Why do we punish drinking and driving?

[discoverEdeals]

Recent post on jalopnik discussing Texas DUI laws got me thinking (http://jalopnik.com/5709196/texas-rethinks-bankrupting-drunk-drivers).

Why the hell do we punish people for drinking and driving? Punish people for having an open container? Punish people for blowing into a magic machine that semi-accurately measures amount of alcohol consumed but not impairment? I can't think of one logical argument.

We should simply punish driver errors, regardless of cause. If you cause an "accident" you receive the same penalty, regardless of alcohol/drug consumption. Fair and square. Simple.

I know a ton of you guys are going to come in with the "WELL LOSE A FAMILY MEMBER TO THE EVIL DEVIL LIQUOR DRIVER AND THEN COME TALK TO ME". How about this one - lose a family member to a standard car "accident". At the end of the day people are responsible for EVERY action when operating a motor vehicle. Punish the action, no the potential cause. As it stands we punish people for driving at a completely variable and discretionary speed over the posted limit, punish people for consuming alcohol (with no accurate way of measuring impairment), punish people for texting or speaking on the phone, but don't actually punish poor drivers.

"It was an accident".

There is no such thing as an accident when operating a motor vehicle. It's a simple machine that responds the same way to human input every time. It's a complete fallacy that a guy can get a more severe punishment for having four beers, driving home, and getting stopped at a checkpoint than someone who actually causes a goddamn car crash.

[Libertarian]

You can't be serious.

[discoverEdeals]

You can't be serious.

?

I don't understand why instead of creating a million punishments for minor infractions we instead have huge penalties for major infractions (losing control of a vehicle or causing another driver to lose control of theirs) as a deterrent. If every person knew they would go to jail if they caused an "accident" we would be better off than randomly punishing people for driving 10mph over the speed limit or having a couple beers after work.

A parent yelling at a kid in the backseat can cause just as much death/destruction as a crackhead behind the wheel of a vehicle. Intent is pointless and a poor argument, if one "intends" to they can absolutely avoid "accidents" while driving.

[homycraz2]

Lmao, seriously are you kidding?

What my question is, Mythbusters proved driving while tired is worse than driving while drunk.

Yet there is no law against that.

[discoverEdeals]

Lmao, seriously are you kidding?

What my question is, Mythbusters proved driving while tired is worse than driving while drunk.

Yet there is no law against that.

MADD has gotten completely out of control. A bunch of prohibitionists who hide behind grieving mothers (who can argue with a grieving mother!!!!!! little suzie was just riding her bike when some drunk asshole MUREDERED HER IN COLD BLOOD WITH DEMON DRINK IN HIS VEINS!!!!!!! CHANGE THE LAWSSSSSS NOWWWW!!!!!!!!) to push their agenda.

Like I said in my post, there is no logical reason to have DUI/DWI laws - unless you count tax collecting as a valid reason.

[Libertarian]

Alcohol dramatically impairs judgement and motor control and every adult knows this. You can't compare accidents that happen through mistaken judgments while sober to those caused by intoxication. One is understandable (but rare). The other is much more common..and something that should be expected. Certainly there is no difference to the innocent victims of a collision either way, but there is a difference between accidental irresponsibility (a mistake made while sober) and willful irresponsibility (a mistake made by someone intoxicated and impaired who chose to drive anyway). Consequences aren't all we look at in criminal trials. The motive and mindset of the defendant before the incident is equally important when determining punishment. Without special punishments for willful irresponsibility (drunk driving), you dramatically reduce the incentives against such behavior.

[discoverEdeals]

Alcohol dramatically impairs judgement and motor control and every adult knows this. You can't compare accidents that happen through mistaken judgments while sober to those caused by intoxication. One is understandable (but rare). The other is much more common..and something that should be expected. Certainly there is no difference to the innocent victims of a collision either way, but there is a difference between accidental irresponsibility (a mistake made while sober) and willful irresponsibility (a mistake made while intoxicated and impaired). Consequences aren't all we look at in criminal trials. The motive and mindset of the defendant before the incident is equally important when determining punishment. Without special punishments for willful irresponsibility (drunk driving), you dramatically reduce the incentives against such behavior.

Your way of thinking causes an extremely high amount of deaths in our country. I couldn't disagree with you more. There is no such thing as accidental irresponsibility while operating a motor vehicle on public roads. It is never "understandable". If I can personally put 15k miles on a motorcycle with zero incidents, Joe the plumber and Jill the school teacher can pay attention on their morning commute while sitting in their simple to operate cage.

If we as a society value life we need to completely change our attitude when it comes to responsibility behind the wheel. Punishing poor driving accomplishes this. Punishing poor driving also deters drunk driving (which is poor driving, I'm not arguing against this). DWI/DUI laws are completely irrational, knee-jerk reactions from politicians who wanted to cater to the family vote and well accepted by law enforcement for tax-collecting reasons.

Shouldn't safety laws exist primarily to enhance safety, not to cast judgement or apologize for those who cause death?

[Libertarian]

No offense discover, but I don't think you have thought this through very well. Can people cause accidents while sober? Yes. But this all boils down to statistics, and the stats show that when people are intoxicated they are much, MUCH more likely to get into a car crash than when they are not intoxicated. This would not be an issue if the consequences of their actions were faced by themselves alone..but the calculus is changed by the fact that innocent bystanders are also affected. The same goes for speeding. Can some drivers go 110MPH without getting into an accident? Certainly. But we have many decades of statistical data that show fatal accidents are much more probable at high speeds than at low speeds, and given that innocents are often victims of speeding drivers, we pass a general speed limit law in order to reduce the number of fatalities. The logic behind this is exactly the same as that banning drunk driving. As a society, we have determined that when any particular action is more likely to cause harm to innocents, the action itself should be discouraged in general..without regard to particular circumstances (whether someone can safely drive drunk, or go 100+ MPH). There are various degrees of negligence that can result in accidents. Some amount is always present..but when people engage in behaviors that greatly increase the odds of accidents (extreme speeding or driving under the influences of mind-altering substances), their culpability for any harm that results necessarily goes up a notch. For the good of everyone, such behavior must be discouraged.

[Demosthenes9]

No offense discover, but I don't think you have thought this through very well. Can people cause accidents while sober? Yes. But this all boils down to statistics, and the stats show that when people are intoxicated they are much, MUCH more likely to get into a car crash than when they are not intoxicated. This would not be an issue if the consequences of their actions were faced by themselves alone..but the calculus is changed by the fact that innocent bystanders are also affected. The same goes for speeding. Can some drivers go 110MPH without getting into an accident? Certainly. But we have many decades of statistical data that show fatal accidents are much more probable at high speeds than at low speeds, and given that innocents are often victims of speeding drivers, we pass a general speed limit law in order to reduce the number of fatalities. The logic behind this is exactly the same as that banning drunk driving. As a society, we have determined that when any particular action is more likely to cause harm to innocents, the action itself should be discouraged in general..without regard to particular circumstances (whether someone can safely drive drunk, or go 100+ MPH). There are various degrees of negligence that can result in accidents. Some amount is always present..but when people engage in behaviors that greatly increase the odds of accidents (extreme speeding or driving under the influences of mind-altering substances), their culpability for any harm that results necessarily goes up a notch. For the good of everyone, such behavior must be discouraged.


So I take it you would be supportive of extremely harsh penalties for those who text while driving ? I'm talking about loss of license and jail time. Yes ?? Even if they cause no accident what so ever ?

[Libertarian]

So I take it you would be supportive of extremely harsh penalties for those who text while driving ? I'm talking about loss of license and jail time. Yes ?? Even if they cause no accident what so ever ?

Depends on the context.. At a traffic stop, no. If an officer spots someone doing it on the road, there should certainly be tickets and fines for it..and I have no problem with a license suspension for repeat offenders. However I don't think it is quite on the same level of irresponsibility/willful endangerment as driving while intoxicated.

[Demosthenes9]

Depends on the context.. At a traffic stop, no. If an officer spots someone doing it on the road, there should certainly be tickets and fines for it..and I have no problem with a license suspension for repeat offenders. However I don't think it is quite on the same level of irresponsibility/willful endangerment as driving while intoxicated.

Umm, pretty sure that studies have shown that driving while texting is MORE dangerous that driving while intoxicated.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080918100933.qj8ms49l

Texting while driving 'more dangerous than drugs or alcohol'

Research carried out on young drivers (aged 17-24) using a simulator found that reaction time slowed by 35% when they were writing or reading text messages while driving. In comparison, reaction time deteriorated by 21% for those under the influence of cannabis, and by 12% at the legal alcohol limit.

Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) -- which carried out the study for the RAC Foundation -- also found that steering control worsened by 91% for those who were distracted by texts, compared to 35% when cannabis was involved.

The tests also showed that texters were less able to maintain safe distances from other cars and they tended to drift out of their lane more often.



So again, should those who are caught texting while driving be sent to jail ? Should they have enhanced sentences for second or third offenses, i.e. raised to Felony status ??

[Demosthenes9]

Depends on the context.. At a traffic stop, no. If an officer spots someone doing it on the road, there should certainly be tickets and fines for it..and I have no problem with a license suspension for repeat offenders. However I don't think it is quite on the same level of irresponsibility/willful endangerment as driving while intoxicated.

BTW, from your earlier post, it seems that "irresponsibility/willful endangerment" isn't the question.

"As a society, we have determined that when any particular action is more likely to cause harm to innocents, the action itself should be discouraged in general..without regard to particular circumstances "

[Libertarian]

Umm, pretty sure that studies have shown that driving while texting is MORE dangerous that driving while intoxicated.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080918100933.qj8ms49l
So again, should those who are caught texting while driving be sent to jail ? Should they have enhanced sentences for second or third offenses, i.e. raised to Felony status ??

Given those stats, I'd have to say yes. I'd be in favor of increasingly punitive fines for each offense followed by a 6 month license suspension on the third offense. If they are caught doing it after the license is reinstated, I would say jailtime is certainly justified.

BTW, from your earlier post, it seems that "irresponsibility/willful endangerment" isn't the question.

Obviously those who text while in traffic or drink and drive may believe they can "handle it". They may or may not recognize just how reckless those behaviors are..but their particular opinions are irrelevant in light of the real world statistics.

[Demosthenes9]

Given those stats, I'd have to say yes. I'd be in favor of increasingly punitive fines for each offense followed by a 6 month license suspension on the third offense. If they are caught doing it after the license is reinstated, I would say jailtime is certainly justified.

Hmmm, a fine of some amount for the first offense, but no license suspension. An increased fine for the second offense, but no license suspension and a mere 6 month loss of license on the third offense ?

As driving under the influence is less dangerous, should it's penalities be lower than what you spelled out above ??

[TRNT]

Here is why. We should discourage and avoid situations where people are put in danger. We should deter people from putting others in danger. (Drunk driving puts people in danger.) One method of deterring is to exert punishment when people put others in danger.

If the above is not enough for you, consider this analogy. I would like to bring a revolver to public places. Then I would load it with just one bullet and spin the thingy. Then I start making one shot at a time to random people's head. And then I spin again and then I shoot a new person. I have fun doing this. You say this action should not be against the law or punished, unless when a bullet is discharged and someone is killed.

That is absurd.

[Libertarian]

Hmmm, a fine of some amount for the first offense, but no license suspension. An increased fine for the second offense, but no license suspension and a mere 6 month loss of license on the third offense ?

As driving under the influence is less dangerous, should it's penalities be lower than what you spelled out above ??

