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.

(Scotsman)   Scotland may ban cars capable of exceeding speed limits   (scotsman.com) divider line 150
    More: PSA, Scotland, speed limits  
•       •       •

8501 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Jul 2012 at 7:07 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-08 10:52:36 PM
I hope this gets implemented, costs significantly more than anybody had anticipated, proves to change very little, and gets many people sacked.
 
2012-07-08 10:55:19 PM

tetsoushima: I hope this gets implemented, costs significantly more than anybody had anticipated, proves to change very little, and gets many people sacked.


In government work? The tides will reverse before that happens.
 
2012-07-08 10:57:51 PM
Yeah, for those hard of reading, this was a call by a group of senior Police, now the Scottish Parliament is getting power over road-laws.

In other words, this is them doing a "say something so absolutely unfeasibly outrageous, our second, 'moderate' proposal doesn't look anywhere near as bad.".

They're not seriously calling for it, and even if they did, the parliament will totally ignore them because:
a) It'd cost millions, and we're all up against the wall at the moment.
b) It'd piss off every motorist in Scotland (and some of them vote).
c) It'd piss off every car-manufacturer in Europe (and some of them still have money, and hence, power).
d) It wouldn't farking work. Unworkable, and laughably so.
e) It'd piss off every motorist in Scotland. THEY'D farkING CRUCIFY THE GOVERNMENT!

Seriously people, might as well suggest a tax on masturbation or something, it'd piss off that many people.
 
2012-07-08 10:58:59 PM

stealthd: I'm okay with this.

I propose that it not stop your car or govern the speed, but that every time you speed for a set amount of time, like 5 seconds, it sends you a ticket.

Speeding kills people. Period.

If you can't pass without speeding, you are passing dangerously.
If you can't get where you're going without speeding, you didn't leave enough time to get there.
There is NO situation where increasing the vectors involved improves matters.

/IAPD trained, for what it's worth


So when they raise speed limits, per your logic, it's still dangerous to drive above the previous limit, as you say its dangerous if you need to go faster than that.
 
2012-07-08 11:00:33 PM
In other words, y'all got trolled by a journo making a good headline out of a crap press-release from ASPS.
 
2012-07-08 11:00:54 PM

Mr. Potatoass: What's all this then, guvnah?


Well, guvnah, it's all about installing guvnah's in cars, which most production cars have anyway? Confused.

\drtfa
 
2012-07-08 11:07:26 PM
keep yer lil brats home to go to school on the net. problem solved. idiots.
 
2012-07-08 11:07:57 PM

CruJones: stealthd: I'm okay with this.

I propose that it not stop your car or govern the speed, but that every time you speed for a set amount of time, like 5 seconds, it sends you a ticket.

Speeding kills people. Period.

If you can't pass without speeding, you are passing dangerously.
If you can't get where you're going without speeding, you didn't leave enough time to get there.
There is NO situation where increasing the vectors involved improves matters.

/IAPD trained, for what it's worth

So when they raise speed limits, per your logic, it's still dangerous to drive above the previous limit, as you say its dangerous if you need to go faster than that.


The increased danger from speed is usually offset by roadway improvements such as widened roads and improved grading. Those make it safer to go faster.
 
2012-07-08 11:20:41 PM
I didn't know there were actually any cars in Scotland that were capable of exceeding a highway speed limit.
 
2012-07-08 11:24:05 PM

Great Janitor: Cars already have a black box in them. That Progressive Snapshot device you see advertised plugs into that black box. What Progressive does is it records speed, acceleration, is your seat belt worn, and any other data that black box records. The black box is only used in police investigations in the event of a fatal car wreck.


Actually, they pull data and adjust your rate with what they learn about your driving habits. Things like wide open throttle or full braking, speeding, all make rates go up.
 
2012-07-08 11:29:19 PM

Tyranicle: Mr. Potatoass: What's all this then, guvnah?

Well, guvnah, it's all about installing guvnah's in cars, which most production cars have anyway? Confused.

\drtfa


LOL. You sound like a mechanical engineering student, or a scholar, or a sot like me.
 
2012-07-08 11:32:17 PM
Speed is NOT the "worst reason for death or accidents"... bad driving is.

Have people learn to drive better and get the idiots that just aren't skilled to drive off the road and the numbers will drop.

