Don’t know why you singled me out. All I did was point out that it’s not pure luck whether someone dies or not if you drive with an illegal BAC. Do you disagree?
Actually, wouldn’t the legal system do just that?
This post here.
By equating the campaign against drunk driving with brainwashing, you give drunk driving laws a very negative spin. It also gives a strong impression that you don’t agree with them. Am I incorrect?
I agree with that, almost nothing in life is pure luck. A hardened alcoholic who drives professionally is almost certainly less likely to cause an accident while drunk driving than some random person. However, society has decided that we’re not going to allow that drunk to make that call. Even though he may be “safer” than another drunk driver, the risk of harm to others is still too high, so he goes to jail too. Do you disagree?
I was giving the campaign, at least parts of it, a negative spin. Where do you think our OP here got his idea that it’s pure luck whether someone dies when you drive above the limit?
Having a law on BAC and driving is an acceptable shorthand, I guess, but I’ve always had one little peeve. As I said, drinking lowers reaction time and judgement but we don’t have any standards for what’s an acceptable level of either. Neither your reaction time nor judgement is tested when you get your driver’s license.
I also hate roadside checkpoints. Those are bullshit, especially considering it’s much more effective to have those cops on patrol looking for tell tale bad driving.
So I was correct. The only reason I have ever run into for someone arguing with drunk driving laws is that they are annoyed because they want to drink and drive without getting in trouble for it. They always claim to have superior reflexes and reaction times, they can accurately ascertain how drunk they are, and insist they are no danger to the rest of us. So when you claim that you have a pet peeve about standards on acceptable levels of reaction time and judgement … yeah, I’ve heard this argument before.
The answer is that there are standards. They are that you can’t drive while you are impaired. It doesn’t matter what your reaction time and judgement are like, you can’t drive while drunk. Thus, we create a nice legal bright line. It’s simple, straight forward, and saves lives. I firmly believe that anything less will end up with more dead bodies on the road, and in America alone 28 people die every day in drunk driving crashes.
Do you have a cite on roadside checkpoints not being effective? The CDC seems to think they are effective. It may be true that saturation patrols might be more effective, but that doesn’t make checkpoints bullshit if they are achieving their goal of reducing the amount of drunk drivers on the road.
Uhh, no you aren’t correct. I have no problem with the laws and don’t think I have super reflexes. My peeve could be solved by including some kind of reaction time test to get your license.
And I’ll look for a cite but intuitively surely you see that saturation patrol is more effective as far as road safety goes. If they are advertised they have the same deterrent effect and actually target people who are driving unsafely rather than just the people who look drunk enough or are randomly selected to blow. It has the benefit of catching texting drivers which will never happen at a checkpoint.
And I think they are BS for the same reason they are illegal in some States and the ACLU doesn’t like them. It’s an intrusion on law abiding citizens going about their business.
It’s hardly an intrusion. They tell you where they will be in advance.
Don’t think that’s the case in every State, is it? Certainly in Ontario, Canada they may advertise it but don’t say where. Besides a) that just makes it an announced intrusion and b) makes it a lot less effective unless that’s the only road in town.
It’s the case in every US state, because SCOTUS says DUI checkpoints are impermissible otherwise. Can’t speak for Canada.
OK well then I can’t see how anyone who cares about catching drunks would prefer them over patrol blitzes which don’t have any Constitutional conflicts.
They are generally set up in a place where many drunk people will pass through them, such as at the end of the “college bar” street.
I understand where they set them up. I have been driving for 30 years and have seen plenty. They choose streets where you don’t see them easily until you kind of stuck driving in to them, often out of areas with high bar concentration but also often coming on or off a highway ramp that is well used. But only the smallest of towns doesn’t have alternate routes.
I was claiming to be correct about the negative spin part. I will concede that I could very well be way off regarding your motivations. So instead of me assuming, why don’t you tell me why you think testing reaction times be better?
Added on Preview: In Canada, checkpoints are announced, but the exact location is not, nor is it required to be. The Canadian Supreme Court ruled they do not violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Dedman v. The Queen as long as they are used for the RIDE (Reduce Impaired Driving Everywhere) program, so that’s not an issue up here.
I never said I wanted BAC tests replaced with roadside tests for reaction time. I, in fact, said BAC levels are a reasonable shorthand. You must be remembering one of your other arguments.
So why do you want reaction times tested then, if BAC is a reasonable shorthand?
Do I have to retype everything? Can you not just go back and read more carefully? I said twice that I wanted a reaction time test for getting your license. I dont want slow witted morons driving. What’s so hard to understand about that? To add to that: especially we should be retesting and doing that with Seniors.
Well, you just ran into somebody else. I don’t drink, period, and never have, so I have no reason to want to drink and drive.
However, I think there is a case to be made that blanket treatment dilutes the impact. The person who is driving at .09 but doing 25 in a 30 zone is NOT committing the same crime and does not pose the same danger as the one who is driving at .25 and doing 70 in a 30 zone, so why should they be subjected to the same punishment?
When people who are only slightly over the line and pose little if any more risk than many elderly drivers (who also typically have slower reaction times) are lumped in with people who are WAY out of line and very dangerous on the road, the whole concept of “DUI” is cheapened. In the public mind, it’s too often seen as not that big a deal because the truly bad 'uns are commingled with (and hence blurred by) marginal cases.
Further, government resources for dealing with the cases are limited. There’s only so much jail space available, e.g., and if everybody who is even slightly over the line has to have their share of it, then the ones who are really really over the line don’t get enough.
I, too, thought you were suggesting that reaction times, not BAC, ought to be the standard for intoxication.
You wrote that BAC is a shorthand for intoxication BUT that we don’t have an acceptable standard for poor reaction time. One can easily come to the conclusion that you’re in favor of replacing one with the other.
Now that you fully explain yourself, your earlier post still makes sense; but your earlier post could be interpreted a couple different ways. It isn’t Mithrander not understanding what you wrote, you just didn’t fully explain your point.
It can be interpreted a bunch of ways if you want to extrapolate and read in a bunch of stuff. What I said was clear enough: We think lowering your reaction time is bad, but we have no standard for a “good” reaction time. The rest is all your own addition.
I