Question for "pro-drunk drivers"

[JeNNiF00F00]

..

 

[dannno]

If it's just a ticket, how is that gonna get bad drivers (under influence or sober) off the road ASAP?

Is reckless driving automatically an arrest?

Imagine waking up, hung over, you go out to your car and you got 8 tickets that add up to over $1,200... is that really worth a night of drinking?? Think you'll do it again?

Also cops would be encouraged to escort drunk people home because not only does it increase safety, it is easy to give them tickets.

 

[WaltM]

Imagine waking up, hung over, you go out to your car and you got 8 tickets that add up to over $1,200... is that really worth a night of drinking?? Think you'll do it again?

Also cops would be encouraged to escort drunk people home because not only does it increase safety, it is easy to give them tickets.

thanks for supporting my point in previous posts, if the police can make money without hurting you, without arresting you, without jailing, why wouldn't they do it?

one thing nobody's challenged, no policeman WANTS people to be hurt by driving, right? They might be ineffective and useless at worst in preventing them, but they're far from INCREASING AND ENCOURAGING THEM, right?

and danno, what IF fines don't teach a person, should jailing be justifiable?
(as probation obviously hasn't taught lindsay)

 

[Kregisen]

Imagine waking up, hung over, you go out to your car and you got 8 tickets that add up to over $1,200... is that really worth a night of drinking?? Think you'll do it again?

Also cops would be encouraged to escort drunk people home because not only does it increase safety, it is easy to give them tickets.

yeah I understand that, but my thought was.....if they're driving SO poorly as to warrant 8 tickets, what are the odds they don't hit another car and kill somebody?

Is that just a chance you take?

This is a really interesting issue and I haven't given it any thought before this thread....like all americans, I just "assumed" the law was good and you better not drink and drive.

 

[tremendoustie]

Stop clearly reckless and dangerous drivers from driving, fine. Just don't enforce arbitrary rules about BAC. It's pretty simple, methinks.

 

[WaltM]

Stop clearly reckless and dangerous drivers from driving, fine. Just don't enforce arbitrary rules about BAC. It's pretty simple, methinks.

its still ultimately up to the policemen, they can arrest a person arbitrarily with no intoxication, or they can let an intoxicated person drive (if they can't be found enabling, that is).

I'm not saying BAC laws are perfect or harmless, nor am I blaming everything on policemen, I think it's not a particularly unfair law, and responsible people would be careful.

 

[tremendoustie]

its still ultimately up to the policemen, they can arrest a person arbitrarily with no intoxication, or they can let an intoxicated person drive (if they can't be found enabling, that is).

They could do that now; there are already laws against reckless driving.

I'm not saying BAC laws are perfect or harmless, nor am I blaming everything on policemen, I think it's not a particularly unfair law, and responsible people would be careful.

I don't know what "particularly unfair" means. No, it's not the first thing I'd take of the statist recipe book, if I had the option -- but it is unfair, and it is wrong, especially in the way it is implemented.

Other laws already exist on the books to stop reckless people. This one is not necessary -- it enables only abuse.

 

[WaltM]

They could do that now; there are already laws against reckless driving.



I don't know what "particularly unfair" means. No, it's not the first thing I'd take of the statist recipe book, if I had the option -- but it is unfair, and it is wrong, especially in the way it is implemented.

Other laws already exist on the books to stop reckless people. This one is not necessary -- it enables only abuse.

I think I can be a little more anti-statist in rhetoric if I wanted.

We don't need any anti-reckless laws, we can let policemen make arrests solely on their judgment for endangerment, how's that?

Is it not obvious to you that it's not laws, it's not police, the combination of laws, police, culture, overall population's cooperation, responsibility...etc.?

I don't believe BAC laws are entirely without basis, and even if they were arbitrary, they can be reversely arbitrarily enforced, which can even out to justice, if you had fair reckless driving laws, you can still have abusive police, if you didn't have abusive police, you can have more laws...and so on. You don't solve a problem by adding laws or subtracting laws, just like you don't solve a problem by increasing a state or decreasing a state, ..it's about cooperation and responsibility (not freedom either).

 

[WaltM]

Stop clearly reckless and dangerous drivers from driving, fine. Just don't enforce arbitrary rules about BAC. It's pretty simple, methinks.

who gets to decide what's clearly reckless? Is there a measurement of how far they deviate from a perfectly straight line?

