Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(USA Today)   Planning to drink and drive? Here's a handy guide to which states are most forgiving. Hint: Move to Wisconsin   (usatoday.com ) divider line
    More: Cool, Jalen Rose, sentencing guidelines, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, miscarriage of justice, recidivism, ignition interlocks  
•       •       •

8921 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Jul 2011 at 10:41 AM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



181 Comments   (+0 »)

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-07-29 12:04:25 PM  
datenschwanz:
Given that the evidence now shows texting and driving to be six times (iir) more distracting than driving with a couple of drinks in you, when do you think we'll see texting and driving as vilified as having a couple of drinks and driving? Since you're clearly concerned only with safety, will you be forming the nations first "FATAD" chapter?


I don't understand what "concerned only with safety" means. I'm concerned about safety, which anyone who drives any type of motor vehicle should be. I mean, I just took a motorcycle safety course last night and the instructor indicated some stat that while 1 in 4 automobile accidents have alcohol as a contributing factor, alcohol was a factor in 1 in 3 motorcycle accidents. That means that people willingly impaired themselves on a vehicle which takes more skill and awareness to drive than even a car.

Drivers of any motor vehicle should always be at the top of their game and realize just how dangerous they have the potential to be even at the top of their game, let alone distracted by texting, eating, physical fatigue, intoxication, etc. There are all sorts of factors which lead to dangerous driving, and more often than not, they can be mitigated. Get a text message? Wait till you get to where you're going, or pull over. Had even one alcoholic drink? Wait where you are until the alcohol runs through your system (an hour a drink rule of thumb), get a cab, call a buddy, hell, call AAA. Same with fatigue.

Basically, I don't care about how you gamble with your own life. I don't think seat belt or helmet laws should be mandatory - hey, it's your decision on how much risk you personally want to take. But when you put other drivers, pedestrians, animals, people just sitting on their couch at home at stake, now you're talking about something entirely else. The driver may have consented to driving while impaired, but none of the potential victims ever did.
 
2011-07-29 12:05:18 PM  

probesport: datenschwanz: " The reason why the law exists is because most people get drunk enough to not be able to operate a car at .08% BAC."

Wrong. The reason the law is there is because MADD arm twisted and lobbied like hell to get it reduced from 1.2 down the 1.0, then to .08.

They're going to keep trying to get it reduced until it's 0.0.

MADD is the new face of the old Prohibition movement. That's why it's founder left them. Look it up.

Well start a drunk driving advocate group then, It sounds like something you are passionate about.


It's more about NOT getting in trouble for something you HAVEN'T done than getting away with something you have done. I would prefer to listen to what doctors ie; the AMA, have to say about what impairment is than MADD.
 
2011-07-29 12:10:00 PM  

steamingpile: Isildur: Planning to drink and drive? Hint: Go fnck yourself, asshole.

Go fark the archaic dui laws, get rid of madd and their prohibition agenda, 1.2 was the limit set by doctors then madd got it lowered further. Dui laws are all about criminalizing society just like the drug war.


It's the truth what that map doesn't show is the $1200 dollars that you pay the state to be able to drive legally again in both Wisconsin and Minnesota. It's all a money scam for the state
 
2011-07-29 12:13:38 PM  

datenschwanz: Wrong. The reason the law is there is because MADD arm twisted and lobbied like hell to get it reduced from 1.2 down the 1.0, then to .08.


Then why does almost every country in the world have it at .08 or less? Many countries even have it at .05. Are you going to try and tell me that those countries care what MADD thinks, or do they maybe give a bigger sh*t about road safety than we do here?

If you have been drinking, you have no business driving. Period.
 
2011-07-29 12:15:03 PM  

probesport: datenschwanz: " The reason why the law exists is because most people get drunk enough to not be able to operate a car at .08% BAC."

Wrong. The reason the law is there is because MADD arm twisted and lobbied like hell to get it reduced from 1.2 down the 1.0, then to .08.

They're going to keep trying to get it reduced until it's 0.0.

MADD is the new face of the old Prohibition movement. That's why it's founder left them. Look it up.

Well start a drunk driving advocate group then, It sounds like something you are passionate about.


So if being opposed to prohibition is being pro-drunk driving, then since you are anti-drunk driving you must be a Prohibitionist.

Assuming of course, the rules of Boolean logic still apply on whatever planet you are living on.
 