I'd say the problem is an evidenciary one here. Texting is harder to prove in a court of law. Someone could simply be answering their phone and checking the time and have it mistaken as typing out a text conversation. In the absence of video evidence showing a prolonged period where the driver was distracted, I don't think we can justify a license suspension on the first offense. This is in contrast to breathalyzer tests which provide rock solid scientific evidence of inebriation. The two cases are not quite analogous.

[Demosthenes9]

I'd say the problem is an evidenciary one here. Texting is harder to prove in a court of law. Someone could simply be answering their phone and checking the time and have it mistaken as typing out a text conversation. In the absence of video evidence showing a prolonged period where the driver was distracted, I don't think we can justify a license suspension on the first offense. This is in contrast to breathalyzer tests which provide rock solid scientific evidence of inebriation. The two cases are not quite analogous.

Doesn't need to be analagous Lib, it's a construct. ASSUME that it's completely possible to prove in a court of law. The question remains, should texting while driving carry harsher penalities than DUI since it's been demonstrated that it is more dangerous than driving under the influence.

Whether they can prove it in a court of law is actually immaterial to this question.

[Terrell]

I have no problem with revocation of driving privledges for drunk drivers. I'm not a fan of open container law however. If I'm the driver (I don't drink btw) and my passenger is drinking, while I'm sober, I don't think I should be penalized for DUI, because I'm not intoxicated. My passenger being impaired, does not make me impaired, independently of me consuming alcohol.

[TRNT]

Doesn't need to be analagous Lib, it's a construct. ASSUME that it's completely possible to prove in a court of law. The question remains, should texting while driving carry harsher penalities than DUI since it's been demonstrated that it is more dangerous than driving under the influence.

Whether they can prove it in a court of law is actually immaterial to this question.Not quite. ASSUME that it is completely impossible to prove texting in a court of law. Would you still advocate a law against it?

ASSUME daydreaming is more dangerous than texting....

(BTW: I do not think it is impossible or necessarily that difficult to prove texting. How about this: you use your phone, in any way, while driving and you get a ticket?)

[bonkman]

Lmao, seriously are you kidding?

What my question is, Mythbusters proved driving while tired is worse than driving while drunk.

Yet there is no law against that.
Actually, you can be arrested/fined for driving while impaired if you show signs of exhaustion. Since there's no sleep breathalyzer, it's totally a judgment call by the officer, but if they see you swerving and your eyes closing, you're in trouble.

Umm, pretty sure that studies have shown that driving while texting is MORE dangerous that driving while intoxicated.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080918100933.qj8ms49l



So again, should those who are caught texting while driving be sent to jail ? Should they have enhanced sentences for second or third offenses, i.e. raised to Felony status ??
The problem with the texting studies is that they don't really control for where you're looking. The comparisons are driving normally, driving while impaired, and driving while looking down in your lap at your phone. Not saying that texting while driving is a good idea -- it isn't by any means -- but I'd venture that it's not the texting that's bad but the looking at your lap while moving at 40mph.

[SigX]

Lmao, seriously are you kidding?

What my question is, Mythbusters proved driving while tired is worse than driving while drunk.

Yet there is no law against that.
well, i would be willing to bet that majority of drunk driving occurs in the late hours when people are drunk and tired. a double whammy

Your way of thinking causes an extremely high amount of deaths in our country. I couldn't disagree with you more. There is no such thing as accidental irresponsibility while operating a motor vehicle on public roads. It is never "understandable". If I can personally put 15k miles on a motorcycle with zero incidents, Joe the plumber and Jill the school teacher can pay attention on their morning commute while sitting in their simple to operate cage.
and out comes the axe you are grinding. why the hate?? my guess is you got a DUI and you are mad. motorcycles are more dangerous and thier drivers like to drink (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5347a2.htm).

If we as a society value life we need to completely change our attitude when it comes to responsibility behind the wheel. Punishing poor driving accomplishes this. Punishing poor driving also deters drunk driving (which is poor driving, I'm not arguing against this). DWI/DUI laws are completely irrational, knee-jerk reactions from politicians who wanted to cater to the family vote and well accepted by law enforcement for tax-collecting reasons.
let me make sure i got your arguement correctly, drunk driving is poor driving and should be punished like all poor driving, but we should do away with drunk driving laws? ok.

Shouldn't safety laws exist primarily to enhance safety, not to cast judgement or apologize for those who cause death?
how about we consider the facts. here is afact sheet from the CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/MotorVehicleSafety/Impaired_Driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html). according to them, if we did away with drunk driving tomorrow, fatal crashes would drop by 30%. not a bad result for stopping ONE behavoir. dude, stop ignoring the facts.

[bonkman]

I'd say the problem is an evidenciary one here. Texting is harder to prove in a court of law. Someone could simply be answering their phone and checking the time and have it mistaken as typing out a text conversation. In the absence of video evidence showing a prolonged period where the driver was distracted, I don't think we can justify a license suspension on the first offense. This is in contrast to breathalyzer tests which provide rock solid scientific evidence of inebriation. The two cases are not quite analogous.
No it's not -- they obtain your phone records and if they see a message was sent or received/opened within 5 mins of the arrest, you're in trouble. What sucks is they can't tell that you weren't pulled over on the side of the road -- unless they catch you on camera.

[SigX]

Drunk drivers kill people. In my community, a seven year old girl was killed this weekend by a day time drunk driver who had 10 beers in 2 hours. The speedometer was stuck at 70 mph after he hit the family on a main street in a 25 mph zone.

This criminal should go to jail for at least 25 years.

my preference would be public execution. now that would be a real deterent to others.

[Demosthenes9]

how about we consider the facts. here is afact sheet from the CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/MotorVehicleSafety/Impaired_Driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html). according to them, if we did away with drunk driving tomorrow, fatal crashes would drop by 30%. not a bad result for stopping ONE behavoir. dude, stop ignoring the facts.

Strangely Sig, this statistic helps to make the case. Drunk driving accts for the 30%, that means OTHER things account for the 70% yet the causes of those 70% of deaths aren't met with the same penalties as is DUI.

[Demosthenes9]

Drunk drivers kill people. In my community, a seven year old girl was killed this weekend by a day time drunk driver who had 10 beers in 2 hours. The speedometer was stuck at 70 mph after he hit the family on a main street in a 25 mph zone.

This criminal should go to jail for at least 25 years.

Why is this any worse than a driver getting a CD out of a CD jacket and killing a 7 year old girl when not paying attention?

[Count_Chocula]

Drunk postin is illegal too, so how many 6-packs did you knock off before creatin this thread?

[Demosthenes9]

Drunk postin is illegal too, so how many 6-packs did you knock off before creatin this thread?

Actually, the question kind of makes sense when you think about it.

In just about every other instance, one is only charged for some form of negligence if they harm or kill someone with a vehicle.

[Tony_Danza]

So I take it you would be supportive of extremely harsh penalties for those who text while driving ? I'm talking about loss of license and jail time. Yes ?? Even if they cause no accident what so ever ?

Isn't the problem with this enforcement? It seems it would be much harder to catch someone texting while driving if they don't cause an accident.

[Count_Chocula]

Actually, the question kind of makes sense when you think about it.

In just about every other instance, one is only charged for some form of negligence if they harm or kill someone with a vehicle.

sure, honest mistakes can cause accidents...but deliberately gettin behind the wheel when in no condition to do so is wanton recklessness.

[chuck07]

sure, honest mistakes can cause accidents...but deliberately gettin behind the wheel when in no condition to do so is wanton recklessness.

How is changing a CD and not paying attention an honest mistake? You re deliberately taking your attention off of driving.


I can text with my phone in my pocket. Its called an old school phone without a qwerty keyboard and no touchscreen. If I break no traffic laws while doing that, why is it such a bad thing?

[Count_Chocula]

How is changing a CD and not paying attention an honest mistake? You re deliberately taking your attention off of driving.


I can text with my phone in my pocket. Its called an old school phone without a qwerty keyboard and no touchscreen. If I break no traffic laws while doing that, why is it such a bad thing?

were you goin 95 mph is the wrong lane with no lights on while textin?

[Dr. J]

We, as a country, should take things like this more seriously. It's very common for first, second or even 3rd time DUI offenders to "get off" with relatively few repercussions - maybe a fine, community service, perhaps license suspension, etc. Listening to the "old timers" around here, it used to be far worse - just 20-30 years ago, cops would drive you home if you were pulled over for DUI!

The issue is, where is the line drawn? I think texting while driving is very dangerous, so are calls (even if you use a hands-free); I've seen people eating, drinking, reading the newspaper, putting on clothing (pants!) and even CURLING THEIR HAIR while driving. Each of these would fall under "distracted driving" I guess, but how often are people stopped for eating while driving? It's dangerous, but how enforceable is it?

[shhaggy]

I don't agree with his solution but there is something to his premise. We DO need harsher penalties for people who drive distracted and/or sleepy or who are simply not skilled enough drivers. These people are not getting into "accidents" any moreso than drunk drivers are, but all they have to pay is maybe a ticket and higher insurance rates, and they're back out on the road. They should carry the same stigma that drunk drivers carry, because the outcome is the same. I personally know drivers that I honestly think that I could drive better than if they were sober and I were drunk.

[shhaggy]

Drunk drivers kill people. In my community, a seven year old girl was killed this weekend by a day time drunk driver who had 10 beers in 2 hours. The speedometer was stuck at 70 mph after he hit the family on a main street in a 25 mph zone.

This criminal should go to jail for at least 25 years.

I don't think anyone, including the OP (assuming he's being serious) disagrees. His crime would be the result of his actions, he killed someone. OP is suggesting that the punishment should be the result of an accident such as this, not on an action that may or may not have affected his driving. For every jackass that mows down a little girl after having 10 beers in 2 hours, there're a dozen jackasses that have 10 beers in two hours and drive just fine.

PS- Someone who can't handle talking on the phone or doing ANY secondary activity while driving (for some people this can be something as simple as changing the radio station) without being distracted, is just as guilty when they mow down someone in their car. Driving is responsibility #1 when you're behind the wheel, anything you do that results in an at-fault accident should yield similar repercussions.

[discoverEdeals]

well, i would be willing to bet that majority of drunk driving occurs in the late hours when people are drunk and tired. a double whammy


and out comes the axe you are grinding. why the hate?? my guess is you got a DUI and you are mad. motorcycles are more dangerous and thier drivers like to drink (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5347a2.htm).


let me make sure i got your arguement correctly, drunk driving is poor driving and should be punished like all poor driving, but we should do away with drunk driving laws? ok.


how about we consider the facts. here is afact sheet from the CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/MotorVehicleSafety/Impaired_Driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html). according to them, if we did away with drunk driving tomorrow, fatal crashes would drop by 30%. not a bad result for stopping ONE behavoir. dude, stop ignoring the facts.


Never had a criminal charge in my life. The "worst" thing I've done to society was a reckless driving charge at age 16 - 60mph in a 30mph zone. This was very dangerous, and I got a slap on the wrist for it (10hrs community service). This was poor driving, and I should have received a much harsher punishment.


I'm not saying we should do away with driving laws, I'm saying we should punish all poor driving exactly the same. How about this for a fact - if we did away with all poor driving, fatal crashes would drop by 100%. Shouldn't this be our goal? Why do we single out ONE potential cause of "accidents"? Open your eyes, it's very simple. To echo an earlier post:

DWI/DUI laws are completely irrational, knee-jerk reactions from politicians who wanted to cater to the family vote and well accepted by law enforcement for tax-collecting reasons.



