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.

(CNN)   The NTSB issues a 'shelter in place' order for all FARKers   (cnn.com) divider line 231
    More: Strange, shelter in place, National Transportation Safety Board, United States, Transportation Safety Board, Mothers Against Drunk Driving  
•       •       •

15208 clicks; posted to Main » on 14 May 2013 at 4:21 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-14 06:53:27 PM  

Fecacacophany: IgG4: In MN where I live, there were 395 traffic fatalities in 2012. About half were alcohol related. So 180 deaths out of 5 million people living in the state. About 800 people died from accidental falls in 2012. These deaths are tragic yes, but there are so few of them that you really need to ask yourself how much trouble it is worth to try to reduce that number more. 1 in 7 people in MN have already been convicted of DUI and that number will certainly increase dramatically if you lower the limit to 0.05%, it it really worth criminalizing a huge percentage of your population to marginally decrease that statistic? I would say no.

I don't think decreasing the deaths is the real goal.  Look, someone has to fill the prisons and crime (as defined a few decades ago) is generally at an all time low.  If the police don't have criminals to arrest and process, what will they do?  It will cost law enforcement jobs up and down the industry, from cops to court clerks to prison guards and lawyers.  If we can just increase the inventory of criminals by criminalizing successive levels of previously legal activity, we can ensure both a steady workload for our criminal justice workforce and reduce the unemployed population by incarcerating them.  This is shovel-ready job creation at its finest.


There's more than a hint of truthiness in this statement, yes.
 
2013-05-14 07:00:37 PM  
What the fark. Neo-prohibitionist nanny state bullshiat. Next it will be .02.

But it's not unexpected. They banned smoking in bars even though you have to willingly walk in the place to inhale the poison you supposedly need protection from. If we acquiesced to that, how can we argue against lowering the risk of causing an accident killing someone who had absolutely no choice in the matter if they don't want to lock themselves in their homes.

Support the restaurants this time.
 
2013-05-14 07:10:01 PM  

super_grass: Virtually all countries inEurope has stricter standards for who can belong on the road.

We don't want to enact more sensible anti-drunk drivinglegislation and suffer the tyranny ofEurope do we?

No, real Americans drive inebriated and let G-D sort out the fatalities!


Reason #634,998 that Europe sucks.

/Seriously, those limits are farked up. Even if you are a otherwise a europhile this is at least reason #1.
 
2013-05-14 07:11:35 PM  
I'm probably the most notorious anti-drunk driving person on Fark, and I think lowering the standard to .05 is farking ridiculous. In terms of overall impact, it's negligible--not even 1% of the lives lost annually would be saved. More like 1/10th of one percent.

Buried deep within the article are two of many more sensible solutions:


The board also recommended on Tuesday that states vastly expand laws allowing police to swiftly confiscate licenses from drivers who exceed the blood alcohol limits.

And it is pushing for laws requiring all first-time offenders to have ignition locking devices that prevent cars from starting until breath samples are analyzed.
 There is no reason why first offenses--at .08--cannot result in an immediate loss of driving privileges (they're not rights, they are privileges) and, upon reinstatement of the driving privileges, a one-year term of having an ignition interlock device. In addition, DO THE fark AWAY WITH THIS DEFERRED PROSECUTION shiat!! At this point, it's not a mistake to drive drunk, it's a conscious choice. For AT LEAST thirty years, it's been drilled into childrens and adults' heads that driving while under the influence of any mind-altering substance is not only a bad thing to do, but an illegal thing to do. Why, then, do we treat it as a "boys/girls will be boys/girls" kind of "awww shucks" thing when it costs lives and multiple millions of dollars in medical costs and damages to property each year? Treat it like the crime that it is with the laws currently in place to do just that--and stop giving people 13 farking chances (like that one guy who finally went to prison on his thirteenth DUI). First chance, lose driving privileges, get an ignition interlock. Second chance, go to PMITA prison. No need to lower the BAC to .05; just farking enforce the law at .08 and stop treating people who make a conscious choice to break the law at .08 as poor innocent snowflake victims who didn't choose to take the lives of others into their hands when yes, that's exactly what the fark they did--chose to break the goddamned law. And they should bear the full responsibility for that choice.
 
