Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There's a lot of $$$ the government can generate from "sin taxes" (think Colorado RMJ) that could help fund projects that can reduce the harm these "sins" cause, like drunk driving for example.
Here in Albuquerque we have a few safe ride / drunk taxi programs, but these services tend to have reliability issues (1+ hour wait times, etc.). Also, a lot of the drivers for these services do so on a voluntary basis, so although the service is usually free or low-cost, a good tip ($20-$30) is still highly recommended for these services. With some additional funding, local governments could expand and improve these programs to help encourage and promote responsible drinking.
Also, in many places, bus service stops early, and taxis can be very expensive and unreliable. Places that have nightlife centers or bar clusters could offer bus service that mimics school busses that cover more areas of the metro.
The reason I think this could is work is because the people who benefit from these services will be the ones footing the bill. Bars and Clubs could also potentially see an increase in their customer base from those who previously had logistical issues getting safely to and from the bar.
Or, the transit users could pay higher fares which more realistically reflect the true cost of it.
If that meant an increase in the quality of service, I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to it.
The idea here would be to encourage people to take transit rather than drive to go out, so increasing the prices without improving the service would probably do the opposite.
Maybe both? I wouldn't mind paying $3-5 for a late-night bus ride. It sure beats what we have currently (no late-night options.)
If that meant an increase in the quality of service, I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to it.
The idea here would be to encourage people to take transit rather than drive to go out, so increasing the prices without improving the service would probably do the opposite.
Maybe both? I wouldn't mind paying $3-5 for a late-night bus ride. It sure beats what we have currently (no late-night options.)
You could do like MD, double the gas tax with 70% of the increase going to transit.
I noticed you won't willingly pay a higher fare because of "service issues" but have no hesitation asking that non-users pay a higher tax to subsidize your ride.
Any future drunk can see that one conviction for drunk driving could pay for a cab ride from New York to Los Angeles. Yet some insist on driving drunk! Perhaps a surcharge on such convictions would be a better source.
Any future drunk can see that one conviction for drunk driving could pay for a cab ride from New York to Los Angeles. Yet some insist on driving drunk! Perhaps a surcharge on such convictions would be a better source.
How 'bout divert all fines for such convictions to fund night owl service, then charge premium fare for such service to maintain it. Taxing the whole for the sins of the very few doesn't quite sit well with me.
Most people who drive drunk do it because in an area where mass transit is not convenient, it's the only practical way to get to and from the place you're drinking. Nobody in the suburbs going to go out to dinner, have a few drinks, then call a taxi to get home (and then figure out some way to get the car back -- probably from the tow lot). You can talk about a designated driver but if we're talking about a couple, that means someone's always drinking alone.
Most people who drive drunk do it because in an area where mass transit is not convenient, it's the only practical way to get to and from the place you're drinking. Nobody in the suburbs going to go out to dinner, have a few drinks, then call a taxi to get home (and then figure out some way to get the car back -- probably from the tow lot). You can talk about a designated driver but if we're talking about a couple, that means someone's always drinking alone.
We need to change that mindset. It is ridiculous you hear ads for attorneys who specialize in defending them. I think many decide they can always call that lawyer if caught.
Most people who drive drunk do it because in an area where mass transit is not convenient, it's the only practical way to get to and from the place you're drinking. Nobody in the suburbs going to go out to dinner, have a few drinks, then call a taxi to get home (and then figure out some way to get the car back -- probably from the tow lot). You can talk about a designated driver but if we're talking about a couple, that means someone's always drinking alone.
One solution to that problem is for the couple not to get wasted. You have to drink several drinks to reach 0.8 BAC.
One solution to that problem is for the couple not to get wasted. You have to drink several drinks to reach 0.8 BAC.
One can do it, two is easily sufficient; the "standard drink" they trot out when they're trying to lower BAC levels even further is considerably smaller than many real drinks.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
