Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: rpm on November 21, 2006, 01:54:01 PM
-
link (http://www.newsday.com/business/ny-bzdwi214985116nov21,0,6598271.story?coll=ny-business-print)
MADD is calling for breathalyzers to be installed in all new vehicles sold in the US. I actually support this move, but the reasons I support it are the very reasons it will not happen.
Putting interlocks on every vehicle will bring DWI's down to minimal levels. It will prevent the DWI from happening. It will also bring DWI arrests, convictions, fines collected and manhours spent down. Governments have become addicted to suckling at the DWI teat. They will not easily give up the money they generate.
-
(http://nitespyder.com/Prohibition.jpg)
-
Jeez Rip, that MAKES me want to drink!
-
"quick, someone give me a shot of jim beam"
-
aww heck gotta make a run to liquor store now and I have enough here to last awhile, just don't want to run out.
that pic in a liquor store would triple the sales.
-
It wouldn't work.
The market for canned air would sure increase and... what says the guy breathing into the tube is the one driving?
This seems like about the most easily defeated device (not to mention unsanitary) that they ever came up with.
You want to get the government off the DUI teat? lower taxes and make governement smaller and.... oh yeah... don't drink and drive.
lazs
-
I'd like to have a breathalyzer. I often avoid drinking anything when I'm out because I don't want to risk a DWI. Would be nice if I could have a drink or two without worry.
-
Personal responsibility takes a back seat when the nanny-state is driving.
-
i see a business opportunity here, man outside a bar with a sign saying " will start cars for $50"
-
Oh they could make it work real easily, pass a law making it a 20 year, $100,000.00 fine felony to circumvent the interlock, a law like that would pass too.
shamus
-
Originally posted by Shamus
Oh they could make it work real easily, pass a law making it a 20 year, $100,000.00 fine felony to circumvent the interlock, a law like that would pass too.
shamus
The prison system would be overloaded in 24 hours time.
-
Originally posted by Shamus
Oh they could make it work real easily, pass a law making it a 20 year, $100,000.00 fine felony to circumvent the interlock, a law like that would pass too.
shamus
That's miraculous, I woke up this morning and was thinking the same thing... The government simply will not survive without another method of producing felons.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Personal responsibility takes a back seat when the nanny-state is driving.
Kind of like when they ban smoking in restaurant and bars in Seattle, 50 feet from any entrance....that puts you in the center of the street! ;)
Once tabacco is totally under the table.it will only a matter of time before that Prohibition thing comes next...
-
It's a silly idea. What they ought to do is make the breathalyzer optional equipment and get the insurance companies to offer incentives for using one.
-
If preventing DUI/DWI was a real priority it would have much, much stiffer sentences for offenders.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Personal responsibility takes a back seat when the nanny-state is driving.
To a drunk driver, personal responsibility isn't even in the freaking car much less driving.
-
Originally posted by VOR
If preventing DUI/DWI was a real priority it would have much, much stiffer sentences for offenders.
easy VOR, DUI provides a healthy revenue stream and provides employment for the executive directors of MADD, you don't want to kill the golden goose.
-
It would be great if the car would'nt run if you failed. Most people think there are ok to drive when in reality they arent. But I have this ugly vision of that uni-bike Mr. Garrison made with the probes and stuff on South Park.
-
About DUIs, my friends dad is a retired Lt.Col in the Army and he told us teenage boys a story once before we went out on the town.
"in Turkey, if the police pulled you over and found that you had been drinking and driving, they drag you out of the car and put a bullet in your head on the side of the road. TURKEY DOESNT HAVE A DUI PROBLEM"
I'm not sure how true the story is but it was quite telling hearing it as a teenager from a rather "militant" dad.
-
Originally posted by john9001
easy VOR, DUI provides a healthy revenue stream and provides employment for the executive directors of MADD, you don't want to kill the golden goose.
There are far more folks making money getting people out of taking personal responsibility for DUI's than in any other area of endeavor related to it. They have to pay for all those billboards advertising their services somehow.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Once tabacco is totally under the table.it will only a matter of time before that Prohibition thing comes next...
