| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
CerpinTaxt
Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 4607
Location: USA, SC
|
 Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 8:57 pm Post subject: Drunk Driving |
 |
|
If you are ever pulled over in a vehicle and you have alcohol in your system over the legal limit, I think you should have your license revoked for more than one year. Mandatory.
I feel that our current system is way to lenient.
_________________
| George W. Bush wrote: | | I trust God speaks through me. Without that, I couldn't do my job |
| Glenn Beck wrote: | | You know, we all have our inner demons. I, for one - I can't speak for you, but I'm on the verge of moral collapse at any time. It can happen by the end of the show |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
MasterofLOTR
That's just like...your opinion, man.
Joined: 22 Jul 2004
Posts: 9358
Location: Nebraska
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 9:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I kind of disagree with you here. The purpose of these strict laws is to keep repeat drunk drivers off the road, and to discourage people from doing it in the first place.
I think the laws are already very strict, and do about as good a job as they could for keeping the common person from driving drunk. And those who still do so with explicit knowledge of the consequences are not going to be deterred by the increased sentences.
I believe that increased sentences would just serve to punish the group that thinks "ok, I've had a few, but I can still drive well." Not a group to be applauded, but still they don't have intent to do harm. They just don't know their limits. However, the group you really want to punish, the group that thinks "hell, i'm [Censored] up, but I'm gonna drive anyway 'cause they're not gonna catch me," is undeterred by the increased sentences.
I don't condone drunk driving in any form, but I think we're at the point where increase sentencing only further punishes the more innocent form of drunk driving, (those who learn their lesson after 1 DUI, regardless of sentencing) rather than those repeat offenders who will keep on driving, no matter what.
_________________
| glavin wrote: | | I <3 both Moltar and Sailor Jerrry's. They're both golden brown and taste delicious. |
"Not the victory but the action; Not the goal but the game; In the deed the glory."
-Inscription on the west gate of Nebraska's Memorial Stadium. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CerpinTaxt
Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 4607
Location: USA, SC
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 9:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| MasterofLOTR wrote: | | I believe that increased sentences would just serve to punish the group that thinks "ok, I've had a few, but I can still drive well." Not a group to be applauded, but still they don't have intent to do harm. They just don't know their limits. However, the group you really want to punish, the group that thinks "hell, i'm [Censored] up, but I'm gonna drive anyway 'cause they're not gonna catch me," is undeterred by the increased sentences. |
Both of these people can kill other people because they are under the influence though.
I say that if alcohol (on the bottle) says not to operate heavy machinery, and laws say not to drive drunk, then you shouldn't do it no matter what.
_________________
| George W. Bush wrote: | | I trust God speaks through me. Without that, I couldn't do my job |
| Glenn Beck wrote: | | You know, we all have our inner demons. I, for one - I can't speak for you, but I'm on the verge of moral collapse at any time. It can happen by the end of the show |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mr. Fantastic
Master of Illusion
Joined: 06 Sep 2009
Posts: 43
Location: Earth
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 11:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This idiot I went to college with got 3 DUI's by the age of 19 and still got to keep his license. Don't ask me how; he came from a pretty well off family so I assume they had the means to provide him with a damn good lawyer.
As I understand it, if you get caught driving drunk once in Germany you lose your license forever. If you get caught talking on a cell phone driving, you have to pay a 10,000 euro fine. I am generally not a fan of laws/states/cops/take-your-pick in general but these strict motorist laws actually don't sound too unfair to me in light of the lives they will save every year. Let me further add that I have no sympathy whatsoever for irresponsible idiots who kill themselves driving drunk; they deserve a Darwin Award for doing the gene pool a favor. My only hope is that they manage to wrap their cars around a telephone pole without taking a family of 4 with them.
_________________
Among the growing number of terrestrial enhanced power beings are certain to be a proportion manifesting anti-social tendencies. And while it is logical to assume some similar beings will devote their energies to pro-social activities, that process might well be facilitated by a person or group who would serve as both inspiration and example to the rest. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MasterofLOTR
That's just like...your opinion, man.
