After how many DUIs should you lose the ability to drive forever?

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > After how many DUIs should you lose the ability to drive forever?

The Bloop: Jul 5, 2004; by Fluffdaddy

The long term solution is self driving cars. In the short term, it's a tough call. I have loving zero moral tolerance for drunken driving, but making it so poor people have no way to get to work is also terrible. A mincome takes care of that, but that's sadly a pipe-dream, or at least just as long term of a solution as self-driving cars.

I have no interest in vengeance, and it's not effectively punishment if it's permanent, because no learning and behavior correction will occur. I would support a sort of free cab system (perhaps with a tax refund for anyone who doesn't use it). Only if there is a reasonable alternative should extremely harsh consequences be meted out. Because this:

Amused to Death posted:

My friends are all drunk, my family is all drunk, don't have $45 for a cab. Now what do I do?

is a fair question. You should get a ride home in the barfwagon, which comes around to pick you up and is funded by taxes on makers of intoxicating substances.

If its available and you still choose to drive drunk then gently caress you and you shouldnt drive again until a mental health expert OKs it. If you lose your job because you were an rear end in a top hat, then you can go live and work at one of the WPA camps that also exist in the world I'm imagining that actually solves problems instead of just loving people over constantly.

Amused to Death posted:

Quite badly in many cases probably given alcohols almost ubiquitous nature as part of socialization when going out, or as a stress reliever.

Oh, boo loving hoo. If you can't socialize or enjoy your life while actually experiencing it, you should make arrangements. Raping and pillaging have been ubiquitous throughout human history too, as have many other dangerous and immoral acts and that goes absolutely no distance towards making them OK, jesus gently caress. I suppose that if you knew you had AIDS it would be ok to gently caress everyone you could because, hey, human nature and ubiquitous historical precedent! Risk be damned, I was being social!

Shbobdb posted:

Beep boop. I am a robot. People should only drink alone in their own homes. Beep boop.

This is such horseshit. :qq:

I am so cool and social that I need to drink everywhere, but not quite enough to arrange for a DD or a cab. :qq:

# ¿ Oct 11, 2014 03:07

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 10, 2024 16:49

The Bloop: Jul 5, 2004; by Fluffdaddy

hobbesmaster posted:

Sleeping it off in your car is a good way to get a DUI.

And I think no one here is defending that idiocy. It's right up there with peeing in the bushes on the side of the highway putting you on the sex offender registry. We can be vehemently opposed to actually endangering others intentionally without supporting all the laws that currently exist, you know.

# ¿ Oct 11, 2014 03:09

The Bloop: Jul 5, 2004; by Fluffdaddy

Two points:

Our justice system overpenalizes a lot of things (like drug use), and underpenalizes a lot of things (like white collar crime). GOONS can be perfectly consistent while wanting penalties up on some things and down on others.

The US is never going to solve any problems using buses or trains, the area is just to large.

Amused to Death posted:

ell your argument of rape and AIDS is totally convincing to not have some drinks with friends on Friday and drive at at a 0.08 BAC

Cool, I'm glad you understand moral analogies! :cheers:

Don't do completely unnecessary things that you know will greatly increase the risk of killing innocents - an apparently debatable morality

Sometimes things people have always done are, in fact, bad, and should be discontinued in spite of sweeping historical precedent - crazy talk

# ¿ Oct 11, 2014 18:26

The Bloop: Jul 5, 2004; by Fluffdaddy

Maybe mandate that anywhere that serves alcohol have a testing device of some kind on the premises. Or just give out handheld ones for free.

Either way, it would further reduce the excuses (legitimate or otherwise) for not knowing.

# ¿ Oct 11, 2014 18:45

The Bloop: Jul 5, 2004; by Fluffdaddy

on the left posted:

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

1)How the gently caress
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:

Oh, never mind then. Also, lead paint isn't in the top five killers of kids, so we shouldn't ban or in fact try to prevent it.

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

The Bloop: Jul 5, 2004; by Fluffdaddy

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

The Bloop: Jul 5, 2004; by Fluffdaddy

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

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 10, 2024 16:49

The Bloop: Jul 5, 2004; by Fluffdaddy

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?

Realistically? Texting and driving is a newish phenomenon and is being made more illegal in more places, as it should be. No one here is arguing that it is already illegal enough, so this is kind of a red herring. Devil's advocate, though: if you text once on the way home you are irresponsible and dangerous for a few seconds. If you drunk drive you are irresponsible and dangerous the whole way home, so it is still probably worse from a public safety standpoint, but I'm in no way defending texting while driving and I do think it should be "more illegal".

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" is worth engaging with.

I see that you posted about shuttles, which I agree with (other than that they should only be for drunks, of course, as this could incentivize the very poor to try to qualify) but the reason to engage is that a bunch of people that want to work and need to pay for bills and food and more booze but can't work are going to be an even bigger societal problem than they were before. Mincome, free transit, and other things could solve this but are still engaging with the issue.

# ¿ Oct 18, 2014 16:09

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > After how many DUIs should you lose the ability to drive forever?