Too many laws?
Quote: thecesspitI go to the bar to see my friends, chat, and have a beer. The beer's the reason we choose a bar, but the company is why I go.
Exactly. If it was not for beer, why chose a bar? There are other, nicer, places you could see your friends and chat.
Quote:You have options, you just choose to take ones I wouldn't take, and ones I think are wrong, for a reason I've hope made clear.
Sure, I have options. I could not go, I could call my wife, and ask her to come pick me up, I could call a cab, I could drink at home, I could smoke weed instead ... Everybody has options. All I said was that Europeans have more options than we do over here ...
Quote:40% of deaths on the roads in the US have alcohol as a factor.
100% have a human as a factor. Now what? :)
Quote:Just to let you know that again. If I'd had just two beers, and hit someone, and killed them... I'd always be thinking "maybe I shouldn't have had those beers".
Of course. I have to drive with my leg in a cast now. If I kill someone, I'll always be thinking "maybe, I should not have been driving with that cast". And, as usual, I DO have options (have my wife drive me to and from work, hire a personal driver, etc.), they just all suck.
Quote:With all due respect, that may indeed be the case. But if I had a dollar for every person whose told me, that "they can drive okay after two beers" who clearly can't (and that tests show can't) I'd be a couple hundred dollars better off.
You must be having this conversation awfully often :)
Quote:So maybe YOU are the exception to the rule. Reaction times slow even after 1 pint.
Yes, reaction times slow. That does not mean you can't drive though. It means you can't drive as well as you could if you did not have that beer. It is not the same. Chances are that your, slowed, reaction time will still be better than that of my grandmother driving her Buick to church every Sunday. And your heightened attentiveness and caution are going to be way better than hers. She's been doing it for 30 years, and still has not kill anyone. Chances are, that after two beers, you are still a better driver, then she is sober, perhaps, even more than two. But maybe not. People's driving skills and reaction times are very different. If you don't feel confident you can drive better than my grandmother, I understand why you say so categorically that it would be a bad idea (she is NOT a very good driver), but some people are better drivers than others.
We are not talking about getting wasted, and driving. We are talking about a couple of beers.
Of the 40% you mentioned, half if not more, is, probably either teenagers, who can't drive even when sober, or stupid lowlife rejects, who were driving totally wasted, not even knowing where they were (I've seen that). A half of the rest are cases that would happen anyway, even if the driver did not have that beer ... And what's left, I'll give you that, are people, who are not very good drivers to begin with, having their marginal skills impaired even further by alcohol without realizing what they are doing.
Quote: nullzero00isn't it a little hypocritical to praise the lord over wrecking someone's life?
why don't you instead offer to take them home?
That would be the neighborly thing, wouldn't it? Or even take it one step further and offer a for-profit service to reduce the problem *and* make money? Here's one model:
http://www.johnnycab.net/
FWIW, making a drunk driver's life a "living, wrecked hell" has a far greater cost to society than preventing that drunken driving from happening in the first place. It seems that Mr. "Singer" is attempting to atone for his own drunk driving transgressions so many years ago. His personal demons aside, drunk driving is not, by a long shot, the most common or most dangerous driving impairment. Just yesterday I saw a woman drive through an intersection, both hands on her cell phone texting away, barely looking at the road in front of her. Studies have already shown that texting while driving is just as dangerous as drunk driving, and *far* more people do it than get drunk and drive home. That's becoming illegal in more places, but it's not universally so the way drunk driving is. And I'm willing to bet that, using whatever test scientists use to quantify driver safety, driving buzzed at 2am is a safer proposition than driving a car full of squabbling children to elementary school during rush hour when you're late for your morning meeting. But you'll never see a law passed against taking your kids to school on the way to work.
Quote: MathExtremistThat would be the neighborly thing, wouldn't it? Or even take it one step further and offer a for-profit service to reduce the problem *and* make money? Here's one model:
http://www.johnnycab.net/
FWIW, making a drunk driver's life a "living, wrecked hell" has a far greater cost to society than preventing that drunken driving from happening in the first place. It seems that Mr. "Singer" is attempting to atone for his own drunk driving transgressions so many years ago. His personal demons aside, drunk driving is not, by a long shot, the most common or most dangerous driving impairment. Just yesterday I saw a woman drive through an intersection, both hands on her cell phone texting away, barely looking at the road in front of her. Studies have already shown that texting while driving is just as dangerous as drunk driving, and *far* more people do it than get drunk and drive home. That's becoming illegal in more places, but it's not universally so the way drunk driving is. And I'm willing to bet that, using whatever test scientists use to quantify driver safety, driving buzzed at 2am is a safer proposition than driving a car full of squabbling children to elementary school during rush hour when you're late for your morning meeting. But you'll never see a law passed against taking your kids to school on the way to work.
I have to admit to actually watching Nancy Grace on TV. One statistic she put on screen before ruling on a case was that 28% of all automobile accident are caused by "texting" I believe the number was 1.6 million accidents. Not sure of the source but the numbers seemed real enough. Seems everytime I am at a red light, the adjacent driver is on the phone !
Quote: MathExtremistStudies have already shown that texting while driving is just as dangerous as drunk driving, and *far* more people do it than get drunk and drive home.