Joined: 22 Jul 2004
Posts: 9358
Location: Nebraska
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 11:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CerpinTaxt wrote: | | MasterofLOTR wrote: | | I believe that increased sentences would just serve to punish the group that thinks "ok, I've had a few, but I can still drive well." Not a group to be applauded, but still they don't have intent to do harm. They just don't know their limits. However, the group you really want to punish, the group that thinks "hell, i'm [Censored] up, but I'm gonna drive anyway 'cause they're not gonna catch me," is undeterred by the increased sentences. |
Both of these people can kill other people because they are under the influence though.
|
I agree, but what I'm saying is that current laws are effective enough at deterring that first group, and that further sentencing does not deter that second group. It's not a pretty situation.
Now, if you want to take away the license forever after their 2nd DUI or for excessive amounts over the limit, I'm all for it. But I think that setting up arbitrarily large penalties for first time offenders does not achieve the effect you desire.
_________________
| glavin wrote: | | I <3 both Moltar and Sailor Jerrry's. They're both golden brown and taste delicious. |
"Not the victory but the action; Not the goal but the game; In the deed the glory."
-Inscription on the west gate of Nebraska's Memorial Stadium. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mayael
Joined: 04 May 2009
Posts: 175
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 3:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
As someone who rarely drinks, I think the DUI laws are too draconian. I feel that driving a heavy vehicle at high speeds is inherently dangerous. Whether there is any impairment or not. If you wish to use public roads, you take your chances with life and death every day. Not all fatal crashes are alcohol related, and not all intoxicated drivers are grossly unsafe.
Look at this chart from http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Misc/driving/s9p2.htm near the bottom of the page.
As it shows, habitual drinkers with a higher blood-alcohol content are at the same risk level as light drinkers at .08 bac. This is a big concern I have with current drunk driving laws. If someone is drunk, but can handle it, and can drive without hitting anyone, why should they be punished (jailtime, fines, and loss of license) just because other people aren't as skilled at this activity? I don't buy that line of "But they could have killed someone." The operative phrase there is 'could have'. If they didn't have an accident, if they drove as safely as you do, why should they be punished? I 'could have' killed the driver in front of me today, who went from 50mph to 10mph because they couldn't figure out how to drive in a straight line past a curb at highway speed. And I 'could have' killed the driver in the car in the next lane when I swerved in front of them to avoid the idiot. But I guess that situation is OK, because no one died, I wasn't drunk, and no police saw it.
And actually, with the threat of arrest, how many people have stopped having a drink with lunch, and therefore are losing the experience needed to drive safely after a single drink? So that when they do have a drink for a special occasion, they are more likely to be negatively affected by it.
Also, how many people can tell what their bac will be after a meal and a single drink (beer, wine, or mixed drink)? I think it is crazy that anyone who has one beer with lunch or dinner may be arrested for going over .08 bac. Especially if they do this every day, and know how to drive safely. How many of you guys have a beer or two and drive within two hours?
Finally, speaking from personal experience from 20 years ago: The safest I have ever driven was while I was drunk. With the threat of arrest hanging over me, I drove slower and more cautiously the 3 or 4 times a year I had a drink. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stormywaters
Joined: 31 Jan 2006
Posts: 1290
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 3:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
New plan: Drunk driving lane. You put barricades on both sides, lined with tires and crap, and if you are drunk, you can drive in that lane without being bothered.
I mean what am I supposed to do? Take a cab home? Yeah right. Then I have to take the bus to get my car the next morning, which totally cuts into my sitting-on-my-ass-at-home time. Not likely.
_________________
Fight my brute! http://anorexic-andy.mybrute.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mayael
Joined: 04 May 2009
Posts: 175
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 5:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| stormywaters wrote: | New plan: Drunk driving lane. You put barricades on both sides, lined with tires and crap, and if you are drunk, you can drive in that lane without being bothered.
|
I lol'ed.
Actually, while I was typing my original message, I was wondering if they could license drunk driving like they do other higher-danger categories like chauffeur license or semi license. You have to take a certain number of classes on driving drunk, have a closed course driving test, then a road test. Finally you blow in the breathalyser to see what category you qualified for that day.