What's clearly reckless, and what's the alternative? Partially reckless? Reckless 10% of the time on a 100 mile road? Can you describe what's an objective, non-arbitrary way to measure recklessness?

(I think I figured you guys out, you're just upset at BAC because you think some people are exceptionally sober and able to drive, but you can't say what's an actually better non-arbitrary measurement. So the argument that BAC is arbitrary is BS, it's only arbitrary to drunks that want more tolerance.)

For those who argue that drunk driving HASNT hurt anybody, tell those who say "reckless driving is already illegal" that it shouldn't , because endangering people isn't hurting them YET.

 

[parocks]

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.

I don't want an endless list of things that are banned because they might make someone drive bad.

The next time a semi driver rear ends a stopped vehicle, crushes the vehicle and kills the occupants of the vehicle, take a look and see if the truck driver even gets a ticket for killing people. You might find a sentence that has something to do with a determination of whether the truck driver was drunk. The truck driver was obviously going too fast, but the focus, because of drunk driving laws and other similar laws, has gotten so far away from the harm done, that the truck driver doesn't even get a ticket for killing someone.

 

[klamath]

who gets to decide what's clearly reckless? Is there a measurement of how far they deviate from a perfectly straight line?

What's clearly reckless, and what's the alternative? Partially reckless? Reckless 10% of the time on a 100 mile road? Can you describe what's an objective, non-arbitrary way to measure recklessness?

(I think I figured you guys out, you're just upset at BAC because you think some people are exceptionally sober and able to drive, but you can't say what's an actually better non-arbitrary measurement. So the argument that BAC is arbitrary is BS, it's only arbitrary to drunks that want more tolerance.)

For those who argue that drunk driving HASNT hurt anybody, tell those who say "reckless driving is already illegal" that it shouldn't , because endangering people isn't hurting them YET.

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

 

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

who gets to decide what's clearly reckless? Is there a measurement of how far they deviate from a perfectly straight line?

What's clearly reckless, and what's the alternative? Partially reckless? Reckless 10% of the time on a 100 mile road? Can you describe what's an objective, non-arbitrary way to measure recklessness?

(I think I figured you guys out, you're just upset at BAC because you think some people are exceptionally sober and able to drive, but you can't say what's an actually better non-arbitrary measurement. So the argument that BAC is arbitrary is BS, it's only arbitrary to drunks that want more tolerance.)

For those who argue that drunk driving HASNT hurt anybody, tell those who say "reckless driving is already illegal" that it shouldn't , because endangering people isn't hurting them YET.

If government was in the business of serving We The People, people would not be arrested, incarcerated, and have property seized for risk. If government was benevolent and you were posing a risk by driving erratically the worst you might be subjected to is paying a mandated vehicle tow and cab fare to your home.

However government is not benevolent or serving We The People. It is incapable of doing either of the above because government makes it far to easy for people to leverage a monopoly of force against people they don't like.

 

[acptulsa]

thanks for supporting my point in previous posts, if the police can make money without hurting you, without arresting you, without jailing, why wouldn't they do it?

one thing nobody's challenged, no policeman WANTS people to be hurt by driving, right? They might be ineffective and useless at worst in preventing them, but they're far from INCREASING AND ENCOURAGING THEM, right?

and danno, what IF fines don't teach a person, should jailing be justifiable?
(as probation obviously hasn't taught lindsay)

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.

Look, suppose Billy Bob lives about a hundred miles north of Garden City, Kansas and he regularly rides home from the bar because the nearest taxi is over a hundred miles away. Suppose that he has been doing this for over twenty-five years, and everyone knows him as the guy who's liable to be sitting, Friday or Saturday nights, by the side of the road. He's always parked, because on those nights when he actually encounters other traffic, he parks before they get to him for fear he'll swerve into their path.

Now, the federal government says that the local sheriff has to arrest him or the county will lose its highway funding, and so he loses his family farm while he's in jail and Monsanto gets it. Good for Monsanto. The conspiracy theorists will have fun with that one.

And all the New Yorkers say, well, he should have walked thirty-five miles home from the bar or called a taxi up from a hundred miles away.

Meanwhile, the Federal Government gets fatter and fatter on more and more money borrowed from the Chinese. It now reaches from Frederick to Frederickburg, for heaven's sake. It's dividing the nation against itself, and as the environmentalists say, it just isn't 'sustainable'. And still they try to micro-mismanage us.

