soupbone: So by yanking drunk assholes off the road, there is no safety component to it? You know damn well you're wrong with saying this regardless of your constitutional argument.

I remember getting into an argument with a FARKer the last time one of these threads hit, basically calling me a terrible person, and a fascist because I was OK with sobriety checkpoints, if the testing was done with probable cause (you know, how the SCOTUS supports it?)

It came out several posts later that he had been popped for DUI.

I think you'll find that many of the people who so adamantly campaign against DUI checkpoints on FARK will share the same history. And to be honest, I can understand why. A DUI Charge can make you suffer immensely - loss of license, jail time, loss of a professional licensure in some professions, and if you hurt someone while driving drunk, yeah. But, it's harder not to drink in public than to get a designated driver, take a cab, or walk home. I mean, who can blame them for being angry the Government is forcing them to drive drunk for profit.

It's a victimless crime, you know?

KimNorth: Giltric: Don't drink and drive.


You could probably tell who does by the complainers in this thread.

THIS!

I have personally gone toe-to-toe with our local MADD groups over their push for draconian legislation several times.

And I I enjoy the hell out of a good beer or three... but I also haven't owned a car in 10 years.

Sorry.

I wonder why they can't develop some kind of device (kinda like a diabetes thingy) to extract blood to get an accurate reading right on the spot. With all the health/sanitation/rights aside, it would be nice to have a correct quick results.
/once blew a .079 after 2 vodka tonics over the course of 2 hours.
//those things are b.s.

crab66: Fade2black: But, I'm in the minority.


When you start endangering me in a serious way. Your freedoms = shiat.

You do not have the right to drive a car. It is a privilege.

NEXT!

Degenerate Monkey: I'm sure I'm basically the devil for doing it, but I drive drunk regularly. The travel distance is about 1 mile of low-speed, back-road city streets that are almost completely empty at 2-3 AM.

And you know what? There's nothing wrong with doing this. I'm not going to kill anyone with a tiny car moving at 25 MPH. Even if somehow after years of driving competently, in a flash of stupidity I damaged someone's property, I'd still probably be safer than most of the sober assholes on the road anyway.

I would never travel much more than this distance, and I would definitely never set my wheels to a highway of any sort. I am a safe driver, even with coursing whiskey-blood.

So to the simpletons that lump all BAC+ drivers together into a pile of stupid, evil little bastards - Fark you! :D

And when you get caught or kill someone you will cry about how the big bad gubmint is out to get you.

crab66: fredklein: Heck, in some places, cops have been known to actually go into a bar and arrest people for that very thing.

Please show me an example of this happening where people were not being obnoxious dickheads.

Link (new window)

CSB: I was leaving a jam session with my band a few years back, having drunk copious amounts of hooch, and driving was definitely an irresponsible choice on my part. I got pulled over right away for having a headlight out, then I couldn't find my insurance. I told the cop I'd just forgotten to put the new card in my car (which was the case), and I produced several expired insurance cards to demonstrated that I was prone to renewing regularly. He agreed to let me off with a warning, in response to which I started babbling thankfully and drunkenly. At that point he goes 'have you had anything to drink? I thought I smelled alcohol'. I said no, and he leaned right up to my face to take a whiff. I just stopped breathing and looked back at him for what seemed like an eternity. He finally stood up and said 'OK, I don't want to see you back here with that headlight out'...and sent me on my way.

BronyMedic: I remember getting into an argument with a FARKer the last time one of these threads hit, basically calling me a terrible person, and a fascist because I was OK with sobriety checkpoints, if the testing was done with probable cause (you know, how the SCOTUS supports it?)

The problem with DUI checkpoints is that they don't work and are frequently used to bust other types of "offenses" (expired tabs, not paying child support, etc). So lets stop the farce of calling them "sobriety checkpoints".

/and just because the guy you were arguing with was busted for one doesn't invalidate whatever his argument was.

I like drinking and driving and I don't give a fark what you think. In fact I drive BETTER when intoxicated because I'm "in the zone," like a video game.

The heightened awareness of driving cancels out the lessened reaction time by a factor of six or seven.

