Topic: DUI laws and The Minority Report (Read 15683 times)

xolik · « **Reply #25 on:** September 10, 2009, 12:18:52 PM »

True story:

I've staggered out of clubs before, gotten into the truck, and the minute I start that thing up it's like I've had cold water splashed on my face. There are cops up the wazoo where most the clubs I go to are located. Hell, there's a sheriff station right across the street. The important thing here is that when I'm a bit tipsy, I've found my awareness actually goes way way up and I'm probably the driving safer than I normally do otherwise. Although, it's more of an "I don't want my ass busted for DUI" than a "THINK OF THE CHILDREN" reasoning behind it. Last thing I need is be pulled over with me being tipsy and *ing-*ing passed out in the seat next to me. Yeah, that'll go over well.

Raise the BAC limit, plzkthx.

ivan · « **Reply #26 on:** September 10, 2009, 12:23:31 PM »

People who get drunk and cause problems ruin it for the rest of us.

Demosthenes · « **Reply #27 on:** September 10, 2009, 12:29:25 PM »

I'm of the opinion that multiple-DUI offenders are such because they're bad fucking drivers to begin with. Alcohol just makes them that much worse.

The problem is, there doesn't seem to be a way to keep them off the road, aside from prolonged incarceration. I always hear of these assholes that are on their 11th or 12th DUI and haven't had a drivers license in 10 years, but they're still out there, driving hammered, and getting busted regularly for it.

I really think it's THOSE assholes that are ruining it for the rest of us. Sooner or later those fools end up killing a whole family, and what happens next? The stupid BAC limit goes from .10% to .08%.

Because THAT would have prevented that shitfaced moron with a .34% BAC from crossing the median and having a head-on with a minivan full of kids.

Probie · « **Reply #28 on:** September 10, 2009, 12:35:58 PM »

I think I prefer and feel safer not taking the chance.

I spoke to an American guy the other day that was cursing out police officers because he got arrested and asserting that he was okay to drink up to nine drinks but the tenth was his limit. I personally think that is ridiculous.

I don't think you should drive whilst under the influence and measuring it for each individual person creates more complication for not much benefit...if you want to drink...get a cab... get a bus... have someone pick you up?

But kids if you are going to drink and drive...remember to have a few lines aswell to help with those reaction!

Demosthenes · « **Reply #29 on:** September 10, 2009, 12:39:58 PM »

Quote from: Probie on September 10, 2009, 12:35:58 PM

I think I prefer and feel safer not taking the chance.

I spoke to an American guy the other day that was cursing out police officers because he got arrested and asserting that he was okay to drink up to nine drinks but the tenth was his limit. I personally think that is ridiculous.

I don't think you should drive whilst under the influence and measuring it for each individual person creates more complication for not much benefit...if you want to drink...get a cab... get a bus... have someone pick you up?

But kids if you are going to drink and drive...remember to have a few lines aswell to help with those reaction!

But essentially that's banning an entire activity solely due to the reckless and dangerous actions of an irresponsible few. It punishes those who are not engaging in dangerous behavior simply because they step over an arbitrary "line" that doesn't necessarily mean that they're any more dangerous on the road than some of the perfectly sober morons I encounter every day driving around this city, for example.

Probie · « **Reply #30 on:** September 10, 2009, 12:47:38 PM »

I don't know, there is evidence that says reaction time and things slow down. Also being scootered cant be good for spacial awareness. Then judgement...when I'm drunk I tend to think things are good ideas and invariably they are not.

But okay, say that you are okay to drive whilst drunk. How do you suppose the police test you for that? On the street, where it matters they have to start counting the seconds between each letter as you recite them backwards? Some sort of brain wave activity scanner?

It over complicates matters and opens up a case for arguing peoples corners. By relaxing the laws, it will allow people to bend the laws that little more futher? I think it is probably safer just to keep intoxicated people off the roads. Safer for everyone.

BizB · « **Reply #31 on:** September 10, 2009, 12:49:56 PM »

Quote from: Demosthenes on September 10, 2009, 12:39:58 PM

But essentially that's banning an entire activity solely due to the reckless and dangerous actions of an irresponsible few. It punishes those who are not engaging in dangerous behavior simply because they step over an arbitrary "line" that doesn't necessarily mean that they're any more dangerous on the road than some of the perfectly sober morons I encounter every day driving around this city, for example.

So... like the gun-control laws?

