« Time for nuclear power | Main | Chiefs ticket prices »

March 06, 2008

Let’s prevent the accidents

The article on highway congestion after accidents (3/2, A-1, “KC needs quicker relief; State, local officials devising new, faster remedies to restore healthy traffic flow”) was excellent and mentioned several solutions. But it left out one of the best possible ones, namely prevention.

I realize that was not the purpose of the article, but to leave it out places the onus of responsibility on the wrong folks.

Here are some simple examples.

  1. Better speed limit enforcement.
  2. Better enforcement of aggressive driving and driving to close laws.
  3. More traffic checks for drunken drivers and those without a license.
  4. Breathalyzer units in cars of anyone convicted of driving under the influence.
  5. Requiring bars to alert law enforcement of customers leaving who may have had too much to drink.

G. David Dixon, MD



Probably the same reason people bitch and moan about the price of Hannah Montana tickets.


i figured you were being facetious- but like sarcasm, sometimes that can be hard to detect in print. I just wanted to check to make sure I don't go home from work confused today (although I am still baffled as to why people want to see the movie 10000 BC, but that is another topic in its entirety).


stone - I am being facetious.
I am not a Republican either. My beliefs fall more in line with the Constitution.
I definitely have zero faith or tolerance of government running my finances, although they mandate a majority of our budget.
Personally I think the limits for being "legally drunk" are bogus, field sobriety tests for example have been proven to be inconclusive as to impairment of a person. Not to say people should be driving around inebriated but there is a big difference between drinking a few drinks and drinking fraternity style.
So the answer is ,"NO", I am not for more government in most areas, only the areas they are directed in the Constitution, running family budgets is not one of those areas nor is confiscating profits to attempt to control pricing in a free market economy.


I'm a little confused still. So you are endorsing (unrealistically like you said, as you stated it would never happen)that the government should step in and run our lives even more?
This concept confuses me for the most part on both sides of the political spectrum- as a generalization- republicans seem to want less gov't interference with $$ and that type of things, but more gov't interference in social attitudes (drinking laws, drug laws, abortion, that type of thing), where liberals seem to want more gov't interference in $$ affairs, and less gov't interference in social attitudes. Each side seems to want big gov't where it finds it convenient and small gov't where it finds it convenient which is ludicrous. You can't have it both ways. Each side needs to make a pick: all big gov't, or all small gov't.

By the way, this crap should be states decisions anyways, not the feds.


Automate all bar equipment and just like traffic intersections, have big brother watching. Good idea for public safety or not, it will NEVER happen.
Public safety is an illusion, government cares about one thing and one thing only. BENJAMINS! Noting is done for the best interest of anyone, courts and government for the most part are in place to generate through extrotion and comliance measures, continuous, infinite revenue for itself and the crooks that run it.
Moral integrity and compass versus what is legal do not coencide. What's legal may very well be immoral and vice versa.


just a quick question-
if you utilize the bar code for all patrons, how would the bar differentiate from people who are driving home and are NOT driving home (i.e., they have a DD or didn't drive there in the first place). The simple answer is just asking the person, going on an honor system- but in all reality, how many people would actually "honor" that system? (not saying it is a bad idea, just wondering how to get over the hurdle of it without deflating bar profits by making it illegal for them to sell alcohol to intoxicated people who aren't driving)


Government should simply implement the techonolgy to control vehicles with remote intervention. If saety and compliance are the concern, the answer is to either control the problem or enforce harsh penalties on non-compliance. Allow one speeding ticket per driver per lifetime, after that the penatly increases, at 3 times it is a felony. DUI. Utilize the bar oce or magnetic swipe on DLs and have a pin # that the holder must input before being able to purchase alcohol. After the legal limit you can not purchase any more. Simple enough, problem solved.


There is already a body of law, the so-called "dram shop laws" that hold bars & restaurants responsible for selling an obviously intoxicated person more liquor and that person having an accident. Every responsible bar owner has a relationship with at least one local cab company. They will also attempt to get friends to drive an intoxicated customer home.

Does this work perfectly? Of course not. But adding a new body of law on top of one already in existance is over kill.


Dr Dixon makes a good point about Breathalyzer units in a car owned by a convicted drunk driver. His other 4 suggestions (more traffic tickets and arrests), would tie up law enforcement more than could be acceptable, considering all the calls they deal with.

About KansasCity.com | About the Real Cities Network | Terms of Use & Privacy Statement | About Knight Ridder | Copyright