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.

(Centre Daily Times)   Not News: DUI Checkpoint. Holy FARK: The use of specialized flashlights with ethanol sensors to detect the presence of alcohol on a driver's breath   (centredaily.com) divider line 738
    More: Asinine, random checkpoint, Centre County, State College, bus drivers, ethanol sensors, sensors  
•       •       •

16349 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Apr 2012 at 1:01 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



738 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-04-15 11:49:29 PM

Silly Jesus: Kensey: Silly Jesus: Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN) is the best representation of this. If HGN is present then impairment is present. HGN isn't an indicator of impairment, it IS the impairment. The onset for this is often below .08. I have observed it MANY times. I'm not sure how such a thing could possibly be some sort of slippery slope PR MADD/scientist conspiracy.

So what you're saying is, there's actually no need at all to legislate arbitrary BAC limits or do silly roadside alphabet tests or checkpoints: all we need do is look for telltale signs of drunk driving, pull over the suspect, use HGN to establish probable cause for a blood or breath test, and then book 'em, Danno!

And that will, as a side effect, get some of the people off the road who are impaired at .05 but don't currently suffer any meaningful consequences because they're not quite drunk enough to be drunk-drunk.

Sure sounds like a win-win to me! So we'll all get right on that, yeah?

Huh?

"all we need do is look for telltale signs of drunk driving, pull over the suspect, use HGN to establish probable cause for a blood or breath test, and then book 'em" -- This is more or less how a DUI works. Not sure what else you're attempting to say.


That both arbitrary BAC limits and roadside checkpoints are completely pointless. Or did I misread you as supporting existence and enforcement of BAC limits above?
 
2012-04-15 11:54:46 PM

BronyMedic: my tax money ends up paying their medical bills when they end up in the trauma center and rack up hundreds of thousands of dollars in hospital bills that State and Federal trauma funds cover.


And that is an example of how ANYTHING can be twisted.

Do you think skydiving should be illegal? After all, they might end up in the hospital, and either your taxes or your insurance premiums might go up.

In fact, that goes for any sport.

In fact, that goes for the lazy slobs who sit at home (well, they can't do any sports now, can they?), and have heart attacks because they are out of shape.

In the end, you can justify ANYTHING with that type of 'logic'.

According to your logic, we shouldn't legislate seat belts

Correct.

That's the kind of thinking that would lead one to think you never got past Stage 1 of Kohlburg when you were maturing.

I guess you never got up to the 'post-conventional' stages- "The post-conventional level, also known as the principled level, is marked by a growing realization that individuals are separate entities from society, and that the individual's own perspective may take precedence over society's view; individuals may disobey rules inconsistent with their own principles."
"In Stage six (universal ethical principles driven), moral reasoning is based on abstract reasoning using universal ethical principles. Laws are valid only insofar as they are grounded in justice, and a commitment to justice carries with it an obligation to disobey unjust laws." -wikipedia
 
2012-04-15 11:56:39 PM
Kensey: Or perhaps he made it all the way to Kohlberg stage 6, where "Laws are valid only insofar as they are grounded in justice, and a commitment to justice carries with it an obligation to disobey unjust laws."

Uh. No. He unequivically stated earlier in the thread that he considers DUI laws, and other intent laws, to be worthless laws geared towards Pre-crime, and unrealistic.

It's reasonable to gain from that statement that he believes as long as no one gets hurt and doesn't get caught, it's ok. Or, it could be because he said that in his posts.

That fits with stage II. Frankly, I'd say I'm in Stage V - the preservation of life is more important than the preservation of society or laws as a priority.
 
2012-04-15 11:57:52 PM

Kensey: Silly Jesus: Kensey: Silly Jesus: Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus (HGN) is the best representation of this. If HGN is present then impairment is present. HGN isn't an indicator of impairment, it IS the impairment. The onset for this is often below .08. I have observed it MANY times. I'm not sure how such a thing could possibly be some sort of slippery slope PR MADD/scientist conspiracy.

So what you're saying is, there's actually no need at all to legislate arbitrary BAC limits or do silly roadside alphabet tests or checkpoints: all we need do is look for telltale signs of drunk driving, pull over the suspect, use HGN to establish probable cause for a blood or breath test, and then book 'em, Danno!

And that will, as a side effect, get some of the people off the road who are impaired at .05 but don't currently suffer any meaningful consequences because they're not quite drunk enough to be drunk-drunk.

Sure sounds like a win-win to me! So we'll all get right on that, yeah?

Huh?

"all we need do is look for telltale signs of drunk driving, pull over the suspect, use HGN to establish probable cause for a blood or breath test, and then book 'em" -- This is more or less how a DUI works. Not sure what else you're attempting to say.

That both arbitrary BAC limits and roadside checkpoints are completely pointless. Or did I misread you as supporting existence and enforcement of BAC limits above?


Checkpoints are asinine, yes.

BAC limits are not arbitrary and are based upon many, many validation studies that show that a BAC of a certain level means impairment. Not sure why/how someone would be against that scientific finding...
 
2012-04-15 11:58:52 PM
This thread is full of farking fascists!

egregores.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-04-15 11:59:57 PM
By the way, the NHTSA classifies a fatality "alcohol related" if anybody in one of the vehicles involved in the accident has a BAC of .01 or higher.
 
2012-04-16 12:01:57 AM

slykens1: So instead of enforcing the law in an effective fashion which would result in the greater reduction of unnecessary death and injury the police choose to abuse the citizenry and put on PR stunts because someone who has a BAC over an arbitrary limit but is otherwise operating their vehicle safely within the requirements of the law might not get caught?


Deterrance. Checkpoints are intended to deter people from driving drunk so they won't get arrested and they won't be involved in accidents where some innocent person might get killed. They're used in conjunction with traditional methods of DUI enforcement.