There are many behaviors (texting, over-tiredness, getting a beejer) that present a greater danger (a greater risk of accidents) but are not prosecuted the same way if they do not involve alcohol. The argument is that we have such an easy time "testing" for alcohol use, we might as well punish the shit out 'em!


My argument is instead of punishing alcohol, texting, tiredness, speaking on the phone, etc, etc, etc - we just punish the hell out of people who display poor driving. This would be the "jolt" needed to make people more aware (and safer) behind the wheel.

[JackHandey]

I don't think anyone, including the OP (assuming he's being serious) disagrees. His crime would be the result of his actions, he killed someone. OP is suggesting that the punishment should be the result of an accident such as this, not on an action that may or may not have affected his driving. For every jackass that mows down a little girl after having 10 beers in 2 hours, there're a dozen jackasses that have 10 beers in two hours and drive just fine.

PS- Someone who can't handle talking on the phone or doing ANY secondary activity while driving (for some people this can be something as simple as changing the radio station) without being distracted, is just as guilty when they mow down someone in their car. Driving is responsibility #1 when you're behind the wheel, anything you do that results in an at-fault accident should yield similar repercussions.

Not quite. I disagree with this for the same reason people should not carry firearms while intoxicated. The drastic impairment of judgment while there is a strong potential for great harm or mortally wounding others is a reckless endangerment to the public at large.

While I personally think everyone that has a legal right to own a firearm should be able to carry it with them, I also believe they have a responsibility to have a clear head to make proper judgment calls on appropriate usage when they do. Same thing with motor vehicles, particularly since motor vehicles kill vastly more people than firearms every year, particularly drunk drivers.

[Epiphyte]

I'm not saying we should do away with driving laws, I'm saying we should punish all poor driving exactly the same. How about this for a fact - if we did away with all poor driving, fatal crashes would drop by 100%. Shouldn't this be our goal? Why do we single out ONE potential cause of "accidents"? Open your eyes, it's very simple. To echo an earlier post:

DWI/DUI laws are completely irrational, knee-jerk reactions from politicians who wanted to cater to the family vote and well accepted by law enforcement for tax-collecting reasons.

I would rather have one law against one dangerous driving habit than none at all. The lack of strict laws against other dangerous drivings habits does not make the laws against DUI irrational.

It isn't like the acts are interchangeable and people that aren't driving drunk to avoid the penalty are instead choosing to talk on the phone.

[discoverEdeals]

I don't think anyone, including the OP (assuming he's being serious) disagrees. His crime would be the result of his actions, he killed someone. OP is suggesting that the punishment should be the result of an accident such as this, not on an action that may or may not have affected his driving. For every jackass that mows down a little girl after having 10 beers in 2 hours, there're a dozen jackasses that have 10 beers in two hours and drive just fine.

PS- Someone who can't handle talking on the phone or doing ANY secondary activity while driving (for some people this can be something as simple as changing the radio station) without being distracted, is just as guilty when they mow down someone in their car. Driving is responsibility #1 when you're behind the wheel, anything you do that results in an at-fault accident should yield similar repercussions.


Shaggy, you're 100% correct in your assumptions of my intent. I don't understand what alcohol has anything to do with that situation. Take alcohol out of the equation and it's still just as horrible.

[discoverEdeals]

I would rather have one law against one dangerous driving habit than none at all. The lack of strict laws against other dangerous drivings habits does not make the laws against DUI irrational.

It isn't like the acts are interchangeable and people that aren't driving drunk to avoid the penalty are instead choosing to talk on the phone.

What is the reasoning behind having zero strict laws against poor driving? You know, the kind that causes 100% of all accidents? How can we have multi-car accidents where no one loses their license?

[shhaggy]

Not quite. I disagree with this for the same reason people should not carry firearms while intoxicated. The drastic impairment of judgment while there is a strong potential for great harm or mortally wounding others is a reckless endangerment to the public at large.

While I personally think everyone that has a legal right to own a firearm should be able to carry it with them, I also believe they have a responsibility to have a clear head to make proper judgment calls on appropriate usage when they do. Same thing with motor vehicles, particularly since motor vehicles kill vastly more people than firearms every year, particularly drunk drivers.

Is someone who handles a firearm while intoxicated any worse than someone who is reckless with a firearm for any old reason? I don't think so. I don't condone drinking and doing either activity, I just don't understand why people who do them recklessly for OTHER reasons seemingly get a pass for an "accident" while a DUI practically ruins your life. I'm not saying DUI is good or appropriate in any way, nor am I even saying that I don't think it should be illegal, it just seems to carry a stigma disproportionate to the crime when you consider that other forms of recklessness go unpunished every day.

[chuck07]

were you goin 95 mph is the wrong lane with no lights on while textin?

I can still get a ticket if I am not though. (Maryland)

[JackHandey]

How can we have multi-car accidents where no one loses their license?

That depends on the cause of the accident. Have you ever hit a patch of ice while driving? Scary stuff. You can be doing everything you are supposed to do, in accordance with road conditions, and hitting ice can still make you lose control of your vehicle. It is based on the circumstances, as to whose fault it genuinely is when an accident occurs.

[discoverEdeals]

That depends on the cause of the accident. Have you ever hit a patch of ice while driving? Scary stuff. You can be doing everything you are supposed to do, in accordance with road conditions, and hitting ice can still make you lose control of your vehicle. It is based on the circumstances, as to whose fault it genuinely is when an accident occurs.

Hitting a patch of black ice is rare when you consider there are over 6m accidents every year. I obviously don't have a statistic to prove this, but I would say at least 90% of accidents have at least one person doing something wrong. Hell, even if I'm way off and it's only 50% - that's still 3m. Where is the outcry for locking up all these evil doers? What about "repeat offenders"?

[Epiphyte]

What is the reasoning behind having zero strict laws against poor driving? You know, the kind that causes 100% of all accidents? How can we have multi-car accidents where no one loses their license?

You didn't respond to my statement that one law against a dangerous driving habit is better than none and that inconsistent laws against cell phones does not make DUI irrational. You just went off on a tangent on another issue.

[MISHNAH]

Lmao, seriously are you kidding?

What my question is, Mythbusters proved driving while tired is worse than driving while drunk.

Yet there is no law against that.

Driving dangerously tired will get you a DUI (Driving Under the Influence), its a catch-all for non-intoxicated drivers whose brains arent all there at the time. Anger and road rage can also earn you a DUI.

DWI is for when you are under the influence of an intoxicant, alcohol, drugs, etc.

[JackHandey]

Hitting a patch of black ice is rare when you consider there are over 6m accidents every year. I obviously don't have a statistic to prove this, but I would say at least 90% of accidents have at least one person doing something wrong. Hell, even if I'm way off and it's only 50% - that's still 3m. Where is the outcry for locking up all these evil doers? What about "repeat offenders"?

I'd buy the 50%... They should only be locked up if they do not have insurance to cover the damage, and/or there is serious physical damage caused to one or more people. In the very least they should lose their license for a rather significant period of time though. I'd say 5 years first offense.

[discoverEdeals]

You didn't respond to my statement that one law against a dangerous driving habit is better than none and that inconsistent laws against cell phones does not make DUI irrational. You just went off on a tangent on another issue.

I don't think punishing potential causes of poor behavior is as effective as punishing the actual poor behavior. Especially when you consider that distracted drivers are more dangerous than "drunk" (.08 - .09) drivers. If poor driving is punished severely, you limit distractions immensely - leading to greater safety.

[Epiphyte]

I don't think punishing potential causes of poor behavior is as effective as punishing the actual poor behavior. Especially when you consider that distracted drivers are more dangerous than "drunk" (.08 - .09) drivers. If poor driving is punished severely, you limit distractions immensely - leading to greater safety.

That's reasonable, though I'd imagine rather difficult to implement, but it isn't an argument AGAINST punishing DUI. One can punish DUI as well as poor driving.

If your point is that we should be punishing those who get into accidents more then you shouldn't center your topic on DUI.

[JackHandey]

Is someone who handles a firearm while intoxicated any worse than someone who is reckless with a firearm for any old reason? I don't think so. I don't condone drinking and doing either activity, I just don't understand why people who do them recklessly for OTHER reasons seemingly get a pass for an "accident" while a DUI practically ruins your life. I'm not saying DUI is good or appropriate in any way, nor am I even saying that I don't think it should be illegal, it just seems to carry a stigma disproportionate to the crime when you consider that other forms of recklessness go unpunished every day.

A DUI demonstrates a profound lack of judgment and self control. EVERYONE knows that there are VERY stiff penalties for drinking and driving. Just as those with a concealed carry permit are well aware that there are penalties for carrying and being intoxicated. Not having that level of judgment and self control indicates that individual lacks the proper judgment to handle the access to a machine that can harm the populace.

With a firearm, the loss of access is permanent. The same should be with motorized vehicles, or the loss of access to firearms should be duration based as well.

In both instances, it is because the combination of alcohol and operating a machine that has the ability to kill others is a demonstration of grossly poor judgment. There are also medications that one should not carry a firearm, nor operate a vehicle while taking them, and the same rules apply with them.

[Notquiteclapton]

I don't think punishing potential causes of poor behavior is as effective as punishing the actual poor behavior. Especially when you consider that distracted drivers are more dangerous than "drunk" (.08 - .09) drivers. If poor driving is punished severely, you limit distractions immensely - leading to greater safety.
For the most part, we as a society (but not always the legal system) allow alcohol use as a mitigating factor instead of an aggravating one. Do away with "drunk driving" and prosecute drunk drivers with one count of reckless endangerment for every person in every car they pass. If he gets into an accident, prosecute for assault. The hard and fast BAC test, open container, etc, should go, but if a driver can be shown to be actually impaired, then he should be treated like the criminal with wanton disregard for life and safety that he is.

[Mixels]

Never had a criminal charge in my life. The "worst" thing I've done to society was a reckless driving charge at age 16 - 60mph in a 30mph zone. This was very dangerous, and I got a slap on the wrist for it (10hrs community service). This was poor driving, and I should have received a much harsher punishment.


I'm not saying we should do away with driving laws, I'm saying we should punish all poor driving exactly the same. How about this for a fact - if we did away with all poor driving, fatal crashes would drop by 100%. Shouldn't this be our goal? Why do we single out ONE potential cause of "accidents"? Open your eyes, it's very simple. To echo an earlier post:

DWI/DUI laws are completely irrational, knee-jerk reactions from politicians who wanted to cater to the family vote and well accepted by law enforcement for tax-collecting reasons.



There are many behaviors (texting, over-tiredness, getting a beejer) that present a greater danger (a greater risk of accidents) but are not prosecuted the same way if they do not involve alcohol. The argument is that we have such an easy time "testing" for alcohol use, we might as well punish the shit out 'em!


My argument is instead of punishing alcohol, texting, tiredness, speaking on the phone, etc, etc, etc - we just punish the hell out of people who display poor driving. This would be the "jolt" needed to make people more aware (and safer) behind the wheel.

Although alcohol-related deaths have decreased in recent history, researchers still put the figure around 35%, which is to say that around 35% of all accident fatalities are alcohol-related. This is unusual considering that NHTSA further estimates that only about 7% of all crashes are related to alcohol.

On the other hand, NHTSA reports that "distracted driving" was responsible for around 20% of all accidents in 2008. Fatalities caused by distracted driving represent 16% of the total.

