See other Science/Tech Articles
Title: New ignition lock laws aim to foil drunk drivers
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090102 ... i_legislation_ignition_locks_4
Published: Jan 2, 2009
Author: MICHAEL TARM
Post Date: 2009-01-02 14:59:31 by Jethro Tull
Keywords: None
Views: 1618
Comments: 150
CHICAGO – Motorists convicted of driving drunk will have to install breath-monitoring gadgets in their cars under new laws taking effect in six states this week. The ignition interlocks prevent engines from starting until drivers blow into the alcohol detectors to prove they're sober. Alaska, Colorado, Illinois, Nebraska and Washington state began Jan. 1 requiring the devices for all motorists convicted of first-time drunken driving. South Carolina began requiring them for repeat offenders. Mothers Against Drunk Driving has been conducting a nationwide campaign to mandate ignition locks for anyone convicted of drunken driving, claiming doing so would save thousands of lives. But critics say interlocks could lead to measures that restrict alcohol policies too much. Users must pay for the fist-sized devices, which in Illinois cost around $80 to install on dashboards and $80 a month to rent; there's also a $30 monthly state fee. And they require periodic retesting while the car is running. "It's amazingly inconvenient," said David Malham, of the Illinois chapter of MADD. "But the flip side of the inconvenience is death." Other states with similar laws include New Mexico, Arizona and Louisiana. Most other states give judges the option of forcing convicted drunk drivers to use the devices. In practice though, they are rarely ordered unless laws mandate them, according to MADD. Until now, that's been true in Illinois, said MADD national CEO Chuck Hurley. "Illinois has excellent law enforcement," he said. "But the judicial system leaks like a sieve. This law will change the catch and release system to one where people are at least caught and tagged." In Illinois, the interlocks are mandated only for the five to 11 months licenses are suspended with a first DUI. Drivers can opt not to install them, but then would be banned from driving during the suspension period. Motorists in Colorado get a similar choice — install the devices or get a longer suspension. The law taking effect in Washington state actually relaxes penalties on drunk drivers, allowing them to avoid a previously mandatory license suspension by getting an interlock. The bill's author, Rep. Roger Goodman, said too many motorists were driving with suspended licenses. Motorists could try to skirt the devices by, say, having someone else blow into the detector or driving someone else's car. But if caught trying to circumvent the interlocks, they could go to jail. Within a year, up to 30,000 first-time offenders in Illinois could be using them, state officials estimate. New Mexico was the first state to mandate the devices in 2005. Since then, according to MADD, that state has seen its drunk-driving deaths fall 20 percent. Hurley said other states could see the same percentage decline within a few years. DUI deaths nationally have plummeted to around 15,000 from around 30,000 annually in the early 1980s. Malham, who supports the technology, said in the future even more advanced technology will enable cars to effectively sniff car cabins, scan faces and eyes of drivers or even test sweat on steering wheels to assess sobriety before engines start. Not everyone is as enthusiastic. One of the staunchest critics of interlock laws for first-time offenders is the Washington-based American Beverage Institute, a trade association representing restaurants and retailers. ABI managing director Sarah Longwell said the group backs interlock laws targeting repeat offenders and those arrested with high blood-alcohol levels. But she said laws advocated by MADD don't allow judges to distinguish between those who have a few drinks and go just over the 0.08 blood-alcohol legal limit and those who go way over. "We want sensible alcohol policies," she said. "We want 10 people to be able to come in and have one drink and not one person to come in and have 10." She said current interlock laws could lead to more draconian measures. "We foresee is a country in which you're no longer able to have a glass of wine, drink a beer at a ball game or enjoy a champagne toast at a wedding," she said. "There will be a de facto zero tolerance policy imposed on people by their cars." She argued that MADD puts too much emphasis on links between alcohol and traffic deaths, giving too little regard to the roles excessive speed and driver cell-phone use in deadly accidents. Proponents of interlock laws say studies back their approach. They cite a 2008 study by the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation that found interlock devices in New Mexico helped decrease repeat offenses by approximately two-thirds. MADD also points to figures showing one-third of all drunk drivers have a prior DUI conviction. The American Beverage Institute questions studies cited by advocates, saying they other factors, like education programs, also account for the declines. Malham concedes Illinois' new law isn't perfect. For one, it only applies to drivers during relatively short license-suspension periods. "But perfection can't be the enemy of the good, to quote (18th century philosopher) Voltaire," he said. "I'd like to see more teeth in the law in the future. But this is a start."
