willard 0
Recommended Posts
willard 0
Sometimes being a cop is a "damned if i do, damned if I don't" job. Case in point being the small town of New London, Ohio. App. 8 to 10 years ago they were hosting a weekend festival for volunteer firemen from around the state. The town cops had been under fire for being over zealous in their ticketing of drivers and DUIs in particular. If they smelled alcohol, you got a free ride to that station regardless of the breath test results. One night during the festival they stopped a fella on a motorcycle. He admitted to have had "a couple" but passed a field test. They gave him a break and let him go on his way with a warning. Guess who died in a motorcyle crash less then 15 minutes later? Yep, and the guys family brought suit against the village and the cops.
What else do you expect from weak correlation between low BAC and accidents? Alcohol can be a causative factor in an accident, and legal definitions aside alcohol can be present and not be a causative factor in an accident.
It's unfair to the police of New London to put them between reality and legality.
It's unfair to the police of New London to put them between reality and legality.
My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?
Quotehttp://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/01/02/D8MDILP82.html
Toyota Developing Drunken Driving System
Jan 02 11:02 PM US/Eastern
Toyota Motor Corp. is developing a fail-safe system for cars that detects drunken drivers and automatically shuts the vehicle down if sensors pick up signs of excessive alcohol consumption, a news report said Wednesday.
Cars fitted with the detection system will not start if sweat sensors in the driving wheel detect high levels of alcohol in the driver's bloodstream, according to a report carried by the mass-circulation daily, Asahi Shimbun.
The system could also kick in if the sensors detect abnormal steering, or if a special camera shows that the driver's pupils are not in focus. The car is then slowed to a halt, the report said.
The world's No. 2 automaker hopes to fit cars with the system by the end of 2009, according to the report. Calls to Toyota's headquarters in Nagoya rang unanswered on Wednesday, a public holiday.
Nissan Motor Co., another Japanese car manufacturer, has already been experimenting with breathalyzer-like devices that could detect if a driver was drunken. Similar technologies, such as alcohol ignition interlocks, are in use in the U.S. and elsewhere.
Concerns over drunken driving have surged in Japan following a series of alcohol-related accidents last year. In August, a drunken driver collided with another vehicle carrying a family of five, plunging them off a bridge and killing three children.
The incident prompted stepped-up roadside spot checks by police, who also plan to stiffen penalties for drunken driving.
If you think the laws are tough in the U.S. check this out.
http://www.breitbart.com/?id=2006-12-27_D8M9HLH00&show_article=1&cat=breaking&ck=drunken+driving
rehmwa 2
QuoteIn August, a drunken driver collided with another vehicle carrying a family of five, plunging them off a bridge and killing three children.
I believe the cops were busy hassling some guy that just had single white wine spritzer and thus were unavailable to arrest the family of five before they drove in front of the innocent drunk, thus causing the accident.
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
Zipp0 1
In principle, I agree. A .08 driver is borderline and will not be nearly as dangerous as a .15 driver or above. The problem is knowing how f'd up a driver is, and deterrence of drinking before driving which is achieved through strong enforcement. Personally, I NEVER have even one drink if I need to drive. Then again, I had to learn the hard way (many moons ago).
I also think these nazi checkpoints need to be stopped. Studies have shown that roving patrols catch more drunks and are more enonomic.
--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.
I also think these nazi checkpoints need to be stopped. Studies have shown that roving patrols catch more drunks and are more enonomic.
--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.
rehmwa 2
QuoteI also think these checkpoints need to be stopped. Studies have shown that roving patrols catch more drunks and are more enonomic.
Now here is an interpretation of the OP (he never mentioned 'checkpoints' but that would put a much clearer context on his post) that I do understand and think is a good point. (Zipp0 - you always find a better way to look at some things)
However, it still doesn't excuse the DUI when found this way.....
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
skycop 0
The same thing happened to me, the results weren't nearly as bad luckily.
I stopped a woman for an obvious traffic violation, when I approached her she obviously had been drinking. As I got her out of the car another car pulled up behind us, it was this womans husband. They both start begging me not to arrest her, she had just passed her CPA exam that day and they had been celebrating. She had the paperwork showing that to be true. They seemed like the average hardworking young couple that needed a break from me. He had been drinking too but didn't seem impaired, I gave him a couple simple field sobriety tests and he passed with flying colors. I told him to go straight home and come back and get the car she was driving in the morning, he parked her car and they left in his car.
