Letters: Readers discuss why motorists drive drunk and Democrats’ cynical strategy

Why we’re careless

The Star’s Nov. 14 editorial “OP crash injuring four kids merits more than traffic ticket” argues that higher fines and maybe jail time should be available as penalties for egregious cases of red-light-running. (10A)

Maybe those would help. But heavier penalties are how we were supposed to win the war on drugs. Consider the unintended consequences (and ineffectiveness) of that.

I remember the war on drugs. I also remember when you had to pass driver’s education to graduate from high school. Driver’s ed was a “frill” eliminated by cost-cutting politicians several decades ago. An unintended consequence was that driving skills in the United States have declined ever since.

Kansas City once had a widely used trolley system. One could argue it was eliminated to force people to drive cars. But consider how hard it is for passengers on mass transit to run red lights.

People drive because they have no practical alternatives. They speed because they’re stressed. They text while driving and drive drunk because they minimize the risks.

They don’t think about heavier penalties. The damage they inflict is unintended.

- Jan S. Gephardt, Westwood

Truth tellers?

The House Democrats’ strategy is obvious now: Bring in testimony that relies on hearsay and third-party utterances damning President Donald Trump. That way, the witnesses can swear to tell the truth and not get caught in perjury.

- Roger Parrish, Overland Park