Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Education is definitely a large chunk of it. However, so is enforcement. Who doesn't know someone who hasn't been arrested for DUI? When you hear what that person has been through, the money costs, time costs, the social stigma, et al, it makes SOME people (not all I know), think twice before drinking and driving. And remember, a lot of those fines go to educating the public.
I agree with that. As far as thinking twice. Going through a DUI process, whether guilty or innocent, is draining, taxing (financially and emotionally) and stressful. It's not a parking or speeding ticket.
I agree with that. As far as thinking twice. Going through a DUI process, whether guilty or innocent, is draining, taxing (financially and emotionally) and stressful. It's not a parking or speeding ticket.
First time we've agreed on anything and, I welcome it :-)
I've long said that if someone drinks and drive, that should not be illegal. If they hit someone, or cause damage to property, they should be punished according to their crime. Run a 7 year old kid while drunk, death penalty.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volobjectitarian
No, because in that case, there is a victim. What Memphis 1979 is correctly pointing out is that the act of driving while under the influence or intoxicated hurts nobody. Driving the vehicle into people, property or other vehicles is the act that hurts, not operating the vehicle under the influence.
Driving while drunk hurts nobody. Crashing into things while drunk, that is what hurts people.
Memphis1979 (and I as well, based on total agreement) is saying that there should be no penalty for operating the vehicle under the inlfuence, but if you cause harm to someone for any reason, including because you were drunk and driving, then the book should get tossed at you and the bars on your cell should be so thick that they stay cold in the summertime. But that should be true for any manner of knuckleheaded driving behavior that results in a fatality. If you kill someone with your car because you were drunk, sleepy, yelling at your kids in the backseat, jamming to tunes, skylarking at scenery, or just plain stupid....same penalty. Toss them all in an oubliette for all I care, because morons who drive cars poorly just pollute the gene pool, and won't be missed. But be consistent. Don't target one group of morons and leave an even bigger group of them safe from anything but a ticket.
As it stands, driving under the influence is a "crime of increased risk" or some dystopian sci-fi version of "future crime" like in Minority Report. The fact is, driving under the influence accounts for ~30% of traffic fatalities, so something else must account for the other 70%, right? That would be "distracted driving" which according to most studies from law enforcement is not all cell phones and texting. Various studies put "generally distracted" as the vast majority of all distracted driving (typically over 50% depending on study), with cell phone use (any) at ~10% of distratced accidents.
Now, generally distracted comes in tons of different behaviors. Talking with other occupants of the vehicle, adjusting media/climate controls, daydreaming, rubber necking, etc. These behaviors are twice as likely to cause a fatality as drunk driving is, yet none carry the same onerous penalties? Why? Because:
Nobody has spent decades lobbying to make turning around to talk to your kids a felony
You cannot measure what I call "driving like an idiot" like you can measure BAC
The crying female, angry parent, or head in the clouds rock /n/ roller jamming tunes driver doesn't make as convenient a villain as the drunk driver
A society increasingly atheistic is apparently all too happy to continue legislating morality, and drinking the fruit of the vine is wicked...wicked I tell you!
It is hypocritical nonsense and nothing more than a source of revenue for tyranny to make one risky behavior a felony, and all others that are even riskier little more than additional fines on a traffic ticket.
Some of your strawman arguments are specious. I like that "crying female" especially.
Drunk driving should be totally discouraged. I have read some stats, can't find 'em right now, that a first DUI arrest is usually NOT the first time the person drove drunk. And the first time a drunk is in an accident is likely NOT to be the first time s/he drove drunk. So someone gets away with driving drunk until they get in an accident. That's good?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979
Fatal accidents are down. Car safety standards have gotten remarkably better over the same time.
People still drive after having 3 or 4 beers.
I would contribute that to the car safety.
Here is another question. When cars drive themselves, from bar to home, with no driver interactions, why have DUI laws?
When that happens, the laws can be revised.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gtownoe
I have an issue with this as well. I understand the need for safety, but how we're going about it isn't the best imo. I'm ok with cops pulling over clearly impaired drivers, or a traffic violation that leads to them discovering the driver is impaired, but road blocks and DUI Checkpoints should absolutely be outlawed as they violate your Civil Rights and have proven to be less effective than actual patrolling.