Mythbusters showed that, though it was also commented that you can put down your phone, but can't undrunk yourself. Time wise, drinking commits you to the whole trip.
Quote: boymimboHowever, I do not support suspending driver's licenses long term or ruining one's driving career or criminal record because one has consumed a couple of beers and has a BAC of .07.
I don't mean to pick on boymimbo, but he is just the most recent one to suggest that 2 beers will get you close to or over a blood or breath alcohol concentration of .08. While that is possible, it is highly improbable. For an adult either the "two" beers would have to be 40 oz or the person would have to weigh under 100 pounds and drink the two very quickly. Nobody who drinks 2 beers over the course of a football game or an entire night at a bar is going to come close to .08
Quote: nullzero00
i guess everyone has their own brand of fun on a saturday night.
isn't it a little hypocritical to praise the lord over wrecking someone's life?
sounds a little too similar to the westboro baptist church's "preaching" about how fags will burn in hell at miitary funerals.
why don't you instead offer to take them home?
We don't do it for fun. We do it hoping we're making a difference in keeping innocent children and others from having to deal with useless tragedy.
If someone's going to choose to drive over the legal limit, I'm more than happy to see them suffer for it. They wreck their own lives. People who believe the law doesn't apply to them or think they can continually outsmart the system are the ones I enjoy seeing being dragged away screaming and struggling.
Quote: EnvyBonusI don't mean to pick on boymimbo, but he is just the most recent one to suggest that 2 beers will get you close to or over a blood or breath alcohol concentration of .08. While that is possible, it is highly improbable. For an adult either the "two" beers would have to be 40 oz or the person would have to weigh under 100 pounds and drink the two very quickly. Nobody who drinks 2 beers over the course of a football game or an entire night at a bar is going to come close to .08
There are some belgian ales and other strong beers, that have 8% or more alcohol in it. Two of those in an hour can get you there if you are not very fat. Also, police breathalyzers are pretty inaccurate - +/- about 0.02, meaning that even if you are only 0.06, it can get you arrested, and possibly convicted.
The rule of thumb is to never agree to the test, even if you only had half a glass of beer, and have every reason to believe you are below the limit.
Quote: MathExtremistThat would be the neighborly thing, wouldn't it? Or even take it one step further and offer a for-profit service to reduce the problem *and* make money? Here's one model:
http://www.johnnycab.net/
FWIW, making a drunk driver's life a "living, wrecked hell" has a far greater cost to society than preventing that drunken driving from happening in the first place. It seems that Mr. "Singer" is attempting to atone for his own drunk driving transgressions so many years ago. His personal demons aside, drunk driving is not, by a long shot, the most common or most dangerous driving impairment. Just yesterday I saw a woman drive through an intersection, both hands on her cell phone texting away, barely looking at the road in front of her. Studies have already shown that texting while driving is just as dangerous as drunk driving, and *far* more people do it than get drunk and drive home. That's becoming illegal in more places, but it's not universally so the way drunk driving is. And I'm willing to bet that, using whatever test scientists use to quantify driver safety, driving buzzed at 2am is a safer proposition than driving a car full of squabbling children to elementary school during rush hour when you're late for your morning meeting. But you'll never see a law passed against taking your kids to school on the way to work.
It makes no difference to me as to the "cost" to society. I'm interested in saving lives, averting broken families because someone broke the law (and I feel the same about texting) and making people understand that the law does apply to all of us. I have no sympathy for anyone who chooses to drive drunk, and if they have to live homeless the rest of their lives because of it then I applaud their sufferring. They asked for it/they deserved every bit of their punishment.
Your argument about a car full of kids only depicts your non-involvement in this lifestyle, and quite possibly an intended ignorance. There's nothing illegal about rowdy children and they can't always be controlled. Getting drunk is a choice, and getting behind the wheel of an auto drunk is a choice. If a soccer mom crashes because of distractions, my heart goes out to her. If anyone crashes because they're drunk, hopefully they are the only ones to die and if not, let the misery for the rest of their lives begin.
Quote: RobSinger
There's nothing illegal about rowdy children and they can't always be controlled.
Nobody said it was illegal. ME just pointed out (and rightly so), that they (the kids) could, and do, lower your reflexes and attentiveness more than a couple of drinks would. Yet, it is not illegal to drive a car full of kids.
And yes, parents do have choices. They could pay for a school bus. They could walk their kids to school. They could wake up half an hour earlier to avoid the rush on the roads ... And some lives would be saved.
The point is that we make choices all the time, and when we do, most of the time, there is a safe, less convenient, option that could have been chosen.
The reason that dunk driving is illegal, and driving kids to school is not, is not that the latter is safer than the former, because it isn't. It's just that far more people want to do it, so a law like that would never pass, that's all.
Quote:If a soccer mom crashes because of distractions, my heart goes out to her.
Perhaps, that's just because you don't know that distracted driving is as illegal, as driving under influence? It is ... Maybe, next time you feel the need to save lives, you should try stalking some soccer moms as well?