Worse part is... one of the kids is talking driver's ed, and I feel terrible for this generation as there's so much things that they "teach" about driving that is plain wrong and can lead to accidents.

For example:

My take: regardless if you are the only car going down a small street, I believe that you should still stay on your side of the road, sure, take a bit of liberty and take a wider space from the curb, but not much, just so that you have space away from the sidewalks, but still stick to your side in case you have another car that comes out of somewhere unexpected from the opposite direction.

The driver ed's take: in the middle of the road, take as much space as possible.


My take: stop in traffic behind the car in front, with enough distance in case you need or decide tat you need to change lanes for some reason, and in case someone rear-ends you while stopped (happened to me twice)

Their take: similar but take a full car's distance away.


My take: at a light (red) once goes green, take a second, check both side to ensure that everyone in the cross direction have stopped, then go.

Their take: take 3 seconds before even thinking about releasing the brakes.


and so on..... so technically, a lot, an I mean a LOT of the things that adds up making driving with these people miserable. I see more and more people that just can't move their cars, can't handle them nor drive around the city in an agreeable way, respectful of others, and I see more close calls with these people that from anyone that drives faster, reacts better, etc.

When it takes 3 times the normal time to so a certain distance because you are stuck in traffic with dozens of people that can't react or move, it's seriously gone wrong.

I'm not saying that everyone should drive at high speed or anything like that, but that this "over-safe driving" has not showed any changes in accident numbers, I see just as many.

And I just wish that they'd understand that the stop sign is NOT going to change to green, and that signal lights are not optional.

And also, the more I see this sort of thing, I just feel that they are pushing to get as many cars off the road and push everyone for public transportation, and the worse thing is that the prices for plating and insurance keeps going up, but so it the public transportation prices.

/end rant
 
2012-07-08 11:43:39 PM
imfallen_angel: Speed is not the problem, stupid people are.

I agree. I mentioned Germany's Autobahn a few posts back as an example of that. The problem is, it's highly difficult to legislate wreckless driving in such a manner that it is not a completely subjective measure, and not that difficult to set and legislate arbitrary speed limits for people.

I personally feel that if we had the same licensing system that Germany has in place, we wouldn't have the amount of stupidity we do in America.
 
2012-07-08 11:48:20 PM
That's just depressing, taking all the risk out of life = boring. If its your time to go being wrapped up in a bubble, wearing pillows, a helmet, goggles and a lifejacket isn't going to save you.
 
2012-07-08 11:51:56 PM

edmo: Unless you tie them to the local speed limit, what good would it do? You'd limited to the national speed limit in the school zone though, so they'd have that going for them.

FTA, it's all a bunch of mumbo jumbo to justify installing big brother black boxes in the vehicles. Typical after the fact law enforcement activity rather than a true safety first, prevent the accident approach.


This. well said, sir.

Sometimes I think the cops and pols even believe it's for safety and the common good, rather than Big Brother having his way.
 
2012-07-08 11:54:30 PM

stealthd: CruJones: stealthd: I'm okay with this.

I propose that it not stop your car or govern the speed, but that every time you speed for a set amount of time, like 5 seconds, it sends you a ticket.

Speeding kills people. Period.

If you can't pass without speeding, you are passing dangerously.
If you can't get where you're going without speeding, you didn't leave enough time to get there.
There is NO situation where increasing the vectors involved improves matters.

/IAPD trained, for what it's worth

So when they raise speed limits, per your logic, it's still dangerous to drive above the previous limit, as you say its dangerous if you need to go faster than that.

The increased danger from speed is usually offset by roadway improvements such as widened roads and improved grading. Those make it safer to go faster.


They made no improvements when going from 55 to 65 then 70.
 
2012-07-08 11:55:42 PM
www.ausmotive.com

Ach! Scotland will soon suck. Health and Safety. ...and on that bombshell, goodnight!
 
2012-07-09 12:03:33 AM
If I'm passing on the wrong side (rarely happens), I'm at full power until I'm back on my side again.

At some point, you have to put the rulebook down and just drive the car.

/The oncoming lane is no place to linger.
 
2012-07-09 12:36:09 AM

stealthd: I'm okay with this.

I propose that it not stop your car or govern the speed, but that every time you speed for a set amount of time, like 5 seconds, it sends you a ticket.