From these stats alone, you can see that accidents related to alcohol are far more deadly than those caused by texting or changing CDs while driving. In fact, the fatality rate is over six times higher.

[shhaggy]

A DUI demonstrates a profound lack of judgment and self control. EVERYONE knows that there are VERY stiff penalties for drinking and driving. Just as those with a concealed carry permit are well aware that there are penalties for carrying and being intoxicated. Not having that level of judgment and self control indicates that individual lacks the proper judgment to handle the access to a machine that can harm the populace.

With a firearm, the loss of access is permanent. The same should be with motorized vehicles, or the loss of access to firearms should be duration based as well.

In both instances, it is because the combination of alcohol and operating a machine that has the ability to kill others is a demonstration of grossly poor judgment. There are also medications that one should not carry a firearm, nor operate a vehicle while taking them, and the same rules apply with them.

The underlying point is this: there're people who can have 2-3 beers and drive just fine, and there're people who can't drive if they have to change the radio station. People are different. Vilifying one and not holding the other responsible is not fair, especially when we vilify the former for merely engaging in a behavior rather than actually causing an "accident".

Again though, I'm not suggesting that drinking and driving is acceptable by any means, I just think we need to stay legally consistent. Why is something that is statistically associated with poor driving criminal even if it doesn't result in poor driving, when other things are not criminal even when it DOES result in poor driving. Driving when you're tired and sleepy is VERY dangerous, but nobody is charged with a crime when they fall asleep at the wheel. Why not?

[talgot]

You can't be serious.

I am serious and never call me shirley..... oh wait.. :D

[The2AMBearArms]

?

I don't understand why instead of creating a million punishments for minor infractions we instead have huge penalties for major infractions (losing control of a vehicle or causing another driver to lose control of theirs) as a deterrent. If every person knew they would go to jail if they caused an "accident" we would be better off than randomly punishing people for driving 10mph over the speed limit or having a couple beers after work.

A parent yelling at a kid in the backseat can cause just as much death/destruction as a crackhead behind the wheel of a vehicle. Intent is pointless and a poor argument, if one "intends" to they can absolutely avoid "accidents" while driving.

By this argument, someone who intentionally shoots someone should suffer no more of a penalty than someone who accidentally kills someone by dropping a cinder block on someone's head at a construction site. After all, the result is the same, right?

[discoverEdeals]

By this argument, someone who intentionally shoots someone should suffer no more of a penalty than someone who accidentally kills someone by dropping a cinder block on someone's head at a construction site. After all, the result is the same, right?

No, by this argument someone who intentionally shoots someone should have the same punishment as someone who "accidentally" shoots someone. There should be no accidents when dealing with firearms, just as there should be no accidents with motor vehicles. Both lead to extreme danger and loss of life if not respected - and accidents only happen when they are not respected.

You believe accidents are passive mistakes, I believe they happen when drivers actively disregard their safety and the safety of others.

[paperboy05]

By this argument, someone who intentionally shoots someone should suffer no more of a penalty than someone who accidentally kills someone by dropping a cinder block on someone's head at a construction site. After all, the result is the same, right?

So drunk drivers intentionally run people over? :confused:

[TRNT]

Never had a criminal charge in my life. The "worst" thing I've done to society was a reckless driving charge at age 16 - 60mph in a 30mph zone. This was very dangerous, and I got a slap on the wrist for it (10hrs community service). This was poor driving, and I should have received a much harsher punishment.Exactly how was it poor driving? Were you poor at the time? :-) Seriously, exactly how was it poor driving?

[JackHandey]

The underlying point is this: there're people who can have 2-3 beers and drive just fine, and there're people who can't drive if they have to change the radio station. People are different. Vilifying one and not holding the other responsible is not fair, especially when we vilify the former for merely engaging in a behavior rather than actually causing an "accident".

Again though, I'm not suggesting that drinking and driving is acceptable by any means, I just think we need to stay legally consistent. Why is something that is statistically associated with poor driving criminal even if it doesn't result in poor driving, when other things are not criminal even when it DOES result in poor driving. Driving when you're tired and sleepy is VERY dangerous, but nobody is charged with a crime when they fall asleep at the wheel. Why not?

I see your point. The problem there would be establishing that the driver was engaging in something known to be profoundly risky at the time of the accident. BAC is something we can quantify.

DUI is based on the sheer number of accidents caused by alcohol. Also, many modern vehicles have controls for the radio mounted on the steering wheel. Do we have statistics that determine how many accidents are caused by adjusting the radio?

Driving While Drowsy a Crime in New Jersey (http://ehstoday.com/news/ehs_imp_36623/)

Apparently some states have legislation to make drowsy driving illegal

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/oilspillresponse/pdfs/NRT-Fatigue-for-Emergency-Workers.pdf

Take a look at page 64. It would appear that driving drowsy is illegal in NY.

[aggs23]

The law against open containers in cars is really ridiculous and probably deserves its own thread. Didn't seem like anyone really addressed it other than the OP.

[shhaggy]

Punishment for drowsy driving is rare, even if it is illegal, and even then it hardly carries any stigma. But it's just as poor a decision as deciding to drive after you've had two beers.

[JackHandey]

You believe accidents are passive mistakes, I believe they happen when drivers actively disregard their safety and the safety of others.

When something is not a passive error, it evolves from being an accident into recklessness or gross error in judgment. On the same level, and in the same way as the BART officer that pulled his glock, when he intended to pull his tazer.

Punishment for drowsy driving is rare, even if it is illegal, and even then it hardly carries any stigma. But it's just as poor a decision as deciding to drive after you've had two beers.

I agree. More should be done about those that drive drowsy.

[TRNT]

The law against open containers in cars is really ridiculous and probably deserves its own thread. Didn't seem like anyone really addressed it other than the OP.I can try to give you justification for laws against open containers but frist let me ask you this. You want to allow open containers and have ZERO BAC rule or still maintain the 0.08 BAC rule?

[shhaggy]

Any way you cut it, drunk driving's stigma is more emotional than factual. Driving drowsy or driving while distracted for any controllable reason is just as poor a decision as driving after a couple of beers. But it's just easier to vilify the guy that was hanging out at a bar than the guy that just worked a 16 hour shift. That doesn't make it ok though, it's still a BAD decision to get behind the wheel. One shouldn't have his life ruined and the other off relatively scot-free.

[discoverEdeals]

Exactly how was it poor driving? Were you poor at the time? :-) Seriously, exactly how was it poor driving?

Cited for 60mph on a 30mph zone, but was probably traveling faster. Curvy country road, probably driving at 80% - cop came around a corner driving the opposite way and flashed his lights immediately. No way he got a radar on me. It was poor driving because I was too close to the limit on public roads. Young and stupid. Not too stupid tho, I immediately slowed down and took the ticket. He had to turn around, could have easily gotten away if I was stupider.


Also, in response to a bunch of posters - BAC does not measure intoxication, only the level of alcohol in the bloodstream. For example, an Asian woman who rarely drinks could be quite intoxicated with a .08 - while a Caucasian man who drinks frequently could perform well at a much higher rate. Everyone understands that people build a tolerance to alcohol, but many people are misinformed and believe that BAC represents this tolerance. BAC is static, regardless of how alcohol affects a person.

[Epiphyte]

Any way you cut it, drunk driving's stigma is more emotional than factual.

How so? Just because other things are just as bad (if not worse) and aren't stigmatized doesn't mean that drunk driving is overly stigmatized. Maybe drunk driving is properly stigmatized and the stigma against those other things needs to increase.

[discoverEdeals]

How so? Just because other things are just as bad (if not worse) and aren't stigmatized doesn't mean that drunk driving is overly stigmatized. Maybe drunk driving is properly stigmatized and the stigma against those other things needs to increase.

Stigmas are an entirely relative affair. If the stigma for other poor actions is raised, the stigma for drunk driving would be lowered.

[The2AMBearArms]

No, by this argument someone who intentionally shoots someone should have the same punishment as someone who "accidentally" shoots someone. There should be no accidents when dealing with firearms, just as there should be no accidents with motor vehicles. Both lead to extreme danger and loss of life if not respected - and accidents only happen when they are not respected.

You believe accidents are passive mistakes, I believe they happen when drivers actively disregard their safety and the safety of others.

That's the difference between negligence and recklessness, for which the law already provides varied penalties.

So drunk drivers intentionally run people over? :confused:

Totally irrelevant post.

[TRNT]

Cited for 60mph on a 30mph zone, but was probably traveling faster. Curvy country road, probably driving at 80% - cop came around a corner driving the opposite way and flashed his lights immediately. No way he got a radar on me. It was poor driving because I was too close to the limit on public roads. Young and stupid. Not too stupid tho, I immediately slowed down and took the ticket. He had to turn around, could have easily gotten away if I was stupider.You missed the point. "Exactly how was it poor driving?" Did you kill someone? Did you hit someone?

[paperboy05]

Totally irrelevant post.

As was your analogy.

[The2AMBearArms]

As was your analogy.

No, it wasn't. The OP argued that we should punish purely based on results, not on intent. The result is the same in my analogy.

[discoverEdeals]

You missed the point. "Exactly how was it poor driving?" Did you kill someone? Did you hit someone?

Perhaps my OP was worded improperly. I did use speeding as an example of too many traffic laws, but I did not mean to suggest we get rid of all traffic laws. Going double the speed limit is obviously unsafe, obviously reckless, and should be punished. I was suggesting that the discretionary tickets used as tax collecting measures (sometime it's cool to go 5mph over the limit, sometimes 10, and sometimes it's dependent on the state of the budget (http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2010/03/virginia-state-police-help-with-budget-crunch/).) is out of bounds and bad for society.

My main point is that safety laws should be used to increase safety - that's all and that's it. I believe the current state of dui/dwi laws are used as revenue generators - not as protectors of little girls riding bikes and getting slaughtered by deviants.

[paperboy05]

No, it wasn't. The OP argued that we should punish purely based on results, not on intent. The result is the same in my analogy.

I read it as the OP assumed the intent for drinking and driving vs. other distractions were the same. I don't believe in either case there is an intent to harm as your analogy suggests. Or do you believe that with drinking and driving there is an inherent intent to harm?

[Epiphyte]

Stigmas are an entirely relative affair. If the stigma for other poor actions is raised, the stigma for drunk driving would be lowered.

I don't think it necessarily works like that. I think society can stress safer driving overall and the stigma on a wide variety of unsafe driving habits can increase.

[The2AMBearArms]

I read it as the OP assumed the intent for drinking and driving vs. other distractions were the same. I don't believe in either case there is an intent to harm as your analogy suggests. Or do you believe that with drinking and driving there is an inherent intent to harm?

It's only a difference of degree. He is saying all accidents should be punished the same, without regard to whether the person who caused the accident intentionally took steps to increase the likelihood of an accident.

[paperboy05]

It's only a difference of degree. He is saying all accidents should be punished the same, without regard to whether the person who caused the accident intentionally took steps to increase the likelihood of an accident.

And that increase in likelihood is what is being debated. It's already been shown that texting while driving could decrease reaction times far more then driving intoxicated, yet drunk driving is punished far worse. Any time you let distractions get the most of your attention is taking a "step to increase the likelihood of an accident".

[The2AMBearArms]

And that increase in likelihood is what is being debated. It's already been shown that texting while driving could decrease reaction times far more then driving intoxicated, yet drunk driving is punished far worse. Any time you let distractions get the most of your attention is taking a "step to increase the likelihood of an accident".