Quote: weaselmanThe reason that dunk driving is illegal, and driving kids to school is not, is not that the latter is safer than the former, because it isn't. It's just that far more people want to do it, so a law like that would never pass, that's all.
Perhaps, that's just because you don't know that distracted driving is as illegal, as driving under influence? It is ... Maybe, next time you feel the need to save lives, you should try stalking some soccer moms as well?
Driving kids to school isn't safer than driving drunk? What are you smoking--that's ridiculous. I drive my grandkids to & from daycare & school every day along with millions of others, and there's nothing unsafe about it even when they're a little rowdy. That's the nature of children. You're just trying to cover ME's back because he said something lacking in logic again.
Show me the law that says all distracted driving is illegal. I get distracted every time I drive to LV because of some idiots being unable to wait to get there. If you really find it necessary to help anyone out, please check your facts first next time. At this point, I tingle with laughter at your post.
Some drunk driving defendants could not pass a breathalyzer even when they are in court since their livers are so shot. Some people really do try to avoid driving drunk and often a person's character is revealed in situations where a woman drives a man she met home and does gallant duty trying to figure out gate codes from a babbling drunk. Gone are the days when cops pretty much ignored a drunk driver unless he was way too drunk. Crime enforcement changes. It used to be a rapist in an upscale neighborhood would rarely be reported and never be prosecuted. Crime was simply different in different neighborhoods and times.
Trips back to retrieve a car? Well, singles bars used to have several "extra" cars in their lots after closing. Heck, I know one Buddhist festival that often has extra cars left in their parking lot some of them for more than a year. Perhaps the drugs really affect memory though sometimes I suspect its more than that.
We tend to criminalize a great deal of behavior and once the indignities of a jail cell become known rather than imagined, crime increases. (Just as cops say your first crime is the hardest one, your first jail stint is the hardest one too). People in Los Angeles used to make friends in traffic school, now they tend to do it in South Bay jail cells that they rent out in which to serve their time rather than go to downtown's Central Jail. Drunk driving is nowhere near as profitable for a community as drug dealing, but a good deal of revenue is generated by it. Drugs, booze and sex offenses really bring in revenue to the system!
Quote: RobSingerYour argument about a car full of kids only depicts your non-involvement in this lifestyle, and quite possibly an intended ignorance. There's nothing illegal about rowdy children and they can't always be controlled. Getting drunk is a choice, and getting behind the wheel of an auto drunk is a choice. If a soccer mom crashes because of distractions, my heart goes out to her. If anyone crashes because they're drunk, hopefully they are the only ones to die and if not, let the misery for the rest of their lives begin.
If you're implying that I don't have the frequent opportunity (indeed, obligation) to drive a car full of rowdy children, you'd be mistaken. You're just as mistaken when you imply I said there was anything illegal about doing so. My only point was that it's specious to argue that impaired driving is only sometimes bad because of the nature of the impairment. If an innocent bystander gets run down by a distracted soccer mom, your heart goes out to her, but if the same bystander gets run down by a drunk driver, let the misery begin. If that's your position, it's internally inconsistent. The innocent bystander certainly doesn't care why he got hit by the car.
Quote: RobSingerDriving kids to school isn't safer than driving drunk? What are you smoking--that's ridiculous. I drive my grandkids to & from daycare & school every day along with millions of others, and there's nothing unsafe about it even when they're a little rowdy. That's the nature of children. You're just trying to cover ME's back because he said something lacking in logic again.
Show me the law that says all distracted driving is illegal. I get distracted every time I drive to LV because of some idiots being unable to wait to get there. If you really find it necessary to help anyone out, please check your facts first next time. At this point, I tingle with laughter at your post.
I never said all distracted driving is illegal. I said (or implied) that distracted driving is equivalent from a safety standpoint. If your probability of crashing on a 30 minute trip increases by 10% due to two beers, 10% due to texting for 5 minutes out of those 30 minutes, or 10% due to having two screaming children in the back, then by definition all of those impairments are equally unsafe. Only two of them are illegal (and in some places, only one).
If you really want to atone for your reckless drunk driving behavior as a college student, you should help others avoid the same potentially fatal mistakes you made. Try to help people get home alive instead of being such a hypocrite:
Quote: RobSingerAnyone who chooses to drive drunk should be executed the very first time they get caught.
Quote: RobSingerWhen I was 19 and a student at a college in Boston in the late 60's I was driving up in Beverly, Mass. with a buddy and 2 girls we picked up from Endicott Jr. College. We had a bottle of S. Comfort, 2 six-packs, and some Jack. I was completely out of it but still drove. I got stopped by the cops for speeding, going thru a stop sign, drag racing, extreme drunk driving, underage drinking, and mouthing off to the cop. So what did they do?
Well, we know they didn't execute you the very first time you got caught. Do you suggest they should have?
Quote: MathExtremistIf you're implying that I don't have the frequent opportunity (indeed, obligation) to drive a car full of rowdy children, you'd be mistaken. You're just as mistaken when you imply I said there was anything illegal about doing so. My only point was that it's specious to argue that impaired driving is only sometimes bad because of the nature of the impairment. If an innocent bystander gets run down by a distracted soccer mom, your heart goes out to her, but if the same bystander gets run down by a drunk driver, let the misery begin. If that's your position, it's internally inconsistent. The innocent bystander certainly doesn't care why he got hit by the car.
