Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Gunthr on February 19, 2004, 02:50:36 PM
-
Don't mean to be needlessly antagonizing, but a liberal must have thought of this one. And we all have to pay for the new industry it creates.
If they think this will work, they don't have a clue as to the resourcefullness of alcoholics.
-
But Gunthr it will create jobs! :rolleyes:
-
"SON Blow in this straw for me so we can get goin :::BURP:::"
-
http://agw.warbirdsiii.com/bbs/showthread.php?s=&threadid=30568
-
How stupid. If we want to save lives, why don't we outlaw motor vehicles that go over 65 MPH? :rolleyes:
-
Now, now boys..... what would you rather do:
Inconvenience a hundred million Americans and saddle them with a huge, expensive program
OR
Put any drunk driver that's caught in the slammer for 1 year, no options/no parole and deny him a driver's license for a year after that?
I mean, why should the GUILTY be incovenienced when you can simply inconvenience the innocent as well?
-
Originally posted by Toad
Now, now boys..... what would you rather do:
Inconvenience a hundred million Americans and saddle them with a huge, expensive program
OR
Put any drunk driver that's caught in the slammer for 1 year, no options/no parole and deny him a driver's license for a year after that?
I mean, why should the GUILTY be incovenienced when you can simply inconvenience the innocent as well?
Yes! We should build more and more prisons, and create more and more ways for people to secure themselves a cell because the threat of punishment has always and will always work in the deterence of crime. Cheap too. :rolleyes:
-
I personally think it's the greatest idea since brake lights.
-
I've got an idea, let's punish people who harm others, and stop ****ing with everybody else.
-
Originally posted by Capt. Pork
Yes! We should build more and more prisons, and create more and more ways for people to secure themselves a cell because the threat of punishment has always and will always work in the deterence of crime. Cheap too. :rolleyes:
Oh, obviously not! We should NEVER expect the people that break the law and kill people with 4000 pound bullets to be held accountable!
Far better to say "tsk, tsk! we'll fix cars so that drunks can't drive them."
Except, of course, the "better mousetrap" theory will come into play. Someone will make a bypass for the new, "un-foolable" system.
And you'll still get to read headlines like:
Crash that killed four renews call for stiffer DUI penalties (http://www.dailyherald.com/special/dui/help_crash.asp)
The victims - Gurcharn Dhami, 37; his wife, Baljinder, 36; his father, Achar, 77; and his mother, Nasib, 75 - were killed after their van was struck head on late Saturday in Hanover Park.
The two children, a boy and a girl, who also were in the van, suffered broken bones but are expected to recover.
Thomas Adams, 22, of Glendale Heights, remained hospitalized Monday with minor injuries at Central DuPage Hospital in Winfield. He faces reckless homicide charges on suspicion his blood alcohol content was more than twice the legal limit of .08 when he got behind the wheel.
Adams also is accused of stealing the gray 1989 Chevrolet van he was driving that night from a Bloomingdale apartment complex near his home.
Adams, who had one prior DUI conviction, has had his license revoked three times since December 1998. His criminal history includes pleading guilty in April 1999 to possession of a stolen vehicle.
Adams, as is the case with many repeat offenders, is accused of driving long after his license was revoked or suspended. State leaders have passed some two dozen laws in recent years to try to quell the problem. And lawmakers again are reviewing ideas in the wake of a Daily Herald investigation that revealed nearly 185,100 licensed drivers had more than one drunken driving offense on their records.
Hmmmmmmm... from the article, it looks like one year in the slammer won't be enough.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
I've got an idea, let's punish people who harm others, and stop ****ing with everybody else.
Nah, too radical a concept.
Better to punish the innocent and restrict their rights and show care and concern for criminals while you rehabilitate them.
-
If you are safe to drive, it turns on the ignition. How does that **** with you? Takes 5 seconds to keep you from possibly killing someone. It will never happen tho...the states make too much money off DWI arrests and their related aftercare programs to give it up.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Nah, too radical a concept.