2011-07-29 12:16:30 PM  

A_Spaid_Is_A_Spaid: datenschwanz:
Given that the evidence now shows texting and driving to be six times (iir) more distracting than driving with a couple of drinks in you, when do you think we'll see texting and driving as vilified as having a couple of drinks and driving? Since you're clearly concerned only with safety, will you be forming the nations first "FATAD" chapter?

I don't understand what "concerned only with safety" means. I'm concerned about safety, which anyone who drives any type of motor vehicle should be. I mean, I just took a motorcycle safety course last night and the instructor indicated some stat that while 1 in 4 automobile accidents have alcohol as a contributing factor, alcohol was a factor in 1 in 3 motorcycle accidents. That means that people willingly impaired themselves on a vehicle which takes more skill and awareness to drive than even a car.

Drivers of any motor vehicle should always be at the top of their game and realize just how dangerous they have the potential to be even at the top of their game, let alone distracted by texting, eating, physical fatigue, intoxication, etc. There are all sorts of factors which lead to dangerous driving, and more often than not, they can be mitigated. Get a text message? Wait till you get to where you're going, or pull over. Had even one alcoholic drink? Wait where you are until the alcohol runs through your system (an hour a drink rule of thumb), get a cab, call a buddy, hell, call AAA. Same with fatigue.

Basically, I don't care about how you gamble with your own life. I don't think seat belt or helmet laws should be mandatory - hey, it's your decision on how much risk you personally want to take. But when you put other drivers, pedestrians, animals, people just sitting on their couch at home at stake, now you're talking about something entirely else. The driver may have consented to driving while impaired, but none of the potential victims ever did.


I always find the stats of motor vehicle accidents kind of strange. 1 in 4 involve alcohol? So that means 75% of the people out there that cause accidents that are sober, just suck at driving, and/or are distracted another way? That makes me not want to share the road with ANYONE, let alone drunks.
 
2011-07-29 12:23:41 PM  

datenschwanz: probesport: datenschwanz: " The reason why the law exists is because most people get drunk enough to not be able to operate a car at .08% BAC."

Wrong. The reason the law is there is because MADD arm twisted and lobbied like hell to get it reduced from 1.2 down the 1.0, then to .08.

They're going to keep trying to get it reduced until it's 0.0.

MADD is the new face of the old Prohibition movement. That's why it's founder left them. Look it up.

Well start a drunk driving advocate group then, It sounds like something you are passionate about.

It's more about NOT getting in trouble for something you HAVEN'T done than getting away with something you have done. I would prefer to listen to what doctors ie; the AMA, have to say about what impairment is than MADD.


yeah, it's strange to have drunk driving an offense in of itself, because, without some other event, it is harmless. It becomes an event of concern the moment a person drives negligently or recklessly. It may be the case the certain levels of drunkenness coincide with certain levels of negligence or recklessness, but, it is the negligence/recklessness that leads to an accident. I would argue, there is a violation for bad driving (reckless/negligent/etc). If alcohol is involved, then there is a presumption of guilt. and we should drastically up the penalties for all bad driving. solves all problems: due process is restored and the streets are made safer because all recklessness and negligence on the road is attacked. however, if you are drunk but neither reckless nor negligent, then you are no problem. alcohol levels are in of themselves an issue. risk is the only issue, make risk the only factor.

/ so, I am not a supporter of drunk driving. but, I'm not a supporter of arbitrary legislation. I'd rather risky drivers get serious penalties no matter what. I could care less what drugs they're on - there is one concern, is this driver a threat.
// breathalyzers are liars. so, you're basing the whole BAC on an exceptionally unreliable test. we should have a reliable test for risk assessment. like, is the driver driving like a crazy, dangerous asshole. bust him for endangering the world. no need to jump through the hopes, and the guy can defend himself, if he was, in fact, not endangering the world.
 
2011-07-29 12:23:49 PM  

probesport: skankboy: probesport: Meh, 3/10 your trolling is weak.

Your ability to recognize a troll: 1/10

I get my terms mixed up sometimes, perhaps 8/10 legally retarded fits better?


Maybe when referring to yourself or lack of reading comprehension, MADD is about criminalizing people and making money. You need to read the founders book about how she cut all ties since they are about prohibition now and not about safety, she even talks about not agreeing with the lower limits since they don't get rid of problem drunk drivers, meaning the ones that kill people.

Also, read up on why MADD also likes to count cough syrup and medicines as DUI drivers, it pads their stats to make the issue look worse than it really is to
 
2011-07-29 12:26:13 PM  
Link (new window)

Radly Balko does a fine job as usual.
 