About 20 min later I went back to where her car was parked and guess what, it was gone. They lived some distance away and there is no way anyone could have come and gotten the vehicle except her. No good deed goes unpunished, if she would have been in an accident it would have been MY ass. This happened over 15yrs ago, because of this I never give a break on DUI's, if a driver is impaired they get arrested for something, so this situation never happens again.
"Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"
I stopped a woman for an obvious traffic violation, when I approached her she obviously had been drinking. As I got her out of the car another car pulled up behind us, it was this womans husband. They both start begging me not to arrest her, she had just passed her CPA exam that day and they had been celebrating. She had the paperwork showing that to be true. They seemed like the average hardworking young couple that needed a break from me. He had been drinking too but didn't seem impaired, I gave him a couple simple field sobriety tests and he passed with flying colors. I told him to go straight home and come back and get the car she was driving in the morning, he parked her car and they left in his car.
About 20 min later I went back to where her car was parked and guess what, it was gone. They lived some distance away and there is no way anyone could have come and gotten the vehicle except her. No good deed goes unpunished, if she would have been in an accident it would have been MY ass. This happened over 15yrs ago, because of this I never give a break on DUI's, if a driver is impaired they get arrested for something, so this situation never happens again.
"Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"
Andy9o8 2
I suppose it's conceivable that they immediately went and picked up someone else and brought him/her back to drive the car. But my guess is you're probably right; they suckered your trust and the wife drove the car home.
I'm disappointed with, but not surprised at, some of the posts. It's an enabler's attitude. Alcohol/drug-impaired drivers are a menace on the road, and they kill and maim people, plain and simple. Reigning that in is a social good, not a social evil. Being an enabler, even in word (railing against "political correctness") and not in deed, is not part of the solution; it's part of the problem.
I'm disappointed with, but not surprised at, some of the posts. It's an enabler's attitude. Alcohol/drug-impaired drivers are a menace on the road, and they kill and maim people, plain and simple. Reigning that in is a social good, not a social evil. Being an enabler, even in word (railing against "political correctness") and not in deed, is not part of the solution; it's part of the problem.
skycop 0
I'm not 100% sure she got the car, but about 99.5%
I've gotten creative as to what the person gets arrested for, when I've been put in similar situations.
A "drunk in public" beats a DUI.
"Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"
I've gotten creative as to what the person gets arrested for, when I've been put in similar situations.
A "drunk in public" beats a DUI.
"Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"
Quote
Alcohol/drug-impaired drivers are a menace on the road, and they kill and maim people, plain and simple.
With millions, perhaps tens of millions of drunk drivers and only low thousands of deaths caused by them each year, you would require a low threshold indeed to outlaw an activity.
Where would you put the threshold of probability of killing for an activity to be criminal? Presumably it is greater than zero, for you would allow sober drivers, and sober drivers yet manage to kill people.
My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?
willard 0
QuoteWith millions, perhaps tens of millions of drunk drivers and only low thousands of deaths caused by them each year, you would require a low threshold indeed to outlaw an activity.
Only low thousands? How many do you think we should allow to die because somebody can't drive? 10k? 20k? 100k?
Driving on our nations highways is a privilege not a right . Along with that privilege comes the responsibility to not unnecessarily place others at risk.
There are any number of activities that are much more dangerous than a drunk driver and are still legal, even if regulated to some degree. Yet all these have one common thread-the majority of the risk is to the participant, not to an unsuspecting bystander who has the right to assume they aren't going to be slammed in the side and forced into oncoming traffic.
We, as a society, cannot, and maybe should not, always protect the individual from theirself. But we have the responsibility to protect our members, to the best of our ability, from the pointless endangerment by others.
Quote
Only low thousands? How many do you think we should allow to die because somebody can't drive? 10k? 20k? 100k?