Better to punish the innocent and restrict their rights and show care and concern for criminals while you rehabilitate them.
How does it restrict your rights and punish innocents? Do you have a right to drive? No, it is a privilage that the DPS allows you to have, thats the law. What punishment is there? Breathing is punishment?
-
How stupid. If we want to save lives, why don't we outlaw motor vehicles that go over 65 MPH?
how will that save lives? 65 mph will kill you just the same as 80,,any rig going over 40mph and hits you head on its death,, dont no were you are from but in washington state,,the speed limit is 70,,and your aloud to go up to 80 on a pass legally,,,65mph cars will not stop drunks from killing people on the road
last time i drove threw montana there was no speed limit for cars,,fast as you wanted to go,,<~~we did over 100 threw mostof it,,didnt see any recks threw there,,but i heard they changed it back again to 75 or somthing,,tuff laws are the only thing that will help stop drunk drivers,,drunk drivers kill more people a year than anything,,more than guns and crime,,,its a scary thing driving down the road,,hoping the guy in the othere lane is sober or atleast awake,,but thats life,,you never know whats wrong with the person next to ya
-
Well, then why not a little computer program to give you a full-on driver's written and vision test as well as the breathalyser before you back out of the driveway?
Random questions, different vision tests. We could make sure everyone that was supposed to be wearing their glasses indeed had them on.
I'm sure we could expand this concept too.
Because you sure don't want to just punish the folks that break the law. Cripes, we can't do THAT!
-
Ah face it life is harmfull to your health LOL.
-
RPM you live in the North? in winther time it can take up to 10 mins for them to cycle cause the S***** little computers in the suck how do i know I Have one.........yup cost $75 to have it installed and 65 per month to use it/have them moniter it. Are there easy ways to beat .........several............. ......are they easy to by-pass ya its easy............do i do any of these tricks No but i know people who do!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Oh, obviously not! We should NEVER expect the people that break the law and kill people with 4000 pound bullets to be held accountable! Far better to say "tsk, tsk! we'll fix cars so that drunks can't drive them."
very well said
-
most mouthwash will make you blow a .15 or greater on a breathalyzer. No more oral hygene befor operating a motor vehicle
-
blow up a ballon before you start drinking.
-
LIZZY dont work that way ................... but there are pellets you can put in the mouth piece that will neutralize the alcohal on your breath.
-
Originally posted by boxboy28
there are pellets you can put in the mouth piece that will neutralize the alcohal on your breath.
OMG! I am SOOOOOO suprised there's already a way around this.
Who'd have thought?
I'm astounded.
-
Originally posted by boxboy28
RPM you live in the North? in winther time it can take up to 10 mins for them to cycle cause the S***** little computers in the suck how do i know I Have one.........yup cost $75 to have it installed and 65 per month to use it/have them moniter it. Are there easy ways to beat .........several............. ......are they easy to by-pass ya its easy............do i do any of these tricks No but i know people who do!!!!!!!!!!!!
Box, if it were original equiptment how much would you be SAVING right now? It would/ could have prevented the DWI.
-
Originally posted by Toad
OMG! I am SOOOOOO suprised there's already a way around this.
Who'd have thought?
I'm astounded.
SKUZZY!! They're talking about cheating!
-
but there are pellets you can put in the mouth piece that will neutralize the alcohal on your breath.
umm you sure about that? i know on mythbusters,,they got drunk and tried every myth from sucking on pennies too mouthwash,,and breathmints,,,nothing they tried would beat the cops breathalyser,,they tried all sorts of ways to beat it,,,nothing seemed to work,,lol
-
Originally posted by Toad
Oh, obviously not! We should NEVER expect the people that break the law and kill people with 4000 pound bullets to be held accountable!
