|
on the left posted:Doesn't this always backfire horribly when people compete for the high score? You're missing the point. The fratboys are going to compete for a high score, yes. But the people who walk out the door thinking "I'm fine, borderline at best" will get evidence that they aren't fine, and reconsider. A big part of "just over the limit" drink driving is derived from the fact that people don't have built in breathalysers, and often can't tell the difference between "a bit buzzed" and "not capable of driving". They don't think drunk driving is ok, and wouldn't knowingly drunk drive, but they don't know they are drunk. Not all of us drink regularly enough to know our own impairment levels. Give people an easy, free way to tell how drunk they are, wherever they are, and the sensible-but-oblivious demographic will be solved, and that's probably 20-25% of drunk drivers.
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 02:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 19:20 |
|
|
I think you ought to take the test drunk, as it's too easy to get a license as is.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 02:25
|
|
|
Sir_Substance posted:You're missing the point. The fratboys are going to compete for a high score, yes. But the people who walk out the door thinking "I'm fine, borderline at best" will get evidence that they aren't fine, and reconsider. It's not a good solution for a couple of reasons: 1) It encourages reckless drinking 2) It is not a guarantee that an officer's breathalyzer won't nab them anyways 3) You don't need to be over the limit to get a DUI anyways
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 02:43
|
|
|
I think it just encourages folks to get right up to the limit before driving off, possibly not realizing there is still alcohol in their stomach metabolizing and their BAC is still going up. Not to mention that civilian ones simply aren't very acurate, honestly the portable police ones aren't perfectly accurate either, thats why you still have to blow into the big one down at the police department once you're arrested.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 02:46
|
|
|
on the left posted:It's not a good solution for a couple of reasons: 1) I specifically argued that this isn't aimed at reckless drinkers, it's aimed at casual/social drinkers. Got a link showing it pushes normal drinkers into reckless drinkers? 2) Not relevant to argument 3) Location specific, not relevant to argument
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 03:28
|
|
|
Drinking-related crashes are really just the tip of the iceberg, there are five other common (indeed MORE common) driving behaviors that cause unnecessary crashes and fatalities: 1. Distracted Driving. According to studies, 50-75% of driving accidents are distraction-related. This can include speaking with passengers, using electrical devices, or looking at the scenery. As such, cameras should be installed in all cars and any driver that is not actively monitoring the road should be automatically ejected from the vehicle. 2. Driver Fatigue. At least 30% of vehicular crashes are directly caused by driver fatigue, and due to lax awareness and enforcement many, many more crashes are fatigue-related and escape public notice. Perhaps 80% of crashes could be averted if drivers had sufficient amounts of sleep. In order to prevent this blight on the public, all drivers with less than 8 hours of sleep in the last 24 hours should be imprisoned for not less than 20 years - just like Rip Van Winkle. 3. Speeding. Everyone speeds, mostly because roads are designed for much higher speeds than the posted limits and typically it is perfectly safe. Indeed some small towns are notorious for implementing confusing signage specifically in order to fine speeders. But the reality of legalized highway banditry should not interfere with our pursuit of the public safety: Everyone knows that Speeding Kills. In this light, all suspected speeders should be summarily executed. 4. Aggressive Driving. As a result of our pervasive car-culture interacting with our abject lack of driver-education, aggressive-related driving is one the leading causes of unnecessary accidents. It can involve tailgating, failure to signal, weaving between lanes, passing on the right, and even verbal and physical confrontations with other drivers. Fortunately, unlike socially progressive European countries, the United States knows that this kind of behavior is totally normal and deserves nothing more than a slap on the wrist. Aggressive drivers should receive medals for being more American than other drivers. 5. Weather. Weather causes all sorts of delays and accidents, and a thorough study of what all the different US states say about out of state drivers yields the conclusion that no driver is capable of driving in any form of weather. In a separate yet equally shocking study, weather-related crashes account for 100% of fatal accidents. As such, anyone driving in any weather should be charged with felony reckless endangerment, and then fined $400,000 and their assets seized. If there are children in the car then they should be sent to CPS, regardless of guardianship.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 04:31
|
|
|
Is this the thread where we craft our arguments around not being able to control everything and so we shouldn't even bother trying to control anything or punish bad behavior? I love that thread.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 04:39
|
|
|
crabcakes66 posted:Is this the thread where we craft our arguments around not being able to control everything and so we shouldn't even bother trying to control anything or punish bad behavior? I love that thread. No this is the thread where we come up with absurd punishments for common activities that will inevitably end up being used to primarily target minorities. I think the thread you're looking for is in Ask/Tell.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 04:43
|
|
|