I've never been involved in a DUI checkpoint of a roadblock. Have you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil306
Education is definitely a large chunk of it. However, so is enforcement. Who doesn't know someone who hasn't been arrested for DUI? When you hear what that person has been through, the money costs, time costs, the social stigma, et al, it makes SOME people (not all I know), think twice before drinking and driving. And remember, a lot of those fines go to educating the public.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceece
Education I'm guessing. Back in the day when 3 martini lunches were common and businessmen had bars in their offices nobody had the power to do much or even worried about it. Today we are all activists with the click of a button.
Actually, a lot of the public health research has found that education doesn't work as well as enforcement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by theunbrainwashed
Woooo! Yeah gosh darnit! Now get off my lawn
No, seriously, I think the DUI problem in this country has a lot to do with our sprawl problem. Most bars you need to drive to, and you gotta get home at some point.
Some of your strawman arguments are specious. I like that "crying female" especially.
Drunk driving should be totally discouraged. I have read some stats, can't find 'em right now, that a first DUI arrest is usually NOT the first time the person drove drunk. And the first time a drunk is in an accident is likely NOT to be the first time s/he drove drunk. So someone gets away with driving drunk until they get in an accident. That's good?
When that happens, the laws can be revised.
I've never been involved in a DUI checkpoint of a roadblock. Have you?
Actually, a lot of the public health research has found that education doesn't work as well as enforcement.
Yes. I've been through 3 checkpoints to be exact. Had experiences at 2 of them that I'll never forget. It's the reason I address the Police State in this country so passionately.
I could go on and on about the Police corruption that goes on at checkpoints. Or in general for that matter.
Some of your strawman arguments are specious. I like that "crying female" especially.
Drunk driving should be totally discouraged. I have read some stats, can't find 'em right now, that a first DUI arrest is usually NOT the first time the person drove drunk. And the first time a drunk is in an accident is likely NOT to be the first time s/he drove drunk. So someone gets away with driving drunk until they get in an accident. That's good?
When that happens, the laws can be revised.
I've never been involved in a DUI checkpoint of a roadblock. Have you?
Actually, a lot of the public health research has found that education doesn't work as well as enforcement.
Secondly, how do they know? How many people drive home from the bar or a restaurant every day and have a drink are, "legally" over the limit but drive home just fine? Way more then are caught by the police.
And cars are self driving now. They stop themselves automatically before Hitting children and other cars, a complete stop. GM will have a self driving auto in 2 years. So will other companies.
The times they are a changing. End stupid laws that punish people for what they might do.
So, somebody gets caught driving with a Blood Alcohol over the legal limit before he does harm to somebody else and all of a sudden it's the greedy police officer's fault. Oh, and I forgot....it's all of a sudden a police state. Usually declared by somebody who got pissy about being pulled over in the first place.
Don't blame the poor drunk "victim" who left the bar buzzed and got in his car. Nahhh, his irresponsibility and blatant disregard for the public safety had absolutely nothing to do with it. He was having "a bad day."
Secondly, how do they know? How many people drive home from the bar or a restaurant every day and have a drink are, "legally" over the limit but drive home just fine? Way more then are caught by the police.
And cars are self driving now. They stop themselves automatically before Hitting children and other cars, a complete stop. GM will have a self driving auto in 2 years. So will other companies.
The times they are a changing. End stupid laws that punish people for what they might do.
Yeah, it absolutely can't be the fault of the idiot who gets a snoot full and gets behind the wheel, can it. Nahhh, it's a freaking police state. Imagine, not allowing us to drive drunk, what nerve.
Last edited by carterstamp; 02-05-2014 at 05:48 AM..
Yeah, it absolutely can't be the fault of the idiot who gets a snoot full and gets behind the wheel, can it. Nahhh, it's a freaking police state. Imagine, not allowing s to drive drunk, what nerve.
If he or she hits someone or something, yes, it absolutely is their fault.
If he or she hits someone or something, yes, it absolutely is their fault.
When did I say it wasn't?
What I am saying, Memphis, is that the idea of not arresting a drunk driver until he causes damage or injury is nonsense. People should be adult enough to call a cab when they go out drinking and drink too much. It's not like they're a 3 year old kid with no concept of consequences.
It's like somebody going 50 mph in a school zone. You get caught at it, don't blame the cop, you're the one who broke the law. DUI laws are tough for a reason. Maybe getting one blockhead drunk driver off the road will save one life.
And not all cars are self driving, Memphis. The new ones are, when you buy the option. How many people can afford a new car these days?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
