Re: Drinking and Driving Defenders Agreed 100%. Texting or talking on the phone while driving shouldn't be punished harshly. Though I'd stop short of treating it exactly like drinking. Like with any other sources of distraction, it's only dangerous while you do it. But if you've had even a couple of beers, your judgment and reflexes are impaired until the alcohol has won off, something you have less control over than your mobile device. ALSO: I'm curious to see if it's significantly safer to dictate text messages with Siri (or equivalent).
it's sanctimonious and hypocritical because people like Jake talk like they've never been guilty of drinking and driving. and if that is truly the case, good for him. I have no way of knowing or verifying. but I can also say that based on personal experience, he is in the minority if that's the case. it's also sanctimonious and hypocritical because alcohol is not the number one threat to other drivers on the road - or the driver himself. yet people like Jake and MADD focus only on alcohol, while ignoring other human behaviors that are actually more dangerous - some of which, many of those women in MADD, and perhaps Jake as well, actually engage in. that would make their sanctimonious black and white stance on alcohol hypocritical. as for why it's a huge issue for me, it really isn't. I've started threads and debated extensively on many subjects here, including Iran, the Arab Spring, and fracking just to name a few. that doesn't mean that I have a personal stake in any of those issues (as Jake seems to suggest). it's simply something to discuss. and this particular issue hasn't gotten much attention on here, and we just sort of happened on the issue in the other thread, and my comments seemed to have created quite a stir. so I figured I'd start its own thread.
Re: Drinking and Driving oh, I misspelled a word!! how mature of you to even bring it up! but be that as it may. how did I directly insult you? I simply suggested that based on your posts on the topic, which were very black and white, that you didn't have much experience with real life. usually those who've been around a little can see gray areas in virtually all things. but your stance was very black and white. I myself was very much like that when I was in high school, but that was a long time ago. I didn't mean that as an insult. but clearly you have a level of emotional involvement in this issue that I don't. maybe I have different standards for what I consider an insult, or what I will neg rep somebody for, but simply disagreeing with them isn't one of them. Nor would belittling a particular organization or soccer moms seems like a good reason. like I said, your emotional involvement in the issue seems pretty high. and in the interest of maintaining my privacy on a public message board, I will not be fully disclosing anything. but that shouldn't stop you from speculating and insinuating things.
Re: Drinking and Driving Defenders true enough, with texting or other distractions, you can just stop instantly. when you get into an accident, this usually happens after the moment of impact. and when you don't get into an accident, it usually happens when you finished typing your text message. and because you've done so often and never gotten into an accident, you think it's okay. just like many people drink and drive because they've done it often and have never had an accident.
In principle, I'm not a big fan of MADD and drunk driving laws. They're Nancy Reagan's cousins, people who enjoy saying No to personal liberties. Eff that. On the other hand, I see how much saner teenage driving is with today's No Tolerance laws. My kid and his friends truly have been scared into using designated drivers, which is a good thing. Plus I talk to some of my European friends and they have even more draconian drunk driving laws. That heartens me, because despite what Mitt says Western Europe by and large is sensibly governed. If Denmark or France or Sweden does it, then it's probably good policy.
You're answering your own question, aren't you. Proving something is a significant matter in EVERY criminal matter, not just drunk drivers. That's why large tax evaders often get to 'negotiate' a deal with the authorities whereas petty criminals just get hauled up before a judge. In terms of driving, this is the sort of nonsense we end up with... http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...scrambled-for-appleeating-driver-6154068.html A woman stopped by police for holding an apple while driving was fined £60 yesterday in a case that had involved 10 court appearances. Sarah McCaffery, 23, a nursery nurse from Hebburn, South Tyneside, had not taken a bite out of the apple but was holding the fruit in her right hand as she negotiated a left-hand turn on 4 December 2003. She was stopped by PC Lee Butler, who issued her with a £30 fine as part of a Northumbria Police drive against food or drink at the wheel. The incident led to the dispatching of a police helicopter in order to take aerial photographs and videos, as well as nine preliminary hearings. Ms McCaffery was fined £60 plus £100 costs after South Tyneside magistrates found that she was not in proper control of her car. Ms McCaffery's solicitor criticised Northumbria Police and the Crown Prosecution Service for ordering aerial photographs, an aerial video shot and a video recording from a police car for the trial. Geoffrey Forrester told the bench: "Nothing illustrates the nonsense of this case more than the resources that have been thrown at it." However, Northumbria Police defended the proceedings, which cost £425, excluding the aerial work. A police spokesman said: "It is vital that motorists are in proper control of their vehicles at all times and are fully concentrating on their driving." But on the more general point, people don't usually set out to be distracted whilst driving. Nobody says, 'I shall drive today and take no notice of what's going on around me'. If people design their lives around having more than a very small amount of alcohol with no way of getting home safely, (i.e. a designated driver or a cab), then they ARE intending to have alcohol and drive. It's that simple. IOW they set out to break the law. I really can't see why you find this so difficult to understand, tbh.