2013-05-14 07:16:33 PM  

doofusgumby: Not just for sleeping in it. For being anywhere near it with keys. Even at home. Know 2 people who got DUI s AT HOME. And didn't drink until after they got there.


That sounds unlikely.
 
2013-05-14 07:16:34 PM  
super_grass: Virtually all countries inEurope has stricter standards for who can belong on the road.
We don't want to enact more sensible anti-drunk drivinglegislation and suffer the tyranny ofEurope do we?
No, real Americans drive inebriated and let G-D sort out the fatalities!


Then lets make driving tougher, and weed out the old people and those who just can't drive, and increase the speed limits.

/In the United States drive is a right until you prove you can't handle it. Then don't use European standards for our drinking laws.
 
2013-05-14 07:20:01 PM  

scottydoesntknow: R.A.Danny: timujin: Not sure what this is supposed to accomplish.  What percentage of drunk driving deaths are caused by people at .08?

Pretty much what I came in here to say. Are lives really going to be saved by arresting sober people?

It's all about $afety


Why would MADD care about anything but safety?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mothers_Against_Drunk_Driving#Activitie s_ and_criticism

Seriously though, fark them.
 
2013-05-14 07:21:59 PM  
I doubt the real problem is with people who are just below the limit, if you're actually talking about safety and preventing fatal crashes. I would think it's the people who are way the hell past the limit that are actually dangerous.
 
2013-05-14 07:22:32 PM  

jjorsett: Haven't you people figured this out yet? This is a scam by Google to amp up demand for their future self-driving cars. Between the red-light cameras, the left-turn cameras, the speed cameras, and the soon-to-be limit of 0.0 BAC, driving yourself is going to become increasing difficult. You'll be begging to buy a GoogleCar™.


Ask the Amish. It's already illegal to be drunk in a self-piloting vehicle.
 
2013-05-14 07:22:55 PM  

dericwater: Fecacacophany: IgG4: In MN where I live, there were 395 traffic fatalities in 2012. About half were alcohol related. So 180 deaths out of 5 million people living in the state. About 800 people died from accidental falls in 2012. These deaths are tragic yes, but there are so few of them that you really need to ask yourself how much trouble it is worth to try to reduce that number more. 1 in 7 people in MN have already been convicted of DUI and that number will certainly increase dramatically if you lower the limit to 0.05%, it it really worth criminalizing a huge percentage of your population to marginally decrease that statistic? I would say no.

I don't think decreasing the deaths is the real goal.  Look, someone has to fill the prisons and crime (as defined a few decades ago) is generally at an all time low.  If the police don't have criminals to arrest and process, what will they do?  It will cost law enforcement jobs up and down the industry, from cops to court clerks to prison guards and lawyers.  If we can just increase the inventory of criminals by criminalizing successive levels of previously legal activity, we can ensure both a steady workload for our criminal justice workforce and reduce the unemployed population by incarcerating them.  This is shovel-ready job creation at its finest.

There's more than a hint of truthiness in this statement, yes.


Sad when cynicism rings true.  War on Drugs you say?
 
2013-05-14 07:25:38 PM  

number8: So how long until the NTSB requires that all cars in the US come with ignition interlock devices, whether or not the owner has ever been convicted (or even accused) of a DUI? MADD has called for that; and it's for the children, after all.


People on Fark have called for that...
 
2013-05-14 07:28:20 PM  

WhoGAS: Drunk driving deaths has steadily declined over the years.  They need more money.

http://www.centurycouncil.org/drunk-driving/drunk-driving-fatalities -n ational-statistics


It's odd that the Century Council is claiming responsibility for the decrease, given that it looks to be about the same decrease as the 10 years before the council was founded.

http://www.project.org/info.php?recordID=157

"The percentage ofmotor vehicle deaths attributed to drunk driving had steadily decreased from 60% in 1982 to 40% in 1997.From that point on, the percentage has remained approximately 40%."

Unless I'm reading that wrong, which is possible.
 
2013-05-14 07:33:25 PM  
Actual billboard in California

quadcitiesdaily.com.s140587.gridserver.com
 
2013-05-14 07:35:54 PM  

R.A.Danny: timujin: Not sure what this is supposed to accomplish.  What percentage of drunk driving deaths are caused by people at .08?