Been drunk driving for 18 years, never pulled over once. Only a couple minor dings on my gold '01 Escalade.

crab66:
And when you get caught or kill someone you will cry about how the big bad gubmint is out to get you.

Ah, good point. I obviously associate drunk driving with civil rights, since other people in this thread do? How about "No."

If you get caught driving drunk, GOOD. That means you were doing it wrong, and that in turn means that you were a danger to others. One less moron on the road.

Degenerate Monkey: I'm sure I'm basically the devil for doing it, but I drive drunk regularly. The travel distance is about 1 mile of low-speed, back-road city streets that are almost completely empty at 2-3 AM.

You do realize that the majority of fatal auto accidents happen within a mile and a half of your residence, right? Familiarity with the area leads to complacency and unsafe driving practices.

And you know what? There's nothing wrong with doing this.

I disagree.

I'm not going to kill anyone with a tiny car moving at 25 MPH.

You're driving a thousand pound missile at 25 miles per hour. You can easily kill someone.

Even if somehow after years of driving competently, in a flash of stupidity I damaged someone's property, I'd still probably be safer than most of the sober assholes on the road anyway.

Yeah, you'd be safer because alcohol blunts the startle reflexes which cause more severe injuries. You move fluidly and react slower, and your muscles and joints are looser. Doesn't help the other person you hit, you selfish prick.

I would never travel much more than this distance, and I would definitely never set my wheels to a highway of any sort. I am a safe driver, even with coursing whiskey-blood.

So to the simpletons that lump all BAC+ drivers together into a pile of stupid, evil little bastards - Fark you! :D

Yeah. Sure you are.

adenosine: Once again I am glad that DUI checkpoints have been ruled unconstitutional in Washington. How they have been ruled legal in other states baffles me.

$$$$$

Also, good to see the Women's Christian Temperance Union still exists.

Oh yeah, my theme song I crank up on my Bose sound system when I get out there on the highway drunk as piss:

The Business (new window)

LeroyBourne: I wonder why they can't develop some kind of device (kinda like a diabetes thingy) to extract blood to get an accurate reading right on the spot. With all the health/sanitation/rights aside, it would be nice to have a correct quick results.
/once blew a .079 after 2 vodka tonics over the course of 2 hours.
//those things are b.s.

What's so hard about having a few of these in vans?


Plus, they could bring them to schools to teach the younglings about distracted driving.

fredklein: crab66: fredklein: Heck, in some places, cops have been known to actually go into a bar and arrest people for that very thing.

Please show me an example of this happening where people were not being obnoxious dickheads.

Link (new window)

One incident in Texas in 2006. Anything else?

Those who trade freedom for safety deserve neither.

Weaver95: MADD fired their own founder you know.

What does that have to do with the fact that driving above a certain BAC is against the law, this law is clearly stated as early as the drivers handbook, and that you are knowingly and willingly breaking that law, and putting far more people in danger than yourself by doing so?

Even the libertarian argument of "It's my body, I can do what I want to it" doesn't play out here. You're harming more than yourself by doing so.

UseLessHuman: Those who trade freedom for safety deserve neither.

Pretty much this.

/they also go directly into my /ignore list

doyner: Now if only they'd bought flashlights that could detect little boy peener on your breath...

Came for Penn reference.
Feel relieved.

Snuffybud: Try Texas
Link (new window)


When it's more than a few isolated cases where weird laws make it perfectly legal then let me know.

Weaver95: crab66:

And when you get caught or kill someone you will cry about how the big bad gubmint is out to get you.

MADD fired their own founder you know.

Point?

I blame urban sprawl and a lack of public transportation. The cab ride downtown costs more than my bar tab.

That's why I drink at home.

Alone.

In the dark.

Primum: Oh yeah, my theme song I crank up on my Bose sound system when I get out there on the highway drunk as piss:

The Business (new window)

I like Slow Ride.

badhatharry: They already do this. They have EMTs at the checkpoint, prewritten warrants, and the judge on the phone. No refusal DUI checkpoints.

This was a huge issue in Tennessee, and Still is.