I think the number of dead should be balanced against the benefit derived from the activity. Hospitals kill people too, with deadly infections such as MRSA. I don't call for their outlaw when they cause death because they also bring benefits. Drunk driving doesn't heal a person like a hospital, but I think there's a strong case to be made that it's a benefit to the driver, else people wouldn't do it in such large numbers. For they risk so much under our bent legal system to do it, and the penalties are widely known. Indeed, the decision to drive drunk is made rationally when someone drives to a party or to the bar without a designated driver, not just after they've consumed several drinks.
The decision is made again when they get into their car after drinks.
My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?
willard 0
QuoteDrunk driving doesn't heal a person like a hospital, but I think there's a strong case to be made that it's a benefit to the driver, else people wouldn't do it in such large numbers
And just what benefit would that be that it is so important to be worth risking innocent lives? If it is that important that they go somewhere then they shouldn't drink...that simple. Driving while under the influence of alcohol has no benefit to anyone! A rational person would know that if they have to drive then they shouldn't drink. It's that simple.
QuoteIndeed, the decision to drive drunk is made rationally when someone drives to a party or to the bar without a designated driver, not just after they've consumed several drinks.
Just because a decision is made while sober doesn't mean it is rational. In fact, those who go to a party or out to drink, knowing they will get drunk, and decide beforehand to drive home anyway are the worst offenders. They are demonstrating that they don't care about anyone else on the road. They don't care if they cause an accident and hurt or kill someone as long as they don't have to get a ride from someone else or calla taxi.
I have nothing against drinking. Hell, I get shit-faced once in a while just like I did Sunday night. And I have nothing against driving. I average app. 36,000 miles/year on my car. If I go somewhere and end up drinking I let my car sit. I have never had a problem getting a ride home or back to get my car the next day, even before I moved into the city and lived 1000 miles from nowhere. If I have to be somewhere the next morning, it's simple...I don't drink. It is what is called REPONSIBILITY, something that most people get when they grow up and realize it's not all about them.
Quote
And just what benefit would that be that it is so important to be worth risking innocent lives?
I don't pretend to know or care exactly how it is manifest. I think such details are irrelevant, because the behaviour is sufficient to establish that the value is so, independent of the form it takes.
Quote
Just because a decision is made while sober doesn't mean it is rational.
It would be irrational if it was made without full information...but it's a stretch to me that most people would doubt either what causes intoxication or its physical and legal consequences. I think in most cases it's a rational decision.
Quote
In fact, those who go to a party or out to drink, knowing they will get drunk, and decide beforehand to drive home anyway are the worst offenders. They are demonstrating that they don't care about anyone else on the road.
That would be driving recklessly, which is a separate mode of criminality. Most drunk drivers do not drive recklessly, I contend, based on the sheer numbers of DUI arrests vs deaths/injuries.
Drunks probably drive recklessly more often than sober drivers, for all I know, but that is not sufficient reason to indict the whole lot. Those who drive recklessly should be punished irrespective of their BAC, and those who do not should not be punished for recklessness, again irrespective of their BAC.
My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?
willard 0
QuoteI don't pretend to know or care exactly how it is manifest. I think such details are irrelevant, because the behaviour is sufficient to establish that the value is so, independent of the form it takes.
Wow
According to your way of thinking it is ok for someone who is so drunk they can barely walk to get in a car and take off down a 6 lane highway jst because they forgot to put the cat out. Makes perfect sense to me
QuoteIt would be irrational if it was made without full information...but it's a stretch to me that most people would doubt either what causes intoxication or its physical and legal consequences. I think in most cases it's a rational decision
But the decision is made without full information. They have no idea what may happen on the drive home that will require them to take evasive action. They don't know for sure if, when they leave the bar, the streets will be covered in ice. They can't possibly know if a child will be out late at night and step out from behing a parked car.
QuoteThat would be driving recklessly, which is a separate mode of criminality. Most drunk drivers do not drive recklessly, I contend, based on the sheer numbers of DUI arrests vs deaths/injuries.
News Flash! Driving while drunk is by it's very nature a reckless act!
QuoteDrunks probably drive recklessly more often than sober drivers, for all I know, but that is not sufficient reason to indict the whole lot. Those who drive recklessly should be punished irrespective of their BAC, and those who do not should not be punished for recklessness, again irrespective of their BAC.