Pretty much what I came in here to say. Are lives really going to be saved by arresting sober people?


This is analogous to the problem Fort Myers, Florida had/has with speeders. The speed limit in town is 30 or 35, depending on where you are. Many people ignore the posted speeds and drive at whatever feels comfortable for them. But there are also those people (including yours truly) who do actually obey the posted limits. So, the brilliant answer arrived at by local officials is to lower the speed limit even further. The effect of this will be to slow down the people (schmucks like myself) who are already obeying the law, and the people who are ignoring it will simply continue to ignore it. Without stepped-up enforcement, the lowered limits will have no net effect other than to drive up the fines for those people who are stopped for speeding.

For the drinking-and-driving thing, it will be the same result. If you lower the threshold, it's not going to stop people from drinking-and-driving over the limit. The people who do it don't care what the law is, and they don't care why it's important not to drink and drive. The only way to curb the problem is to step up enforcement and penalties. And for God's sake, if someone gets a second DUI, just revoke his/her license and be done with it.
 
2013-05-14 07:37:25 PM  
The reason I've taken a hard stance on DUI's is because I had a scare when I was 22.

Went out drinking, had too many guinnesses and woke up, at my place, with no memory of getting home.

I went out to see if I was parked funny, parked normally. Then checked for damage. None. Checked my phone, I didn't call anybody.

So either someone I know took me home or I did something incredibly stupid. I was lucky I didn't kill anyone.

If I did get a DUI I would of owned up to it. It should be .05

/scared straight
//calls a taxi now
/// taxi magic is an awesome app
//// but the fark app is better
 
2013-05-14 07:43:37 PM  

soupafi: The reason I've taken a hard stance on DUI's is because I had a scare when I was 22.

Went out drinking, had too many guinnesses and woke up, at my place, with no memory of getting home.

I went out to see if I was parked funny, parked normally. Then checked for damage. None. Checked my phone, I didn't call anybody.

So either someone I know took me home or I did something incredibly stupid. I was lucky I didn't kill anyone.

If I did get a DUI I would of owned up to it. It should be .05

/scared straight
//calls a taxi now
/// taxi magic is an awesome app
//// but the fark app is better


I love wtching the retards in these threads.
 
2013-05-14 07:52:12 PM  

Dictatorial_Flair: I doubt the real problem is with people who are just below the limit, if you're actually talking about safety and preventing fatal crashes. I would think it's the people who are way the hell past the limit that are actually dangerous.


They know that. They want to make it so low that people won't drink at all when they have to drive. This will prevent the "just had a few beers" people from having a few too many and getting behind the wheel.
 
2013-05-14 07:52:42 PM  
A common benchmark in the United States for determining when a driver is legally drunk is not doing enough to prevent alcohol-related crashes that kill about 10,000 people each year and should be made more restrictive, transportation safety investigators say.

So, how do they know that the .06 people are crashing and killing people, as opposed to just, people crashing and killing people like all the .00 people do?

Lowering the rate to 0.05 would save about 500 to 800 lives annually, the safety board said.

Ah, ok, so they admit it's the people at .08 and above doing the killing. And probably at .15 or .25 and above mostly.
 
2013-05-14 07:55:30 PM  

Dr.Fey: doofusgumby: Know 2 people who got DUI s AT HOME. And didn't drink until after they got there.

I just don't believe this.  No DA would file - there's no way to beat the reasonable doubt if this went to trial, and no DA wants to lower his or her conviction rate.


Case 1: female, gets home sober. Has three drinks. Goes out to the car to get something out of the trunk. Cop pulls up and says there was a report about a suspected drunk driver in the neighborhood. Makes her blow after running her licence and finding she had a prior. She can't afford a $3,000 lawyer, pleads no contest. Dumb I know, but that's the breaks.

Case 2: Male, was sober and parked on the side of a main street. High speed chase goes by, CHP sideswipes his car, CHP continues chase. He calls CHP to find out what he should do, they make him wait a couple hours before saying go home, an officer will come by when available. He goes home, waits. Couple hours go by, he has a couple beers. CHP shows up, arrest for DUI with enhancement for damaging a cruiser. He gets a lawyer and fights, loses.

