Posted on 11/09/2005 3:39:41 PM PST by elkfersupper
It is time to separate fact from fiction about our drunken driving laws. It is time to stop deluding ourselves into believing that stricter penalties are the solution. It is also time to start promulgating laws that attack the core problem, including creating a bright line that even an intoxicated person can walk.
Drunken driving is a problem in Massachusetts. It is also a problem in New York, Texas and every other state in the country. Statistically, Massachusetts’ roads are not the most dangerous in the country. There is also no proof that Massachusetts drivers are more likely to drive impaired.
-snip-
Perhaps it is time to make it illegal to drink any alcohol and drive a car.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.bostonherald.com ...
Nah!, just call me an extremist.
Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue. – Barry Goldwater (1964)
It is considered good manners to read your own article before posting falsely about the content. Or was it your intent to distort hoping most would not read the article and believe your post.
Looking forward to that.
Most did, and the argument was justified early on.
If you've got Elk for supper, I'll bet I can find a wine that would match up to it!
I did, most did, and the argument was justified early on.
Deal.
Besides, your obvious thirst for revenge against some jacka$$ you claim hit you would immediately disqualify you from jury duty in a DUI case.
Anyway, I never bother arguing with frothing, vengeful authoritarians, thank you kindly.
I was responding to someone else that commented to me about what I said to you. So I I guess you should have used that common courtesy in this post concerning them right? Seems you did exactly what I did eh?
I understand what you are saying and will add your name in the future. I didn;t think I needed to ping you when the issue was about my post but oh well I will do so in the future.
Thank you.
I have no clue? Hardly.
"Everyone is a Drunk Driver in your book and therefore must be scrutinized by the Nanny Cops"
This is untrue. This thread shows otherwise.
"We want the same thing!"
You do not know how true that is.
I SAID THIS:"You seem to think that people that make the choice to drink and drive should not be held to account"<<<
YOU SAID THIS :"Show me anytime anywhere anyplace in this forum or anywhere else that I have even inferred that, you are a typical liberal liar!"
OK :YOU SAID :"I oppose about 90% of the laws we now have on the books" post 194 I think it was. A liar I am not SIR. And as for liberal BWAAAAA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA you put a bit much stock in my nic, take solice you are not the first to misunderstand that.
"In your self centered world you are the only adult"
You are the one that opposes 90% of the laws right? How adult.
I love it when you call me a liberal, its hilarious.
"you accuse all of drinking and driving and wish that the law was such that we suspend the liberties of all to make you feel better about yourself"
NO, i pose that .08 is what it should be. Funny how you refuse to see me post that over and over and over and over. You might think you have a right to drink and drive but you dont above .08.
"I fear I am treading closer to the truth than you want me to."
Baseless fear. I speak truth to you about what my experience. I have never gotten a DUI, can you say the same?
"LIMITS ON THE GOVERNMENT, WHAT WHEN HOW and WHY and TO WHAT DEGREE that Government can infringe upon our Liberty."
.08 is the LIMIT....see how that FITS?
"I like the way you worked Michael Moore in there, he must be quite the role model for you, he makes as much sense as you do, there I go dissing your peers again."
You are waaaay out there man. He sure aint MY hero. He sure aint my peer.
I ask you to do away with the games and post for me what you see as a proper punishment for drinking and driving. that is what level and what punishment. Lets just clear the air shall we.
If the government had left the threshhold at 0.10, would you still think the threshhold should be at 0.08? If so, why? And if not, why does that fact that the government happened to choose 0.08 as a threshhold mean that it made the best choice?
I could see sound arguments being made for 0.12 (more or less the threshhold where a person's alcohol-caused impairment starts to exceed that of other, legal, factors) or 0.15 (a point where it could generally shown, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the person's actions greatly endangered others). Even 0.10 could be justified on the premise that the alcohol might be causing a substantial degree of impairment to others, though that's getting away from the normal 'usual doubt' concept.
But the statistics show a pretty bright line in impairment around the 0.12-0.15 range (IIRC, going from 0.12 to 0.15 increases accident rates more than going from 0.00 to 0.12). If you could wave a magic wand and get all the 0.15+ drivers off the road, that would save more lives than making all the drivers below 0.10 be stone-cold sober. So why not focus resources on the 0.15+ drivers that are the biggest problem?
"You suggested the fact that the driver who hit you had a BAC of 0.123 as a rebuttal to my claim that drivers over 0.15 BAC pose most of the danger"
Speaking in terms of when HE blew and when your example registers .15. Seems we were talking about two different times.