Kaal posted:No this is the thread where we come up with absurd punishments for common activities that will inevitably end up being used to primarily target minorities. I think the thread you're looking for is in Ask/Tell. Yeah. You listed weather as something comparable to drunk driving. Your opinion means poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 04:46
|
|
|
crabcakes66 posted:Is this the thread where we craft our arguments around not being able to control everything and so we shouldn't even bother trying to control anything or punish bad behavior? I love that thread. The point of my argument is we totally can control things, but screaming at people who do the wrong thing and taking their licenses away actually won't solve the problem, and is thus the wrong thing to spend effort trying to control. People will actually keep driving without licenses, because it's super-hard to police and driving is mandatory in our society.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 04:59
|
|
|
crabcakes66 posted:Yeah. You listed weather as something comparable to drunk driving. Your opinion means poo poo. Jokes on you, twice as many people are killed in weather-related accidents each year than people killed in accidents involving drivers with less than .1 BAC, which for an average-weight guy would mean chugging a beer every 10 minutes for an hour.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 05:02
|
|
|
crabcakes66 posted:Yeah. You listed weather as something comparable to drunk driving. Your opinion means poo poo. Driving in bad weather is responsible for at least as many collisions as driving drunk. Look at the carnage in any city during/after a snowstorm. Hundreds of accidents in a span of hours sometimes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 06:10
|
|
|
on the left posted:It's not a good solution for a couple of reasons: 2)If you're borderline, you probably shouldn't be driving 3)NO ONE is defending how the laws are currently set up Kaal posted:Drinking-related crashes are really just the tip of the iceberg, there are five other common (indeed MORE common) driving behaviors that cause unnecessary crashes and fatalities: PT6A posted:Driving in bad weather is responsible for at least as many collisions as driving drunk. Look at the carnage in any city during/after a snowstorm. Hundreds of accidents in a span of hours sometimes. The other people were driving in bad weather, too. It's really not comparable. If there was a separate highway where only drunk people drove I would give literally no shits whatsoever about deaths on that road. People still need to get places when it snows, it's not even remotely the same kind of choice, but I'm all for non-emergency personnel being allowed to stay inside without getting fired when its dangerous to drive, if that's what you're suggesting.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 06:22
|
|
|
Yeah gently caress making sound policy based on statistics, what we really need are knee-jerk reactions and brutal minimum sentences! That's a recipe that has worked so well in: edit: Oh also it's pretty amusing that people are giving weather-related accidents a pass; as if the complete lack of driver education for driving in adverse weather, or laws penalizing drivers who are unresponsive or unprepared for adverse weather, was some kind of natural phenomenon that we can do nothing about. Because I simply must drive you see. There are no other options in the world, even when it creates all sorts of accidents and fatalities because why the gently caress are you driving through freezing fog? Unless you've had the devil's drink and then all bets are off. Kaal fucked around with this message at 06:44 on Oct 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 06:26
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Yeah gently caress making sound policy based on statistics, what we really need are knee-jerk reactions and brutal minimum sentences! That's a recipe that has worked so well in: That's totally what I've been suggesting, isn't it you loving imbecile? NO. Drunk driving kills a lot of people. Regardless of any other facts including that other things are (arguably) worse, we should do something about it. Texting while driving should also be illegal, as should eating a big mac or clipping your toenails while driving and I NEVER loving SAID OTHERWISE BUT ITS NOT THE THREAD TOPIC DO YOU UNDERSTAND I don't want people's lives destroyed by a bad choice, but I want innocents to be killed by those bad-choice-makers even less.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 06:33
|
|
|
Dude you've been comparing a .08 BAC to raping and pillaging, and suggesting that we should ship people off to WPA camps for getting a DUI.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 06:41
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Dude you've been comparing a .08 BAC to raping and pillaging, and suggesting that we should ship people off to WPA camps for getting a DUI. Your reading comprehension is apparently pretty poo poo, or you're arguing in bad faith. I said that immoral action like intentionally putting others at risk is not excusable just because of historical precedent. I also suggested that in my perfect world, people would not need personal transportation to get to work and was suggesting one solution for people who eventually get their driving privileges suspended, which I never said should be for a DUI. I've suggested ride programs, readily available breathalyzers, and other pro-social solutions. You, apparently trying to live up to your red title, have simply implied that the current amount of drunk driving deaths is OK with you and we should do nothing about it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 06:54
|
|
|
