|
darthzeta88 posted:I try not to drink and drive. But when. I sleep in my car the cops get me for public intoxication. When I walk home the cops get me for public intoxication. When. I sleep at a bus stop the cops get me for public intoxication, and I don't have a bus stop in my entire town. I'm an alcoholic and I don't know what to say.  Drink at home or something, poo poo.
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 03:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 00:25 |
|
|
Trent posted:
ell your argument of rape and AIDS is totally convincing to not have some drinks with friends on Friday and drive at at a 0.08 BAC
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 04:14
|
|
|
Lots of folks ITT clearly afraid to have more than two drinks in one calendar day giving advice on how to be intoxicated in public.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 04:39
|
|
|
PT6A posted:I can only speak to our transit system, but although it's not particularly unsafe, it's definitely more likely to have weird/creepy/harassing/aggressive people on it at the time of night you're likely to be drunk. There are times I would've been pretty nervous if I weren't 6'2" and male. Basically this. Figuring that drunk people, late at night, should just take transit home feels like the worst sort of unthinking privilege around being young, strong and healthy. Unless your transit system is really, really safe, I can't imagine it would turn out well for quite a few people - particularly drunk women. (While the correct solution to this problem would be a safer transit system, in practice taxis might make more sense.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 05:49
|
|
|
David Corbett posted:Unless your transit system is really, really safe, I can't imagine it would turn out well for quite a few people - particularly drunk women. (While the correct solution to this problem would be a safer transit system, in practice taxis might make more sense.) If only it weren't completely impossible to have a safe transit system. If only our society had the foresight to institute a profession whose job was to protect others! Oh well, I guess there's no help for it, the current situation really is for the best. Debate over everyone!
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 07:11
|
|
|
Sir_Substance posted:The same can totally be said for taxis. Cops: noted guardians of human life and people who make good decisions in the interest of helping people. Pull the other one.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 07:24
|
|
|
We might have to fire some people...
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 07:33
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:Lots of folks ITT clearly afraid to have more than two drinks in one calendar day giving advice on how to be intoxicated in public. Drinking heavily is not practice for acting sober hth
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 07:49
|
|
|
I think the real problem is that people don't know how to drunk drive safely. As long as you're good and cagey you should be fine up to .12 or so. If you're gonna do some serious drinking though you should probably take a bike. A DUI stop becomes less likely on a bike, even if you're blind drunk. edit: note that most US Police Departments define a bicycle as a 'motor vehicle' for DUI purposes, so if they feel like actually enforcing that law you're a little hosed. Grand Prize Winner fucked around with this message at 08:48 on Oct 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 08:45
|
|
|
I blew a 0.1 when I got my DUI at 22 years old. I live in an urban area and always walk to the bar district when I want to drink but this time I drove to the suburbs for a special occasion. I've never been pulled over before or since but that time I was because I had a headlight out. I was surprised that I was over the limit since I never had any reference to compare my BAC to how I felt. It cost me about 4 grand as well as my job. Now I know that if I feel even buzzed I've had too much to drive, and I'll never get a DUI again. Any moralist who advocates for permanent license revocation after 1 DUI is naive. Imagine all the human potential you waste if everyone who has knowingly or unknowingly driven over the limit could never drive again. I'm an EMT. I hosed up and cleaned up. There's no way that the benefit of keeping me off the road forever would outweigh the benefit of a whole career based on helping others. I feel awful for doing something that endangered the lives of others but I won't feel bad for being human, making mistakes, and learning from them. The fact is, under a one and done policy we would all lose the skills of a ton of good firefighters, police, and medics. I'm sure other people can share similar anecdotes about their industry as well.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 08:48
|
|
|
The argument against a strict policy seems to never acknowledge that you've made a choice to move a giant, thousand pound metal box at high enough speeds that you can kill someone, and that someone is often times someone who is innocent. If you can't make a choice to not drive after drinking, then you probably don't deserve a license. If a cab is too inconvenient for you, then don't drink. If you can't get DD, then don't drink. If you maim or kill someone because you choose to drink and drive, there is nothing you can do to make that right and the fact that the system currently allows you to roll those dice half a dozen times before anything meaningful happens (if you have enough money to make it go away) makes the system unbelievably flawed. You get one DUI, you lose your license, because you have clearly demonstrated an inability to make wise choices when the stakes are at their highest. That said, I think implementing a 'one and done' system would require some