DUI Laws

[Quantum Windbag]

When I learned to drive, I had already been drinking for almost five years. Nobody my age I ever heard of had ever been arrested for a "Minor In Possession" violation; stores did not ask for ID to buy beer and liquor (or cigarettes). Seatbelts did not yet come standard in every car and there were no seatbelt laws....and the maximum MPH on an interstate was set by the states, and routinely ran up to 75 MPH, which of course actually meant people drove at nearly 100 MPH without much fear of being charged with speeding.

I have driven drunk, as has most everyone my age if they are honest about it. The last time I did this was in the early 1980's and the scare I got (I jumped the curb) was enough to keep from repeating the behavior. I never had an accident, never hurt anyone, and neither have 99% of the folks like me who committed this crime.

I remember when Mothers Against Drunk Driving first got started, and I thought they were vengeful wingnuts. How could we criminalize behavior most everyone engages in? Where's the fault when someone too drunk to control a vehicle has a crash? And lemme tell you, this is how most people felt back then. It was 1980 when the group's founder lost her child to a drunk driver and 1983 when the tv movie about her gave the group its impetus. At the time, I thought they didn't have a prayer of changing attitudes or behavior -- nevermind laws.

But time and repetition has changed my mind and heart -- and apparently, most of America's. These days, I see the intersection of choosing to drink with not having already laid plans to be taken home by someone sober as a crime in the offing, more or less the same as acquiring burglary tools. I completely approve of Minor In Possession arrests and I wish, if anything, our DUI laws carried sentences that were much stronger and that more people could be charged -- those who served the alcohol, those who furnished the car, etc.

The odd thing is, I always viewed alcohol as a dangerous drug that has almost no social value. I just didn't expand my pea brain to include myself as someone who was affected by it....binge drinking was normal for us in college, everyone did it, and therefore it could not be wrong, right? (For the most part, we did our drinking at house parties or bars we could walk home from; drinking and driving for us was mostly years in the future, if ever.)

Wrong.

Which makes me wonder, what behavior viewed as normal today will someday be viewed as criminal? Which behavior now viewed as criminal will someday be viewed as normal? How plastic are our beliefs and attitudes, and what changes them?

Your thoughts?

There is a significant difference between driving drunk and DUI. Most accidents that involve alcohol levels of at least twice the legal limit. MADD has succeeded in criminalizing relatively safe behavior, and is pushing to lower BAC limits even further. Instead of setting up checkpoints to catch non reckless drivers who are DUI, the police should concentrate their efforts on getting all reckless drivers off the road, whatever the proximate cause of that recklessness.

 

[ConHog]

When I learned to drive, I had already been drinking for almost five years. Nobody my age I ever heard of had ever been arrested for a "Minor In Possession" violation; stores did not ask for ID to buy beer and liquor (or cigarettes). Seatbelts did not yet come standard in every car and there were no seatbelt laws....and the maximum MPH on an interstate was set by the states, and routinely ran up to 75 MPH, which of course actually meant people drove at nearly 100 MPH without much fear of being charged with speeding.

I have driven drunk, as has most everyone my age if they are honest about it. The last time I did this was in the early 1980's and the scare I got (I jumped the curb) was enough to keep from repeating the behavior. I never had an accident, never hurt anyone, and neither have 99% of the folks like me who committed this crime.

I remember when Mothers Against Drunk Driving first got started, and I thought they were vengeful wingnuts. How could we criminalize behavior most everyone engages in? Where's the fault when someone too drunk to control a vehicle has a crash? And lemme tell you, this is how most people felt back then. It was 1980 when the group's founder lost her child to a drunk driver and 1983 when the tv movie about her gave the group its impetus. At the time, I thought they didn't have a prayer of changing attitudes or behavior -- nevermind laws.

But time and repetition has changed my mind and heart -- and apparently, most of America's. These days, I see the intersection of choosing to drink with not having already laid plans to be taken home by someone sober as a crime in the offing, more or less the same as acquiring burglary tools. I completely approve of Minor In Possession arrests and I wish, if anything, our DUI laws carried sentences that were much stronger and that more people could be charged -- those who served the alcohol, those who furnished the car, etc.

The odd thing is, I always viewed alcohol as a dangerous drug that has almost no social value. I just didn't expand my pea brain to include myself as someone who was affected by it....binge drinking was normal for us in college, everyone did it, and therefore it could not be wrong, right? (For the most part, we did our drinking at house parties or bars we could walk home from; drinking and driving for us was mostly years in the future, if ever.)

