Alcohol campaign

[JMortensen]

Let's forego your insane totalitarian pipe dreams and stick to the subject. The statutes are arbitrary (used to be .12, then .10, now .08 since I've been keeping track) and the idea that 750,000 get arrested per year (probably more, I noticed on that one map that CA alone has over 170K people a year arrested for DUI and Texas has 90K plus), and guessing most are probably fined $1000 or more says to me that the $750M or $1B or more that the govt takes in might have a little more to do with the laws and help explain those arbitrary limits falling more than the danger to the public, which seems to be coming down, and yet the punishments get stiffer and stiffer. I used to believe that people who got arrested for DUI were drunk and swerving all over the road. Now I know that is not the case. Stick your head in the sand, imagine me to be a macho idiot who drinks and drives as a point of pride (that's about as far off the mark as you can get), forsake the Constitution in deference to the same groupthink nannystaters that you claim to despise. I'll keep on trying to assess the risk rationally and arguing for people to actually have to be failing to drive the car in order to be considered drunk driving.

Edited December 12, 2010 by JMortensen

[BLOZ UP]

I think it's far easier to just insist on a zero tolerance policy. It's a lot better than trying to determine who can and can't drive at arbitrary BAC levels. This way drunks know that if they have had ANYTHING to drink, they shouldn't be driving. It's a bit harder to rationalize "oh it was just a couple beers" when the limit is at 0.

 

In Germany and Luxembourg, at least, they have cheaper taxis late at night, and a lot more public transport. In Luxembourg, young kids also get a few free taxi rides whenever they turn 18 or whatever age it is where they can drink hard liquor.

 

 

As for that ad, I bet if we'd get over our taboo on showing real "bad things" on TV, those ads would be very effective here. Better than the "You drink, you drive, you lose" crap that drunks drive by and can't see straight to read them in the first place. Show them what really happens when you drink and drive.

 

Just a few days ago some moron in an F250 drove straight through the ******* fence at our barn. Ripped 3 posts and their concrete bases out of the ground. Luckily it was late at night and in one of the pastures that's only in use during the day. Being the typical drunk driver, he drove off. Luckily he left half of his bumper along with his license plate. It's a good $3,000 worth of fence. I wish the owners would sue him for all he's worth. That could have easily been my horse, or a house, or a person.

[JMortensen]

Zero tolerance would seem to be the answer if you have the opinion that people shouldn't drink and drive at all, and I think that is what MADD and other groups are pushing for, but again, I see it as an unreasonable infringement on liberty. I think the problem is that "you drink, you drive, you lose" doesn't reflect reality. I really do wonder how many people are technically under the influence but just make it home without any trouble. I would guess that it is much much much higher than the number of people popped for drunk driving. They drink, they drive, and they don't lose.

 

Just looked it up. From this page: http://www.popcenter.../drunk_driving/

Low Risk of Apprehension Perhaps the single most significant factor in explaining why people drive while impaired is that they believe that there is little risk that they will be caught by police and statistically, they are correct. By some estimates, the average drunk driver will drive while impaired between 80 and 2000 times for every time he is apprehended, depending on the enforcement capacity of the local police. 28 In fact, most drivers believe they are more likely to be involved in a crash than they are to be stopped by police.29

 

If you can do something successfully 2000 times and not hurt anyone in the process, and then on 2001 the government comes in and says what you're doing is wrong and that you have to pay a hefty fine and take alcohol awareness classes or court ordered AA, I think that is wrong. Again, if you're unable to control the car on attempt 2001, that's a different story, but that's no longer my impression of how it usually happens.

 

Note also that speeding has a very similar page on the same website, and yet nobody seems to want to take me seriously when I compare the two.

Edited December 12, 2010 by JMortensen

[Two80z4me]

"I have to agree with Tony D. Just shoot them and toss the bodies in the ditch."

 

and here we have a prime example of American ignorance at its finest, in a time where we would rather shoot drunk drivers and throw them in a ditch then spend that time looking for rapists, murderers and thieves.

 

That mentality displayed ever so softly is exactly what landed us to war blindly after 9/11. Not to mention 3,000 innocent people aren't dying at once from drunk drivers, its a prolonged suffering.

