I just don’t understand drinking and driving

@BillRM,

On the other hand, while they're locked up they're not out guzzling booze and smashing into cars with families in them....

0 Replies

@BillRM,

Quote:

Long prison sentences, others then to make the sadists such as Firefly happy...

Stop referring to me--you are referring to the legislatures of all 50 states, who determine the laws and their penalties--and to the majority of your fellow citizens. I'm sorry you feel that most of the people in our country are "sadists".

You are unconcerned with the issue of public safety as it pertains to drunk driving.

You have illogically argued that the legal BAC level should be raised considerably beyond where it is now. You erroneously argued, in the face of substantial evidence to the contrary, that sobriety checkpoints are not effective in reducing DUI crashes, and deliberately distorted the allegedly "factual" information you posted in support of that claim. You ignore the overwhelming body of information that has established impairment of driving skills in all drivers with a BAC=.08+, and you have ignored the overwhleming body of evidence that has estblished the effectiveness of checkpoints, enhanced educational campaigns, and increaed law enforcement efforts, in reducing drunk driving deaths in the past decades. You oppose ignition-interlock devices, although these seem to be among the most effective ways of reducing recidivism among repeat DUI offenders, and you seem to oppose any jail time for those who have been found guilty of DUI manslaughter/vehicular homicide, suggesting instead that, even when these people have killed others through their reckless behavior, they should suffer no penalty harsher than loss of a driver's license and a requirement to do community service.

You irrelevantly point out that other reckless and irresponsible driving behaviors--distracted driving, driving when physically extremely fatigued or ill, or extremely emotionally upset, or speeding in poor weather conditions--can be just as harmful as driving drunk. While that may be true, it is also irrelevant to the issue of trying to reduce the carnage due to drunk driving. You further overlook the fact that those other irresponsible driving behaviors also carry increasingly harsh penalties when they cause fatalities--that's why we have vehicular homicide laws, apart from the DUI manslaughter laws.
You seem oblivious to the notion that the goal is to promote safe and responsible driving, and to diminish irresponsible and unsafe driving due to any cause.

Given the fact that you have illogically attacked those methods of dealing with the problem of drunk driving which have proved to be effective, illogically argued that the legal BAC level should be increased, and you have shown absolutely no interest in the issue of promoting public safety by reducing drunk driving on the part of drivers, it is hard to fathom exactly why you are interested in this topic, or exactly what it is that you are advocating, or what sorts of deterrents to drunk driving you would propose, if you even feel that such irresponsible driving behaviors should be deterred.

Most importantly, you totally ignore the issue of driver responsibility--the responsibility of all drivers to drive in a manner, and condition, that does not imperil the safety and welfare of others in the path of their motor vehicle. Driving is a privilege, and, when drivers abuse that privilege, by turning their cars into lethal weapons, due to their impaired states or reckless driving behaviors, they must be held criminally responsible and accountable for the damage and loss of life they cause. That's what individual responsibility is all about.

Arguing about the lengths of the prison sentences given after the fact of a DUI manslaughter doesn't make much sense to me if you're not also trying to propose methods of preventing DUI manslaughters from occurring in the first place, by either trying to stop people from getting behind the wheel when impaired, or by addressing the societal issue of excessive alcohol consumption that maintains the problem--and you have failed to address either of those issues. The long prison sentences wouldn't be necessary if drivers did not continue to violate the DUI laws, and the ultimate goal, in terms of public safety, should be to have drivers, all drivers, obey those DUI laws.

So, BillRM, how do you propose we deter people from even getting behind the wheel when they are drunk? That's the root of the problem. Without those drunk drivers already on the road, we wouldn't need the checkpoints, the increased law enforcement, the penalties, and the jail sentences. So, what's your proposal for keeping drunks from even getting into their cars with the intention of driving? Or doesn't that concern you at all?

2 Replies

@firefly,

Quote:

and to the majority of your fellow citizens. I'm sorry you feel that most of the people in our country are "sadists".

Most citizens have more on their plate then the sentencing guidelines and the wisdom of them of the criminal justice system.

They hear a sound bit or two during elections maybe about getting tough on crime or that his or her opponent is soft on crime and that is it.

As in most areas of our modern society it is the special interests that rule and in this case it is the criminal justice industry that is in the driver seat.

This will be getting even worst by far now that the running and building of prisons are being outsources to private companies.

If the black population have any real civil right leadership instead of the Al Sharpton type this could brought to the attention of the general population but until and if such an event happen the special interests are in control not my fellow citizens.