And the BAC limit is not arbitrary. Ask any Toxicologist at what level he/she would consider a person incapable of driving safely. There have been many studies related to alcohol impairment and driving, and many have concurred that impairment begins in most people at levels below the .08 that most states use.
 
2012-04-16 12:06:52 AM

Eric The Pilot: Just pass around shots from these beauties @ closing time to everyone sober:

[smartahealth.com image 520x270]


breathalyzers don't work like that.
 
2012-04-16 12:08:59 AM
fredklein: And that is an example of how ANYTHING can be twisted.

You really shouldn't talk about anything being twisted, especially when you're creating strawman arguments and situations and then creating scenarios which fit into those straw principals to prove your point, no matter how absurd it is.

fredklein: Do you think skydiving should be illegal? After all, they might end up in the hospital, and either your taxes or your insurance premiums might go up.

Skydiving's pretty dangerous. However, that danger is mediated by the use of trained instructors and pilots which use equipment and aircraft that conform to FAA Part 91 certifications (which are federal law, by the way.), the use of multiple redundant safety systems which allow recovery from a main chute failure, the use of specialized suits and protective equipment - like helmets - and designated jump areas.

They also purchase and carry their own insurance by federal and state laws.

fredklein: In fact, that goes for any sport.

And sports injuries can be mitigated with protective equipment as well. See how that works? It's magic how trauma can be prevented from occuring while still enjoying something, and when it does occur, mitigated and reduced in severity by the use of protective equipment!

fredklein: In fact, that goes for the lazy slobs who sit at home (well, they can't do any sports now, can they?), and have heart attacks because they are out of shape.

In shape people have heart attacks too, Fred. In fact, the last MI I worked was a 39 year old weight lifter at a local gym. You might have an argument if MI wasn't dependant on so many factors - collateral circulation, genetics and the like.

fredklein: In the end, you can justify ANYTHING with that type of 'logic'.

Except that the slippery slope argument assumes no logical middle ground, and you've yet to prove that isn't the case.

fredklein: Correct.

So basically, you don't think that people should be legally required to use a simple piece of fabric which reduced the morbidity and mortality of injury from car wrecks from one of the leading causes of Death and Disability in the United States in the 1950s to almost 8th today? What about children and infants? Should they be required to use a seat belt? What makes them different than you? What about being in the car with a child or infant? Or other passengers? Should they be required to use one?

fredklein: I guess you never got up to the 'post-conventional' stages- "The post-conventional level, also known as the principled level, is marked by a growing realization that individuals are separate entities from society, and that the individual's own perspective may take precedence over society's view; individuals may disobey rules inconsistent with their own principles."

Except that if you're claiming to be making decisions on stage 6 of the Kohlburg scale, you're also taking into account the harm your actions will impose on others. You're not even doing that.
 
2012-04-16 12:10:32 AM

BronyMedic: fredklein: 170,000,000 people drink and drive each year.

[Citation Needed]


I apologize- I added one too many zeros. It's 17,000,000

http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2010/08/26/news/aa9drunks082610.t xt (new window)
"An estimated 17 million people have driven while drunk at least once on U.S. streets and highways in the course of a year, according to a government study released Wednesday.

A National Highway Traffic Safety Administration survey conducted in late 2008...
"

fredklein: The vast majority of drunk drives result in... absolutely nothing.

It's ok to break the law, because you won't get caught.


The point, which you evidently missed, was that making driving drunk illegal seeks to stop harm that almost never happens. 17,000,000 people drive drunk. 13,842 kill someone. That's .00081.

You make an action illegal because .0081 of the time, it causes death.

But cars cause ~37000 deaths a year,out of ~2,500,000. Which is 0.0149044.

Cars cause a higher percentage of all deaths than Drunk driver fatalities are of drunk drivers.
 
2012-04-16 12:11:09 AM

slykens1: I quoted my statement way above because I think you were missing the context of it - that being that CruiserTwelve states that DUI checkpoints are used to catch drivers who would not otherwise be caught - to which I asked why, if they are not otherwise driving unsafe, do we need a DUI checkpoint to catch them?


That's not quite what I said. Checkpoints have several purposes, one of which is to catch drunk drivers. However, the real purpose is to make a statement that the police are serious about arresting drunk drivers and are willing to expend resources for that purpose. If you consider the number of arrests alone as a means of measuring the success of a checkpoint, they wouldn't appear very efficient. However, the deterrent effect is the more important reason. If you pass by a checkpoint, you'll likely tell some friends and they'll tell some friends and pretty soon it will become the subject of a Fark thread and maybe when some guy is ready to drive home at closing time he'll think twice and take a cab.

Take those 20 cops and turn them loose on a DUI patrol. Not only will you avoid inconveniencing and abusing hundreds of people who are innocent, you'll actually have RAS for every stop and probably catch more people DUI anyway.

Something we do even more than checkpoints are "saturation patrols," where we allocate a certain number of cops to a specific area to do nothing but detect and arrest drunk drivers. They're very successful from an arrest standpoint, but you've never heard of them and they've never been the subject of a Fark thread so they have very little deterrent effect.
 
2012-04-16 12:12:51 AM
Wasting your breath, BronyMedic.
 
2012-04-16 12:13:05 AM
lewismarktwo: This thread is full of farking fascistsSith!

There. Fixed that for you. If you're going to pull a Star Wars reference, atleast do it right.

/SWTOR: Where the good guys are just as evil as the bad guys.
//Imperial Agent.
 
2012-04-16 12:14:37 AM

CruiserTwelve: Deterrance. Checkpoints are intended to deter people from driving drunk so they won't get arrested and they won't be involved in accidents where some innocent person might get killed. They're used in conjunction with traditional methods of DUI enforcement.


I would be curious to see a comparison in DUI rates between states where checkpoints are legal and where they are not. My gut feeling is that there is no difference.

And the BAC limit is not arbitrary. Ask any Toxicologist at what level he/she would consider a person incapable of driving safely. There have been many studies related to alcohol impairment and driving, and many have concurred that impairment begins in most people at levels below the .08 that most states use.

