Drinking and Driving

Off Topic
41

[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:

[quote]DJHT wrote:
^ There is no easy answer, only continued adjustment and yes harsher penalties.

Seems in this day and age of technology that we can have a car parallel park itself that we could incorporate some type of governor that would turn off engine if erratic driving was sensed. [/quote]

lol, I have a feeling alot of driver would get shut down while talking on their cell phone. This might be a good thing! Have you ever watched people weave on the interstate while talking or txting? scary shit.[/quote]

I have a Ford F150 with a six inch lift (always wanted a tonka truck) and I will ride up beside them when they are on the phone. Dont know how many people I have seen drop there phones when I kind of lean into their lane. :slight_smile:

42

[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:
Lets face it people drive safely over .08 all the time. Booze cruising is a way of life in rural america. Certain people who drink too much or are just plain stupid are the problem.
[/quote]

So if I’m reading correctly here, your stance is that 0.08 BAC should be permissible, but harsh penalties should be placed on people who wind up causing alcohol-related accidents?

I don’t disagree that some people can drive safely at 0.08 or above - in my younger and stupider days we’d call them DDD’s (designated drunk drivers) - but I do think that for the overwhelming majority of the population, motor skills and reaction time are affected substantially after a few drinks…to the point that it could be considered a danger to others and that they have no business behind the wheel of a car.

I can understand general reluctance to have more numerous and severe government-imposed regulations about what one chooses to put into their body, but the fact is that most Canadians and Americans are too fucking stupid to self-regulate and take any personal responsibility in regards to drinking and driving, and I firmly believe that if we removed any BAC guidelines that we’d see an exponential increase in alcohol-related fatalities.

These days we call it “drunk driving” and refer to “drunk drivers”. Prior to the early 70’s in Canada, when drunk driving was very loosely enforced, the term was “driving after being over-served”. I found this funny but sad, as the blame seems to have been put on the bartender or drinking establishment. There was little accountability to the shithead who got wasted and decided to go for a drive.

You had mentioned that driving while speaking on a cell phone wasn’t as strictly enforced as drunk driving. You’re right, but in Ontario anyway the cops are out in full force looking for distracted drivers. Cell phone use is an automatic $155 fine, and will soon earn you 2 demerit points. They can also extend this to people fiddling too long with their radio dials, doing their eyeliner in the mirror, eating a subway sandwich, etc. Any kind of distraction makes you a danger on the road to yourself and others, and you should be penalized for it.

The elderly is a real issue. My dad is 81 and has no business behind the wheel (he has red/green colour-blindness and sometimes gets double vision) but insists on driving. When you turn 80 in Canada you have to re-do a written test, but they’re planning to change this into a comprehensive road/vision/reaction time test that will have to be completed every 2 years.

Bottom line…we NEED BAC standards. It’s not a conspiracy from MADD - alcohol is correlated to road fatalities.

43

[quote]DJHT wrote:
^ There is no easy answer, only continued adjustment and yes harsher penalties.

Seems in this day and age of technology that we can have a car parallel park itself that we could incorporate some type of governor that would turn off engine if erratic driving was sensed. [/quote]

No, there is an easy answer. Completely outlaw talking on a cellphone while driving. Empirical evidence shows that even a hands-free phone significantly impairs people’s ability to drive safely. Is it comparable to the impairment suffered while driving drunk? No, so the punishment for doing so should be much less.

But when it comes to drinking and driving the danger someone represents to others is much greater, due to lowered inhibitions AND impaired motor skills. There is no way around the fact that driving drunk is extremely dangerous to everyone around you. This should also include driving under the influence of any other drug, including everything from weed to vicodine to heroin. Hell, I have a friend who’s been sober for more than ten years and he got a DUI after crashing his truck while under the influence of medication he takes for latent schizophrenia.

Some people can handle themselves while driving with a BAC well above the legal limit. Others can’t. From my own experience it’s the people who have driven with a high BAC on a relatively regular basis who can drive “well” under those conditions.

If it takes permanently revoking the driving PRIVILEGES of someone doing laps in a parking lot like a fucking moron to also keep those that drive with a high BAC off the road permanently, then it should be done. Laws are absolute. I don’t have any sympathy for people whose lives are ruined for driving in what may be a completely unimpaired state with a BAC of .08 or even .04.