"Hey, John, I see you have successfully passed DUI .13BAC. We'll see you next month for .15BAC."
Aww, mom would be so proud.
Because, again, my point is some people drive better drunk that others do stone-cold sober. Penalizing them for that ability is not logical.
Oh, and if they do kill someone, you all know what my feelings are as to proper punishment for killing someone. Let that be the deterrent, as it punishes the proper person, for their own actions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
turboeli
writer
Joined: 22 Jan 2004
Posts: 4917
Location: The City of Brotherly Love
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 11:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Mayael wrote: | | As someone who rarely drinks, I think the DUI laws are too draconian. |
As someone who never drinks, I think the DUI laws are not even close to being draconian. The blood alcohol levels permitted are a lot higher than in Japan. Japan doesn't have anything nearly near the level of DUI that the States does. Part of that has to do with the fair amount of public transportation and taxi service, but another part of it is that people who drive drunk lose their license for five years. Even if they don't go to jail. People who take their lives into their own hands are stupid, but driving drunk causes lots of other people to lose lives as well. To heck with clemency.
| Quote: | | Finally, speaking from personal experience from 20 years ago: The safest I have ever driven was while I was drunk. With the threat of arrest hanging over me, I drove slower and more cautiously the 3 or 4 times a year I had a drink. |
You cannot be serious...
_________________
SCG Featured Writer
"[The US Constitution was written by] moneyed, sickly, bifocal-wearing nerds who thought that God was a distant uncaring Dungeon Master" - John Hodgman
(this is a good thing, according to Hodgman) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wagner
King of Objectivity
Joined: 06 Sep 2004
Posts: 896
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 11:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Something happened here a couple of weeks ago, I almost make a tread about it then, but this is the perfect place to tell it.
Not related to drunk driving, but to stupid driving sanctions in general.
16 year old kid was speeding with some friends, got into an accident, eveyone hurt, but no deaths.
ONE YEAR LATER, 17, they give the kid his licence back, after a couple of weeks, speeds again and kills one of his passengers.
It is beyong me how you can give back a licence to someone that is so blatantly a menace to himself or others, also, my guess is that, if he is going to be trialed as an adult, he will be back on the road by age 20.
Another story I heard around here a couple of years ago. A same guy was arrested 18 times for drunk driving, of course his licence was long gone, but he could always manage to get a hold of a car and proceed to be a public menace. I just don't know why he wasn't in jail for good yet, I'm guessing since no one got hurt so far it wasn't important. But something tells me, after the 3-4th time, you know this is just going to keep on going, I can't imagine what when on in court.
Bum: Yeah, you caught me 15 times before, but NOW I really learned my lesson... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
moxlotus
Joined: 23 Dec 2003
Posts: 7050
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 12:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | not all intoxicated drivers are grossly unsafe |
Intoxication means you have your judgement impaired. That is by definition unsafe.
| Quote: | | As someone who rarely drinks, I think the DUI laws are too draconian |
Right now DUI laws are a slap on the wrist IMO. Boohoo, lose your license for a few weeks. 2nd offense, boo hoo, get a monitor on your foot for a month.
| Quote: | | If someone is drunk, but can handle it, and can drive without hitting anyone, why should they be punished (jailtime, fines, and loss of license) just because other people aren't as skilled at this activity? |
If someone is shooting a shotgun down mainstreet for kicks, but doesn't hit anyone, why should they be punished if they can manage to not kill anyone? Because the very act is unnecessarily dangerous to the public.
| Quote: | | I 'could have' killed the driver in front of me today, who went from 50mph to 10mph because they couldn't figure out how to drive in a straight line past a curb at highway speed |
If a cop saw you you would (or should) get a ticket because the person behind is always responsible for the car in front of them. Shouldn't follow so closely.
| Quote: | | Because, again, my point is some people drive better drunk that others do stone-cold sober. Penalizing them for that ability is not logical. |
Then the solution would be to take away the licenses of poor sober drivers.
| Quote: | | Oh, and if they do kill someone, you all know what my feelings are as to proper punishment for killing someone. Let that be the deterrent, as it punishes the proper person, for their own actions. |
Except when you are intoxicated, you don't think properly. The deterrent should be in the mind as early as possible. Which would be "drunk driving" rather than "killing someone while being drunk."