If that happens I'm putting on my Che shirt and will overthrow the government single-handedly.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
The prison system would be overloaded in 24 hours time.
Well I dont think it would be a huge increase, folks would just not be messing with the interlock system, draconian punishment works in behavior modification.
Granted you would have a few more people in jail and prison, then you just build more prisons. Thats how we have handled it the past 30-40 years or so.
Build it and they will come.
shamus
-
Originally posted by Sandman
It's a silly idea. What they ought to do is make the breathalyzer optional equipment and get the insurance companies to offer incentives for using one.
Good idea, but your liberal brain has taken it askew. You automatically assume that the government should mandate all those incentives.
Why not go directly to the insurance company?
The less amount of laws we have, the better.
-
Anyone remember the hot blonde drunk scene from 40-Year-Old-virgin? Yup wont work.
-
DUI related collisions kill 13,000 people a year, so lets make millions of folks pay a little extra for some stupid gadget that the drunks will get around inside 5 min. No thanks, this smells like some special interest BS basking in the glow of a good cause.
Most of those who wipe out others are repeat offenders who have already been arrested numerous times, lost their license, spent time in jail, lost several cars, will be paying fines until well after death, and yet... they drive anyway, and they will drive anyway gadget, or no gadget. Esp the brokeasses who push a 20 year old crapbox down the road.
We had a very effective program against habitual DUI offenders, station volunteers (Explorer scouts / civilian volunteers / neighborhood watch peeps) would "steak out" these dudes cars and alert a dedicated unit should they see em drive.. we nailed em left and right, over 20 arrests the 1st month. The best part was how paranoid they got, thinking the man is always watching... but we lost the budget for that dedicated DUI unit to DARE (which is covered by Federal funds)... I could go on a rant on how Fed funds for local law enforcement is a total face, but I wont...
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Good idea, but your liberal brain has taken it askew. You automatically assume that the government should mandate all those incentives.
Why not go directly to the insurance company?
The less amount of laws we have, the better.
MADD is the government?
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
(http://nitespyder.com/Prohibition.jpg)
WELL THANK COD I DRINK!!
-
I wonder how many people are killed each year by drivers that are simply tired.
-
they all still have vaginas, and your bottle of booze came in a paper bag...
-
:rofl :lol
I dont think they make a paper bag big enough to hold all the booze you would need for those beauties.........
-
Originally posted by Sandman
I wonder how many people are killed each year by drivers that are simply tired.
What's your point? I only ask because it seems you might be saying leave drink-drivers alone if we aren't also going to go after tired drivers. Of course that would be ridiculous wouldn't it...two wrongs not making a right and all that.
-
Look at one some things, - this is funny.
1. If you have somebody sober to breath for you whi not have him/her drive also?
2. That call's for a "breathing" service, - there would be demand on the market.
3. You can still start drinking once you're off
4. Does it sense pot?
5. How about fire-wire?
But getting serious, - this insurance idea was good. Let's say it brings a cheaper total insurance for instance....
-
They should only install this system for people who have been convicted of a DWI.
-
Soda, that's the point of why this is so silly, they're saying that's not good enough, and there are people on this board who seem ok with that.
-
Originally posted by soda72
They should only install this system for people who have been convicted of a DWI.
that already happens in florida, the driver pays for the installation and every 10 min a warning buzzer goes off and you have to pull over and blow into the machine again. makes getting to work problematical on the interstate.
point of clarification, DWI is the old law, it means driving wile intoxicated, they have to prove you were intoxicated which is more difficult.
the DWI is still on the books but they have the new law, DUI, which is driving under the influence, that is much easier to prove because it is vague and arbitrary and most convictions are DUI. By the way, laws are not supposed to be vague and arbitrary.
-
The only people that should be concerned about it are people that habitually drive drunk. It will not effect you unless you are trying to break the law and put innocent people's lives at risk. It's a piece of safety equiptment.
-
Originally posted by rpm
The only people that should be concerned about it are people that habitually drive drunk. It will not effect you unless you are trying to break the law and put innocent people's lives at risk. It's a piece of safety equiptment.