Well, we know they didn't execute you the very first time you got caught. Do you suggest they should have?
And therein is your reason for having an incomplete understanding of the issue, simply because your propensity to always think you're right clouds your ability to keep your eyes and mind open.
You explicitly implied you believed it was illegal to drive distracted, and your example of soccer moms wasn't mentioned because you have a crush on Pele. When soccer mom gets distracted due to extreme behavior by children and kills a bystander because of it, it is not thru any fault of her own. I feel sympathy for her and the bystander. If it's a feat accomplished to a DUI criminal, I wish them a lifetime of sufferring. If you see inconsistency in that then you are truly sympathetic for anyone who drives drunk and gets nailed because of it.
Laws were not in place then. If they were and they were enforced, I absolutely believe I should have had my life destroyed at that point in time. Imagine all the others who's lives would have been saved because they saw what happened to me.
Quote: RobSinger
You explicitly implied you believed it was illegal to drive distracted,
He did not. It was me who said that. ME explicitly said he thought it wasn't.
Quote:When soccer mom gets distracted due to extreme behavior by children and kills a bystander because of it, it is not thru any fault of her own.
Yes, it is. If your ability to drive is impaired by being drunk or by being distracted or by any other reason, you should not be driving.
If you exercise bad judgment, and still drive in that even, and consequently kill someone, that killing is the direct result of your bad judgment, and you are the one responsible for it, not your kids.
Quote: RobSingerLaws were not in place then. If they were and they were enforced, I absolutely believe I should have had my life destroyed at that point in time. Imagine all the others who's lives would have been saved because they saw what happened to me.
You think that chasing a six-pack with a few shots of Jack and Southern Comfort and then driving your three friends in a drunken street race when you were 19 was okay simply because it wasn't sufficiently punished by law enforcement, while at the same time, you think people who go home from the pub with a beer or two in them deserve a lifetime of suffering because the laws are stricter today. That says quite a bit.
It's seems logical, but then I was also thinking, someone could be in a highly alert state, or even agitated, making them less susceptible to an accident (not necessarily all the time of course, just enough to make a difference in the results).
Race car drivers have all kinds of accidents at the tracks, but I imagine if they weren't driving at the exteme edge the highly alert state of attention would serve them pretty well normally.
Quote: MathExtremistyou think people who go home from the pub with a beer or two in them deserve a lifetime of suffering because the laws are stricter today. That says quite a bit.
ME- I understand your concept. But it is NOT 'a beer or two'. It is more than that, unless you consider a 32 ounce pitcher one beer.
Quote: nullzero00
Or you wait till a time where there are lesser cars on the road to drive home.
no one is asking you to drunk drive home as if you were in the Indy 500, just make it home period. and yes, there are lots of people who can do just that, especially with practice. it's not difficult.
Ha! I love this part. Yes, drunk driving takes lots of practice to get good at it. Some people work at it every day. After years of experience, some are much better drivers after 14 Jagermeister shots than the guy with no practice who has 3 beers and hits a mailbox. NYE is the worst night to be driving at all due to all the amateur drinkers on the road.
I've never had, or seen, a breathalyzther interlock on a car, so not sure how it works. What's to prevent a sober person from hopping in with a six-pack, blowing into the tube to start the car, then proceed drinking? Or blowing into a balloon when he's sober, then using that air to start the car when he's drunk? Having to keep blowing into the tube every 15 minutes to keep the engine running seems ridiculous unless this particular one is inside a habitual drinker's car, but wouldn't it just be easier to give that guy the ankle bracelet that alerts police to any alcohol use? I would not be opposed to new cars having these devices, just like having hands-free phones installed.
May I ask what jurisdiction that is? I mean 0.04 means that you walked downwind of the cork.Quote: avargovI only get .04 before the DUI comes into play.
So unless you consider SEVEN a 'couple', .08 requires a LOT of drinking. Put em all in jail.
Quote: MathExtremistYou think that chasing a six-pack with a few shots of Jack and Southern Comfort and then driving your three friends in a drunken street race when you were 19 was okay simply because it wasn't sufficiently punished by law enforcement, while at the same time, you think people who go home from the pub with a beer or two in them deserve a lifetime of suffering because the laws are stricter today. That says quite a bit.
You're making that up because you're getting not in a position of supremacy here. I'm the last one who would say it was OK because the laws weren't very stiff back then. I was lucky, but if I had known then what I did now and I still did it then yes, I would have deserved a lifetime of suffering--esp. if I killed someone.
People who drive over the legal limit kill innocent people, including children, all the time, and it's a tragedy because it didn't have to happen if someone didn't break the law. Go out and ask the mother or father of a dead child killed by a drunk driver if the drunk doesn't deserve end-of-life. Then please stop minimilazing the crime.
I used to DJ at a pub and once or twice a week there would be a police "roadblock" set up about 3 or 4 blocks away. The people (including the drunks) knew exactly where it was so they'd just drive the other way and take a longer route home. I once asked a cop why he didn't just sit outside the parking lot and he looked straight at me and said, "That wouldn't be fair".
