Study: Penalties no deterrent for drunken drivers

---

The first "pitch-man" bubbled his way to fame in 1866.  George Leybourne penned some songs about getting sloshed on champagne, rechristened himself "Champagne Charlie" and was the toast (literally) of Victorian England.  Dressed in the height of ‘fast’ fashion, in bow tie and tails he would swig from a bottle of Moët declaring his love for the high life and women. (from http://www.peopleplayuk.org.)  Seizing on his fame and sex appeal, the Moet & Chandon champagne manufacturers commissioned him as their spokesman.  Soon thereafter, a rival champagne manufacturer, Clicquot, hired "The Great Vance."  The gambits worked and the celebrity endorsement was born.

True to his songs, Champagne Charlie really had a love for the stuff.  He died of alcoholism at the age of 44.

Thanks to Ian Lender's book Alcoholica Esoterica, Wikipedia and cited web sources for the information contained herein.

The DataMaster DMT represents many new firsts in the industry:

Touch screen graphics capable display Powerful embedded PC Real-time critical instrument data such as internal voltages, temperatures etc. (locally or remotely) Real-time adjustment of voltages in the unit without the need to open the unit (locally or remotely) Real-time graphic display of both the breath profile and alcohol curve during a subject test Full color printouts of breath profile and alcohol curve as part of the test ticket Local access to previous tests without the need for special software Windows media player audio and video capabilities

This also allowed our engineering section to enhance other aspects of the DataMaster DMT. The DataMaster DMT is a truly lightweight portable unit capable of being used on a wide range of AC power and on 12VDC in mobile use. Future development includes a model using an internal battery. The added processing power at our disposal also allowed for the upgrade of some components used in the analytical portion to allow for better power management and enhanced reliability.

The modular design of the DataMaster DMT also provides for easy service access. The use of surface mount PCB's were avoided (except for off the shelf parts) allowing board level service on the instrument without the need to invest in expensive soldering equipment. The graphics capable screen also allows for the measurement of some internal voltage traces on a grid display.

This information, along with more information on the BAC DataMaster line of products can be found at: http://www.npas.com/

This month's online edition of Reason Magazine has a great article on the history of American religious movements.  It ponders the question; are we reaching the end of the Fourth Great Awakening.  The article has some great insight on the dynamics of the Prohibition debate.  Please visit: http://www.reason.com/news/show/124939.html

"I tell you that the curse of God Almighty is on the saloon." -Billy Sunday

Too many religious types call for the complete prohibition of alcohol due to their inability to control themselves or a maniacal desire to make sure no one, anywhere has any fun.  Their rational: If your right hand offends thee cut if off, and if I can't control my right hand surely you can't!  So, I want a law cutting off all right hands.

Our friends at www.jesus-is-savior.com crystalize the argument like this:

Many fireworks were banned across America over the past few decades because of all the people being severely injured.  "Cherry bombs" were a favorite firework of children decades ago (much like the more recent M-80 firecracker, which is also illegal).  Yet, most of the fireworks victims did not die.   Many were blinded, other were severely burned, but few died.  Alcohol is a leading cause of death in the United States.  SO why won't legislators pass laws to make alcohol illegal?

Traditional arguments about freedom and history fall one deaf ears. 

 Perhaps you say, "This is a free country and people need to face the consequences of their actions, you can't make everything illegal."  I would agree with that wholeheartedly; however, people have not faced the consequences of their actions.  Drunk drivers rarely receive life in prison for murders committed.  Someone (s) died because of their deliberate negligence, something drastic needs to be done.  If enough drunk drivers started getting LIFE behind bars...many people would start to think hard before chugging down any beer at all.

Yeah, life in prison for negligence.  How many corporations or pharmecutical manufacturers want that as our standard of justice?  Perhaps our friends forget that the first (and best?) miracle of Jesus was to turn disgusting water into glorious wine so as to save an otherwise dull wedding.  The early Christians (who were not Americans like Jesus) introduced wine into their religious ceremonies to commemorate the most important remeberance of the savior.  Conclusion: The Prohibitionists are anti-Jesus.

