I just don’t understand drinking and driving

@firefly,

Quote:

If you don't drive drunk, with a BAC .08+, you don't have to worry about being charged with DUI manslaughter. That simple fact eludes you.

An the simple fact is that I am a part of this society and therefore have concerns what the society does in my name by way of it laws seems beyond your understanding.

I am not a 15-16 years old girl or a 18-19 years old boyfriend of that girl and yet I do not care for the the society using the child porn laws to punish them for sending sexual pictures to each others.

As a loyal husband I do not need to worry about the crazy redefining of the rapes laws for myself that however does not mean however that I am happy when the situation cause harm to innocent men due to rape by regret charges such as the NYC Kelly situation seems to be.

Not to mention that I had three young step grandsons who will be at risk before they find their wives and settle down,

I am very unhappy with our drugs laws that are providing half of the prisoners in the Federal systems and is costing us all a fortune and turning some of our streets into shooting ranges where young children from time to time get in the way.

Once more my concern is for my society not for myself as I have an interest in having a sane legal system as a member of the society.

2 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

I am not a 15-16 years old girl or a 18-19 years old boyfriend of that girl and yet I do not care for the the society using the child porn laws to punish them for sending sexual pictures to each others.

You just can't stop talking about this can you? Have you offered any 19 year olds money for pictures of their naked 15 year old girlfriends?

0 Replies

We r supposed to be enjoying the delights of weak & feeble jurisdiction
which equate to very large personal freedom, as it was 2OO years ago.
Not enuf citizens complain about USURPATIONs of power.

Jurisdiction and personal freedom are INVERSELY PROPORTIONAL.

We citizens need MORE COMPLAINING and DEMANDING non-interference from government.

However, in the name of self defense,
anti-drunk driving laws r justified (within reason).

David

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Quote:

An the simple fact is that I am a part of this society and therefore have concerns what the society does in my name

And you are concerned that society is trying to stop people from driving drunk? Rolling Eyes

You want society to double the legal BAC level, to .15 or .16, because you aren't convinced that the number of alcohol-related accidents, injuries, and fatalities is high enough at .08--you want to significantly increase those numbers by allowing everyone to drive in an even more impaired state than .08? Rolling Eyes

The only people who have to worry about suffering the penalties of the drunk driving laws are the people violating those laws. Just as the only people who have to worry about a speeding ticket are the people who drive above the speed limit.

But, we all have to worry about those who drive irresponsibly, whether because they are drunk, or because they speed, or because they do any of the other stupid and irresponsible things people can possibly do when behind the wheel of a car that diminish their ability to drive safely.
Those who drive drunk endanger everyone because their chemical impairments affect the functioning of the central nervous system and directly affect and impair their judgments and perceptual abilities, as well as the concentration, alertness, motor skills, and reaction times, necessary for safe driving. The least we can expect, and require, of all drivers is that they do not get behind the wheel of a car in an already chemically impaired state.

Do you have any concern, whatsoever, for the victims of drunk drivers, or the potential victims of drunk drivers, which might include those step-grandchildren you are so allegedly worried about?
Would you really want those grandchildren on a school bus with a driver whose BAC was .08+? Most states require a school bus driver to have a BAC below .02, and since you regard .05 as "beyond silliness", you must view .02 as just plain ridiculous.

Do you have any interest in stopping the problem of drunk driving?

If people don't drive drunk, they won't be charged with DUI manslaughter. The way to prevent such charges is not to drive drunk. That's the message of this thread.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

However, in the name of self defense,
anti-drunk driving laws r justified (within reason).

That the problem where we draw the lines on such issues.

I have no problem with DUI laws just in how extreme we are becoming.

It is not normally the person at .08 or 1.0 for that matter who rear end a family at 90 mph or go the wrong way on a highway and have a head on.

The states themselves are beginning to set up two levels of punishments one for the Fed force standard of .08 and a second well over that level at the point most people would consider someone in fact drunk.

The same thing with child porn laws no problem with such laws existing and punishing people for having such materials but years and years in prison for anyone but the worst of the worst you got to be kidding me.

2 Replies

@firefly,

I would not wish a bus driver to be driving my grand children after being up all night or who had just been serve with divorce papers or...............

No I would not wish anyone that is not at his or her peak to be driving a school bus but that does not relate to the DUI laws in that we are setting the limits so low the only way to detect someone on that line is by a breathe and or a blood tests not by how he or she is driving or even by road field tests.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

So, big deal. Your standards, and moral values, aren't the same as those of most people when it comes to rape, or child pornography, or drunk driving.