That's fine. I've always thought that texting and driving should carry steeper penalties. But the problem is, it's impossible to enforce a a law against playing with the radio while driving. It is not impossible to enforce a law against driving drunk.

[Yessie]

I believe the current state of dui/dwi laws are used as revenue generators How so? My best friend was sitting on her couch watching tv when a drunk driver drove his 3/4 ton pick up through her house. In one side and out the other. He took Connie out with him, on his front grill.
The guy got 4 yrs. Probably served less than 2.
Now how did that generate revenue?

[discoverEdeals]

No, it wasn't. The OP argued that we should punish purely based on results, not on intent. The result is the same in my analogy.

You're really selling my argument short, a huge portion of my position is depended on driver skill and attention levels. True "accidents" are very rare, and I don't see the difference between having a few beers or arguing with a child in the backseat. They are both decisions that kill people and cause billions in damages. Most accidents have zero alcohol involved.

A large part of my argument is that all accidents have "intent". By not paying attention, a driver is "intent"ionally putting others at risk.

[The2AMBearArms]

You're really selling my argument short, a huge portion of my position is depended on driver skill and attention levels. True "accidents" are very rare, and I don't see the difference between having a few beers or arguing with a child in the backseat. They are both decisions that kill people and cause billions in damages. Most accidents have zero alcohol involved.

A large part of my argument is that all accidents have "intent". By not paying attention, a driver is "intent"ionally putting others at risk.

Your suggested framework is entirely impractical.

[aggs23]

I can try to give you justification for laws against open containers but frist let me ask you this. You want to allow open containers and have ZERO BAC rule or still maintain the 0.08 BAC rule?

Yeah I know where you are going with this and I don't know how to respond. Having a beer while driving should technically be fine since I'm not sure if one beer would put anybody over the legal limit. Obviously problems occur in enforcement, but there must be a way it could be worked out.

I was mostly referring to passengers though. Road trips would be a hell of a lot more fun if the passenger could knock back a few.

[Doctor_Wu]

Any way you cut it, drunk driving's stigma is more emotional than factual. Driving drowsy or driving while distracted for any controllable reason is just as poor a decision as driving after a couple of beers. But it's just easier to vilify the guy that was hanging out at a bar than the guy that just worked a 16 hour shift. That doesn't make it ok though, it's still a BAD decision to get behind the wheel. One shouldn't have his life ruined and the other off relatively scot-free.

It's not just emotional, as has been mentioned, alcohol in the blood can be measured via science, while "distraction" cannot. Even tiredness can't really be measured for our purposes here... have a wreck and the adrenaline would wake up even the sleepiest of drivers.

Distraction behind the wheel is a momentary threat while drunkenness is a perpetual threat for the entire journey. Sleepiness is similar to drunkenness in this way.



In an earlier post you alluded to driver skill, and while I agree that it certainly plays the largest role in this discussion, it too cannot be measured. And that is very unfortunate... I agree that some people are better 'drunk drivers' than others, just as some people are better drivers than others. All this talk in the media about distracted driving, and the evils of cell phone use in the car have me concerned. Some people say that even a hands free device is inadequate. It appears we are getting very close to policing phone use in the car. That will hamper our productivity.

[shhaggy]

How so? Just because other things are just as bad (if not worse) and aren't stigmatized doesn't mean that drunk driving is overly stigmatized. Maybe drunk driving is properly stigmatized and the stigma against those other things needs to increase.

I never said otherwise.

[discoverEdeals]

How so? My best friend was sitting on her couch watching tv when a drunk driver drove his 3/4 ton pick up through her house. In one side and out the other. He took Connie out with him, on his front grill.
The guy got 4 yrs. Probably served less than 2.
Now how did that generate revenue?

This should have a huge punishment regardless of alcohol involvement.

Most incidents involving alcohol and cars do not end with any damage, but with a person in the back of a cop car and years of fines.

It's not just emotional, as has been mentioned, alcohol in the blood can be measured via science, while "distraction" cannot. Even tiredness can't really be measured for our purposes here... have a wreck and the adrenaline would wake up even the sleepiest of drivers.

Distraction behind the wheel is a momentary threat while drunkenness is a perpetual threat for the entire journey. Sleepiness is similar to drunkenness in this way.



In an earlier post you alluded to driver skill, and while I agree that it certainly plays the largest role in this discussion, it too cannot be measured. And that is very unfortunate... I agree that some people are better 'drunk drivers' than others, just as some people are better drivers than others. All this talk in the media about distracted driving, and the evils of cell phone use in the car have me concerned. Some people say that even a hands free device is inadequate. It appears we are getting very close to policing phone use in the car. That will hamper our productivity.

Though alcohol can be measured, intoxication cannot. Two people can share identical BAC levels with supremely different reactions. As I said earlier,
Everyone understands that people build a tolerance to alcohol, but many people are misinformed and believe that BAC represents this tolerance. BAC is static, regardless of how alcohol affects a person.

[TRNT]

Yeah I know where you are going with this and I don't know how to respond. Having a beer while driving should technically be fine since I'm not sure if one beer would put anybody over the legal limit. Obviously problems occur in enforcement, but there must be a way it could be worked out.

I was mostly referring to passengers though. Road trips would be a hell of a lot more fun if the passenger could knock back a few.Well, that, my friend, is (one of) the justification(s) for open container laws. :)

[Doctor_Wu]

Though alcohol can be measured, intoxication cannot. Two people can share identical BAC levels with supremely different reactions. As I said earlier,

The American people are comfortable with bad science as is demonstrated frequently. Measuring BAC is the closest they can come to measuring intoxication in a way that's objective.

[Epiphyte]

I never said otherwise.

Sorry if I misinterpreted this statement: Any way you cut it, drunk driving's stigma is more emotional than factual.

[shhaggy]

Sorry if I misinterpreted this statement:

But it IS more emotional than factual. You don't think the emotional aspect of a guy having a good time at someone else's expense plays a part in drunk drivers having the stigma it carries?

Now, maybe that's acceptable, they make a decision to do something and they should live with it and anything that comes with it, but those who make the decision to drive drowsy or talk on the phone or do anything when they know it distracts them, should have the same kind of emotionally-charged stigma against them, because they make the exact same kind of decision.

[The2AMBearArms]

But it IS more emotional than factual. You don't think the emotional aspect of a guy having a good time at someone else's expense plays a part in drunk drivers having the stigma it carries?

Now, maybe that's acceptable, they make a decision to do something and they should live with it and anything that comes with it, but those who make the decision to drive drowsy or talk on the phone or do anything when they know it distracts them, should have the same kind of emotionally-charged stigma against them, because they make the exact same kind of decision.

You don't see a difference between what is probably a split second decision to take your eyes off the road to text and a deliberate decision drive while drunk?

[discoverEdeals]

You don't see a difference between what is probably a split second decision to take your eyes off the road to text and a deliberate decision drive while drunk?

They are both deliberate decisions that endanger lives. Simply driving at .09 is not even as dangerous as driving while texting. They both show disregard for the immense responsibility that comes with operating a motor vehicle. Over 6m car crashes every year. Billions and billions of dollars worth of damages.

No, I do not see a difference.

[The2AMBearArms]

They are both deliberate decisions that endanger lives. Simply driving at .09 is not even as dangerous as driving while texting. They both show disregard for the immense responsibility that comes with operating a motor vehicle. Over 6m car crashes every year. Billions and billions of dollars worth of damages.

No, I do not see a difference.

I disagree then.

[shhaggy]

You don't see a difference between what is probably a split second decision to take your eyes off the road to text and a deliberate decision drive while drunk?

What split second decision? Driving while drowsy is not a split second decision. Answering a phone when you know WELL in advance that it distracts you, is not a split second decision. Changing the radio station when you know WELL in advance that it distracts you, is not a split second decision. In much the same way, drinking and driving is not a decision that you make as you get into your car and start it, it's a decision that you made the moment you started drinking and knew you drove to your destination and would have to drive home. They are ALL deliberate decisions because anyone with half a brain knows that they are distractions.

[Doctor_Wu]

But it IS more emotional than factual. You don't think the emotional aspect of a guy having a good time at someone else's expense plays a part in drunk drivers having the stigma it carries?


Many of our laws are influenced by emotion, and that will never change. I think the stigma is more the gross negligence associated with being drunk and not having the facility (mentally or logistically) to get home safely via other means. The picture of the drunk driver on TV is typically unshaven guy in a dirty shirt. Somehow the humanity of this individual is reduced to a 3 AM mug shot ... not that it shouldn't be. He simply looks irresponsible.

[nobama]

Why the hell do we punish people for drinking and driving? Punish people for having an open container? Punish people for blowing into a magic machine that semi-accurately measures amount of alcohol consumed but not impairment? I can't think of one logical argument.
.How many motor vehicle accidents have you personally been to where INNOCENT persons have been killed, seriously injured, maimed, disfigured and their futures changed forever, all because someone was operating a vehicle while intoxicated? How many INNOCENT children have you personally seen that in a fraction of of a second lost their parents as a result of someone driving while intoxicated? How many INNOCENT parents have you personally seen that in a fraction of a second lost their children as a result of an accident caused by someone driving while intoxicated? How many INNOCENT families have you seen that have been torn apart in an instant all because someone was driving while intoxicated?

How many INNOCENT spouses have you had to deliver the news that their INNOCENT loved one had just been killed or severely injured by an intoxicated driver? How many INNOCENT parents have you had to tell that one of their INNOCENT children has just been killed or severely injured by an intoxicated driver?

When you actually see and experience the carnage, destruction and tragedy first-hand repeatedly for yourself with your own eyes and fully realize the reality of the results, then I believe you would have a better understanding why these laws are created to punish offenders and attempt to deter others from engaging in the same reckless behavior.


DWI/DUI laws are completely irrational, knee-jerk reactions from politicians who wanted to cater to the family vote and well accepted by law enforcement for tax-collecting reasons.The laws are written because the majority of the population - the voters - want to be safe on the roads.

[shhaggy]

How many motor vehicle accidents have you personally been to where INNOCENT persons have been killed, seriously injured, maimed, disfigured and their futures changed forever, all because someone was operating a vehicle while intoxicated? How many INNOCENT children have you personally seen that in a fraction of of a second lost their parents as a result of someone driving while intoxicated? How many INNOCENT parents have you personally seen that in a fraction of a second lost their children as a result of an accident caused by someone driving while intoxicated? How many INNOCENT families have you seen that have been torn apart in an instant all because someone was driving while intoxicated?

When you actually see and experience the carnage, destruction and tragedy first-hand repeatedly for yourself with your own eyes and fully realize the reality of the results, then I believe you would have a better understanding why these laws are created to punish offenders and attempt to deter others from engaging in the same reckless behavior.



Couldn't this be accomplished by stiffer penalties for drunk drivers that cause accidents rather than stiff penalties for anyone that drives drunk? Why punish the guy who has 2 beers and drives the same way as the guy who has 10 beers and runs over an 8 year old? Why not let the first guy take his chances not getting into an accident, and if he does, like the second guy, he gets treated like a murderer with TOUGH penalties? That deters the behavior too.

[discoverEdeals]

Many of our laws are influenced by emotion, and that will never change. I think the stigma is more the gross negligence associated with being drunk and not having the facility (mentally or logistically) to get home safely via other means. The picture of the drunk driver on TV is typically unshaven guy in a dirty shirt. Somehow the humanity of this individual is reduced to a 3 AM mug shot ... not that it shouldn't be. He simply looks irresponsible.