"The history of drinking is an alternate history of the world  Every advance in civilization has been accompanied by a step forward in mixology.  Agriculture gave us vineyards, copper gave us distilling, coal furnaces gave us glass bottles and rubber hosing gave us beer bongs." (Lendler, Alcoholica Esoterica).  Conclusion: The Prohibitionists are anti-history (which is another way of saying anti-intellectual)(which is another way of saying stupid).

Many of the hearty English sailors aboard the Mayflower forced the Pilgrims out of their boat and onto Plymouth Rock because they were worried about running out of beer on their return trip.  Thereby making the very foundations of our country a statement about the necessity of beer! Conclusion: The Prohibitionists are anti-Pilgrim.

The fifty-five (55) founding fathers who sign the United States Constitution in 1787 then throw a  party consisting of 54 bottles of Madeira, 60 bottles of claret, 8 bottles of whiskey, 22 bottles of port, 8 bottles of hard cider, 12 beers and seven bowls of alcoholic punch.  During his presidency, Thomas Jefferson runs up the modern-day equivalent of a $103,000 bar bill.  Conclusion: The Prohibitionists are anti-Founding Father and anti-Constitutionalists.

In 1789 a Baptist minister Elijah Craig invents bourbon in Georgetown, Kentucky.  Conclusion: The Prohibitionists are anti-Baptists who hate Kentucky.

In 1814 a drunkard named Andrew Jackson defeats a numerically superior English force in the Battle of New Orleans. Conclusion: The Prohibitionists are pro-British American haters.

In 1862, a drunk General Ulysses S. Grant saves the Union from destruction.  Prohibitionists warn Lincoln about Grant's booze guzzling habits.  He responds, "Find out the name of the brand so I can give it to my other generals."  Conclusion: Prohibitionists are pro-slavery American hating seditionists who tried to undermine the good judgment of Abraham Lincoln in a time of war.

About 1900 Pablo Picasso (big absinthe fan) produces a revolution in art that changes the way the Western world views itself.  Conclusion: The Prohibitionists hate good art.

From 1920 to 1929 Carrie Nation, the Women's Temprance League and the right-wing churches succeed in getting booze officially banned.  Every U.S. city has a speakeasy and every rich person still gets good hooch and the good-ol-boys head to the stills.  During prohibition 700 million gallons of beer is illegally made and consumed in America.  After failing miserably and seeing us sober for nine years women beg for the bars to be reopened.  Conclusion: Prohibitionists were wrong then and their wrong now.

Major booze-hounds Winston Churchill and F.D.R. defeated the Nazis and that teetotaler Adolf Hitler.  Conclusion: The Prohibitionists are pro-Nazi American haters.

1945-1960: Real men drink real drinks!  Americans enjoy prosperity and happy hour.  The greatest generation.  Also, America falls in love with the south seas.  Conclusion: The Prohibitionists hate men, traditional values and Hawaii.

1960-1980: The hippies give the prohibitionists something else to worry about.  Conclusion: Prohibitionists were wrong then and their wrong now.

From 1980 to 2000, the Prohibitionists get consolidated behind Jerry Falwell and his moral majority.  They immediately start a War on Drugs and increase the severity of laws against all forms of alcohol and raise the age for drinking to 21 (its still ok to die for your country at 18 however).  The rise of televangelism and talk radio give them power like never before in government and they use this power to elect George W. Bush President of the United States.  Conclusion: Draw your own!  Isn't it time we saw these right-wing teetotalers for what they are?

The church is near but the road is icy.  The bar is far away but I will walk carefully. (Russian Proverb)

Thanks to the following books for some of the above material: The Modern Drunkard (Rich); Alcohoica Esoterica (Lendler); Drug War Facts (LEAP) and every good history teacher and bartender who ever lived.

If you are interested in an update to the hate map, pleease visit, http://www.splcenter.org/intel/map/hate.jsp.

This site is sponsored by the Souther Poverty Law Center.

THURSDAY, June 29 (HealthDay News) -- Maneuvering through traffic while talking on the phone increases the likelihood of an accident five-fold and is actually more dangerous than driving drunk, U.S. researchers report.

That finding held true whether the driver was holding a cell phone or using a hands-free device, the researchers noted.

