Question for "pro-drunk drivers"

[MelissaWV]

Interesting how fundamentally we disagree, but how often we're in complete agreement, my friend.

In my opinion, the reckless are indeed the problem. And I certainly do see how cops on normal patrol can find them and get them off the street. But I sure don't see how the reckless can be detected at a roadblock. Do you?

We always seem to forget to deal with the problem. Not everyone who sneezes has Swine Flu, and not everyone with beer on his or her breath is out to kill someone. And not everyone who is out to kill someone has bad breath, either.

Seems like such an easy thing to understand...

You don't need a checkpoint. Checkpoints are excuses to look into people's cars and test everyone, presuming they are guilty until they prove otherwise. Checkpoints cannot be deemed effective at stopping accidents, because those whose journey ends at a checkpoint may or may not have been a danger to others on the road. Slurred speech and imbalance, for instance, are not as critical as reaction time in general to road conditions. If these checkpoints are really finding so many impaired drivers, how do I not hear of checkpoints being mowed down by drunk drivers? If there are so many on that road, one of them is surely going to lack the ability to stop and park themselves and get out of the car, right? This is somehow still a very rare thing to happen.

Reckless driving is a completely arbitrary. I am waiting to hear all the different standards people consider reckless.

You are still licensed to drive a vehicle on public roads. That vehicle needs to follow certain basic rules (as dannno pointed some of them out). I stated earlier that a police officer, or a private security officer if you prefer, has a duty to pull over a vehicle that is endangering persons or property and determine what's going on. People are assuming it would be something bad, and the officer would automatically issue a ticket. In reality, it might be any number of things, including a medical problem, or someone who didn't realize their lights weren't working, or someone falling asleep at the wheel, or someone who's drunk, and so on.

Based on whether or not that person could safely continue operating their vehicle, the officer would need to arrive at some kind of decision with regards to the driver and the vehicle. They might need to call an ambulance. They might need to drive the person home. If it's a matter of a vehicle not having working lights, or something along those lines, the officer might simply escort the person home, driving behind them (brake lights not working) or in front (headlights not working) in order to make the remainder of the ride safer for the person and those other people on the road.

I also contend that the officer should have evidence to present in case they are challenged. In the case of a drunk driver, they may remember things differently the next day, insisting they were driving fine. A dash cam of their vehicle swerving in and out of traffic, or driving the wrong way down a street, would demonstrate otherwise. If the officer can't prove the ticket, it should be dismissed. If the officer doesn't show up to court, it should be dismissed. If the officer's testimony does not jive with what was caught on camera, the case should be dismissed and the officer should face consequences. If an officer has a lot of "no show" cases or a history of pulling people over for bullshit reasons, they should face consequences.

Again, this isn't arrest and tossing someone in the slammer for driving drunk. This isn't taking away someone's car because they drive too fast. These are warnings and checking on the driver, and citations where warranted. A driver who actually CAUSES damage would face far more serious consequences, up to and including losing their license or having restrictions placed upon it.

That's within the current framework, though, obviously; in a land without licenses the above wouldn't apply, but the owner of a private road would likely have a private security force patrolling their road and would be very likely MORE strict as to what is/isn't allowed on their road. This would be both for the safety of the drivers (roads with bad reputations for being unsafe would likely be used less often) and to keep up the condition of the property itself.

This is far less difficult than some of you are contending.

 

[acptulsa]

I agree. There's this notion that things should be illegalized which might lead to a behavior which is often associated with a behavior which could harm someone. I think this attitude, besides being silly, is very anti-freedom. It's an excuse for politicians to mandate their personal preferences.

And nothing more.

And they find ways to erode our freedoms through hot button excuses like drunk drivers for a deceptively simple reason--it works.

Nothing more. In my opinion, the federal government has never removed a threat to the peace from a U.S. roadway. Never. If we're going to do something, why not do something that works for us?

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Reckless driving is a completely arbitrary. I am waiting to hear all the different standards people consider reckless.

The Police can and will make up anything at any time to pull over cars that they want to pull over. Nothing will change that.