I'm not saying don't hold them accountable, I'm merely pointing out the fact that the majority of DUIs don't lead to such outcomes. If you start tossing every idiot with a BAC of over .08 into the slammer, you and I will both end up paying for prisons to house them. If the DUI led to property damage, or worse, then there should be harsh penalties, but even then, dangling prison terms over the heads of these people won't deter them. Remember, they're drunk, their judgement is impaired as well as their ability to drive. They're not going to think 'gee, I might get a year for this act I'm about to commit', it's more like 'gee, I wanna get home now'.
When will you get it through skull? The threat of harsher penalties does little to prevent crime, and if you live in a place where every offender has been jailed, I'd like to sniff some of what you're sniffing. It's time to try something else.
-
Probably about the same time you get it through your head that making laws that have no effect except to inconvenience law-abiding citizens don't do anything to solve the actual problem.
Probably right about then.
-
For me it could have prevented it but mostlikely at that time in my life wouldnt have cause i would (at that time in my life) found the trick and ways around it! ---- remember drunks can be reasourceful............
-
So you're saying we'll both simultaeously come to the conclusion that there's no actual solution to the problem?
My point is that increasing punitive measures hasn't stopped the problem. It's time to INVESTIGATE other measures, measures on whose effectiveness you cannot speculate because specific studies have not been done. Simply throwing more money and cops and statutes and cinderblock walls at the problem has been tested, thoroughly.
Yes, sometimes society has to pay the price.
-
When will you get it through skull? The threat of harsher penalties does little to prevent crime, and if you live in a place where every offender has been jailed, I'd like to sniff some of what you're sniffing. It's time to try something else.
ya they do,,i know sence they raised are seat belt tickets up too 100bucks a pop i see alot more people wearing seat belts,,lol including my freinds who swore they would never bow down and wear one,,lol,,but after they got 2 or 3 tickets,,they changed there tune
if you get caught over the limit here they impound your car,,it has allready slowed drinking and driving death down in my state,,in usa in the past 20 years,,death toll for drunk drivers have descressed by half!! thats amazing in its own right,,due to tuffer laws,,so far they have helped alot of people,,considering there are more cars on the road today then back 20 years ago,,i would say the laws are helping
WASHINGTON -- The nation's alcohol-related traffic death rate has dropped by more than half during the past 20 years, a government study shows.
-
Originally posted by Capt. Pork
So you're saying we'll both simultaeously come to the conclusion that there's no actual solution to the problem?
No, I'm saying you and I will most likely never agree.
Face it, you're on a "nanny state" track. I'm never going to be there and I doubt you'll change.
-
Originally posted by boxboy28
LIZZY dont work that way ................... but there are pellets you can put in the mouth piece that will neutralize the alcohal on your breath.
2 questions -
1. why not outlaw the pellets too?
2. Can the pellets be fitted while you're drunk?
In fact, it'd prolly be cheaper and just as efficient to make all car keys and key slots really really tiny. That'd weed out the drunks & anyone with eyesight problems.
-
"In fact, it'd prolly be cheaper and just as efficient to make all car keys and key slots really really tiny. That'd weed out the drunks & anyone with eyesight problems."
I like it.
-
Way too simple. I like it too!
-
HHHmmm pelets to neutralize the alcohol on your breath. Uh huh. Perhaps you have some documentation to back that up. In order for that to work you'd have to have a complete catylization of the alcohol you exhale. I don't know of any substance that can do that, especially in a human mouth.
I can see an easy way out and that is a small comressor or device to supply air into the system. Hell even a very larg syringe would do it.
Do I approve of the system, nope but then I like the idea of making the offender pay for their behavior not everyone pay for others mistakes.
-
pellets,,i dont think there is such a thing,,mythbusters on discovery channel did every myth they could to try and beat a Breathalizer,,nothing worked,,lol
they even talked to scientist to see if there was anything you could breath that would cover up alcohall in your breath,,and they said there is nothing that can cover it up,,only thing that will help is time,,lol,,they said,,myth busted,,no way to beat the breathalizer
-
Originally posted by Toad
Way too simple. I like it too!
Guess what, Toad.
I agree with you there.