Speeding kills people. Period.

If you can't pass without speeding, you are passing dangerously.
If you can't get where you're going without speeding, you didn't leave enough time to get there.
There is NO situation where increasing the vectors involved improves matters.

/IAPD trained, for what it's worth


I gather you are trolling, and if not, I feel sorry for you to have drank that kool-aid.

Aside a mechanical failure (blown tire, wheel coming off, etc.) cars are made to handle a lot of speed.

Speed does NOT kill, bad driving does.

Most people all assume that they are great drivers and it's always the other guy/gal's fault. and that's a major issue.

Someone that drives well and safely will be the safe driver regardless of speed, because he will know his vehicle, his own limits, and will drive correctly, will respect the other vehicles and not place anyone at risk.

Take an idiot going at 30 (20 under the limit) that smashes into pedestrians or a wall will result in deaths, speed would not be the factor here.

The drunk that crashes through the bridges and drowns in the river even if he was going at the speed limit.

I would rather have people being ticketed for unsafe driving than because of their speed.

Between mechanical problem and driver's error, the numbers are quite easy to judge.

For motorcycles for example (being a motorcycle driver myself), I've seen a LOT of motorcycle accident and not counting those that a car smashed into them or environmental/mechanical issues, just about all the others where caused by drivers error.

This includes my accidents

motorcycles:

1) where I had my passenger force the bike to be unbalanced during a curve. I compensated and minimized the accident.
2) when a car cut everyone off,and I happened to get my front wheel hit the metal separator (covered in early morning dew) of the bridge, and get a front wheel slip. A bump sent my bike to do a front wheel stand and me doing a flip and landing on my feet (and butt)
3) transmission was sabotaged by someone putting bolt via the oil access.
4) truck took off fast from a blind spot (behind another truch) and smashing into me.

Car:
1) other car that I was trying to avoid, driver turned right into me (trying to do a 90 degree turn)
2-3) stopped in traffic/red light and person behind never stopped an smashed right into me.

Not one speed related accident. But all were due to various factors, but the car's ones were all due to bad driving.
 
2012-07-09 12:37:53 AM
"Today, vehicles are safer than ever, developed to meet a range of driving conditions and driver styles."

True, though statistics have shown that people tend to drive more recklessly and faster because they know if they wreck, they'll probably walk away with only a few bruises.

In the 'OLD DAYS' pre-airbags, a car might survive a wreck and be able to be driven away, but the driver tended to be reduced to stew meat inside.

Actually, I've kind of been waiting for something like this to happen.

I owned a 1967 Pontiac GTO, rigged to run and spent most of my time with my foot in the carburetor, frequently replacing back tires and seeing how fast I could get to the end of a 5 mile, straight, little used paved road.

As a courier I had no choice but to speed. The Company demanded unrealistic service times and I spent about a decade just flying through three cities. I got into 8 wrecks. Only one was actually my fault.

I saw the arrival of radar and laser speed guns, the increase in the cost of speeding tickets, the decreasing and then the increasing of speed limits. Red light cameras and speed traps.

Through it all I watched American car makers design and offer mainly cars which had enormous power and started approaching the speed of race cars. Then the foreign car makers created cars which apparently can go FASTER than most cars in the Indie 500.

I also watched as morons started strapping jet engines on everything from motorcycles to Mac trucks.

I was around when the police had to order one or two specially designed cop cars to catch up to the customized racers and their normal cars soon had to be designed to go even faster to catch family cars.

So with everyone screaming about speeders, car companies just kept on churning out supercharged speed demons, states designed highways to keep them from flying off the road and TV featured massively powered vehicles as a must-have item.

You know, at one time anyone could go and buy a box of TNT no questions asked. With predictable results. Now, you need to be licensed and have a damn good reason for buying the stuff.

I suspect this might just be the beginning of something most folks aren't going to like.
 
2012-07-09 12:40:16 AM
If it's not Scottish it's crap!

i1159.photobucket.com
 
2012-07-09 12:44:22 AM

BronyMedic: Triumph: In the UK, you can't own a gun and surveillance cameras are absolutely everywhere, so yeah - this fits. Germany lost the war, but fascism won.

You most certainly can own a firearm. You just can't own one that's concealable.