Wrong.

Which makes me wonder, what behavior viewed as normal today will someday be viewed as criminal? Which behavior now viewed as criminal will someday be viewed as normal? How plastic are our beliefs and attitudes, and what changes them?

Your thoughts?

There is a significant difference between driving drunk and DUI. Most accidents that involve alcohol levels of at least twice the legal limit. MADD has succeeded in criminalizing relatively safe behavior, and is pushing to lower BAC limits even further. Instead of setting up checkpoints to catch non reckless drivers who are DUI, the police should concentrate their efforts on getting all reckless drivers off the road, whatever the proximate cause of that recklessness.

Two separate issues QW, I wholeheartedly agree that LEO should make more of an effort to get reckless drivers off the road who aren't committing DUI, but that should NOT come at the expense of allowing DUI's to get away with it.

 

[Cuyo]

.08 is ridiculous. If you can't drive after a beer and a half, you can't drive, period.

There's too much emphasis on that which is easily proven, eg speeding, stop signs/red lights, drinking, etc, and not enough emphasis on aggressive driving IMO. An aggressive driver becomes more aggressive after drinking and that's when it's dangerous. A generally cautious driver tends to become more cautious when drinking for fear of getting caught.

Don't get me wrong, there should be a limit, let's say .15 or so. But constantly lowering the limit, sitting in bar parking lots, random drunk stops, etc, are bullshit IMO. I'm sorry for anyone who has lost a loved one to an accident involving a drunk driver, same as I'd feel for you if you lost a loved one to a speeder or just all around douchebag driver, or even just a bona fide "accident" that was nobody's fault. But in most cases it was not the alcohol. It was the nut behind the wheel.

Wrong, the limit should be anything above .00

Anyone with sense realizes that even the slightest alcohol has the potential to impair. And yes sometimes a person makes an honest mistake and thinks they've set long enough after a glass of wine or a beer with their meal or whatever, but most of the time it's just that people don't care. And your notion that only those who do something dangerous while driving drunk should be punished is frankly, disgusting.

Oh spare me the PC crap, OK?

Other things that have the potential to impair: Fatigue, anger, sadness, excitement, sunlight in the windshield, talking on the phone (even with a hands-free), talking to a passenger, pretty girls in short skirts, smoking cigarettes, the radio, being lost in one's own thoughts, being in a hurry, a majestic v-shaped flock of ducks that catches your eye for a moment, construction/new traffic patterns, slamming the brakes cause you saw a cop, I can go on. You gonna make all those things illegal too?

You either can drive, or you can't. I already admitted there should be a threshold somewhere, but the anti-drinking zealots and all their holier-than-now shit about how the limit should be zero soooo doesn't work on me.

 

[Cuyo]

When I learned to drive, I had already been drinking for almost five years. Nobody my age I ever heard of had ever been arrested for a "Minor In Possession" violation; stores did not ask for ID to buy beer and liquor (or cigarettes). Seatbelts did not yet come standard in every car and there were no seatbelt laws....and the maximum MPH on an interstate was set by the states, and routinely ran up to 75 MPH, which of course actually meant people drove at nearly 100 MPH without much fear of being charged with speeding.

I have driven drunk, as has most everyone my age if they are honest about it. The last time I did this was in the early 1980's and the scare I got (I jumped the curb) was enough to keep from repeating the behavior. I never had an accident, never hurt anyone, and neither have 99% of the folks like me who committed this crime.

I remember when Mothers Against Drunk Driving first got started, and I thought they were vengeful wingnuts. How could we criminalize behavior most everyone engages in? Where's the fault when someone too drunk to control a vehicle has a crash? And lemme tell you, this is how most people felt back then. It was 1980 when the group's founder lost her child to a drunk driver and 1983 when the tv movie about her gave the group its impetus. At the time, I thought they didn't have a prayer of changing attitudes or behavior -- nevermind laws.

But time and repetition has changed my mind and heart -- and apparently, most of America's. These days, I see the intersection of choosing to drink with not having already laid plans to be taken home by someone sober as a crime in the offing, more or less the same as acquiring burglary tools. I completely approve of Minor In Possession arrests and I wish, if anything, our DUI laws carried sentences that were much stronger and that more people could be charged -- those who served the alcohol, those who furnished the car, etc.