RPM, your logic suggests that putting saltpeter or some other sort of anti-sex drug in the water is a good idea. Anyone who isn't a sex offender would be mailed pills that counteract the effect. It's just a safety procedure to stop rape, so it wouldn't affect you unless you were trying to break the law.
-
Originally posted by rpm
The only people that should be concerned about it are people that habitually drive drunk. It will not effect you unless you are trying to break the law and put innocent people's lives at risk. It's a piece of safety equiptment.
you miss my point , you don't have to be drunk to get a DUI, you only have to be UNDER THE INFLUENCE.
-
- Drunks kill around 40,000 people a year and yet prescription drugs kill over 200,000. Medical malpractice kills over 300,000 - but the media hasn't brainwashed Americans to be fearful or upset about the bigger dangers and so they don't care. The hyped specter of drunk driving deaths manipulates whining do-gooders to call for their own enslavement, anything to save a few lives.
source - http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2006/201106bigbrother.htm
I think we need a MaDD - death doctors.
What really is the problem is the impending police state we are moving to.............welcome to Germany 1943:O
-
Originally posted by boxboy28
- Drunks kill around 40,000 people a year and yet prescription drugs kill over 200,000.
40,000 a year are NOT killed by drunk drivers, numbers for 2004 are TOTAL deaths 42,636, total deaths for"alcohol related" is 16,694.
alcohol related deaths do not mean "innocent people killed by drunk driver". 45% of the alcohol related deaths are the drivers under the influence themselves, another 40% are the passengers under the influence riding with the drivers who were under the influence.
-
Originally posted by john9001
you miss my point , you don't have to be drunk to get a DUI, you only have to be UNDER THE INFLUENCE.
I understand and you are 100% correct on that point.
-
Two words - bicycle pump. System circumvented.
Glove
-
Here in Dallas the chnl 11 news lady reported that at the national MADD HQ they were pushing for the breatalizers to be installed in 1st offenders cars
They made no mention of them wanting them installed in EVERY new car!
Tho the reason is just I feel thats to much of a invasion into my personal and private rights.
Seems like here lately more and more groups are wanting to stuff like this to "protect" everyone but to me, its releving ppl of there responibilities.
Also its like punishing you before you commit a crime.
-
WilldCrd: RPM says that it's just a piece of safety equipment, and I think the implication is that if you don't want it in your car, WHAT ARE YOU HIDING?!
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
WilldCrd: RPM says that it's just a piece of safety equipment, and I think the implication is that if you don't want it in your car, WHAT ARE YOU HIDING?!
because YOU will have to pay for that piece of equipment and it will have to be inspected so YOU will have to pay for the inspection but it's ok as long as it SAVES ONE LIFE.
oh lord, save us from the do-gooders for they know not what they do.
-
But what about the children? Won't somebody PLEASE think of the CHILDREN?!
(http://www.ibiblio.org/dlucas/images/image_helen.gif)
-
I'll go for it. As long as it NEVER fails, NEVER gives a false reading, and doesn't add ONE PENNY to the price a new car.
-
I wouldn't take free drug tests every day if they were offered, why would I have to prove my sobriety every day?
-
It'll take at least a generation or two of brainwashing in the public schools before people are ready to accept daily sobriety/drug testing.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
MADD is the government?
You said this:
What they ought to do is make the breathalyzer optional equipment and get the insurance companies to offer incentives for using one.
The only "They" that you refer to that has enough power is the government. I can tell that you didn't mean insurance companies because you mention them later.
-
I think the thing that most people are missing is that this equipment would go into cars of people already convicted of drunk driving at least once.
Not necessarily all the cars in America. Just all the ones who have driven drunk before, and been caught. As such, yes, its a good thing. Let em call a taxi and pickup the car the next day. And anyone found getting around it just so they can drive drunk should have their hands cut off.
Should every car in the USA have a breathalyser in it, of course not.
But repeat offenders, Ubetcha!
Its simple, either don't drink, or don't drive.
-
Originally posted by Ghosth
I think the thing that most people are missing is that this equipment would go into cars of people already convicted of drunk driving at least once.