-
Originally posted by hyena426
pellets,,i dont think there is such a thing,,mythbusters on discovery channel did every myth they could to try and beat a Breathalizer,,nothing worked,,lol
they even talked to scientist to see if there was anything you could breath that would cover up alcohall in your breath,,and they said there is nothing that can cover it up,,only thing that will help is time,,lol,,they said,,myth busted,,no way to beat the breathalizer
if there was a way to beat the breathalizer, they would not tell you, they would be sued for a billion dollars
BTW sober drivers kill 2-3 times more people than drinking drivers.
-
Originally posted by john9001
BTW sober drivers kill 2-3 times more people than drinking drivers.
That's like saying that air travel is more dangerous now than in 1920 because more people die each year in modern times.
How many more people are on the road sober, as opposed to drunk? Per capita, drunks kill way, way more.
-
interesting wording there, i say "drinking drivers" and you say "drunk drivers", are you saying everyone who drinks is a "drunk"?
for the record i have never had a DUI or a accident.
-
Originally posted by john9001
interesting wording there, i say "drinking drivers" and you say "drunk drivers", are you saying everyone who drinks is a "drunk"?
for the record i have never had a DUI or a accident.
No, I'm not saying that. For the purposes of this conversation, however, I thought we're discussing drivers who are drunk by legal standards... Either way, there are signficantly more 0.0% BAC drivers out there than not. If you're trying to argue that having 1-2 drinks somehow improves your driving well, that's pretty neato.
I'm sure all this thread needs is a game of semantics.
-
Originally posted by john9001
interesting wording there, i say "drinking drivers" and you say "drunk drivers", are you saying everyone who drinks is a "drunk"?
for the record i have never had a DUI or a accident.
YET.
-
don't hold your breath RPM, if i was going to wreck it would have been in my 20's when i was young and stupid, the older i get the more carefull i get. i even drive the speed limit now (gasp).
there are old drivers and there are bold drivers , but there are no old bold drivers. :cool:
-
if there was a way to beat the breathalizer, they would not tell you, they would be sued for a billion dollars
why would they be sued for proving a test can be faked?
Breathalizer measures the air exhaled form your lungs and the actual alcohol contained therin--NOT the odor of alcohol.<~~there is no getting around that,,no pill can pull the alcohall out of you and no mint or anything will cover up or mess up the test,,myths,,some people even tried crewing on moth balls to cover up the test,,lol ewwwwwwwww
-
you can trick it by Farting onto it.
-
John, I hope you never get one either. I'm not preaching, but it's when you get comfortable that you drop your guard and BAM! I was 40 when I got a DWI and I THOUGHT I was OK to drive.
The formula for getting a DWI in Texas is 1 drink per hour (depending on body weight). Drink just that little and you are in the danger zone. Did you know that a BAC lower than .08 can still get you a conviction the way the law is written in Texas? ANY amount in your system can lead to a conviction depending on the circumstances, the procecutor and the Judge. I blew a .05... well below the "Legal Limit". :(
-
Originally posted by rpm371
ANY amount in your system can lead to a conviction depending on the circumstances, the procecutor and the Judge. I blew a .05... well below the "Legal Limit". :(
I hate to go back to this but....
This is exactly why setting up mandatory jail terms for that circumstance is absurd. Imagine, having to do a year in jail for a .05, as some on the board find justified. With statutes, you can't argue or bargain your way out of it, even though you're hardly a threat to anybody at .05, much less, how did he put it, a '4000 lb bullet'.
-
BUT, had my car been equipted with a factory installed interlock I would not have been in the position to get pulled over. Like I said earlier, this will never happen. The State and County make too much money from DWI convictions. Not counting the Fedreal and State Grant money they receive. There are Probation fees, Drug Test fees, Court Costs (talk about over priced!), Counciling fees, Group Education Class Fees, Victim Impact fees, License fees, and DWI Education fees. These do not include money that does not go directly to the state, like Lawyer costs, increased Auto Insurance, Breathalyzer Installation and Maintenence, possible loss of your job or time lost from work for Court, Community Service or worse yet incarceration. Just pray that you do not get in an accident (your fault or not) and someone is injured. You will automaticly be at fault and liable for personal injury damages. You betcha I want one in my car from the factory.