Anything can be concealed if you try hard enough. That said, UK laws ban anything semi auto with a round bigger than a .22
The average person isn't going to be concealing rifles but the ban is still there. The same goes for shotguns that can hold more than 3 shells.

A .25 pistol that you would have a hard time killing a rabbit with will land you in jail while a .50 bolt action rifle with a 10 round magazine and an accurate kill range of over a mile is perfectly fine.

In short, yes if you jump through hoops you can own some guns but not the most useful and fun kinds. You can't even buy a CO2 powered air gun.
 
2012-07-09 12:48:55 AM
Well, the Russian car industry isn't going to revitalize itself!

If they're going for comedy, though, it'd be a lot funnier if the forced people to ALWAYS drive 55MPH (or 147840.02 furlongs per fortnight, or whatever their highway limit is). Through town, in parkinglots, up the driveway... and the level of public indignation would remain constant.
 
2012-07-09 01:10:09 AM
Inevitable.

We'll all be wearing crash helmets in the bathroom and refused knives and forks and fed only gruel before ObamaCare and the Nanny State are violently uprooted and burnt to the ground in the name of Liberty.
 
2012-07-09 01:16:41 AM

Mad_Radhu: I didn't know there were actually any cars in Scotland that were capable of exceeding a highway speed limit.


I wasn't aware they had roads you could even drive fast on.
 
2012-07-09 01:48:37 AM
Instead of giving a damn about who's drunk, let's just go after bad drivers.

This whole thing about using test equipment at the roadside is crap. If you can't tell he's drunk except through laboratory tests, does it matter?

If you had the choice between being on the road with a bunch of guys who have had a sixer in the past three hours but who are actually driving their cars, or a bunch of sober people using their smart phones while they drive, what would it be?

Bad drivers suck.
 
2012-07-09 02:18:13 AM
Looks like it's time to start driving 6 volt cars. :-)
 
2012-07-09 03:03:17 AM
studebaker hoch: Instead of giving a damn about who's drunk, let's just go after bad drivers.

Why don't we go after both? The problem is that while DUIs only account for 10% of the Accidents, they account for almost 30-40% of the fatalities in those traffic accidents.

studebaker hoch: This whole thing about using test equipment at the roadside is crap. If you can't tell he's drunk except through laboratory tests, does it matter?

The issue is not that they can't tell you're drunk. The issue is that they need to have proof in court that's objective other than "He had horizontal/vertical nystagmus, a disturbed gait, the smell of an alcoholic beverage on his breath, slurred speech, and he admitted to drinking a "Couple of beers" before the sobriety test."

studebaker hoch: If you had the choice between being on the road with a bunch of guys who have had a sixer in the past three hours but who are actually driving their cars, or a bunch of sober people using their smart phones while they drive, what would it be?

False dilemma. Both are criminal, and I'd rather not have either one on the road.

studebaker hoch: Bad drivers suck.

And DUI Apologists are shameful.
 
2012-07-09 03:27:43 AM

Ken VeryBigLiar: tetsoushima: I hope this gets implemented, costs significantly more than anybody had anticipated, proves to change very little, and gets many people sacked.

In government work? The tides will reverse before that happens.



We apologise again for the fault in the government. Those responsible for sacking the people who have just been sacked, have been sacked.
 
2012-07-09 04:44:31 AM

studebaker hoch: Instead of giving a damn about who's drunk, let's just go after bad drivers.

This whole thing about using test equipment at the roadside is crap. If you can't tell he's drunk except through laboratory tests, does it matter?

If you had the choice between being on the road with a bunch of guys who have had a sixer in the past three hours but who are actually driving their cars, or a bunch of sober people using their smart phones while they drive, what would it be?

Bad drivers suck.


Well, if I had to actually make that choice, and pick one over the other...I'd want to be off the road, honestly.

If the guys drinking are good drivers with no points on their licenses, then maybe. But if they're already bad DRIVERS, I don't want them on the road while drunk, either.
 
2012-07-09 05:30:55 AM

make me some tea: Yeah, fark that. Sometimes speeding up to avoid a bad situation is the best course of action.


THIS! You are also forcing "pack driving" which will give nobody the area to maneuver if something happens, increasing the risk of multiple car accidents. Limiting the speed of cars through a device probably will cause more accidents than it prevents.
 
2012-07-09 05:32:42 AM

BSABSVR: Ooba Tooba: A horrible idea. Waiting for some overzealous group to suggest this for American cars in 3...2...