That is sadly not likely to happen as not even the outrage in Florida of blocking one third of all the adult black males in the state from having voting rights had been address by the civil right movement.

Instead we get a sound and light show over a Latin gentleman killing a black teenager in self defense.

0 Replies

@firefly,

Quote:

So, BillRM, how do you propose we deter people from even getting behind the wheel when they are drunk? That's the root of the problem

Like the founder of MADD is for we set the BAC limit a little bit more sane and next we grade the degree of the offense and punishment to the degree of the impairment.

Fines and points for the lower end BAC drivers, lost of license for a time at the next level with big fines , and then for the real hammer people that do the killing on our highways due to alcohol impairment bringing the hammer down in a big way such as big big fines and long periods of lost of driving license and mandatory drug/alcohol treatment and some token jail time and for any repeat offender a life time ban on driving and some not short sentence. Not not years but months would be fine.

I have no problem bringing the hammer down on people that are in to a meaning manner endangering the public safety.

Just not calling someone drunk at .08 and treating him or her as if he or she was driving at 1.5 or higher and who are the real class of drivers who are risking everyone safety on the highways.

2 Replies

@BillRM,

Footnote if there are not special efforts make such as roadblocks you are in any case not going to have a chance of detecting the .08 or so drivers as there is no impairments that can be detected by watch their drivings.

It is a real waste of manpower and it is endangering the public safety by tying up resources looking for such drivers instead of having the same manpower out on the highways looking for the truly impair drivers.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

Quote:

Like the founder of MADD is for we set the BAC limit a little bit more sane

Sorry, that person has never advocated raising the legal BAC back up to where it was. And she supports the current aims of MADD.

Since this was previously pointed out to you, it is evident you have no compunctions about continuing to post statements which are factually untrue. You discredit yourself when you do things like that.

Raising the legal BAC level back up won't stop people from getting behind the wheel impaired--significant impairments in driving skills and abilities can already be demonstrated at our current legal BAC limit of .08. Raising the legal limit beyond that level, simply puts more impaired drivers on the road without any fear of legal sanctions. You are just repeating the illogical remedy you have offered before.

Quote:

Fines and points for the lower end BAC drivers, lost of license for a time at the next level with big fines , and then for the real hammer people that do the killing on our highways due to alcohol impairment bringing the hammer down in a big way such as big big fines and long periods of lost of driving license and mandatory drug/alcohol treatment and some token jail time and for any repeat offender a life time ban on driving and some not short sentence. Not not years but months would be fine.

How are you going to keep those people from driving without a license? That's a major, very real problem, with repeat DUI offenders. They keep driving without licenses. You're not being realistic.

As far as mandating alcohol and drug treatment, that doesn't always work--people can, and do, continue to abuse drugs and alcohol even after treatment--sometimes after going through many rehabs and treatment programs.

Suppose they can't afford to pay those big fines? What's the penalty for not paying them? More fines?

Quote:

I have no problem bringing the hammer down on people that are in to a meaning manner endangering the public safety.

You don't think John Goodman already endangered the public safety by his reckless drunk driving--he killed someone. Do you think a big fine matters to a tycoon like Goodman? Do you really think a "token" jail sentence of a few months is just punishment for his directly--and senselessly, and needlessly--causing that other man's death? What's a human life worth, BillRM? Should directly causing the death of another human being carry a penalty no more severe than that for using a stolen credit card, or even less than that?

If the already harsh penalties don't deter drivers, like John Goodman, what evidence is there to support any possible effectiveness of the mild alternatives you propose--without the backup of the much harsher penalties?

Beside penalties for DUI, how can we impress upon people that drunk driving is wrong--that it endangers the lives and welfare of others on the road--that it is important to drive as safely and responsibly as possible for everyone's well being? How can we promote better individual responsibility when it comes to driving, particularly by not driving drunk, BillRM?

1 Reply

@firefly,

Quote:

Sorry, that person has never advocated raising the legal BAC back up to where it was. And she supports the current aims of MADD.

LOL you are such a dishonest person as we both know that she fought the lowering of the limit from .1 to the now .08 in not a few state legislatures and only stop when it became a mote issue when the Federal government force the .08 limit down the throat of the states.

But I would love to see you find and post with links to any statement from the lady since that time that she now support and agree with the current .08 limit.

Stating that she is currently not beating a dead horse in fighting this limit only mean that she might now agree with it in your mind.