Yes, distracted driving, and all sorts of other things can impair your ability to concentrate and there are many other reasons why someone could be a danger behind the wheel but this is an easy one and easily preventable.
Don't drink and drive... it's that simple.
Quote: weaselmanThe rule of thumb is to never agree to the test, even if you only had half a glass of beer, and have every reason to believe you are below the limit.
Do so and your license is automatically and instantly suspended for 6 months, even if your BAC is 0. At least thats the law in NYS.
Quote: zippyboyHaving to keep blowing into the tube every 15 minutes to keep the engine running seems ridiculous unless this particular one is inside a habitual drinker's car...
Ridiculous? Yes, that's the point. Take every attempt to ensure that someone who has shown they drink and drive do not do it again, regardless of how imposing it is.
I've had a few occassions of driving under the influence in my younger days, as most of us had. Nearly every one of them resulted in a leisurely drive home devoid of any incident of any kind. Eventually, the stats catch up to you and I flipped my moms brand new Saturn end over end through the trees at 80mph. I somehow avoided any intox based legal repercusions, but suffered a severe concussion, had to have glass water jetted from my eyes, and injured two of my friends. One was buckled and received 5 stitches to the forehead and one was unbuckled and got tossed about the interior, thankfully only receiving bruises. I had my head go through the drivers side window and strike the inside of the ditch I crashed into, both my hands went through the windsheild...it was a fucking mess. I was unconscious for almost 4 hours and scared my friends and parents half to death. I hit so hard the engine block split and two of the pistons shattered; a shard of the piston was given to me later to remind me that I'm living on borrowed time.
My only punishment, other than the loss of the brand new car, was the typical failure to keep right, unsafe speed on a corner b.s. But I tell you the guilt I felt and still feel to this very day is worse than any jail time one could have issued to me. Even though my friends made it out relatively unscathed, just the thought of what they went through while I was unconscious haunts me to this day. I actually just saw both of them last week and I still apologize every time I see them and tell them how thankful I am they're ok, and the accident was 13.5 yrs ago. I wasn't hammered by any means, I had maybe the equivilent of 4-5 shots over the course of a HS football game. I was just buzzed, and you know the rest. I wouldn't support the harassment of each and every person seen with a drink in their hand, but if someone like Singer got a guy like me pulled of the road, then hell. Kudos.
Quote: TheNightflyThe difference between drinking and driving and all of the other distracted driving scenarios mentioned is that when you drive to a pub knowing that you're going to have a few (or more) drinks and knowing that you are then going to get into your car and drive, you're making a concious decision to do something you know is not only illegal but dangerous to you and possibly others.
Where is the difference? Are you saying that when I am putting my kids into a car I am doing it unconsciously, or that I don't know that one of them will probably try to strangle the other before we leave the drive way, and that I will have to take my eyes off the road, and do something about it, or just that I don't know that it would be dangerous?
Quote: weaselmanWhere is the difference? Are you saying that when I am putting my kids into a car I am doing it unconsciously, or that I don't know that one of them will probably try to strangle the other before we leave the drive way, and that I will have to take my eyes off the road, and do something about it, or just that I don't know that it would be dangerous?
The difference is that drinking and driving is illegal. The difference is that you are a moron to do it.
If you don't, why not if you consider it so low risk as to do it yourself?
If you say, well it's low risk, but I would rather not put my kids to even that much risk. And yet, what about someone elses kids in another car you might injure if or when you hit it after this small amount of drinking?
Good cop. Sobriety checkpoints are barely legal from a constitutional standpoint already. Police have to have neutral location set by neutral higher-ups and cannot make decisions on which cars to stop based on their own judgment. If they set up shop right outside the bar, they would be targeting those bars' patrons, which wouldn't fit the Fourth Amendment right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure as interpreted by the Supreme Court.Quote: TheNightfly
I used to DJ at a pub and once or twice a week there would be a police "roadblock" set up about 3 or 4 blocks away. The people (including the drunks) knew exactly where it was so they'd just drive the other way and take a longer route home. I once asked a cop why he didn't just sit outside the parking lot and he looked straight at me and said, "That wouldn't be fair".
Another issue is whether a tip from a so-called "reliable informant," like Singer, is enough to give the police probable cause to pull a guy over. Rob, do you have a history with your local police department where you have made reliable tips that have led to arrests? For the most part, calling in and saying, "my friend is driving drunk," or "that guy by the bus stop has a gun" does not suffice for probable cause to arrest or search.
Quote: RobSingerYou're making that up because you're getting not in a position of supremacy here.
How about you stop it with the lemonade stand psychoanalysis?
Quote:Go out and ask the mother or father of a dead child killed by a drunk driver if the drunk doesn't deserve end-of-life. Then please stop minimilazing the crime.
I don't disagree that drunk driving is a serious crime, but that's a stupid statement. Ask the parents of a child killed by a sober driver who was otherwise distracted, whether they feel any better that the guy who killed their child wasn't drunk.