The State Troopers snuck a piece of legislation through under the EMS Board's nose which required EMTs and Paramedics at the scene of an accident with injury or fatality to perform a mandatory blood draw for BAC. The troopers carry the kits, complete with vaccutainer needles, in their trunks.

The thing is, most scene units in Tennessee don't do scene blood draws. Most Paramedics, and almost all EMTs haven't drawn a tube of blood since initial clinicals unless they work in a hospital, or for a very rural service.

BronyMedic:
Even if somehow after years of driving competently, in a flash of stupidity I damaged someone's property, I'd still probably be safer than most of the sober assholes on the road anyway.

Yeah, you'd be safer because alcohol blunts the startle reflexes which cause more severe injuries. You move fluidly and react slower, and your muscles and joints are looser. Doesn't help the other person you hit, you selfish prick.

When I said I'd be safer, I meant I'd be less of a danger than other drivers; this is because most drivers on the road are terrible at driving, sober or otherwise. I did not mean that I would personally be less likely to suffer injuries, you illiterate, self-righteous prick.

I think I'm better than you and it makes me feel really good. This is all I really have going for me; I'm sorry I have to be such an asshole.

Congratulations! You're a douchebag.

gojirast: UseLessHuman: Those who trade freedom for safety deserve neither.

Pretty much this.

/they also go directly into my /ignore list

Favor returned for both of you.

Morons who take freedom to the logical limit don't belong in modern society.

You infringe on my freedom by willfully endangering me. Your freedom stops there.

gojirast: UseLessHuman: Those who trade freedom for safety deserve neither.

Pretty much this.

/they also go directly into my /ignore list

So basically, you ignore anyone with a differing opinion than you?

Corporate Self: 1. Get a lawyer
2. Subpoena any computer code
3. Reveal the laughable mess
4. $$$
5. Less Cop-derived profits

Seriously, why don't they take the money they spent on their little toys and put it into fund to pay for taxis called for drunk patrons by bar tenders? It would also include a free ride back to the bar to retrieve the car. We have thousands of taxi cabs the average city. Why not support local business and improve public safety?

Because, as with issues such as abortion and drug use, it's much more about punishing the wicked than it is about saving lives.

movieman_1979: Corporate Self: 1. Get a lawyer
2. Subpoena any computer code
3. Reveal the laughable mess
4. $$$
5. Less Cop-derived profits

Seriously, why don't they take the money they spent on their little toys and put it into fund to pay for taxis called for drunk patrons by bar tenders? It would also include a free ride back to the bar to retrieve the car. We have thousands of taxi cabs the average city. Why not support local business and improve public safety?

Because DUIs are BIG business.

Speaking as someone who got one a couple of years ago and had to go through the required repercussions (all of which took me about 18 months to complete entirely), I can say that from everything from court costs to court ordered counseling, tickets, legal fees, that damn machine you have to have installed in your car that requires you to breathe into it to start your car (installation and monthly maintanance for 6 months), classes, getting your licence back and mandatory contributions to the county I was arrested in AND Mothers Against Drunk Driving, getting a DUI set me back somewhere in the neighborhood of $5,000.00 and I'm sure I'm still leaving a few things out.

Police and city leaders are not about to fix something that isn't broken when they stand to rake in that much income off of one person. It was a valuable lesson I learned, but also a very expensive one.

Actually, by having the penalty ramped so high for a DWI, there is actually more of an incentive to not get a lawyer and go to court. Just skip out on going to trial and hope you don't get caught.

This is why I read all the time about a driver killing someone who had their license suspended 19 times. The driver couldn't afford the costs for the first offense so (s)he didn't bother going to court. So, instead of a legal intervention for a problem driver, that person just keeps driving, damn be the consequences

The problem is that MADD thinks they can legislate every single drunk driver off the road and that's not going to happen. The American suburban car culture just makes that impossible.

crab66: fredklein: Heck, in some places, cops have been known to actually go into a bar and arrest people for that very thing.

Please show me an example of this happening where people were not being obnoxious dickheads.

Several Examples:

n March of 2006, the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission along with TABC agents and Irving Texas police swept through 36 bars and arrested about 30 people on charges of public intoxication. This was supposed to be a proactive measure to curtail drunken driving. At one location, agents and police arrested patrons at a hotel bar even though some of the suspects said that they were staying at the hotel and had no intention of driving.