I agree that it could be part of it - but I think there is an even greater emotion at play. All people, but especially women, do not want to blame their fellow citizen for mistakes. They want to blame "things". It sets easier with people when they can demonize a "thing" instead of blaming people for poor actions. If you look at the history of DWI/DUI (and the history of anti-alcoholness in general) women have been at the forefront of the movement.

I believe this way of thinking to be counter-productive when dealing with safety laws.

[discoverEdeals]

How many motor vehicle accidents have you personally been to where INNOCENT persons have been killed, seriously injured, maimed, disfigured and their futures changed forever, all because someone was operating a vehicle while intoxicated? How many INNOCENT children have you personally seen that in a fraction of of a second lost their parents as a result of someone driving while intoxicated? How many INNOCENT parents have you personally seen that in a fraction of a second lost their children as a result of an accident caused by someone driving while intoxicated? How many INNOCENT families have you seen that have been torn apart in an instant all because someone was driving while intoxicated?

How many INNOCENT spouses have you had to deliver the news that their INNOCENT loved one had just been killed or severely injured by an intoxicated driver? How many INNOCENT parents have you had to tell that one of their INNOCENT children has just been killed or severely injured by an intoxicated driver?

When you actually see and experience the carnage, destruction and tragedy first-hand repeatedly for yourself with your own eyes and fully realize the reality of the results, then I believe you would have a better understanding why these laws are created to punish offenders and attempt to deter others from engaging in the same reckless behavior.


The laws are written because the majority of the population - the voters - want to be safe on the roads.


More "INNOCENT" people are maimed/killed/raped/pillaged/lives-changed-forever/dont-get-to-go-to-heaven/are-told-santa-clause-isn't-real when alcohol is not involved then when it is.

I believe you opinion is based on emotion and personal experience, which is never a good way of thinking when it comes to safety laws. It is reckless to drive recklessly - so we should punish the reckless behavior. Instead, we pick one thing that is based on sloppy calculations to make people feel safer and increase revenue for police departments. If someone is driving at an unsafe speed and swerving on the road, they should have a huge punishment (regardless of intoxication). If someone is driving fine, but comes up to a checkpoint, they can have their lives changed forever. IMO, they are the "INNOCENT" victims.

[Elmer]

Interesting topic.

I believe that reckless driving such as extreme speed, racing, and other blatantly dangerous driving should be punished similarly to DUI.

[TRNT]

Perhaps my OP was worded improperly. I did use speeding as an example of too many traffic laws, but I did not mean to suggest we get rid of all traffic laws. Thanks for that but I had a slightly different point to make.

In most relevant factors, speeding and drinking and driving are similar. Both impose a (POTENTIAL) risk.

So why should speeding be illegal then? WHY not punish that IF/WHEN it results in an accident/harm like you suggested for drinking and driving?

(BTW: you never replied to my first post in the thread where I posited that drinking and driving should be illegal for the deterrence value of it. :()

[SigX]

Strangely Sig, this statistic helps to make the case. Drunk driving accts for the 30%, that means OTHER things account for the 70% yet the causes of those 70% of deaths aren't met with the same penalties as is DUI.
are you arguing that just becausethe other causes are not punished that we should stop punishing DUI? I think that would be a difficult argument to defend. accidents occur for many reasons including those that are easily prevented (alcohol) those that are much more difficult (merging lanes in heavy traffic or icy roads). siuation where the driving is breaking the law (speeding, ignoring stop lights or stop signs, etc. etc.) should be prosectuted IMHO. I have no arguement against that. However, trying to equate a fatal crash from driving 70 in a 65 is hardly the same, from a culpability perspective, as a fatal crash from drunk driving.

ending drunk driving has to be the easiest way to save lives and money on a large scale. I fully support harsh punishments for DUIs.

Never had a criminal charge in my life. The "worst" thing I've done to society was a reckless driving charge at age 16 - 60mph in a 30mph zone. This was very dangerous, and I got a slap on the wrist for it (10hrs community service). This was poor driving, and I should have received a much harsher punishment.


I'm not saying we should do away with driving laws, I'm saying we should punish all poor driving exactly the same. How about this for a fact - if we did away with all poor driving, fatal crashes would drop by 100%. Shouldn't this be our goal? Why do we single out ONE potential cause of "accidents"? Open your eyes, it's very simple. To echo an earlier post:

DWI/DUI laws are completely irrational, knee-jerk reactions from politicians who wanted to cater to the family vote and well accepted by law enforcement for tax-collecting reasons.



There are many behaviors (texting, over-tiredness, getting a beejer) that present a greater danger (a greater risk of accidents) but are not prosecuted the same way if they do not involve alcohol. The argument is that we have such an easy time "testing" for alcohol use, we might as well punish the shit out 'em!


My argument is instead of punishing alcohol, texting, tiredness, speaking on the phone, etc, etc, etc - we just punish the hell out of people who display poor driving. This would be the "jolt" needed to make people more aware (and safer) behind the wheel.

if you want to make harsh punishments for other forms of reckless driving that is OK with me but that does not change the fact that alcohol is a easily preventable cause reckless driving. having laws that are as subjective as to end "reckless driving" would simply create a he said she said mess. laws should be as OBjective as possible so that we can remove bias and inappropriate prosecution.

[hsjpatman]

The way drunk driving laws are written is the issue I have, and I'm not condoning drunk driving.
The laws forbid driving after an arbitrary percentage of BAC, which IMO is ridiculous.
I know I could drive better drunk than a lot of people can sober.
The laws would be much more fair if people were tested on how well they can drive sober and at certain BAC levels and then have a BAC set to their abilities.
There are people out there that shouldn't be driving even sober.
Another possibility (although not feasible logistically) would be for drunk drivers to be given a driving test to show whether or not they were truly incapable of driving a car satisfactorily.

[JackHandey]

Couldn't this be accomplished by stiffer penalties for drunk drivers that cause accidents rather than stiff penalties for anyone that drives drunk? Why punish the guy who has 2 beers and drives the same way as the guy who has 10 beers and runs over an 8 year old? Why not let the first guy take his chances not getting into an accident, and if he does, like the second guy, he gets treated like a murderer with TOUGH penalties? That deters the behavior too.

Those two are not treated the same. The former is charged with creating a dangerous situation through recklessness endangerment, much like someone that is driving 100mph in a 25mph zone. The latter would be charged with vehicular manslaughter, in addition to drunk driving.

[discoverEdeals]

Thanks for that but I had a slightly different point to make.

In most relevant factors, speeding and drinking and driving are similar. Both impose a (POTENTIAL) risk.

So why should speeding be illegal then? WHY not punish that IF/WHEN it results in an accident/harm like you suggested for drinking and driving?

(BTW: you never replied to my first post in the thread where I posited that drinking and driving should be illegal for the deterrence value of it. :()

While driving at a high rate of speed (compared to other traffic) it is physically impossible for the car to perform safely in all potential situations encountered while on the road. Driving with a .09 BAC is more dangerous for some drivers in very select circumstances.

[Doctor_Wu]

I agree that it could be part of it - but I think there is an even greater emotion at play. All people, but especially women, do not want to blame their fellow citizen for mistakes. They want to blame "things". It sets easier with people when they can demonize a "thing" instead of blaming people for poor actions.

Well, I don't actually think all people are equal in terms of their ability to deal with certain 'things'. And certain things have a greater impact on some people vs others. Do you know if you're an alcoholic or drug addict prior to trying alcohol or drugs? I don't think so. But once you try such things you are now tempting fate a bit. Most people come out fine, some do not. Do we blame a drug or the person who can't handle it? I think people view the matter in terms of 'if the drug (including alcohol) was not there this person would be fine.' I think it's reasonable to blame things sometimes.

Some 'things' are dangerous. Some 'things' are dangerous to all people, other 'things' are dangerous to a portion of the people but not others.

[SigX]

More "INNOCENT" people are maimed/killed/raped/pillaged/lives-changed-forever/dont-get-to-go-to-heaven/are-told-santa-clause-isn't-real when alcohol is not involved then when it is.

just because alcohol does not kill the majority of motorists does NOT mean it is not the largest single risk factor for a fatal crash.

here is a study (http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/810942.pdf)that shows that strict laws on alcohol and driving have reduced fatalities. Yes, these laws work. Yes, getting rid of these laws would increase the number of fatal crashes.

[TRNT]

While driving at a high rate of speed (compared to other traffic) it is physically impossible for the car to perform safely in all potential situations encountered while on the road. Driving with a .09 BAC is more dangerous for some drivers in very select circumstances.I have no idea what this means or how it addresses my point by thanks for replying.

[ram0029]

It's only a difference of degree. He is saying all accidents should be punished the same, without regard to whether the person who caused the accident intentionally took steps to increase the likelihood of an accident.

I did not get that at all. I agree with his premise. Most accidents are not accidents at all. Back when I was still teaching the court mandated defensive driving class, 95% of all accidents were caused by human error. 95%. I doubt it has changed much in the last 7 years.

Road condition, mechanical failures etc... 5% total.

If you engage in a behavior that is known to increase the risk to yourself and others, it should not be called an accident. It should be called negligence and handled accordingly. It is not saying all accidents should be punished the same. All intentional actions that result in damage and injury should be viewed the same. I am not sure how you define unintentional steps, since I have never had my body go out of control crazy, and start texting on its own, or drinking on its own, or applying makeup on its own etc... Intentional and unintentional consequences, that I get.

Drinking and driving was heavily politicized, public awareness was raised and it was demonized accordingly. If similar campaigns (and punishments) are undertaken for things like texting and driving while tired, I think you will eventually see the same effects.

I mean if I show you a picture of a burned out bus and flash a dozen snapshots of the children who died in the head on collision... is it somehow a greater tragedy if the guy who hit them head on was drinking versus texting on his cell phone, or had been driving for 18 hours straight on 4 hours of sleep in the previous two days? I do not think so, and often the legal system treats it the same with numerous charges filed.

Yet, the drunk driver who is pulled over for swerving while driving faces arrest, court appearances, thousands in fines, suspension of license etc... the guy who hasn't slept in two days and is swerving all over the road... faces... probably nothing but at most maybe a small fine he sticks in the mail.

[The2AMBearArms]

What split second decision? Driving while drowsy is not a split second decision. Answering a phone when you know WELL in advance that it distracts you, is not a split second decision. Changing the radio station when you know WELL in advance that it distracts you, is not a split second decision. In much the same way, drinking and driving is not a decision that you make as you get into your car and start it, it's a decision that you made the moment you started drinking and knew you drove to your destination and would have to drive home. They are ALL deliberate decisions because anyone with half a brain knows that they are distractions.

You have a warped view of human nature. If you think the average person stops to think about the risk when adjusting the volume, you are sadly mistaken.

[shhaggy]

You have a warped view of human nature. If you think the average person stops to think about the risk when adjusting the volume, you are sadly mistaken.

I said nothing about the average person, each person is different and gets distracted in different ways. Some people can change the volume and not get distracted, just like some people can drink 2 beers and not be impaired. But what's good for the goose is good for the gander. I don't care if "the average person" stops to think about the risk when adjusting the volume, if they make that mistake and it results in them getting distracted and getting into an accident, then their decision is no less negligent than someone who drove after having 2 beers. Just because "the average person" doesn't think before a given decision doesn't make it ok. There was a time when the average person didn't think about drinking and driving either.