Oh you're worried about the current number of drunk driving deaths. Well I have good news for you: That number is continuing to go down every year, just like it has for the last 30 years. Alright problem solved, and I didn't even have to start shouting obscenities and splitting hairs about filling up edit: Well by problem solved I mean the problem of how drunk driving causes far fewer fatalities than MADD suggests (perhaps 10% of accidents rather than 30%), and that driving impairment isn't statistically relevant until at least >.1 BAC, which is why the average recorded DUI collision has a BAC average that is double the nominal .08 BAC limit. However, the problem of cops primarily targeting racial minorities with DUI arrests, and those arrests constituting 10% of all arrests in America, still exists. You've made it very apparent that this is not your problem though. I'm all for your perfect world where affordable self-driving cars render the entire issue moot, but that world is very distant from the problems of the real world. Kaal fucked around with this message at 07:11 on Oct 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 07:00
|
|
|
Drunk driving is a problem, and I'm not trying to handwave away that there are more deaths because of drunk driving than there'd be without it, but are there any numbers on any sort of concrete increase? It seems specious to blame alcohol for every auto fatality in which alcohol was involved. People are exceptionally lovely on and around roads, drunk or sober. I think the root cause of DUIs and a lot of other bad poo poo that happens on the roads is that everyone, some a lot more than others, but everyone, forgets that everyone else on and around the roads is loving dangerous.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 07:56
|
|
|
You have people all around you who honestly believe they drive -better- with alcohol or other substances in them. It happens. I work with a few of them! Do something about that and our horrid transit systems before we even think about punishments or whatever. And I don't mean instigating some kind of zero-tolerance scorched earth policy. It 'd be nice for all the clamor of the war on drugs that people instead looked deeply into the culture around it without fearing they're going to get sucked into it by proxy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 08:58
|
|
|
Dick Trauma posted:At least in the U.S. drivers license suspensions and revocations do nothing. People continue to drive unless and until they are imprisoned which is uncommon. This is because being permanently unable to drive can be a huge handicap in much of America. Driving may only be a privilege, not a right - but in much of the country it is a requirement for even many basic tasks, doubly so for poor people. Canine Blues Arooo posted:One. Do you also suggest giving g life sentence without parole to any and all people convicted if murder, manslaughter, or negligent homicide? "Zero tolerance" laws are always weird to me because they usually end up being much more severe than punishments for actually worse crimes are. Most of the time they turn out to be about appeasing social outrage lobbies rather than solving real problems in sensible ways according to proper priorities. Driving drunk is bad and all but I'm pretty sure people who intentionally kill people with their car while sober don't get permanent license revocations on the first offense.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 17:13
|
|
|
So, often pro-gun folks point out that cars are deadly and require just as much responsibility as guns, and are pooh-pooed by people who say "well you need a car to do things!!" I guess this is the other side of that coin. Despite misuse of a gun leading in many cases to a lifetime ban from their use, proposing doing the same thing with a car leads to a lot of crying from simps. "But people need their cars!"  Yeah, and the people you ran over needed their lives. Maybe the truth is that no one wants to be held accountable for anything, ever.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 17:25
|
|
|
We could also install a breathalyzer/BAC measurer in every car and not let them start if the amount is too high. Some really dedicated/stupid people could bypass it, but you'd stop everyone who was "surprised" they were over the limit from driving and it would keep drunk people from making stupid decisions. They're already not super expensive and are getting cheaper all the time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 18:44
|
|
|
Given that drowsy driving is probably as bad or worse than drunk driving, and cellphone use is probably similar -- why is it reasonable to have such punitive restrictions around the one, while cell use is just a ticket, and drowsy driving isn't against the law at all? My answer to the question in the OP here is "as a general rule never; in specific cases, possibly as soon as after the first infraction" because I think zero-tolerance laws and blanket bans of all kinds are bad and unhelpful. Also, if someone recklessly hits me with a car, I don't give a poo poo if they were drunk, tired, having sex, or just generally negligent, because the net effect to my life is the same regardless. I ride a motorcycle, and the amount of absolutely brainless things I see from other drivers on a daily basis is mind-boggling. I think alcohol is a relatively small part of the problem which gets a disproportionate amount of attention, and that attention has led to things I find much scarier than drunk driving, like mandatory blood testing being performed roadside by people with no medical training. SedanChair posted:Yeah, and the people you ran over needed their lives. Maybe the truth is that no one wants to be held accountable for anything, ever.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 18:54
|
|
|
