Strict Standards: call_user_func_array() expects parameter 1 to be a valid callback, non-static method BDPRSS2::tag() should not be called statically in /home/ericwagoner/ericwagoner.com/weblog/wp-includes/functions.php on line 1303

9/16/2003

Another senseless loss

Filed under:General — eric @ 11:04 am

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/ericwagoner/ericwagoner.com/weblog/wp-includes/functions-formatting.php on line 76

Ken Kifer was one of the country’s most helpful and outspoken bicycling advocates. His webpages are a wealth of information, and his frequent biking tours educated and inspired many others. This past weekend, Ken was hit and killed while biking by a drunk driver — a driver who had been released from jail only four hours previously for . . . drunk driving. It’s a terrible, senseless, preventable loss.

[Listening to: Drunks and Children - The Mighty Mighty Bosstones - Devils Night Out ]

6 Comments


  1. Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/ericwagoner/ericwagoner.com/weblog/wp-includes/functions-formatting.php on line 76

    I was just writing an editorial for our newsletter on two recent serious bike/car and bike/ped crashes in Madison…I heard about Ken Kifer this morning. He follows Susie Stephens and far too many others.

    Comment by M — 9/16/2003 @ 6:46 am


  2. Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/ericwagoner/ericwagoner.com/weblog/wp-includes/functions-formatting.php on line 76

    DWI, drunk driving, DUI, and a license to drink.
    madd, sadd, radd, A.A., and Alanon related.

    Copyright: 1993-2004 Bruce Alm

    The answer to the problem of drunk driving, etc. could be this; a permit for the purchase and consumption of alcohol beverages.

    This would not only be a major assault on the problem of drunk driving, but would also have an effect on virtually all other crimes such as these;
    murder, rape, assault, burglary, robbery, suicide, vandalism, wife beating, child beating, child molestation, the spread of aids, college binge drinking, animal cruelty, etc., the list is endless.

    If this proposition was made law, there could be a major reduction in all these areas of concern, even though the emphasis concerning alcohol abuse seems to be drunk driving in particular.

    There could also be many other positive results;

    families healed, better work performance, booze money spent on products that would help the economy (we’ve all heard of the guy who spends half his check in the bar on payday,) would spare many health problems, etc.

    This new law could go something like this:

    Any person found guilty of any crime where drinking was a factor would lose the right to purchase and/or consume alcohol beverages.

    For a first misdemeanor, a three year revocation. a second misdemeanor, a ten year revocation. a third misdemeanor, a lifetime revocation. Any felony crime, an automatic lifetime revocation.
    Anyone caught drinking alcohol without a permit would receive a possible $1000 fine and/or jail sentence. those who would supply alcohol to people without a drinking permit (and possibly make money at it,) would also lose his/her right to purchase alcohol beverages.

    What wife or husband would buy an alcoholic spouse a bottle?

    What friend would give a problem drinker a drink at the possible cost of a thousand bucks and the loss of their own privilege? This could be a total discouragement to these would-be pushers.

    This permit doesn’t seem as though it would be a problem to put into effect. It could simply be a large X, or whatever, on the back of any drivers license in any state, to show who has been revoked, and cannot purchase alcohol.

    Most people of drinking age have a driver’s license, but one area that might be a problem could be New York City, where many people don’t drive.

    This problem could be resolved, however, by a license-type I.D. specifically for the purchase of alcohol beverages. Most, if not all states have these already for the purpose of identification.
    This could be a small price to pay for the saved lives of thousands of Americans each and every year.

    After this, it would simply be a matter of drinking establishments checking I.D.s at the time of purchase.
    In the case of crowded bars, they could simply check I.D.s at the door, as they do now.

    Would this be a violation of rights?

    There can be no argument here since they already check I.D.s of people who look as though they may not be old enough to drink.

    This could be a good saying, “If a person who doesn’t know how to drive shouldn’t have a license to drive, a person who doesn’t know how to drink shouldn’t have a license to drink.”

    Here are some other pluses to this idea:

    A good percentage of people in correctional institutions are there because of alcohol related offences . Because of this, court, penal, and law enforcement costs could drop dramatically.

    The need for A.A., ALANON, MADD, SADD, etc., could be greatly diminished as well.