When I say arbitrary I don't mean it as a dig to the validity of it. It's probably the wrong word. I think of it like the speed limit - the number has to be set to something and it's usually the "lowest common denominator" that we end up with.
 
2012-04-16 12:19:52 AM

CruiserTwelve: If you pass by a checkpoint, you'll likely tell some friends and they'll tell some friends and pretty soon it will become the subject of a Fark thread and maybe when some guy is ready to drive home at closing time he'll think twice and take a cab.


For what it's worth, police DUI checkpoints do have this effect on me. I'm not scared of a random cop pulling me over for a breathalyzer - I'm scared of the DUI trap (affectionately known as the "booze bus" in Australia).

Let's face it, opinions in a Fark thread on DUI checkpoints are always in the extreme. They're just like motorcycle helmet law threads. Some people live in semi-rural areas where statistically they're less likely to get in an accident with another, and/or where DUI is not so frowned upon. Some people are convinced they are ok when driving drunk - it's those other drunk drivers that are the problem. Some people just hate the cops and think they will abuse their authority.
 
2012-04-16 12:19:57 AM
abagond.files.wordpress.com

Since some of you seem to love this chart, and place great importance upon a persons perceived placement on this chart, then I submit that I am at level 6 here on this issue. Principal. The principal being that the law is unjust, and it is my principled duty to disobey it. Arresting people for the pre-crime of DUI when they did nothing observably wrong in the first place.
 
2012-04-16 12:24:38 AM
spamdog: Wasting your breath, BronyMedic.

I know. It's like arguing with a child.

"BUT BUT WHAT IF"

fredklein: I apologize- I added one too many zeros. It's 17,000,000

http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2010/08/26/news/aa9drunks082610.t xt (new window)
"An estimated 17 million people have driven while drunk at least once on U.S. streets and highways in the course of a year, according to a government study released Wednesday.

A National Highway Traffic Safety Administration survey conducted in late 2008..."


Oh. Good. I actually pulled the study that news article was based on.

http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/nti/pdf/811342.pdf

Only 22% of those mentioned as driving after consuming alcohol did so within 2 hours of consuming a drink.

In 2008, 11,773 persons died in motor vehicle crashes in the United States involving at least one
driver with a BAC (Blood Alcohol Concentration) of .08 or higher.
1 This number represents 32%
of all motor vehicle crash fatalities for that year, an average of one fatality every 45 minutes
where a driver was above the legal limit for alcohol. Traffic crashes cost society more than $230
billion each year.
2 Despite progress since the 1980s in reducing alcohol-related fatalities, they
remain unacceptably high.
Page 1, NHTSA Survey Findings

Forty-four percent of all past-year drivers who drink avoided driving a motor vehicle at least once
because they felt they may have drunk too much to drive safely. Males (50%) were more likely
than females (38%) to report having deliberately avoided driving when they thought they had too
much to drink. Avoidance of driving after drinking too much was most common among drivers
under age 25, and then decreased steadily with age
Page 17

Of those who avoided driving after drinking too much, 28% did so by riding with a designated
driver while another 26% rode with another driver at the drinking location. About 11% stayed
the night to avoid driving after drinking. Staying overnight was the tactic used most frequently
by those under age 21 (30%).
- Page 17 (HARD TO DO, RITE FRED?)

Three in four (75%) persons of driving age endorsed weekly or monthly sobriety checkpoints.
Only 6% believed that sobriety checkpoints should not be used at all.

It would take an average 170-pound male more than four drinks within a 2-hour period to reach a
BAC level of .08 (the point at which it is illegal per se to drive), while it would take more than
three drinks in 2 hours for an average 137-pound female to reach a .08 BAC level. The data
suggested underestimation by the public in the perceived amount of alcohol it would take to reach
the legal limit as 31% of males believed it would take four or more beers and 40% of females
believed it would take three or more beers.
- Page 24.

Let's see what the CDC has to say, though.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6039a4.htm?s_cid=mm6039a4_ w

In 2010, 1.8% of respondents reported at least one episode of alcohol-impaired driving in the past 30 days. These four million adults reported an estimated 112,116,000 episodes of alcohol-impaired driving in the United States for the year. This is the lowest percentage of drinking drivers and lowest number of episodes reported since 1993, the first year for which published national BRFSS estimates are available. Since the peak in 2006, alcohol-impaired driving episodes have declined 30%, from 161 million to 112 million (Figure 1). Sixty percent of those who reported driving while impaired indicated one episode in the past 30 days; however, some respondents reported that they drove while impaired daily. Men accounted for 81% of 2010 alcohol-impaired driving episodes. Young men aged 21--34 years, who represented 11% of the U.S. adult population, reported 32% of all 2010 episodes.

Binge drinking was strongly associated with alcohol-impaired driving; 85% of all alcohol-impaired driving episodes were reported by persons who also reported binge drinking. Frequent binge drinkers contributed disproportionately to the alcohol-impaired driving rates; the 4.5% of the adult population who reported binge drinking ≥4 times per month accounted for 55% of all alcohol-impaired driving episodes (Table 1).

Two thirds of all fatalities in alcohol-impaired driving crashes in the United States occur among alcohol-impaired drivers themselves (1). In 2009, seatbelt status was known for 93% of fatally injured alcohol-impaired passenger vehicle drivers; of those drivers, 72% were unbelted. In the states with secondary seatbelt laws, 81% of fatally injured alcohol-impaired passenger vehicle drivers were unbelted (Tonja Lindsey, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, personal communication, 2011). In this report, always using seatbelts was 18 percentage points higher among alcohol-impaired drivers in states with primary seatbelt laws compared with those from states with secondary laws. This finding is important because seatbelts are 48%--61% effective in preventing driver fatalities in crashes (11).