rebuilding of current laws. I'd not be inclined to rip away the license of someone who blew 0.08. I wouldn't call 0.08 universally drunk (and there really isn't a magic number). I would like to see the line for a 'one and done' system be way higher, somewhere in the realm of 0.15, where 'borderline' can't really be argued. The way I'd write the law is that if you get caught on an unrelated traffic violation (speeding, out of date tags, etc.) and you are between what the state's current legal limit and some higher number like 0.15, then you basically go through the current system for DUIs. If you get caught over the state's legal limit due to a violation related to drunkenness, like erratic behavior or an accident you are at fault for, then rip your license. Obviously 'sleeping in car' or 'riding bike drunk' shouldn't count. They'd have to catch you driving the car. I otherwise cannot rationalize in my head the thought process that has to go through your head if you think 'having fun' is more important than safety on the road. Canine Blues Arooo fucked around with this message at 13:50 on Oct 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 13:48
|
|
|
The argument for a strict policy also means that in theory basically 85% of the country would be banned from driving because really, almost everyone has driven drunk(at least the legal definition of drunk) once, a good deal of people have done it multiple times.quote:I otherwise cannot rationalize in my head the thought process that has to go through your head if you think 'having fun' is more important than safety on the road. I think the same thing basically every minute as drivers plow past me on my bicycle while texting on their phone, thinking crosswalk signals mean "turn right now" and go 20mph+ over the speed limit. It's like people are myopic and also doesn't consider any of these things that big of a deal, because basically everyone has done it. Sometimes I think drunk driving becomes a scapegoat for everyone else's normalized terrible driving. Distracted driving and speeding causes thousands of deaths a year on our roads, but there hasn't been the same campaign of shaming against it as drunk driving. Even with drunk driving, most people drunk driving are those who are legally drunk, who personally probably think they're good and under the limit. In people's minds, even in PSA ads against drunk driving, the person driving is always drunk, staggering to their car, ect. Everyone knows that's wrong, if someone is dumb enough to drive while knowingly that drunk nothing is going to stop them, the only hope is to catch them, yet they receive the disproportional amount of public awareness campaigning and the basis of laws is against them. tl;dr you're all loving terrible drivers and break the law constantly. Sincerely, a cyclist.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 14:10
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:Everyone knows that's wrong, if someone is dumb enough to drive while knowingly that drunk nothing is going to stop them, the only hope is to catch them, yet they receive the disproportional amount of public awareness campaigning and the basis of laws is against them. That's an interesting idea. The best I could find is from the CDC that says 31% of traffic related deaths are from drunk driving (in 2012). I'd like to see what the other 69% are from, but I think if you could demonstrate that some other activity results in as many injuries/deaths, then punish the poo poo out of that too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 14:31
|
|
|
sillyloquy posted:I blew a 0.1 when I got my DUI at 22 years old. I live in an urban area and always walk to the bar district when I want to drink but this time I drove to the suburbs for a special occasion. I've never been pulled over before or since but that time I was because I had a headlight out. I was surprised that I was over the limit since I never had any reference to compare my BAC to how I felt. It cost me about 4 grand as well as my job. Yeah except it turns out that drunks like you have judgment like this: Grand Prize Winner posted:
After all you've gone through your criteria is still "if I feel buzzed" and pardon me if I don't feel like putting life-and-death decisions under the control of a known drunk and fuckup who puts his "potential" above the people he could have killed if any scenario requiring quick reaction time had presented itself. There's no point treating with you, if you want to cry about how useful you are then figure out how to do it without a car. Or don't, because drunk fuckups like you run the country.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 16:54
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:The argument for a strict policy also means that in theory basically 85% of the country would be banned from driving because really, almost everyone has driven drunk(at least the legal definition of drunk) once, a good deal of people have done it multiple times. I drink almost every single day, to a varying degree, and I've never driven drunk. Not even once. It's hardly impossible to avoid, even if you're a regular drinker. That being said, I think a super-strict policy is useless because it doesn't address the factors that motivate people to drive drunk in the first place, so it's not really going to address the problem effectively.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 17:28
|
|
|
