AMCRambler
Diamond Member
- Jan 23, 2001
- 7,715
- 31
- 91
I agree driving is inherently dangerous. Which makes current DUI law and enforcement all that more comical.
If there is no accident there is no victim.
If there is an accident we have existing assault laws to cover it
If there is a fatality we have existing manslaughter laws to cover it.
Curent DUI laws are redundant and condone the activity.
THree options:
1) repeal all DUI laws and prosecute according to the above
2) repeal all DUI laws and enforce a single strict zero tolerance law
3) Mandate the saftey feature (blow n go or whatever the latest tech is)
I don't XYZ why should I deal with something aimed at ABC. This applies to just about every law and regulation under the sun.
Probably checks temperature, humidity, maybe even trace proteins. Could just have a passenger blow it, unless there's some sort of integrated biometric key (DNA or whatever).
It would be better to just look beyond the ancient Tech that is blow n go. They can probably implement a skin reading at this point.
I don't have any answer for that. I cannot grasp the fact that after one drink someones judgement could be impacted. It doesn't make sense to me.
I could understand reaction time, things like that, but not judgement.
- Oct 28, 1999
- 62,484
- 8,345
- 126
Just a little simple math/logic here...
In 1982 there were over 26,000 alcohol related fatalities on the road. There were 200 million people in the US. (about 60% of all fatalities)
In 2008 there were 13,000 fatalities on the road (about 37%) of all fatalities but there were over 50% more potential drivers on the road too with a population of over 300 million.
Since the percent to raw number reduction isn't equal it's safe to assume some was do to advanced vehicle saftey and emergency response speeds, but overall that is a HUGE decrease giving the significant increase in possible drivers on the road.
DUI laws, pentalties, and police enforcement are making a huge impact. Lets see what the numbers look like in another 20 years as it's further cracked down on. Without needing to inconvenience the other couple hundred million people on the road.
This also does nothing to stop some habitual drunk from hopping in his 20 year old shitbox and slamming into a family in their brand new shiny minivan with a BAC tester on board. These cars will continue to stay on the road and the people you *really* need to worry about will flock to those cars. This law won't fix that.
FWIW my uncle was killed by a drunk driver about 20 years. The guy that hit him had like 12 previous DUI's. TWELVE. He was driving without a license, and in a car that wasn't even registered. Pieces of shit will be pieces of shit...technology or laws be damned.
In 1982 there were over 26,000 alcohol related fatalities on the road. There were 200 million people in the US. (about 60% of all fatalities)
In 2008 there were 13,000 fatalities on the road (about 37%) of all fatalities but there were over 50% more potential drivers on the road too with a population of over 300 million.
Since the percent to raw number reduction isn't equal it's safe to assume some was do to advanced vehicle saftey and emergency response speeds, but overall that is a HUGE decrease giving the significant increase in possible drivers on the road.
DUI laws, pentalties, and police enforcement are making a huge impact. Lets see what the numbers look like in another 20 years as it's further cracked down on. Without needing to inconvenience the other couple hundred million people on the road.
This also does nothing to stop some habitual drunk from hopping in his 20 year old shitbox and slamming into a family in their brand new shiny minivan with a BAC tester on board. These cars will continue to stay on the road and the people you *really* need to worry about will flock to those cars. This law won't fix that.
FWIW my uncle was killed by a drunk driver about 20 years. The guy that hit him had like 12 previous DUI's. TWELVE. He was driving without a license, and in a car that wasn't even registered. Pieces of shit will be pieces of shit...technology or laws be damned.
Judgement is the very first thing that is impacted. Consult a medical expert on this.
What this whole thing really boils down to is removing people's choice to behave irresponsibly. I understand why people don't want to have their choices limited but there are in my opinion certain types of behavior that are so universally immoral and irresponsible that we as a society have a moral obligation to use whatever means at our disposal to prevent people from choosing to engage in those behaviors. For me, drunk driving kills enough people annually to qualify as one of those behaviors.
Where we used to use laws to try and force people to behave responsibly we are now seeing the availability of technologies which make it possible to nearly completely prevent people from engaging in behaviors which put innocent bystanders lives at risk. In my opinion we have a moral obligation to use those technologies if they will prevent the death of even one innocent person.
Where we used to use laws to try and force people to behave responsibly we are now seeing the availability of technologies which make it possible to nearly completely prevent people from engaging in behaviors which put innocent bystanders lives at risk. In my opinion we have a moral obligation to use those technologies if they will prevent the death of even one innocent person.
- Oct 28, 1999
- 62,484
- 8,345
- 126
My experience and knowledge of the cases that come through the ED would disagree.
sactoking
Diamond Member
- Sep 24, 2007
- 7,648
- 2,924
- 136
WTF are you talking about? The laws condone the activity? Is that because they seek to punish perpetrators of a crime and not prevent all crime from happening? If that's the case you support a police state where everyone is innocent until proven guilty, all freedoms and liberties are stripped from the populace, and the capacity to commit a crime is tantamount to actual commitment.
That's not true at all. The court ordering a drunk driver to have a blower thing is at least somewhat effective. Even if my car doesn't have one, it stills makes the roads safer if someone else has one.
Just make it an option and go from there. It would be good for lowering insurance rates, keep your kids in line, keep your employees in line (rig pigs and construction people are the worst for drunk driving in work trucks after work hours).
Current laws condone the activity by allowing you to drink and drive. What don't you understand?
I thought we were talking about preventing drunk driving in the first place, not waiting until a person has already done it and possibly killed people as a result to prevent them from doing it in the future?
highland145
Lifer
- Oct 12, 2009
- 43,973
- 6,338
- 136
Could be he's a poor judge of his judgement, in general.because you are a poor judge of your judgement while your judgement is impaired
Did I just post that?
It actually only takes a single time driving intoxicated to kill or maim someone though.
because you are a poor judge of your judgement while your judgement is impaired
But that isn't true.
QueBert
Lifer
- Jan 6, 2002
- 22,976
- 1,178
- 126
1st it's not a select few, many many people drive drunk. I've worked at multiple liquor store and a lot of drunk people came in the store every day. What's even more staggering was the occasional drinkers who somehoe believed they could drink 4 beers in 2 hours and still be perfectly fine to drive. While not nearly as dangerous as a person who's shit faced drunk and driving. The ones who claim they're fine to drive but really aren't are also a threat om the road.
I guess I'm different than the people in the thread, but if you find doing something that takes literally 2 extra seconds a PITA, you probably should be taking the bus or a subway instead of driving. Because driving a car is much more of a PITA than blowing in a tube for 1/2 a second. The tube would be a good idea for the 2nd group of people I spoke on. It's crazy how many Americans believe they're an exception to the drinking guidelines, they would be shocked when the car wouldn't start after 3 beers in an hour.
gaidensensei
Banned
- May 31, 2003
- 2,851
- 2
- 81
At this current point in time, it can only be prevented voluntarily. Until then, it will never be completely eliminated until some point when Minority Report-like technology appears.
I'm convinced that mandatory sobriety devices on all vehicles would all but erradicate drunk driving.
Again I ask you people arguing against this, exactly how many deaths would this technology have to prevent for you to consider the imposition worth it?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 407
-
Facebook
Twitter