    What the alcoholic fears most, is the temptation to have that first drink, usually a spur of the moment type thing. Without the ability to do this, he/she is fairly safe. To start drinking again would almost have to be planned in advance. and to maintain steady drinking would be extremely difficult, in most cases.

    Even though A.A. members as a group don’t become involved in political movements, it seems as individuals, they would all be in favor of a situation like this. Any person who wants to quit drinking, even if never having been in trouble with the law, could simply turn in their license for the non-drinking type.

    A woman from MAAD, on the NBC TODAY show, said “One out of every ten Americans has a drinking problem, and that 10% consumes 60% of all alcohol beverages sold in the U.S..”
    If this is true, there could be financial problems for breweries, liquor stores, bars, rehab centers, etc., as well as lawyers, massive amounts of tax revenue ‘down the drain,’ and so on.
    But it doesn’t seem as though anyone would have a valid argument against a proposal such as this for financial reasons. To do so would be morally wrong, and could be likened to a drug-pusher attitude.

    Even with the problems this new law could present, it still could, in one sense, be considered the simple solution to the number one drug problem in the U.S. and elsewhere. Alcoholism.

    P.S.

    What ever happened to the skid row drunk?

    Comment by bruce alm — 1/7/2004 @ 11:39 am


  3. Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/ericwagoner/ericwagoner.com/weblog/wp-includes/functions-formatting.php on line 76

    DWI, drunk driving, DUI, and a license to drink.
    madd, sadd, radd, A.A., and Alanon related.

    Copyright: 1993-2004 Bruce Alm

    The answer to the problem of drunk driving, etc. could be this; a permit for the purchase and consumption of alcohol beverages.

    This would not only be a major assault on the problem of drunk driving, but would also have an effect on virtually all other crimes such as these;
    murder, rape, assault, burglary, robbery, suicide, vandalism, wife beating, child beating, child molestation, the spread of aids, college binge drinking, animal cruelty, etc., the list is endless.

    If this proposition was made law, there could be a major reduction in all these areas of concern, even though the emphasis concerning alcohol abuse seems to be drunk driving in particular.

    There could also be many other positive results;

    families healed, better work performance, booze money spent on products that would help the economy (we’ve all heard of the guy who spends half his check in the bar on payday,) would spare many health problems, etc.

    This new law could go something like this:

    Any person found guilty of any crime where drinking was a factor would lose the right to purchase and/or consume alcohol beverages.

    For a first misdemeanor, a three year revocation. a second misdemeanor, a ten year revocation. a third misdemeanor, a lifetime revocation. Any felony crime, an automatic lifetime revocation.
    Anyone caught drinking alcohol without a permit would receive a possible $1000 fine and/or jail sentence. those who would supply alcohol to people without a drinking permit (and possibly make money at it,) would also lose his/her right to purchase alcohol beverages.

    What wife or husband would buy an alcoholic spouse a bottle?

    What friend would give a problem drinker a drink at the possible cost of a thousand bucks and the loss of their own privilege? This could be a total discouragement to these would-be pushers.

    This permit doesn’t seem as though it would be a problem to put into effect. It could simply be a large X, or whatever, on the back of any drivers license in any state, to show who has been revoked, and cannot purchase alcohol.

    Most people of drinking age have a driver’s license, but one area that might be a problem could be New York City, where many people don’t drive.

    This problem could be resolved, however, by a license-type I.D. specifically for the purchase of alcohol beverages. Most, if not all states have these already for the purpose of identification.
    This could be a small price to pay for the saved lives of thousands of Americans each and every year.

    After this, it would simply be a matter of drinking establishments checking I.D.s at the time of purchase.
    In the case of crowded bars, they could simply check I.D.s at the door, as they do now.

    Would this be a violation of rights?

    There can be no argument here since they already check I.D.s of people who look as though they may not be old enough to drink.

    This could be a good saying, “If a person who doesn’t know how to drive shouldn’t have a license to drive, a person who doesn’t know how to drink shouldn’t have a license to drink.”

    Here are some other pluses to this idea:

    A good percentage of people in correctional institutions are there because of alcohol related offences . Because of this, court, penal, and law enforcement costs could drop dramatically.

    The need for A.A., ALANON, MADD, SADD, etc., could be greatly diminished as well.

