Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
McAlister
Nov 3, 2002

by exmarx
Depends on the population density and road quality of the place you are driving. Urban areas have both more motorists and pedestrians who are endangered by drunk driving and more transportation alternatives to driving as well as better/straighter roads that facilitate more dangerous speeds.

But basically, its a balancing act between the risk posed by the drunk driver to others and the impact of loss of driving privileges. If you are in a place with enough environmental hazards and few enough people that an impaired driver is pretty much just a danger to themselves - while the loss of driving privileges means they can't effectively live there anymore - there probably is no need for such a limit. They'll generally kill themselves or wise up before they hurt anyone. While in a sufficiently dense area - say downtown Tokyo - zero tolerance would be reasonable.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

  • Locked thread