The odd thing is, I always viewed alcohol as a dangerous drug that has almost no social value. I just didn't expand my pea brain to include myself as someone who was affected by it....binge drinking was normal for us in college, everyone did it, and therefore it could not be wrong, right? (For the most part, we did our drinking at house parties or bars we could walk home from; drinking and driving for us was mostly years in the future, if ever.)

Wrong.

Which makes me wonder, what behavior viewed as normal today will someday be viewed as criminal? Which behavior now viewed as criminal will someday be viewed as normal? How plastic are our beliefs and attitudes, and what changes them?

Your thoughts?

There is a significant difference between driving drunk and DUI. Most accidents that involve alcohol levels of at least twice the legal limit. MADD has succeeded in criminalizing relatively safe behavior, and is pushing to lower BAC limits even further. Instead of setting up checkpoints to catch non reckless drivers who are DUI, the police should concentrate their efforts on getting all reckless drivers off the road, whatever the proximate cause of that recklessness.

Exactly.

WTF happened, how did Corndog get banned? This must've JUST happened.

 

[Big Black Dog]

The very best friend I have ever had was killed by a drunk driver. We had just returned from a deployment and his future wife met him at the pier. As they drove out of the main gate at this particular Naval Station, a drunk driver ran a red light and crashed into his side of the car. My friend died on the Operating Table at the near-by Naval Hospital. He never regained consciousness from the impact of the crash. I have very little sympathy for anybody who gets arrested for a DUI and I wish the laws for this crime were much stricter than what they are. This young man's life was stolen from him by someone who should have never been behind the wheel of an automobile while in the drunken condition he was in. My friend is dead forever. The creep that hit him only got a 5 year jail sentence and didn't even serve half of that. To me, that is not called justice. I hope that anybody who is arrested for a DUI charge pays a dear price for being that stupid.

 

[Cuyo]

The very best friend I have ever had was killed by a drunk driver. We had just returned from a deployment and his future wife met him at the pier. As they drove out of the main gate at this particular Naval Station, a drunk driver ran a red light and crashed into his side of the car. My friend died on the Operating Table at the near-by Naval Hospital. He never regained consciousness from the impact of the crash. I have very little sympathy for anybody who gets arrested for a DUI and I wish the laws for this crime were much stricter than what they are. This young man's life was stolen from him by someone who should have never been behind the wheel of an automobile while in the drunken condition he was in. My friend is dead forever. The creep that hit him only got a 5 year jail sentence and didn't even serve half of that. To me, that is not called justice. I hope that anybody who is arrested for a DUI charge pays a dear price for being that stupid.

I have a question, please don't freak out because I'm truly sorry for your loss.

Would you have any more or less regard for the other driver if he had run the red light simply because he was hot-dogging, or trying to impress a girl or some shit, but was stone sober? And if you don't mind my asking, if you know, what was this man's BAC? If he was so drunk he didn't notice a red light, my guess is it was 4x-plus the legal limit.

 

[Big Black Dog]

The very best friend I have ever had was killed by a drunk driver. We had just returned from a deployment and his future wife met him at the pier. As they drove out of the main gate at this particular Naval Station, a drunk driver ran a red light and crashed into his side of the car. My friend died on the Operating Table at the near-by Naval Hospital. He never regained consciousness from the impact of the crash. I have very little sympathy for anybody who gets arrested for a DUI and I wish the laws for this crime were much stricter than what they are. This young man's life was stolen from him by someone who should have never been behind the wheel of an automobile while in the drunken condition he was in. My friend is dead forever. The creep that hit him only got a 5 year jail sentence and didn't even serve half of that. To me, that is not called justice. I hope that anybody who is arrested for a DUI charge pays a dear price for being that stupid.

I have a question, please don't freak out because I'm truly sorry for your loss.

Would you have any more or less regard for the other driver if he had run the red light simply because he was hot-dogging, or trying to impress a girl or some shit, but was stone sober? And if you don't mind my asking, if you know, what was this man's BAC? If he was so drunk he didn't notice a red light, my guess is it was 4x-plus the legal limit.

I don't have any idea what the guys BAC was except I do know he was arrested for DUI. The events you have described that could have caused the accident are all bone-headed things that really don't have any bearing on the fact that this guy was drunk. I'm not freaking out on you but the truth remains that this butthead had no business driving drunk just as the people you mentioned in the various causes for an accident above have no business driving a car in that way. My wife was very seriously injured in an auto accident 3 years ago and was nearly killed because a young person was driving his car and texting on a cell phone at the same time. He drove into my wife's car head on and killed himself in the process. Driving stupid, like DUI, hot-footing, showing off, speeding, or a whole host of other things have consequences. As I said, my friend is dead forever. The butthead that hit him essentially walked away with a slap on the wrist. We need better laws then this.