You know whose lives are REALLY ruined? Those who die in drunk driving-related accidents and their families. Yeah, try going to your best friend’s funeral when you’re 20 years old while your other best friend who crashed the car that your dead best friend was ejected from sits in his wheelchair in the back of the church. That’ll change anyone’s mind about “Draconian” driving and drinking laws. More than 55,000 people die every year in this country from driving drunk. The solution to preventing those deaths is simple: permanently remove ANYONE who drives with any alcohol in their system from the road.

44

[quote]PimpBot5000 wrote:

[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:
Lets face it people drive safely over .08 all the time. Booze cruising is a way of life in rural america. Certain people who drink too much or are just plain stupid are the problem.
[/quote]

So if I’m reading correctly here, your stance is that 0.08 BAC should be permissible, but harsh penalties should be placed on people who wind up causing alcohol-related accidents?

I don’t disagree that some people can drive safely at 0.08 or above - in my younger and stupider days we’d call them DDD’s (designated drunk drivers) - but I do think that for the overwhelming majority of the population, motor skills and reaction time are affected substantially after a few drinks…to the point that it could be considered a danger to others and that they have no business behind the wheel of a car.

I can understand general reluctance to have more numerous and severe government-imposed regulations about what one chooses to put into their body, but the fact is that most Canadians and Americans are too fucking stupid to self-regulate and take any personal responsibility in regards to drinking and driving, and I firmly believe that if we removed any BAC guidelines that we’d see an exponential increase in alcohol-related fatalities.

These days we call it “drunk driving” and refer to “drunk drivers”. Prior to the early 70’s in Canada, when drunk driving was very loosely enforced, the term was “driving after being over-served”. I found this funny but sad, as the blame seems to have been put on the bartender or drinking establishment. There was little accountability to the shithead who got wasted and decided to go for a drive.

You had mentioned that driving while speaking on a cell phone wasn’t as strictly enforced as drunk driving. You’re right, but in Ontario anyway the cops are out in full force looking for distracted drivers. Cell phone use is an automatic $155 fine, and will soon earn you 2 demerit points. They can also extend this to people fiddling too long with their radio dials, doing their eyeliner in the mirror, eating a subway sandwich, etc. Any kind of distraction makes you a danger on the road to yourself and others, and you should be penalized for it.

The elderly is a real issue. My dad is 81 and has no business behind the wheel (he has red/green colour-blindness and sometimes gets double vision) but insists on driving. When you turn 80 in Canada you have to re-do a written test, but they’re planning to change this into a comprehensive road/vision/reaction time test that will have to be completed every 2 years.

Bottom line…we NEED BAC standards. It’s not a conspiracy from MADD - alcohol is correlated to road fatalities.

[/quote]

Well written, honestly we are on polar ends of the spectrum when it comes to regulation. There are enough laws that regulate personal freedom.

I’m guessing your Canadian? There are many places in america where people drive around with open beers and loaded handguns. I have no problem with that.

BTW. I don’t drink and drive. I have way too much to lose.

45

[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:

[quote]DJHT wrote:

DUI has been overblown by pussies and religious fanatics. Preventative laws are part of the pussification of america.

[/quote]

You have just lived up to your stage name; you are “oblivious”. Not to mention the above first sentence is simply false. Your 2nd sentence above is debatable, depending on the law in question, but certainly not when it comes to DUI. When you drive drunk, you are potentially infringing on another person’s safety, not just your own.

Get. A. Clue.

46

^ Here is the caveat to your argument, though when the rights of the individual effect the rights of the masses we have a problem.

I really dont care if DB drinks, snorts coke off a hooker, while another one shots heroin in his dick. To me that is his right, HOWEVER the moment he gets in his car to go buy cigarettes he could kill multiple people. This is why we have laws and regulations, it is not a freedom to drive on a road that I also paid for with my taxes.

47

[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:

Stop government mandated insurance. Problem solved.

Lets face it people drive safely over .08 all the time. Booze cruising is a way of life in rural america. Certain people who drink too much or are just plain stupid are the problem.
[/quote]

Exactly what is government mandated insurance? Enlighten us on the problem solving there.

“People drive safely over .08 all the time”…then…“certain people who drink too much are just plain stupid are the problem”. Care to reconcile those two statements and fold them neatly under a law that protects the innocent?

I bet you’re under 21 aren’t you? My vote says, no one has a right to vote until they are 30.

48

[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:

Well written, honestly we are on polar ends of the spectrum when it comes to regulation. There are enough laws that regulate personal freedom.

I’m guessing your Canadian? There are many places in america where people drive around with open beers and loaded handguns. I have no problem with that.