2011-07-29 12:30:41 PM  

andrewskdr: I always find the stats of motor vehicle accidents kind of strange. 1 in 4 involve alcohol? So that means 75% of the people out there that cause accidents that are sober, just suck at driving, and/or are distracted another way? That makes me not want to share the road with ANYONE, let alone drunks.


I tend to think driving like that is a good thing - if you're nervous that something bad may occur, you're more likely to spot a dangerous situation before it happens and can react more quickly. I'm not suggesting that people be paranoid drivers, but that they are aware that driving is inherently dangerous, and the driver has the ability to control and mitigate a lot of the risks involved with driving.
 
2011-07-29 12:32:48 PM  
It's more complicated than the chart leads one to believe. In WA (and in Calif.) prosecutors have the authority to charge bargain - reduce a DUI to a lesser charge in exchange for a guilty plea. This is typically done for a first-timer with a low BAC who wasn't a pain in the ass to the cop. These lesser charges don't count as DUIs, unless you do it again while on probation.

In Washington, it's called "negligent driving in the first degree."
 
2011-07-29 12:33:16 PM  

piaddic120: That's no surprise, there are a shiatload of breweries in Wisconsin, it would kill their business if they sent everyone to jail.


Not so much anymore. Most of the breweries have either been bought out or closed. The enormous herd of drunks they created still thrives, however. In my small office (25 ppl) I've worked with three people who've had 5 or more DUI arrests. Almost everyone I know here has had at least one citation. I don't drink, so in Wisconsin I'm a freaking outlaw.
 
2011-07-29 12:37:41 PM  
Indiana 1st Offense .08-.15: Misdemeanor, License Suspended for 6 months before you even go to trial. (your license is not a right, it is a privilege) Court costs, fines, classes to take, victim impact panel to attend (even if you didn't harm anyone).

2nd offense or 1st offense .16+: Felony charge

Per se laws (based on BAC) are BS. The county I live in uses this as a money maker. I don't fark with them. I'll pay a cabby $10 to get me home rather than the county $5k to put me up for the night.

And again, don't even think about walking instead. The county would be just as happy to get their money on a Public Intox charge as they would a driving offense. And the penalties are similar except for the license suspension.

One county south? They wouldn't even keep you overnight if you were close to the limit (.09-ish). Might still charge you but penalties would be much less severe.

/too many people I know dealing with this right now
//hypocrite judge with an out of state DUI sending people to jail in my county
///Hardly impartial judge meeting out draconian penalties from her pedestal as well
 
2011-07-29 12:37:47 PM  

A_Spaid_Is_A_Spaid: andrewskdr: I always find the stats of motor vehicle accidents kind of strange. 1 in 4 involve alcohol? So that means 75% of the people out there that cause accidents that are sober, just suck at driving, and/or are distracted another way? That makes me not want to share the road with ANYONE, let alone drunks.

I tend to think driving like that is a good thing - if you're nervous that something bad may occur, you're more likely to spot a dangerous situation before it happens and can react more quickly. I'm not suggesting that people be paranoid drivers, but that they are aware that driving is inherently dangerous, and the driver has the ability to control and mitigate a lot of the risks involved with driving.


It really doesn't make sense. If you're' a horrible driver you can still have a license. Nobody gives a shiat. But once you have 2 drinks everyone hates you. I'd bet money that I am a better/safer driver at a .1 BAC than anyone from Pennsylvania sober.
 
2011-07-29 12:40:33 PM  
No excuse for driving drunk in wisconsin. We have a bar on literally almost every corner.
 
2011-07-29 12:50:24 PM  
JackieRabbit:
Okay, this article falls into the oh so stupid category. All states have rather hefty fines for first offense DUI. They all also impose a mandatory suspension of the driver's license. They also require that the offender carry high risk insurance three years, which is very expensive. Most require drug/alcohol training programs, which the offender must pay for. Some even put you on probation, which also carries fees. The reinstatement fee for a suspended license can run hundreds of dollars a and many states require that the offender take a driver education course in order to get his license back. A first offense DUI will result in the offender forking over somewhere from $15,000 to $20,000 before it's all behind him.

Factoid overlooked in the FA: in Florida, if arrested for DUI, the suspect (not the convicted) must spend a minimum of eight hours in jail. You can't just have someone come down to the police station to pay your bail, as you sit in the waiting room. It is the only state in which you can be incarcerated before being proved guilty.


