Drunk driving laws.
09-08-2009, 10:22 AM
#16
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 1,808
Car Info: 2015 WRX
And when you run the light or the stop sign, you will have then committed the crime of running a red light or a stop sign.
09-08-2009, 10:22 AM
#17
I feel that to dissuade seriously unsafe to the public behavior, that ALL DUI's should be serious and all the time.
You mention getting home safely, what if he didn't get home safely? What about next time? What happens if the kid who lives 3 houses down dashes in front of the car and your/his reaction time is too slow...DUI is to protect the public.
I have a brother-in-law that is in a wheel chair, his wife was killed, their crime? Walking along river road at 5pm, a drunk, who was on the road - too fast, hit 'em...not very cool is it? If there were no pedestrians, he would've gotten home, a few hundred yards with no trouble...but he didn't, he got manslaughter and my brother-in-law has life in a wheelchair and lost his wife. Fair?
I have one other horror story, a college professor, head of social work dept at Chico State, was hit head-on by a drunk driver - she survived, after about nine months in the hospital. Her problem is that her brain isn't so good anymore, she can no longer teach, she can't even think very well - before the accident she was brilliant, now she can't function, she has trouble thinking about the simplest issues. If any decision making processes are involved, she gets totally confused, I don't mean Toast or Milk for breakfast, or what to wear today - that she can handle, but anything much more than that, and she can't figure it out, kind of like the person that posted this thread.
One last one, one of the hardest professors I've ever known, Wolf Statler, killed while commuting from Half Moon bay to SFSU by a truck driver DUI (not alcohol). He was a very tough professor, taught Systems, but he was also a great guy, a father...now dead.
DUI is serious - maybe not this time, but it might be next time. Please don't DUI of anything.
You mention getting home safely, what if he didn't get home safely? What about next time? What happens if the kid who lives 3 houses down dashes in front of the car and your/his reaction time is too slow...DUI is to protect the public.
I have a brother-in-law that is in a wheel chair, his wife was killed, their crime? Walking along river road at 5pm, a drunk, who was on the road - too fast, hit 'em...not very cool is it? If there were no pedestrians, he would've gotten home, a few hundred yards with no trouble...but he didn't, he got manslaughter and my brother-in-law has life in a wheelchair and lost his wife. Fair?
I have one other horror story, a college professor, head of social work dept at Chico State, was hit head-on by a drunk driver - she survived, after about nine months in the hospital. Her problem is that her brain isn't so good anymore, she can no longer teach, she can't even think very well - before the accident she was brilliant, now she can't function, she has trouble thinking about the simplest issues. If any decision making processes are involved, she gets totally confused, I don't mean Toast or Milk for breakfast, or what to wear today - that she can handle, but anything much more than that, and she can't figure it out, kind of like the person that posted this thread.
One last one, one of the hardest professors I've ever known, Wolf Statler, killed while commuting from Half Moon bay to SFSU by a truck driver DUI (not alcohol). He was a very tough professor, taught Systems, but he was also a great guy, a father...now dead.
DUI is serious - maybe not this time, but it might be next time. Please don't DUI of anything.
09-08-2009, 10:23 AM
#19
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 1,808
Car Info: 2015 WRX
There are already laws in place that cover the problems/accidents caused by inebriated drivers. In my opinion, drunk driving laws are redundant, possibly excessive, and borderline superfluous. Much like speeding tickets, they only restrain people who wouldn't do it in the first place, and act as revenue earners for municipalities.
09-08-2009, 10:25 AM
#20
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 1,808
Car Info: 2015 WRX
09-08-2009, 10:26 AM
#21
VIP Member
iTrader: (17)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Posts: 22,776
Car Info: '13 BRZ Limited / '02 WRX
Mind posting up a link to the actual article? Because honestly, that just sounds like a bunch of BS.
I see no studies cited to support this theory in the speeding tickets or DUI scenarios. Sounds like something that made sense in a college kids head, so he/she wrote it down as fact.
Much like speeding tickets, they only restrain people who wouldn't do it in the first place, and act as revenue earners for municipalities.
09-08-2009, 10:27 AM
#22
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Leg Humper
Posts: 2,504
Car Info: '03 WRX wagon, faster than walkin'
If I hit someone, well then I am guilty, but if the bullets don't hit anyone, why the fk are the cops knocking on my door?