Not necessarily all the cars in America. Just all the ones who have driven drunk before, and been caught. As such, yes, its a good thing. Let em call a taxi and pickup the car the next day. And anyone found getting around it just so they can drive drunk should have their hands cut off.
Should every car in the USA have a breathalyser in it, of course not.
But repeat offenders, Ubetcha!
Its simple, either don't drink, or don't drive.
You obviosly didn't read the article.
Ultimately, the group said yesterday, it wants so-called alcohol interlock devices factory-installed in all new cars. "The main reason why people continue to drive drunk today is because they can," MADD president Glynn Birch said at a news teleconference yesterday from Washington, D.C.
-
The only thing more absurd than the idea is the fact that people here are not only willing to see it happen, but DESIRE it. And call themselves conservatives or libertarians.
I think if you support this idea your entire life should be child proofed.
The solution for repeat DUI offenders is manditory 5 year no parole or probation sentences for the second offense, and double it for the third offense. After the third, you do life. No parole.
Punish the offender, swiftly and severely. Do not punish society itself.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
The only thing more absurd than the idea is the fact that people here are not only willing to see it happen, but DESIRE it. And call themselves conservatives or libertarians.
I think if you support this idea your entire life should be child proofed.
The solution for repeat DUI offenders is manditory 5 year no parole or probation sentences for the second offense, and double it for the third offense. After the third, you do life. No parole.
Punish the offender, swiftly and severely. Do not punish society itself.
I agree with you. My post was more sarcasm than anything. Recently two local boys were run over and killed by a drunk driver who had had his third offense within the last year. Taking away their license doesn't work. Making them blow to start their car wouldn't work either. A judicial system that plays buddy sports doesn't work.
Then again, harshly punishing someone for what might happen is wrong too. There should be harsh punishment for those who are involved in alcohol related accidents, not for someone who has three drinks at the office Christmas party and is just trying to go home. Continually lowering the limit at which someone can legally drive a car is just a game designed to generate revenue.
I think that tired drivers should be handled the same way. After all, you knew you just got off a 12 hour shift. You knew you were exhausted. You CHOSE to get behind the wheel anyways. You should have arranged for a ride or called a taxi. Why should one form of impaired driving be OK and another not? This little piece of hypocrisy in itself shows that the laws, as they stand today, are not designed to save lives but to generate revenue for the judicial industry (both prosecution and defense).
Oh, and be careful out there today; the man is looking for you and he would like nothing more than to ruin your holiday.
-
You know, the police aren't looking to ruin your holiday. About 99% of all officers, whether they're deputies, troopers, detectives, or regular patrolmen, will do nearly ANYTHING to keep from writing you a citation on a holiday. I've been clocked at over 100MPH in a 70 zone, and not gotten a ticket.
In the short time I was on the job, I don't think I wrote but a couple of tickets on a holiday, other than DUI busts, and those tickets were written because the driver just plain wouldn't have it any other way. Most often, they'll just flash their "blues" at you and blip the siren, and get you to behave.
It's wrong to say the law enforcement people are out to ruin your holiday, it just ain't so. In most cases, they're giving up the holiday with their family to help keep you safe. Instead of assuming they're out to get you,:noid , just act like you've got some sense, and treat them decent if they do pull you over or you get stopped at a roadblock. if oyu're not drunk or a total ass, chances are a little respect will get you off with a warning, and a wish for a safe and happy holiday.
-
Driving drunk is driving drunk. There are two kinds of drivers who keep driving drunk. The kind that have caused a wreck and the kind that will.
I've been guilty of it myself. I got caught once too, before the law changed.
I did my time in jail, I paid my fine, and paid for the assigned risk insurance too.
So I'm all for hitting a drunk driver with a harsh sentence of the first offense, and increasing the punishment exponentially with repeat offenses. You don't wait until they kill someone, they're already breaking the law.
But treating everyone like a repeat offender BEFORE they've ever been pulled over on suspicion is BULL.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
WilldCrd: RPM says that it's just a piece of safety equipment, and I think the implication is that if you don't want it in your car, WHAT ARE YOU HIDING?!
Hide? me? nothing!! I swear!!