If it is impossible for you to get behind the mentality of someone who decided to drive drunk, you might not have the best perspective to preventing the problem of driving drunk. Somewhere in High School it became a moral panic driven into a lot of student drivers during training by gruesome videos and public speeches. This makes it an acceptable moral target for the most draconian measures from goons that normally would advocate a less punitive measures as the American justice system is incredibly punitive as it is. If anything, a slight lapse in judgment killing people might highlight how stupid it is to base our entire transit system around individually piloted battering rams that are incredibly dangerous regardless of if a drink was consumed or not. That guy earlier from Germany that advanced the reasonable solution of having a test administered by a physician before your suspension would be lifted sounds like a really decent idea focused on preventing future problems instead of repeated financial hammerings to the skull.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 17:43
|
|
|
Two points: Our justice system overpenalizes a lot of things (like drug use), and underpenalizes a lot of things (like white collar crime). GOONS can be perfectly consistent while wanting penalties up on some things and down on others. The US is never going to solve any problems using buses or trains, the area is just to large. Amused to Death posted:ell your argument of rape and AIDS is totally convincing to not have some drinks with friends on Friday and drive at at a 0.08 BAC Cool, I'm glad you understand moral analogies!  Don't do completely unnecessary things that you know will greatly increase the risk of killing innocents - an apparently debatable morality Sometimes things people have always done are, in fact, bad, and should be discontinued in spite of sweeping historical precedent - crazy talk
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 18:26
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:After all you've gone through your criteria is still "if I feel buzzed" and pardon me if I don't feel like putting life-and-death decisions under the control of a known drunk and fuckup who puts his "potential" above the people he could have killed if any scenario requiring quick reaction time had presented itself. There's no point treating with you, if you want to cry about how useful you are then figure out how to do it without a car. A few friends of mine owned well-calibrated breathalyzers for their house parties (biochem grad students can be special people) and I learned that at 0.1 BAC I cleanly pass every field sobriety test except smell. Speech, steps and turn, one leg, nystagmas, you name it. I've never driven drunk or anywhere close to it, but I understand how someone could make the mistake, because I would have never pegged myself as above the legal limit at that stage. To be clear, the legal limit should be exactly where it is, but If you're calling people a "drunk fuckup" for that, you've got a perspective problem. -- I'm not sure where I draw the line, exactly. No more than three strikes regardless, two if it's above some threshold, and probably one and done if you are utterly smashed. If you hit .08 BAC three times, then sorry, gently caress you, you should have learned your lesson by that point. You pull the license so you can nail them harder in the future. And yes, jail time does solve the problem of substance abuse in this case. I definitely agree that drug use is over-penalized, but DUI is a special case. They're a danger to other people, and you need them off the roads. This isn't like a heroin addict holed up in his house, if an alcoholic is on the road constantly they should be considered criminals. BRAKE FOR MOOSE fucked around with this message at 18:43 on Oct 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 18:40
|
|
|
Maybe mandate that anywhere that serves alcohol have a testing device of some kind on the premises. Or just give out handheld ones for free. Either way, it would further reduce the excuses (legitimate or otherwise) for not knowing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 18:45
|
|
|
disheveled posted:And yes, jail time does solve the problem of substance abuse in this case. I definitely agree that drug use is over-penalized, but DUI is a special case. They're a danger to other people, and you need them off the roads. This isn't like a heroin addict holed up in his house, if an alcoholic is on the road constantly they should be considered criminals. twodot fucked around with this message at 19:02 on Oct 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 18:59
|
|
|
twodot posted:Do you have any evidence that a person going to prison generally reduces their lifetime drunk driving? I realize they aren't driving for the, in my state, ordinarily maximum five years (four or more offenses in ten years bumps it to class C felony) they are in prison. But then they will be out of prison for something like 0-60 years, and I would guess the alcohol consumption rates is going to be a lot higher amongst people with felony convictions. Over 60 years, even a small increase in drinking will wipe out whatever safety was realized in the five years there weren't driving. This is even without addressing the amount of danger putting someone in a US prison generates, and danger created by releasing someone who is unemployable/went through the US prison system. I don't. However, I'll contend that the baseline assumption is that a drunk with five years off the road will be drunk driving less often than a drunk who is allowed to stay on the road the entire time. If you wish to argue that prison time will actually increase their lifetime drunk driving, then you provide the evidence.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 19:05
|
|
|
disheveled posted:I don't. However, I'll contend that the baseline assumption is that a drunk with five years off the road will be drunk driving less often than a drunk who is allowed to stay on the road the entire time. If you wish to argue that prison time will actually increase their lifetime drunk driving, then you provide the evidence. Let's have anyone who gets a DUI forced to race in Death Races for all of perpetuity. That'll solve them from ever recidivading! 
