We do not want hijacking airplanes and flying them into buildings to be a socially acceptable behavior. Can you not perhaps see how being a passenger in such a case is implicit or tacit approval of breaking the lawand endangering other lives?
I know people I get into cars with, not the hundreds of passengers on a plane. There is a qualitative difference here in exactly the spot where I am focusing my opinion: the knowledge of the passenger.
But how is the passenger to know, in all cases? Does he have to be a doctor, nurse, or police officer? Do a blood test? Breathalyzer test? Point at the nose and recite the alphabet backward test?
Or can we just assume that if your friend drives you home from the Superbowl game, you should have known he was legally drunk, but if he drives you home from High Mass, he’s clean as an arrow?
It’s quite possible, and even more likely, that the second driver could be more drunk than the first. Contrary to popular belief, most DUI accidents occur in broad daylight, because that’s when the hardcore alcoholics are out and about driving every day. The person who goes to a special event and drinks might get into an accident, but it is not as likely.
So how could a mere passenger be able to reasonably know the state of the driver’s intoxication, or lack thereof?
I am not requiring them to know in all cases.
Sorry, I’ve just come into this thread. I just wanted to say this:
I think it’s a stupid idea. Are the Japanese saying that there can’t be a designated driver? That a drunk person is not allowed to be driven home in a cab? I can’t see one good reason why a drunk passanger should be punished at all.
I would like to see a link, as I would need to know the details, but it sounds REALLY stupid.
samarm, if there is a designated driver there can be no DUI, you see?
I’m sorry, milroy, but I don’t understand… this is supposed to make it better?
Sorry, eris, I’m a bit tired and maybe didn’t check all the facts. I’ll come back to this tomorrow.
So you agree that the passenger wouldn’t always reasonably know the driver’s BAL. Well, that’s a start. How would you suggest such a law be written, to take into account all of the variables? Does the passenger have to see the driver drinking a beer? Doing shots? Puking on the floor? Or none of the above. Driver is DUI, passengers are busted too. Is that what you are saying?
No, my point is, there is no way for a passenger to reasonably know the BAL of the driver. If Fr. Smith offered you a ride home from church, and he seemed fine to you but was drunk as a skunk and got into a DUI, should you, as the passenger be held responsible?
how exactly would such a law prevent drunk driving?
By discouraging enabling behavior, perhaps.
What civil protections do we give the passengers? If I get in the car with a drunk, I am criminally liable for what happens? It would seem that by that reasoning, if I did not report any drunk I saw, or it could be proven I saw, get into a car and drive off, I should be just as liable? If I turn in a drunk that was not, was just an upset driver and they get stopped and released and then they had an ‘at fault’ wreck, do I get off and the cops become liable because they saw them last? Only the passengers? Why?
A driver who is stone sober when I got in the car reaches under the seat and swigs from an bottle that he just opens while driving down the road and immediately causes a wreck because he was not watching very well through the bottle and kills someone. I will be held responsible because the smell of alcohol, the bottle, the fresh drink, makes it an open and shut ’ drinking while driving’ case? How do I prove the driver just did it that way?
Go with the laws we already have. We need enforcement, not new - more laws. YMMV
The World is round,
It’s not fair,
It’s just damn round!!!
Don’t make it more unfair than it already is.