BTW. I don’t drink and drive. I have way too much to lose.
[/quote]

You’re terribly misinformed. It’s not a “personal freedom” issue when you are sharing the road with others. It’s a public safety issue. It would be a personal freedom issue if the government wanted to regulate how much you can drink while on the safety of your own home where you can harm no one but yourself.

Open beers and loaded hand guns? You MUST be from Texas.

49

[quote]DJHT wrote:
^ Here is the caveat to your argument, though when the rights of the individual effect the rights of the masses we have a problem.

I really dont care if DB drinks, snorts coke off a hooker, while another one shots heroin in his dick. To me that is his right, HOWEVER the moment he gets in his car to go buy cigarettes he could kill multiple people. This is why we have laws and regulations, it is not a freedom to drive on a road that I also paid for with my taxes. [/quote]

This.

And the other issue that “oblivious” is seemingly oblivious to, is that driving is a privilege, it is NOT a right. There is public safety at issue.

50

[quote]DJHT wrote:
^ Here is the caveat to your argument, though when the rights of the individual effect the rights of the masses we have a problem.

I really dont care if DB drinks, snorts coke off a hooker, while another one shots heroin in his dick. To me that is his right, HOWEVER the moment he gets in his car to go buy cigarettes he could kill multiple people. This is why we have laws and regulations, it is not a freedom to drive on a road that I also paid for with my taxes. [/quote]

Now that’s a slippery slope. There is an inherent level of risk when living in today’s society. I’m okay with a higher level of risk in some instances.

Maybe we should outlaw lifted trucks due to their high risk for roll over…:smiley: Or maybe handguns, fried food, etc…

Cities and rural american are almost like two different countries. I don’t believe these viewpoints will ever be reconciled.

51

[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:

[quote]DJHT wrote:
^ Here is the caveat to your argument, though when the rights of the individual effect the rights of the masses we have a problem.

I really dont care if DB drinks, snorts coke off a hooker, while another one shots heroin in his dick. To me that is his right, HOWEVER the moment he gets in his car to go buy cigarettes he could kill multiple people. This is why we have laws and regulations, it is not a freedom to drive on a road that I also paid for with my taxes. [/quote]

Now that’s a slippery slope. There is an inherent level of risk when living in today’s society. I’m okay with a higher level of risk in some instances.

Maybe we should outlaw lifted trucks due to their high risk for roll over…:smiley: Or maybe handguns, fried food, etc…

Cities and rural american are almost like two different countries. I don’t believe these viewpoints will ever be reconciled. [/quote]

I could see the argument for the lifted truck because technically it could roll over and kill someone besides myself. However most states have regulations and the Govt has regulations on what is considered street legal.

Other arguments again are the fact harming yourself is one thing when you infringe on others is where we need some type of standard.

Now I was born and raised in rural America, and now live in the City. (Beverly Hillbilly’s IRL) Yes there are differences that will never be reconciled, however the fundamental truth of the matter is harm to others not yourself.

52

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:

[quote]DJHT wrote:

DUI has been overblown by pussies and religious fanatics. Preventative laws are part of the pussification of america.

[/quote]

You have just lived up to your stage name; you are “oblivious”. Not to mention the above first sentence is simply false. Your 2nd sentence above is debatable, depending on the law in question, but certainly not when it comes to DUI. When you drive drunk, you are potentially infringing on another person’s safety, not just your own.

Get. A. Clue.[/quote]

Potentially. Safety is potentially threatened all the time.

As for my own safety that’s my business I don’t want big brother telling me how to live safely.

Case in point. seat-belt laws. I don’t like them and don’t wear them.

53

^ Again that is your right not to wear a seatbelt and if you die in a wreck or have to pay a fine that is all you. HOWEVER should a parent be mandated to buckle up a 3 year old?

54

[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:

[quote]PimpBot5000 wrote:

[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:
Lets face it people drive safely over .08 all the time. Booze cruising is a way of life in rural america. Certain people who drink too much or are just plain stupid are the problem.
[/quote]

So if I’m reading correctly here, your stance is that 0.08 BAC should be permissible, but harsh penalties should be placed on people who wind up causing alcohol-related accidents?

I don’t disagree that some people can drive safely at 0.08 or above - in my younger and stupider days we’d call them DDD’s (designated drunk drivers) - but I do think that for the overwhelming majority of the population, motor skills and reaction time are affected substantially after a few drinks…to the point that it could be considered a danger to others and that they have no business behind the wheel of a car.