So yes, it does happen.
 
2013-05-14 07:57:08 PM  

soupafi: The reason I've taken a hard stance on DUI's is because I had a scare when I was 22.

Went out drinking, had too many guinnesses and woke up, at my place, with no memory of getting home.

I went out to see if I was parked funny, parked normally. Then checked for damage. None. Checked my phone, I didn't call anybody.

So either someone I know took me home or I did something incredibly stupid. I was lucky I didn't kill anyone.

If I did get a DUI I would of owned up to it. It should be .05

/scared straight
//calls a taxi now
/// taxi magic is an awesome app
//// but the fark app is better


Oddly enough, the .08 limit didn't stop you from doing something stupid.
 
2013-05-14 08:03:17 PM  

RsquaredW: soupafi: The reason I've taken a hard stance on DUI's is because I had a scare when I was 22.

Went out drinking, had too many guinnesses and woke up, at my place, with no memory of getting home.

I went out to see if I was parked funny, parked normally. Then checked for damage. None. Checked my phone, I didn't call anybody.

So either someone I know took me home or I did something incredibly stupid. I was lucky I didn't kill anyone.

If I did get a DUI I would of owned up to it. It should be .05

/scared straight
//calls a taxi now
/// taxi magic is an awesome app
//// but the fark app is better

Oddly enough, the .08 limit didn't stop you from doing something stupid.


My question is, how did he get that drunk off that weak ass-Guinness? I bet he was roofied and had a sore butt in the morning.
 
2013-05-14 08:04:42 PM  

sammyk: PowerSlacker: Throw the book at the people who exceed .08 instead.

Even that is a little low. It used to be .10. A lot of people, myself included, felt that was just a money grab.


The original recommendation was .15 you know, the one based on actual science.
 
2013-05-14 08:17:59 PM  

scottydoesntknow: R.A.Danny: timujin: Not sure what this is supposed to accomplish.  What percentage of drunk driving deaths are caused by people at .08?

Pretty much what I came in here to say. Are lives really going to be saved by arresting sober people?

It's all about $afety


Yup its about $aft€¥
 
2013-05-14 08:22:40 PM  

soupafi: The reason I've taken a hard stance on DUI's is because I had a scare when I was 22.

Went out drinking, had too many guinnesses and woke up, at my place, with no memory of getting home.

I went out to see if I was parked funny, parked normally. Then checked for damage. None. Checked my phone, I didn't call anybody.

So either someone I know took me home or I did something incredibly stupid. I was lucky I didn't kill anyone.

If I did get a DUI I would of owned up to it. It should be .05

/scared straight
//calls a taxi now
/// taxi magic is an awesome app
//// but the fark app is better


If this story is true, you were WELL over .08. So how exactly would lowering the limit have stopped you from being stupid?

Also, if you had stopped drinking at .06, you'd remember your uneventful drive home.
 
2013-05-14 08:25:43 PM  
Meh, I'm good.  I generally drink at home and the cars are parked 100 yards from the house (big property).  Hardly alone, gotta invite all the friends over.  What are they gonna get me on, drunk while rural?

Sounds like city people problems.
 
2013-05-14 08:47:01 PM  
I remember when the BAC was 1.1. At that time, I was pulled over by a cycle cop in AZ at 2 am.
He did not have a direct readout breathaLIEzer but claimed I was too drunk to drive based on 'visual' evidence. My BAC turned out to be .01, the only reason I was pulled over was we had been 'cruising' Central Ave that night and the cops liked to fark with people out having fun...
But I have seen obviously drunk cops driven off site after accidents to prevent them from being charged. I know some police unions allow cops to drink alcohol while on duty, and any law that does not apply to everyone equally, it doesn't apply to anyone...
 
2013-05-14 08:50:54 PM  

Nezorf: The main issue is the lack of risk.
The chances of getting pulled over for intoxication are minimal at best.
People take their chances all of the time. Drive around your city at bar close and observe.
How many swerving folks do you see?
How many police do you see?
How many cars are out on the road at 2am (or whatever close is in your town)?
I would say it is safe to assume that 50% of all the solo drivers of those cars has drank at least one beer.
Drunk driving sucks but people do it all the time. Go sit at a bar and watch how many folks come in, drink plenty of drinks in a short period of time, grab their keys and head out.