Not even close to truth. Georgia, Tennessee, NC, Ohio and a couple of other states have mandatory incarceration for DUI's. That, I have seen anyone hit for 15-20k on their first DUI. Second/Third/Nineteenth, yes.
 
rka
2011-07-29 01:03:27 PM  

piaddic120: Never have, my family has bad enough luck as is with DUI's. I'd rather walk home.


There's a fun chapter in SuperFreakanomics that suggests that Drunk Walking is more dangerous than Drunk Driving on a per mile traveled basis. You're more like to be killed by walking home drunk (you stumble into traffic, ignore crosswalks, that sort of thing) than you are driving home drunk.
 
2011-07-29 01:16:42 PM  

A_Spaid_Is_A_Spaid: No no no no NO. There is only ONE type of DUI driver - an intentionally impaired idiot who decided to play Russian Roulette with his life and the lives of everyone else on the road.


You don't know what you are talking about. A BAC of 0.08 will make the average person just feel a bit buzzed. Someone with a cell phone to his ear is far more impaired. Yet we treat the guy with BAC of 0.08, who is doing the speed limit, driving carefully and taking the back roads home the exact same way we treat the guy with a BAC of 0.25 who is speeding on the freeway in heavy traffic. The degree of drunkenness is not considered in most states. And just in case you don't realize it, DUI means driving under the influence of any substance, not just alcohol. You can be charged with DUI if a cop pulls you over and you tell him you have a cold and took some Benadryl. Also, you don't have to have the BAC limit of 0.08. It can be 0.01 and if the cop convinces a judge you were impaired, you will be found guilty of DHU.
 
2011-07-29 01:25:14 PM  
interesting article about drunk driving laws. I don't condone drinking and driving, but the laws are complete and utter bullshiat.

http://www.duiblog.com/2005/05/09/the-dui-exception-to-the-constitutio​n/
 
2011-07-29 01:27:10 PM  

HotSalsaZoot: ot even close to truth. Georgia, Tennessee, NC, Ohio and a couple of other states have mandatory incarceration for DUI's. That, I have seen anyone hit for 15-20k on their first DUI. Second/Third/Nineteenth, yes.


Again, someone else who doesn't know hat he is talking about. In the states you list, you go to jail ONLY if you are convinced. If arrested, you can be processed, pay your bail and take a cab home, if simple DUI is all you're charged with. In Florida, if arrested, you must spend a minimum of eight hours behind bars before anyone can bail you out and you cannot pay your own bail. At your trial, you may get a jail sentence in addition to fines and suspension of license. Indeed, if you fight the case, you will probably go to jail.
 
2011-07-29 01:49:44 PM  
1.0 & 1.2 will kill you.

/had to say it
//for the decimally challenged
 
2011-07-29 01:50:54 PM  
hmmm, When i lived in Ks, my first (and last) offense was a night in jail, a ton of money, my license suspended for 1 year, and a breathalizer device thing on my car to start it for a year after i got my license.
 
2011-07-29 02:05:34 PM  

Lumbar Puncture: If you have seen the women in WI, you'd forgive them for having a few as well.


You've obviously never been to WI, we have some of the hottest cooz in the country.

Also, part of the problem is all of the best bars are in the country in the middle of nowhere. There is no taxi, no rideshare, no drunk bus. Looking at you Kenny's Gin Mill in Monterey...
 
2011-07-29 02:15:06 PM  
Having lost two of my best friends to drunk driving, I'm not really getting a kick out of the replies supporting it.

/go die alone in a car fire if you're one of those 'tards that drive drunk.
 
2011-07-29 02:23:31 PM  

envirovore: Having lost two of my best friends to drunk driving, I'm not really getting a kick out of the replies supporting it.

/go die alone in a car fire if you're one of those 'tards that drive drunk.


Who in this thread is supporting drunken driving??
 
2011-07-29 02:25:39 PM  

andrewskdr: Who in this thread is supporting drunken driving??


Me?
 
2011-07-29 02:27:26 PM  
A friend of mine in Colorado found out the hard way that .08 isn't the limit there anymore; .05 can get you arrested.

.05!
 
2011-07-29 02:29:45 PM  

JackieRabbit: A_Spaid_Is_A_Spaid: No no no no NO. There is only ONE type of DUI driver - an intentionally impaired idiot who decided to play Russian Roulette with his life and the lives of everyone else on the road.