Demosthenes · « **Reply #32 on:** September 10, 2009, 12:57:46 PM »

Quote from: BizB on September 10, 2009, 12:49:56 PM

So... like the gun-control laws?

Actually, that did come to mind.

Demosthenes · « **Reply #33 on:** September 10, 2009, 01:01:03 PM »

Quote from: Probie on September 10, 2009, 12:47:38 PM

But okay, say that you are okay to drive whilst drunk.

Absolutely not. I am equating "drunk" with "impaired" here. I'm saying I'm okay to drive after a few beers/drinks/whathaveyou, because despite what that may do to my BAC, it doesn't necessarily make me drunk or impaired.

Quote

How do you suppose the police test you for that? On the street, where it matters they have to start counting the seconds between each letter as you recite them backwards? Some sort of brain wave activity scanner?

Sure, why not? They do field sobriety tests in most states anyway if they suspect you've been drinking or may be impaired in some other way (like from some other substance that isn't alcohol). Those are pretty good, considering that the things those tests are checking for -- mental accuity, eye-hand coordination, spatial judgement, balance and awareness -- are all things that without them, you probably shouldn't be driving anyway.

Quote

It over complicates matters and opens up a case for arguing peoples corners. By relaxing the laws, it will allow people to bend the laws that little more futher? I think it is probably safer just to keep intoxicated people off the roads. Safer for everyone.

But that's my point. I agree 100% that we should keep intoxicated people off the roads.

Probie · « **Reply #34 on:** September 10, 2009, 01:12:11 PM »

The sobriety tests in this country are a point of ridicule for the most parts, there rate of inaccuracy is making them seem a little pointless. I guess if its something you're really passionate about then funding could go into researching methods of testing the difference between an intoxicated sober person and a intoxicated drunk person.

However, I would rather my 'dollar' go to fund a national health care system to help people less fortunite that me get affordable medical care. But that's just the socialist in me, and in the essence of fairness its not THAT improtant for me to have a few drinks and then drive. Maybe its easier for me to say because England is so much smaller; so getting from bar to house is cheaper, but that's just how I feel. Sometimes it's a pain in the arse but for the most part I don't mind.

I think what your saying makes sense, but for me the money and effort just isn't worth the benefit.

Demosthenes · « **Reply #35 on:** September 10, 2009, 01:21:00 PM »

Quote from: Probie on September 10, 2009, 01:12:11 PM

an intoxicated sober person

No such thing! I think we're tripping over terms here. For all intents and purposes, I'm saying

intoxicated == impaired

impaired == unfit for driving

sober == not impaired (unless you're just that bad a driver to begin with, and there are plenty of those)

Effectively, I'm simply saying let's stop punishing people who aren't effed up enough to be any more of a danger to other drivers than they otherwise would be.

And it's not difficult to tell if someone's impaired. Talk to any law officer who has done highway patrol. With a little experience, they can pretty well nail when someone is or is not fit to drive, regardless of breathalyzers.

Probie · « **Reply #36 on:** September 10, 2009, 01:32:10 PM »

So what you are saying is. Instead of using machines and having hard and fast rules, people should use common sense.

Not all people, including police men have it though...and there in lies the problem.

Also, if the decision is left up to the police officer then they would be liable presumably for making the wrong call. Which, I would imagine would lead to police officers calling in DUI's just to air on the cautious side. Especially in this 'Sue' culture we have now.

Demosthenes · « **Reply #37 on:** September 10, 2009, 01:37:24 PM »

Quote from: Probie on September 10, 2009, 01:32:10 PM

So what you are saying is. Instead of using machines and having hard and fast rules, people should use common sense.

Not all people, including police men have it though...and there in lies the problem.

Also, if the decision is left up to the police officer then they would be liable presumably for making the wrong call. Which, I would imagine would lead to police officers calling in DUI's just to air on the cautious side. Especially in this 'Sue' culture we have now.

Well, if they make the call that someone's unfit to drive, use the breathalyzer as well to back that up. I'm not saying throw the breathalyzer away, but make it part of the whole picture, just not the ONLY picture, because that simply isn't fair or accurate.

I should also point out that in Minnesota anyway, one doesn't have to be over the legal BAC limit to be charged with DUI. If the officer decides you were impaired here, but you only blew a .03%, they can still charge you, arrest you and throw the book at you.

Probie · « **Reply #38 on:** September 10, 2009, 01:40:30 PM »

So I guess if it works one way...then I should work the other way too. That makes sense.

ivan · « **Reply #39 on:** September 10, 2009, 01:43:24 PM »

Driving isn't a right.