Poster Comment: With all the car rentals, they'll also have to note the conviction on a persons drivers license. This will mean whenever a person uses their lic. for ID (as in a new job, etc) the conviction will appear.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-85) not displayed.
.
.
.
#86. To: Fred Mertz, Original_Intent, Dakmar (#85)
If only they'd got a bigger vehicle that guard rail would'da hit'em in the groin instead of straight through the skull.
The ultimate effect of shielding men from the effects of folly, is to fill the world with fools. - Herbert Spencer
I havent read through all this very long thread but it caught my attention because of all the replies. I am very surprised that some here would support these checkpoints and the ignition devices! now speaking from someone who has been hit by 3 drunk drivers, (all female!) I am adamantly against such laws, checkpoints, devices, etc. checkpoints have been proven not to work and are tyranny anyway, IMO. no probable cause. MADD is a KOOK organization that hates freedom. theres been some great articles on them recently posted here. Also, just because someone goes over the supposed 'limit' doesnt mean theyre impaired. why have they lowered it and lowered it so many times? to snare the people and amp up their revenue racket. Remember the video i posted of my dog on the beach about a month ago? that is the very same day.. that night, what i later learned was a drunk driver crashed into at least 7 cars, two of them being mine! (truck and trailer both) I spoke to the woman for some time afterwards and didnt even know she was 'drunk'. until i found out later she was arested for DUI, which i shouldnt have to point out, an arrest still doesnt mean shes drunk anyway. another issue of libertarian interest in my case is that the state of CA only compels motorists to have $5,000 in liability ins. this woman had more than the minimum, she had 10K. but when you hit 7 cars, several of them TOTALED, everyone involved is F-#$@ked! financially i mean! the first car she totaled, a VW was 14k in damage alone. the question always is, should the state compel insurance anyway? if so, why? it was never compulsory for all these years until recently. it will be months before anyone is paid anything. i actually had my videocam with me and took vid of the whole mess on the freeway and the drivers! the CHP had had the freeway shut down for one prior accident and so we were alll stopped (about 2 am) and, i was stopped for 5 mins waiting and then i heard what sounded like a 70s tv movie. screaming screeching, crashing, UNREAL! the bitch didnt stop in time and went between 2 lanes of cars hitting everyone! MIRACULOUSLY no one was hurt in all this!! i saw it all happening in my rear view mirror like a tv show. i was in the far right lane the chaos was in the fast lane (far left), and I thought, "geez. im glad im over here out of the wa--BAMMMM!!!! " i was pissed and its a lot of damage but i still dont want some coruupt pig govt forcing anyone to breathe into something. this is premptive guilt judgement and is a complete racket. another thing this accident did is remind me that our time could come at any moment. anyone could have easily been killed that night. my wife and i had a great time at the beach for several days,., beautiful sunny days.. immediately faced with a huge mess. you just never know. out trailer was brand new too. not even 2 months old. quite a test of faith actually, when everything goes bad at once. but Praise God and have faith of a mustard seed. not always easy, for sure.
Glory to God in the highest, and Peace to His people on Earth. oh man, I'm so sorry to hear that. i just saw your remark now. ;-(
Glory to God in the highest, and Peace to His people on Earth. chris, many folks who drink to excess and drive recklessly do so because the govt and the anti marijuana lobby, THE PARTNERSHIP FOR A DRUG FREE AMERICA (the alcohol and tobacco industries) insist that we can only self medicate with highly dangerous alcohol spirits. If folks could lawfully grow, buy and smoke fine quality reefa those who drove would go slowly and carefully, not excessively fast (for their reflexes) while menacing all others around them. Big liquor and tobacco are worried about their profits of course, so, the car crashes must continue. This industry influence combined with the compound stress of creeping govt control over our lives can only magnify the problem. If reefa was decrim'ed they'd drive like orientals trying to merge into freeway rush hour traffic. (Instead of speeding up to merge more "intoxicated" motorists may stop, causing major interruptions to traffic flow-irritating but not nearly as dangerous as drunks on the road)
An automobile IS a deadly weapon in the hands of someone impaired. Of course I've seen a few idiots on the road, OK more than a few, who are impaired without being the worse for drink. What do we do about the senior citizen problem? Or handicapped, or just bad drivers? I know far more elderly people who shouldn't be driving than drunks. How about we pull their licenses at 65, or for anyone who takes prescription meds, or once a person goes on the government dole which makes them a burden on society? I'm with Critter on this one, some risk is necessary in a free society. If a person is so safety obsessed, maybe it's them who shouldn't be driving.