 

Drunk driving laws are absurd, they are very hit and miss, as with many other laws. One thing you have to consider are the family of the drunk drivers, what they lose. I understand many familys shrug it off and still sit by their irresponsible overgrown childs behavoir like its perfectly fine. My father, he has had a few DUI's. The first one, he lost all his jobs, that was to be expected and deserved. The second one, he went to jail for over a year and lost all his family in the process. The third one, he spent another year in jail. Ten years later, he drinks responsibly and pays the government for jail time. In all three cases the only reason the cop pulled him over is because they knew him, he blew a .08 all three times, passed all of his field sobriety tests and wasn't pulled over for suspicious driving behavoirs, now to me that seems flawed. Give the student his test, watch him pass and succeed. Then promptly rip it up and tell him he was supposed to use pen. The majority of drivers pulled over, are putting others in danger, the people that are putting others in danger are those who naturally fail at driving sober, I say we raise the driving test recquirements, would that not weed out the terrible drivers first? And to the comment about truck drivers having a .04 or lower, I believe that should be .00 afterall, most of the time that truck is their job, and I for one know that if I showed up at my work with a hint of alcohol on my breath I would be fired. As for the .08, that law is ludacris. It isn't followed, as I've seen in many cases, I know many ex-police officers who admit they would bust someone under that limit for their behavior. The system is flawed.

 

Call me liberal, but I don't think shooting people and throwing them in the ditch will solve any problems. If that is truely how you feel, that scares me, and it tells me that we really do have a couple generations of anger above us that feed the machine. I understand your point of view, but I rudely decline it.

[BLOZ UP]

There's little liberty lost when a person has to call a cab instead of driving on their own. I've known for a while that most drunk drivers do not get caught. If they do get caught, half of the time it's after they have wrecked. I think enacting a zero-tolerance policy would be the best solution, even if it does encroach on the "liberty" of a few people who can drive safely at low BAC levels. I just think it is too resource intensive to allow people to drink and drive and leave it up to the police, who are vastly outnumbered, to catch and determine who is over the limit and who isn't.

 

If it is known from the beginning that no alcohol is allowed to be in your system when you drive, it will be much more clear to people who go to bars that no matter how much they think they won't be drinking, it's still illegal.

 

But another problem is just driver's education. If that were worth anything in this country there would be less DUIs.

[Lazeum]

Laws are very different from the US and other places in the world.

 

I won't come back on US' ones, you all know them. I lived 5 years in MI so do I.

 

In France for instance, cops can ask someone to pull over randomly without having anything to justify. As a result, cops would usually block a street and pull over everyone. If you're at the wrong place at the wrong moment, you're done. Cops could be over 20 for this kind of operation: some will stop cars and direct drivers to next stage to test you while others will write down the DUI. It's 6 points on your license, a day in jail, fines (400-1000€) and permit automatically suspended for 6 months. It is not as severe as what happens in the US but the way it happens is unfair.

they will also ignore the debate about "are you able to drive under influence?", they consider the whole population as a group, same laws for everyone; you can be a 200lbs guy or 100lbs lady, rules are the same.

 

Same for speed limits, when a curve is limited at 30mph. it could rain & be cold during winter or be dry & hot during summer, the limit remains the same. It includes worst case conditions with very basic car capability. The Ferrari guy during summer does not have the rights to go faster than the Dodge Neon driver in winter.

With France still as reference, we do have automatic radars. I get caught on a 4 lines highway at 1am (I was alone on the road) for speeding 95 kph (=59mph) instead of 90 (=56mph). How retarded is that?

The radar does not think, I was above the limit => I pay. Same goes with cops here, they don't think (they would need diplomas for that ) .

Edited December 13, 2010 by Lazeum

[BLOZ UP]

Same for speed limits, when a curve is limited at 30mph. it could rain & be cold during winter or be dry & hot during summer, the limit remains the same. It includes worst case conditions with very basic car capability. The Ferrari guy during summer does not have the rights to go faster than the Dodge Neon driver in winter.

 

This is different than in the US? That's usually how it is, set with the lowest common denominator in mind.

 

I just wish we had inertial limits here. IE a 4000 lb SUV can only go 50 mph on the highway where as a Miata can go 65 mph. Too bad no one would follow them. Way too much involved in implementation anyway.

 

With France still as reference, we do have automatic radars. I get caught on a 4 lines highway at 1am (I was alone on the road) for speeding 95 kph (=59mph) instead of 90 (=56mph). How retarded is that?

The radar does not think, I was above the limit => I pay. Same goes with cops here, they don't think (they would need diplomas for that ) .