    What the alcoholic fears most, is the temptation to have that first drink, usually a spur of the moment type thing. Without the ability to do this, he/she is fairly safe. To start drinking again would almost have to be planned in advance. and to maintain steady drinking would be extremely difficult, in most cases.

    Even though A.A. members as a group don’t become involved in political movements, it seems as individuals, they would all be in favor of a situation like this. Any person who wants to quit drinking, even if never having been in trouble with the law, could simply turn in their license for the non-drinking type.

    A woman from MAAD, on the NBC TODAY show, said “One out of every ten Americans has a drinking problem, and that 10% consumes 60% of all alcohol beverages sold in the U.S..”
    If this is true, there could be financial problems for breweries, liquor stores, bars, rehab centers, etc., as well as lawyers, massive amounts of tax revenue ‘down the drain,’ and so on.
    But it doesn’t seem as though anyone would have a valid argument against a proposal such as this for financial reasons. To do so would be morally wrong, and could be likened to a drug-pusher attitude.

    Even with the problems this new law could present, it still could, in one sense, be considered the simple solution to the number one drug problem in the U.S. and elsewhere. Alcoholism.

    P.S.

    What ever happened to the skid row drunk?

    Comment by Anonymous — 1/7/2004 @ 11:39 am


  4. Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/ericwagoner/ericwagoner.com/weblog/wp-includes/functions-formatting.php on line 76

    DWI, drunk driving, DUI, and a license to drink.
    madd, sadd, radd, A.A., and Alanon related.

    Copyright: 1993-2004 Bruce Alm

    The answer to the problem of drunk driving, etc. could be this; a permit for the purchase and consumption of alcohol beverages.

    This would not only be a major assault on the problem of drunk driving, but would also have an effect on virtually all other crimes such as these;
    murder, rape, assault, burglary, robbery, suicide, vandalism, wife beating, child beating, child molestation, the spread of aids, college binge drinking, animal cruelty, etc., the list is endless.

    If this proposition was made law, there could be a major reduction in all these areas of concern, even though the emphasis concerning alcohol abuse seems to be drunk driving in particular.

    There could also be many other positive results;

    families healed, better work performance, booze money spent on products that would help the economy (we’ve all heard of the guy who spends half his check in the bar on payday,) would spare many health problems, etc.

    This new law could go something like this:

    Any person found guilty of any crime where drinking was a factor would lose the right to purchase and/or consume alcohol beverages.

    For a first misdemeanor, a three year revocation. a second misdemeanor, a ten year revocation. a third misdemeanor, a lifetime revocation. Any felony crime, an automatic lifetime revocation.
    Anyone caught drinking alcohol without a permit would receive a possible $1000 fine and/or jail sentence. those who would supply alcohol to people without a drinking permit (and possibly make money at it,) would also lose his/her right to purchase alcohol beverages.

    What wife or husband would buy an alcoholic spouse a bottle?

    What friend would give a problem drinker a drink at the possible cost of a thousand bucks and the loss of their own privilege? This could be a total discouragement to these would-be pushers.

    This permit doesn’t seem as though it would be a problem to put into effect. It could simply be a large X, or whatever, on the back of any drivers license in any state, to show who has been revoked, and cannot purchase alcohol.

    Most people of drinking age have a driver’s license, but one area that might be a problem could be New York City, where many people don’t drive.

    This problem could be resolved, however, by a license-type I.D. specifically for the purchase of alcohol beverages. Most, if not all states have these already for the purpose of identification.
    This could be a small price to pay for the saved lives of thousands of Americans each and every year.

    After this, it would simply be a matter of drinking establishments checking I.D.s at the time of purchase.
    In the case of crowded bars, they could simply check I.D.s at the door, as they do now.

    Would this be a violation of rights?

    There can be no argument here since they already check I.D.s of people who look as though they may not be old enough to drink.

    This could be a good saying, “If a person who doesn’t know how to drive shouldn’t have a license to drive, a person who doesn’t know how to drink shouldn’t have a license to drink.”

    Here are some other pluses to this idea:

    A good percentage of people in correctional institutions are there because of alcohol related offences . Because of this, court, penal, and law enforcement costs could drop dramatically.

    The need for A.A., ALANON, MADD, SADD, etc., could be greatly diminished as well.