I'm not suggesting that everyone should be pulled over, but getting pulled over is a chance game.
If they want to save lives, leave the %age issue alone, leave the penalties where they are but beef up how many police are out on the highways and side roads.
Make it more of a risk. Make the chance of getting caught higher. That is where you will see change.
Patrol the main highways but also watch the "safe" roads.
Side note: I am absolutely against checkpoints or blockades, you must have a specific reason to pull someone over.
Speed up the duration of a drunk arrest, the faster they can go through them the more folks can be observed and checked.
They swerve, pull them over, check L&R and request a breathalyzer if there is probable cause.
Even if you pull a person over and they are near the limit (.07 or so) hopefully you will make the potential of getting arrested a reality.

Its the same issue with speeding. The more you do it without getting arrested or getting spooked, you are more likely to do it often.


To put some facts up before this thread might blow up

1st Minnesota DWI
First Drunk Driving Conviction (Fourth Degree DWI - Misdemeanor)
Jail - Up to 90 Days
Fine - $1,000
License Suspension - Up to 90 Days
License Suspension - 180 Days (If Alcohol Concentration .20 or Above*)
License Suspension - 180 Days (If Passenger Under 16 in Vehicle*)
License Suspension - 1 Year (DWI Test Refusal)
Limited License - Must Wait 15 Days (If There are no *Aggravating Circumstances)
Ignition Interlock Possible
Fee - $250 License Reinstatement
Fee - $430 License Reinstatement Surcharge
Fee - $24 Driver License Application Fee

2nd Minnesota DWI
Second Drunk Driving Conviction (Within 10 Years of Previous) - Third Degree DWI - Gross Misdemeanor
Jail - Up to 1 Year
Fine - $3,000
License Suspension - 180 Days
License Suspension - 360 Days (If Alcohol Concentration .20 or Above)
License Suspension - 360 Days (If Passenger under Age of 16 in Vehicle)
Limited License (Work or School) - Must Wait 90 Days
Ignition Interlock Possible
Fee - $250 License Reinstatement
Fee - $430 License Reinstatement Surcharge
Fee - $24 Driver License Application Fee
Administrative License Plate Impoundment (All Vehicles - 1 Year)
Issued Specially Coded Plate

3rd Minnesota DWI
Third Drunk Driving Conviction (Within 10 Years of Previous) - Second Degree DWI - Gross Misdemeanor
Jail - Up to 1 Year
Fine - $3,000
License Suspension - Cancelled Indefinitely Pending, Treatment / Rehabilitation / Abstinence for 1 Year
Ignition Interlock Possible
Administrative License Plate Impoundment (All Vehicles - 1 Year)
Issued Specially Coded Plates

4th Minnesota DWI
Fourth Drunk Driving Conviction (Within 10 Years of Previous)
First Degree DWI - Felony
Jail - Up to 7 Years
Fine - $14,000


You left out the fact that on 3rd (and any subsequent) DUI in Minnesota (within 10 years,) the offender FORFEITS their vehicle to the government. Permanently.
 
2013-05-14 08:51:13 PM  
If 1/4 people driving have had at least one drink then 25% of all accidents would be scored as 'alcohol as a contributing cause.' This includes fatalities.
 
2013-05-14 08:51:25 PM  

doofusgumby: Dr.Fey: doofusgumby: Know 2 people who got DUI s AT HOME. And didn't drink until after they got there.

I just don't believe this.  No DA would file - there's no way to beat the reasonable doubt if this went to trial, and no DA wants to lower his or her conviction rate.

Case 1: female, gets home sober. Has three drinks. Goes out to the car to get something out of the trunk. Cop pulls up and says there was a report about a suspected drunk driver in the neighborhood. Makes her blow after running her licence and finding she had a prior. She can't afford a $3,000 lawyer, pleads no contest. Dumb I know, but that's the breaks.

