” But I support the arrest, and the removal of driving privileges from, EVERY person who drives impaired.
The issue is not impaired driving but your imposition-of-costs argument. Again: I’m talking about innocent people suffering and dying in accidents that wouldn’t have happened if the car wasn’t on the road. Are you willing to continue imposing those costs on others for your right to drive (unimpaired) for the sake of driving? “
Yes. Because if you take just me off the road, the odds are 100% that people will still suffer and die in car accidents.
You’d have to take EVERYONE off the road to insure that no one suffers or dies in car accidents.
Now, you could make a law that no one can “pleasure drive,” that would have to be legally defined, but, is unenforceable. Because everyone who wanted to pleasure drive would only have to say they were headed to the store. Unless you got an infallible lie detector to apply to everyone driving.
Then again, if people aren’t allowed to pleasure drive, what would they do instead? Would the activities they choose to do instead be more lethal than pleasure driving? Quite possible.
-Since pleasure driving is not a statistically bad risk. It is a very low risk activity.
All activities and inactivities have risk. How high risk are we willing to tolerate? Will we allow a blindfolded man to run with a running chainsaw through a crowd? No. High risk. Will we allow a man to saw through a tree on his property? Yes. Low risk.
You might note, insurers don’t ask you, do you pleasure drive? But they do ask, do you use drugs? Ever convicted of a felony?
Do you know why they ask that? I think you do.
The issue is not impaired driving but your imposition-of-costs argument. Again: I’m talking about innocent people suffering and dying in accidents that wouldn’t have happened if the car wasn’t on the road. Are you willing to continue imposing those costs on others for your right to drive (unimpaired) for the sake of driving?
Yes. Because if you take just me off the road, the odds are 100% that people will still suffer and die in car accidents.
You’d have to take EVERYONE off the road to insure that no one suffers or dies in car accidents.
Straw man - nobody said anything about insuring that NO ONE suffers or dies in car accidents. As you acknowledge below, pleasure driving does subject others to some risk.
Are you willing to continue imposing those costs on others for your right to drive (unimpaired) for the sake of driving?
Now, you could make a law that no one can “pleasure drive,” that would have to be legally defined, but, is unenforceable.
Enforcement of drug laws isn't working out very well, either.
Then again, if people aren’t allowed to pleasure drive, what would they do instead? Would the activities they choose to do instead be more lethal than pleasure driving? Quite possible.
One could ask the same question about recreational drug use. If they drink instead, it's quite possible they end up more dangerous.
Since pleasure driving is not a statistically bad risk. It is a very low risk activity.
So you've done a quantitative study of the risks to others of pleasure driving vs. drug use? Or are you going on gut feelings that conveniently match your presuppositions and personal preferences?
All activities and inactivities have risk. How high risk are we willing to tolerate? Will we allow a blindfolded man to run with a running chainsaw through a crowd? No.
He directly endangers others - unlike the drug user.
High risk. Will we allow a man to saw through a tree on his property? Yes. Low risk.
He endangers only himself - unlike the pleasure driver.
You might note, insurers don’t ask you, do you pleasure drive? But they do ask, do you use drugs?
Red herring - they're asking me about risks TO MYSELF. The subject is imposing costs ON OTHERS.