You don't know what you are talking about. A BAC of 0.08 will make the average person just feel a bit buzzed. Someone with a cell phone to his ear is far more impaired. Yet we treat the guy with BAC of 0.08, who is doing the speed limit, driving carefully and taking the back roads home the exact same way we treat the guy with a BAC of 0.25 who is speeding on the freeway in heavy traffic. The degree of drunkenness is not considered in most states. And just in case you don't realize it, DUI means driving under the influence of any substance, not just alcohol. You can be charged with DUI if a cop pulls you over and you tell him you have a cold and took some Benadryl. Also, you don't have to have the BAC limit of 0.08. It can be 0.01 and if the cop convinces a judge you were impaired, you will be found guilty of DHU.


Don't waste your breath, Jackie. The guy who said Manginas Against Drunk Driving had it right. Hands down, Fark has the highest Mangina-per-capita on the interwebs.

Every time a DUI thread comes around, these pussies come out of the woodwork, talking about how if you have one sip of beer you should be in PMITA prison, if you had a drink two hours ago you should call a cab to drive a block because they read some statistic or know some dude or have a brother in law who got hit by a drunk driver. They can all kiss my hairy, white ass.

You ARE six times more distracted playing with your goddamned smartphone or putting on makeup or adjusting the A/C, or channel-surfing the XM, or sleepy after a long day of work when you stayed up too late farking your hot-ass girlfriend who parties too much the night before (something the Manginas wouldn't know about).


But, but, *sniffle*, *cry*, my ex-brother-in-law's-sister's-cousin's cat got hit by a guy with a case of beer in his car so it's alcohol related WE MUST ARREST EVERYONE SHUT DOWN EVERYTHING!! I'm surprised these FADDs can even muster up the courage to fire up their internet connection to look at gay porn, because I mean like holy fark, what if the ground cable has failed and a power surge comes down the line and it arcs out of the PSU and onto the mainboard and into the mouse and electrocutes me?!?!?!?!??!??!!!!

The real deal is the FADDs are either seriously habitual drunk drivers that are further in the closet than a Catholic priest, or are the biggest lame-asses on Earth and finally have one thing they can biatch and moan about that makes them superior to "the cool kids" who actually leave their houses once in a while, socialize with people outside of their job, fark women occasionally, and generally enjoy life. Just because you're completely farking miserable, don't throw that on us you ignorant farktards.

That being said, of course driving DRUNK should be a crime. Cause a serious accident drunk? You should get the book thrown at you. But the laws we have on the books now are so restrictive as to be useless. They catch people who really, truly have done nothing wrong solely for the sake of revenue generation and to ensure no one can actually enjoy themselves for an hour or two in a pub or bar without fear of being jailed by the jack-booted thugs. So keep on repeating your rhetoric and linking to scuuurrrrie images that are supposed to make me shiat myself, and I'll keep laughing my ass off at you.

And don't be surprised, FADDs, when whatever you enjoy ends up next on the list of prohibited activities. Because that's what this is really all about. Prohibition of alcohol and revenue generation.
 
2011-07-29 02:42:32 PM  

andrewskdr: envirovore: Having lost two of my best friends to drunk driving, I'm not really getting a kick out of the replies supporting it.

/go die alone in a car fire if you're one of those 'tards that drive drunk.

Who in this thread is supporting drunken driving??


I would consider those that were replying 'you mad bro', Manginas, and such to those of that are commenting against drunk driving as supporting it. The use of the COOL tag for this story has something to do with it as well, though it is a nice troll on the part of Subby I suppose.

Just my opinion and take on some of the replies, I could be wrong.
 
2011-07-29 02:45:14 PM  

envirovore: andrewskdr: envirovore: Having lost two of my best friends to drunk driving, I'm not really getting a kick out of the replies supporting it.

/go die alone in a car fire if you're one of those 'tards that drive drunk.

Who in this thread is supporting drunken driving??

I would consider those that were replying 'you mad bro', Manginas, and such to those of that are commenting against drunk driving as supporting it. The use of the COOL tag for this story has something to do with it as well, though it is a nice troll on the part of Subby I suppose.

Just my opinion and take on some of the replies, I could be wrong.


Supporting drunk driving != Disliking guilty before proven innocent drunk driving laws.
 
2011-07-29 02:58:58 PM  
Charter Member - Drunks Against Mad Mothers
 
2011-07-29 03:20:10 PM  
Why shouldn't there be different penalties in different locations?
I'm not advocating drunk driving but a drunk driver on a flat unpopulated road is clearly less of a danger to himself and to the public than a drunk driver on a crowded city street.
 