_________________
Obama's broken promises:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/rulings/promise-broken/
compromised promises:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/rulings/compromise/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CerpinTaxt
Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 4607
Location: USA, SC
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 1:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I've gotta say. The concept of driving better while intoxicated is just idiotic.
_________________
| George W. Bush wrote: | | I trust God speaks through me. Without that, I couldn't do my job |
| Glenn Beck wrote: | | You know, we all have our inner demons. I, for one - I can't speak for you, but I'm on the verge of moral collapse at any time. It can happen by the end of the show |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mayael
Joined: 04 May 2009
Posts: 175
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 5:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| turboeli wrote: | | Mayael wrote: | | As someone who rarely drinks, I think the DUI laws are too draconian. |
As someone who never drinks, |
Good for you, but that is your choice. It's my choice to have a drink if I take my wife out to dinner. Last time I didn't choose to, even though it was my own birthday. A few months before that, I did have one mixed drink at dinner. My point is simply that if I had an accident that night, it would be attributed to alcohol, because of that one drink, even though I was in no way drunk. If I swerved to avoid debris in the road, and lost control, it would be "because he was drunk", even if the exact same event could have happened to me when I didn't have a single drink.
| Quote: |
| Quote: | | Finally, speaking from personal experience from 20 years ago: The safest I have ever driven was while I was drunk. With the threat of arrest hanging over me, I drove slower and more cautiously the 3 or 4 times a year I had a drink. |
You cannot be serious... |
Why not? Do you routinely observe every traffic rule, every time you drive? Are you stating you have never gone over the speed limit, or have always stopped short of the stop sign or stop line, and have never even talked on a cell phone or fiddled with the radio while driving? Those are unsafe practices that people do all the time. Unless I ride with you and observe you driving completely safely, I won't believe that you never ever violate any safety law or guideline while driving. But when I was driving after a few drinks (not completely tanked, but certainly over the limit), I made no errors, because if a cop saw an error, he could pull me over and I would be in trouble.
It actually isn't that hard to do when you put your mind to it. Go 3 miles an hour below the limit, stop well short of the stop sign/line and then proceed, don't goof off or fiddle with the radio. I'm not talking about navigating a driving course with curves every 10 feet, and cardboard pedestrians. I'm talking about driving down standard roads, which are straight, and there are no pedestrians at 3 in the morning in the boonies where I lived. Quite honestly, you could almost drive these roads blindfolded, much less after a few drinks.
(Wait, do you guys think I mean driving safe after having a case of beer, or a fifth of scotch, or being so drunk I can't even speak intelligibly? I think the light is beginning to dawn on me here. You think I mean falling-down, shitfaced, three-sheets to the wind drunk. I mean after a few drinks, 'few' meaning 1, 2, or 3, and 'a drink' meaning a single shot of alcohol in a glass with ice and coke (not the drugs). As I stated, "I had a drink." I forgot you guys are mostly college students who see your fellow students go on drunken binges until they pass out. I'm talking about having a drink at a friends house and driving home, or having 3 or 4 drinks at a club over the course of 5 hours. Let me know if this isn't what you thought I meant.)