 

[Jeremy]

WTF happened, how did Corndog get banned? This must've JUST happened.

One must not discuss those that have been...

 

[Cuyo]

The very best friend I have ever had was killed by a drunk driver. We had just returned from a deployment and his future wife met him at the pier. As they drove out of the main gate at this particular Naval Station, a drunk driver ran a red light and crashed into his side of the car. My friend died on the Operating Table at the near-by Naval Hospital. He never regained consciousness from the impact of the crash. I have very little sympathy for anybody who gets arrested for a DUI and I wish the laws for this crime were much stricter than what they are. This young man's life was stolen from him by someone who should have never been behind the wheel of an automobile while in the drunken condition he was in. My friend is dead forever. The creep that hit him only got a 5 year jail sentence and didn't even serve half of that. To me, that is not called justice. I hope that anybody who is arrested for a DUI charge pays a dear price for being that stupid.

I have a question, please don't freak out because I'm truly sorry for your loss.

Would you have any more or less regard for the other driver if he had run the red light simply because he was hot-dogging, or trying to impress a girl or some shit, but was stone sober? And if you don't mind my asking, if you know, what was this man's BAC? If he was so drunk he didn't notice a red light, my guess is it was 4x-plus the legal limit.

I don't have any idea what the guys BAC was except I do know he was arrested for DUI. The events you have described that could have caused the accident are all bone-headed things that really don't have any bearing on the fact that this guy was drunk. I'm not freaking out on you but the truth remains that this butthead had no business driving drunk just as the people you mentioned in the various causes for an accident above have no business driving a car in that way. My wife was very seriously injured in an auto accident 3 years ago and was nearly killed because a young person was driving his car and texting on a cell phone at the same time. He drove into my wife's car head on and killed himself in the process. Driving stupid, like DUI, hot-footing, showing off, speeding, or a whole host of other things have consequences. As I said, my friend is dead forever. The butthead that hit him essentially walked away with a slap on the wrist. We need better laws then this.

I won't beat it to death because it's obviously very personal for you. But I just don't understand the zeal people have toward drinking. "Over the limit?" I'll bet 50 million people drove home over the arbitrary limit yesterday evening. There's so much anger and animosity toward those who drink and drive IMO, and not enough towards people who just drive like dicks, their BAC notwithstanding.

"That guy drives like a maniac!" just isn't the same moral faux pas as "He was drunk." It should be worse, because I can about guarantee it's responsible for more accidents/deaths.

 

[Father Time]

I don't understand why we don't tie the right to drive to DUI laws more closely. How come we don't lift the license of anyone who gets caught for a year -- or five?

It depends on the state. I think CA does it.

 

[Madeline]

It is almost impossible to suffer the loss of a loved one and not feel the laws provided severely inadequate justice. I have a gf who lost her grandbaby to an elderly driver who became confused and hit the acclerator rather than the brake. She nearly lost her daughter and the baby the other granddaughter she had in her arms; as it was it was "only" the toddler who was killed. The other two were "only" severely injured, and of course, had to watch the homicide take place. And as a consequence, I am rabid on the subject of lifting licenses off people as they age.

Back to the DUI laws. I dun feel comfy drinking anything and then driving. Few people I know do. Depending on whether you have cold medicine in your system, have had dinner, etc. it's just not possible to be 100% certain you are under the limit. I wish marijuana was legal, and that we could do up a tolerance level for driving whilst stoned. Marijuana does not make people drive aggressively.

I'd like to see the laws on alcohol changed, so that any kid arrested for Minor In Possession could not get his driver's license for an additional five years. First DUI -- lose the license for at least five years, along with any other punishments. Any DUI crash, one year in prison. Crashes with injuries to others, five. Crashes causing death, 20 to life.

They just sentenced a local man here to 10 years for his 15th DUI. In the early 1980's, he killed a young woman in a drunk driving crash. He has never had a license since then, and IMO, whoever has been lending him a car all these years should do some prison time as well.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

.08 is ridiculous. If you can't drive after a beer and a half, you can't drive, period.