I didnt do it, nobody saw me do it, ya cant prove i did IT!!!
Im innocent i tell ya!!
-
Originally posted by Ghosth
I think the thing that most people are missing is that this equipment would go into cars of people already convicted of drunk driving at least once.
Not necessarily all the cars in America. Just all the ones who have driven drunk before, and been caught. As such, yes, its a good thing. Let em call a taxi and pickup the car the next day. And anyone found getting around it just so they can drive drunk should have their hands cut off.
Should every car in the USA have a breathalyser in it, of course not.
But repeat offenders, Ubetcha!
Its simple, either don't drink, or don't drive.
Well that simple message has fallen on deaf ears since Henry Ford drove a Model-T.
The punishment & fines are already very harsh, but only for those who actually care.. the habitual cases don't care, will drink & drive regardless of suspensions / fines, why?.. most of them are so far from ever getting a license again on top of paying fines until death... they have no motivation to care. A breath gadget is just 1 more order from the court to ignore.
The only punishment they get is the time spent locked up, 30-90 days maybe, and the loss of another car, otherwise getting arrested, again, is just piling on more administrative BS they already don't pay attention to, "Oh I lost my license for another 3 years?, whoop-de do"
Go ahead, install these things.. 2 weeks later every bar & liquor store will sell $4 cans of compressed air that will undoubtedly fit perfectly on the blow tube and offer x number of clean blows.
A week after that some nerd will have a hack to fool the machine. And I can already see the 1st lawsuit, someone will claim their car was disabled by a malfunction and they were mugged, or whatever..
What do you do with someone driving a fecal box too old for any techno gadget?
Its a bad idea, there is already a proven effective method to cracking down on the worst offenders; pro-active enforcement. But there's no $$ in it, arresting them is only piling on more fines they're already too poor, or haven't even considered paying. There's no debtors jail either.
But a DUI lane, where the man stops cars at random snooping for DUI hooks... these make a small fortune; most are 1st time offenders who will pay the $2-3000K in fines, $60 vehicle release, $2-300 towing / storage fee in order to get / keep their license.
-
Crackdown hard on people who disable their system. Make it required safety equiptment just like seatbelts. It will save lives, bottom line.
-
You first have to detect the disabling of a system. It's far easier and safer simply to spoof it. A small 12 volt air compressor with the air hose modified to "blow into" the breathalyzer will by pass it and be totally undetectable.
As long as there is a significant ability to plea bargain first offenders will likely have a reckless charge in place of a DUI. There is a large interest both politically and through the legal "profession" to maintain the status quo. There is simply too much money at stake in defending those offenders.
Another issue is the opinion of the average person that this is another "victimless crime". This is also a part of the standard defense to make the jury feel that there but for the grace of god go I in that the poor persecuted defendant was not drunk but only picked out for legal harrassment.
-
a online breathalizer from our British cousins.
http://www.rupissed.com
:D
one beer per hour gave me a .04%
-
Originally posted by rpm
Crackdown hard on people who disable their system. Make it required safety equiptment just like seatbelts. It will save lives, bottom line.
RPM, outlawing cars and requiring that people prove need to get a special "vehicle" permit (everyone else uses mass transit) will save lives too, you game for that?
-
MADD wants em',MADD can pony up the money for them...which won't happen.
"Honey,don't forget to bring the spare keys so we can leave the car idling while we drink at the bar."
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
The only thing more absurd than the idea is the fact that people here are not only willing to see it happen, but DESIRE it. And call themselves conservatives or libertarians.
I think if you support this idea your entire life should be child proofed.
The solution for repeat DUI offenders is manditory 5 year no parole or probation sentences for the second offense, and double it for the third offense. After the third, you do life. No parole.
Punish the offender, swiftly and severely. Do not punish society itself.
As a survivor of a wreck caused by a drunk driver last Sept., I totally agree with this. But I'd like to see it even further severe. 1 month jail for first offense, 5 years for second, life for third. I am so very damn lucky that I didn't get killed or maimed by this POS that hit me and I am still dealing with the lingering affects of her decision to drink and drive. She was on her third license suspension for driving while intoxicated. I don't know what it is about Tx judges, women seem to get away with murder around here when it comes to driving infractions.