By that rationalization a person who fires a rifle at the heads of people walking down the street should not be arrested or even stopped until he actually wounds or kills someone, regardless of how close the misses are.
billvon 3,070
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>Drunks probably drive recklessly more often than sober drivers. . .
Being drunk and driving is reckless behavior. It's been proven that intoxication reduces your ability to drive safely. Same thing if you knowingly drive a car without brakes, or drive while blindfolded, or drive at 90mph through a school crossing. "I didn't kill anyone that time" is insufficient to make it non-reckless.
>Those who drive recklessly should be punished irrespective of their BAC . .
Their BAC _makes_ them reckless.
>and those who do not should not be punished for recklessness, again
>irrespective of their BAC.
See above.
Being drunk and driving is reckless behavior. It's been proven that intoxication reduces your ability to drive safely. Same thing if you knowingly drive a car without brakes, or drive while blindfolded, or drive at 90mph through a school crossing. "I didn't kill anyone that time" is insufficient to make it non-reckless.
>Those who drive recklessly should be punished irrespective of their BAC . .
Their BAC _makes_ them reckless.
>and those who do not should not be punished for recklessness, again
>irrespective of their BAC.
See above.
Quote
News Flash! Driving while drunk is by it's very nature a reckless act!
If you assume that to start off with, circular logic will bring you back there. Why do you think it is so to start off with? Apart from your assumptions, that is.
My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?
QuoteSame thing if you knowingly drive a car without brakes, or drive while blindfolded, or drive at 90mph through a school crossing. "I didn't kill anyone that time" is insufficient to make it non-reckless.
Aha, now we are getting somewhere. If millions of people could drive without brakes, blindfolded, or at 90mph through a school crossing without hurting anyone or breaking anything, and proportionately few did hurt anyone or break something, I'd have grounds to reconsider.
In this case, the theory is not supported by fact. The theory (that a fixed BAC causes an unacceptable level of risk) was tenuous to begin with...let us dispense with it and be on our way.
My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?
billvon 3,070
> If millions of people could drive without brakes, blindfolded, or at 90mph
> through a school crossing without hurting anyone or breaking anything,
> and proportionately few did hurt anyone or break something, I'd have
> grounds to reconsider.
Millions of people could drive at 90mph through school zones and likely kill only a few thousand kids. That should not make anyone think it's non-reckless.
Millions of people could drive without brakes, and you'd probably see fewer than 20,000 people killed. (The rest would be saved by careful planning, sideswiping cars, hitting bushes, mud, airbags and seatbelts etc - cars are pretty safe nowadays even when you're stupid.) That should not make anyone think driving without brakes is anything but reckless.
Millions of people DO drive drunk, and kill about 16,000 people a year in the process. That means it IS reckless.
>the theory is not supported by fact.
See above.
>The theory (that a fixed BAC causes an unacceptable level of risk) . . .
A .30 BAC driver is likely going to kill himself or someone else if he can get his car up to speed. Claiming that much alcohol has no effect on risk is absurd and trivial to disprove.
> through a school crossing without hurting anyone or breaking anything,
> and proportionately few did hurt anyone or break something, I'd have
> grounds to reconsider.
Millions of people could drive at 90mph through school zones and likely kill only a few thousand kids. That should not make anyone think it's non-reckless.
Millions of people could drive without brakes, and you'd probably see fewer than 20,000 people killed. (The rest would be saved by careful planning, sideswiping cars, hitting bushes, mud, airbags and seatbelts etc - cars are pretty safe nowadays even when you're stupid.) That should not make anyone think driving without brakes is anything but reckless.
Millions of people DO drive drunk, and kill about 16,000 people a year in the process. That means it IS reckless.
>the theory is not supported by fact.
See above.
>The theory (that a fixed BAC causes an unacceptable level of risk) . . .
A .30 BAC driver is likely going to kill himself or someone else if he can get his car up to speed. Claiming that much alcohol has no effect on risk is absurd and trivial to disprove.
We do appear to be in agreement, at least 90%. This demonstrates the problems that come up when states try to revise something as simple as traffic laws. Imagine the discussions when the doors are shut!
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites