Rookie District Attorney Cracks Down on Drunk Drivers

[pinion9]

Originally posted by: dawza
Let us make the following assumptions:

1. Ingestion of alcohol impairs physiological factors required to operate a motor vehicle.

2. Impairment of physiological factors as stated in (1) increases the probability of accidents.

Therefore, we should not drink alcohol and then drive. . . which begs the question:

What about partaking in other actions which may impair the driver's function in the same manner? For example, it has been shown that severe sleep deprivation negatively affects driving ability in a manner similar to a BAC of 0.04-0.05%. Similarly, older drivers have drastically slowed reaction time and visusal acuity, particularly at night. There are many other scenarios which we can think of that impede the ability to operate a vehicle.

Should we equally condemn people who drive while sleepy? What about those with less than ideal night vision? Older people?

The overly emotional, all-or-nothing stance this DA takes not only ignores logic, but openly mocks it.

Link to 2005 study published in JAMA looking at long work shifts vs. alcohol ingestion with respect to driving simulation and other variables: http://tinyurl.com/lz8s4

This is about drunk driving, not impaired night vision or sleepiness. We cannot base one law and punishment upon another law and its punishment. They are mutually exclusive. Driving sleeping should also be punishable. However, it is much harder to tell. Older people and those with bad night vision didn't make the conscious choice to be that way.

Please stay on topic. This is about driving with alcohol in your system. Please start a new thread if you would like to discuss driving while sleepy and its punishment.

 

[Mill]

We cannot base one law and punishment upon another law and its punishment.

That's actually the basis of our entire legal system.

 

[pinion9]

Originally posted by: Mill

We cannot base one law and punishment upon another law and its punishment.

That's actually the basis of our entire legal system.

For related laws, yes.

We don't say:

Child porn is bad. It gets five years in prison.
Murder is 5 times worse than child porn. Therefore that gets 25 years in prison.

To equate making a choice to drink a beverage that impairs your ability to think and getting behind the wheel to working a long shift and driving home is ridiculous.

 

[dawza]

This is about drunk driving, not impaired night vision or sleepiness

Nowhere in the OPs post, or in this thread, did I see anyone state that this was solely about drunk driving. If fact, if you noticed, the subtitle of the topic specifically mentioned "acts over- emotional."

We cannot base one law and punishment upon another law and its punishment. They are mutually exclusive.

Do you agree with my line of reasoning in my previous post? If so, then what separates drinking and driving from driving while sleepy? Concious choices were made in both instances, and it has been shown that both impair driving ability to comparable degrees.

Where is the mutual exclusivity here? As far as I can see, the larger issue at hand is driving when you know you are impaired. So, why should a law which cracks down mercilessly on drunk drivers not also apply to those who drive while impaired for other reasons? The fact that we cannot detect the inducing factor - sleepiness for example - does not mean that the law should not also extend to cover said factor(s). Of course, we cannot take this too far, or we begin to approach ridiculous stipulations, such that only those in prime health would be legally allowed to drive.

The point I am trying to make is that the manner in which this DA went about in making her decision is unfitting of someone in her position.

Older people and those with bad night vision didn't make the conscious choice to be that way.

Of course they did not. But they do make the concious choice to get in a car and drive, despite the fact that many are aware of their impairment, no? And making that choice is the crux of the issue at hand.

The primary reason I believe that the OP posted this was not to highlight a harsh crackdown, but rather to emphasize that the DA should not have attempted to appeal to emotion to justify her decision. Can you honestly say that you are comfortable with the obvious emotional driving force behind her decision?

Edit: As far as basing one law on another, ever hear of precedent?

 

[dawza]

To equate making a choice to drink a beverage that impairs your ability to think and getting behind the wheel to working a long shift and driving home is ridiculous.

Why? The science is there to support the ability of either to impair driving function to similar degrees.

Are choices not made in either situation? And you know darn well that when you are sleepy, you are in no condition to drive.

Edited for screwing up quotation brackets.