I can understand general reluctance to have more numerous and severe government-imposed regulations about what one chooses to put into their body, but the fact is that most Canadians and Americans are too fucking stupid to self-regulate and take any personal responsibility in regards to drinking and driving, and I firmly believe that if we removed any BAC guidelines that we’d see an exponential increase in alcohol-related fatalities.

These days we call it “drunk driving” and refer to “drunk drivers”. Prior to the early 70’s in Canada, when drunk driving was very loosely enforced, the term was “driving after being over-served”. I found this funny but sad, as the blame seems to have been put on the bartender or drinking establishment. There was little accountability to the shithead who got wasted and decided to go for a drive.

You had mentioned that driving while speaking on a cell phone wasn’t as strictly enforced as drunk driving. You’re right, but in Ontario anyway the cops are out in full force looking for distracted drivers. Cell phone use is an automatic $155 fine, and will soon earn you 2 demerit points. They can also extend this to people fiddling too long with their radio dials, doing their eyeliner in the mirror, eating a subway sandwich, etc. Any kind of distraction makes you a danger on the road to yourself and others, and you should be penalized for it.

The elderly is a real issue. My dad is 81 and has no business behind the wheel (he has red/green colour-blindness and sometimes gets double vision) but insists on driving. When you turn 80 in Canada you have to re-do a written test, but they’re planning to change this into a comprehensive road/vision/reaction time test that will have to be completed every 2 years.

Bottom line…we NEED BAC standards. It’s not a conspiracy from MADD - alcohol is correlated to road fatalities.

[/quote]

Well written, honestly we are on polar ends of the spectrum when it comes to regulation. There are enough laws that regulate personal freedom.

I’m guessing your Canadian? There are many places in america where people drive around with open beers and loaded handguns. I have no problem with that.

BTW. I don’t drink and drive. I have way too much to lose.
[/quote]

A law regulating your personal freedoms would be a law that prohibits you from consuming alcohol. I don’t think even under the most liberal interpretation of “personal freedom” could you justify an action that causes thousands of deaths per year.

55

[quote]DJHT wrote:

[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:

[quote]DJHT wrote:
^ Here is the caveat to your argument, though when the rights of the individual effect the rights of the masses we have a problem.

I really dont care if DB drinks, snorts coke off a hooker, while another one shots heroin in his dick. To me that is his right, HOWEVER the moment he gets in his car to go buy cigarettes he could kill multiple people. This is why we have laws and regulations, it is not a freedom to drive on a road that I also paid for with my taxes. [/quote]

Now that’s a slippery slope. There is an inherent level of risk when living in today’s society. I’m okay with a higher level of risk in some instances.

Maybe we should outlaw lifted trucks due to their high risk for roll over…:smiley: Or maybe handguns, fried food, etc…

Cities and rural american are almost like two different countries. I don’t believe these viewpoints will ever be reconciled. [/quote]

I could see the argument for the lifted truck because technically it could roll over and kill someone besides myself. However most states have regulations and the Govt has regulations on what is considered street legal.

Other arguments again are the fact harming yourself is one thing when you infringe on others is where we need some type of standard.

Now I was born and raised in rural America, and now live in the City. (Beverly Hillbilly’s IRL) Yes there are differences that will never be reconciled, however the fundamental truth of the matter is harm to others not yourself.[/quote]

SUVs and trucks in general have much higher roll over rates.

I get what your saying, but that comes back to my philosophy of greater punishment for personal injury or damage of property. And I’m not saying their shouldn’t be some type of punishment for people that are all over the place on the road. Our current laws are over the top imo.

I’ve seen a lot of people get DUI’s. I think the punishment often times exacerbates their alcoholism or spurs it on.

56

[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:

[quote]DJHT wrote:

DUI has been overblown by pussies and religious fanatics. Preventative laws are part of the pussification of america.

[/quote]

You have just lived up to your stage name; you are “oblivious”. Not to mention the above first sentence is simply false. Your 2nd sentence above is debatable, depending on the law in question, but certainly not when it comes to DUI. When you drive drunk, you are potentially infringing on another person’s safety, not just your own.

Get. A. Clue.[/quote]

Potentially. Safety is potentially threatened all the time.

As for my own safety that’s my business I don’t want big brother telling me how to live safely.

Case in point. seat-belt laws. I don’t like them and don’t wear them.
[/quote]

“Big Brother” doesn’t exist to protect you from yourself or me from myself. It exists to protect me from YOU. Safety is potentially threatened all the time, but not on equal terms. Driving drunk is quite possibly the most dangerous thing you can do in a vehicle, other than driving at a high rate of speed. Oddly enough, driving above a safe speed is more likely to occur when someone has been drinking, especially when they think they are fine to drive.

