big Money on DUI
Each drunk driving arrest puts money in the pocket of Houston, Texas police officers who boost salaries up to $172,000 a year through overtime.Police officers in Houston, Texas are earning massive salaries by arresting individuals for drunk driving. As part of a Driving While Intoxicated Task Force, Officer William Lindsey, Jr. earned $172,576 last year -- $7,000 more than the city's mayor, Bill White. Sergeant Edward Robinson made $161,722.
The task force uses state and federal money to pay overtime for operations intended to curb drunk driving. Officers earn one-and-a-half times the normal salary to attend court proceedings or work patrols and roadblocks on days off or long shifts. Lindsey's overtime amounted to $100,000 and Robinson's to $76,055 in 2005. The Houston Chronicle calculated the average salary of the eight task force members at $103,000.
In general, task force officers work late at night, from 9pm to 7am from Wednesday through Saturday. For each arrest, they must make a court appearance where they earn the extra pay. At times, three or four Houston officers will testify during a single drunk driving trial. The state police general practice is to send just one officer to a trial."
Massive DUI arrests are almost as nauseating as the war machine's exploitation on a smaller scale. From a distance, it all looks the same to me. The state makes a shi$ ton of money and rationalizes their gain and your loss by emphasizing that this is, afterall, all about our safety (and nothing else could be more important than that!): "Hey, we're just looking out for you. That's our job."
You'd think a wild gang of terrorists were conspiring to steal our cars and go racing on our sidewalks plastered out of their minds, mowing down packs of innocent women and children all day when you consider the colossal fines the state is collecting. The law makes sense, but, how it is applied seems to be increasingly exploited for the state's gain, not our safety. It's heading toward no tolerance and we may arrive there during our lifetime.
I fantasize about ending our war efforts and using that money to create a world-class infrastructure. See how many DUIs you get, then. Cars are a massive waste of energy. They should really be a luxury and not a necessity for traveling throughout the U.S.
We could be making this country a paradise with all of the money our so-called leaders are pouring into the middle of a desert in the Middle-East. I'm a little exhausted with watching the PNAC go right down their hit list (Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Syria...blah, blah, blah and yawn) with nary a word of dissent.
You'd think in an open society of free, educated people there'd be an uprise against the boldly sinister political minions, the corporate slaves who drive this once great nation to endless, needless wars.
It's like the dumbest Dr. Seuss book you'll ever watch unfold.
We sit back and laugh having been through the movie before, perhaps (?), and watch the retards play our future out. Otherwise, people would be buying tanks and flamethrowers and killing these fu#$ers, right? We might conclude that our indifference, our savage servility is the noblest choice, after all.Who knows? It's a fascinating ride, either way, but, I'm pretty sure the revolution won't be televised because there's not going to be one.
Posted 1 year ago # -
TaraK
probably at the coffee shop
Login to Send PM
I'm always baffled when DUIs come up and folks blame it on the lack of better public transport. Where does that logic work? I mean, you knew the situation when you were sober, made the choice to drink without a driver or arrangement, then, what, blame the city? Having lived in places with no public transport at all, I can vouch that even college students are perfectly capable of planning their night to include a sober driver or to stay in.
Posted 1 year ago # -
rus
Login to Send PM
TaraK wrote >>
I'm always baffled when DUIs come up and folks blame it on the lack of better public transport. Where does that logic work? I mean, you knew the situation when you were sober, made the choice to drink without a driver or arrangement, then, what, blame the city? Having lived in places with no public transport at all, I can vouch that even college students are perfectly capable of planning their night to include a sober driver or to stay in.That involves personal responsibility.
Posted 1 year ago # -
thefiercelime
the 4th Dimension
Login to Send PM
If they are blaming their wreckless driving on the city, of course that's illogical. If they're suggesting that available access to mass transportation is a better option than letting drunks decide if they want to stay put or line the state's pockets with their hard-earned cash, that's quite another story. It's clearly not one or the other.
Posted 1 year ago # -
thefiercelime
the 4th Dimension
Login to Send PM
As well, the state's conservative view on what it means to be impaired while driving, the legal limits that are set are skewed toward fining the driver not protecting you from the driver. The trend is to continually lower the legal limit toward no tolerance and watch the $$$ roll in. It's like shooting fish in a barrel. Someone has 3 drinks and they are a threat to society (They are, after all,out past the witching hour! The horror!) and should be heavily fined because we know that someone else who had 30 drinks somewhere else has killed someone.
I always wonder how that translates to gun control. I mean having a loaded gun while you're sober is like, well, having a loaded gun. Should they not all be arrested? Statistics show time and time again that people with guns kill people. Who knows? Maybe the Bill of Rights should have granted Sam Adams and the rest of us the right to wield heavy machinery while intoxicated in order to keep the Feds in check or protect ourselves from the terrorists. I really have no idea.
The vast majority of arrests are made after 11pm EST when no one else is on the road besides the driver and the officer. The vast majority of officers don't know how to properly administer a sobriety test and those tests by design are intended for the driver to fail.
Posted 1 year ago # -
TaraK
probably at the coffee shop
Login to Send PM
thefiercelime wrote >>
It's like shooting fish in a barrel. Someone has 3 drinks and they are a threat to society (They are, after all,out past the witching hour! The horror!) and should be heavily fined because we know that someone else who had 30 drinks somewhere else has killed someone.
.Driving after three drinks is okay? I know it wouldn't be for me, though my drinks are usually wine or cocktails.
Posted 1 year ago # -
thefiercelime
the 4th Dimension
Login to Send PM
Are you asking if this: "Someone has 3 drinks and they are a threat to society (They are, after all, out past the witching hour! The horror!) and should be heavily fined because we know that someone else who had 30 drinks somewhere else has killed someone."
equals this?: "Driving after three drinks is okay."
No.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Core_Models
Columbus
Login to Send PM
alove wrote >>
Because our city is too car-dependent. It would be nice to ride the light rail home after drinking.If you can afford a night out drinking you can afford to take a cab home after. It has nothing to do with light rail or better buses. The people who are choosing not to pony up cab fare and drive drunk aren't suddenly going to pay to hop on a train.
Posted 1 year ago # -
alove
Downtown
Login to Send PM
Well for one, I kind of take back what I said because numbers 1-4 all have light rail... hahah
BUT if Columbus built something similar to the north corridor light rail line, TONS of people would use it, including people going to bars around downtown, SN and Old North. You said people who wouldn't use a cab would not use light rail, but I have to disagree.
Posted 1 year ago # -
thefiercelime
the 4th Dimension
Login to Send PM
Core_Models wrote >>
alove wrote >>
Because our city is too car-dependent. It would be nice to ride the light rail home after drinking.If you can afford a night out drinking you can afford to take a cab home after. It has nothing to do with light rail or better buses. The people who are choosing not to pony up cab fare and drive drunk aren't suddenly going to pay to hop on a train.
Wait, wait, wait. You don't think people would find it more convenient to make a quick hop on a train than to wait around for a cab and pay loads more for the ride? How would we determine that for them? I can only go by personal experience. When given the option it's whatever is more convenient at the time (train or cab), but, both of those options are way more convenient than getting outrageously fined and losing my driving privileges. My point is that there's no need for a car when mass transit is efficient.
Posted 1 year ago #
You must log in to post.
Launched in August 2010, TheMetropreneur.com is a local online resource devoted to small business development and entrepreneurship. Its aim is to tell the stories of Central Ohio's business community, foster regional economic development and assist entrepreneurs with its resource-heavy focus.