DING! We have a winner! I drive between 30k and 60k miles a year depending on the year. I probably avoid 6 or 8 accidents a week just by watching out for the other guy. My safety is my responsibility. I feel the same way about the movement "Kill a biker, go to jail." On my motorcycle, my safety is my responsibility. Why should some old lady who didn't see me coming go to jail because she is an old lady who didn't see me coming? If, heaven forbid, my daughter is hurt or killed by a drunk or an old lady that didn't see her coming, I would hope that I was mature enough to get over it without needing to see heads roll. Now if some dipshit rapes her, I'll kill him myself. It's all about intent to me. Did the drunk or old lady intend to kill me or my kid? No. Did the rapist intend to hurt my kid? Absolutely. I'll kill the latter or forgive the former and try to get on with my life, either as a free man or behind bars for manslaughter. :)
I shall not vote for evil, lesser or otherwise. The problem is: People don't have a fucking clue. I think I am more qualified than most to answer this since the road is my office. They don't realize that 1 little misstep can cost them their lives. Or they can be completely innocent, and another driver makes a mistake and they are dead anyway. Lots of graves are filled with people that did nothing wrong. You can see it in the way people drive. They dont pay attention, and they don't respect the level of danger they are in. They might get away with doing stupid shit 99 times out of 100, but the only one that matters is the 100th time. It isn't just drunk drivers. The perfectly sober ones are equally dangerous. I think it was Tommy Lee Jones that said in a movie "individuals are smart, people are stupid". He was right, even if it is only a movie. I dont see an answer to this. People are stupid and will do stupid things no matter what laws they pass. If people are so desperate to die, then go jump off a fucking bridge, BY YOURSELF! Don't take anyone with you. .
Click for Privacy and Preparedness files Nehemiah 4:14 And I looked and arose and said to the nobles and to the officials and to the rest of the people, “Do not be afraid of them. Remember the Lord, who is great and awesome, and fight for your brothers, your sons, your daughters, your wives, and your homes.”
I have a real problem with any device that denies you access to personal transportation in case of an emergency. You're home. You've had a half glass of beer or wine. Your child falls and cuts herself...bleeding badly. The car says 'you're drunk', and refuses to start. Call for an ambulance? To paraphrase: "when seconds count, the ambulance is minutes away". Your child bleeds to death. Who's liable? This device will open a major can of worms...
How do you feel about responsibility? At what point do you receive the right to endanger the lives of others unnecessarily? Where do you receive that right i.e., upon what premise? Do you acknowledge or deny that the larger group has a right to protect themselves from the irresponsible actions of some? Please explain how it is the responsible thing to do to get behind the wheel of a vehicle when you are under the influence of an intoxicant, thus putting the lives of others at risk, - which is a VOLUNTARY activity? As far as I'm concerned you are welcome to "handle snakes", play "Russian Roulette, or join Free Republic, but those are individual choices which affect no one other than the individual concerned. When your actions have the potential to affect another person than yourself then it becomes a matter not just of personal choice but of reasonable action by the larger group to protect themselves from willfull individuals who take no concern as to how their actions might affect others. A free society does not mean a society without limits where the actions of one which adversely affect the liberties, and the enjoyment of those liberties, by others goes without restraint or restriction. You have no right to get behind the wheel of a car and then murder someone in cold blood, because that is what you are doing when you drive under the influence. Society has a right and a vested interest in protecting itself from the irresponsible and unethical. When you get behind the wheel of a car, a voluntary activity, you either accept responsibility for your actions or you do not? Which is it?
""I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is Mass Psychology...It's importance has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda...Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated." Bertrand Russel, Eugenicist and Logician
To clarify my position - I do not support the use of this device as I regard it as unreasonable, and as you correctly point out, in theory, could unnecessarily limit someone's response in and emergency. However, that does not answer the larger question which is at what point does a society have the right to restrain the actions of the irresponsible? Absolutes are unobtainable in the real world, and they exist only in theory. (Which as an aside is why I find the mania of some on the left and right, on some issues, to be a type of insanity.) My point and my sole point is that drinking and driving is irresponsible and is always unacceptable as a voluntary elective activity, and then only because it puts the lives and liberties of others at risk.