 

I've driven in Europe a few times now. Each time I drove like a bat out of hell (in the rural parts, anyway), and I was clearly warned by signs indicating radar ahead. Oh wait, that wasn't in France. My TomTom warned me in France. I see how you can be upset. But they have to draw the line somewhere. 95 in a 90 is speeding.

 

A lot of people (in the US) assume that you're allowed to go 5 mph over the limit. No, cops can pull you over for going 1 mph over. But they have better things to do. I have also wondered if people thought that they are "getting away with speeding" from their speedos being notoriously inaccurate at highway speeds. Cars in the 90s and early 2000s and earlier commonly read, say, 65 MPH when in fact you are going 60 mph.

[260DET]

In AU the alcohol limit is .05 which still allows you to have a couple of social drinks and drive home. Cops can pull anyone over at any time and have a 'booze bus' mobile HQ when they decide to stop traffic on a road and do breath tests. None of which I have a problem with, its the stupid open road speed limits that really get to you on a long trip.

[Tony D]

"I think the problem is that "you drink, you drive, you lose" doesn't reflect reality."

 

It reflects the reality in so many other countries, how do you explain that other than the social pressures that don't let people get into the thought process that drinking more than (as the previous post states) a couple of social drinks and driving home. In Japan it's been 0.04 for more years than I can think of...you just don't drink and drive. If you're caught, it's one of the only ways to loose your license there.

 

It's a cultural phenomenon in America that leads people to disregard OTHERS rights to drive on a roadway clear of impaired drivers and places THEIR right to drink as much as they see fit and drive home. They lack the regard for others, they are acting selfishly. Education really doesn't work in America the only thing that seems to have had an effect is making it so costly, so punitive to be caught even once that it's not worth it.

 

Curiously, the limit for COMMERCIAL drivers (who also have to pass a physical to be licensed) is 0.04.... Why shouldn't they be allowed to drink as much as they want? Why should there be a limit on big rig drivers that is different than the normal UNPROFESSIONAL driver (who is not so skilled and tested in the operation of his vehicle?) You would think it would be the other way around.

 

Sidestep it again. Most people who show up in court to fight a DUI have more than one. I sat in on a jury where it was the guys 3rd time. Their own expert testified (though he didn't say so since it was never asked...) he was still 'legally drunk' by statute. Of course that couldn't be told to the jury during the course of the trial, that would be 'prejudicial'...

 

The fact that he was weaving across three lanes of traffic on the 91 Freeway near Castle Park when observed by the CHP. He thought he was in total control. The DashCam corroborated the weaving.

 

So when he blew the bubble, and registered drunk...he shouldn't be punished? I mean, he didn't kill anybody THIS time. He didn't cause any property damage THIS time. So we should just let him go, right? Only punish him AFTER he kills someone or does property damage?

 

Sorry, in this case I don't agree. And yeah, I'll rate him more important that rapists as it's probably a bit more prevalent.

 

Remember This:

Execution has a 0% recidivisim rate.

[Tony D]

Sometimes the tin foil hat conspiracy people need to realize that it's not all about the money, the 'funds' raised are really irrelevant compared to the social costs. In most cases most of the fines are earmarked to programs on education.

 

And since we seem to agree it doesn't work to decrease the risky behaviour...I offer the previous solution.

[JMortensen]

OK, you drink, you drive, you lose reflects reality in other countries. So what? There are other countries where chewing gum is illegal, where women aren't allowed to drive, where people are married as children, where female circumcision is the norm. I'm not judging drunk driving by what other countries do. I'm going by the numbers. If you actually read what I wrote previously, it's clear I would convict your highway weaver if I were on the jury.

 

It would be so easy to go ad hominem in response to your insults, but I'd prefer to stick to the facts because they support my case so well. It's not tinfoil hattery to say that 250,000 million miles per month is the number that is driven in the USA. That's roughly 3,000,000,000,000 per year in the USA. That's 3 trillion, folks. Divide by the number of innocents killed, leaves you with one billion. So it's a one in a billion shot that you'll be driving on that mile when the drunk comes out of nowhere and takes you out. Those are odds that I can live with, if you can't, stay home.

 

You want societal costs? How about the people who can't get a job because they've been arrested for 38 in a 35 at 2:15AM. That might harm their potential for employment for decades, costing society a productive member and the government quite a few tax dollars. And that is happening 750,000 to 1,000,000 or more times per year. Regardless, it's kind of a pointless argument, because as much as you want zero tolerance, it isn't going to happen. There is no political will for it in this country.