 

[pinion9]

Originally posted by: dawza

To equate making a choice to drink a beverage that impairs your ability to think and getting behind the wheel to working a long shift and driving home is ridiculous.

Why? The science is there to support the ability of either to impair driving function to similar degrees.

Are choices not made in either situation? And you know darn well that when you are sleepy, you are in no condition to drive.

I agree that driving while sleepy is bad. It should be punishable. However, DUI is much worse and more prevalent. One problem at a time. Get the DUI thing under control and we can work on the driving while sleepy.

One thing about driving while tired is that you can generally do something to wake yourself up. you can drink some coffee, roll down the window, and blast the stereo.

NOTHING can make you sober when you are drunk.

 

[rivan]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: Marlin1975

Originally posted by: So
The woman is out of control. The punishment for drunk driving is already pretty severe (understandably) -- if there is a rash of repeat offenders, upping the punishment is just stupid -- she needs to get them help for their problem. Punishing them excessively will only put more people in jail unnecessarily.

No it is not. Most get a little slap on the wrist, pay a fine, and pick some trash up for a couple hours. And thats about the worst of it. If you have a lawyer then pay a fine and drive away from the court house. There are people with 2 or a LOT more DWI's and still have a driver license.

As SophalotJack was saying. The Def. laywers are mad as they can;t make more money off the drunks.
And as AlienCraft said. "What good are laws if they aren't enforced, or worse, diluted?" is very true. DWI has been more of a way to raise money, not really punish drunks.

Look up the average cost of a DUI. It completely destroys people. And quite often, good people with families too.

Then don't do it?

 

[Oblivionaire]

Originally posted by: pinion9
Please remember that driving is a privilege and not a right. I am of the opinion that DUI first offense should result in the following:

1) A highly visible, reflective sticker affixed to all 4 sides of every car you own so people can tell that you may be a drunk driver....

Useless. The accident in question for example occured head on. I'm sure the sober person saw them at the last second cause you'd notice a car coming right at you no matter what stickers were or wer not on it. Also if they are both travelling at 50mph that's a combined speed of 100mph. Not enough time to get out of the way most likely.

Besides, you should be mindful off ALL cars on the road regardless of who may be driving.

 

[Babbles]

I see the holier than thou police are out and about.

Originally posted by: dawza

The primary reason I believe that the OP posted this was not to highlight a harsh crackdown, but rather to emphasize that the DA should not have attempted to appeal to emotion to justify her decision. Can you honestly say that you are comfortable with the obvious emotional driving force behind her decision?

I agree with you 100% and I think most people here are too caught up in their righteousness to understand that point.

 

[MrPickins]

Originally posted by: Oblivionaire

Originally posted by: pinion9
Please remember that driving is a privilege and not a right. I am of the opinion that DUI first offense should result in the following:

1) A highly visible, reflective sticker affixed to all 4 sides of every car you own so people can tell that you may be a drunk driver....

Useless. The accident in question for example occured head on. I'm sure the sober person saw them at the last second cause you'd notice a car coming right at you no matter what stickers were or wer not on it. Also if they are both travelling at 50mph that's a combined speed of 100mph. Not enough time to get out of the way most likely.

Besides, you should be mindful off ALL cars on the road regardless of who may be driving.

It still works to shame the driver with the stickers on their car.
Scarlet letter, anyone?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: pinion9

Originally posted by: dawza

To equate making a choice to drink a beverage that impairs your ability to think and getting behind the wheel to working a long shift and driving home is ridiculous.

Why? The science is there to support the ability of either to impair driving function to similar degrees.

Are choices not made in either situation? And you know darn well that when you are sleepy, you are in no condition to drive.

I agree that driving while sleepy is bad. It should be punishable. However, DUI is much worse and more prevalent. One problem at a time. Get the DUI thing under control and we can work on the driving while sleepy.

One thing about driving while tired is that you can generally do something to wake yourself up. you can drink some coffee, roll down the window, and blast the stereo.