I've seen people's lives ruined by a DUI charge- which may not be right, no, but there has to be some kind of harsh consequence to doing something so reckless and life-endangering. I disagree with it costing people their livelihood and money, but there should certainly be a license suspension and mandated alcohol classes too. Scaring people is an effective deterrent and always has been. Bring in people who have lost loved ones to drunk drivers. Bring in people who have survived drunk driving accidents. Make drunk drivers feel like poo poo because they should; but don't destroy their lives because of one stupid mistake. Oh. Another thing I'd just like to nip in the bud. I hate it when people (mainly on the internet) equate drunk driving to texting while driving, as if one can't be bad since everyone totally does the other one yo. Uh how about both of them are bad? And no, I have never driven drunk or texted while my car was in motion and I was behind the wheel because I'm an actual responsible adult who doesn't make lovely decisions. Drunk driving impairs you significantly more than texting does. Texting while driving lasts a few seconds at best and "ends" whenever you put down your phone. Drunk driving impairs you completely and utterly for the duration of however long you are in your car. Again, both are bad and reckless; but don't act like they're the same thing. I am also well aware that being sleep deprived can impair you as well if not more than drunk driving can; but all of the studies conducted on driving while sleep deprived were done on subjects that were literal walking zombies who hadn't slept in days for the purposes of the studies.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 19:25
|
|
|
And yet one of those activities carries a life-destroying stigma and massive fines with zero tolerance whereas the other is more, eh, it happens. It isn't that drunk driving is good (obviously) but the punishments for drunk driving vs. tired driving or texting while driving are so absurdly out-of-whack it should give you pause. When I was younger, I probably drove while over 0.08, but I've never texted while driving and when I've been tired after a super long shift, I've called people to pick me up. Hell, I've even pulled over during some seriously bad weather. Why? Because the latter three impacted my driving more than the former. But only one of those activities will get you sent to jail. Zero tolerance policies, in general, are stupid. Zero tolerance policies that target certain bad behaviors while totally ignoring other bad behaviors that are just-as-bad-if-not-worse are remarkably dumb. Throw in a little biased policing with a strong moral message so people feel self-righteous.  Yeah, those numbers totally look in keeping with the racial make-up of America, right?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 20:46
|
|
|
What is that chart measuring? DUIs per percent population?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 20:51
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:So, often pro-gun folks point out that cars are deadly and require just as much responsibility as guns, and are pooh-pooed by people who say "well you need a car to do things!!" The poor can't hire someone to drive for them. Generally speaking you don't need a gun to hold down a job. This is not a thread about gun arguments. Captain Mog posted:Scaring people is an effective deterrent and always has been. I'm laughing at this one. Tell me more how punitive punishment terrifies people into compliance.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 21:00
|
|
|
Captain Mog posted:Scaring people is an effective deterrent and always has been. You're right of course, that's why DUI's never happen these days and this discussion is hypothetical. Oh wait, it's not, are you an idiot?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 21:59
|
|
|
deratomicdog posted:What is that chart measuring? DUIs per percent population? Percentages of Drivers Aged 21 or Older Who Reported a Past Year Arrest for DUI, by Race/Ethnicity: 2002 and 2003. Sorry, I thought the legend was included in the image (phoneposting is dumbposting).
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 23:01
|
|
|
An economy that requires drunk potential killers to drive cars is an unsustainable and an immoral one. I don't see any need to worry about such drunks getting to work. Guns are dangerous, cars are dangerous, but in both cases the victims are dead and I don't see how "but we need them to get to our JIAAAABZ" is worth engaging with.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 02:19
|
|
|
Now this may be a dumb question, but isn't there a difference in timeframes between driving drunk and texting? IF your texting, you're momentarily distracted and not looking at the road, but he's back to normal driving once a guy's done texting. A drunk driver reaction times and judgment are impaired throughout the entirety of their driving. Whether that justifies disproportionate punishments is debatable and I'm assuming that the individual texting isn't constantly doing it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 02:23
|
|
|
The statistics I've seen are absolute. So, for the moment, we can use abstract numbers. In X percentage of total accidents, the driver was drunk and in X percentage of accidents the driver was texting. The notion of factoring in total time, if anything, makes texting while driving even worse. Someone texting while driving is only distracted for a few seconds. Someone driving drunk is impaired the entire time. If the same total amounts of accidents are caused by texting and drunk driving, then texting while driving ought be punished much, much more severely.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 03:38
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:An economy that requires drunk potential killers to drive cars is an unsustainable and an immoral one. I don't see any need to worry about such drunks getting to work. Guns are dangerous, cars are dangerous, but in both cases the victims are dead and I don't see how "but we need them to get to our JIAAAABZ" Are you trying to erect flaccid straw men to joust at for your own self esteem or perhaps you might be young/insulated enough to never have actually met someone that drove drunk once. I seriously agree with you half of the time when you're not trying to spin outrage out of a muddled issue.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 06:10
|
|
|