I still would like to see where you get .20....oh now thats changed to .17 to .21....I would say that GEE .17 isn't that much more than .15, the crashes that happen from .15 to .17 arent that much more......same things you said to me.
I would offer THAT is the argument that is disingenuous and no matter WHAT level is established that argument can always be made.
"It's a rough estimate"
Who's rough estimate? I would like to read about it.
His bac at time of register was .123. I offered you a what he blew and when he blew it. I simply stated it to you.
I gotta tackle this one for a minute and see what you have to say. I would like to ask you a question to see how much stock you put into averages of this type.
"Note that I am defining "truly alcohol-related crashes" as being ((accident rate per passenger mile of people with a given BAC) minus (accident rate per PM of people with 0.00BAC)) times (passenger miles driven by people with a given BAC)."
% of money given per capita by canadians as compared to % of money given by Americans. While canada's % is higher the USA gives a WHOOOOLE lot more in dollars. Wouldn't you agree?
If so, does that not make the comparison in percents a bit aside of reality...making them appear something they are not?
I feel that sometimes numbers are crunched a bit to much and this is done to make the outcome fit a preconceived notion. Sorry but per passenger mile strikes me as something along those lines.
"Your life was ruined by a driver with a 0.08-0.09BAC? I thought based on what you said before that he had a 0.17-0.21BAC?"
My life was destroyed by a driver that blew over .08, not to mention an underage second time offender.
"Depending upon where they live and work, people convicted of DUI are likely to have no practical way of continuing to work at their present job or live in their present home."
That is the choice they make now isn't it? At least they have that choice, I know I sure didn't. I lost my job, had i not had some help from people around me I would have lost my home and everything else too. While you talk a DUI convicts losses, where do you stand on mine?
"The data I've shown suggests that 0.12 is where things really start to pick up and alcohol becomes a more significant factor than many of the other things that contribute to bad driving."
I would like to see that data, I posted several links a while back as to where mine comes from.
I know.
>>>"Lets just clear the air shall we"<<<
You are a delusional Nanny Cop, associated with MADD a for profit Corporation whose business it is to control and strip the Liberties of all Americans. You cannot or will not take responsibilty for your own life and desire or require some Government entity to do it for you.
Or just a Troll looking to get a rise out of someone.
Dummy
TT
That's the key. DUI/DWI makes a boatload of money for the state/county/city. The drop to .08 was due to the threat of a loss of federal dollars, but it didn't really bother the states because it just means more money in the bank.
I allowed values as low as 0.17 because I didn't know the guy's weight. If he was really big, it could have been that low, but it was more likely 0.18-0.20. And compared with 0.123, I'd say calling 0.18-0.20 "about 0.20" is not unreasonable. The point is that the guy's BAC was certainly above 0.15 and thus included in the category of people I mentioned.
Perhaps you think that if a 0.16BAC will increases a person's probability of a crash by a certain amount, a 0.08BAC will increase it by half that amount. But that isn't even remotely near the case. Accident rates as a function of BAC are pretty flat below about 0.12, when they start going up very sharply. Even if the guy's BAC was "only" 0.17, that level would but his accident rate significantly about what would have been caused by 0.15, much less 0.123.
If so, does that not make the comparison in percents a bit aside of reality...making them appear something they are not?
I multipled the rates per mile by the number of miles driven. If you prefer another formulation, count the "true alcohol-caused accident count" for a given BAC as being the difference between the number of accidents caused by drivers with a given BAC and the number of accidents those same drivers would have had if they'd been stone-cold sober (I was estimating before that such drivers, if sober, would have roughly the same accident rate per passenger mile as sober drivers).
The point being that the absolute number of crashes caused by those with BACs of 0.15 or over exceeds the number of crashes that occur with BACs of 0.10 and below that would not have occurred even if the driver's BAC was 0.00.
My life was destroyed by a driver that blew over .08, not to mention an underage second time offender.
The driver's BAC was almost certainly well over 0.15 at the time of the crash. So why not focus your energies on people whose BACs are at least in the same ballpark as the jerk that victimized you?
Your action is akin to someone getting injured by a 90 year-old driver who's nearly blind calling for the revocation of licenses for anyone over 50. After all, the 90-year-old driver was "over 50", right"
That is the choice they make now isn't it? At least they have that choice, I know I sure didn't. I lost my job, had i not had some help from people around me I would have lost my home and everything else too. While you talk a DUI convicts losses, where do you stand on mine?
I think that people who repeatedly drive with BAC levels of over 0.15 should be kept locked up as long as liberals will allow. But that does not imply that the same should apply to someone who blows a 0.08.
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.