It's NOT safe.
09-08-2009, 10:29 AM
#23
I personally know multiple people who love to smoke weed, used to all the time but not so much now because they have gotten in trouble with it. If weed became legal would more people smoke? Yes.
Yes you are correct that they would still get drilled with a red light ticket or whatever. But if you are the type of driver that guns it when the light turns yellow, does not stop completely at a stop sign ect while sober... Drinking and driving is like adding fuel to the fire.
09-08-2009, 10:30 AM
#24
VIP Member
iTrader: (17)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Posts: 22,776
Car Info: '13 BRZ Limited / '02 WRX
If you run the red light due to lowered reaction time, you're not running it because you decide to run it, you're running it because you can't stop in time. What happens when there is a car going through the intersection? What happens if someone is crossing the crosswalk? What happens if its not just a red light but a car stopped ahead of you? This is why DUI laws are AVOIDANCE laws, not extra penalty laws.
09-08-2009, 10:30 AM
#25
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 1,808
Car Info: 2015 WRX
Out of curiosity, which part sounds like BS?
There are already laws in place that cover the problems/accidents caused by inebriated drivers. In my opinion, drunk driving laws are redundant, possibly excessive, and borderline superfluous. Much like speeding tickets, they only restrain people who wouldn't do it in the first place, and act as revenue earners for municipalities.
09-08-2009, 10:33 AM
#27
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 1,808
Car Info: 2015 WRX
DISCLAIMER/REMINDER: I'm only engaging you all in this thought experiment. For the most part I'm keeping my opinion to myself.
So are you saying that you want to criminalize something not because it is harmful but because of the possibility that it is harmful?
Because you are more likely to cause harm to someone else, someone innocent of your crime, how is that fair - I like to shoot my 0.50 cal rifle, like to aim it at a 28 degree incline from the horizontal and fire as many rounds as I can in random directions.
If I hit someone, well then I am guilty, but if the bullets don't hit anyone, why the fk are the cops knocking on my door?
It's NOT safe.
If I hit someone, well then I am guilty, but if the bullets don't hit anyone, why the fk are the cops knocking on my door?
It's NOT safe.
09-08-2009, 10:33 AM
#28
VIP Member
iTrader: (17)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Posts: 22,776
Car Info: '13 BRZ Limited / '02 WRX
There are already laws in place that cover the problems/accidents caused by inebriated drivers. In my opinion, drunk driving laws are redundant, possibly excessive, and borderline superfluous. Much like speeding tickets, they only restrain people who wouldn't do it in the first place, and act as revenue earners for municipalities.
And the studies showing direct correlation between said speed limit and accidents are where?
Last edited by VRT MBasile; 09-08-2009 at 10:36 AM.
09-08-2009, 10:35 AM
#30
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Union City/San Diego, CA USA
Posts: 4,682
Car Info: The Thundercougarfalconbird
Well here is the difference.
Drunk driver: This is a person who is an accident waiting to happen. This is a situation that can be simply prevented by just not driving, taking a taxie/bus home, etc. It is a single point of failure to put it in engineering terms and should be a simple rule to follow.
Wreckless driver: This is a person who is an accident waiting to happen as well. however, the resolution to this problem is more complex depending on what caused that person to driver wrecklessly. Was this guy driving with road rage? Was this guy sleepy? Was this guy just blatently ignorant? This issue points to possibly many outcomes and resolutions.
Drunk driving laws are there because it is something that can be prevented easily and has an absolute outcome. Wreckless driving is due to somebody that is just either a terrible driver or just somebody that just doesn't care for laws or rules.
Drunk driver: This is a person who is an accident waiting to happen. This is a situation that can be simply prevented by just not driving, taking a taxie/bus home, etc. It is a single point of failure to put it in engineering terms and should be a simple rule to follow.
Wreckless driver: This is a person who is an accident waiting to happen as well. however, the resolution to this problem is more complex depending on what caused that person to driver wrecklessly. Was this guy driving with road rage? Was this guy sleepy? Was this guy just blatently ignorant? This issue points to possibly many outcomes and resolutions.
Drunk driving laws are there because it is something that can be prevented easily and has an absolute outcome. Wreckless driving is due to somebody that is just either a terrible driver or just somebody that just doesn't care for laws or rules.