f***ing drunk driver

[Jenksismyhero]

No, that's not the point I'm arguing, but you just keep on ignoring the fact that you made one of the stupidest statements I've ever read in that people have all the control over alcohol.

 

Oh please. The vast majority do. And even alcoholics had to start somewhere. Some knew they had alcoholism in the family and still chose to drink.

 

Playing the "oh it's an addiction" card is a lame attempt at justifying stupid behavior. If you're an addict, go get help. Try to control it as best you can. You're right, my statement shouldn't have been in absolute terms, but my statement is still accurate for the vast majority of people. If you have one drink, you can control how many more you have when making a decision on driving later in the evening.

 

My family has alcoholics too and if one of them got a DUI I wouldn't say "oh, well I guess that's OK because you have an addiction." I'd still blame them for making a dumb decision, which was my original point. It's not the alcohol, it's the person.

 

[Balta1701]

Oh please. The vast majority do. And even alcoholics had to start somewhere. Some knew they had alcoholism in the family and still chose to drink.

 

Playing the "oh it's an addiction" card is a lame attempt at justifying stupid behavior. If you're an addict, go get help. Try to control it as best you can. You're right, my statement shouldn't have been in absolute terms, but my statement is still accurate for the vast majority of people. If you have one drink, you can control how many more you have when making a decision on driving later in the evening.

 

My family has alcoholics too and if one of them got a DUI I wouldn't say "oh, well I guess that's OK because you have an addiction." I'd still blame them for making a dumb decision, which was my original point. It's not the alcohol, it's the person.

And you'd be fully within your rights to blame them for making a dumb decision.

 

That just can't be the basis for a rational policy discussion.

[StrangeSox]

How does this prevent someone else from blowing for the driver?

I've never, ever understood why some people do that. "Hey, you're blitzed, I'm sober, but you drive!"

[StrangeSox]

Do the businesses also provide transportation TO their locations? It's simply an unrealistic idea.

A big part of this is our "car culture" that's unavoidable in rural areas and really exploded with suburban sprawl and non-walkable subdivisions and communities. The only realistic option for most people who don't live in a city with decent public transportation is to drive.

[witesoxfan]

I've never, ever understood why some people do that. "Hey, you're blitzed, I'm sober, but you drive!"

 

Can't drive a stick shift and/or won't drive a large vehicle. Those are really the only reasons I can ever imagine, and those are bad reasons.

[lasttriptotulsa]

Can't drive a stick shift and/or won't drive a large vehicle. Those are really the only reasons I can ever imagine, and those are bad reasons.

 

Those are two possibilities. Also, some people just do not let others drive their car. I'm one of them.

[Jenksismyhero]

And you'd be fully within your rights to blame them for making a dumb decision.

 

That just can't be the basis for a rational policy discussion.

 

If drunk driving is a no-tolerance crime, I don't see how you could allow any sort of justification into the discussion. It's irrelevant.

[MEANS]

Those are two possibilities. Also, some people just do not let others drive their car. I'm one of them.

 

 

or you only ride a bike, like the 40 year old virgin

[Balta1701]

If drunk driving is a no-tolerance crime, I don't see how you could allow any sort of justification into the discussion. It's irrelevant.

Then again I ask, do you think the system currently setup is working well? Because it does exactly what you ask for. Significant punishments, financial and emotional, for people who are caught. They get the lecture you demand they get, they get the moral disapproval you demand they get. Maybe you want more mandatory jail time when someone is caught DUI or something like that, but basically, I take it you think the current setup is fine.

[StrangeSox]

If drunk driving is a no-tolerance crime, I don't see how you could allow any sort of justification into the discussion. It's irrelevant.

It's not a justification to get out of the punishment, it's assessing whether or not your preferred policy will achieve the desired result. Zero-tolerance policies in other contexts don't really seem to work very well at deterring the undesired behavior.

[iamshack]

or you only ride a bike, like the 40 year old virgin

You can actually get pulled over for this too I think

[Jenksismyhero]

Then again I ask, do you think the system currently setup is working well? Because it does exactly what you ask for. Significant punishments, financial and emotional, for people who are caught. They get the lecture you demand they get, they get the moral disapproval you demand they get. Maybe you want more mandatory jail time when someone is caught DUI or something like that, but basically, I take it you think the current setup is fine.

 

I'm sure there might be small ways to improve it, but yeah, I think the current set up is about as good as we're going to get. I like Shack's idea of having devices in cars, but that's probably not workable right now. Penalties are harsh enough as-is. Making them harsher won't change the behavior. And Government Cab Company isn't feasible for the majority of the country.

 

 

[Steve9347]

You can actually get pulled over for this too I think

Exactly - for the purposes of a DUI a bicycle counts as a vehicle, too.