-
Originally posted by rpm371
BUT, had my car been equipted with a factory installed interlock I would not have been in the position to get pulled over. Like I said earlier, this will never happen. The State and County make too much money from DWI convictions. Not counting the Fedreal and State Grant money they receive. There are Probation fees, Drug Test fees, Court Costs (talk about over priced!), Counciling fees, Group Education Class Fees, Victim Impact fees, License fees, and DWI Education fees. These do not include money that does not go directly to the state, like Lawyer costs, increased Auto Insurance, Breathalyzer Installation and Maintenence, possible loss of your job or time lost from work for Court, Community Service or worse yet incarceration. Just pray that you do not get in an accident (your fault or not) and someone is injured. You will automaticly be at fault and liable for personal injury damages. You betcha I want one in my car from the factory.
Exactly. It scares the hell out of me to think that my dad, a widely respected physician, could be dragged through the dirt after getting pulled over after 2 glasses of wine. He doesn't drink often, and he's the definition of reponsible, but with these laws the way they are, he's more and more approaching the target zone for shotgun-effect prosecution.
Yes, let's throw him in jail, say some...
I'm still of the belief that another solution is worth trying.
-
Most DUI laws are written to state, impairment in the slightest degree. You do NOT have to be over .08, .10 to be impaired. Those are just legally defined limits, not cast in stone absolutes that show you are not impaired if below them.
Some folks have such a low tollerance to alcohol they are almost falling down drunk on .05%. Others have such a high tollerance that a .15 is hard to detect in their actions. Especially long term alcoholics. It still affects them in complex activities like driving but you would not suspect it in a casual encounter with them.
-
Tolerance or not, if you blow beyond the state limit at the station, which is generally .08, you're going to get prosecuted.
Field sobriety tests, rediculous and unscientific(I've gotten out of two just by being able to recite the alphabet backwards), are just there to determine whether or not to justify the use of a plastic mouthpiece for the intoxilizer. If the intoxilerizer gives the cop the green light, he takes you in for a more in-depth breath-test.
Yes, drinking and driving is a problem, but with current statutes, the law governing this offense is blind. I still support the concept of preemptive prevention. Some call it a track to a 'nanny state', but what exactly are you proving by allowing potentially dangerous drivers out on the road? Stop them before the key is turned. Those that do not break this law have nothing to fear. It'll still be cheaper than more prisons.
-
I live here in NM and the whole thing was just Grandstanding by the state Legaslature and it represents an attempt at getting attention with out having to put any real soulution out there. the ACLU would never let it pass any way, Massive class action suit by those who dont drink at all would result, also suits for limiting personal freedoms with out due prosecution. All in all it was just the Jungle ball style politics as played out west, with the rest of the country in a panic over a Draconein gasp of Fachisim.
Yeah I still cant spell
Gunns
-
Why don't we just outlaw everything so we can be gauranteed not to get hurt ever?
-
you guys elected the women and womanly men and now you are *****ing because you have to live like you are still at your moms house?
lazs
-
Let's see, the argument now is that the BAC limits are arbitrary? That some respected physicians can drive with one, two , three, four or even five glasses of wine while other mere mortals fall down drunk after sniffing the vapor from a freshly opened beer?
Guess what......the interlocks would operate at a predetermined arbitrary BAC.
Here's an idea for you. Make the arbitrary-limit interlocks optional. If you're caught weaving all over the interstate in an interlocked equipped car, or take out a family in an minivan when you weave across the centerline, you get off scott free. After all, you have an interlock!
However, do these things without an interlock and fail a breathalyser and you go to jail.
There ya go. Freedom of choice!
Great thread though.