[The2AMBearArms]

I said nothing about the average person, each person is different and gets distracted in different ways. Some people can change the volume and not get distracted, just like some people can drink 2 beers and not be impaired. But what's good for the goose is good for the gander. I don't care if "the average person" stops to think about the risk when adjusting the volume, if they make that mistake and it results in them getting distracted and getting into an accident, then their decision is no less negligent than someone who drove after having 2 beers. Just because "the average person" doesn't think before a given decision doesn't make it ok. There was a time when the average person didn't think about drinking and driving either.

You are wrong. There is a difference in the way the law treats failing to realize a risk and realizing a risk and disregarding it. The former is negligence, the latter is recklessness.

[discoverEdeals]

You have a warped view of human nature. If you think the average person stops to think about the risk when adjusting the volume, you are sadly mistaken.

He's not saying that one needs to think about the fate of the whole world when changing the radio station, he's saying that a driver needs to constantly be aware of his/her surroundings and act accordingly. It's appropriate to do a head check/mirror check and scan as far ahead as possible before changing a radio station.

Unfortunately, you are correct. Most people do not think this way and it causes the majority of accidents. 6m a year. Billions and billions of dollars wasted. This is the problem, most people's lazy attitude when it comes to operating a motor vehicle. This causes more death/destruction/wasted money than alcohol ever could.


You are wrong. There is a difference in the way the law treats failing to realize a risk and realizing a risk and disregarding it. The former is negligence, the latter is recklessness.

You are correct about the way the law treats these scenarios. And this is why I brought up the argument. The law should NOT treat the scenarios differently, any time one operates a motor vehicle they are CONSTANTLY facing a risk - so any time a driver does not have this attitude they are disregarding the risk and acting recklessly.

[shhaggy]

You are wrong. There is a difference in the way the law treats failing to realize a risk and realizing a risk and disregarding it. The former is negligence, the latter is recklessness.

But drinking isn't inherently a risk for everyone, it simply has to implemented that way because you can't apply laws differently to different people. The person who had two beers and drives immaculately is not realizing a risk and disregarding it. He's disregarding a law, not a risk.

[Mixels]

He's not saying that one needs to think about the fate of the whole world when changing the radio station, he's saying that a driver needs to constantly be aware of his/her surroundings and act accordingly. It's appropriate to do a head check/mirror check and scan as far ahead as possible before changing a radio station.

Unfortunately, you are correct. Most people do not think this way and it causes the majority of accidents. 6m a year. Billions and billions of dollars wasted. This is the problem, most people's lazy attitude when it comes to operating a motor vehicle. This causes more death/destruction/wasted money than alcohol ever could.

It's rather irrational to consider the unchangeable as part of the problem. If the cost of drivers' licenses being available to the general public is too high, there are really only two legitimate solutions: find a way to reduce or eliminate the cost (via controlled transport, safer cars, or other means) or revoke the driving privileges of the public (and start a war). You can change the world all you want, but when you try to change humanity, you're chasing a lost cause.

[The2AMBearArms]

He's not saying that one needs to think about the fate of the whole world when changing the radio station, he's saying that a driver needs to constantly be aware of his/her surroundings and act accordingly. It's appropriate to do a head check/mirror check and scan as far ahead as possible before changing a radio station.

Unfortunately, you are correct. Most people do not think this way and it causes the majority of accidents. 6m a year. Billions and billions of dollars wasted. This is the problem, most people's lazy attitude when it comes to operating a motor vehicle. This causes more death/destruction/wasted money than alcohol ever could.




You are correct about the way the law treats these scenarios. And this is why I brought up the argument. The law should NOT treat the scenarios differently, any time one operates a motor vehicle they are CONSTANTLY facing a risk - so any time a driver does not have this attitude they are disregarding the risk and acting recklessly.

So you're saying that there should never be a difference between negligence and recklessness? Ever?

But drinking isn't inherently a risk for everyone, it simply has to implemented that way because you can't apply laws differently to different people. The person who had two beers and drives immaculately is not realizing a risk and disregarding it. He's disregarding a law, not a risk.

And the person who has had two beers will be far below .08, making the issue moot.

[The2AMBearArms]

It's rather irrational to consider the unchangeable as part of the problem. If the cost of drivers' licenses being available to the general public is too high, there are really only two legitimate solutions: find a way to reduce or eliminate the cost (via controlled transport, safer cars, or other means) or revoke the driving privileges of the public (and start a war). You can change the world all you want, but when you try to change humanity, you're chasing a lost cause.

This.

Ideally, people would be paying attention all the time and driving safely all the time. You can make harsh punishments for driving drunk, drag racing, and things of this nature but you can't expect that people will never let themselves get distracted. It just isn't going to happen.

[Mixels]

But drinking isn't inherently a risk for everyone, it simply has to implemented that way because you can't apply laws differently to different people. The person who had two beers and drives immaculately is not realizing a risk and disregarding it. He's disregarding a law, not a risk.

Almost every time an American gets in a car, he or she is disregarding a risk. The fact that the consequences of the risk generally are not realized does not disqualify the act from being considered a risk. Intoxication and other physical conditions can and do affect one's ability to drive, increasing the risk of accident. However, like driving under normal conditions, there is rarely if ever a guarantee that the person will cause an accident. Definitive consequence is not a requisite for calling something risky.

[shhaggy]

So you're saying that there should never be a difference between negligence and recklessness? Ever?



And the person who has had two beers will be far below .08, making the issue moot.

No it doesn't. How much alcohol do you think puts you over the limit? 2 beers within the past half hour will put most people over the limit, close to it for people that might be a little overweight. Certainly not "far below". If you make a habit of having two beers and driving home, you WILL pay the consequences eventually.

[discoverEdeals]

So you're saying that there should never be a difference between negligence and recklessness? Ever?



I'm saying that irresponsibility behind the wheel (driving at a high rate of speed relative to traffic, having ten beers, operating a knowingly unsafe car (summer tires in the snow, improperly maintained, etc), or arguing with your kid are ALL reckless. None of these situations are simply negligent. Nothing you can do while operating a motor vehicle that causes an accident is negligent, it is all reckless.

[redmaxx]

"It was an accident".

There is no such thing as an accident when operating a motor vehicle. It's a simple machine that responds the same way to human input every time. It's a complete fallacy that a guy can get a more severe punishment for having four beers, driving home, and getting stopped at a checkpoint than someone who actually causes a goddamn car crash.

No such thing? Someone having a seizure behind the wheel is not an accident? Someone driving while completely asleep (as in, went to the car and drove away while asleep, not falling asleep at the wheel) is not an accident? Mechanical failure not caused due to improper maintenance is not an accident? Actions leading to an accident caused by improper signage is not an accident?

You need more life experience, period.

I'm saying that irresponsibility behind the wheel (driving at a high rate of speed relative to traffic, having ten beers, operating a knowingly unsafe car (summer tires in the snow, improperly maintained, etc), or arguing with your kid are ALL reckless. None of these situations are simply negligent. Nothing you can do while operating a motor vehicle that causes an accident is negligent, it is all reckless.

Do you even understand the meaning of the words "reckless" and "negligent"?

[The2AMBearArms]

No it doesn't. How much alcohol do you think puts you over the limit? 2 beers within the past half hour will put most people over the limit.

Incorrect. A 160 pound man will reach about .05 after having 2 beers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_alcohol_content#Effects_at_different_levels




Do you even understand the meaning of the words "reckless" and "negligent"?

Apparently not.

[redmaxx]

No it's not -- they obtain your phone records and if they see a message was sent or received/opened within 5 mins of the arrest, you're in trouble. What sucks is they can't tell that you weren't pulled over on the side of the road -- unless they catch you on camera.

How do they account for the fact that phones store messages they can't send and then immediately send them when they have the ability? Or transcription systems, like Ford Sync?

[Mixels]

I'm saying that irresponsibility behind the wheel (driving at a high rate of speed relative to traffic, having ten beers, operating a knowingly unsafe car (summer tires in the snow, improperly maintained, etc), or arguing with your kid are ALL reckless. None of these situations are simply negligent. Nothing you can do while operating a motor vehicle that causes an accident is negligent, it is all reckless.
It's very possible to do something negligent that causes a wreck. You just have tunnel vision. You're focusing on overt acts. Things like failing to see a stop sign, running a red light (because you didn't realize it was red), hitting a pedestrian or other animal because you didn't see him, her, or it, and so on are all examples. Of course the fact that a crime is the result of negligence very rarely works in the defendant's favor, especially when negligence is an unreasonable defense. (You can't afford to be negligent when operating a motor vehicle.)

[bonkman]

How do they account for the fact that phones store messages they can't send and then immediately send them when they have the ability? Or transcription systems, like Ford Sync?
a) you might be boned. As I said, they don't know if you pulled over or not, or if your passenger texted. I'm going by the MA texting law that passed recently. I don't know if there've been any abuses yet. However, your phone does store a timestamp of when the original send attempt took place.

b) Transcription systems won't (shouldn't) get you pulled over since you're not actually texting.

[discoverEdeals]

No such thing? Someone having a seizure behind the wheel is not an accident? Someone driving while completely asleep (as in, went to the car and drove away while asleep, not falling asleep at the wheel) is not an accident? Mechanical failure not caused due to improper maintenance is not an accident? Actions leading to an accident caused by improper signage is not an accident?


95% is more than enough for me:

I did not get that at all. I agree with his premise. Most accidents are not accidents at all. Back when I was still teaching the court mandated defensive driving class, 95% of all accidents were caused by human error. 95%. I doubt it has changed much in the last 7 years.

Road condition, mechanical failures etc... 5% total.

We don't hold people responsible for causing the majority of car crashes that cause billions of dollars and tens of thousands of lives - but we setup random checkpoints to collect revenue from people hitting a happy hour. It's a joke.

I need life experience? You guys need to learn how to drive.


*also, seizure? Are you serious? Unless it was a first time seizure that driver should be barred from driving again - ever. Having a few beers slightly lowers reaction times, seizing is the total loss of all control.

[redmaxx]

hitting a pedestrian or other animal because you didn't see him, her, or it, and so on are all examples.

This. I've almost run into a few people because of the fat A-pillars in today's cars. It sucks when you're turning at such a rate that their walking keeps them synchronized with your A-pillar. :mad:

a) you might be boned. As I said, they don't know if you pulled over or not, or if your passenger texted. I'm going by the MA texting law that passed recently. I don't know if there've been any abuses yet. However, your phone does store a timestamp of when the original send attempt took place.

That really sucks. Although, I'm not sure my phone keeps a time-stamp of when the original message was sent (iPhone). And for email I'm pretty sure it only tracks when it actually sent the message.

b) Transcription systems won't (shouldn't) get you pulled over since you're not actually texting.[/QUOTE]

But if they're looking at your phone logs, they'd have no way of knowing it was you or the transcription system.

95% is more than enough for me:

So you used an absolute, but didn't mean it? You're also satisfied with charging drivers who had no control over their accidents with reckless driving because it covers 95% of the cases?

[theflintseeker]

That depends on the cause of the accident. Have you ever hit a patch of ice while driving? Scary stuff. You can be doing everything you are supposed to do, in accordance with road conditions, and hitting ice can still make you lose control of your vehicle. It is based on the circumstances, as to whose fault it genuinely is when an accident occurs.

I think this is a pretty strong argument against the OPs. I have hit black ice while driving extremely cautiously in a 4wd car, did everything I was supposed to do, and still spun out. Luckily, I didn't hit anything or anyone, but I could have. This was purely an accident. I turn off my cell phone when it's snowing or icy, and I am definitely 10000% sober. It is scary!