NOTHING can make you sober when you are drunk.

Exactly, same idiots that blame the trigger instead of the finger.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: rivan

Then don't do it?

The problem is it's seriously not a real problem. I am not saying when a drunk driver does kill someone it's ok, but the people getting arrested are not the ones even getting into accidents. Those that do are usually single vehicle and no injuries.

The same is those that say they never practiced unsafe sex assuming they actually were sexually active outside committed relationships (the majority again). Almost all of us (maybe not on this forum perhaps), have been out with a chick and did something without protection. Almost noone uses anything for oral stuff which is possibilly more risky for both.

What really factors in to most 'DUI' deaths is the media behind it. WAY WAY more people are dying by just bad drivers everyday. Those that die from DUI's are a rarity really, but make great news coverage.

DUI/DWI laws have raped our constitutional rights and people are crying for further rape.

In a DUI/DWI roadblock I can be stopped long enough to miss wherever I was going (air flight, movie, dinner with friends, $500 concert ticket event, etc) and nothing gets me my time back.

A cop only has to say 'he was weaving', and he has enough to make your arrest even if you blow safe....oh wait, most don't do roadside breath tests so you are carted to the police station. Your car will be towed automatically at the extremely high DUI rate. Even if you blow ok, you can be held for observation for over 12hours. When you get out and have to get your car ... even if you were clean, you still have to pay the $300+ for any tow.

Fact is most people drink, also anyone that drinks probably would fail at 0.08...they know better than to drive when they can't. That 0.08 could be stumbling for one person and 0.12 could be just smooth sailing for another with the breath test (which as a scientist anyone could see that measuring BLOOD through BREATHE is retarded and would never be accepted in any kind of theory). The # of fatalities/crits caused by DUI/DWI is a very low percentage.

MADD/SADD has built themselves as one of the strongest political lobbies (mostly non-DUI issues)...it's easy to raise pitchforks and torches when you show kids and loved ones mangled by a drunk driver.

Å

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: pinion9
This is about drunk driving, not impaired night vision or sleepiness. We cannot base one law and punishment upon another law and its punishment. They are mutually exclusive. Driving sleeping should also be punishable. However, it is much harder to tell. Older people and those with bad night vision didn't make the conscious choice to be that way.

Please stay on topic. This is about driving with alcohol in your system. Please start a new thread if you would like to discuss driving while sleepy and its punishment.

Hmm single issue voters....

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: pinion9
One thing about driving while tired is that you can generally do something to wake yourself up. you can drink some coffee, roll down the window, and blast the stereo.

Not true and after around 36 hours of no sleep, your body will sometimes just shut down in the middle of anything.

You are also not right about nothing will make you sober....time will.

 

[Shadowknight]

What I've never gotten is why everyone is SO aware of the dangers of driving drunk, getting arrested for being drunk, whatever, but still decide that they can't live without drinking alcohol away from home. Buy a case of beer and drink it at home; no worrying about getting in an accident, getting arrested, and you know where the bathroom is when you wakeup with a hangover and need to vomit.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: Shadowknight
What I've never gotten is why everyone is SO aware of the dangers of driving drunk, getting arrested for being drunk, whatever, but still decide that they can't live without drinking alcohol away from home. Buy a case of beer and drink it at home; no worrying about getting in an accident, getting arrested, and you know where the bathroom is when you wakeup with a hangover and need to vomit.

so how is that masturbation working for you?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: Shadowknight
What I've never gotten is why everyone is SO aware of the dangers of driving drunk, getting arrested for being drunk, whatever, but still decide that they can't live without drinking alcohol away from home. Buy a case of beer and drink it at home; no worrying about getting in an accident, getting arrested, and you know where the bathroom is when you wakeup with a hangover and need to vomit.

so how is that masturbation working for you?