 
2012-04-16 12:29:38 AM
Maul555: [abagond.files.wordpress.com image 512x506]

Since some of you seem to love this chart, and place great importance upon a persons perceived placement on this chart, then I submit that I am at level 6 here on this issue. Principal. The principal being that the law is unjust, and it is my principled duty to disobey it. Arresting people for the pre-crime of DUI when they did nothing observably wrong in the first place.


Except that when placing yourself on Stage 6 of the Kohlburg scale, you also think of the harm your actions will have to others as well as your self. It's a weighted decision.

You're actually making a decision, on your own text, based on the fact that you feel entitled to break the law, and because you didn't get observed breaking it, everything is okie-doki-loki. That's Stage II morality at work.
 
2012-04-16 12:30:50 AM

fredklein: firefly212: The problem is that your logic only stops their dangerous behavior once other people are hurt or dead.

Cops arrest you for burglary AFTER you break into a home.
Cops arrest you for assault AFTER you hit someone.
Cops arrest you for smuggling AFTER you smuggle.
Cops ticket you for breaking the speed limit AFTER you speed.

See the point?

It is only possible to arrest someone for something they have already done. (Thus the issue people have with arresting someone for 'resisting arrest'.)

By making the crime not 'causing the harm', but rather 'increasing the possibility that harm might be caused', you allow a kind of 'pre-crime' mentality. You see yourselves as 'preventing crime', but you're really just punishing people for what MIGHT happen.

.. sometimes safety means preventing the obviously preventable injuries to innocent people.

That presupposes that the injury will happen. Which is where you err. 170,000,000 people drink and drive each year. There are 13,846 drunk driving fatalities. You do the math. The vast majority of drunk drives result in... absolutely nothing.


They arrest you for reckless endangerment when you endanger kids, not after you're done killing them.
They arrest you for attempted murder even if your attempt is woefully misguided and results in no injury.
They arrest you for discharging firearms within city limits even if you didn't hit anyone.

See the point?

When you do stupid things that substantially increase the likelihood of death for other people, nobody gives a crap about how successful your idiocy was in killing others, the act itself was the crime, regardless of the consequence.
 
2012-04-16 12:31:52 AM

BronyMedic: So basically, you don't think that people should be legally required to use a simple piece of fabric which reduced the morbidity and mortality of injury from car wrecks from one of the leading causes of Death and Disability in the United States in the 1950s to almost 8th today? What about children and infants? Should they be required to use a seat belt? What makes them different than you? What about being in the car with a child or infant? Or other passengers? Should they be required to use one?


Correct. I don't think that people should be legally required to use seat-belts. Or to wear helmets. Or cover their children in bubble-wrap, Or keep their kids in a plastic bubble. Or one of a trillion other things that might reduce the risk of injury or death.

Except that if you're claiming to be making decisions on stage 6 of the Kohlburg scale, you're also taking into account the harm your actions will impose on others. You're not even doing that.

There is no harm my actions "will" impose on others. That is what you seem to not understand- the difference between something that "will" happen, and something that "may" happen. And I have made it clear that the person should be held fully responsible if it does happen.

Drunk driving, per se, doesn't harm or kill anyone.
Drunk driving increases the risk of harm or death by a miniscule amount. So do a lot of actions. Yet, you do not seem concerned by these other actions, even if they increase the risk by an amount greater than Drunk driving does.


If I roll a die, with the intention to slap you if it comes up '1', have I harmed you? No- not until and unless it actually comes up '1' and I actually slap you. You seek to make the action of rolling the die itself illegal because of the 1/6th possibility that it may result in me harming you.

Except it's actually a 1/123 chance.
 
2012-04-16 12:35:13 AM

BronyMedic: So you're saying the ability to operate a motor vehicle is a basic human right guarenteed by the United States Constitution? Really?

I must have missed that when I read the Privledges and Immunities clause of Article IV. Is that the mysterious 31st Amendment I keep hearing so much about?


That's our problem exactly. Too many bootlickers think the government grants rights.
 
2012-04-16 12:38:17 AM

fredklein: BronyMedic: fredklein: 170,000,000 people drink and drive each year.

[Citation Needed]

I apologize- I added one too many zeros. It's 17,000,000

http://www.nhregister.com/articles/2010/08/26/news/aa9drunks082610.t xt (new window)
"An estimated 17 million people have driven while drunk at least once on U.S. streets and highways in the course of a year, according to a government study released Wednesday.

A National Highway Traffic Safety Administration survey conducted in late 2008..."

fredklein: The vast majority of drunk drives result in... absolutely nothing.

It's ok to break the law, because you won't get caught.

The point, which you evidently missed, was that making driving drunk illegal seeks to stop harm that almost never happens. 17,000,000 people drive drunk. 13,842 kill someone. That's .00081.

You make an action illegal because .0081 of the time, it causes death.

But cars cause ~37000 deaths a year,out of ~2,500,000. Which is 0.0149044.

Cars cause a higher percentage of all deaths than Drunk driver fatalities are of drunk drivers.


Do non-fatal injuries count too? Nah, what's a couple hundred thousand people whose lives are ruined... they're alive, right?

Fewer than a half a percent of people convicted of attempted murder are also convicted of murder (I guess some tried to kill two people)... does this mean we don't need laws against attempted murder, since your consequence-based system says we only need to punish them once someone else is dead?
 
2012-04-16 12:38:28 AM

fredklein: I don't think that people should be legally required to use seat-belts. Or to wear helmets.


See.
I farkin' called it.
 
2012-04-16 12:41:09 AM

BronyMedic: Maul555: [abagond.files.wordpress.com image 512x506]

Since some of you seem to love this chart, and place great importance upon a persons perceived placement on this chart, then I submit that I am at level 6 here on this issue. Principal. The principal being that the law is unjust, and it is my principled duty to disobey it. Arresting people for the pre-crime of DUI when they did nothing observably wrong in the first place.