Case 2: Male, was sober and parked on the side of a main street. High speed chase goes by, CHP sideswipes his car, CHP continues chase. He calls CHP to find out what he should do, they make him wait a couple hours before saying go home, an officer will come by when available. He goes home, waits. Couple hours go by, he has a couple beers. CHP shows up, arrest for DUI with enhancement for damaging a cruiser. He gets a lawyer and fights, loses.

So yes, it does happen.


I'm going to call bullshiat on the second one solely because if it's not bullshiat I've lost all faith in America, society, and mankind. So bullshiat.
 
2013-05-14 08:57:22 PM  

Sliding Carp: It seems to me we have a good control for some drunk driving questions - Wisconsin. It is known for extreme judicial leniency towards drunk driving -- how do their accident and fatality rates compare with other states? (I really don't know)


Based on DUI Fatalities as a % of all traffic accident fatalities, Wisconsin ranked 42nd worst in 2011.
Here's the map from MADD using NHTSA data, where the state ranked 1 has the lowest % of alcohol related deaths and 51 (including DC) has the highest percentage.

Some stats for Wisconsin in 2011:
3 time offenders: 33,166
5 time offenders: 5,042
DUI Fatalities: 196
% of total traffic deaths DUI related 34
% of change in DUI fatalities from previous to current year: -3.4
State subsidy of drunk driving fatalities: $980 million

We're also the only state where first offense DUI is not a crime unless you cause an accident or have a minor in the vehicle.  I believe the counter resets after 5 years, unless you hit at least 2 or 3, and then it becomes a 10 year counter, I think. (been a while since I looked at the details)

  Being from here, I am personally in favor of lowering the DUI threshold. The simple fact is, that at .08, and even less, most people are impaired.  The real message people should get, is if you're going to drink don't drive.  1 beer or wine with a meal isn't going to get anyone over the limit, but any more than that and you should use a taxi or a designated driver.

  I know people like to rag on DUI laws for some reason, but the emphasis on drunk driving has reduced fatalities significantly in the last 20 years.  From 1991 to 2011, overall fatalities dropped ~33%, and when stated as fatalities per 100,000 people, they are down 48 %.
 
2013-05-14 08:58:51 PM  
.08 is really low. And I'm higher than .05 with a mild hangover.
 
2013-05-14 09:03:22 PM  

timujin: Not sure what this is supposed to accomplish.  What percentage of drunk driving deaths are caused by people at .08?


In a triple Vehicular Assault case where I live, driver had a 0.079 BAC a little more than two hours the crash.  It can happen.
 
2013-05-14 09:03:29 PM  

WorldKnowledge: Actual billboard in California

[quadcitiesdaily.com.s140587.gridserver.com image 550x259]


I've seen this in the Mission in San Francisco--at least they are honest about it. DUI's bother me so much because whether you blow .08 or a .5 in the hospital, same conviction, and Jesus Christ, as far as jobs, you are about on par with murderers if they run a background check.
 
2013-05-14 09:03:55 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: doofusgumby: Dr.Fey: doofusgumby: Know 2 people who got DUI s AT HOME. And didn't drink until after they got there.

I just don't believe this.  No DA would file - there's no way to beat the reasonable doubt if this went to trial, and no DA wants to lower his or her conviction rate.

Case 1: female, gets home sober. Has three drinks. Goes out to the car to get something out of the trunk. Cop pulls up and says there was a report about a suspected drunk driver in the neighborhood. Makes her blow after running her licence and finding she had a prior. She can't afford a $3,000 lawyer, pleads no contest. Dumb I know, but that's the breaks.

Case 2: Male, was sober and parked on the side of a main street. High speed chase goes by, CHP sideswipes his car, CHP continues chase. He calls CHP to find out what he should do, they make him wait a couple hours before saying go home, an officer will come by when available. He goes home, waits. Couple hours go by, he has a couple beers. CHP shows up, arrest for DUI with enhancement for damaging a cruiser. He gets a lawyer and fights, loses.

So yes, it does happen.

I'm going to call bullshiat on the second one solely because if it's not bullshiat I've lost all faith in America, society, and mankind. So bullshiat.


Sorry to burst your faith bubble.

Moral of the story: don't go near your car with keys when you've had a drink, and don't have a drink until after the cops interview you after they damn near total your car.
 