We'll get mandatory breathalyzers first.


... which became law in France as of July 1.
 
2012-07-09 06:35:38 AM

make me some tea: Yeah, fark that. Sometimes speeding up to avoid a bad situation is the best course of action.


Yep. Especially when you're driving past a school !

(Which is where they're proposing these things should work...as you'd know if you'd read the article)
 
2012-07-09 07:35:24 AM
pictures.topspeed.com

Will those wearing high visibility jackets be exempt?
 
2012-07-09 07:55:46 AM
One more reason why there are big advantages to only owning and driving cars no newer than 1979 and heavy trucks no newer than 1986.

The USA version of Cuba will be fast approaching.
 
2012-07-09 08:37:11 AM
Have you ever needed to speed up to pass some weaving jackass on the highway? You want that guy behind you!
 
2012-07-09 08:39:59 AM
It allows drivers to instruct their vehicles to stick to 28mph, for example, in a 30mph zone.

It might cut down on speeding, but it will increase road rage 1,000,000 percent.

This won't happen anyway. Government relies too much on the revenue generated by their tax collectors in blue.
 
2012-07-09 08:57:02 AM

stainpouch: One of the most popular cars in Scotland is the Vauxhall. They would do better and faster to ride sheep. Really.


What a Vauxhall may look like:

photos.autoexpress.co.uk

320 bhp, 0-60 5.6 seconds.

www.ausmotive.com

565 bhp. 0-60 4.9 seconds.

upload.wikimedia.org

398 bhp, 0-100kph 5.3 seconds.

That last one, the Monaro, is a rebadged Holden, GM's Aussie brand. Was sold as the Pontiac GTO in the US.
 
2012-07-09 09:33:28 AM

CruJones: stealthd: CruJones: stealthd: I'm okay with this.

I propose that it not stop your car or govern the speed, but that every time you speed for a set amount of time, like 5 seconds, it sends you a ticket.

Speeding kills people. Period.

If you can't pass without speeding, you are passing dangerously.
If you can't get where you're going without speeding, you didn't leave enough time to get there.
There is NO situation where increasing the vectors involved improves matters.

/IAPD trained, for what it's worth

So when they raise speed limits, per your logic, it's still dangerous to drive above the previous limit, as you say its dangerous if you need to go faster than that.

The increased danger from speed is usually offset by roadway improvements such as widened roads and improved grading. Those make it safer to go faster.

They made no improvements when going from 55 to 65 then 70.


Lots of highways were desgned for higher speed in the first place. Then the 80s..

Then we got 55, 85mph max speedometers and highway fund extortion for any states that would not comply. Then Sammy Hagar sang about it. And that fresh success led to Van Hagar.
It got better.
 
2012-07-09 09:49:37 AM

WorldCitizen: Add this to the reasons the Scottish should not have independence.


FTFY
 
2012-07-09 09:50:57 AM

Ken VeryBigLiar: tetsoushima: I hope this gets implemented, costs significantly more than anybody had anticipated, proves to change very little, and gets many people sacked.

In government work? The tides will reverse before that happens.


well as that happens twice a day it`s a safe bet...

/tide comes in
//tide goes out
///you can`t explain that
 
2012-07-09 10:25:32 AM
b.vimeocdn.com

We've got a piper down
 
2012-07-09 11:33:47 AM

stainpouch: One of the most popular cars in Scotland is the Vauxhall GM. They would do better and faster to ride sheep. Really.


FTFY.

Since the 1980s, all of Vauxhall vehicles have been near-identical to those from Germany's Opel (the tie-up between the two actually dates back to the early 1960s). Opel is owned by General Motors, and is responsible for designing the base platform for numerous GM vehicles:

* GM Delta (Opel Astra and others, also used by Chevrolet, Pontiac, and Saturn)
* GM Delta II (Opel Astra and others, also used by Buick, Chevrolet, Daewoo, and Holden; likely to appear in more brands)
* GM Epsilon (Opel Vectra and others, also used by Cadillac, Chevrolet, Fiat, Pontiac, Saab, and Saturn; was planned to be used by Buick)
* GM Epsilon II (Opel Insignia and others, also used by Buick, Chevrolet, and Saab; likely to appear in more brands)
* GM Gamma (Opel Corsa and others, also used by Chevrolet)
* GM Gamma II (Opel Mokka and others, also used by Buick, Chevrolet, and Holden; likely to appear in more brands)

And Opel's vehicles have been flat-out rebadged (sometimes with tweaks) for the US market as well, eg. the 5G Buick Regal is an Opel Insignia (aka Vauxhall Insignia), the Cadillac Catera is an Opel Omega (aka Vauxhall Omega), the Saturn Astra is an Opel Astra (aka Vauxhall Astra), the Saturn Aura is an Opel Vectra (aka Vauxhall Vectra), etc.