"As a society, we have agreed on not tolerating the risk associated with drunk driving," said researcher Frank Drews, an assistant professor of psychology at the University of Utah. "This study shows us that somebody who is conversing on a cell phone is exposing him or herself and others to a similar risk -- cell phones actually are a higher risk," he said.

His team's report appears in the summer issue of the journal Human Factors.

In the study, 40 people followed a pace car along a prescribed course, using a driving simulator. Some people drove while talking on a cell phone, others navigated while drunk (meaning their blood-alcohol limit matched the legal limit of 0.08 percent), and others drove with no such distractions or impairments.

"We found an increased accident rate when people were conversing on the cell phone," Drews said. Drivers on cell phones were 5.36 times more likely to get in an accident than non-distracted drivers, the researchers found.

The phone users fared even worse than the inebriated, the Utah team found. There were three accidents among those talking on cell phones -- all of them involving a rear-ending of the pace car. In contrast, there were no accidents recorded among participants who were drunk, or the sober, cell-phone-free group.

The bottom line: Cell-phone use was linked to "a significant increase in the accident rate," Drews said.

He said there was a difference between the behaviors of drunk drivers and those who were talking on the phone. Drunk drivers tended to be aggressive, while those talking on the phone were more sluggish, Drews said.

In addition, the researchers found talking on the cell phone reduce reaction time by 9 percent in terms of braking and 19 percent in terms of picking up speed after braking. "This is significant, because it has an impact on traffic as a system," Drews said. "If we have drivers who are taking a lot of time in accelerating once having slowed down, the overall flow of traffic is dramatically reduced," he said.

In response to safety concerns, some states have outlawed the use of hand-held cell phones while driving. But that type of legislation may not be effective, because the Utah researchers found no difference in driver performance whether the driver was holding the phone or talking on a hands-free model.

"We have seen again and again that there is no difference between hands-free and hand-held devices," Drews said. "The problem is the conversation," he added.

According to Drews, drivers talking on the phone are paying attention to the conversation -- not their driving. "Drivers are not perceiving the driving environment," he said. "We found 50 percent of the visual information wasn't processed at all -- this could be a red light. This increases the risk of getting into an accident dramatically," he said.

The reason that there aren't more accidents linked to cell phone use is probably due to the reactions of other -- more alert -- drivers, Drews said. "Currently, our system seems to be able to handle 8 percent of cell-phone drivers, because other drivers are paying attention," he said. "They are compensating for the errors these drivers are causing," he speculated.

This is a growing public health problem, Drews said. As more people are talking and driving, the accident rate will go up, he said.

One expert agreed that driving and cell phone use can be a deadly mix.

"We don't believe talking on a cell phone while driving is safe," said Rae Tyson, a spokesman for the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). "It is a level of distraction that can affect your driving performance," he said.

NHTSA has just completed a study that showed that 75 percent of all traffic accidents were preceded by some type of driver distraction, Tyson said.

Tyson pointed out that talking on the phone is very different than talking to the person in the passenger seat. "If you are engaged in a conversation with a passenger, the passenger has some situational awareness, whereas a person on the phone has no idea what you are dealing with on the road," he said.

"Our recommendation is that you should not talk on the phone while driving, whether it's a hand-held or hand-free device," Tyson said. "We realize that a lot of people believe that they can multi-task, and in a lot of situations they probably can, but it's that moment when you need your full attention, and it's not there because you are busy talking, that you increase the likelihood that you are going to be involved in a crash," he said.

Tyson also sees this as a growing public health issue. "Every time we do a survey, there are more people using cell phones while driving," he said. "And the popularity of hand-held devices like Palm Pilots or Blackberries, and people using them in the car, is another problem," he added.

An industry spokesman said cell phones don't cause accidents, people do.

"If cell phones were truly the culprit some studies make them out to be, it's only logical that we'd see a huge spike in the number of accidents [since their introduction]," said John Walls, a vice president at the industry group, the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association-The Wireless Association. "To the contrary, we've experienced a decline in accidents, and an even more impressive decline in the accident rate per million miles driven," he said.

"We believe educating drivers on how to best handle all of the possible distractions when you're behind the wheel is the most effective means to make better drivers, and that legislation focusing on a specific behavior falls short of that well-intended goal and creates a false sense of security," Walls said.

For more on cell phones and driving, head to the National Safety Council.