""I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is Mass Psychology...It's importance has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda...Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated." Bertrand Russel, Eugenicist and Logician
You accept the responsibility for your actions. So a guy has 3 beers, drives home, has no accident, but gets stopped by a roadblock, blows a .081 and goes to jail. He harmed no one. There is nothing to be held accountable for. But you'd like to see him have one of these things on his car? Maybe you need to change your screen name to something like: Original_Intent_But_Only_When_It_Isn't_My_Pet_Peeve I have my pet peeves, don't get me wrong, but the last thing I want is government to make a new law or design a new punishment for what pisses me off about other people. When you have 300 million in a country, you have 300 million pet peeves, and if we outlaw all of them, nothing will be legal and all 300 million will be in jail or have some dumb doohickey attached to them somehow.
I shall not vote for evil, lesser or otherwise. These devices can be bypassed by anyone - simply ask a friend who isn't drinking to blow-start. Now the question is how do u prevent a habitual drunk from driving? Some drugs react violently w/alcohol. Would you mandate such a person take it daily/weekly? Or would you simply lock up a person with a disease to protect society?
Do you accept responsibility for your actions or not? Do you feel you have the right to endanger others because your right to drive impaired is senior to others to drive safely? How do you feel about "Stop Signs"? Do you find them an unreasonable restraint upon your freedom? Do Railroad Crossing Guards unreasonably inhibit your right to drive into the front of an oncoming locomotive? For the record - as I clarified above I do not support the requirement for one of these devices. I do object to adults behaving as willful children. If you blow .81 I think you should have your license revoked as you have proven by that action that you are irresponsible and have no need to be behind the wheel of a car putting the lives of responsible adults at risk. You can attempt to personalize this all you want, but I am immune to childish taunts and insults. That you behaved irresponsibly and got away with it does not make an action any less irresponsible. Either you accept responsibility for your actions or you do not. Which is it?
""I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is Mass Psychology...It's importance has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda...Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated." Bertrand Russel, Eugenicist and Logician
Blowing an 0.81, might in reality be a 0.79 (legal), but that said, for a first time offender you'd remove their license and perhaps their source of income for how long a period of time?
First, I don't accept your premise. Alcoholism is NOT a disease it is a habit. It may well indicate that the person has problems but it IS NOT a disease. There is no physical requirement that any individual drink alcohol, and I am not some ninnying teetotaler who wags their finger at someone for enjoying the pleasures of drinking a wee bit o' the Irish, or Cognac, or Scotch, or Boubon, but I do draw the line at Sloe Gin (disgusting shit reserved for unwelcome relatives). As I pointed out above I don't support this device as there is too much room for government abuse. As for solving the problem of the drunk driver. We live in an imperfect world and there is no "one" solution, but taking away their license, and if need be their vehicle (although we had one locally who had his license and car taken away and he kept buying junkers and driving them until he finally killed someone and was locked up for what is probably the rest of his life). But there is no one solution but sanctions need to be draconian enough to make it unacceptable to go out kill someone because you felt your right to drive was senior to someone else's right to live. Not that I am saying you are that irresponsible, but some are. The sanctions have to have enough of bite to deter the irresponsible behavior.
""I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is Mass Psychology...It's importance has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda...Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated." Bertrand Russel, Eugenicist and Logician
What childish taunt? My suggesting you change your name to one more appropriate for your actions? Where is the original intent for DUI roadblocks? Where is the original intent for preemptive punishment? Where is the original intent for the unusual punishment of making a guy blow into some silly gizmo to make a grocery run, and have to pay through the nose for the privilege? The war on DUI is more bogus than the war on drugs and the war on terror. Do a little research on how we got to .08, and how unreliable the breathalyzer is. It's all a money making scheme for liars, I mean lawyers, insurance companies, courts, jailers and makers of silly doohickies. For the record, I don't drink and drive, never had a DUI, and never had an accident under the influence.
I shall not vote for evil, lesser or otherwise. just pondering...how do you think an anarchist society would handle something like this? iow, what would be the punishment/consequences when a person infringes another's right to life, liberty, and property? i've always said i'd prefer anarchy over what we have now, but could it really work?
Blowing an 0.81, might in reality be a 0.79 (legal), but that said, for a first time offender you'd remove their license and perhaps their source of income for how long a period of time? In Sweden it is permanent - no exceptions, and resulted in dramatic decline in Auto Accident Fatalities. Statistically 50% of ALL Auto Accidents are Alcohol related. In Oregon if you are over the legal limit you are assumed to be AT FAULT in any accident in which you are involved even if the other driver hits you. While I don't agree entirely with that it is one solution. I would probably, if I had my way, go for a modified Swedish Law wherein the person would lose their license for 5 years on a first offense and then at the end of that 5 could apply for reinstatement. Second offense - revocation for life with no exceptions.