**Rest of post deleted after inserting above note.** |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mayael
Joined: 04 May 2009
Posts: 175
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 5:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CerpinTaxt wrote: | | I've gotta say. The concept of driving better while intoxicated is just idiotic. |
See my note in the post above. By drunk, I meant the equivalent of one beer in your system. Also, I didn't say "better", I said "safer". If you had one beer with dinner, and drove home, would that be illegal? If you worried about the police stopping you, would you drive more cautiously, hens safer, than you normally do? Or would you drive really wild, just because of 1 beer, and to hell with the cops? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mayael
Joined: 04 May 2009
Posts: 175
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 5:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| moxlotus wrote: | | Quote: | | not all intoxicated drivers are grossly unsafe |
Intoxication means you have your judgement impaired. That is by definition unsafe. |
Which is why I said "grossly unsafe". I see unsafe driver all the time. | Quote: |
| Quote: | | As someone who rarely drinks, I think the DUI laws are too draconian |
Right now DUI laws are a slap on the wrist IMO. Boohoo, lose your license for a few weeks. 2nd offense, boo hoo, get a monitor on your foot for a month.
| Quote: | | If someone is drunk, but can handle it, and can drive without hitting anyone, why should they be punished (jailtime, fines, and loss of license) just because other people aren't as skilled at this activity? |
If someone is shooting a shotgun down mainstreet for kicks, but doesn't hit anyone, why should they be punished if they can manage to not kill anyone? Because the very act is unnecessarily dangerous to the public.
|
So you are comparing driving a car straight down a road, stopping at red lights, signaling to turn, with firing a scattershot shell down that same road. Buckshot doesn't stop for red lights, or negotiate turns very well. | Quote: |
| Quote: | | I 'could have' killed the driver in front of me today, who went from 50mph to 10mph because they couldn't figure out how to drive in a straight line past a curb at highway speed |
If a cop saw you you would (or should) get a ticket because the person behind is always responsible for the car in front of them. Shouldn't follow so closely. |
This is entirely true. It is also true that it happens all the time, every day of the week, and accidents occur from someone not being safe enough behind the wheel. Many of those 'could have' killed someone, and many of those 'did' kill someone. Actually, the car I cut off was also not driving safe, because he was not far enough behind the car I moved behind. And all this with no one being drunk. | Quote: |
| Quote: | | Because, again, my point is some people drive better drunk that others do stone-cold sober. Penalizing them for that ability is not logical. |
Then the solution would be to take away the licenses of poor sober drivers. |
This is the logical thing to do. But instead people who drive better are penalized, for others mistakes. | Quote: |
| Quote: | | Oh, and if they do kill someone, you all know what my feelings are as to proper punishment for killing someone. Let that be the deterrent, as it punishes the proper person, for their own actions. |
Except when you are intoxicated, you don't think properly. The deterrent should be in the mind as early as possible. Which would be "drunk driving" rather than "killing someone while being drunk." |
You think quite clearly while going to a bar. Bartenders think quite clearly as they watch drunks stumble out the door. I don't buy that argument when talking about intentional murder, why would I buy it for murder that happens while intentionally drunk? If they executed anyone who kills someone due to driving drunk, and I mean public execution within a month of the offense as opposed to behind closed doors 20 years later, do you really believe that will not make an impression on people later when they choose to have a drink? It would make a damn big impression on me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jimmy_Page
So be it, until there is no enemy but peace. Amen.
Joined: 26 Jun 2004
Posts: 13288
Location: Austin
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 6:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CerpinTaxt wrote: | | I've gotta say. The concept of driving better while intoxicated is just idiotic. |
Drunk: probably.
High: nah.
I have only driven high once, and try to avoid it, but I do drive better when I'm high, as long as I'm not super blazed. It slows everything down and I become a lot more careful. It's supposedly safer than driving drunk because you don't become as reckless as you do when you're drunk. Which makes a lot of sense.
But I digress.
_________________
| mrfridays wrote: | | I would say "up to 5 balls simultaneously." |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
moxlotus
Joined: 23 Dec 2003
Posts: 7050
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 9:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | If they executed anyone who kills someone due to driving drunk, and I mean public execution within a month of the offense as opposed to behind closed doors 20 years later, do you really believe that will not make an impression on people later when they choose to have a drink? It would make a damn big impression on me. |
Irrelevant as this scenario does not work with our legal system. And even then, no, I don't think it would affect many people.
| Quote: | | If you had one beer with dinner, and drove home, would that be illegal? If you worried about the police stopping you, would you drive more cautiously, hens safer, than you normally do? Or would you drive really wild, just because of 1 beer, and to hell with the cops? |
You act as if 1 beer raises your BAC to .08. It might if you were 80 pounds.