That you seem to hold significantly deviant views on all these issues is about all you've demonstrated.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

Quote:

but that does not relate to the DUI laws in that we are setting the limits so low the only way to detect someone on that line is by a breathe and or a blood tests not by how he or she is driving or even by road field tests

So, you don't want people to be considered drunk until they are swerving all over the road, perhaps hitting other cars, or a pedestrian...or a man on a bike. Or until they are so drunk they don't realize that the cars in front of them are stopped at a light, and they plow into them?

A BAC limit of .08 is too low for you?

Quote:

Even at a BAC of 0.2 mg/ml or lower, a driver’s ability to divide attention between two or more sources of visual information can be impaired (Moskowitz, Burns, & Williams, 1985; Ogden & Moskowitz, 2004). The risk of collision is found to increase at BAC levels of 0.5 mg/ml and drivers with a BAC of 0.9 mg/ml are more than 11 times likely to be involved in a fatal crash compared with drivers who have not consumed alcohol (Bloomberg et al., 2009; Zador, 1991; Zador et al., 2000).
http://www.icap.org/PolicyTools/ICAPBlueBook/BlueBookModules/15DrinkingandDriving/tabid/175/Default.aspx#1

Quote:

We are setting the limits so low...

I don't care what you claim about your own alleged drinking habits, but .08 is not "so low" for anyone except a binge drinker or heavy drinker. And the fact that you wouldn't consider someone drunk until way beyond that level tells us a lot about your frame of reference, in terms of the drinking habits of those you associate with and how much you yourself consume--you don't even regard someone as drunk or impaired unless they are extremely intoxicated. You're just in denial about the effects of alcohol on driving abilities--alcohol in even small amounts.

And the "We" you refer to, who has set the legal limit at .08, or below, is pretty much the entire world.

Tell us, BillRM, in how many countries in the Western world can you legally drive with a BAC level over .08? How about in the rest of the world?

Your views are deviant, to say the least. You don't share the same standards, and moral values, as most other people in the world.

1 Reply

@firefly,

Quote:

A BAC limit of .08 is too low for you?

It is borderline, but it is time to put the fanatics on notice that their next attempt to get the legal BAC limit lowered will be vigorously challenged.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

It is borderline, but it is time to put the fanatics on notice that their next attempt to get the legal BAC limit lowered will be vigorously challenged.

The main challengers are always the alcohol and beverage industry. I wonder why? Rolling Eyes

Do you regard the people in all of these countries as "fanatics" because they all have legal BAC limits below .08?

Quote:

International Blood Alcohol Limits
Zero
Armenia, Azerbaijan, Czech Republic, Hungary, Jordan, Kyrgyzstan, Romania, Slovak Republic, (Uzbekistan) (10 countries)

0.01%
Albania

0.02%
Estonia*, Norway, Poland, (Sudan), Sweden (5)

0.03%
China, Georgia*, India, Japan, Moldova, Turkmenistan (6)

0.04%
Belarus, Lithuania* (2)

0.05%

Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Israel, Italy, Latvia, Macedonia, Monaco, Namibia, Netherlands, Portugal*, Russia*, Serbia, Slovenia, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Switzerland, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey, Yugoslavia (35)

0.06%
Peru
http://www.driveandstayalive.com/articles%20and%20topics/drunk%20driving/artcl--drunk-driving-0005--global-BAC-limits.htm

1 Reply

@firefly,

Quote:

The main challengers are always the alcohol and beverage industry. I wonder why?

Because we Americans tend to be too complacent in the face of the SAFETY! fanatics. This needs to change.

Quote:

Do you regard the people in all of these countries as "fanatics" because they all have legal BAC limits below .08

Yes, these are about 1/5 of the nations, many of them majority Muslim where any drinking is considered a sin...these are not people we wish to emulate.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

Yes, these are about 1/5 of the nations, many of them majority Muslim where any drinking is considered a sin...these are not people we wish to emulate.

France, Germany, Italy, Greece, Denmark, Sweden, Spain, Norway, Australia, Finland, Switzerland, Belgium etc., etc.
Yup, those are Muslim countries all right. Laughing

The French sure do consider any drinking a sin. Laughing

I love it when you make such an obvious fool of yourself.

1 Reply

@firefly,

Having a BAC for drunk driving set at trace amounts lower the public attitude against so call drunk driving and in societies that have some part of a jury system intact the willingness of juries to find people guilty under those laws.

Nothing like taking a concept such as people should be punish for drunk driving and going to such an extreme in defining what is drunk driving that you gain nothing in safest and lose all public support for the laws in question.

You and people like you Firefly have never allow commonsense to interfere with your ideals.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Quote:

going to such an extreme in defining what is drunk driving

Sorry, a BAC limit of .08 is hardly extreme.