There's too much emphasis on that which is easily proven, eg speeding, stop signs/red lights, drinking, etc, and not enough emphasis on aggressive driving IMO. An aggressive driver becomes more aggressive after drinking and that's when it's dangerous. A generally cautious driver tends to become more cautious when drinking for fear of getting caught.

Don't get me wrong, there should be a limit, let's say .15 or so. But constantly lowering the limit, sitting in bar parking lots, random drunk stops, etc, are bullshit IMO. I'm sorry for anyone who has lost a loved one to an accident involving a drunk driver, same as I'd feel for you if you lost a loved one to a speeder or just all around douchebag driver, or even just a bona fide "accident" that was nobody's fault. But in most cases it was not the alcohol. It was the nut behind the wheel.

Wrong, the limit should be anything above .00

Anyone with sense realizes that even the slightest alcohol has the potential to impair. And yes sometimes a person makes an honest mistake and thinks they've set long enough after a glass of wine or a beer with their meal or whatever, but most of the time it's just that people don't care. And your notion that only those who do something dangerous while driving drunk should be punished is frankly, disgusting.

What amazes me is that you think I have no sense.

Does it really make sense to you to have checkpoints to find drivers whose BAC is .0001 because they swallowed a bit of moutwash just before they got in the car, but let the guy who has been up 3 days studying drive home because he didn't? Police should focus their limited resources on the people who are actually dangerous, like the guy weaving because he is tired, and let the people who are not a danger get to where they need to go.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

When I learned to drive, I had already been drinking for almost five years. Nobody my age I ever heard of had ever been arrested for a "Minor In Possession" violation; stores did not ask for ID to buy beer and liquor (or cigarettes). Seatbelts did not yet come standard in every car and there were no seatbelt laws....and the maximum MPH on an interstate was set by the states, and routinely ran up to 75 MPH, which of course actually meant people drove at nearly 100 MPH without much fear of being charged with speeding.

I have driven drunk, as has most everyone my age if they are honest about it. The last time I did this was in the early 1980's and the scare I got (I jumped the curb) was enough to keep from repeating the behavior. I never had an accident, never hurt anyone, and neither have 99% of the folks like me who committed this crime.

I remember when Mothers Against Drunk Driving first got started, and I thought they were vengeful wingnuts. How could we criminalize behavior most everyone engages in? Where's the fault when someone too drunk to control a vehicle has a crash? And lemme tell you, this is how most people felt back then. It was 1980 when the group's founder lost her child to a drunk driver and 1983 when the tv movie about her gave the group its impetus. At the time, I thought they didn't have a prayer of changing attitudes or behavior -- nevermind laws.

But time and repetition has changed my mind and heart -- and apparently, most of America's. These days, I see the intersection of choosing to drink with not having already laid plans to be taken home by someone sober as a crime in the offing, more or less the same as acquiring burglary tools. I completely approve of Minor In Possession arrests and I wish, if anything, our DUI laws carried sentences that were much stronger and that more people could be charged -- those who served the alcohol, those who furnished the car, etc.

The odd thing is, I always viewed alcohol as a dangerous drug that has almost no social value. I just didn't expand my pea brain to include myself as someone who was affected by it....binge drinking was normal for us in college, everyone did it, and therefore it could not be wrong, right? (For the most part, we did our drinking at house parties or bars we could walk home from; drinking and driving for us was mostly years in the future, if ever.)

Wrong.

Which makes me wonder, what behavior viewed as normal today will someday be viewed as criminal? Which behavior now viewed as criminal will someday be viewed as normal? How plastic are our beliefs and attitudes, and what changes them?

Your thoughts?

There is a significant difference between driving drunk and DUI. Most accidents that involve alcohol levels of at least twice the legal limit. MADD has succeeded in criminalizing relatively safe behavior, and is pushing to lower BAC limits even further. Instead of setting up checkpoints to catch non reckless drivers who are DUI, the police should concentrate their efforts on getting all reckless drivers off the road, whatever the proximate cause of that recklessness.

Two separate issues QW, I wholeheartedly agree that LEO should make more of an effort to get reckless drivers off the road who aren't committing DUI, but that should NOT come at the expense of allowing DUI's to get away with it.

How are they supposed to get the reckless driver off the road when they are all at a checkpoint looking for DUIs? If those DUIs were driving recklessly it would be quite easy to pull them over, but the fact that they need checkpoints to find them proves that they usually are not.

Just saying.

 

[Big Black Dog]

.08 is ridiculous. If you can't drive after a beer and a half, you can't drive, period.