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 19:12
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:The argument for a strict policy also means that in theory basically 85% of the country would be banned from driving because really, almost everyone has driven drunk(at least the legal definition of drunk) once, a good deal of people have done it multiple times. One thing to remember is, a very few people actually get DUI's, and it is generally the same people getting them over and over again. Most people can go out and have dinner or hit the bar and they are going to make it home fine. The majority of DUI's are really loving drunk people that can't stop drinking and don't seem to give a poo poo about anyone else. I could pull these stats all day: And let’s be honest: how many times have you climbed behind the wheel after a couple? I know, you’ve never been pulled over, which makes it tempting to think you’re not a drunk driver. But according to Paul Zador, Sheila Krawchuk, and B. Moore, the average person who is caught driving drunk has already gotten away with it 87 times. People that get into accidents and kill people generally are really loving drunk. They often have incredibly excessive blood alcohol levels which indicates they drink a lot and they drink often. Most people in America drink about 4 drinks a week. This is the breakdown, however, and it is really bad.  http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...holism_and.html
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 19:25
|
|
|
When I got my underage drinking ticket, I found out I was in the top 12% of drinkers. I drink a lot more now, so I'm probably way up there. Just doing my part to keep the economy strong.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 19:43
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:When I got my underage drinking ticket, I found out I was in the top 12% of drinkers. I drink a lot more now, so I'm probably way up there. Just doing my part to keep the economy strong. I got lucky. I got pulled over with about 10 people in the car and we were all really loving drunk. I was also sixteen. We were downtown after curfew and I got pulled over because I was doing that drag race thing from a stoplight with some hot chicks in another car. The cop pulled me over and told us to go home. That was a long time ago, it would never happen today.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 19:56
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:tl;dr you're all loving terrible drivers and break the law constantly. Sincerely, a cyclist. And that's bad too I don't really see why prosecuting drunk driving and texting are a "pick one" scenario. It's not like the Judge only had enough budget to pick one. This threads just about drunk driving so that's what people are discussing. IMO after the first text and drive one should face the guillotine. RagnarokAngel fucked around with this message at 20:27 on Oct 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 20:24
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:And that's bad too I don't really see why prosecuting drunk driving and texting are a "pick one" scenario. It's not like the Judge only had enough budget to pick one. This threads just about drunk driving so that's what people are discussing. The difference is that, at least where I live, a DUI is a serious criminal offence that will result in license suspensions, astronomically high insurance, fines, and possible jail time, and texting while driving is treated less seriously than speeding less than 10 km/h over the limit (no points go onto your license). So, even though I don't do either one and I don't plan to start, I can see why people are pissed off about the huge disparity in penalties for two activities that are both extremely dangerous. It's pretty ridiculous when you get down to it, and there's people here arguing that the penalties for the one that's already most harshly penalized ought to be even harsher.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 20:27
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:And that's bad too I don't really see why prosecuting drunk driving and texting are a "pick one" scenario. It's not like the Judge only had enough budget to pick one. This threads just about drunk driving so that's what people are discussing. Actually, texting while driving is more dangerous than drunk driving. It seems that taking your eyes and attention off of the road for an extended period of time is really worse than driving while intoxicated.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 20:28
|
|
|
Pohl posted:Actually, texting while driving is more dangerous than drunk driving. It seems that taking your eyes and attention off of the road for an extended period of time is actually worse than driving while intoxicated. Probably not if you're severely intoxicated rather than just above 0.08. Just sayin' There's "reaction time is a bit slower" drunk and "goes the wrong way on the freeway" drunk.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 20:31
|
|
|
Pohl posted:Actually, texting while driving is more dangerous than drunk driving. It seems that taking your eyes and attention off of the road for an extended period of time is really worse than driving while intoxicated. OK? Whether or not this is true doesn't change that drunk driving is a bad thing and you probably shouldn't do it. Whatever might be "less bad" doesn't mean "ignore it".
