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  
•       •       •

15200 clicks; posted to Main » on 14 May 2013 at 4:21 PM (49 weeks 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 02:31:59 PM
Not sure what this is supposed to accomplish.  What percentage of drunk driving deaths are caused by people at .08?
 
2013-05-14 02:33:08 PM
Throw the book at the people who exceed .08 instead.
 
2013-05-14 02:33:22 PM

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?
 
2013-05-14 02:34:29 PM
Jerking off with Purel is going to result in felony DUI.
 
2013-05-14 02:37:16 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?


It's all about $afety
 
2013-05-14 02:46:18 PM
Pretty soon if any alcohol is detected in your system you will be charged with DUI.
 
2013-05-14 02:46:21 PM

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.
 
2013-05-14 02:48:21 PM
Done in the boobies. Seriou$ly, what will lowering the permi$$able BAC level accompli$h?
 
2013-05-14 02:49:59 PM
Here's to living in a city with many bars in walking distance!
 
2013-05-14 02:52:29 PM
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
 
2013-05-14 02:54:24 PM

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


I don't know about that.  Even in my submarining days (yes, sailors drink a lot, submariners drink even more), downing four drinks in an hour did not leave me in a state to drive.  Five would be messy.

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


This I would like to see borne out in detail, however.
 
2013-05-14 02:58:13 PM
I take umbrage at the headline, I may be sauced out of my gourd, but I'm never too drunk to hail a cab.
 
2013-05-14 03:04:00 PM

brap: I take umbrage at the headline, I may be sauced out of my gourd, but I'm never too drunk to hail a cab.


Or hurl *IN* a cab.
 
2013-05-14 03:05:30 PM
Alberta did this recently, lowering the legal limit from 0.08 to 0.05.

I have two friends who are police officers and they don't agree with it, stating that it's essentially useless. Why? Because people who cause fatal collisions aren't often in the 0.05 range, they're in the 0.20 range or above, or in other words, completely sh*tfaced.  Lowering the limit to 0.05 does nothing to prevent that.

My police friends would absolutely agree with tougher sentencing. I've heard their stories from court on drunk drivers beating charges and it is absolutely appalling.
 
2013-05-14 03:07:03 PM
Neoprohibitionists.  They are working, slowly, gradually, towards zero tolerance.  They know they can't ask for it all at once, because they will be laughed at.  So they exploit the mechanisms of the slippery slope to achieve their goals.
 
2013-05-14 03:12:27 PM

dittybopper: Neoderegulationists.  They are working, slowly, gradually, towards zero regulation.  They know they can't ask for it all at once, because they will be laughed at.  So they exploit the fallacy of the slippery slope to achieve their goals.


Can be said for both sides
 
2013-05-14 03:13:35 PM
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.
 
2013-05-14 03:17:46 PM

Nezorf: dittybopper: Neoderegulationists.  They are working, slowly, gradually, towards zero regulation.  They know they can't ask for it all at once, because they will be laughed at.  So they exploit the fallacy of the slippery slope to achieve their goals.

Can be said for both sides


Actually, slippery slopes are a logical fallacy, but as I like to point out to people, we live on Earth, not the planet Vulcan.

Read the link.  It's by a very respected constitutional law professor, and it actually describes how slippery slopes work in the real world.

Also, your argument would have greater weight if anyone was arguing for increasing the BAC to be considered drunk, but pretty much no one is that I'm aware of, and in any case it's gone from no standard, to 0.10, then to 0.08, and now they are advocating for 0.05.    That's enough data points for me to say "Hey, all the movement is downward", which puts the lie to your alleged corrections.
 
2013-05-14 03:22:12 PM

IgG4: 1 in 7 people in MN have already been convicted of DUI


Really?  Fully 14% of your population has been convicted of DUI?  That sounds rather high.

Even if you just count 14% of adults, or even 14% of licensed drivers, that's a huge percentage.

(runs and checks)

Wow, it's true:   One in seven current Minnesota drivers (570,191) has a DWI on record, and one in 17 has two or more DWIs. In the state, 1,265 Minnesotans have 10 or more DWIs.
 
2013-05-14 03:22:46 PM

dittybopper: Neoprohibitionists.  They are working, slowly, gradually, towards zero tolerance.  They know they can't ask for it all at once, because they will be laughed at.  So they exploit the mechanisms of the slippery slope to achieve their goals.


MADD does fall under this category, and they seem to have all the free time in the world to bother legislators.  God knows they don't have a social life.

And I say this as someone that is deeply committed to road safety and responsible drinking: dem b*tches be crazy.
 
2013-05-14 03:27:31 PM
Another day, another BS Government regulation.