Quote: teddysGood cop. Sobriety checkpoints are barely legal from a constitutional standpoint already. Police have to have neutral location set by neutral higher-ups and cannot make decisions on which cars to stop based on their own judgment. If they set up shop right outside the bar, they would be targeting those bars' patrons, which wouldn't fit the Fourth Amendment right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure as interpreted by the Supreme Court.
I didn't mean for him to wait until they were in their car and had driven 20 feet out of the lot to pull them over. I meant why did he not stop those who were obviously (stumbling, falling down) drunk from getting in their car in the first place? I've never had someone close to me killed by a drunk driver so this is no personal mission I'm on. I just don't see why some people feel it is their right to get behind the wheel of a car while intoxicated and are so against being told they should not. I am amused by some here who will point to all of the other reasons why someone might be a danger to others while driving and say, "Look at them, why don't you stop them?" I would if I could stop anyone from doing something dangerous while driving but one of the easiest and most often responsible for causing accidents and harm is drunk driving. Let's just start with that and see what we can do next.
Quote: TheNightflyThe difference is that drinking and driving is illegal.
Yeah, but that was the point in this thread - the laws are arbitrary. One thing is legal, the other is not, but why? What is the difference?
Quote: FaceI've had a few occassions of driving under the influence in my younger days, as most of us had. Nearly every one of them resulted in a leisurely drive home devoid of any incident of any kind. Eventually, the stats catch up to you and I flipped my moms brand new Saturn end over end through the trees at 80mph. I somehow avoided any intox based legal repercusions, but suffered a severe concussion, had to have glass water jetted from my eyes, and injured two of my friends. One was buckled and received 5 stitches to the forehead and one was unbuckled and got tossed about the interior, thankfully only receiving bruises. I had my head go through the drivers side window and strike the inside of the ditch I crashed into, both my hands went through the windsheild...it was a fucking mess. I was unconscious for almost 4 hours and scared my friends and parents half to death. I hit so hard the engine block split and two of the pistons shattered; a shard of the piston was given to me later to remind me that I'm living on borrowed time.
My only punishment, other than the loss of the brand new car, was the typical failure to keep right, unsafe speed on a corner b.s. But I tell you the guilt I felt and still feel to this very day is worse than any jail time one could have issued to me. Even though my friends made it out relatively unscathed, just the thought of what they went through while I was unconscious haunts me to this day. I actually just saw both of them last week and I still apologize every time I see them and tell them how thankful I am they're ok, and the accident was 13.5 yrs ago. I wasn't hammered by any means, I had maybe the equivilent of 4-5 shots over the course of a HS football game. I was just buzzed, and you know the rest. I wouldn't support the harassment of each and every person seen with a drink in their hand, but if someone like Singer got a guy like me pulled of the road, then hell. Kudos.
Okay, you sound EXACTLY like the kind of guy who needs to practice driving drunk more often. You're obviously no good at it.
Seriously though, buzzed driving can be worse than drunk driving because drunks are aware of their impaired condition and take back streets, go slowly and avoid cops. BUZZED driving in the testosterone-laden guy like YOU, makes him more aggressive and prone to racing other buzzed guys and seeing how fast he can take the curves and playing "obstacle course" on the highway. Especially in a car-guy like our boy Face here, at a high school football game.
Glad you learned your lesson, but not all of us are as inept as you at driving, or re-evaluating our situation under certain circumstances. I'm not trying to pick a fight here. Just sounds like you were young, dumb and fulla 5 shots and taking chances in a Saturn (!) of all things.
Quote: RobSingerI was lucky, but if I had known then what I did now and I still did it then yes, I would have deserved a lifetime of suffering--esp. if I killed someone.
I can put no credence in the opinions of someone so callously and hypocritically irresponsible as to suggest that being young and ignorant is somehow a mitigating factor in drunk driving, but who otherwise suggests that those caught doing it deserve a lifetime of suffering or, more incredulously, deserve to be murdered.
If we got rid the requirement for minimum auto insurance would that be a better state of things. How?
How about muffler laws? How about leash laws? How about zoning laws? If it's your property should anyone tell you what to build on it? Someone can start a hog farm next to your house now. Even if they can keep the smell down it won't exactly help your property values.
Quote: zippyboyOkay, you sound EXACTLY like the kind of guy who needs to practice driving drunk more often. You're obviously no good at it.
Seriously though, buzzed driving can be worse than drunk driving because drunks are aware of their impaired condition and take back streets, go slowly and avoid cops. BUZZED driving in the testosterone-laden guy like YOU, makes him more aggressive and prone to racing other buzzed guys and seeing how fast he can take the curves and playing "obstacle course" on the highway. Especially in a car-guy like our boy Face here, at a high school football game.
Glad you learned your lesson, but not all of us are as inept as you at driving, or re-evaluating our situation under certain circumstances. I'm not trying to pick a fight here. Just sounds like you were young, dumb and fulla 5 shots and taking chances in a Saturn (!) of all things.
No offense taken, you had me pretty much pegged. Or at least the 17yr old version of me. I'll agree that so-called 'responsible drunk drivers' are more aware of their intoxicated state than a 17yr old hopped up on tequilla and testosterone, but still. Anything that lessens your ability to drive, to include texting, shaving, driving fatigued, reading the paper, practicing the trumpet, or any other crazy activity I've seen or read about, should be avoided. I wouldn't go so far to say that they should be drawn and quartered, but those people you hear about getting pulled over and blowing .3's and .4's should at the very least be punched in the head.