2013-05-14 09:04:19 PM  

Rising_Zan_Samurai_Gunman: The simple fact is, that at .08, and even less, most people are impaired.


Does this correlate into a higher rate of accidents? If you are going to make something illegal, and a serious crime you should have a very good reason, and evidence. Not just "If .08 is good .05 is better".
 
2013-05-14 09:10:58 PM  

Cranialsodomy: In a triple Vehicular Assault case where I live, driver had a 0.079 BAC a little more than two hours the crash.  It can happen.


Do they know alcohol was a factor and not one of the many other factors that can contribute to crashes when everyone is 0.0?
 
2013-05-14 09:11:44 PM  
I wonder if they have statistics of the number of deaths from DUI compared to farking stupid people?
 
2013-05-14 09:25:07 PM  

Mr. Coffee Nerves: Jerking off with Purel is going to result in felony DUI.


I swear I had something for this.  Something about a sock made of sandpaper.
 
2013-05-14 09:27:49 PM  
This is an amazing idea, if we make it illegal no one will ever do it, we won't even have to patrol anymore because everyone will know it's illegal. Safe at last!!!!! Now I can finally drive around without fear of being crashed into by a DUI driver... said no one ever.

I also wonder what the revenue increase is expected to be from that? My favorite part is where they lay the perfect trap for you. They take away your DL, and fine you $5,000, then demand that you use the flawed public tranist system to get to your job....you know that one you didn't use before when you got the DUI because it doesn't actually go to the places you need/want to go or is so slow that it takes 3 hours to get from point A to point B.

/what would the revenue loss be if they increased it to .15?
 
2013-05-14 09:33:44 PM  

noblewolf: I wonder if they have statistics of the number of deaths from DUI compared to farking stupid people?


Farking stupid people leads to southern states.
 
2013-05-14 09:34:35 PM  

DrewCurtisJr: Rising_Zan_Samurai_Gunman: The simple fact is, that at .08, and even less, most people are impaired.

Does this correlate into a higher rate of accidents? If you are going to make something illegal, and a serious crime you should have a very good reason, and evidence. Not just "If .08 is good .05 is better".


Any level of impairment and you shouldn't be driving, it shouldn't be any more complicated than that. If the cops pull you over because you were swerving or otherwise a danger on the roads, should you really get off because your BAC was 0.06 instead of 0.08?  If it was effecting your ability to drive, then its a problem.

  The level ideally should be 0.00, but that would result in too many false positives. Besides there being times your body doesn't get your BAC back down to 0 for hours, certain medical conditions could increase your BAC - for example, if you have an intestinal yeast infection, it will convert sugar into alcohol and increase your BAC, so that and other conditions could also cause false positives.

  The point of lowering the number isn't to generate more criminal cases, although that may be the immediate effect.  The point is to eliminate the culture of drinking and driving.

 Seriously, how hard is it to not drink if you're going to drive, and to not drive if you've had too many drinks?
 
2013-05-14 09:40:17 PM  

chachi88: Arkansas DUI
$475 fine and time served


Oregon DUI as an Oklahoman: About $6000 for one night in jail plus court plus the resulting fines and incidental costs, 90 day driving ban that only covered driving in Oregon, 15 months court supervision and sobriety, 6 of it in outpatient rehab and AA, and ultimately expunged.  Did not count on my Oklahoma driving record because of a lack of parity with the DUI laws between states, so no points on my license and my insurance didn't go up.  Judge told me, "For doing what is clearly the dumbest thing in your life, you managed to do it in the smartest possible way, because you know and I know if you had an Oregon license or you were at home, things would have been much worse."

/First time, last time.
//Wouldn't recommend it.
///Should have trusted my gut, not my "friends."
////Sad thing is, that's the best thing that happened to me in Oregon in the last 10 years.
 
2013-05-14 09:53:39 PM  

Rising_Zan_Samurai_Gunman: Any level of impairment and you shouldn't be driving, it shouldn't be any more complicated than that.


Yes it should be more complicated. Show me this level of  "impairment" increases your chances of causing an accident.

Rising_Zan_Samurai_Gunman:
Seriously, how hard is it to not drink if you're going to drive, and to not drive if you've had too many drinks?