(http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g308/txflood77598/david_woodersonSMALL.jpg)
-
For those that missed the original post:
(http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g308/txflood77598/IM000483.jpg)
(http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g308/txflood77598/david_woodersonSMALL.jpg)
-
Originally posted by rpm
Crackdown hard on people who disable their system. Make it required safety equiptment just like seatbelts. It will save lives, bottom line.
Will it save lives?, doubt it, the people you want to stop get arrested 5 or 6 times plus for DUI and clearly dont care about fines / loss of license or stern lectures from the judge.... a device they can ignore / get around, with ease, wont change their bahavior. Key word: behavior.
And go ahead and fine them again for tampering with it, they have no intention of paying the other fines, but I'm sure they'll pay that one.
As long as they are free and nobody is keeping an eye on them, they'll drive blitzed.. period.
Put a gadget in their car, they'll take the wifes or kids.. or buy a $500 crapbox and register it under the dogs name (true story). Or they'll get a fellow drunk to drive, then take turns to share the risk (also true). Its what they do, its how they live.. its a friggn lifestyle; 7 days a week they're a "regular" at the bar, then drive home swiggn a beer. For every 1 arrest, they probably drove home by braille 20x before that.
I worked a DUI task force as a cop, have been to numerous DUI seminars / training classes.. and all that, I know these people all too well, they are like roaches.. you can spray them with fines... it rolls off their back, take away their legs (car).. they grow new ones. Stomp on em real good and they still run away.
Many Depts effectively curb habitual DUI'ers by staking them out and busting em the second the sit down behind the wheel.. friends and relatives grow tired of recovering cars from impound, and from then on they're paranoid as hell the po-po is eyeballing them... rather than waste $$ on gadgets, studies on gadgets, gadget building, gadget development, and wasted time & $$ in gadget court cases... pressure your local political clowns into spending that $$ on dedicated DUI task forces that have proven effective.
But I can see it now, the drunk will get his base-head, pill popping, heroin addict friends to drive... sure they're just as F'ed up and DUI as he is, but at least they have fresh breath.
-
am not surprised that rpm wants even more of a nanny state... Are there more like him in Texas?
lazs
-
Might not stop drunk driving, but confiscate the car first offense and it would slow down. A lot.
Les
-
Originally posted by Leslie
Might not stop drunk driving, but confiscate the car first offense and it would slow down. A lot.
Les
Sales of the vehicles at auction might help pay for part of the program. Problem is a siezure of an item with a lien tends to go right back to the lien holder.
It could only happen on a conviction however and not an arrest. The majority of first offenders (arrestees actually) is that they get a plea bargain to a far lower offense and then no DUI conviction.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
am not surprised that rpm wants even more of a nanny state... Are there more like him in Texas?
lazs
I'm certain there are plenty in Texas that want a nanny state. However, the requirement of driver's licenses and insurance aren't even enforced unless you are legally in this country and can afford to pay the fine. The double standard is an increasingly infuriating joke.
-
How many % of car accidents happen with a drunken driver at the controls?
I've heard some 10-15%.
That means that 85-90% of those causing accidents are SOBER!
Why are those let out to the roads!!!!!!!
(Source, - the Dave Allen show :D)
-
Originally posted by Angus
How many % of car accidents happen with a drunken driver at the controls?
I've heard some 10-15%.
That means that 85-90% of those causing accidents are SOBER WOMEN!
Why are those let out to the roads!!!!!!!
(Source, - the Dave Allen show :D)
Fixed!!
:rofl
(http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g308/txflood77598/david_woodersonSMALL.jpg)
-
I believe that it is more like 40% of the injury accidents involve some alcohol.
diablo.. who is this woodperson? not judging but... aren't you a little obsessed? Just email em for a date allready.
lazs
-
You know, this is a REALLY stupid idea.
Do you plan to retrofit EVERY car in the entire U.S.?
Do you think I'm going to let you put this POS crap in my original classic muscle car?
Do you really think habitual drunks drive NEW cars?