2011-07-29 03:34:14 PM  

asscorethethird: You've obviously never been to WI, we have some of the hottest cooz in the country.


The temperature of the cooz might be warm, but you still have to throw flour on one of your women and look for a wet spot in order to find it.
 
2011-07-29 03:35:37 PM  

andrewskdr: envirovore: Having lost two of my best friends to drunk driving, I'm not really getting a kick out of the replies supporting it.

/go die alone in a car fire if you're one of those 'tards that drive drunk.

Who in this thread is supporting drunken driving??


You did, by ignorantly stating "I'd bet money that I am a better/safer driver at a .1 BAC than anyone from Pennsylvania sober."
 
2011-07-29 03:35:49 PM  

JackieRabbit: Okay, this article falls into the oh so stupid category. All states have rather hefty fines for first offense DUI. They all also impose a mandatory suspension of the driver's license. They also require that the offender carry high risk insurance three years, which is very expensive. Most require drug/alcohol training programs, which the offender must pay for. Some even put you on probation, which also carries fees. The reinstatement fee for a suspended license can run hundreds of dollars a and many states require that the offender take a driver education course in order to get his license back. A first offense DUI will result in the offender forking over somewhere from $15,000 to $20,000 before it's all behind him.

Factoid overlooked in the FA: in Florida, if arrested for DUI, the suspect (not the convicted) must spend a minimum of eight hours in jail. You can't just have someone come down to the police station to pay your bail, as you sit in the waiting room. It is the only state in which you can be incarcerated before being proved guilty.



Not sure if this has been pointed out yet, but vehicle forfeiture is also pretty commonplace. I know in Alaska a 1st offense DUI means the car is impounded for 30 days. A second DUI within 10 years results in a permanent car forfeiture, even if it isn't your car.
 
2011-07-29 03:41:04 PM  

aelat: A second DUI within 10 years results in a permanent car forfeiture, even if it isn't your car.


Not sure that's legal. I'm sure BoA would have an issue with the state taking something that belongs to them. And BoA always gets what it wants.
 
2011-07-29 03:46:03 PM  

A_Spaid_Is_A_Spaid: andrewskdr: envirovore: Having lost two of my best friends to drunk driving, I'm not really getting a kick out of the replies supporting it.

/go die alone in a car fire if you're one of those 'tards that drive drunk.

Who in this thread is supporting drunken driving??

You did, by ignorantly stating "I'd bet money that I am a better/safer driver at a .1 BAC than anyone from Pennsylvania sober."


Me stating a hypothetical and sarcastic situation = me supporting drunk driving? Wow talk about grasping at straws there.

Plus, have you ever seen a PA driver?
 
2011-07-29 03:51:52 PM  

andrewskdr: A_Spaid_Is_A_Spaid: andrewskdr: envirovore: Having lost two of my best friends to drunk driving, I'm not really getting a kick out of the replies supporting it.

/go die alone in a car fire if you're one of those 'tards that drive drunk.

Who in this thread is supporting drunken driving??

You did, by ignorantly stating "I'd bet money that I am a better/safer driver at a .1 BAC than anyone from Pennsylvania sober."

Me stating a hypothetical and sarcastic situation = me supporting drunk driving? Wow talk about grasping at straws there.

Plus, have you ever seen a PA driver?


If you are serious about your statement that you believe yourself to be a better driver while intoxicated than someone else who is not, then yes, you are supporting drunk driving. There's no other way to take that statement if you are being serious about it. You're not discouraging people from drinking and driving - sounds like either support or apathy to me. And seeing as how you are obviously not apathetic about these ideas in this thread... that just leaves one other option.
 
2011-07-29 03:59:47 PM  
I understood his comment to be tongue in cheek humor. Maybe your sense of humor detector need some calibration given the 'serious business on FARK' tone you come across as using.
 
2011-07-29 04:03:02 PM  

A_Spaid_Is_A_Spaid: andrewskdr: A_Spaid_Is_A_Spaid: andrewskdr: envirovore: Having lost two of my best friends to drunk driving, I'm not really getting a kick out of the replies supporting it.

/go die alone in a car fire if you're one of those 'tards that drive drunk.

Who in this thread is supporting drunken driving??

You did, by ignorantly stating "I'd bet money that I am a better/safer driver at a .1 BAC than anyone from Pennsylvania sober."

Me stating a hypothetical and sarcastic situation = me supporting drunk driving? Wow talk about grasping at straws there.