Now we are wasting resources that is needed to get the real impair drivers off the roadways by having the cops out patrolling to find the hammer drivers not sitting at road blocks trying to find low end BAC drivers that driving is no more of a risk to public safety then someone who is driving home and talking to his or her mate over the cell phone about what needed to be picked up from the supermarket.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Quote:

But I would love to see you find and post with links to any statement from the lady since that time that she now support and agree with the current .08 limit.

18 years ago, when she was a paid spokesperson for the American Beverage industry, she did oppose lowering the BAC level from .10, but mainly because she wanted MADD's focus and emphasis to be on enhanced education and law enforcement, relating to drunk driving, rather than on the BAC, at that time.

But after the .08 level became law, she never made any statement supporting, or urging, an increase in the legal BAC above .08--as you keep claiming. Fairly recently she said she supports MADD in its aims and goals--which decidedly do not include an increase in the legal BAC level. I already posted links and a direct quote from her to that effect and I'm not going to post them for you again because you compulsively keep re-hashing the same material.

You are deliberately continuing to post statements that are factually incorrect, and you discredit yourself in the process.

Quote:

Now we are wasting resources that is needed to get the real impair drivers off the roadways by having the cops out patrolling to find the hammer drivers not sitting at road blocks trying to find low end BAC drivers that driving is no more of a risk to public safety then someone who is driving home and talking to his or her mate over the cell phone about what needed to be picked up from the supermarket.

You don't think cops patrol the streets and roads now? How often are they at sobriety checkpoints/roadblocks--a handful of times in a year? Still clinging to your straw-man arguments because that's all you have, and you don't know when to shut up?

Blah, blah, blah, blah....same old, same old.

After 153 pages, you still don't understand the topic--none of the factual and statistical information posted in this thread, which has refuted every lame-brained position you've taken, has managed to penetrate your thick skull.

After 153 pages, you still don't understand responsible driving, or have any interest in promoting responsible driving, nor do you have any notion of individual responsibility in the matter of operating a motor vehicle.

You really are like a deranged parrot. You mindlessly repeat the same nonsense over, and over and over....No matter what others post that clearly contradicts or refutes your thinking, you either ignore it, or merely use it as an excuse to re-post your same nonsense over, and, over, and over...

If you want to believe, and try to promote, ideas that make no sense, that defy common sense, as well as reality and the facts, go right ahead. Believe whatever you want.

Meanwhile, the current DUI laws, and penalties, remain in effect.

I've learned a great deal by participating in this thread because I've done a great deal of research, and I know much more about the topic than I did before. That's the value for me of participating in a thread like this--I actually learn something because it stimulates my curiosity to study the subject in more depth.

So, go right on believing whatever you want to believe, and posting whatever nonsense you want to post. I've gone as far as I want to in trying to educate you on the topic. If you prefer ignorance, that's your choice.

2 Replies

@firefly,

Quote:

she never made any statement supporting, or urging, an increase in the legal BAC above .08

So what does that prove other then she is not trying to beat a dead horse?

The only statements on the issue I had found is that she is strongly again such a limit and no where is there any reason to think that she had change her mind over the years.

Now I know you wish us to assume that her past statements are no longer valid but there is zero indication of that fact.

Give us one link where she had stated that she now support such a limit and you might have a point but until you do, her past clear statements stand.

0 Replies

@firefly,

Quote:

You don't think cops patrol the streets and roads now? How often are they at sobriety checkpoints/roadblocks--a handful of times in a year?

First for whatever time they used police manpower to man a DUI check point instant of patrolling the police are the ones who are reducing the safety of the public.

It is not the .08 drivers who go down the wrong way down highways or plow into the car in front at 60 mph plus or drift into oncoming lanes and have head ons and so on.

Now would you care to back up the statement that police checks points are so rare that most police departments only set them up a few times a year for short periods?

If that rare it is amazing that there would be such an outcry over an apple app that warn drivers of such check points.

The de facto DUI limit without check points is far far above .08 with the average police stop happening at 1.5 or so.

As once more the impairment at low BAC levels is so slight it can not be detected by the driving of the person with that BAC level.

2 Replies

@BillRM,

Why don't you start a new thread about what you believe are the failings of American jurisprudence.

You're going off topic and rambling. This is about a man who killed another man through negligent behaviour. Most posters, (except you and your buddy) accept that he should be punished. Whether or not that punishment is too severe is another matter entirely, and you putting words in FF's mouth won't alter that.