How many is "too many"? It should be the amount that can be shown to increase your chances of causing an accident.
 
2013-05-14 10:06:21 PM  

Gonz: TheTurtle: kahnzo: I say make blood alcohol just one part of the test.  Improve the test for "impairment" and the results of that test should potentially supersede the bac.  One drink and a vicodin and you could be impaired.  Three beers and you might be fine to drive.  Colorado making efforts to determine chemical levels of impairment for THC and I think they really need to re-look at other tests of impairment.  Get stopped, play a "video game" in the back of a cop car.

Around here (DC/VA/MD) it seems like the real push should be a crackdown on "driving while being a moron."  I see some people do some incredibly stoooopid shiat, alcohol or no.

Yesterday, I was sitting in a left turn lane, at a red light, waiting to turn across two lanes of traffic. 4:30 in the afternoon, stone-cold sober, just watching the road.

There was a break in the oncoming traffic, probably about 10 seconds of space. Before I'd even given it a bit of rational thought, I'd made my turn and was going down the road. It took me a little while to even realize I'd just made a left on red. If a cop had been anywhere around me, it would have been the most well-deserved ticket in history.

Sometimes, "moron" happens.


I read "left on red," and immediately thought, "right foot, blue! right hand, yellow!  Twister® ties you up in a knot!"
 
2013-05-14 10:17:53 PM  
Tougher drunk-driving threshold proposed to reduce traffic deaths increase revenue
FTFY
 
2013-05-14 10:18:42 PM  
I drink at home, all this is going to do is cost party types money and reduce bar business.
 
2013-05-14 10:24:14 PM  

Alonjar: Tougher drunk-driving threshold proposed to reduce traffic deaths increase revenue
FTFY


That was kind of my thought. They must not be filling enough seats in the mandatory MADD victim impact panels required for DUI offenders, in which you get to write MADD a check and listen to them call you a piece of shiat for a Saturday. Mind you, this is separate from the DWI class (offered by a private contractor on behalf of the state) where you spend a couple of weekday nights or a full Saturday being taught how to avoid being caught in the future.

Not that I advocate driving drunk, but it has become big business, and any drop in conviction rates demands action (more convicts).

If they were serious about reducing fatalities, they'd be attacking from the high BAC and multiple offense levels...you know, where the deaths are, but that costs, rather than raises money for the state.
 
2013-05-14 10:50:11 PM  
I absolutely do not advocate drunk driving, and I absolutely do not equate anecdotal evidence to hard facts.  That being said, of the two accidents I've been involved in where my car was "totalled", both times, the driver at fault was busy using a cellphone (presumably texting) while driving.  Seems like that should be the behavior worth focusing on, versus lowering BAC even more.  Again, if you've been drinking, don't drive, period.  But if you're going to move forward with national legislation in regards to driving and safety, I know which behavior I'd prefer to focus on.  I'm tired of dealing with the hassle and expense of a totalled car, and I'm sure many, many people have lost their lives due to others who are too busy playing with their cellphone to pay attention to traffic.

Seriously people, stop texting and driving.  STOP IT.  STOP.  DON'T DO IT.
 
2013-05-14 11:13:38 PM  

kim jong-un: sammyk: PowerSlacker: Throw the book at the people who exceed .08 instead.

Even that is a little low. It used to be .10. A lot of people, myself included, felt that was just a money grab.

The original recommendation was .15 you know, the one based on actual science.


When you run out of criminals, just make more (or tougher) laws.

Used to be .15, then they felt they weren't generating enough criminals, pushed for .08 (we pinky-swear that that's as far as we'll take it). Now that it's .08 everywhere, they're pushing for .05 (we pinky-swear that that's as far as we'll take it).

Mark my words, if we allow .05, it'll be .02 soon.

At .08, you can barely tell the difference between legal and illegal by observing their driving, which is why we need checkpoints and computers to figure it out.
 
2013-05-14 11:17:18 PM  

Rising_Zan_Samurai_Gunman: The level ideally should be 0.00,


No, it shouldn't. If ample scientific study and current law says that I can have a glass of wine with my meal - actually two for my body weight, and I am quite able to drive safely, than why shouldn't I?
 
Displayed 50 of 231 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report