""I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is Mass Psychology...It's importance has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda...Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated." Bertrand Russel, Eugenicist and Logician
That alcoholism is a disease isn't my premise; much smarter people than myself have have arrived at that conclusion. What can't be argued by anyone is the genetic predisposition to alcoholism. Using that fact as a start, the evidence, for me at least, points to a disease process.
There is no way to prevent the habitual drunk driver from driving except incarceration for life, as O.I. pointed out in his last post. It is the habitual drunk that is the problem here, not the guy that has two beers with dinner. But it is the guy that has 2 beers with dinner that is targeted by all of the hysteria surrounding DUI. 99.99% of the people here know that our government is an organized crime syndicate. Why on earth anyone would want them to fix anything is beyond me. Our government has never fixed anything and never will. What makes people think that it will be any different with DUI? Is it some kind of magic thinking which I do not possess?
I shall not vote for evil, lesser or otherwise. In your tirade you completely avoided all of the key questions and substituted a highly emotional, but devoid of logic and reason, rant attacking a device I have already said, at least twice in this thread, that I do not support. I'll restate the key question simply for your convenience. At what point does someone's right to drive under the influence outweigh someone else's right to live? At what point does a society have the right to protect itself from those who behave irresponsibly? Christine raises an interesting point. What do we do if someone drives drunk and kills someone we love? Declare Blood Feud and hunt them down and kill them? Or is it more responsible, as a group and individual, to put in those safeguards we can to prevent the needless death in the first place?
""I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is Mass Psychology...It's importance has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda...Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated." Bertrand Russel, Eugenicist and Logician
In Sweden it is permanent - no exceptions, and resulted in dramatic decline
in Auto Accident Fatalities. Why stop at driving? I've
said this countless times, but a large majority of the people I arrested were
drinking. It's a wicked drug, so why not another round of prohibition? I
guarantee if alcohol weren't available crime would drop dramatically.
Oh, you believe the government or MADD stats? lol If I am in the back seat of my 72yo mother's car, and she has an accident, stone cold sober, with another 70yo stone cold granny, but I am injured and am under the influence, it is an alcohol related accident by their figures. So it is ok to punish the unguilty? Where is the original intent in that? I know how our country got this far into the shit. People who are all about original intent except when it comes to their pet peeve. Remember those 300 million pet peeves?
I shall not vote for evil, lesser or otherwise. Kinda like the war on terror? Kill em all over there before they kill us over here?
I shall not vote for evil, lesser or otherwise. Adroitly sidestepping a side debate of some complexity - regardless as to whether alcoholism is a disease or not we, as a group, have decided that some impairments are incompatible with some activities. For example we don't issue Driver's Licenses to blind people. So, regardless of the genesis of the alcoholism we know, both from personal experience and laboratory testing, that alcohol impairs reaction time, field of vision, and judgement. So, I do not think it unreasonable to prohibit drinking and driving. We have to have some standard by which to judge that line of demarcation - between impaired and unimpaired. At this point many states, regardless of the validity, have set the standard at .08% Blood Alcohol. Therefore, regardless of what one might think personally, that is the legal standard. Thus anyone exceeding that standard is, by legal definition, too impaired to be behind the wheel of a car. Since driving impaired is irresponsible and puts others at risk against their will then action is justified in sanctioning that behavior. We know from experience that for a standard to be enforceable, where willful people are concerned, then the sanction must be draconian enough to get their attention and make the penalty for the irresponsible action more than they're willing to risk.
""I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is Mass Psychology...It's importance has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda...Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated." Bertrand Russel, Eugenicist and Logician
In Sweden it is permanent - no exceptions, and resulted in dramatic decline in Auto Accident Fatalities. Why stop at driving? I've said this countless times, but a large majority of the people I arrested were drinking. It's a wicked drug, so why not another round of prohibition? I guarantee if alcohol weren't available crime would drop dramatically. Who's arguing for prohibition. I certainly am not. And we both know how well "Prohibition" worked in the Twenties and with the current "War on Some drugs". I oppose prohibition as strenuously as I object to driving while intoxicated. I don't drink much anymore but you'll get my Scotch and Cognac (and Red Wine) when you get through the front door - which might be a tough proposition - assuming I'm not too impaired to shoot straight. And I doubt crime would drop from prohibition - we have empirical evidence suggesting the exact opposite.
""I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is Mass Psychology...It's importance has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda...Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated." Bertrand Russel, Eugenicist and Logician
I have no problem with arresting DUIs - I do have a problem with draconian punishment. First time offenders - no injuries - should be fined and allowed a 'bread and butter license' (to and from work). If you remove a person's license, and their income/job for the most part, the punishment doesn't fit the crime.