:laugh:

 

[Shadowknight]

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: Shadowknight
What I've never gotten is why everyone is SO aware of the dangers of driving drunk, getting arrested for being drunk, whatever, but still decide that they can't live without drinking alcohol away from home. Buy a case of beer and drink it at home; no worrying about getting in an accident, getting arrested, and you know where the bathroom is when you wakeup with a hangover and need to vomit.

so how is that masturbation working for you?

Huh?

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: Shadowknight

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: Shadowknight
What I've never gotten is why everyone is SO aware of the dangers of driving drunk, getting arrested for being drunk, whatever, but still decide that they can't live without drinking alcohol away from home. Buy a case of beer and drink it at home; no worrying about getting in an accident, getting arrested, and you know where the bathroom is when you wakeup with a hangover and need to vomit.

so how is that masturbation working for you?

Huh?

That has to be FTW!

once you 'meat' a real woman, come back and discuss.

 

[Shadowknight]

Originally posted by: alkemyst
Huh?

That has to be FTW!

once you 'meat' a real woman, come back and discuss.[/quote]

What the hell are you talking about?

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: pinion9

Originally posted by: dawza

To equate making a choice to drink a beverage that impairs your ability to think and getting behind the wheel to working a long shift and driving home is ridiculous.

Why? The science is there to support the ability of either to impair driving function to similar degrees.

Are choices not made in either situation? And you know darn well that when you are sleepy, you are in no condition to drive.

I agree that driving while sleepy is bad. It should be punishable. However, DUI is much worse and more prevalent. One problem at a time. Get the DUI thing under control and we can work on the driving while sleepy.

One thing about driving while tired is that you can generally do something to wake yourself up. you can drink some coffee, roll down the window, and blast the stereo.

NOTHING can make you sober when you are drunk.

DUI is more prevalent than sleepy drivers? Than drivers on cellphones? Than drivers distracted by the radio? By drivers distracted by car occupants or kids? Than drivers eating or drinking?

Are you just fvcking stupid, or are you eating all the MADD/SAD propaganda you can shovel into your gullet?

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: Shadowknight

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: Shadowknight
What I've never gotten is why everyone is SO aware of the dangers of driving drunk, getting arrested for being drunk, whatever, but still decide that they can't live without drinking alcohol away from home. Buy a case of beer and drink it at home; no worrying about getting in an accident, getting arrested, and you know where the bathroom is when you wakeup with a hangover and need to vomit.

so how is that masturbation working for you?

Huh?

That has to be FTW!

once you 'meat' a real woman, come back and discuss.

You're an idiot.

I'm a bit older than many posters here. I did my dating in high school, but I only drank once before I was 21. I did my dating and partying as an adult, but never once drove drunk. Even married myself a stripper, and you can't get much more inclined to partying than that. She turned out to be a hose beast, and you can't get much more inclined to drink heavily than that. Even so, I never drove after drinking. Why? Because unlike many of you on here I actually try to be a good person.

You think you've made a zinger, but all you did was make yourself look stupid. Shadowknight had it right, not you. Driving drunk isn't a social requirement, it's not a path to sex and glory, it's not anything good. Driving if you've been drinking is a purely selfish and vile act that risks not only your own safety (which is fine for you to risk) but the safety of others around you.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

You're an idiot.

I'm a bit older than many posters here. I did my dating in high school, but I only drank once before I was 21. I did my dating and partying as an adult, but never once drove drunk. Even married myself a stripper, and you can't get much more inclined to partying than that. She turned out to be a hose beast, and you can't get much more inclined to drink heavily than that. Even so, I never drove after drinking. Why? Because unlike many of you on here I actually try to be a good person.

You think you've made a zinger, but all you did was make yourself look stupid. Shadowknight had it right, not you. Driving drunk isn't a social requirement, it's not a path to sex and glory, it's not anything good. Driving if you've been drinking is a purely selfish and vile act that risks not only your own safety (which is fine for you to risk) but the safety of others around you.

You went off on a major tangent. Did you read what I said, or just react to the thread? Try lithium, perhaps your hose beast stripper can score you some.