    What the alcoholic fears most, is the temptation to have that first drink, usually a spur of the moment type thing. Without the ability to do this, he/she is fairly safe. To start drinking again would almost have to be planned in advance. and to maintain steady drinking would be extremely difficult, in most cases.

    Even though A.A. members as a group don’t become involved in political movements, it seems as individuals, they would all be in favor of a situation like this. Any person who wants to quit drinking, even if never having been in trouble with the law, could simply turn in their license for the non-drinking type.

    A woman from MAAD, on the NBC TODAY show, said “One out of every ten Americans has a drinking problem, and that 10% consumes 60% of all alcohol beverages sold in the U.S..”
    If this is true, there could be financial problems for breweries, liquor stores, bars, rehab centers, etc., as well as lawyers, massive amounts of tax revenue ‘down the drain,’ and so on.
    But it doesn’t seem as though anyone would have a valid argument against a proposal such as this for financial reasons. To do so would be morally wrong, and could be likened to a drug-pusher attitude.

    Even with the problems this new law could present, it still could, in one sense, be considered the simple solution to the number one drug problem in the U.S. and elsewhere. Alcoholism.

    P.S.

    What ever happened to the skid row drunk?

    Comment by Anonymous — 1/7/2004 @ 11:40 am


  5. Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/ericwagoner/ericwagoner.com/weblog/wp-includes/functions-formatting.php on line 76

    Ken Kifer: what a sad loss. My immediate thoughts about the loss of Ken Kifer are as follows: I just have to believe that the mixed messages that exist in our society about alcohol are a major contributor of the alcohol abuse and alcoholism in our country. For instance, according to one beer commercial, “Life just doesn’t get any better than this.” How can something as prevalent, accepted, and accessible in our society be so harmful AND illegal when consumed even in moderation?

    Stated differently, consider the thousands upon thousands of bars and taverns in the United States. Now add to this list the restaurants, night clubs, sporting events, festivals, state fairs, hotels, casinos, carnivals, etc. where alcoholic beverages are regularly served. Finally, add the grocery stores, liquor stores, beverage stores, the Convenient Food Marts, the 7/11 stores, and the state stores where a person can purchase as many bottles, cans, and cases of alcoholic beverages as he or she desires.

    The point: drinking alcohol is pervasively and intimately engrained in our society. Yet in all 50 states, driving with a blood alcohol level of .08% will result in a DUI or DWI if the driver is caught by the police. Something obviously is not right in our society and the way in which it views alcohol. If drinking two or three alcoholic drinks per day is considered dangerous to one’s health AND can result in a DUI or DWI-related fatality, perhaps it’s time that the number of bars and taverns is significantly reduced or eliminated. If drinking can lead to alcoholism by so many people in our society and result in severe health problems and alcohol-related injuries and fatalities, maybe alcohol should not be sold in the above list of stores and business establishments.

    DenMan7
    http://www.Alcohol-Information.com

    Comment by Denny Soinski — 11/29/2006 @ 5:12 pm


  6. Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/ericwagoner/ericwagoner.com/weblog/wp-includes/functions-formatting.php on line 76

    Hi Eric!

    Couple of comments here: Love your photos! Especially for the “green spider in basil” [absolutely beautiful!] and “Kentucky Wonders” green beans! Which brought back a memory from long ago. My Dh and I went to an exclusive French restaurant in La Cienega Blvd, CA, “Au Petit Jean.” We were having our first course, a salad, when we both heard another customer, a lady, sitting across from us, obviously from the south, ask out loud with a southern accent, “Excuse me? Are these Kentucky Wonders?!” At that time we were both very young and I felt so embarrassed for the lady, that I actually wanted to crawl underneath the table and hide. Now, both being much older, I think how silly it was for me to have felt this way. This is what time does to you. We no longer go to exclusive restaurants. It’s the second time I hear of “Kentucky Wonders” and your photo brought a smile to my face for that memory. Thank you for sharing!

    Second Comment: I know how important DUI is and I for one I’m totally against it, but it seems that 5 posts from the same person [Bruce Alm] posting about DUI to be somewhat excessive. It detracts from an otherwise VERY attractive weblog. I don’t know if you’re aware of it or not. Just thought I’d mention it. Have a great day!

    KT

    Comment by KT — 1/10/2007 @ 8:12 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.