Look, Walt. Suppose they passed a law that said, well, the letter W is only 3.8% of the alphabet but fully eight percent of those who kill someone while driving drunk have 'W' as one or more of their initials. So, to prohibit anyone who has 'W' as an initial from ever driving would save at least 27 lives a year. Now, those twenty-seven lives are infinitely precious, so you should be happy to have your rights arbitrarily and unjustly restricted in order to save them. Right?

No? Well, then. It looks like you, yourself could conceivably oppose a drunk driving law, doesn't it?

We are not in favor of drunk driving. We are in favor of leaving these things to communities, in the interests of domestic harmony within the nation--a thing that is best and most completely obtained through freedom. Now, is it not possible for you to respect that? If we say, it shouldn't be done this way, this is the way Kim Jong Il would do it, do it another way, can you not understand that?

Come on, man. A law stating that everyone should be eliminated as that would prevent crime is easy to abhor. Everything else involves compromise and therefore requires mutual understanding. And if we're going to be rid of that monstrous parasite sucking up all the land between Frederick and Fredericksburg, something has to give. Assume that what will have to give is your perceived protection from drunken drivers, and you assume wrong. It's just another thing among millions of things that needs not to be micro-mismanaged from D.C. And in my mind, that's all.

Now, do I favor drunken driving? Or am I looking at a bigger picture? Preserving freedom isn't always done overseas at the point of a gun, my friend.

 

[tremendoustie]

who gets to decide what's clearly reckless? Is there a measurement of how far they deviate from a perfectly straight line?

What's clearly reckless, and what's the alternative? Partially reckless? Reckless 10% of the time on a 100 mile road? Can you describe what's an objective, non-arbitrary way to measure recklessness?

(I think I figured you guys out, you're just upset at BAC because you think some people are exceptionally sober and able to drive, but you can't say what's an actually better non-arbitrary measurement. So the argument that BAC is arbitrary is BS, it's only arbitrary to drunks that want more tolerance.)

For those who argue that drunk driving HASNT hurt anybody, tell those who say "reckless driving is already illegal" that it shouldn't , because endangering people isn't hurting them YET.

Whatever man, talking with you is like going in circles. The point is that you don't want a bunch of arbitrary rules that are blindly applied regardless of the situation, you want common sense, and humanity. You want to stop those who are really putting others in imminent danger, and leave other people alone. Rigid, blindly enforced rules is how you get arrests for driving a riding lawnmower drunk, or sleeping in your parked car.

Here, I'll lay it out one last time, in hopes you'll get it:

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.

Would you stop someone who was blindly firing a gun into a crowd? I certainly hope so.

Would you kidnap someone and throw them in a cage because they were peacefully carrying a gun, with a BAC higher than some arbitrary limit you'd made up? I certainly hope not.

Apply the same standards to government behavior, as you would apply to yourself, as a private individual in your daily life, and you'll be ok.

 

[dannno]

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

How is reckless driving arbitrary? There are lines in the road and you are supposed to stay between them, go below certain speeds, signal, pay attention to and follow directions on traffic signs, etc.. a car is expected to behave a certain way on the road, if it doesn't, then it is reckless.

If a cop pulls you over because you went over the line once, then you probably did it at a dangerous time or manner and should have been paying attention better. A cop can use judgment and say, well, that person crept over the line a little, but there weren't a lot of cars around and they were just veering smoothly rather than jerking over and back, then the cop can ignore it, if they choose.

 

[ChaosControl]

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?

 

[acptulsa]

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?

Yeah, but justified within limits--and those limits can and must vary with location. One size does not fit all!

And the Constitutional requirement for probable cause is no bad thing, and deserves better treatment than it has gotten of late! I certainly don't wish to watch my freedoms erode away so Walt can be free to think that everything that can be done to protect him from drunks is being done...

 

[tremendoustie]

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.

Well, actually, the property for roads, and funding for them, is taken from people by force. I'd say those people who have had their property confiscated to fund the roads have a right to use them.

THEY own the roads, really. I don't think the government has a right to create arbitrary rules for the use of the roads, because the government doesn't legitimately own the property.

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

I'm just saying, stop people who are reckless. Don't stop a person who's behaving in a safe, reasonable manner, simply because of their BAC.

 

[acptulsa]

I'm just saying, stop people who are reckless. Don't stop a person who's behaving in a safe, reasonable manner, simply because of their BAC.

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...

 

[tremendoustie]

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

Hey, reasonable people often think alike I guess

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?

No, but roadblocks are very good for getting people to show their paperwork on demand, and busting them for pot possession.

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...

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.