Plus, have you ever seen a PA driver?

If you are serious about your statement that you believe yourself to be a better driver while intoxicated than someone else who is not, then yes, you are supporting drunk driving. There's no other way to take that statement if you are being serious about it. You're not discouraging people from drinking and driving - sounds like either support or apathy to me. And seeing as how you are obviously not apathetic about these ideas in this thread... that just leaves one other option.

 
2011-07-29 04:03:47 PM  

A_Spaid_Is_A_Spaid: andrewskdr: A_Spaid_Is_A_Spaid: andrewskdr: envirovore: Having lost two of my best friends to drunk driving, I'm not really getting a kick out of the replies supporting it.

/go die alone in a car fire if you're one of those 'tards that drive drunk.

Who in this thread is supporting drunken driving??

You did, by ignorantly stating "I'd bet money that I am a better/safer driver at a .1 BAC than anyone from Pennsylvania sober."

Me stating a hypothetical and sarcastic situation = me supporting drunk driving? Wow talk about grasping at straws there.

Plus, have you ever seen a PA driver?

If you are serious about your statement that you believe yourself to be a better driver while intoxicated than someone else who is not, then yes, you are supporting drunk driving. There's no other way to take that statement if you are being serious about it. You're not discouraging people from drinking and driving - sounds like either support or apathy to me. And seeing as how you are obviously not apathetic about these ideas in this thread... that just leaves one other option.


Your statement assumes he insinuated he was drunk (impaired) at 0.10. The law may assume such things but we've seen the law changed for purely political and monetary reasons.

/let it go - he was (by his own admission) being sarcastic
//.08 is very an arbitrarily set number with little scientific backing.
///.10 is not much different
 
2011-07-29 04:09:21 PM  

A_Spaid_Is_A_Spaid: andrewskdr: A_Spaid_Is_A_Spaid: andrewskdr: envirovore: Having lost two of my best friends to drunk driving, I'm not really getting a kick out of the replies supporting it.

/go die alone in a car fire if you're one of those 'tards that drive drunk.

Who in this thread is supporting drunken driving??

You did, by ignorantly stating "I'd bet money that I am a better/safer driver at a .1 BAC than anyone from Pennsylvania sober."

Me stating a hypothetical and sarcastic situation = me supporting drunk driving? Wow talk about grasping at straws there.

Plus, have you ever seen a PA driver?

If you are serious about your statement that you believe yourself to be a better driver while intoxicated than someone else who is not, then yes, you are supporting drunk driving. There's no other way to take that statement if you are being serious about it. You're not discouraging people from drinking and driving - sounds like either support or apathy to me. And seeing as how you are obviously not apathetic about these ideas in this thread... that just leaves one other option.


I'll drink one on your behalf tonight. On my way to the bar.
 
2011-07-29 04:22:08 PM  

A_Spaid_Is_A_Spaid: JackieRabbit: A_Spaid_Is_A_Spaid: How anyone can justify drinking and driving as "not that bad of a thing" is absolutely beyond me.

I don't think I've read a post in this thread where anyone has attempted to justify driving while drunk. But our DUI laws have become ridiculously draconian and our police and courts are convicting people who are not really drunk or even impaired. Many haven't even broken any traffic laws. They are just in the wrong place at the wrong time, when a cop has a quota to meet. If a cop want to get a DUI collar on you, you will always fail the sobriety tests and the beathylizer will show you over the limit. It is true if you have only had a couple of drinks spread out over several hours.

There are two types of drunk drivers: the ones who have just had one too many and are just trying to get home safely. And the ones who don't care that they are drunk out of their heads and may kill someone. The latter usually have some sort of death wish. We should be going after those and not wasting so much effort on the former.

No no no no NO. There is only ONE type of DUI driver - an intentionally impaired idiot who decided to play Russian Roulette with his life and the lives of everyone else on the road.


You drama queen! Every damn day I get into traffic it's that way. Even when everyone is sober it's that way. News flash: traffic accidents can kill people. Follow up: not all of them have to do with drunks.

Do you know at all how many people DON'T get into an accident when they are driving while intoxicated? Hell, your sorry-ass is likely not even on the road when the drunks are out - so STFU.
 
2011-07-29 04:23:15 PM  

asscorethethird: Lumbar Puncture: If you have seen the women in WI, you'd forgive them for having a few as well.

You've obviously never been to WI, we have some of the hottest cooz in the country.