Edited December 15, 2010 by JMortensen

[JMortensen]

Kinda funny, just picked up Reason Magazine for January off of my coffee table, and there is Radley Balko railing against drunk driving laws for the same basic reasons that I am:

http://reason.com/ar...nk-driving-laws

Edited December 15, 2010 by JMortensen

[BLOZ UP]

If our ultimate goals are to reduce driver impairment and maximize highway safety, we should be punishing reckless driving. It shouldn't matter if it's caused by alcohol, sleep deprivation, prescription medication, text messaging, or road rage.

 

Ok, I can agree with this.

[JMortensen]

Hmm. Sounds familiar:

The laws should be such that people who cannot control their vehicle get punished' date=' whether it be due to cold medicine, a breakup, death of a family member, too tired to drive, cell phone, whatever.[/quote']

[Leon]

Tony, move to Russia!

 

http://jalopnik.com/5713727/russian-motorists-viciously-beat-drunk-driver-on-video

 

Warning: Graphic content!

Edited December 16, 2010 by Leon

[Tony D]

"How about the people who can't get a job because they've been arrested for 38 in a 35 at 2:15AM."

First off, cite the case where someone was ARRESTED for "38 in a 35 at 2:15 A.M.". I call bullshit on this one. That's the story they tell all their drinking buddies. They got stopped, blew high, and got tagged. Plain and simple. I know, I've been pulled over and ticketed for 80 in a 55 and following too close in the HOV lane. They didn't arrest ME---on Memorial Day Weekend during an 'Enhanced Enforcement Weekend'---what idiot drinks and drives when they KNOW the cops are going to be out enmasse LOOKING for weavers, stoppers, right from the left turn laners? The difference was I didn't blow high. I didn't blow ANY registerable number. Why? Because I wasn't drinking before driving. Typical argument and just leave off that little fact..."I only had two beers!(an hour, for the past 8 hours)"

 

Guess they should have called a cab.

$2.38 for a cell call to get a free (or paid for) taxi ride is a little cheaper than whatever potential fines await from a DUI. Hell, even a ride from Haneda to a big hotel is only $400---still cheaper than the ticket alone. DUUUH!

 

Seems like common sense to a thinking man that taking the taxi 100% avoids any potential downside whatsoever.

 

What thinking man doesn't make that connection?

 

The one that doesn't think.

 

Really how hard is this? Explain and rationalize all you want, it comes down an individual making a choice knowing the potential downside.

 

Nobody puts a gun to their head and says "go drive and run afoul of the draconian lowest common denominator laws and potentially ruin your life!"

 

This is exactly the same as me CHOOSING to keep my Ruger Mini-14 with folding stock, flash hider, pistol grip in Michigan instead of taking it (illegally and against the law) into California. REGARDLESS OF MY OPINION OF THE LAW AND IT'S STUPIDITY IT NONETHELESS IS THE LAW AND IF I CHOOSE TO DISOBEY IT I AM SUBJECT TO SIMILAR BUT EVEN MORE DRACONIAN ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDINGS.

 

I mean, hey, when was the last time a drunk got his kid assassinated by the FBI in his mother's arms? All for cutting off a gun barrel to feed his family? Woooooah! That's MUCH more reasonable than 30 days in the pokey and a couple thousand dollars fine for a 'victimless crime'...

 

You can rationalize your hate of the laws and excuse their actions all you want. But the law is the law, and they CHOOSE to break it. I refuse to listen to them whine when they got caught and pay the price THEY KNEW WAS THE POSSIBLE OUTCOME.

 

Like I said in the beginning "Thinking Men"...

 

Weavers? No we got a 'no cel phone law' now. Lowest common denominator legislation. Quit ducking jury duty. Quit skipping election day. Quit whining on an internet board, go out, get involved, CHANGE WHAT YOU DON'T LIKE.

 

But personally, I'm not loosing sleep over some idiot who DIDN'T THINK HE WOULD GET CAUGHT who gets caught and then has a terrible life afterwards.

 

Maybe they need to drink less and apply themselves more in a sober environment. Perhaps then these loosers won't cry in their spilled milk and lament their terrible lot in life for THIER OWN DECISIONS.

 

They made the choice, THEY live with it. I can live with it, too.

Edited December 16, 2010 by Tony D