Except that when placing yourself on Stage 6 of the Kohlburg scale, you also think of the harm your actions will have to others as well as your self. It's a weighted decision.

You're actually making a decision, on your own text, based on the fact that you feel entitled to break the law, and because you didn't get observed breaking it, everything is okie-doki-loki. That's Stage II morality at work.


fwiw, there is a little too much "pre-crime" concept in DUI... the idea that they can arrest a person sleeping it off in a car with the engine off, a person in the backseat, or a person walking towards a car for DUI is just going a little too far. I'm not at all on board with his "no consequence, no crime" mentality... but there's something inherently farked up about arresting people sleeping it off in the passenger seat and trying to do the right thing by not driving.
 
2012-04-16 12:43:31 AM
BronyMedic: [bunch of facts that aren't in dispute]

I don't see your point.
 
2012-04-16 12:44:18 AM

spamdog: fredklein: I don't think that people should be legally required to use seat-belts. Or to wear helmets.

See.
I farkin' called it.


I'm ok with the concept... if you put up a 250k medical bond so the taxpayers know they wont be on the hook for your medical bills, then have at riding with no helmet or not wearing a seatbelt... that kind of stupid doesn't put other people in danger, so as long as we aren't on the hook for the bill for people's stupidity, I say let them have at it. Alternately, if you want to buy some sort of special insurance that will cover your medical bills in full should you get in a wreck while wearing no seat belt and no helmet, even if you are at fault, then go for it.
 
2012-04-16 12:45:27 AM

Giltric: Don't drink and drive.

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


WRONG!

/I drink and drive and don't mind the stops a bit.
 
2012-04-16 12:50:13 AM
Came here to say this: BronyMedic: So you're saying the ability to operate a motor vehicle is a basic human right guarenteed by the United States Constitution? Really?

I must have missed that when I read the Privledges and Immunities clause of Article IV. Is that the mysterious 31st Amendment I keep hearing so much about?

That's our problem exactly. Too many bootlickers think the government grants rights.Herr Derp Constitutional Right to operate a motor vehicle.


Yeah, you keep right on thinking that, skippy.

fredklein: Correct. I don't think that people should be legally required to use seat-belts. Or to wear helmets. Or cover their children in bubble-wrap, Or keep their kids in a plastic bubble. Or one of a trillion other things that might reduce the risk of injury or death.

Except that by not wearing a seatbelt in a vehicle, you directly endanger everyone you're riding with by becoming a moving projectile in the event anything happens. In addition, Children and infants can't choose to wear a seat belt or not. They are not considered able to make an informed decision, and they become nice little projectiles even with a hard stop.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4Cvg_j7hsE&feature=related

/love the British's TV. They have much better commercials.

fredklein: There is no harm my actions "will" impose on others. That is what you seem to not understand- the difference between something that "will" happen, and something that "may" happen. And I have made it clear that the person should be held fully responsible if it does happen.

Y-

You know what. You're just going to keep begging the question. That's really all this argument you have is based on, "Well, nothing bad happened last time, so I can keep doing the same thing."

So, you know what? I'm cool with you living your life like this. This is what I want you to do: Sign away all federal and state benefits in the event an injury occurs, including Medicare and State Medicaid - just in case you do survive. Sign away any belongings you have to anyone who is harmed by your actions and selfishness, and carry insurance that is willing to cover any damage to life or property you do. Sign to be an organ donor and to donate your body to medical science. Sign a DNR order.

If you're willing to do that, I'm ok with the things you've proposed.

Otherwise, I'm thinking you're a dithering, faux-libertarian idiot. (At least Libertarians are concerned with the damage their actions impose on others.)

fredklein: Drunk driving, per se, doesn't harm or kill anyone.
Drunk driving increases the risk of harm or death by a miniscule amount. So do a lot of actions. Yet, you do not seem concerned by these other actions, even if they increase the risk by an amount greater than Drunk driving does.


Oh, no. No. It just greatly increases those chances. But, that's ok.

Oh, really? I'm not. Wierd how I've mentioned those other issues.

Very wierd.

It's interesting how not drinking and driving would prevent a very sizable portion of traffic fatalities from occuring, and reduce a very subtantial amount of cost to society while only inconveinencing you to drink at home, or to limit your intake, and would be a realistic and easily implemented preventative measure.

But, that's bad. We can't do that. No. If we do that, we have to do something completely unrealistic and absurd - like ban ALL cars.

fredklein: If I roll a die, with the intention to slap you if it comes up '1', have I harmed you?

Except that negilgent indifference is not a defense for DUI. You knew the risk of harm your actions could cause, and how your willing actions directly increased that risk despite it being easily mitigatable, and you made the conscientious decision to do so anyway.

fredklein: Except it's actually a 1/123 chance.

Yeah. We don't need to prevent injury. I mean, it's not like it-

Oh, God. I can't even mock you like that. The stupid, it burns.
 
2012-04-16 12:53:05 AM

firefly212: They arrest you for reckless endangerment when you endanger kids, not after you're done killing them.
They arrest you for attempted murder even if your attempt is woefully misguided and results in no injury.
They arrest you for discharging firearms within city limits even if you didn't hit anyone.

See the point?


Yes- all those are also 'pre-crime' type laws. Except 'attempted murder'. Because you actually attempted it.

When you do stupid things that substantially increase the likelihood of death for other people,

...which drunk driving does not. 17,000,000 drunk drives, 13,842 deaths. That's .0081. Would you consider a pay raise of .0081 a "substantial" raise? A raise, yes, but not substantial.

the act itself was the crime, regardless of the consequence.

The act itself was illegal, yes. (Lots of things are illegal. In Alabama, Dominoes may not be played on Sunday.) However, the act itself hurt no one. Should an act that hurts no one be illegal?
 