Anybody ripping on Vauxhall clearly knows nothing about how the automotive industry works. Vauxhall, effectively, is not a whole lot more than a name badge any more, and hasn't been for several decades.
 
2012-07-09 07:50:31 PM
BronyMedic

studebaker hoch: Instead of giving a damn about who's drunk, let's just go after bad drivers.

Why don't we go after both? The problem is that while DUIs only account for 10% of the Accidents, they account for almost 30-40% of the fatalities in those traffic accidents.


Because a 30-something guy who's never had a crash, has no points on his record, has no criminal record, has a good job a home and a family, getting curb-stomped over a 0.08 BAC that was only detectable at an all-stop check point isn't really good. He was fine, really.

studebaker hoch: This whole thing about using test equipment at the roadside is crap. If you can't tell he's drunk except through laboratory tests, does it matter?

The issue is not that they can't tell you're drunk. The issue is that they need to have proof in court that's objective other than "He had horizontal/vertical nystagmus, a disturbed gait, the smell of an alcoholic beverage on his breath, slurred speech, and he admitted to drinking a "Couple of beers" before the sobriety test."


The limit is too low. I want to see all that on a 0.08 guy. I bet it's never happened.

studebaker hoch: If you had the choice between being on the road with a bunch of guys who have had a sixer in the past three hours but who are actually driving their cars, or a bunch of sober people using their smart phones while they drive, what would it be?

False dilemma. Both are criminal, and I'd rather not have either one on the road.


It's a hypothetical question. Say for the sake of a thought experiment that you could pick one.

studebaker hoch: Bad drivers suck.

And DUI Apologists are shameful.


I've never had one or even come close. A buddy of mine was injured by one. Drunk drivers suck. 0.08 BAC isn't drunk. That's why they had to come out with this whole "EXTREME DUI" law - those were the actual drunks they were finding.

I think that the $15k - $20k they can extract from people biases the law just a bit in the downward direction. IMO.

/rant off
 
2012-07-09 10:54:41 PM

studebaker hoch: BronyMedic

studebaker hoch: Instead of giving a damn about who's drunk, let's just go after bad drivers.

Why don't we go after both? The problem is that while DUIs only account for 10% of the Accidents, they account for almost 30-40% of the fatalities in those traffic accidents.

Because a 30-something guy who's never had a crash, has no points on his record, has no criminal record, has a good job a home and a family, getting curb-stomped over a 0.08 BAC that was only detectable at an all-stop check point isn't really good. He was fine, really.

studebaker hoch: This whole thing about using test equipment at the roadside is crap. If you can't tell he's drunk except through laboratory tests, does it matter?

The issue is not that they can't tell you're drunk. The issue is that they need to have proof in court that's objective other than "He had horizontal/vertical nystagmus, a disturbed gait, the smell of an alcoholic beverage on his breath, slurred speech, and he admitted to drinking a "Couple of beers" before the sobriety test."

The limit is too low. I want to see all that on a 0.08 guy. I bet it's never happened.

studebaker hoch: If you had the choice between being on the road with a bunch of guys who have had a sixer in the past three hours but who are actually driving their cars, or a bunch of sober people using their smart phones while they drive, what would it be?

False dilemma. Both are criminal, and I'd rather not have either one on the road.

It's a hypothetical question. Say for the sake of a thought experiment that you could pick one.

studebaker hoch: Bad drivers suck.

And DUI Apologists are shameful.

I've never had one or even come close. A buddy of mine was injured by one. Drunk drivers suck. 0.08 BAC isn't drunk. That's why they had to come out with this whole "EXTREME DUI" law - those were the actual drunks they were finding.

I think that the $15k - $20k they can extract from people biases the law just a bit in the downward direction. IMO.