In Australia and most of Europe the legal limit is .05. In Norway and Sweden, it's .02.

Quote:

you gain nothing in safest and lose all public support for the laws in question

Actually, world-wide, drunk driving laws have strong public support.

It's your views that are extreme and out of sync with most of the world.

You don't take the responsibility of driving very seriously.

If you can't understand why practically the entire world has a legal limit of .08, or less, you are too dumb to understand this topic. And repeating your same drivel over and over, as you are doing, won't help you to sound any smarter.

1 Reply

@firefly,

Quote:

If you can't understand why practically the entire world has a legal limit of .08, or less, you are too dumb to understand this topic. And repeating your same drivel over and over, as you are doing, won't help you to sound any smarter.

LOL and the only way of finding those so call drunk drivers at .05 BAC is to have check points and breathe testing machines available as y0u are not going to pick up such levels by watching someone driving down the highway!!!!!!

An it is even very unlikely that a .08 driver is going to give any indication that he is impair by observing his driving skills.

Safety would likely be greatly improve by not tying up large numbers of cops at check points looking for .05 or even .08 drivers but by having them out of the roadway looking for drivers who driving clearly indicate that they are over the limit by far more then .08.

2 Replies

@BillRM,

Quote:

An it is even very unlikely that a .08 driver is going to give any indication that he is impair by observing his driving skills.

But he's 11 times more likely to be involved in a crash than someone who has ingested no alcohol. Try reading some of the material that's posted in this thread.

The whole world is crazy, but you're right. Rolling Eyes

You make no sense.

And you do not take the responsibility of driving seriously.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

DAVID wrote:

However, in the name of self defense,
anti-drunk driving laws r justified (within reason).

BillRM wrote:

That the problem where we draw the lines on such issues.

I have no problem with DUI laws just in how extreme we are becoming.

Then, u 'd agree with a DWI law against 3.5 bac, right ?

BillRM wrote:

It is not normally the person at .08 or 1.0 for that matter who rear end a family at 90 mph or go the wrong way on a highway and have a head on.

The states themselves are beginning to set up two levels of punishments one for the Fed force standard of .08 and a second well over that level at the point most people would consider someone in fact drunk.

The same thing with child porn laws no problem with such laws existing and punishing people for having such materials but years and years in prison for anyone but the worst of the worst you got to be kidding me.

If ultra vires ` USURPATION of power is ACCEPTED by the citizens,
then that is accepted as a PRINCIPLE and all other usurpations of power, by like reason,
or absence thereof, on an "the end justifies the means" basis are accepted,
thereby relinquishing, rejecting and ending constitutional limitations of power,
and ending our personal freedom, in the discretion, the whim of government.

We citizens created the damned government
so that IT woud serve us,
not the other way around. WHO is the boss??????????
We did not create government to become slaves.
We did not throw out the English so that we coud become slaves.

We NEVER gave government jurisdiction to control what we eat, drink, drugs, nor what we can look at
(military censorship being the only exception). The Founders woud be aghast.

It is folly to just laff this off and it is unAmerican.

It does great violence to LOGIC
to assert that any human being is harmed by having a picture of him or her LOOKED AT.
If the pervert who took that picture of my rear end in the hospital in 2005
looks at it 1OOO times a day, I remain not the slightest affected by it,
and that has NOTHING to do with my age.

This reasoning shud be OBVIOUS to everyone.

If rapes of people of ANY age occur, the rapists shud be criminally prosecuted
and recidivistic rapists shud never be allowed contact with the decent people again.
( I favor removal of those perverts from the North American Continent [unless the Canadians want them].)

David

1 Reply

In my opinion:
simple logic is either accepted or rejected on an all-or-nothing basis.

David

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

Then, u 'd agree with a DWI law against 3.5 bac, right ?

Let see being of an engineering mind set allowing a safety margin between being drunk at say 1.4 and 1.5 is ok with me.

So a BAC of 1.0 is enough of a impairment to have that as the standard cut off point however I would not have a problem with even a slightly higher BAC of 1.1 for example.

A BAC of only .08 let alone .05 or even lower is getting on the silly side to me however.

Quote:

It does great violence to LOGIC
to assert that any human being is harmed by having a picture of him or her LOOKED AT.

Well Dave such pictures of children is an invasion of their privacy at the very least and there also is some slight merit to the argument that having an on going trade promote more abused of children in order to get more pictures.

I am for punishment for such traders but not years in prison except for the worst of the worst.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Have you followed any of the links in regard to the effects of driving under the influence provided on this thread?

Have you followed any of the links confirming that inattentive/distracted driving also results in charges in a multiplicity of jurisdictions?

1 Reply

I just don’t understand drinking and driving

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know