Habitual drunks are broke, drive older cars that often don't even have valid plates or registration, and don't have a license about half the time.
A habitual DUI offender goes somewhere and buys a cheap, used car, often from a private party. They don't go down to the new car dealership and buy new cars.
This whole idea is just as stupid and arrogant as gun control laws.
You start giving 1st offenders an 11 month and 29 day hard labor chain gang sentence, 2nd offenders a 10 year sentence, and 3rd offenders a life sentence, and this crap will stop. And while you're at it, make ALL prison time hard labor time instead of goof off time.
-
Originally posted by wooley
What's your point? I only ask because it seems you might be saying leave drink-drivers alone if we aren't also going to go after tired drivers. Of course that would be ridiculous wouldn't it...two wrongs not making a right and all that.
1. Personal responsibility doesn't end at the bottle.
2. Fatigue has the same effect on driving that alcohol does.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
You said this:
The only "They" that you refer to that has enough power is the government. I can tell that you didn't mean insurance companies because you mention them later.
I'm so glad I have you around to tell me what I meant to say. :rofl
-
This one won't fly. By and large... people like their drink too much and they will not support regulating their own behavior. At least not nationally (a lot's changed since Prohabition). However, the "piss test" model with the second gas cap might just play in the heartland :)
Locally, in areas like ILL, Mass., NY, and LA/San Fran it could be different. I bet if Daley gets the AWB passed state wide (ILL) this might be some more low hanging fruit to go after -- perhaps mandatory with teen drivers (a safe group to go after) or something. There have been a number of underaged auto deaths in the Tribune lately -- racing and alcohol -- so it's good crusade material. Nanny laws tend to work best on minority behavior or very-low interest mass behaviors. Trans fats, for example, as long as their is another "good" fat waiting in the wings.
Charon
-
What about if you live in International Falls or Fairbanks and have a remote start so that your car is warm when its 10s of degrees below?
What... you have to run out and breathe into your car so the remote start unit works?
-
No country in the world has higher blood-alcohol limits than the US. That certainly has to be a factor in the high death rate from alcohol-related accidents. Alcohol-related traffic deaths are over 40%, some 17,000 per year. That means that about 200,000 people sustain injuries requiring hospitalization from alcohol-related crashes.
Someone who would be considered drunk in some other countries, would not even be considered an alcohol-related statistic in the US, therefore, the actual rate of alcohol-related deaths and injuries is higher than reported.
Those are 'genocidal' numbers.
There is no greater deterrent than severe punishment. No one has the right to drive drunk. You certainly don't want to get caught driving drunk in Japan since they strengthed the penalities. Here's why:
The legal definition of drunk driving is 0.0025% blood-alchohol. The limit in the US is over 3 times that level.
Driving under the influence is 0.0015% - one small glass of beer. If you're caught at a checkpoint, you're going to pay a fine of about $3,000, have your license suspended for up to one year, and (here is the kicker...) your employer is going to either fire you, or suspend you from work without pay for about 3 months.
That is for driving under the influence (one beer). If you're drunk (less than 1/3 the limit in the US), you'll likely lose you job, license, pay about a $5,000 fine. You don't want to know the punishment for hurting or killing someone after drinking that glass of beer. You're going to prison for up to 15 years. No parole or time off for 'good behavior' in Japanese prison. Your 'good behavior' stopped the minute you were convicted and sentenced.
The death rate for alcohol-related accidents dropped to about 5% after those draconian measures were adopted. Remember that it is at least 40% in the US with 3 times the legal limit of alcohol allowed.
Draconian punishment? Sure, but I support it. I think it's more effective than these machines will ever be.
-
Originally posted by rpm
Crackdown hard on people who disable their system. Make it required safety equiptment just like seatbelts. It will save lives, bottom line.
.....
BS !
You wanta put teeth into the DUI laws ? Put the sorryassed Dork in jail !
Instead of the 2 months of weekends, walking along the roadsides , stabing cans and trash with a stick , ....that the bastage got here in California, that killed my son in 1989 ......