You do not have the right to drive, period. It is a privilege that you must earn and keep. So no amount of laws regarding driving are infringements upon any right you have. Your references to Big Brother and all that are irrelevant and have no place in this discussion. And I have a feeling that you have been “pussified” by those around you who have planted this bastardized line of logic in your dim brain because you clearly aren’t thinking for yourself, which is the tried and true sign of a pussy.

57

[quote]DJHT wrote:
^ Again that is your right not to wear a seatbelt and if you die in a wreck or have to pay a fine that is all you. HOWEVER should a parent be mandated to buckle up a 3 year old?[/quote]

I would say yes due to the lack of logical thought and decision making a 3 year old has.

58

[quote]goldengloves wrote:

[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:

[quote]PimpBot5000 wrote:

[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:
Lets face it people drive safely over .08 all the time. Booze cruising is a way of life in rural america. Certain people who drink too much or are just plain stupid are the problem.
[/quote]

So if I’m reading correctly here, your stance is that 0.08 BAC should be permissible, but harsh penalties should be placed on people who wind up causing alcohol-related accidents?

I don’t disagree that some people can drive safely at 0.08 or above - in my younger and stupider days we’d call them DDD’s (designated drunk drivers) - but I do think that for the overwhelming majority of the population, motor skills and reaction time are affected substantially after a few drinks…to the point that it could be considered a danger to others and that they have no business behind the wheel of a car.

I can understand general reluctance to have more numerous and severe government-imposed regulations about what one chooses to put into their body, but the fact is that most Canadians and Americans are too fucking stupid to self-regulate and take any personal responsibility in regards to drinking and driving, and I firmly believe that if we removed any BAC guidelines that we’d see an exponential increase in alcohol-related fatalities.

These days we call it “drunk driving” and refer to “drunk drivers”. Prior to the early 70’s in Canada, when drunk driving was very loosely enforced, the term was “driving after being over-served”. I found this funny but sad, as the blame seems to have been put on the bartender or drinking establishment. There was little accountability to the shithead who got wasted and decided to go for a drive.

You had mentioned that driving while speaking on a cell phone wasn’t as strictly enforced as drunk driving. You’re right, but in Ontario anyway the cops are out in full force looking for distracted drivers. Cell phone use is an automatic $155 fine, and will soon earn you 2 demerit points. They can also extend this to people fiddling too long with their radio dials, doing their eyeliner in the mirror, eating a subway sandwich, etc. Any kind of distraction makes you a danger on the road to yourself and others, and you should be penalized for it.

The elderly is a real issue. My dad is 81 and has no business behind the wheel (he has red/green colour-blindness and sometimes gets double vision) but insists on driving. When you turn 80 in Canada you have to re-do a written test, but they’re planning to change this into a comprehensive road/vision/reaction time test that will have to be completed every 2 years.

Bottom line…we NEED BAC standards. It’s not a conspiracy from MADD - alcohol is correlated to road fatalities.

[/quote]

Well written, honestly we are on polar ends of the spectrum when it comes to regulation. There are enough laws that regulate personal freedom.

I’m guessing your Canadian? There are many places in america where people drive around with open beers and loaded handguns. I have no problem with that.

BTW. I don’t drink and drive. I have way too much to lose.
[/quote]

A law regulating your personal freedoms would be a law that prohibits you from consuming alcohol. I don’t think even under the most liberal interpretation of “personal freedom” could you justify an action that causes thousands of deaths per year.

[/quote]

Is alcohol with out a doubt the causative agent in those crashes? I’d argue that’s its just a factor not the sole cause.

59

[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:

[quote]DJHT wrote:
^ Again that is your right not to wear a seatbelt and if you die in a wreck or have to pay a fine that is all you. HOWEVER should a parent be mandated to buckle up a 3 year old?[/quote]

I would say yes due to the lack of logical thought and decision making a 3 year old has.

[/quote]

You could say the exact same thing about someone who’s been drinking.

60

[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:

[quote]DJHT wrote:
^ Again that is your right not to wear a seatbelt and if you die in a wreck or have to pay a fine that is all you. HOWEVER should a parent be mandated to buckle up a 3 year old?[/quote]

I would say yes due to the lack of logical thought and decision making a 3 year old has.

[/quote]

So a mother driving home from work who gets killed by a drunk driver, the mother has a lack of logical thought and decision making. She didnt decide to drink and drive, she had no say in the situation, she just got killed.