2012-04-16 12:55:27 AM
fredklein: ...which drunk driving does not. 17,000,000 drunk drives, 13,842 deaths. That's .0081. Would you consider a pay raise of .0081 a "substantial" raise? A raise, yes, but not substantial.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20840189

CONCLUSIONS: In the greater Athens region, almost a third of motor vehicle collision-related fatalities involved alcohol, illicit drugs or both. Individuals screened positive for alcohol or drugs were 2.6 times more likely to die before hospital admission than those with a negative toxicology screen, despite comparable injury severity. Specific evidence-based management protocols and reassessment of surveillance are required.
 
2012-04-16 12:55:28 AM

firefly212: Do non-fatal injuries count too? Nah, what's a couple hundred thousand people whose lives are ruined... they're alive, right?


I was keeping it simple by sticking to deaths. The same logic applies, regardless.

Fewer than a half a percent of people convicted of attempted murder are also convicted of murder (I guess some tried to kill two people)... does this mean we don't need laws against attempted murder, since your consequence-based system says we only need to punish them once someone else is dead?

I've already answered re.: attempted murder.
 
2012-04-16 12:57:48 AM
fredklein: I was keeping it simple by sticking to deaths. The same logic applies, regardless.

Actually, no, it doesn't. A live victim, at the end of the day, will cost society more in terms of emotional and physical terms, than a dead one.

It's an easily mitigatable and substantial risk factor in injury and fatality that can be eliminated with little to no inconvience to anyone. In addition, it's disproportionate burdon on society in terms of emotional, monitary, and manpower costs demands that it be addressed.
 
2012-04-16 01:02:46 AM

fredklein: firefly212: They arrest you for reckless endangerment when you endanger kids, not after you're done killing them.
They arrest you for attempted murder even if your attempt is woefully misguided and results in no injury.
They arrest you for discharging firearms within city limits even if you didn't hit anyone.

See the point?

Yes- all those are also 'pre-crime' type laws. Except 'attempted murder'. Because you actually attempted it.

When you do stupid things that substantially increase the likelihood of death for other people,

...which drunk driving does not. 17,000,000 drunk drives, 13,842 deaths. That's .0081. Would you consider a pay raise of .0081 a "substantial" raise? A raise, yes, but not substantial.

the act itself was the crime, regardless of the consequence.

The act itself was illegal, yes. (Lots of things are illegal. In Alabama, Dominoes may not be played on Sunday.) However, the act itself hurt no one. Should an act that hurts no one be illegal?


In my great state of Maryland, it is illegal to teach bears to drive automobiles. Yes, even if it has not yet hurt anyone, I'm ok with it being illegal. It's not that I'm out to stomp on your good time, it's that I am all too happy for you to have a great time, provided it does not hinder anyone else from having their good time... when you engage in courses of action likely to cause injury, even if you have not yet caused injury, you have, through your action, forced other people into defending their own safety instead of being able to enjoy themselves freely. If you want to purchase a large piece of land and get absolutely ripped and drive around it, have at it... but don't whine about how the roads we all have to pay for should be used to indulge you at the peril of everyone else. You are not entitled to the road, it is not yours, it is ours... and the joy of social ownership is that the broader owners (society) can dictate the use of the things they have bought... they don't want to subsidize your ability to put everyone else at risk, so quit crying about how other people don't pay enough for your bad habits... if you'd like to drink and drive, buy a place big enough to do it on your own.
 
2012-04-16 01:05:42 AM

fredklein: firefly212: Do non-fatal injuries count too? Nah, what's a couple hundred thousand people whose lives are ruined... they're alive, right?

I was keeping it simple by sticking to deaths. The same logic applies, regardless.



The same logic of you grossly underestimating the impact of drunk drivers through non-representative data samples indicating only a tiny fraction of things you believe to be the same. That just doesn't seem like honest logic at all, more like deception when trying to construct a rationalization.

/side note, I should have said my home state of MD, I am currently residing in CO, land of breweries, nature, and more pot than Mexico.
 
2012-04-16 01:05:42 AM

Maul555: [abagond.files.wordpress.com image 512x506]

Since some of you seem to love this chart, and place great importance upon a persons perceived placement on this chart, then I submit that I am at level 6 here on this issue. Principal. The principal being that the law is unjust, and it is my principled duty to disobey it. Arresting people for the pre-crime of DUI when they did nothing observably wrong in the first place.


What do you mean? They drove drunk. Driving is a priveledge, not a right, and you agreed not to drive drunk. You broke both the principle and the letter of the law by driving drunk so unless you want to ride a bike, don't do it.
 
2012-04-16 01:06:33 AM

Maul555: [abagond.files.wordpress.com image 512x506]

Since some of you seem to love this chart, and place great importance upon a persons perceived placement on this chart, then I submit that I am at level 6 here on this issue. Principal. The principal being that the law is unjust, and it is my principled duty to disobey it. Arresting people for the pre-crime of DUI when they did nothing observably wrong in the first place.


If I love this chart enough, will I get a nice collar and some leather cuffs?
 
2012-04-16 01:08:16 AM
firefly212: /side note, I should have said my home state of MD, I am currently residing in CO, land of breweries, nature, and more pot than Mexico.

Mmmm. Legal reefer.

firefly212: The same logic of you grossly underestimating the impact of drunk drivers through non-representative data samples indicating only a tiny fraction of things you believe to be the same. That just doesn't seem like honest logic at all, more like deception when trying to construct a rationalization.

Fred got his merit badge in Strawman Construction. I hear that he's a prized contractor when corn-growing season comes around.
 
2012-04-16 01:12:25 AM

BronyMedic: Except that by not wearing a seatbelt in a vehicle, you directly endanger everyone you're riding with by becoming a moving projectile in the event anything happens.


That's bullshiat. There is no possibility that I, sitting in a bucket seat with a steering wheel a couple of inches over my legs, will be bouncing around the cabin.

In addition, Children and infants can't choose to wear a seat belt or not. They are not considered able to make an informed decision,

Therefore, the government must makes laws 'for their own good'. Right?