| Quote: | | My point is simply that if I had an accident that night, it would be attributed to alcohol, because of that one drink, even though I was in no way drunk |
If your BAC was 0.02 it certainly would not be attributed to you being drunk.
| Quote: | | It is also true that it happens all the time, every day of the week, and accidents occur from someone not being safe enough behind the wheel. Many of those 'could have' killed someone, and many of those 'did' kill someone. Actually, the car I cut off was also not driving safe, because he was not far enough behind the car I moved behind. And all this with no one being drunk. |
And there are ways to yank someone's license for unsafe driving when the person isn't intoxicated. You appear to be acting like the only way unsafe drivers get punished is if they are drunk. That is not the case.
_________________
Obama's broken promises:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/rulings/promise-broken/
compromised promises:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/rulings/compromise/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jimmy_Page
So be it, until there is no enemy but peace. Amen.
Joined: 26 Jun 2004
Posts: 13288
Location: Austin
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 11:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
a note on BAC:
I'm 5'10" and ~190lbs, and one beer adds about .015 to my BAC.
The legal limit is .08. So I'd have to have ~5-6 beers to hit the legal limit.
_________________
| mrfridays wrote: | | I would say "up to 5 balls simultaneously." |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wagner
King of Objectivity
Joined: 06 Sep 2004
Posts: 896
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 12:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Quote:
Quote:
As someone who rarely drinks, I think the DUI laws are too draconian
Right now DUI laws are a slap on the wrist IMO. Boohoo, lose your license for a few weeks. 2nd offense, boo hoo, get a monitor on your foot for a month.
Quote:
If someone is drunk, but can handle it, and can drive without hitting anyone, why should they be punished (jailtime, fines, and loss of license) just because other people aren't as skilled at this activity?
If someone is shooting a shotgun down mainstreet for kicks, but doesn't hit anyone, why should they be punished if they can manage to not kill anyone? Because the very act is unnecessarily dangerous to the public.
So you are comparing driving a car straight down a road, stopping at red lights, signaling to turn, with firing a scattershot shell down that same road. Buckshot doesn't stop for red lights, or negotiate turns very well. |
You are very much missing the analogy here. Both comportments are simply unsafe and should be punished. I don't care how well you can drive while drunk, the 0.08 limit is there for a reason, and that is because, after that, your jugment and reflexes are impaired. The limit is the same for everyone because it has been shown that way more accidents happen after that limit.
Just try to go to a judge and say: Yeah, you caught me at 0.14, but that's alright, I wasn't really dangerous, trust me, I'm not drunk! I'm a safe drunk driver, not one that would cause harm.
To take back the gun analogy, imagine the guy in the street with the gun is a sharshooter and shoots between the legs of everyone. He's not dangerous since he's totally in control of what he is doing, now give this guy 6 beers, let him tell you that he can handle it no problem and let him keep shooting near people.
Facts are, ALCOLHOL IMPAIRS JUDGMENT AND REFLEXES, you are never as good a driver as you think you are when drunk (talking above the 0.08 limit here).
Here a little thing I found with a quick search
| Quote: | | Driving under the influence is a serious health hazard. In the United States, for example, alcohol is estimated to play a role in 39 percent of vehicle-related deaths and to cost $51 billion annually.[1] More recently it has been reported that alcohol contributes to nearly 30 percent of all Canadian traffic fatalities and 44 percent of traffic fatalities in the United States. |
Guess how many of these 44 percent said "Sure, I can drive, I don't feel drunk" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mayael
Joined: 04 May 2009
Posts: 175
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 2:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
Look at the graph from my first post.
People who are excessive drinkers can drive safer at higher bac numbers than others who are not used to drinking. The "Heavy Drinkers" group has a lower risk level at .10% than a moderate drinker at .08%, and equal risk at .11%. And they probably have a lower risk than an infrequent drinker at .06%, but that isn't in the chart.