Kinda like the war on terror? Kill em all over there before they kill us over here? Again you offer a simile that is not similar. The "WaronTerra" is founded on lies. Yes or No? Does alcohol impair a person's ability to see clearly, think clearly, and react quickly. Yes? Or No? You keep avoiding the issue of individual responsibility and the rights of others to go about their affairs unendangered by the irresponsible action of SOME. Is it more reasonable to allow the irresponsible to kill others by their irresponsibility than to take what action we can to reduce "the bag limit" of drunks behind the wheel? Are people responsible for their actions or not? Yes or No? Are we, as a society, within OUR rights to defend against the actions of an irresposible, and deadly, few? Yes or No?
""I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is Mass Psychology...It's importance has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda...Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated." Bertrand Russel, Eugenicist and Logician
I brought this up because you seem treat a .081 driver - no injuries - more harshly than a .081 bar stool sitter who punches (assault) the guy next to him.
I could live with that. It is a reasonable compromise position. But ONLY to and from work.
""I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is Mass Psychology...It's importance has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda...Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated." Bertrand Russel, Eugenicist and Logician
The impaired individual, regardless of whether anyone is harmed, has taken an action which held the potential to cause harm. It is thus an irresponsible action which could have resulted in grave harm. Therefore they have violated the mutual covenant or respect for the rights of others and thus have behaved in a criminally irresponsible way. The person on the Bar Stool is guilty of assault and thus has earned what the law dictates. They have as well violated the rights of another.
""I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is Mass Psychology...It's importance has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda...Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated." Bertrand Russel, Eugenicist and Logician
I understand, my point is the inequity of the punishment. In the case of the driver, no harm occurred, yet they get hammered with arrest, loss of DL, an increase in insurance premium, etc. The bar stool drunk faces nothing near as severe *and* h/she actually caused an injury.
I understand, my point is the inequity of the punishment. In the case of the driver, no harm occurred, yet they get hammered with arrest, loss of DL, an increase in insurance premium, etc. The bar stool drunk faces nothing near as severe *and* h/she actually caused an injury. It comes down to the potential for harm and personal responsibility. The person who drives impaired holds the potential to easily kill or maim if something goes awry. The potential exists for much greater harm than one drunk launching a "haymaker" at another drunk. As well if the drunk on the stool was swinging on my Uncle Rocky he might find himself in the Emergency Ward after colliding with a right hook (he had to sleep off half of his 70th Birthday in the Drunk Tank for beating the crap out of a guy half his age who thought he could push around a rowdy old Irishman from Hell's Kitchen). Insurance companies are in the business of insuring risk. People who behave irresponsibly are a higher risk and thus have to pay more because of that greater risk - as demonstrated by their own behavior. The same goes for people who have speeding violations or any other moving violation. It is equitable and based upon a judgement informed by risk tables. A person who gets behind the wheel of a car while under the influence has forfeited their trust again by their own actions. Yes, the penalties can be heavy, but there is a simple solution - don't get behind the wheel of a car under the influence.
""I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is Mass Psychology...It's importance has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda...Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated." Bertrand Russel, Eugenicist and Logician
This is where things get hazy (pardon the pun). When society uses the "potential for harm" as a criterion for punishment, we're entering the eerie realm pre-crimes. Charges should be leveled for what was done, not for what might have been done. Just for the fun of it, how should we deal with drivers and the aging process? I'd guess a man/woman of 80 years has half the reaction time of a 30 year old. I'd also guess that the decrease in reaction time might be the equivalent of having a few beers. At what age do we begin yanking the geezers off the roads related to age?
This is where things get hazy (pardon the pun). When society uses the "potential for harm" as a criterion for punishment, we're entering the eerie realm pre-crimes. Charges should be leveled for what was done, not for what might have been done. It is not JUST the potential for harm though. It is an ACTION which the individual voluntarily and of their own volition TOOK which was irresponsible and the potential for harm becomes serious harm when that drunk driver plows into a pedestrian, a car, or into the side of a bus at 70 miles an hour (in a 45 MPH Zone against a Red Light) as happened near where I live. What is being punished, or sanctioned, is the irresponsible action which experience has taught us CAN kill. I think Oregon came up with a sound answer - after a certain age (70 or so) a person must periodically re-test. If they are no longer physically able to drive safely their license IS NOT renewed. Florida has been wrestling with this one because of the high number of fatalities from older drivers picking off pedestrians. However, there are variables based on how well a person ages. At 85 my Great Aunt Grace was still safer than most other drivers on the road - and she DID NOT do 33 in a 70 MPH Zone. However, my Grandfather, again at 85, had become unsafe and his kids took away his Car Keys (pissed him off too, but he was forced to agree when he had calmed down). Again it is a matter of responsibility. If a person is no longer able to drive safely, and will not voluntarily put down the keys, then for the safety of all I would think it justified to take them away.
