Posted on 06/17/2005 9:35:40 PM PDT by freedom44
Please define "reasonable BAC".
Thank you.
This is great idea and long overdue for a tryout as it has been talked about for YEARS. But I agree with you freedom44, the ACLU is gonna be on this in....hmmm, what's the phrase?...Oh yeah....A New York Minute
"The bill's sponsors said the DWI plates would help police and would allow them to stop the car without further cause."
I like that. For 5 years after a DUI conviction, a person should be required to drive only vehicles that display a DUI license pate or have a magnetic tag they can use for cars without such a plate, such a a friend's car. A cop could pull them over at will and administer a breath test.
"Uh, won't this incite violence against people who have these plates?"
Why? Don't you trust yourself?
"There is nothing wrong with driving drunk as long as you don't hurt anyone."
I guess there is also nothing wrong with shooting a gun into a school yard full of kids as long as the bullets miss, too, right?
That Libertarian viewpoint of consquences fails to address the issue of risk.
Drunks kill thousands each year and are an immediate danger to self and others. A drunk has difficulty in controlling a 2 ton object at speed. That is not something I want anywhere near me.
"There is nothing wrong with driving drunk as long as you don't hurt anyone."
That ranks as one of the most moronic statements I've yet to see on FR .
In my town the biggest drunks ARE cops. Wonder if they will get the new plates.
Second conviction should 'merit' a scarlet letter. Let the world know.
Great , so then when he eventaully kills somebody driving drunk we can all say " see , we knew it , he has the DWI plates".
2nd offense , no license for 5 years ..Hows that for prevention?
The main problem with that statement is who gets to define what is "reasonable". Studies have shown that the causal relationship between number of traffic injuries/fatalities and BAC actually starts at BAC 0.14, yet most states consider BAC 0.08 to be "legally intoxicated". This has the net effect of criminalizing drivers that may have enjoyed a drink or 2 with friends after work and are no threat to themselves or the public, but just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
All brought to you, of course, courtesy of the "mother of all pressure groups", the harpies at MADD. MADD (in case you're not aware) is an organization that has morphed from having the noble goal of getting drunk drivers off the road to a bunch of latter-day Carrie Nations hell-bent on re-establishing Prohibition. Click here and here for more info.
I've got an idea, how about suspending the driver's license for 90 days for the first offense and make sure that the idiot attend some AA meetings and at least three accident fatality sites to get a flavor of who they are when they drive drunk and what their victims sometimes look like. Second offense, terminate the license for LIFE! Try that one on NY Legislators for a law with real teeth instead of your mamby pamsy "let's all be nice and get along" bs.
Crucify them! How's that for prevention?
That will prevent the future possible DWI death...kill the DWI offender. And make an example of him. Crucifixion! If you don't believe in such a deterrent, you're soft on DWI and probably a lowlife drunk yourself.
Crucifixion for the first DWI offense....it's the only way to be sure.
I guess my sarcasm was lost on you....
Yeah, you forgot the /sarcasm tag.
As someone who had a DUI when young and stupid I find it hard to fathom ANYONE dumb enough to do it a second, third, or more times then that. It is finacially costly. That being said, I think penalties almost as bad should be applied to people involved in accidents while yakking on cell phones. The new on the road threat
"The new on the road threat"
I bet in a fe wyears we'll hear how many people were killed by a distracted driver on a cell phone. (Read: Too stupid to talk and drive at the same time.)
We have, or maybe had, this or a similar law in TX, called HEAT. Would you be so kind as to inform me which state ruled this practice illegal, or was this a federal decision?
Thank you- I believe that TX is ruled by the 5TH in either Baton Rouge or New Orleans.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.