The chart shows that to a habitual drinker, .08 is not an impaired state. This has been shown in studies of habitual drinkers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mayael
Joined: 04 May 2009
Posts: 175
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 2:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| moxlotus wrote: | | Quote: | | If they executed anyone who kills someone due to driving drunk, and I mean public execution within a month of the offense as opposed to behind closed doors 20 years later, do you really believe that will not make an impression on people later when they choose to have a drink? It would make a damn big impression on me. |
Irrelevant as this scenario does not work with our legal system. And even then, no, I don't think it would affect many people.
|
Why would it be irrelevant? Only because capitol punishment is not used effectively. As I stated, my preferred system of capitol punishment would be a public execution shortly after a trial, with time for a legitimate appeal for sound reasons. And watching someone be killed will certainly affect many people.
| Quote: |
| Quote: | | If you had one beer with dinner, and drove home, would that be illegal? If you worried about the police stopping you, would you drive more cautiously, hens safer, than you normally do? Or would you drive really wild, just because of 1 beer, and to hell with the cops? |
You act as if 1 beer raises your BAC to .08. It might if you were 80 pounds. |
This is my mistake. I haven't thought about the bac percent for a long time, since I don't drink much or often. I guess I was playing off memories of people worrying that "a single beer" or "just two glasses of wine" would put them over. I just found a site that says for my weight, about 230 pounds, I would be legal up to 6 drinks.
But again, since I don't drink very often, I do notice something. I can have a mixed drink, and feel light-headed by time it's gone. If I have 2, I get talkative and can feel the flush of the alcohol on my neck. I would not be legally drunk, but I would be tipsy. This is the stage I am talking about, as far as driving more cautiously than normal, to avoid being pulled over by the police.
| Quote: |
| Quote: | | My point is simply that if I had an accident that night, it would be attributed to alcohol, because of that one drink, even though I was in no way drunk |
If your BAC was 0.02 it certainly would not be attributed to you being drunk.
| Quote: | | It is also true that it happens all the time, every day of the week, and accidents occur from someone not being safe enough behind the wheel. Many of those 'could have' killed someone, and many of those 'did' kill someone. Actually, the car I cut off was also not driving safe, because he was not far enough behind the car I moved behind. And all this with no one being drunk. |
And there are ways to yank someone's license for unsafe driving when the person isn't intoxicated. You appear to be acting like the only way unsafe drivers get punished is if they are drunk. That is not the case. |
Yes, the police/courts can suspend or revoke the license of a bad driver. But I still see bad drivers around me all the time. Crossing two lanes to make a sudden turn, following too closely because they are in a hurry and want the guy in front to speed up, rolling through a stop sign or a right turn on red. But rather than actually crack down on that, the only thing that seems to matter is that people don't have higher than 0.08% bac, whether they can function at that level or not.
Drunk drivers are responsible for about 10% of accidents in the US. That means 90% of accidents are due to causes such as I listed above. But what is the biggest concern? What is this thread about? Punishing the 10% group more, rather than punishing the 90% group more. Actually, punishing those who aren't even in the 10% group, because they weren't in an accident, but they had >.08bac when pulled over at police checkpoints. Again, my main point is that this isn't logical. Logic plays a large part in my world view. Punishing a smaller group, while politically correct, and ignoring (by the police) the larger group, is the height of absurdity in my view. Punish those who cause accidents, and punish those who you can tell are driving dangerously. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mayael
Joined: 04 May 2009
Posts: 175
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 2:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Wagner wrote: |
You are very much missing the analogy here. Both comportments are simply unsafe and should be punished. I don't care how well you can drive while drunk, the 0.08 limit is there for a reason, and that is because, after that, your jugment and reflexes are impaired. The limit is the same for everyone because it has been shown that way more accidents happen after that limit.
|
Again, look at the chart. It happens at .08 for one group, and at .11 for another group. I'm not making this up. If this is simply about "way more accidents", it seems like punishing those who have accidents would be more important than punishing those who don't. Or dropping the legal limit to .06bac, to really ensure drivers aren't at that cusp. That would make more sense, arrest people before they go off that edge, rather than after they reach the dangerous 0.08 level, since that group is already causing accidents and killing people.