""I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is Mass Psychology...It's importance has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda...Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated." Bertrand Russel, Eugenicist and Logician
Back to the
inequities of punishment, re; alcohol and driving. Lets remove the two
beers consumed by Suzie Q from the above, rather dramatic, "potential for
harm." IOW, she drove her car in the exact same way, causing the exact
same "potential" for harm. Her sanction if caught? A few summonses. Now, add a
bud light to the equation and MADD stains their pants. I remind you there are
no injuries in my Bud light example. The more I think of the "potential for
harm" issue, the more I realize very few poor choices are excluded from this
pool. Most every crime has an enormous, unsanctioned, potential for harm.
About the Oregon solution to aging and DLs, do you have any stats as to how
many drivers have failed the reaction test? I'll take a wild stab and say few
if any, this despite their unquestionable slowed reaction time. Sans multiple
accidents and summons, the elderly will be issued DLs, based on fear of age
discrimination. Potential for harm be damned, but at least they're off the
hooch :P
I'm not avoiding anything. I am saying it is impossible to fight, and the more we get behind the government trying to fight it, the more freedom we are going to have to give up in the name of safety. FUCK THAT! You want a nanny state so you can feel safe? Change your screen name.
I shall not vote for evil, lesser or otherwise. Who said anything about a "nanny state"? We are talking about people who are violating the right to life, liberty, and property of others by not behaving responsibly. What is there about that which does not compute? Do you feel that it is an unfair infringement upon someone's liberty to not let them get behind the wheel of a thousand pound missle when they are under the influence of alcohol (or other intoxicants)? In what way is it oppressive to use force to restrain someone who is being criminally negligent and irresponsible? Do you believe that we, as a group, have the right to enact laws to restrain those who have no respect for the rights of others or do you find such to be oppressive nanny-statism? What about drunk driving do you find commendable?
""I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is Mass Psychology...It's importance has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda...Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated." Bertrand Russel, Eugenicist and Logician
There is no fool proof measure of one's level of impairment that can be administered by the police. The ORIGINAL INTENT is that it is better to have guilty men run free than innocent men punished. Change your name. It is false advertising.
I shall not vote for evil, lesser or otherwise.
Comments (126 - 150) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestWow! That's conclusive.
"It is like a trance. So what can break a trance? The only thing that can break the trance is the light of truth."
~ Canadian Philosopher John McMurtry as he comments on the psychological warfare that has afflicted us all
#87. To: wudidiz (#86)
#88. To: Jethro Tull, christine, lodwick, james deffenbach, wudidiz, fred mertz, original_intent, twentytwelve, psusa, rotara (#0)
"I don't know where Bin Laden is. I truly am not that concerned about him"
George W, Bush, 3/13/02 http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html
#89. To: christine (#2)
"I don't know where Bin Laden is. I truly am not that concerned about him"
George W, Bush, 3/13/02 http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html
#90. To: christine, Jethro Tull, James Deffenbach (#10)
i agree. i don't know what is the best approach for dealing with DUI offenders.
#91. To: Original_Intent, Critter, all (#42)
It depends upon how much your reaction time is slowed down and whether or not you hit an emergency situation where it slows you down enough to not avoid a preventable disaster.
Mike Flaherty: Yeah, it's been there a long time. I wish I knew which corner.
My Man Godfrey (1936)
#92. To: Esso, Original_Intent (#91)
If a person is so safety obsessed, maybe it's them who shouldn't be driving.
Used Tires Albany, NY
#93. To: Critter, Artisan, All (#92)
(Edited)
#94. To: Critter (#92)
Remember...G-d saved more animals than people on the ark. www.siameserescue.org
#95. To: Esso, Critter, Dakmar, christine, Wudidiz, TwentyTwelve, James Deffenbach, Lodwick, angle, all (#91)
(Edited)
I'm with Critter on this one, some risk is necessary in a free society. If a person is so safety obsessed, maybe it's them who shouldn't be driving.