Quote: rxwineAll laws are onerous to someone, while not to others.
If we got rid the requirement for minimum auto insurance would that be a better state of things. How?
How? Easily. Allow me to engage you in a thought experiment:
Case One: Everyone has to carry a federally mandated minimum of one billion dollars' auto liability insurance.
Case Two: The present situation.
Case Three: No mandate to carry liability insurance at all.
What would be the dollar amount of the average liability lawsuit in each case? How much money would end up in the hands of insurance companies and lawyers in each case?
Quote: weaselmanExactly. If it was not for beer, why chose a bar? There are other, nicer, places you could see your friends and chat
Ah, you see, I'm possibly spoiled in that respect too... there's a lot of nice, clean bars and pubs both where I live, and where I used to live. Not drinking beer in them is fine to me.
Quote:Sure, I have options. I could not go, I could call my wife, and ask her to come pick me up, I could call a cab, I could drink at home, I could smoke weed instead ... Everybody has options. All I said was that Europeans have more options than we do over here ...
And on reflection, your point is well made. It also proves my point... the social stigma for drink driving is MUCH higher in the UK and Europe than in North America.
Quote:Of course. I have to drive with my leg in a cast now. If I kill someone, I'll always be thinking "maybe, I should not have been driving with that cast". And, as usual, I DO have options (have my wife drive me to and from work, hire a personal driver, etc.), they just all suck.
And sometimes, the options all suck. but that doesn't mean it's the right thing to do to take the one that sucks least for you. Or at least not in my own moral code. Yours may vary, naturally.
Quote:You must be having this conversation awfully often :)
There's very good reason for that, I'm not going into here. Lets just say, it's one of my few absolutes.
Quote:Yes, reaction times slow. That does not mean you can't drive though. It means you can't drive as well as you could if you did not have that beer. It is not the same. Chances are that your, slowed, reaction time will still be better than that of my grandmother driving her Buick to church every Sunday. And your heightened attentiveness and caution are going to be way better than hers. She's been doing it for 30 years, and still has not kill anyone. Chances are, that after two beers, you are still a better driver, then she is sober, perhaps, even more than two. But maybe not. People's driving skills and reaction times are very different. If you don't feel confident you can drive better than my grandmother, I understand why you say so categorically that it would be a bad idea (she is NOT a very good driver), but some people are better drivers than others.
Indeed, the Grandmother in the Buick (or the Cutlass it seems to be around here) is a danger as well. As are texting mothers with kids, the arsehole on the phone, the guy whose just smoked a doobie or the lady eating her toast and putting on the make up. There's laws for some of this stuff already, called "driving without due care and attention". No need to add extra laws (hey hey) to deal with these, and be all means the police should pull over and fine those people as well.
But just because someone else does something dangerous, doesn't remove the fact that driving buzzed increases the risk to yourself and others.
Driving slower while buzzed is a great way for the police to stop you... they see someone doing well under the speed limit as a giant red flag.
We are not talking about getting wasted, and driving. We are talking about a couple of beers.
Quote:Of the 40% you mentioned, half if not more, is, probably either teenagers, who can't drive even when sober, or stupid lowlife rejects, who were driving totally wasted, not even knowing where they were (I've seen that). A half of the rest are cases that would happen anyway, even if the driver did not have that beer ... And what's left, I'll give you that, are people, who are not very good drivers to begin with, having their marginal skills impaired even further by alcohol without realizing what they are doing.
The number of teenagers crashing while drunk has been reduced considerably, according to my recent reading. The rest I can't speak for.
An 0.08 blood alcohol level is reachable by drinking 4 330ml 5.5% in 2 hours (give or take depending on weight). I personally don't think that 0.08 is a safe level (0.05 will get you cited here as well).
As an aside, there was an article in the USA Today over the weekend about car manufacturers offering alcohol detection systems as an option in their cars in the next ten years. Instead of a tube it'd worked by some sort of ambient air test... (shrug).
Quote: thecesspit
An 0.08 blood alcohol level is reachable by drinking 4 330ml 5.5% in 2 hours (give or take depending on weight). I personally don't think that 0.08 is a safe level (0.05 will get you cited here as well).
I think this statement is misleading, even with the "give or take depending on weight" qualifier. As I wrote before, you would have to weigh about 100 lbs or less to reach a .08 under the conditions you describe.
Quote: EnvyBonusI think this statement is misleading, even with the "give or take depending on weight" qualifier. As I wrote before, you would have to weigh about 100 lbs or less to reach a .08 under the conditions you describe.
You are right, I made a mistake when playing with the calculator. Apologies.
2 small beers (341ml) in an hour keeps you under the limit if around 200lb
4 beers in two hours, would put you around the legal limit in Ontario.
Quote: thecesspit
And on reflection, your point is well made. It also proves my point... the social stigma for drink driving is MUCH higher in the UK and Europe than in North America.
Yes, I agreed with your point from get go. I was just explaining WHY it was so.