Engaged in "reckless driving" will often grab their attention. The list is not that long:

- Excessive speed.
- Going too slow, especially in the fast lanes.
- Weaving within a lane or across lanes.
- Racing in and out of cars, passing on the right.
- Cutting other people off.

 

[Anti Federalist]

I guess I'll go with A.
Roads are public domain and thus laws to protect the safety of the users of it are perfectly justified.

How the heck can anyone be pro-drunk-driving?

Nobody's pro drunk driving.

I'm old enough to remember what it was like before all this MADDness.

Sure, there were more incidents of drunk driving crashes, but it was not Armageddon and Apocalypse on the roads every day.

And there were no DUI roadblocks, forfeitures, seizures, and out of control cops on the road.

 

[kahless]

Nobody's pro drunk driving.

I'm old enough to remember what it was like before all this MADDness.

Sure, there were more incidents of drunk driving crashes, but it was not Armageddon and Apocalypse on the roads every day.

And there were no DUI roadblocks, forfeitures, seizures, and out of control cops on the road.

I am more concerned about the influence MADD has on influencing policy that restricts our freedoms than I am about drunk drivers. They continue to advocate sobriety checkpoints. I am sick of going through these checkpoints which I have met at least a half dozen times this last month. It is no ones business where I am going, where I have been and asking whether I had anything to drink. Checkpoints should be illegal and police should only target those driving recklessly and charge them accordingly.

Secondly these BAC tests are far too low. I am in worse shape after a poor night sleep, taking allergy medication or having a rough day than I am after a couple drinks.

Now mind you I am very much against anyone driving under the influence but will not give one dime to that organization. I do however respect their right as an organization to advocate against DUI. I however believe they have taken it too far, therefore infringing on the rights of those that do not drive drunk.

 

[Anti Federalist]

I am more concerned about the influence MADD has on influencing policy that restricts our freedoms than I am about drunk drivers. They continue to advocate sobriety checkpoints. I am sick of going through these checkpoints which I have met at least a half dozen times this last month. It is no ones business where I am going, where I have been and asking whether I had anything to drink. Checkpoints should be illegal and police should only target those driving recklessly and charge them accordingly.

Secondly these BAC tests are far too low. I am in worse shape after a poor night sleep, taking allergy medication or having a rough day than I am after a couple drinks.

Now mind you I am very much against anyone driving under the influence but will not give one dime to that organization. I do however respect their right as an organization to advocate against DUI. I however believe they have taken it too far, therefore infringing on the rights of those that do not drive drunk.

Exactly.

 

[WaltM]

My position is that if someone is driving bad, give that person a ticket for driving bad. Don't give a person a ticket for something that makes them drive bad. Not the cause, but the result. If texting makes someone drive bad, give them a ticket for driving bad.

Why should they get a ticket for driving bad? They didn't hurt anybody yet, have they?

 

[WaltM]

Reckless driving is a completely arbitrary. I am waiting to hear all the different standards people consider reckless.

I agree, so you believe everybody should be allowed to drive every way they like, even in opposite directions, and blindfolded?? As long as they're not hurting anybody, right?

 

[Anti Federalist]

Why should they get a ticket for driving bad? They didn't hurt anybody yet, have they?

Reckless driving charges would come after the fact.

 

[WaltM]

Government employees have no moral right to do things that would be morally wrong for you, as an individual. You have a right to stop those who are attacking others, or putting others in serious, imminent danger. You don't have a right to throw people in cages because they disobeyed some arbitrary regulation you made up. Surely you can recognize this.

Who gets to decide what's morally wrong?

Who decides that driving recklessly is morally wrong?

Driving reckless obviously isn't attacking others, I'd like to see you prove to me it's serious imminent danger worth stopping!

Who decides what's serious imminent danger?

Do I have moral right to throw you in a cage if you say "I want to murder you"? (If you say non-sequitur or bad analogy, you're admitting arbitrary regulations can be justified)

 

[WaltM]

Reckless driving charges would come after the fact.

after what fact? they hurt somebody?

 

[Anti Federalist]

I agree, so you believe everybody should be allowed to drive every way they like, even in opposite directions, and blindfolded?? As long as they're not hurting anybody, right?