#96. To: who knows what evil (#94)
(Edited)
I have a real problem with any device that denies you access to personal transportation in case of an emergency. You're home. You've had a half glass of beer or wine. Your child falls and cuts herself...bleeding badly. The car says 'you're drunk', and refuses to start. Call for an ambulance? To paraphrase: "when seconds count, the ambulance is minutes away". Your child bleeds to death. Who's liable? This device will open a major can of worms...
#97. To: Original_Intent (#95)
When you get behind the wheel of a car, a voluntary activity, you either accept responsibility for your actions or you do not? Which is it?
Used Tires Albany, NY
#98. To: Original_Intent, all (#96)
#99. To: Critter, christine (#97)
#100. To: Original_Intent (#99)
If you blow .81 I think you should have your license revoked as you have proven by that action that you are irresponsible and have no need to be behind the wheel of a car putting the lives of responsible adults at risk.
#101. To: Jethro Tull (#98)
These devices can be bypassed by anyone - simply ask a friend who isn't drinking to blow-start. Now the question is how do u prevent a habitual drunk from driving? Some drugs react violently w/alcohol. Would you mandate such a person take it daily/weekly? Or would you simply lock up a person with a disease to protect society?
#102. To: Original_Intent (#99)
but I am immune to childish taunts and insults.
Used Tires Albany, NY
#103. To: Critter (#97)
#104. To: Jethro Tull (#100)
If you blow .81 I think you should have your license revoked as you have proven by that action that you are irresponsible and have no need to be behind the wheel of a car putting the lives of responsible adults at risk.
#105. To: Original_Intent (#101)
#106. To: christine, Original_Intent (#103)
Used Tires Albany, NY
#107. To: Critter, christine (#102)
#108. To: Original_Intent (#104)
Statistically 50% of ALL Auto Accidents are Alcohol related.
#109. To: Original_Intent (#104)
Statistically 50% of ALL Auto Accidents are Alcohol related.
While I don't agree entirely with that it is one solution.
Used Tires Albany, NY
#110. To: Original_Intent (#107)
Or is it more responsible, as a group and individual, to put in those safeguards we can to prevent the needless death in the first place?
Used Tires Albany, NY
#111. To: Jethro Tull, christine, Critter (#105)
That alcoholism is a disease isn't my premise; much smarter people than myself have have arrived at that conclusion. What can't be argued by anyone is the genetic predisposition to alcoholism. Using that fact as a start, the evidence, for me at least, points to a disease process.
#112. To: Jethro Tull (#108)
Statistically 50% of ALL Auto Accidents are Alcohol related.
#113. To: Original_Intent (#111)
#114. To: Critter, christine, Jethro Tull (#110)
(Edited)
Or is it more responsible, as a group and individual, to put in those safeguards we can to prevent the needless death in the first place?
#115. To: Original_Intent (#112)
And I doubt crime would drop from prohibition
#116. To: Jethro Tull (#113)
I have no problem with arresting DUIs - I do have a problem with draconian punishment. First time offenders - no injuries - should be fined and allowed a 'bread and butter license' (to and from work). If you remove a person's license, and their income/job for the most part, the punishment doesn't fit the crime.
#117. To: Jethro Tull (#115)
I brought this up because you seem treat a .081 driver - no injuries - more harshly than a .081 bar stool sitter who punches (assault) the guy next to him.
#118. To: Original_Intent (#117)
The person on the Bar Stool is guilty of assault and thus has earned what the law dictates.
#119. To: Jethro Tull (#118)
(Edited)
The person on the Bar Stool is guilty of assault and thus has earned what the law dictates.
#120. To: Original_Intent (#119)
It comes down to the potential for harm and personal responsibility.
#121. To: Jethro Tull (#120)
It comes down to the potential for harm and personal responsibility.
Just for the fun of it, how should we deal with drivers and the aging process? I'd guess a man/woman of 80 years has half the reaction time of a 30 year old. I'd also guess that the decrease in reaction time might be the equivalent of having a few beers. At what age do we begin yanking the geezers off the roads related to age?
#122. To: Original_Intent (#121)
It is not JUST the potential for harm though. It is an ACTION
which the individual voluntarily and of their own volition TOOK which was
irresponsible and the potential for harm becomes serious harm when that drunk
driver plows into a pedestrian, a car, or into the side of a bus at 70 miles
an hour (in a 45 MPH Zone against a Red Light) as happened near where I live.
What is being punished, or sanctioned, is the irresponsible action which
experience has taught us CAN kill.
#123. To: Original_Intent (#114)
Used Tires Albany, NY
#124. To: Critter (#123)
You want a nanny state so you can feel safe?
#125. To: Original_Intent (#124)
Used Tires Albany, NY
.
.
.