So start a different thread, although you may want to say why Texas killing a man without examining all evidence, isn't part of the jurisprudence system that needs fixing.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Quote:

Most posters, (except you and your buddy) accept that he should be punished.

you are miss representing my position yet again. I think that this matter is one for the courts, however I think that the state has over reached and is not treating Thom fairly with its charge of hit and run. I also fully expect Thom to be massively over punished, with my expectation is that he will get 13 years prison when he should have gotten a few years.

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

The thing is, this is the first time you've expressed any need for punishment in this case, and your concern always seems to be for those who have committed violent crimes or taken a life. I've not seen you express any concern for the 'three strikes and you're out,' petty criminals sentenced to life for stealing a pizza.

Why don't you start a new thread about American jurisprudence? You at least won't be hamstrung by having previously argued that Texas should be allowed to execute a man without examining all evidence.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

If he does get 13 years that mean that the taxpayers pockets will be pick for around half a million dollars.

We are being bleed white to make such people as Firefly happy.

One life lost and another one completely ruin by the state and at great cost.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

Quote:

First for whatever time they used police manpower to man a DUI check point instant of patrolling the police are the ones who are reducing the safety of the public.

And, again, you are wrong.

Your repeated opposition to the occasional sobriety checkpoints/roadblocks is irrational--particularly since you yourself previously posted a link to an article that reported the demonstrated effectiveness of such checkpoints in reducing DUI crashes and fatalities. Although it must be noted that you deceptively omitted that info from your actual post, suggesting you ignore anything that refutes your thinking, even in the material you read or link to.

Checkpoints, and saturated patrols, both of which are relatively infrequent, are enhancements to the regular daily patrols of the streets and highways that the police do all the time--and both of those measures are effective, and have been shown to be effective, in reducing DUI crashes and deaths. Saturated patrols, with high concentrations of police in a limited geographic area, seem even more effective than checkpoints, but the manpower involved precludes their use other than on an infrequent basis.

Quote:

It is not the .08 drivers who go down the wrong way down highways or plow into the car in front at 60 mph plus or drift into oncoming lanes and have head ons and so on...As once more the impairment at low BAC levels is so slight it can not be detected by the driving of the person with that BAC level.

And, once more, you are wrong.

And, once more, you are ignoring all of the facts and statistics which have previously been posted in this thread that completely contradict and refute what you are saying.

If you really think that .08 drivers are never pulled over by a cop, because of their impaired driving on the road, or detected because they caused a crash, or failed to avoid one, you are living in fantasy land (or your own alcoholic haze Drunk

). You are in complete denial about the fact that a BAC=.08 results in significant impairment of driving abilities and skills, and that a driver at that level is significantly more likely to be involved in a crash than a driver who has consumed no alcohol.

You rather idiotically conclude that, because DUI crash risks and crash fatalities are lower at .08 than they are at .16 or .28, that .08 is somehow innocuous, and nothing at all to be concerned about because it really doesn't affect driving ability or crash risk--which is absolutely absurd, and inaccurate--you are just plain wrong.

And, it is because significant impairment can already be demonstrated at a BAC=.08 that many countries have adopted a legal BAC of .05, or even lower.

So, your thinking on this issue runs counter to just about all available information, and facts, and statistics, on effects of varying BAC levels on driving abilities and risk of crashes and fatalities--just about all of which which indicates that there is significant impairment, and significantly increased crash risk, at a BAC=.08.

In other words, you couldn't be more wrong.

Quote:

The research is clear. Virtually all drivers, even those who are experienced drinkers, are significantly impaired at a .08 BAC. As early as 1988, a NHTSA review of 177 studies clearly documented this impairment. NHTSA released a later review of 112 more recent studies, providing additional evidence of impairment at .08 BAC and below. The results of the nearly 300 studies reviewed have shown that, at a .08 BAC level, virtually all drivers are impaired in the performance of critical driving tasks such as divided attention, complex reaction time, steering, lane changing, and judgment.

The risk of being in a crash gradually increases as a driver’s BAC increases, but rises more rapidly once a driver reaches or exceeds .08 BAC compared to drivers with no alcohol in their blood stream. A recent study estimated that drivers at .08 to .09 BACs are anywhere from 11 to 52 times more likely to be involved in a fatal crash than drivers at .00 BAC, depending upon their age and gender.