Grognan posted:Are you trying to erect flaccid straw men to joust at for your own self esteem or perhaps you might be young/insulated enough to never have actually met someone that drove drunk once. I know a whole shitload of people who drove/drive drunk and continue to drive legally. I don't think their contributions to society or the economy outweigh the continued danger they pose on the road through continuing to be licensed drivers. Also your av is hilarious in the context of this conversation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 18:32
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:An economy that requires drunk potential killers to drive cars is an unsustainable and an immoral one. I don't see any need to worry about such drunks getting to work. Guns are dangerous, cars are dangerous, but in both cases the victims are dead and I don't see how "but we need them to get to our JIAAAABZ" This is a completely valid opinion, but if you don't understand why a normal person would read it and decide that you're a heartless gun nut, I don't know what to tell you. Even from a completely selfish, Machiavellian point of view this seems like an unwise and unsustainable position, because there are obvious social consequences of making it impossible for people to travel to work. You're basically saying that a class of people with substance abuse problems should be prevented from regular employment or transport for the safety/betterment of everyone else... but failing to address any of the logical end results of this (increased crime, increased utilization of welfare services, etc). Maybe in your ideal universe you just carry a gun and shoot such people if they give you any problems, and don't provide any welfare for anyone anyway? Cabbages and Kings fucked around with this message at 18:50 on Oct 14, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 18:44
|
|
|
No, we should concentrate on not making working life in the United States a charnel house of coercion, poor health and desperation. Until that happens I don't see any point in putting undue weight on DUI laws--after all, that's just one of the ways society traps you. I was actually kind of not kidding when I suggested that a DUI should win you free public transportation--a shuttle service, like people can get with Medicaid and Medicare. Since we are talking about taking effective actions rather than politically feasible ones, that seems like the best course.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2014 21:02
|
|
|
Nothing to see
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 08:50
|
|
|
Tim Raines IRL posted:Given that drowsy driving is probably as bad or worse than drunk driving, and cellphone use is probably similar -- why is it reasonable to have such punitive restrictions around the one, while cell use is just a ticket, and drowsy driving isn't against the law at all? Drowsy driving is a tough one, because it is pretty hard if not impossible to actually test for. Getting pulled over probably wakes you right the gently caress up, and there is no biological test I am aware of for sleepiness, so it's kind of a non-starter other than nabbing people for recklessness in general if they're swerving all over but not drunk/high. Just because we can't adequetly test for sleepiness, though, doesn't mean we shouldn't test for other equally bad things on the grounds that "their reckless endangerment habit goes underpunished so mine should too" SedanChair posted:An economy that requires drunk potential killers to drive cars is an unsustainable and an immoral one. I don't see any need to worry about such drunks getting to work. Guns are dangerous, cars are dangerous, but in both cases the victims are dead and I don't see how "but we need them to get to our JIAAAABZ"
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 16:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 19:20 |
|
|
jivjov posted:Consuming a substance that is well documented to cause impaired judgement should under no circumstances excuse someone from the consequences of decisions made under the influence of said substance. If anything, it should make them even more accountable. If you're choosing to partake of altering substances like that, the burden is on you to not harm anyone else while under then influence. Serious question: How would that jive with drunk women being unable to consent to sex? If she goes to a bar, gets shitfaced and has sex and of course Im not talking about situations where she doesn't want to or any kind of force, but many states and people think even if she is saying yes and giving the "Yes I want to gently caress" signals it is still rape because she was unable to consent. But there are people for whom alcohol puts their sex drive on overdrive, make and female. She went to a bar, knew one of the possible dangers was loss of inhibition to the point of loving someone she normally wouldn't give the time of day to. By your DUI standard if she gave no indication she didn't want to can it be rape? And overall I tend to agree, I've taken all kinds of mind altering substances and I've always believed if I did something while on them its still 100% my fault. I took them, I need to face any consequences of what I did after. I'm not trying to be a dick or anything, but it would seem if the line is you know what can happen and must face the consequences for your actions would that not mean loving a drunk chick can not be rape? Its also one thats always bugged me because there are people and laws that don't take the guys intoxication as a factor. If he's twice as wasted, how is he supposed to be able be capable but not her? Some people draw a line of woman+alcohol+sex=rape. Period. Plus my wife loves getting drunk & stoned out our gourds and loving like crazed monkeys because of that very effect: It makes her a freak in bed and she loves it. Cant say I disagree. But Ive literally been told each time we do that I've raped her. And because I feel like I have to clarify: I am only talking about a situation where she does not seem too impaired but is just drunk and horny and gives even a sober guy every signal she was up for it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2014 22:57
|
|