This is right up there with the assinine ad campaign, "Buzzed driving is drink driving"
 
2013-05-14 03:38:18 PM
That would accomplish absolutely nothing....except ruin the lives of even more perfectly safe drivers who aren't even actually drunk. This nanny-state of ours needs to lighten up and have a beer or two.
 
2013-05-14 03:47:46 PM

factoryconnection: dittybopper: Neoprohibitionists.  They are working, slowly, gradually, towards zero tolerance.  They know they can't ask for it all at once, because they will be laughed at.  So they exploit the mechanisms of the slippery slope to achieve their goals.

MADD does fall under this category, and they seem to have all the free time in the world to bother legislators.  God knows they don't have a social life.

And I say this as someone that is deeply committed to road safety and responsible drinking: dem b*tches be crazy.


Even the founder of MADD thinks they've gone too far towards the neo-prohibitionist side, though she does support ignition interlocks for those convicted of drunk driving.

The interesting things about organizations, though, is that like organisms, they don't like to die.  MADD was founded with one goal:  To reduce drunk driving deaths.  By any rational measure, they've succeeded fantastically:

www.centurycouncil.org

They've cut the raw numbers of deaths due to drunk driving in *HALF*.

The problem is, what do you do when you've won?

Well, you advocate for that one extra step to reduce it even further.  The alternative is irrelevance or even death as an organization.  And organizations like that don't like to die.

Did you know that the  Woman's Christian Temperance Union is still around?  Yes, 80 years after the repeal of their signature legislation, they are still around.
 
2013-05-14 03:52:39 PM

Rev.K: My police friends would absolutely agree with tougher sentencing. I've heard their stories from court on drunk drivers beating charges and it is absolutely appalling.


If they were tougher on sentencing how would DUI lawyers make any moneys?
 
2013-05-14 04:06:30 PM

dittybopper: Well, you advocate for that one extra step to reduce it even further. The alternative is irrelevance or even death as an organization. And organizations like that don't like to die.


Good point, I can see how they'd not want to just shut down the organization, and 10K deaths/year still yields plenty of bereaved mothers that want to make sure it doesn't happen again.
 
2013-05-14 04:10:26 PM
I am vehemently anti drink and drive but looking at that graph the major and most dramatic improvements are curiously close to when airbags became standard issue, which of course would trickle down towards used automobiles.
 
2013-05-14 04:25:16 PM
But, I like to register above .05% because I believe in keeping my veins and arteries antiseptically clean at all times.
 
2013-05-14 04:26:04 PM
I am having a bad focusing day, so pardon me if I missed it somewhere, but has anyone given us a number of fatal accidents where the driver was over .05 but under .08?
 
2013-05-14 04:26:34 PM
Yay for arbitrary numbers that have no bearing on weather a person is drunk or not!
 
2013-05-14 04:27:50 PM

FarkedOver: Yay for arbitrary numbers that have no bearing on weather whether a person is drunk or not!


BAC well above .08%
 
2013-05-14 04:27:54 PM

dittybopper: The problem is, what do you do when you've won?


**DINGDINGDING**
 
2013-05-14 04:28:09 PM

namegoeshere: I am having a bad focusing day, so pardon me if I missed it somewhere, but has anyone given us a number of fatal accidents where the driver was over .05 but under .08?


The NTSB "estimates" between 800-1000 total fatalities. For whatever that's worth.
 
2013-05-14 04:28:49 PM
.05 essentially outlaws dinner and a glass of wine for female drivers 150 lbs. and below (aka the Farking sweetspot.)

The rest of us pigs, two glasses of wine, a relatively quick dinner, and a narc in the lot -- we're booked as well.

Oh and EVERY SINGLE PERSON leaving an NFL stadium would be in violation.
 
2013-05-14 04:29:11 PM
dittybopper: graph

I'm going to have to throw airbags, seat belt laws, kids-in-the-back campaigns, and safer cars into the equation. Anyone got a graph that accounts for those safety improvements?
 
2013-05-14 04:29:14 PM
I drive better when I'm drunk.  It helps me to relax behind the wheel.
 
2013-05-14 04:29:26 PM

namegoeshere: I am having a bad focusing day, so pardon me if I missed it somewhere, but has anyone given us a number of fatal accidents where the driver was over .05 but under .08?


No, and the new studies do a ton of scientific obfuscation to hide that they have redefined "significant impairment" to levels that require computer aided monitoring to even detect.
 
2013-05-14 04:31:13 PM
So if I had a beer 8 hours before I drove thats a crime now?
 
2013-05-14 04:31:36 PM

Walker: Pretty soon if any alcohol is detected in your system you will be charged with DUI.