/rant off


0.08 BAC is not drunk? Do you have statistics to back up this claim of yours?
 
2012-07-10 01:42:33 AM
Mock26

0.08 BAC is not drunk? Do you have statistics to back up this claim of yours?

According to this:

And me weighing in north of a svelte 200 lbs, I'm snockered after 4 beers in one hour.

....really?

/now, if I drank four beers PER hour, for several hours, then I agree I'm pissed-as-a-newt.

But four beers in an hour? Suuuuure I'm drunk.
 
2012-07-10 01:57:55 AM
I see it like this:

The Man is giving too much play to this "you're impaired after 0.08" line of crap. And I agree, I'm impaired!

See how it works?

But my question is: OK fine, I'm impaired. How impaired is a 60+ driver on whatever prescribed meds she's on versus that 30-something that had 4 beers then drove. For one thing, in an hour, one of the beers has been metabolized anyway so he's really on just three. 0.08, fne, I still agree.

Do we conduct traffic stops and test senior citizens, and then fark them raw for not passing?

We don't. Why? Because we allow old people to drive.

Now take the *tired* driver. Worst case of near-death a la automobile I ever had was falling asleep at the wheel after working a double shift. Rock sober, 0.0000. I damn near killed myself at highway speeds, driving asleep, while my mind told me I was awake. Does driving tired (a real risk, IMO) get you a DUI on your record, which is today's scarlet letter (again, IMO here, but a DUI is not something you want to explain to your insurance guy).

No checkpoints to check the reflexes of tired people, they can go about their business. Move along, move along.

That's all.

Of course someone is impaired at 0.08! They're impaired if they're task-saturated. They're impaired if tired. They're impaired if they just broke up with their significant other. They're impaired if they're late to work.

It's a load of propaganda crap.

Know why they'll never install breathalzyers in all cars as standard equi[ment? Because then we wouldn't need those checkpoints! And there would be no FEAR OF THE MAN. And that's what they want. They know you can drive at 0.08. They want you to fear them. If breathalyzers were installed in some non-removeable way, you'd STILL have checkpoints, "to be sure everyone in the car was safe, hey you know there's a craigslist amber alert disco strangler about".

B farkin D.

Hype, fear, and manipulation.
 
2012-07-10 11:19:15 AM

studebaker hoch: Mock26

0.08 BAC is not drunk? Do you have statistics to back up this claim of yours?

According to this:

And me weighing in north of a svelte 200 lbs, I'm snockered after 4 beers in one hour.

....really?

/now, if I drank four beers PER hour, for several hours, then I agree I'm pissed-as-a-newt.

But four beers in an hour? Suuuuure I'm drunk.


By your very own link a BAC of 0.08 is still impaired. So, sure, 0.08 might not be "Legally Intoxicated" but one is still impaired. If you can handle your liquor better than other people, well, good for you. I am sure that that something to be very proud of. However, from a legal standpoint they have to draw a line somewhere. It would be completely unreasonable to have have a different level for every person, so they picked a number based on statistics and data gathered. And as for police doing a sobriety check without a breathalyzer, if I remember correctly studies showed that the police were not as effective as the breathalyzer.
 
2012-07-10 06:54:51 PM

BronyMedic: imfallen_angel: Speed is not the problem, stupid people are.

I agree. I mentioned Germany's Autobahn a few posts back as an example of that. The problem is, it's highly difficult to legislate wreckless driving in such a manner that it is not a completely subjective measure, and not that difficult to set and legislate arbitrary speed limits for people.

I personally feel that if we had the same licensing system that Germany has in place, we wouldn't have the amount of stupidity we do in America.


How else do you feel it?

;)
 
2012-07-10 09:53:28 PM
What I'm saying is, a lot of us are impaired WORSE over things they don't even test for.

The level of "impaired" we get at 0.08 is so low, that they had to classify the new "extreme" level above it just for when they actually got a totally piefaced moran. THOSE are the ones we need off the road.

You can also see them half a block back, you don't need a paramilitary checkpoint and a gas chromatograph to wring a DUI out of some schmoe who can actually drive just fine.

This law sucks.

I don't "support" drunks, but I just don't see our current limit as drunk.

/If you ever see me drunk, you'll know it.
 
Displayed 50 of 150 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report