People drive on the right side of the road to keep from getting killed, not because an arbitrary and heavy handed police state enforces the idea.

Somebody help out here. Where is that video of traffic in San Fransisco around the turn of the century.

 

[Anti Federalist]

after what fact? they hurt somebody?

Yes, after damage to person or property was done.

Then you have a crime.

 

[WaltM]

You're still missing the point, Walt. The point is, a person can oppose certain laws against drunk driving, even all laws against drunk driving (whether that's a realistic position or not), and still deplore drunk driving.

I get the point just fine, a person can oppose certain laws, or even all laws relating to rape, robbery and murder, and still deplore the acts of rape, robbery and murder.

I've heard that one "Just because I hate it doesn't mean I want it illegal"

 

[WaltM]

Yes, after damage to person or property was done.

Then you have a crime.

So making a verbal threat that one will murder another is NOT damage to a person or property, therefore legal, correct? (I never said reckless driving and drunk driving are the same as making an intentional threat, but you're the one who says ONLY AFTER HURTING OTHERS can one be punished and charged)

 

[WaltM]

People drive on the right side of the road to keep from getting killed, not because an arbitrary and heavy handed police state enforces the idea.

How is that not arbitrary? What's it based on? Who gets to force all people to drive on ONE side of the road? That's discriminatory to exceptional people who either prefer to drive on the other side, or can manage to do it safely, some can do it even BLIND FOLDED.

What kind of tyrant obligates all citizens to "keep from getting killed"? Don't you believe in "freedom" and "no crime until damage is done"?

Somebody help out here. Where is that video of traffic in San Fransisco around the turn of the century.

what are you going to show me a chaotic street? what's wrong with that? Just because I don't like it doesn't mean it's right for me to correct it, according to you, right?

 

[Anti Federalist]

So making a verbal threat that one will murder another is NOT damage to a person or property, therefore legal, correct? (I never said reckless driving and drunk driving are the same as making an intentional threat, but you're the one who says ONLY AFTER HURTING OTHERS can one be punished and charged)

That's correct.

Saying you're going to do so and so, is not a crime in my book.

Trying to do it and failing, is.

 

[MelissaWV]

People drive on the right side of the road to keep from getting killed, not because an arbitrary and heavy handed police state enforces the idea.

Somebody help out here. Where is that video of traffic in San Fransisco around the turn of the century.

He's probably referring to my posts. I mentioned that the police (if we're going with current society) or the security force which the owner of the road employs (if we're talking hypothetical, police-less societies) should get involved if something reckless is observed.

In the case of a police force, we're likely still dealing with roads which we need to be licensed to drive, which means certain "rules of the road" we agreed to in order to gain licensure. People do drive the wrong side of the road from time to time; I've seen it, especially in complicated interstate interchanges where the on and off ramps are hard to distinguish. What's worse, people sometimes CONTINUE to drive in the wrong direction for a fair bit of time. There are a lot of roads where you don't see the other traffic for awhile. This could easily pit you versus a semi in the distance, with both of you going 70mph+.

I would (again, assuming we still have police) want the police to try to stop that person. I would want them to let the person know they're going the wrong way, and assist them, get them turned back around, whatever. This goes for the other cases in which I mentioned someone driving poorly. I think the entire structure for moving violations is wrong, but with revamping could really be more about assistance and prevention than punishment.

In the case of a private force, as I've said previously, it would be in the best interests of the person owning that road to have some manner of safety/security patrol the area. Again, if they see something dangerous going on, I am willing to bet they would find a way to let that driver know it.

 

[Anti Federalist]

what are you going to show me a chaotic street? what's wrong with that? Just because I don't like it doesn't mean it's right for me to correct it, according to you, right?

No, what I'll show you is a busy street of horses, street cars, pedestrians and motorcars, all driving along fine, without a million cops and laws hamstringing everybody.

 

[WaltM]

That's correct.

Saying you're going to do so and so, is not a crime in my book.

Trying to do it and failing, is.

You heard it folks.

Making verbal threats should be legal, according to this man.

You win!