Nor should it be.

I happily accept any laws that restrict the use of these multi-ton mechanisms propelled by God knows who down my quiet street.

For me, there's no percentage in drinking and driving. The short-term pleasure of drinking somewhere besides my home (where the liquor is usually superior anyway) is mightilly outweighed by the potential of having my entire life fucked up because of an unfortunate congruence of an actionable BAC and a broken taillight. Or whatever. You never know when something like this can come hurling your way.

Demosthenes · « **Reply #40 on:** September 10, 2009, 01:44:26 PM »

Quote from: Probie on September 10, 2009, 01:40:30 PM

So I guess if it works one way...then I should work the other way too. That makes sense.

Exactly. I greatly dislike the fact that the law is so broad in one way that it can be left totally up to the judgement of the arresting officer... yet be so inflexible the other way as to be a "zero tolerance" situation when it comes to Blood Alcohol Content, regardless of whether or not the individual is ACTUALLY impaired.

You can't have it both ways. Or at least, you shouldn't.

Demosthenes · « **Reply #41 on:** September 10, 2009, 01:46:08 PM »

Quote from: ivan on September 10, 2009, 01:43:24 PM

Driving isn't a right.

Nor should it be.

I happily accept any laws that restrict the use of these multi-ton mechanisms propelled by God knows who down my quiet street.

For me, there's no percentage in drinking and driving. The short-term pleasure of drinking somewhere besides my home (where the liquor is usually superior anyway) is mightilly outweighed by the potential of having my entire life fucked up because of an unfortunate congruence of an actionable BAC and a broken taillight. Or whatever. You never know when something like this can come hurling your way.

For what it's worth, I agree with you. If I am out and I am driving, I don't drink. If I do have a drink (while out to dinner), I stay for dessert. And conversation. And as long as I think it's necessary for the drink to have metabolized... and then I wait a little longer just for good measure.

It just isn't worth it.

ivan · « **Reply #42 on:** September 10, 2009, 01:47:07 PM »

Quote from: Demosthenes on September 10, 2009, 01:46:08 PM

For what it's worth...

It's worth plenty.

Probie · « **Reply #43 on:** September 10, 2009, 01:49:48 PM »

Quote from: Demosthenes on September 10, 2009, 01:46:08 PM

For what it's worth, I agree with you. If I am out and I am driving, I don't drink. If I do have a drink (while out to dinner), I stay for dessert. And conversation. And as long as I think it's necessary for the drink to have metabolized... and then I wait a little longer just for good measure.

It just isn't worth it.

So realistically you blood alcohol would never get you into trouble.. you admit you dont want to have more alcohol in your system you just want the RIGHT to have it.

"Here! I-I've got an idea. Suppose that you agree that he can't actually have babies, not having a womb — which is nobody's fault, not even the Romans' — but that he can have the right to have babies"

Demosthenes · « **Reply #44 on:** September 10, 2009, 01:49:59 PM »

With my body weight, a couple of beers is all it takes for me to blow a .08%, regardless of how much it actually affects me (and since I tend to drink things like scotch and bourbon without mixers, a couple of beers won't affect me at all).

However, the stupid .08% law only tends to deter people like me... someone who's responsible enough to not engage in irresponsible vehicular behavior to begin with.

For the aforementioned 12 DUI assholes, all it is is more nose for them to disregard.

Demosthenes · « **Reply #45 on:** September 10, 2009, 01:50:56 PM »

Quote from: Probie on September 10, 2009, 01:49:48 PM

Here! I-I've got an idea. Suppose that you agree that he can't actually have babies, not having a womb — which is nobody's fault, not even the Romans' — but that he can have the right to have babies

Are you with the Judean Peoples' Front, or the Peoples' Front of Judea?

Tell me you're not with the fucking PFJ.

Probie · « **Reply #46 on:** September 10, 2009, 01:51:40 PM »

Monty Python? ... No?

Demosthenes · « **Reply #47 on:** September 10, 2009, 01:52:47 PM »

Probie · « **Reply #48 on:** September 10, 2009, 01:53:50 PM »

I can't keep up with the speed of the posts!

ivan · « **Reply #49 on:** September 10, 2009, 01:54:48 PM »

It's from the adjoining scene, dear.

IIRC.

News:

Recent Forum Posts

Shout Box

Author Topic: DUI laws and The Minority Report (Read 15683 times)