In July of 2006, a Southern California native was quite inebriated on a Friday evening out with friends and so he decided to walk home rather than take any risks and drive. Thinking he was being responsible since he was only six blocks from his home, he was in for a big surprised when he was stopped while walking by Orange County Police.

Link (new window)


StoPPeRmobile:

You do not have the right to drive a car. It is a privilege.

NEXT!

Do I have right to drive a wheel chair or a horse?



DUI in a wheel chair Link (new window)

DUI on a horse Link (new window)

Degenerate Monkey: When I said I'd be safer, I meant I'd be less of a danger than other drivers; this is because most drivers on the road are terrible at driving, sober or otherwise. I did not mean that I would personally be less likely to suffer injuries, you illiterate, self-righteous prick.

Yeah. I am self-righteous. I don't drive drunk. I also know how long it takes me to get to BAC of 0.00 after I've had a few drinks based on my weight. Somehow, I'm able to wait an hour before getting behind the wheel. Shocking, I know.

I've seen enough misery and harm caused from it since 17 years of age that I feel like I can be when I deal with douchebags like you. You're a selfish, self-centered prick if you think it's Okie-Dokie-Loki to purposefully get behind the wheel after taking a substance which blunts your decision making and reaction time, and drive. I, personally, don't care how you feel you're a safer driver than others. Research and Statistics on fatal accidents prove otherwise, and so does anecdotal experience.

Degenerate Monkey: Congratulations! You're a I'm a douchebag who is selfish enough to endanger the lives of countless others, break a law which has been on the books for decades, and then brag about it on the internet. Please, love me!

Fixed that for you.

seventypercent: What if we had checkpoints where you could just be pulled out of your cars by the police and flat-out killed? Think of how safe we would be.

Bit'O'Gristle: Having a drivers license is a privilege, not a right.

Not really, no.

You can't set up an entire society in which driving a car is mandatory and then call it a "privilege," sorry.

Giltric: If they found some guy who had a 12 year old girl in the back seat with blood running down her legs and duct tape covering her mouth and binding her wrists at one of these checkpoints you wouldn't want the cop to do or be able to do anything about it?

Sounds like someone is thinking of the children way too much.

Drinking and driving is bad.

HOWEVER, checkpoints are nothing but show (they get the cops into the news, see linked article for one example), politics (see! we're doing something about those drunk drivers!, also see 'show') and money for the police and the DUI industry (MADD makes money by charging convicted drunk drivers for "classes.")

IF you really wanted to end drunk driving, you'd license a bar in every suburban neighborhood, and no one out on the highway with no sidewalks can get a license. Problem solved. You could also run busses from the city drunk district to the burbs.

Of course, that will never happen.

Giltric: Don't drink and drive.


You could probably tell who does by the complainers in this thread.

I don't drink and drive but I think giving the cops the right to stop you without cause is a bunch of horseshiat.. If they observe you weaving or something Im in favor of a traffic stop.

/I'm glad I can walk to the bar and the beach from my house. Getting a DUI is just to damn expensive.

mjohnson71: The problem is that MADD thinks they can legislate every single drunk driver off the road and that's not going to happen. The American suburban car culture just makes that impossible.

This. I personally dislike MADD. They stopped being about prevention years ago, and turned to prohibition. I understand the mentality of why they do it, especially with their target demographics of families who have lost loved ones to DUI, but I don't approve of it.

There are plenty of Americans who can enjoy a drink without getting behind the wheel and being an asshole. MADD doesn't believe that way.

Weaver95: it's relevant because MADD changed it's mission. they're not about raising awareness about the dangers of drunk driving, not anymore. They're neo-prohibitionists now, and that's why they kicked out their founder.

Doesn't change the fact that your liberties stop when they begin causing harm to others. You do not have the constitutional right to physically harm others and deprive them of the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness while pursuing your own.

Not News: TV sets. Holy FARK: The use of specialized held held devices with infrared technology to change the channel and sound, without leaving you chair!