Dude, take off the beer goggles for a little while. Without hyperbole, this is one of the most preposterous statements i've ever seen on fark.
 
2011-07-29 04:47:50 PM  

HotSalsaZoot: JackieRabbit:
Okay, this article falls into the oh so stupid category. All states have rather hefty fines for first offense DUI. They all also impose a mandatory suspension of the driver's license. They also require that the offender carry high risk insurance three years, which is very expensive. Most require drug/alcohol training programs, which the offender must pay for. Some even put you on probation, which also carries fees. The reinstatement fee for a suspended license can run hundreds of dollars a and many states require that the offender take a driver education course in order to get his license back. A first offense DUI will result in the offender forking over somewhere from $15,000 to $20,000 before it's all behind him.

Factoid overlooked in the FA: in Florida, if arrested for DUI, the suspect (not the convicted) must spend a minimum of eight hours in jail. You can't just have someone come down to the police station to pay your bail, as you sit in the waiting room. It is the only state in which you can be incarcerated before being proved guilty.

Not even close to truth. Georgia, Tennessee, NC, Ohio and a couple of other states have mandatory incarceration for DUI's. That, I have seen anyone hit for 15-20k on their first DUI. Second/Third/Nineteenth, yes.


Not always true, I got off with my lawyer getting it down to reckless endangerment, average fine for about $11K, no jail time, no probation.

Its all in who you know, or more to the point who I know.

DUI laws suck since if you have a little cash or connections you can get off with virtually no punishment.
 
2011-07-29 04:56:37 PM  

enik: Isildur: Planning to drink and drive? Hint: Go fnck yourself, asshole.

Marine1: Yeah, drinking and driving is really cool, tardmitter.

Manginas Against Drunk Driving


Funny you should say that. You sound twat.
 
2011-07-29 05:01:15 PM  

Lerxt: Your statement assumes he insinuated he was drunk (impaired) at 0.10. The law may assume such things but we've seen the law changed for purely political and monetary reasons.

/let it go - he was (by his own admission) being sarcastic
//.08 is very an arbitrarily set number with little scientific backing.
///.10 is not much different


It matters very little - one drink in your system equals impairment - more simply increases it.

Listen, there are a lot of things once can do while driving to decrease the risk of driving by whatever distractions may be happening. The solitary way to decrease the risk of driving while intoxicated is not to do so in the first place.

special20:

You drama queen! Every damn day I get into traffic it's that way. Even when everyone is sober it's that way. News flash: traffic accidents can kill people. Follow up: not all of them have to do with drunks.

Do you know at all how many people DON'T get into an accident when they are driving while intoxicated? Hell, your sorry-ass is likely not even on the road when the drunks are out - so STFU.


My same statement goes out to you. You are absolutely right, that driving is dangerous enough even while sober. Traffic accidents happen all of the time, and there would be much less of them for various reasons.

Taking alcohol out of the equation will not prevent every traffic accident out there. But adding it to the equation will always increase the risk. And that increased risk is not something which should be tolerated or shrugged off.
 
2011-07-29 05:04:51 PM  

A_Spaid_Is_A_Spaid: No no no no NO. There is only ONE type of DUI driver - an intentionally impaired idiot who decided to play Russian Roulette with his life and the lives of everyone else on the road.


Except that a majority of DUIs are after 12am and rarely involve other drivers, and no dont cite the bullshiat stats from MADD, they count advil as dui and if others were in the car that were drunk its counted as a dui crash.

Its low on the true causes of fatality crashes when using the real data and not made up madd shiat, if you use madd bullshiat stats then its the leading cause of death in the country, MADD are farking morons.

Isildur: Funny you should say that. You sound twat.


You sound like you cant handle your alcohol at all, pussy
 
2011-07-29 05:07:15 PM  

steamingpile: You sound like you cant handle your alcohol at all, pussy


And you sound like someone who shouldn't have a license.
 
2011-07-29 05:09:25 PM  

A_Spaid_Is_A_Spaid: Taking alcohol out of the equation will not prevent every traffic accident out there. But adding it to the equation will always increase the risk. And that increased risk is not something which should be tolerated or shrugged off.


Nobody is shrugging it off, the problem is that MADD forced lawmakers to lower the limit to .08, doctors put the limit at .12 before MADD got involved since after they got the law they were no longer relevant since a majority of drivers pulled over are still below .12, I would rather follow a doctors findings than some organization that makes money from making people outraged.
 
Displayed 50 of 181 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report