Quote:And sometimes, the options all suck. but that doesn't mean it's the right thing to do to take the one that sucks least for you. Or at least not in my own moral code. Yours may vary, naturally.
I guess, it just depends on how much the others suck, and how much harm to others you perceive would be caused by taking the "best" one. It is always a trade-off. If you had to drive drunk in order to save your life, I think you would reconsider your position for that one time.
Quote:Indeed, the Grandmother in the Buick (or the Cutlass it seems to be around here) is a danger as well.
Or, maybe, not. Why do you think she is a danger? Just the fact she cannot drive as well as you can does not mean that, unless you consider yourself the absolute worst possible driver.
Not everyone who drives worse than you is a danger, including yourself under some kind of impairment (sleepinessm distraction, alcohol). Sometimes it is the case, and sometimes it is not.
Quote:An 0.08 blood alcohol level is reachable by drinking 4 330ml 5.5% in 2 hours (give or take depending on weight). I personally don't think that 0.08 is a safe level (0.05 will get you cited here as well).
And I don't think that there is such a thing as "safe level", that would be the same for everyone. It depends not only on your weight, but more so on your skill and experience as a driver.
Quote: weaselmanYes, I agreed with your point from get go. I was just explaining WHY it was so.
Indeed, and I had rather glossed over that point, which is what I was admiting to, that I understand your WHY now.
Quote:Or, maybe, not. Why do you think she is a danger? Just the fact she cannot drive as well as you can does not mean that, unless you consider yourself the absolute worst possible driver.
Not everyone who drives worse than you is a danger, including yourself under some kind of impairment (sleepinessm distraction, alcohol). Sometimes it is the case, and sometimes it is not.
I should have said "she could be a danger". Lots of things add to the danger of a particular driver. A couple of beers is one of those things and I believe the evidence shows that it's a universal addition to the risk, regardless of the skill level the driver starts at.
Like i say, the fact there is already a driving without due care law (and also a reckless driving law and various other road laws, at least in the UK, I believe also in Canada) , means we don't have to legislate extra laws on those things.
That said, you can easily make the point that with those laws you have to show that the driver DID do something careless (ignored a road sign etc etc), rather than the potential to do so (e.g. from drinking). I think the burden of proof is harder if a police officer sees someone reading while driving over taking a breath test. In the former, unless they grab photo footage, it'll much harder to prosecute.
That all said, I think it's correct that the law prosecute those who drive over the limit, and that society as a whole should not accept those people who do it.
Quote:And I don't think that there is such a thing as "safe level", that would be the same for everyone. It depends not only on your weight, but more so on your skill and experience as a driver.
Hence there's a line drawn at some level where BAC has been shown to be detrimental on a certain percentage of the population.
BAC is a function of amount drunk, time since drinking, ability of kidneys to process alchol out of the bloodstream and total blood volume. The latter is related to weight. Hence the point someone else made about 100lb person will be over the limit faster than 300lb person.
Quote:TALLAHASSEE - Lawmakers outraged over Casey Anthony’s acquittal have responded by proposing so-called Caylee’s laws that would allow prosecutors to bring felony charges against parents who do not quickly report missing children.
The new measures were triggered, at least in part, by an online petition that had more than 700,000 signatures yesterday. Some questioned whether a new law would do any good because the circumstances of the Anthony case were so rare, but lawmakers in at least a dozen states have already floated proposals reacting to the verdict.
here
Generally, it is often well meaning -- but you never know where some new legislation might take you. For instance, 3 strikes laws are intended to take care of some of the problems with repeat offenders who go on and on and on, getting out again and again. But they have also locked up people with relatively minor offenses on their record with some long sentences. Some people did nothing for years, got a felony marijuanna charge as a third strike, and wham, suddenly they're looking at years in jail.
Quote: rxwineGenerally, it is often well meaning -- but you never know where some new legislation might take you.
Exactly. People often forget to take into account the law of unintended consequences.
Quote:For instance, 3 strikes laws are intended to take care of some of the problems with repeat offenders who go on and on and on, getting out again and again. But they have also locked up people with relatively minor offenses on their record with some long sentences. Some people did nothing for years, got a felony marijuanna charge as a third strike, and wham, suddenly they're looking at years in jail.
And minimum drug sentencing laws often put people in jail for a decade for very minor offenses, too.
The problem with all such laws is that they remove prosecutorial and judicial discretion. Prosecutors have to bring charges, and judges must impose draconian sentences. It gets to the point of why even use judges in sentencing any more, right? And that is a frightening thought.
There will always be exceptions to the general rule. And that's where people with authority and power ought to exercise their judgement, not substitute it with rules designed to correct a past wrong, often well in the past.
As to the Casey Anthony trial, one might as well pass a law punishing over-ambitious prosecutors for pursuing unsustainable charges. A lot of legal pundits have said there was not enough evidence in this case to support a first degree murder charge, but plenty to support lesser charges. I understand the impulse to seek the ultimate penalty in the murder of a child, but if the evidence won't support it then you shouldn't. But I'm also sure the prosecution thought they could convict.
Lastly, and most important, the law is not, and should not be, retroactive. Many of these case-inspired laws are an attempt at making a retroactive law.