Already started in Austin Tx.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/drinking-and-walking-is-the-new-crime-2. ht ml
 
2013-05-14 04:31:45 PM
Since studies have shown the dangers of drunk driving to be about the same as texting while driving, I now find it impossible to hate on drunk drivers the way the government PSAs say I'm supposed to.  One guy gets a ticket, maybe, and the other woman loses her license, goes to jail for the night, gets her name in the paper, and has to pay thousands of dollars in fines if she ever wants to be able to drive legally again.

Also, if we were serious about safety, we wouldn't ticket and arrest drunks who clearly choose to sleep it off in the back seat or passenger side rather than drive.  This bullshiat about "if you have the keys you could start the vehicle" is farking A ignorant.  I have a dick, so I guess I could be a child rapist too....
 
2013-05-14 04:32:16 PM
Unfortunately I am getting a kick out of these replies.  :(
 
2013-05-14 04:32:18 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* ...


And after all that  there will be your 'out of this universe' insurance rates.
 
2013-05-14 04:32:19 PM
t1.gstatic.com
 
2013-05-14 04:32:37 PM
0.05 BAC? Then I guess we better start executing people for texting, eating, yelling at their kids, or applying makeup while driving.

/have never driven after even one drink, but still
 
2013-05-14 04:33:12 PM

the_freelance: Oh and EVERY SINGLE PERSON leaving an NFL stadium would be in violation.


Any Onion articles about this yet?

"Green Bay, WI Ghost Town After 72,000 Packers Fans Arrested for DUI"
 
2013-05-14 04:33:37 PM
Bc dropped the limit to .05 and drastically increased penalties. If you are caught twice it's such a high penalty that you will be stuck with a huge financial burden for 5 or more years. Really reduced the amount of casual drunk driving. No one wants to risk losing 50-100% of a years income over a dui ticket.
 
2013-05-14 04:33:49 PM
dittybopper:
[www.centurycouncil.org image 500x375]

They've cut the raw numbers of deaths due to drunk driving in *HALF*.

The problem is, what do you do when you've won?

Well, you advocate for that one extra step to reduce it even further.  The alternative is irrelevance or even death as an organization.  And organizations like that don't like to die.

Did you know that the  Woman's Christian Temperance Union is still around?  Yes, 80 years after the repeal of their signature legislation, they are still around.


What gets me is that when you consider drunk driving related accidents have gone down by half in raw numbers, as a factor of fatalities per road mile driven per year, it's down way more than 50%. It's also way down as a factor of total highway deaths, even though NHTSA considers any crash alcohol related if there is -any- detectable amount in the blood. Sober guy T-bones a cab hauling a drunk home from the bar? Alcohol involved fatality.

So, even with the number fudging, deaths are way, way down from what they were when MADD got started. I'm not saying it needs to be legal again, but you've got to wonder what the agenda really is when they keep pushing the limits lower and lower.
 
2013-05-14 04:34:17 PM
In Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, there is a 0% rule.  And daily random checkpoints around the city.  Yes, it helped reduce drunk driving, but a lot of collateral damage as well.  People have gone to jail and lost both their car and licenses for cleaning their mouth with Listerine.
 
2013-05-14 04:35:09 PM
Money grab.
 
2013-05-14 04:36:02 PM

dittybopper: factoryconnection: dittybopper: Neoprohibitionists.  They are working, slowly, gradually, towards zero tolerance.  They know they can't ask for it all at once, because they will be laughed at.  So they exploit the mechanisms of the slippery slope to achieve their goals.

MADD does fall under this category, and they seem to have all the free time in the world to bother legislators.  God knows they don't have a social life.

And I say this as someone that is deeply committed to road safety and responsible drinking: dem b*tches be crazy.

Even the founder of MADD thinks they've gone too far towards the neo-prohibitionist side, though she does support ignition interlocks for those convicted of drunk driving.

The interesting things about organizations, though, is that like organisms, they don't like to die.  MADD was founded with one goal:  To reduce drunk driving deaths.  By any rational measure, they've succeeded fantastically:

[www.centurycouncil.org image 500x375]

They've cut the raw numbers of deaths due to drunk driving in *HALF*.

The problem is, what do you do when you've won?

Well, you advocate for that one extra step to reduce it even further.  The alternative is irrelevance or even death as an organization.  And organizations like that don't like to die.

Did you know that the  Woman's Christian Temperance Union is still around?  Yes, 80 years after the repeal of their signature legislation, they are still around.


Now index those figures against population or miles driven per year, and the stats will look even better.  At some point, legislation won't make a meaningful difference.
 
2013-05-14 04:36:22 PM
Politicians excepted.
 
Displayed 50 of 231 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report