Worst article of the week — give drunk drivers a break?
The Tennesean gets this week’s nod for worst article of the week. We certainly wouldn’t accuse the author Sarah Longwell of being a forlorned alcoholic, but she sure does make a case for raising the BAC limits and slowing enforcement!
Bravo Sarah! I just pray that you or one of your family members does not fall victim to those you seem to support! Having been in a fatal drunk driving accident myself (I wasn’t drinking and don’t seem to be dead yet) I have to ask… what the heck is your problem? You support seeing more blood on our highways instead of less? I suspect if you like me ended up with your car crashed into a telephone pole and a dead guy lying on the pavement next to it, you might think differently, but as it is, seems you’re still “the other guy”. You certainly speak as one confident trauma injury or death will never come your way, I pray it does not.
In the article, she seems to try to make the case that a 10% drop in DUI fatalities means the war is won. I guess she’s betting that no one she loves is going to fall into that 90% category. I would not wish trauma injury or death on my worst enemy, I’ve been through the former and seen the latter unfold from behind the wheel and walked away (only because of seatbelts), but to write such irrisponsible words as if “it’s never going to happen to me is foolhearty.
The fact is that at some point, there must be a nexus between increased safety education, tougher seatbelt laws and increased enforcement of same in highway death statistics. To say or intimate that 10% fewer people are driving drunk is “alcoholic thinking” in our humble opinion. We are not anti-alcohol, neither is MADD, we just have a problem with people driving impaired.
The roads are safer because of new laws and enforcement. It doesn’t necessarily mean that there are fewer drunk driving crashes, though there may be, but somewhere in the equation, safety surely plays a role—many states have seen over a 10% up tick in seatbelt usage, it’s ridiculous to think that doesn’t play a role in fatality statistics.
It should grieve everyone when someone with a soapbox supports drinking and driving, however veiled that support seems, it is support none-the-less.
There has been a lot of people lately spitting epithets at MADD. As it turns out they are “mad” for a reason, as most have lost ones dear to them and loved by them to a drunk driver. How dare they try to save lives! The nerve!
According to NHSTA in 2007 there were on 41,059 traffic fatalities on our roads; 12,998 were due to alcohol impared driving, fully 31.7% of all fatalities, many at the hands of drunk drivers, some others, drunk drivers themselves. How the nation finds this largely acceptable is beyond me. I cried as much as anyone on 9/11, I stood in resolve with the nation that we would never fall victim to that again, yet we as a nation suffer through 3 9/11’s per year that are totally preventable, and we seem complacent! We seem to accept it as “normal” until it touches our lives. War is what MADD is waging, war is what’s required, EVERYONE should support that.
If the loss of a single life to a drunk driver was actually funny, this article by the Tennesean would be a hoot, but it’s just sad commentary by someone living a fantisy of comfort and safety guarenteed. Sarah, it is not.
The article: Some are twisting drunken driving statistics to drive an agenda
Drive an agenda… saving lives is now an agenda? Oh, wait! It is! A darned important one!
You may address your outrage here if you like:
Editor & VP/Content & Audience Development Mark Silverman, (615) 259‑8003 msilverman@tennessean.com
Those that want to put my ire in context can read my story, but I warn you, it’s not an easy read.
Trauma survivors and their families can find support and help here: Trauma Survivors Network.
To join in supporting the fight against drunk driving (that is for the “adgenda” I guess) Visit MADD and contribute!