There's too much emphasis on that which is easily proven, eg speeding, stop signs/red lights, drinking, etc, and not enough emphasis on aggressive driving IMO. An aggressive driver becomes more aggressive after drinking and that's when it's dangerous. A generally cautious driver tends to become more cautious when drinking for fear of getting caught.

Don't get me wrong, there should be a limit, let's say .15 or so. But constantly lowering the limit, sitting in bar parking lots, random drunk stops, etc, are bullshit IMO. I'm sorry for anyone who has lost a loved one to an accident involving a drunk driver, same as I'd feel for you if you lost a loved one to a speeder or just all around douchebag driver, or even just a bona fide "accident" that was nobody's fault. But in most cases it was not the alcohol. It was the nut behind the wheel.

Wrong, the limit should be anything above .00

Anyone with sense realizes that even the slightest alcohol has the potential to impair. And yes sometimes a person makes an honest mistake and thinks they've set long enough after a glass of wine or a beer with their meal or whatever, but most of the time it's just that people don't care. And your notion that only those who do something dangerous while driving drunk should be punished is frankly, disgusting.

What amazes me is that you think I have no sense.

Does it really make sense to you to have checkpoints to find drivers whose BAC is .0001 because they swallowed a bit of moutwash just before they got in the car, but let the guy who has been up 3 days studying drive home because he didn't? Police should focus their limited resources on the people who are actually dangerous, like the guy weaving because he is tired, and let the people who are not a danger get to where they need to go.

I think we should all go back to riding horses...

 

[R.C. Christian]

When I learned to drive, I had already been drinking for almost five years. Nobody my age I ever heard of had ever been arrested for a "Minor In Possession" violation; stores did not ask for ID to buy beer and liquor (or cigarettes). Seatbelts did not yet come standard in every car and there were no seatbelt laws....and the maximum MPH on an interstate was set by the states, and routinely ran up to 75 MPH, which of course actually meant people drove at nearly 100 MPH without much fear of being charged with speeding.

I have driven drunk, as has most everyone my age if they are honest about it. The last time I did this was in the early 1980's and the scare I got (I jumped the curb) was enough to keep from repeating the behavior. I never had an accident, never hurt anyone, and neither have 99% of the folks like me who committed this crime.

I remember when Mothers Against Drunk Driving first got started, and I thought they were vengeful wingnuts. How could we criminalize behavior most everyone engages in? Where's the fault when someone too drunk to control a vehicle has a crash? And lemme tell you, this is how most people felt back then. It was 1980 when the group's founder lost her child to a drunk driver and 1983 when the tv movie about her gave the group its impetus. At the time, I thought they didn't have a prayer of changing attitudes or behavior -- nevermind laws.

But time and repetition has changed my mind and heart -- and apparently, most of America's. These days, I see the intersection of choosing to drink with not having already laid plans to be taken home by someone sober as a crime in the offing, more or less the same as acquiring burglary tools. I completely approve of Minor In Possession arrests and I wish, if anything, our DUI laws carried sentences that were much stronger and that more people could be charged -- those who served the alcohol, those who furnished the car, etc.

The odd thing is, I always viewed alcohol as a dangerous drug that has almost no social value. I just didn't expand my pea brain to include myself as someone who was affected by it....binge drinking was normal for us in college, everyone did it, and therefore it could not be wrong, right? (For the most part, we did our drinking at house parties or bars we could walk home from; drinking and driving for us was mostly years in the future, if ever.)

Wrong.

Which makes me wonder, what behavior viewed as normal today will someday be viewed as criminal? Which behavior now viewed as criminal will someday be viewed as normal? How plastic are our beliefs and attitudes, and what changes them?

Your thoughts?

Ladies and gentlemen, there is some incredibly personal honesty on display here worthy of mention.

 

[R.C. Christian]

What the place really needs are mandatory alcohol classes in the 10th grade. The same ones they make the convicted DUI folks go through. Well, maybe not the MADD panels, but everything else. Scare em'. Growing up in the 80's, we honestly didn't know any better.

 

[theHawk]

What amazes me is that you think I have no sense.

Does it really make sense to you to have checkpoints to find drivers whose BAC is .0001 because they swallowed a bit of moutwash just before they got in the car, but let the guy who has been up 3 days studying drive home because he didn't? Police should focus their limited resources on the people who are actually dangerous, like the guy weaving because he is tired, and let the people who are not a danger get to where they need to go.

