Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Then why stop there? Why not outlaw drinking soda while driving? Why not outlaw smoking while driving? Why not outlaw cars that are statistically higher to cause accidents? Any innocent life lost is too many, right?
Right, and those aren't bad ideas. You forgot to include cell phone use. And in case you don't recall, it is already illegal to operate a vehichle that isn't in safe running shape. If you do, and you know about it, and you harm anyone else as a result of some safety defect, you'd be very liable for any damage you caused. It would be even worse if it can be established that you knew about such a defect before the accident because you would be considered negligent.
So if somebody has, lets say, 5 drinks and decides to drive, but compromises by driving slower, more alert, more steady, etc...vs the way he usually drives (distracted, flipping people off, speeding, etc) and lets say theoretically that his compromise actually made him MORE safe on the road. You would still criminalyze that person?
Your entire proposition is invalid. You're assuming far more capability for continuous rational behavior than I'm willing to grant to anyone who's had five drinks in a short period of time. Even if a paricular individual could manage to drive safely after five drinks, the majority of people couldn't. The police don't have time to test every individual whose BAC exceeds the legal limit so the only practical and enforceable safety rule is to restrict all drivers from driving when their BAC exceeds the limit.
Looking at it from your perspective, do you want to be the one assigned to informing all the family members, AFTER the fact, of every person whose death was caused by a drunk driver just to preserve your self-indulgent fantasy that you can drive safely while legally drunk? If so, you've got far more ego than brain power.
Originally posted by: BlancoNino
I said Gibson was obviously drunk and needed punishment. I've always said .12 should be the legal limit. Not a bogus .08. I'm a man of principle. If there isn't any concrete evidence to support a law, we shouldn't have one.
AFIC, your statement makes you much less of a man and without enough principle.
Statistically, ALL drivers screw up sometime (sober or not). I've been the victim of 3 car crashes (none my fault) and the drivers were never drunk.
That's no excuse for increasing the odds of fatalities by allowing potentially impared drivers on the road. Again, ALL drivers with a BAC greater than .08% are not safe on the road.
We all have to use transportation to work, to engage in commerce and simply to lead our lives so there is a social benefit associated with the risk of being on the road, at all. The BAC limit is set to avoid even the minimal chances of an alocohol related accidents because there is no social benefit to be derived from doing so.
I see so many crappy drivers on the road, and it really boils my blood that the police are more interested in the money-making game of targetting social drinkers. Ever listen to a police radio?
That's pure bullsh8! Either prove your absurd statement, or go back to whatever you're drinking.
"Um, I think he may of been drinking...he just left a friends house and the football game is over."
not
"Um, I think he may of been drinking, he's driving very poorly and showing obvious signs of impairment."
See the difference?
NO! In either case, if there is a suspicion the driver in question would still have to fail a BAC test to be convicted. Meanwhile, if that driver is actually impared, even if his BAC is below the limit, being checked is a small inconvenience that may get him off the road.
If there's any suspicion, I'd rather the "friend" was checked before harming himself or anyone else. If you disagree, I don't think you're much of a friend to anyone in a condition to need the help. :thumbsdown: :frown: :thumbsdown:
:thumbsup:
Facebook
Twitter