Also, rpm,
you think for one minute I gona let some handsomehunked state authorised puke install one of those joke devices in my either of my two 32 Ford Duce Hi-Boy Roadster Streetrods ? or my Vette ? .... NFW !!!
-
No country in the world has higher blood-alcohol limits than the US.
Established maximum legal BAC levels range from 0.0 mg/ml (the level of “zero tolerance”) to 0.8 mg/ml. Only a handful of countries do not set a legal BAC threshold. Out of all nations reporting to a WHO survey published in 2004, 28% set their BAC limit at a “lower” level (0.0-0.3 mg/ml), 39% set limits at a “middle” level (0.4-0.6 mg/ml), and 26% have adopted a “higher” limit (0.6 and above).11 Only 7% of countries did not legislate a maximum permissible BAC level.source (http://www.icap.org/portals/0/download/all_pdfs/blue_book/Module_16_Blood_Alcohol_Limits.pdf)
So along with the USA, Canada, Ireland, UK, Switzerland, NZ, among others extablished the higher 0.8 mg/ml... more than 1 in 4 of the countried surveyed. 7% of the WHO surveyed countries did not have any threshold limit at all.
-
If no limit exists, there is none with a higher "limit." I'll leave off the bold font. ;)
-
I'll keep that in mind next time we have an autobahn discussion.
-
If you don't like the way I drive, stay off the sidewalk.
How about a rebuttal from DAMM? Drunks Against Mad Mothers.
-
Originally posted by lukster
If you don't like the way I drive, stay off the sidewalk.
How about a rebuttal from DAMM? Drunks Against Mad Mothers.
Their rebuttals can be found in the morgue.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Their rebuttals can be found in the morgue.
FWIW, I haven't driven under the influence since I was 17, 35 years ago and I have little respect for those who do. No subject is too serious for a little humor though.
-
There are three kinds of lies: Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics."--Mark Twain
-
"A witty saying proves nothing." - Voltaire
-
Originally posted by Rolex
"A witty saying proves nothing." - Voltaire
is that a confession?
-
Oh my..I thought MADD was a Canadian only bunch of idiots...Sorry they have expanded their stupid rants down south.
They want..
1: "Beer & Liquor stores"(Canada) closed on Sunday's..Now this makes a lot of sense...You want to watch NFL and drink(who doesn't)..you have to go(drive) to the local bar and presumably take a taxi home..Nothin like the wife waiting at the front door for u to arrive home in a cabbie.
2:..to lower the blood alcohol limit from .08% to .05%..You want a beer or glass of wine to go with your meal?...There is a cop outside waiting to arrest you and charge u as a criminal.
i am drunk right now cause i decided to drive to the liquor store this aft & bring home some horrid Canadian vodka to chase with some really great Polish pilsners.If MADD had their way i "might" have to drink & drive to enjoy a football afternoon.
-
i must apologize to our Canadian friends, the MAD mothers unfortunately started in the USA.
-
Originally posted by Charon
This one won't fly. By and large... people like their drink too much and they will not support regulating their own behavior.
Charon
You're one of the only other people here who actually "gets it", fines and lectures from judges do not change behavior.. driving DUI is a lifestyle for the worst offenders, they rarely get caught and its 'normal' to get loaded and traverse the roads home.
And Leslie, they already take and sell their car as it is, they get a new one registered in the dogs name, or to someone else, then drive. Here in Los Angele's we have street corner gypsy car dealers whose industry is selling $500- $1k crapboxes pre-registered for a year with BS off shore $50 insurance in whatever name you want.. a big hit with the illegals, drunks and criminals.
If they are free, they will drive after drinking. Period.
One reason they dont care, after the 1st offense they are so screwed, getting their license back, paying the fines and all that seems impossible... so they shrug it off and get on with their lifestyle until they get caught again.
DUI punishment is seriously harsh administratively; fines, loss of license, community service, mandatory AA meetings... but it's also a joke since actual jail time is negligible. 30 days done on weekends, which thanks to over crowding amounts to about 15 actual hours in custody getting processed in, then out. LA Jails currently give non violent inmates 1 day credit for every day served with good behavior... 30 days turns into 15 or less.