[redmaxx]

*also, seizure? Are you serious?

Absolutely, first time seizures cause accidents too. Also subsequent ones if the medicine they're put on doesn't adequately control it.

You're dealing with people here. You can't make a huge impact in the number of accidents by making it more expensive to have one. You need to attack the problem from a different angle and realize that people are human and do make mistakes. You also need to realize that alcohol impairs drivers and is a valid reason to fine and suspend licenses. Going over the speed limit doesn't automatically impair you.

[bonkman]

That really sucks. Although, I'm not sure my phone keeps a time-stamp of when the original message was sent (iPhone). And for email I'm pretty sure it only tracks when it actually sent the message.

I think it does, even if you can't access it. Just like all printers provide an individual watermark.


But if they're looking at your phone logs, they'd have no way of knowing it was you or the transcription system.

That's true. The idea is that they can't pull you over for using one because, by looking in the window, how do you know you're texting vs making a call or singing to the radio? Burden of proof is on them.

Also, I'll bet the transcription system keeps a log of its actions ;)

[ram0029]

So you used an absolute, but didn't mean it? You're also satisfied with charging drivers who had no control over their accidents with reckless driving because it covers 95% of the cases?

BAC as a measure of impairment used to be set at a 80% mean. So are you happy with using BAC that inaccurately represents 20% of the population?

The charts used to measure impairment based on BAC account for alcohol tolerance as an average not an absolute. Also the impairment effect of alcohol actually varies based on whether your in the absorbtion phase (increasing alcohol in the blood stream) or the reduction phase (decreasing alcohol in the bloodstream). BAC is used as an absolute measure, .08 is point .08 regardless of actual tolerance or the cycle of the alcohol.

If your happy with that, I would think 95% would be more than sufficient.

[TheWoman]

*also, seizure? Are you serious? Unless it was a first time seizure that driver should be barred from driving again - ever. Having a few beers slightly lowers reaction times, seizing is the total loss of all control.

Of course people who get seizures on a regular basis shouldn't be driving, but acording to this site (http://www.hmc.psu.edu/healthinfo/s/seizures.htm)1 in 10 people will have a seizure in their lifetime. Each of those people have a first seizure, and thus had no warning. Most of those people will never have a seizure again, whether because they find the cause and can fix it or because it just never happens again. So yeah, it is very possible that someone could have a seizure while driving without being neglegent.

[redmaxx]

BAC as a measure of impairment used to be set at a 80% mean. So are you happy with using BAC that inaccurately represents 20% of the population?

The charts used to measure impairment based on BAC account for alcohol tolerance as an average not an absolute. Also the impairment effect of alcohol actually varies based on whether your in the absorbtion phase (increasing alcohol in the blood stream) or the reduction phase (decreasing alcohol in the bloodstream). BAC is used as an absolute measure, .08 is point .08 regardless of actual tolerance or the cycle of the alcohol.

If your happy with that, I would think 95% would be more than sufficient.

What BAC causes no impairment in any of the population?

[shhaggy]

I would respectfully disagree. There is not a person on the planet who would not be impaired by 10 beers in 2 hours. http://www.faslink.org/bal.htm This is a scientifically proven fact via blood alcohol testing and driver testing.

I would move the limit down to .6. A second DUI should be a mandatory 1 year in jail. A third DUI, 15 years, and life in prison for anything above 3. The penalties are very weak and do not deter repeat DUI offenders.

There isn't a person on the planet that wouldn't technically be impaired after one drink, but the point is more qualitative than quantitative. Yes, 10 beers in 2 hours will diminish anyone's driving ability, but that doesn't mean it will diminish it to the point that it's irresponsibly criminal. I submit that there're many drivers out there whom, after 10 beers in 2 hours, still drive better than the worst sober driver on the road that isn't doing anything illegal. They are driving worse than they are capable of, clearly, but that's not really the point. The point is whether they are driving poorly on the whole.

PS- 10 beers in two hours is really more like 7-8, since you metabolize about a drink an hour or so. You take a 275-300 lb man, which aren't particularly rare today, that's like a 0.10-0.12 BAC. You really think there aren't that many people that can drive sufficiently safe at 0.10 BAC? Maybe they aren't common, but they aren't that rare either.

[AlphaSaver]

Is this whole thread a giant troll?

[dealspotters]

Is this whole thread a giant troll?

A really big one, I think. A lot of the policing as a whole is preemptive, live with it. We have pat downs at the airport, speed traps, security cameras, etc. Part of the cure is prevention, not just penalties after the fact.


PS- 10 beers in two hours is really more like 7-8, since you metabolize about a drink an hour or so. You take a 275-300 lb man, which aren't particularly rare today, that's like a 0.10-0.12 BAC. You really think there aren't that many people that can drive sufficiently safe at 0.10 BAC? Maybe they aren't common, but they aren't that rare either.

It depends. If a lot of the weight is from fat then the amount of absorption is slower. Hence they will reach peak drunkenness later :lol:. Anyway, I'm not worried about the people that can drive safely at any BAC but the ones that can't.

[nobama]

More "INNOCENT" people are maimed/killed/raped/pillaged/lives-changed-forever/dont-get-to-go-to-heaven/are-told-santa-clause-isn't-real when alcohol is not involved then when it is.Your extremely childish reply confirms my belief that you've never personally experienced the trauma and tragedy that can be caused by intoxicated drivers. It's easy to believe a false illusion when you're in the safety and comfort of your parent's home sitting in front of their computer, but it's an entirely different matter when you're in the real world facing reality first-hand.
I believe you opinion is based on emotion and personal experience, which is never a good way of thinking when it comes to safety laws.Perhaps you can demonstrate why emotion and personal experience is "never a good way of thinking when it comes to safety laws"?

Emotion and actual personal experiences are some of the factors that are considered when laws are considered for legislation. They are not the only factors that are considered.

Your thread, your response and your posts here sounds like the typical "it can't happen to me - it happens to others, but not me" and "I can hold my alcohol and drive - it doesn't affect me like it does the other guy". Often such persons can be heard saying "I didn't think it could ever happen to me" at the scene of an accident. It does and can happen, and it can be prevented by not consuming alcohol and driving - period.

But some persons who think they have a right to drink while driving or drive after drinking are like little children who want their candy no matter what and they don't care how they get it or who is hurt in the process, as long as they get their own selfish way.

[The2AMBearArms]

Your extremely childish reply confirms my belief that you've never personally experienced the trauma and tragedy that can be caused by intoxicated drivers. It's easy to believe a false illusion when you're in the safety and comfort of your parent's home sitting in front of their computer, but it's an entirely different matter when you're in the real world facing reality first-hand.
Perhaps you can demonstrate why emotion and personal experience is "never a good way of thinking when it comes to safety laws"?

Emotion and actual personal experiences are some of the factors that are considered when laws are considered for legislation. They are not the only factors that are considered.

Your thread, your response and your posts here sounds like the typical "it can't happen to me - it happens to others, but not me" and "I can hold my alcohol and drive - it doesn't affect me like it does the other guy". Often such persons can be heard saying "I didn't think it could ever happen to me" at the scene of an accident. It does and can happen, and it can be prevented by not consuming alcohol and driving - period.

But some persons who think they have a right to drink while driving or drive after drinking are like little children who want their candy no matter what and they don't care how they get it or who is hurt in the process, as long as they get their own selfish way.

I also want to go on record as doubting the results of the study that showed texting is more dangerous than drinking. This might be true for some people, but how often do you hear of an accident being caused by an intoxicated driver versus hearing about an accident caused by texting? There have been some notable ones, like the train accident in California, but the drinking accidents are much more prevalent.

[chuck07]

I also want to go on record as doubting the results of the study that showed texting is more dangerous than drinking. This might be true for some people, but how often do you hear of an accident being caused by an intoxicated driver versus hearing about an accident caused by texting? There have been some notable ones, like the train accident in California, but the drinking accidents are much more prevalent.

Much more prevalent on the news maybe. I don't know anybody who has gotten in an accident where booze was involved, but I know people who have been in accidents caused by someone texting or people that have gotten in accidents while trying to figure out how to use their hands free device.

I think your statement may be YMMV

[The2AMBearArms]

Much more prevalent on the news maybe. I don't know anybody who has gotten in an accident where booze was involved, but I know people who have been in accidents caused by someone texting or people that have gotten in accidents while trying to figure out how to use their hands free device.

I think your statement may be YMMV

I think the other problem is that when they do these tests, they probably have someone drunk drive around a course and someone text while driving the same course. The problem with that is that people who are texting will only be distracted while they are texting, while people who are drunk will be impaired the entire time they're driving.

[shhaggy]

It depends. If a lot of the weight is from fat then the amount of absorption is slower. Hence they will reach peak drunkenness later :lol:. Anyway, I'm not worried about the people that can drive safely at any BAC but the ones that can't.

And I'm not worried about the people who can drive after working a 16 hour shift, while answering a cell phone, or changing a radio station, but the ones that can't.

[shhaggy]

I also want to go on record as doubting the results of the study that showed texting is more dangerous than drinking. This might be true for some people, but how often do you hear of an accident being caused by an intoxicated driver versus hearing about an accident caused by texting? There have been some notable ones, like the train accident in California, but the drinking accidents are much more prevalent.

The problem is, there's no test to find out if someone was texting. If it happened to me (and I don't usually text while driving, maybe I'll read one at a red light or something but usually not), I'd close my phone and put it away. I don't make a point of telling a cop that I was texting. You can't hide your drinking.

[bonkman]

The problem is, there's no test to find out if someone was texting. If it happened to me (and I don't usually text while driving, maybe I'll read one at a red light or something but usually not), I'd close my phone and put it away. I don't make a point of telling a cop that I was texting. You can't hide your drinking.
Because the phone company doesn't keep a record of when all texts were sent and received....

[shhaggy]

Because the phone company doesn't keep a record of when all texts were sent and received....

Still difficult to prove. The person would have to be alone in the car and in possession of his cell phone, and the state would have to be able to prove that. Are cops going to start confiscating phones at the scene and jotting down ESN numbers? Would they even be allowed to search a person or his car or compel him to give up his phone without probable cause? (Getting into an accident isn't automatically probable cause for a search). You can't even breathalyzer someone without probable cause, you'd have to see him driving erratically or smell it on him.


Plus, what if the text he was typing wasn't sent? What if he was reading texts he received and hadn't sent any?

[bonkman]

Still difficult to prove. The person would have to be alone in the car and in possession of his cell phone, and the state would have to be able to prove that. Are cops going to start confiscating phones at the scene and jotting down ESN numbers? Would they even be allowed to search a person or his car or compel him to give up his phone without probable cause? (Getting into an accident isn't automatically probable cause for a search). You can't even breathalyzer someone without probable cause, you'd have to see him driving erratically or smell it on him.


Plus, what if the text he was typing wasn't sent? What if he was reading texts he received and hadn't sent any?
In MA a few months ago, they passed a law banning texting for all drivers and talking on the phone for drivers under 18. If a police officer suspects you of texting (ie you're looking down) or you get into an accident, they will check your phone records. If you opened, sent, or were writing a text in the approximate time of the incident (I believe the cutoff is 5 mins), you're boned.

Now, it is legal to pull over and send a text (red lights don't count). How do they know you didn't pull over 5 mins earlier? They may not. AFAIK, no case has been presented yet where this has been argued, but it's only a matter of time.