Couldn't agree more. It amazes me to see police more interested in catching people doing 71 in a 60 zone when that isn't putting anyone in danger, yet people get to drive like assholes and get away with it. The intersection out of my neighborhood is on a major highway, and almost every time it turns green some asshole runs the red light on the highway. But cops never sit there and catch them doing it, they'd rather be a mile down the road getting someone doing 70 in a 60 zone where its a divided highway with no lights.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What amazes me is that you think I have no sense.

Does it really make sense to you to have checkpoints to find drivers whose BAC is .0001 because they swallowed a bit of moutwash just before they got in the car, but let the guy who has been up 3 days studying drive home because he didn't? Police should focus their limited resources on the people who are actually dangerous, like the guy weaving because he is tired, and let the people who are not a danger get to where they need to go.

Couldn't agree more. It amazes me to see police more interested in catching people doing 71 in a 60 zone when that isn't putting anyone in danger, yet people get to drive like assholes and get away with it. The intersection out of my neighborhood is on a major highway, and almost every time it turns green some asshole runs the red light on the highway. But cops never sit there and catch them doing it, they'd rather be a mile down the road getting someone doing 70 in a 60 zone where its a divided highway with no lights.

What it comes down to is money. Cities get their revenue from tickets, and it is more lucrative to catch speeders and DUIs.

 

[Cuyo]

What amazes me is that you think I have no sense.

Does it really make sense to you to have checkpoints to find drivers whose BAC is .0001 because they swallowed a bit of moutwash just before they got in the car, but let the guy who has been up 3 days studying drive home because he didn't? Police should focus their limited resources on the people who are actually dangerous, like the guy weaving because he is tired, and let the people who are not a danger get to where they need to go.

Couldn't agree more. It amazes me to see police more interested in catching people doing 71 in a 60 zone when that isn't putting anyone in danger, yet people get to drive like assholes and get away with it. The intersection out of my neighborhood is on a major highway, and almost every time it turns green some asshole runs the red light on the highway. But cops never sit there and catch them doing it, they'd rather be a mile down the road getting someone doing 70 in a 60 zone where its a divided highway with no lights.

What it comes down to is money. Cities get their revenue from tickets, and it is more lucrative to catch speeders and DUIs.

And those two things are easily provable. Radar says 75, that's how fast you were going. Breathalyzer says .09, that's what your BAC was. Cut and dry, easy to catch any number of "offenders" with little use of resources, and so black and white that most people will not even bother to fight the citation.

ACTUAL dangerous drivers, on the other hand, are much harder to catch and convict. You might have to sit there for hours just to find one guy tailgating, bobbin and weavin, cutting off and endangering everyone to get where he's going 30 seconds faster. When you finally do find one, it's just a cops word vs the offender; And while many people still won't fight a careless/reckless citation, if they do they don't have the concrete indisputable evidence a radar or Breathalyzer provides.

Obviously, preying on and citing average people for minor indiscretions is much more profitable than trying to find actual aggressive drivers. No wonder law enforcement has become a fucking industry in this country.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Couldn't agree more. It amazes me to see police more interested in catching people doing 71 in a 60 zone when that isn't putting anyone in danger, yet people get to drive like assholes and get away with it. The intersection out of my neighborhood is on a major highway, and almost every time it turns green some asshole runs the red light on the highway. But cops never sit there and catch them doing it, they'd rather be a mile down the road getting someone doing 70 in a 60 zone where its a divided highway with no lights.

What it comes down to is money. Cities get their revenue from tickets, and it is more lucrative to catch speeders and DUIs.

And those two things are easily provable. Radar says 75, that's how fast you were going. Breathalyzer says .09, that's what your BAC was. Cut and dry, easy to catch any number of "offenders" with little use of resources, and so black and white that most people will not even bother to fight the citation.

ACTUAL dangerous drivers, on the other hand, are much harder to catch and convict. You might have to sit there for hours just to find one guy tailgating, bobbin and weavin, cutting off and endangering everyone to get where he's going 30 seconds faster. When you finally do find one, it's just a cops word vs the offender; And while many people still won't fight a careless/reckless citation, if they do they don't have the concrete indisputable evidence a radar or Breathalyzer provides.

Obviously, preying on and citing average people for minor indiscretions is much more profitable than trying to find actual aggressive drivers. No wonder law enforcement has become a fucking industry in this country.

I have one word for you, dashcam.