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 20:34
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Probably not if you're severely intoxicated rather than just above 0.08. Just sayin' Driving while Texting Six Times More Dangerous than Driving while Drunk. Texting is really dangerous because you aren't looking at the road. Even drunk, you can respond to something slowly, you can't respond to jack poo poo when you aren't even looking at the road. RagnarokAngel posted:OK? Whether or not this is true doesn't change that drunk driving is a bad thing and you probably shouldn't do it. Whatever might be "less bad" doesn't mean "ignore it". I completely agree!
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 20:35
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Or don't, because drunk fuckups like you run the country.  disheveled posted:A few friends of mine owned well-calibrated breathalyzers for their house parties (biochem grad students can be special people) and I learned that at 0.1 BAC I cleanly pass every field sobriety test except smell. Speech, steps and turn, one leg, nystagmas, you name it. I've never driven drunk or anywhere close to it, but I understand how someone could make the mistake, because I would have never pegged myself as above the legal limit at that stage. To be clear, the legal limit should be exactly where it is, but If you're calling people a "drunk fuckup" for that, you've got a perspective problem. If everybody had the opportunity to do a test like this a lot of people would avoid DUI. Well-intentioned people who aren't saying "gently caress it I'll never be caught" but drive over the limit due to the combination of ignorance and judgement beginning to become impaired as they approach .08 BAC. Seems like this would be a more effective piece of education than the scare tactics that people with an attitude that encourages them to drive while shitfaced don't listen to anyways. I agree that we should throw the book at those people. Unfortunately there's really no good way to prevent people who want to engage in very risky behaviors from doing so. All we can do is react accordingly.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 00:16
|
|
|
Which is why a lot of countries has banned that too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phones_and_driving_safety#Hand-held_and_hands-free
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 00:19
|
|
|
Alhazred posted:Which is why a lot of countries has banned that too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phones_and_driving_safety#Hand-held_and_hands-free Yeah but it's usually just a civil infraction with a fine.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 00:22
|
|
|
How many times should someone be able to text and drive before we take away their license? I'm thinking just once and if you see someone driving and not using a phone (hands free also significantly impaired) you should be obligated to report it to the police.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 00:35
|
|
|
In the next thread let's ask a bunch of virgins about state subsidized birth control and WIC.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 00:51
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:How many times should someone be able to text and drive before we take away their license? I'm thinking just once and if you see someone driving and not using a phone (hands free also significantly impaired) you should be obligated to report it to the police. Also, if someone is talking to their passenger, they should be banned from ever driving again.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 01:10
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:Also, if someone is talking to their passenger, they should be
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 01:11
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:tl;dr you're all loving terrible drivers and break the law constantly. Sincerely, a cyclist. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 02:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 00:25 |
|
|
Trent posted:Maybe mandate that anywhere that serves alcohol have a testing device of some kind on the premises. Or just give out handheld ones for free. Doesn't this always backfire horribly when people compete for the high score?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 02:14
|
|