That's really all this argument you have is based on, "Well, nothing bad happened last time, so I can keep doing the same thing."


Not at all. My argument is 'The possibility is low anything will happen, so I choose to take the risk, and if I'm wrong, the responsibility."

It just greatly increases those chances.

I'm shown the math. You can't just say 'nuh-uh' without any evidence.

It's interesting how not drinking and driving would prevent a very sizable portion of traffic fatalities from occuring, and reduce a very subtantial amount of cost to society while only inconveinencing you to drink at home, or to limit your intake, and would be a realistic and easily implemented preventative measure.

It's interesting how not driving would prevent 100% of traffic fatalities from occurring, and reduce a very substantial amount of cost to society while only inconveniencing you to stay at home, or to limit your travels to walking distance, and would be a easily implemented preventative measure.

You knew the risk of harm your actions could cause, and how your willing actions directly increased that risk despite it being easily mitigatable, and you made the conscientious decision to do so anyway.

And if (IF) I harm someone, All this will be taken into account. If I harm no one, there's no reason to take it into account.

Yeah. We don't need to prevent injury. I mean, it's not like it-

I'll say this ONE LAST TIME. (Sorry for yelling, but I'm really getting sick of explaining it over and over)

You're not "preventing injury". There is no injury to prevent. There's just the slightly increased possibility of an injury.

If you don't understand that, this discussion is pointless. You'll keep prattling on about stopping harm, when there's no actual harm, just an increase to a possibility of harm.
 
2012-04-16 01:19:26 AM

Mugato: Nem Wan: Sobriety checkpoints are illegal in 12 states where you have to have a reason to stop somebody that's better than, "we're going to stop everybody going this way".

I don't know how it's legal anywhere.


Then you are ignorant.
 
2012-04-16 01:22:05 AM

firefly212: when you engage in courses of action likely to cause injury,


::sigh:: I've addressed this already. 17,000,000 drunk drives, 13,842 deaths. That's 0.0081. Something with a 0.0081 chance of happening is NOT "likely".

even if you have not yet caused injury, you have, through your action, forced other people into defending their own safety instead of being able to enjoy themselves freely.

Same can be said for many things. You drive to work today? You have, through your action, forced other people into defending their own safety instead of being able to enjoy themselves freely. You see, they couldn't drive the way they wanted because you and your car were there.

the broader owners (society) can dictate the use of the things they have bought

So, your argument comes down to 'Might Makes Right'.

How enlightened.

--

I'm off. Have fun (without increasing the possibility of any harm coming to anyone, anywhere, ever).
 
2012-04-16 01:23:34 AM

Weaver95: Evelyn McKee, manager of the area chapter of Mothers Against Drunk Drivers, looked on late Friday as officers made contact with drivers. She said getting even one intoxicated person off the road makes a difference.

MADD are fanatics.


Free Radicals (new window).
 
2012-04-16 01:25:51 AM
fredklein: That's bullshiat. There is no possibility that I, sitting in a bucket seat with a steering wheel a couple of inches over my legs, will be bouncing around the cabin.

Denial is amazing. You've never ceased to amaze me with your brilliant displays of Dunning-Kruger, Fredklein. I salute you!

I guess up and over and down and under injuries are lies by big Government too.

fredklein: Therefore, the government must makes laws 'for their own good'. Right?

Clearly you're not interested in what's best for them. Or what's going to get them to their next birthday.

fredklein: Not at all. My argument is 'The possibility is low anything will happen, so I choose to take the risk, and if I'm wrong, the responsibility."

Which translates into: fark everyone else. It's all about me. A small inconveinence is not worth the safety of others!

You're the kind of person that makes me glad we do have laws you consider "pre-crime."

fredklein: It's interesting how not driving would prevent 100% of traffic fatalities from occurring, and reduce a very substantial amount of cost to society while only inconveniencing you to stay at home, or to limit your travels to walking distance, and would be a easily implemented preventative measure.

And yet the only argument you have to resort to is an absurd and pedantic statement of hyperbole. Which, come to think of it, is pretty typical of our debates, Fred. It's like you have no other argument to stand on, here.

fredklein: And if (IF) I harm someone, All this will be taken into account. If I harm no one, there's no reason to take it into account.

It's interesting how you ignored my concession. Are you willing to A) Sign away all State, Federal, and Local benefits that will cover you and your family in the event you do suffer an accident due to preventable factors you chose to ignore - which includes Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, Disability, Unemployment, SNAP/EBT, and anything else I forgot, B) Sign a DNR order, C) Agree to donate your body to science and donate your viable orgins upon declaration of brain death D) pay and carry your own insurance policies to provide for your care, and the care of others that you willfully harmed through your neglect E) Sign stating you will not use any methods or modes of travel which require you to abide by State, Federal, or Local statutes for the prevention of injury.

Because then, I'm ok with you being a selfish prick. Because really, at that point, you've given up all social contract obligations.

fredklein: I'm shown the math. You can't just say 'nuh-uh' without any evidence.

Except that I've posted evidence of the disproportionate amount of risk that occurs with alcohol and traumatic injury, from occurance and outcome, and you've chosen to ignore that evidence like a toddler screaming "Nu-uh, I can't hear you."

fredklein: You're not "preventing injury". There is no injury to prevent. There's just the slightly increased possibility of an injury.

If you don't understand that, this discussion is pointless. You'll keep prattling on about stopping harm, when there's no actual harm, just an increase to a possibility of harm.


So, what you're saying is, that you took an action which greatly increased the likelyhood of harm occuring, willingly, but it all works out in the end because no one got hurt that time.

Got it. Thanks, Fred!
 
2012-04-16 01:50:00 AM

BronyMedic: Maul555: [abagond.files.wordpress.com image 512x506]

Since some of you seem to love this chart, and place great importance upon a persons perceived placement on this chart, then I submit that I am at level 6 here on this issue. Principal. The principal being that the law is unjust, and it is my principled duty to disobey it. Arresting people for the pre-crime of DUI when they did nothing observably wrong in the first place.