-
interlock should only be put on drunk drivers who are caught in the act,,,if they make me put those things on my classic cars ill hand over my keys ride a damn bus,,hehe,,it would ruin there value,,we had a 53 merc flathead v8 make the northwest rodder,,and won cool desart nights,,we restore classic cars,and i never drive drunk,, i think its unfair to punish everyone with a interlock when not everyone drinks and drives
drunk driving accidents have dropped to half from 20 years ago,,dont ya think thats amazing considering there are more cars on the road now then back then? and more laws then ever,,they seem to be working if death rate is falling
-
Originally posted by hyena426
drunk driving accidents have dropped to half from 20 years ago,,dont ya think thats amazing considering there are more cars on the road now then back then? and more laws then ever,,they seem to be working if death rate is falling
Do you have a source for that? I find that really interesting. I hate drunk driving, but would never advocate interlocks for everyone. If the rates of accident are falling, there is obviously something working. If it's just death rates falling, a lot can be attributed to the greater safety in your average car.
-
I am not talking about retrofitting every car on the road. Just start making them standard equiptment on new cars. Eventually, they will become commonplace. With the technology we have today you could incorporate it into the Anti-Theft system no problem. "Hello, this is On Star....would you prefer a Taxi or Tow Truck?" But don't get yer Huggies in a wad. It's NEVER going to happen.
-
Do you have a source for that? I find that really interesting. I hate drunk driving, but would never advocate interlocks for everyone. If the rates of accident are falling, there is obviously something working. If it's just death rates falling, a lot can be attributed to the greater safety in your average car.
yes i do,,check out these links,,you will notice even from the 1980's drunk driving has gone down big time,,not anuff maybe,,but big time if you add up all the percentages,its quite amazing,,the laws are helping
http://www.alcoholstats.com/1.htm
http://www.madd.org/aboutus/0,1056,1686,00.html
both got info,,not the right web site i was lookin for,,but if you pop in a google searce you will notice every web site to do with drunk driver stats are close to the same,,its dropped almost half in the last 20 years,,sounds like the laws are working to me,,slowely but surely
The number of fatalities in teen drunk-driving crashes has declined 36 percent since 1990 and 61 percent since 1982, going from 4,214 fatalities in 1982 to 1,651 fatalities in 2002. There were 2,500 fewer teen drunk-driving fatalities in 2002 than in 1982. <~~wow that just shows the laws are working,,just taking time
Since MADD's inception, alcohol-related traffic fatalities have declined 43 percent. Statistics indicate that in 1980, 55 percent (28,100) of the nation's 51,091 traffic fatalities were alcohol-related. In 1999, alcohol-related fatalities represented 38 percent (15,794) of the nation's 41,345 traffic fatalities, according to preliminary statistics
-
Originally posted by Toad
Let's see, the argument now is that the BAC limits are arbitrary? That some respected physicians can drive with one, two , three, four or even five glasses of wine while other mere mortals fall down drunk after sniffing the vapor from a freshly opened beer?
Guess what......the interlocks would operate at a predetermined arbitrary BAC.
Here's an idea for you. Make the arbitrary-limit interlocks optional. If you're caught weaving all over the interstate in an interlocked equipped car, or take out a family in an minivan when you weave across the centerline, you get off scott free. After all, you have an interlock!
However, do these things without an interlock and fail a breathalyser and you go to jail.
There ya go. Freedom of choice!
Great thread though.
The point is, you don't have to take out a mini van, or even weave across a centerline to get arrested. In fact, you can get stopped for a seatbelt violation, driving fine otherwise, and the penalty sticks. Statutes mean no room for interpretation of the law.
As for the respected physician, that was merely an example of how functioning, contributing members of society can become criminals, having hurt nobody and damaged nothing at all, and in certain cases, having had no more than 1-2 drinks(zero tolerance laws, such as the case in Washington DC). Nobody said anything about 4 or 5.
The way you say it, it's like every time somebody gets into a car after drinking, whatever amount, the first thing they do is look for an innocent family to mow down, the more children the better. It's simply not the case.
-
I wanna see them fit one of those into my '66 Bug ... in a way that I can't by pass it :lol