05 BAC Limit in Other Countries

The international trend continues to be to reduce illegal per se limits to .05 BAC or lower. The illegal limit is .05 BAC in numerous countries, including Australia, Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Israel, The Netherlands, Portugal, Russia, South Africa, Spain, and Turkey. Russia, Sweden and Norway have a limit of .02 BAC and Poland recently went to .03 BAC. Several countries have reported studies indicating that lowering the illegal per se limit from .08 BAC to .05 BAC reduces alcohol-related fatalities (e.g., Australia, Austria, Belgium, The Netherlands and France).

Laboratory studies from these countries indicate that impairment in critical driving functions begins at low BACs. Most subjects in these studies were significantly impaired at .05 BAC with regard to visual acuity, vigilance, drowsiness, psychomotor skills, and information processing, compared to their performance at .00 BAC.

Leading medical, crash prevention, public health and traffic safety organizations in the world support BAC limits at .05 or lower, including: the World Medical Association, the American and British Medical Associations, the European Commission, the European Transport Safety Council, the World Health Organization and the American College of Emergency Physicians.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=2&sqi=2&ved=0CCUQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nhtsa.gov%2Fpeople%2Finjury%2Fnew-fact-sheet03%2Ffact-sheets04%2FLaws-08BAC.pdf&ei=a2BQUIjjCtGy0QHs6oDIBQ&usg=AFQjCNFhbm6H5DjvUW0FEJlCAL4cN9b46Q

Go right on believing what you want to believe, BillRM, if you prefer to wallow in ignorance. I don't care that you are committed to remaining stupid.

But don't expect that you will be regarded as anything other than a fool and a joke--and a sick joke to boot.

2 Replies

@firefly,

Quote:

Checkpoints, and saturated patrols, both of which are relatively infrequent, are enhancements to the regular daily patrols of the streets and highways that the police do all the time--an

Once more all studies showed that saturated patrols are a far better means of getting the most dangerous DUI drivers off the road if not for finding low BAC and therefore low impaired drivers.

Check points, as far as getting the most dangerous drivers off the road, is not a good tool but if it can be a money maker with cars seize and fines level and for the most part concerning issues other then DUI driving.

Other then finance motivations there is no good excuse to not use manpower in patrolling the roadways instead of road blocks.

Footnotes the states that do not tied up resources on road blocks have a lower death rate on highways compared to the ones who used such tools.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Quote:

are a far better means of getting the most dangerous DUI drivers off the road

ALL DRUNK DRIVERS ARE DANGEROUS TO THE WELFARE AND SAFETY OF OTHERS ON THE ROAD.

ALL DRUNK DRIVERS ARE IN AN IMPAIRED STATE.

THAT'S WHAT YOU FAIL TO UNDERSTAND.

NO ONE SHOULD BE DRIVING DRUNK. DRUNK =BAC .08+

EVERYONE DRIVING WITH A BAC=.08+ SHOULD BE ARRESTED.

http://www.adrants.com/images/head_up_ass.jpg

1 Reply

@firefly,

Quote:

The research is clear. Virtually all drivers, even those who are experienced drinkers, are significantly impaired at a .08 BAC. As early as 1988

Low BAC level impaired driving to roughly the same point as talking to your mate on what is needed to be picked up on the way home on a cell phone. Or a million others things that slightly degrade driving skills that we all do from time to time.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-6090342-7.html

Is having a cell phone pressed to your ear while behind the wheel the equivalent of driving while intoxicated? According to a study by University of Utah psychologists, the answer is, unfortunately, yes.

"Just like you put yourself and other people at risk when you drive drunk, you put yourself and others at risk when you use a cell phone and drive," writes David Strayer, a psychology professor and the study's lead author. "The level of impairment is very similar."

The study, published in the June 29 issue of Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, found that drivers talking on cell phones, either handheld or hands-free, are more likely to crash because they are distracted by conversation.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Talking on a cell phone is not the same as being in a chemically impaired state.

Are you then advocating that we should greatly increase the penalties for talking on a cell phone while driving--to make them equivalent to the penalties for DUI? That is the logical conclusion to be drawn from the comparison you are making.

1 Reply

@firefly,

Quote:

ALL DRUNK DRIVERS ARE DANGEROUS TO THE WELFARE AND SAFETY OF OTHERS ON THE ROAD.

if we are talking about real drunks I would agree with you but as we are not so when talking about anyone near a BAC of .08 so I do not agree with you unless you also wish to cover everyone who drive when he or she had a fight with a love one or talk with a passenger or on a cell phone are also to be consider a danger to the welfare and safety of others. With large fines and lic suspenses of 6 months or so.

1 Reply

I just don’t understand drinking and driving

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know