Except that when placing yourself on Stage 6 of the Kohlburg scale, you also think of the harm your actions will have to others as well as your self. It's a weighted decision.

You're actually making a decision, on your own text, based on the fact that you feel entitled to break the law, and because you didn't get observed breaking it, everything is okie-doki-loki. That's Stage II morality at work.


BronyMedic: Maul555: [abagond.files.wordpress.com image 512x506]

Since some of you seem to love this chart, and place great importance upon a persons perceived placement on this chart, then I submit that I am at level 6 here on this issue. Principal. The principal being that the law is unjust, and it is my principled duty to disobey it. Arresting people for the pre-crime of DUI when they did nothing observably wrong in the first place.

Except that when placing yourself on Stage 6 of the Kohlburg scale, you also think of the harm your actions will have to others as well as your self. It's a weighted decision.

You're actually making a decision, on your own text, based on the fact that you feel entitled to break the law, and because you didn't get observed breaking it, everything is okie-doki-loki. That's Stage II morality at work.


And here we go... Anyone can argue that any decision is anywhere on that scale just by changing the perceived motives... You don't actually have a clue where any of us are on that scale. You are, however, likely assuming that your position is morally superior, and therefore, I must be lower on the scale. I call that arrogance. I also maintain that I am taking a principled stand... Breaking bad laws is good.
 
2012-04-16 01:56:09 AM

lewismarktwo: This thread is full of farking fascists!

[egregores.files.wordpress.com image 600x750]


Oh yeah, because trying to cut down on drunk driving and drunk driving related accidents and deaths is one of the key tenets of facism.
 
2012-04-16 01:58:38 AM

Maul555: [abagond.files.wordpress.com image 512x506]

Since some of you seem to love this chart, and place great importance upon a persons perceived placement on this chart, then I submit that I am at level 6 here on this issue. Principal. The principal being that the law is unjust, and it is my principled duty to disobey it. Arresting people for the pre-crime of DUI when they did nothing observably wrong in the first place.


Pre-crim of DUI? What the fark is that? Arresting people who they think will get drunk later that night?

As for doing nothing observably wrong in the first place, I guess that by that philosophy it is OK to commit any and all crimes so long as no one sees you, right?
 
2012-04-16 02:05:50 AM

Mock26: Maul555: [abagond.files.wordpress.com image 512x506]

Since some of you seem to love this chart, and place great importance upon a persons perceived placement on this chart, then I submit that I am at level 6 here on this issue. Principal. The principal being that the law is unjust, and it is my principled duty to disobey it. Arresting people for the pre-crime of DUI when they did nothing observably wrong in the first place.

Pre-crim of DUI? What the fark is that? Arresting people who they think will get drunk later that night?

As for doing nothing observably wrong in the first place, I guess that by that philosophy it is OK to commit any and all crimes so long as no one sees you, right?


Pre-crime of DUI.... The laws making operation of a motor vehicle while under the influence of a mind-altering substance illegal, that where put into place based on the assumption that drivers under the influence will commit crimes in the future. Basically, Arresting and then royally screwing over anyone who is found to be "under the influence", for that crime alone, and not because they where found to be driving unsafely.
--
your 2nd question: Any crimes that are victimless, yes, that should be ok. Obviously I am not advocating that anyone do anything they like as long as they don't get caught. I am talking about things that are illegal, that have no impact on anyone but the "offender"... I lump DUI laws into this category.
 
2012-04-16 02:07:39 AM

firefly212: Fewer than a half a percent of people convicted of attempted murder are also convicted of murder (I guess some tried to kill two people)... does this mean we don't need laws against attempted murder, since your consequence-based system says we only need to punish them once someone else is dead?


You are ignoring "intent". Attempted murder necessarily assumes intent to kill. Drunk driving does not assume intent to harm.

firefly212: if you put up a 250k medical bond so the taxpayers know they wont be on the hook for your medical bills, then have at riding with no helmet or not wearing a seatbelt...


Why would you limit this absurd position to only those who ride without safety; shouldnt those who ride with those safety measure also be just as financially liable?


What a lot of drunk driving law opponents fail to realize is that they are blindly irrational in their views; in that they dont apply their reasoning to all driving situations -just drunk driving. Would those opponents also support checkpoints for "distracted drivers". Would they support testing for driving competence as they support testing for BAC?
 
2012-04-16 02:25:14 AM

Mock26: lewismarktwo: This thread is full of farking fascists!

[egregores.files.wordpress.com image 600x750]

Oh yeah, because trying to cut down on drunk driving and drunk driving related accidents and deaths is one of the key tenets of facism.


Once again, that's not what these checkpoints are about. Active patrolling is more effective at catching problem drivers. This is about revenue. Why catch just the really dangerous drunks when you can slap a DUI on a bunch of grown adults with .09 bac, all while saving on fuel costs? Plus, as a handy bonus, it pokes holes in the freedom to travel securely. Who ever thought that was important anyway?
 
2012-04-16 02:44:26 AM
I only drink methanol so I'll be fine!
 
2012-04-16 02:55:58 AM

rocketpants: Finger51: rocketpants: portscanner: rocketpants: This is why I've installed a series of infrared LEDs in my car on rotating frequencies and duty cycles.

And what does that do?

It sends random signals to minivan DVD players as I drive by.

Also the alcohol-detecting flashlight uses an infrared sensor.

LOL. +1 for making shiat up!


Actually I didn't make it up. I just thought they were using another type of ethanol sensor.


wow. did not know that. I retract my statement.

So you have a series of infrared LEDs in your car on rotating frequencies and duty cycles so that you can uh, ...[blinks] ...

drive drunk?

That's great champ! I know you've been wanting that!
 
Displayed 50 of 738 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report