|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 16:14 |
|
|
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 VHS fucked around with this message at 18:50 on Oct 14, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2014 18:44
|
|
is worth engaging with.