[lasttriptotulsa]

I'm sure there might be small ways to improve it, but yeah, I think the current set up is about as good as we're going to get. I like Shack's idea of having devices in cars, but that's probably not workable right now. Penalties are harsh enough as-is. Making them harsher won't change the behavior. And Government Cab Company isn't feasible for the majority of the country.

 

I agree with this. Sure you could make the penalties harsher, but I don't really think it will change behavior all that much and does anybody really want to waste tax money by jailing guys who had 3 beers after work and got stopped at a checkpoint and arrested?

[lasttriptotulsa]

Exactly - for the purposes of a DUI a bicycle counts as a vehicle, too.

 

I believe, but am not 100% certain, that at least in some places a horse counts also.

Edited May 16, 2013 by lasttriptotulsa

[iamshack]

I'm sure there might be small ways to improve it, but yeah, I think the current set up is about as good as we're going to get. I like Shack's idea of having devices in cars, but that's probably not workable right now. Penalties are harsh enough as-is. Making them harsher won't change the behavior. And Government Cab Company isn't feasible for the majority of the country.

I think it would be workable if instead of allowing these bs "treatment" companies to charge $850 to do nothing, we make the offenders get the devices installed.

[cabiness42]

I believe, but am not 100% certain, that at least in some places a horse counts also.

 

Also golf carts: http://www.courier-journal.com/article/201...ter-friend-dies

 

[lasttriptotulsa]

I think it would be workable if instead of allowing these bs "treatment" companies to charge $850 to do nothing, we make the offenders get the devices installed.

 

Many states are going that route, at least at certain BAC levels. Currently in WI, a BAC of .17 or higher requires the device.

[Texsox]

No...but your decision making might be impaired enough to decide you can order that 4th or 5th drink and still drive home.

 

Agreed

 

The reason that there are no simple solutions is the more you drink the more your judgement slips. People don't usually begin making better decisions the more they drink.

 

And the fines as money maker issue is interesting. The counterpoint to that is we've also been pushing for longer and longer (harsher) jail time for all sorts of crimes, which costs more. So I see the larger fines more in line with harsher sentences than as a money maker.

[IlliniKrush]

Those are two possibilities. Also, some people just do not let others drive their car. I'm one of them.

I sure hope you aren't saying that if I was out with you, you were drunk and I was sober, you wouldn't let me drive your car, and instead you'd drive drunk.

[lasttriptotulsa]

I sure hope you aren't saying that if I was out with you, you were drunk and I was sober, you wouldn't let me drive your car, and instead you'd drive drunk.

 

I never take my car when I'm drinking because I don't trust my decision making when I get drunk, but if for some reason I did have my car and I was drunk and somebody else was sober, yes I would let them drive.

[greg775]

I use 4 beers as my limit if I go out and have to drive. This is provided that it is over at least a 2 hour period. I've never really had an issue with not being able to stop at that point.

Four beers over a two hour time period is probably still getting close in some states isn't it? Are you willing to take the risk on some broken breathalizer?

 

It's easy to do to the cars, but it's the legal battle that would be tough. Why should somebody who's never had a drink in their life have to blow into a device everytime they want to start their car?

Exactly. That would not be very fair. Kind of brutal for non drinkers.

 

Well, at the very least, you could make anyone who's ever had a dui violation use one for the rest of their life...I believe that is a better solution than making it difficult for them to be a productive citizen by fining them and suspending their license.

Bingo. You get a DUI you should have to blow. I can buy that one.

 

Remember my troubled friend in Vegas who was sleeping at a stoplight and it was his third DUI? He pretty much got off scot free. They counted it as his second DUI. I think he lost his license for a year. I said, "Do you still drive?" He said, "Sometimes."

I do believe if he gets pulled over in this scenario, there's mandatory jail time.

[LittleHurt05]

I've never, ever understood why some people do that. "Hey, you're blitzed, I'm sober, but you drive!"

 

That's what happened in that Dallas Cowboys car crash last year. Now the sober guy is dead.

[lasttriptotulsa]

Four beers over a two hour time period is probably still getting close in some states isn't it? Are you willing to take the risk on some broken breathalizer?

 

For an average adult male, one drink (one beer, one glass of wine, or one shot of 80 proof liquor) raises your BAC by about .02. Your body can metabolize at a rate of about .015 per hour. So 4 drinks in 2 hours would put you around .05. You should be good. The more you weigh, the less your BAC goes up with every drink. I weigh around 240 and if I drink at a rate of 1 drink per hour, my BAC will not keep escalating.

[IlliniKrush]

I do no more than a beer per hour, usually less, if I know I have to drive. Plus a cut off of about an hour before as well. So I guess if I'm going to be somewhere 5 hours, I can have 4 beers and no beer the last hour. According to your breakdown (and others I've read before), this is perfectly fine.

 

But most of all, just go by feel and logic. I know when I've had a touch more than I should have, and I'm still nowhere near drunk. If that's the case, grab a ride, call someone, wait another hour or two, whatever.