We don't convict any other crime like we do drunk driving. You have to actually cause harm or loss for most laws to be broken. Here, you just need to fit a profile. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
moxlotus
Joined: 23 Dec 2003
Posts: 7050
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 5:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Drunk drivers are responsible for about 10% of accidents in the US. That means 90% of accidents are due to causes such as I listed above. But what is the biggest concern? |
Actually, the biggest concern right now is not talk about tougher drunk driving laws--it's cell phone and texting.
| Quote: | | Again, look at the chart. It happens at .08 for one group, and at .11 for another group. I'm not making this up |
But there is no way to prove "i'm a heavy drinker" or "I'm a light drinker" in a courtroom. So there is a standard set and applied to all.
| Quote: | | You have to actually cause harm or loss for most laws to be broken. Here, you just need to fit a profile. |
Read up on gun laws. Have a loaded firearm in the car? Big fine if caught. Shoot at a squirrel in a back country area but you shot across a dirt road? Big fine if caught. Have too many modifications on your firearm (sights, larger than normal clip, etc.)? Big fine if caught.
Have a clothesline in some neighborhoods? Penalty.
Have 3 pets in some neighborhoods? Penalty.
Have an American flag on a pole in some neighborhoods? Penalty.
There are tons and tons of laws that result in penalties that when they are broken do not cause harm or loss.
_________________
Obama's broken promises:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/rulings/promise-broken/
compromised promises:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/rulings/compromise/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wagner
King of Objectivity
Joined: 06 Sep 2004
Posts: 896
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 7:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Yes, the police/courts can suspend or revoke the license of a bad driver. But I still see bad drivers around me all the time. Crossing two lanes to make a sudden turn, following too closely because they are in a hurry and want the guy in front to speed up, rolling through a stop sign or a right turn on red. But rather than actually crack down on that, the only thing that seems to matter is that people don't have higher than 0.08% bac, whether they can function at that level or not. |
Ohhh, that's why I've never seen anyone get pulled over for reckless driving, speeding, not doing a stop, etc. All these cops I see around 1-2 pm are all actually only looking for drunk drivers. Dangerous drivers get tickets and can have their licences revoked, but we do hear more about speeding and drunk driving because they are more dangerous. When was the last time you hear a news story involving multiple deaths because the guy was following the other too closely?
| Quote: | | You have to actually cause harm or loss for most laws to be broken. Here, you just need to fit a profile. |
So, what are you suggesting here exactly, that everyone just chooses which laws they should respect depending if they think it will hurt someone or not? So basically, leave the law application to the good judment of any citizen?
Oh, no one at that red light, no need for me to stop, I won't hurt anyone.
Nop, I know how to drive a car, I can ride it at 80 miles an hour downtoen as long as I'm careful not to hurt anyone.
I'm good with my motorcycle, I can just ride it in a mall, as long as I don't hurt anyone, it's not dangerous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stormywaters
Joined: 31 Jan 2006
Posts: 1290
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 8:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Wagner wrote: | | So, what are you suggesting here exactly, that everyone just chooses which laws they should respect depending if they think it will hurt someone or not? So basically, leave the law application to the good judment of any citizen? |
Yes, it should. Replace all traffic lights and signs with yield signs. If someone is driving around like a douche, he gets his ass kicked.
For instance, there is a street I take to work every day. The speed limit is 35. The street is 4 lanes wide, wider in some spots, and there are no businesses or houses on either side of the road. You turn onto this road off a steep hill, so if you don't break you hit 50+ by the bottom.
Why is the speed limit 35? Who knows. I feel it is completely safe and prudent to drive 45 or 50 for many miles of this road.
If I am driving to work every morning at 6am and there are no other cars on the street, why should I be spending 3 or 4 minutes at every red light I cross, which in this city is about 15 between my house and work? If I look both directions and can't see a car anywhere in sight, why do I need to stop?
_________________
Fight my brute! http://anorexic-andy.mybrute.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Calendar
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