if it's easier to prove that an accident was caused by drinking and driving rather than texting and driving, all that should mean is that you will have more arrests for drinking and driving. it still does not explain why the penalties for drinking and driving are so much harsher than texting and driving (or any of the other forms of distracted or aggressive driving), which if you go back to my first post is my real problem. just because it's easier to prove drunk driving doesn't mean the penalties need to be harsher than distracted driving - which apparently is more dangerous. I get it that it's hard to prove distracted driving, but if it is really just as, or more dangerous than drinking and driving, why aren't the penalties commensurate?
are you referring to your point about people who engage in distracted driving don't purposely set out to break the law, versus those who drink and drive? if so, I generally agree with that point. but I will also say that with many people, distracted driving and aggressive driving is a habit. so whether they make a deliberate attempt to break the law or not, it is still a conscious decision to engage in that particular behavior. perhaps with drinking and driving, it's a little more sinister, but when a person habitually shaves or puts on makeup or reads the paper, or talks on the phone, or writes text messages while driving, it's not a huge difference. certainly not big enough to account for the large disparity in terms of the penalties.
It's good to remember that just because after an accident someone had a little alcohol in their system, it does not at all mean it was a factor in that accident in any way. But they assume it is and look for someone/something to blame. As an example, if someone hits you while you are sitting still minding your own business obeying a stop sign or light - if you are given a test and have any in your system, you are likely in way more trouble than the idiot who hit you. Many places give tests rather routinely, with little or no cause in cases like that. Most states still give you the right to refuse it and do a blood test instead since the breathalizers are often inaccurate, but they make it a pain in your ass to do so. You don't have to give the officer your cell phone so he can see if you have a half-composed text or just recently sent one.
Donte Stallworth's DUI/manslaughter comes to mind. People got outraged about the 30-day sentence, but people who were involved in the case seemed to understand. Now, I obviously don't believe in zero tolerance, but I think buzzed driving isn't taken quite seriously enough.
Drinking and Driving Here's something I'm splitting from the previous threadjack: Do you have any documentation to support this claim? Some jurisdictions follow(ed) a statutory procedure of imposing a jail or prison term, then suspending it, in order to sentence a defendant to probation. Do you read your local paper? http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_17380364 or know your local laws? http://www.dwi.com/colorado/colorado-dwi-laws Looks like mandatory jail sentences can be suspended for treatment. http://www.gustafsonlaw.com/PDF/Crim-DUI-Traffic/Traffic/CRS_42-4-1301.3_Alc_Ed.pdf
Re: Drinking and Driving http://www.colorado-dui.com/parts/penalties.html and yes, I do wonder. I hadn't said anything derogatory towards you either in the previous thread or this one. I also didn't neg rep you even when you resorted to name calling - something I never did. I referenced your name several times in one particular post because you seemed to have taken things personally and I was addressing the points you made. I didn't say anything derogatory about you or call you names.
Drinking and Driving NO mandatory jail for BAC less than .20! How Draconian. Why not attend a DWI special court session sometime? Then, report back how many people were actually sentenced to mandatory jail time, that they had to serve. Take note if any of those were repeat offenders, injured others, or had excessive BACs. Fine on point one. On point two, perhaps you should take your own advice.
Re: Drinking and Driving as you wish. I didn't say the jail sentence was mandatory, did I? the fact is, the judge can send your ass to jail. he/she isn't required by law to do it, but he/she can do it.
Drinking and Driving Who posted this? Fact is, in Colorado, you will get NO jail time, unless your BAC is .20 or above, or you are a repeat offender, or you have a prior for vehicular homicide or assault. So, stop with the Chicken Little routine. Keep being an asshole, and I'll keep calling you out on it. Mighty white of you. No. I will take offense. I won't neg rep you. I won't PM you, suggesting that you should cut back on your drinking.
And we know why it's not the number one threat. Because of advocacy groups like MADD. Yes, that's how advocacy groups work. They focus on an issue. And before drunk driving became an issue, it was *by far* the leading cause of fatal traffic accidents. [citation needed] Translation: They do this one thing. Actually, I don't know that they do. They *probably* do. I'm just guessing here. Let's just assume that they do this one thing, okay? So it's hypocritical for them to talk about this other thing.
[citation needed] refer to my initial post with the link that has distracted driving as the number one cause of traffic accidents. drinking and driving at number 3. yes, it's hypocritical to single out one issue and ignore all the other related issues (i.e. other human behaviors that cause accidents), since they all are related in that they are human behaviors that cause cause accidents, especially if you engage in some of those other things. and pardon my speculation on this, but I think it's a pretty reasonable assumption given the pervasiveness of texting and driving, and among women especially, talking on the phone and driving.
Re: Drinking and Driving I didn't PM you suggesting that you should cut back on your drinking. Drink all you want for all I care. I PM'd you saying that you were probably drinking when you made that post and that I hoped you weren't also driving, because in that case you would have been texting and drinking, while driving. and I know that you would never be such a sanctimonious hypocrite.
Maybe if the penalties for drinking and driving weren't so stiff, it would indeed be the number one cause. My experience is that many of us tend to be a bit stupid when it comes to drinking, and I can see how the fact that the penalties are so high makes us a bit more sane. This is not to say that driving at unsafe speeds, driving and texting, driving while falling asleep and so on are not also stupid, but DUI is one serious problem that we can identify and confront, so I don't see why it's hypocritical to do so.
Being the leading cause of something and being the most dangerous are two different things. The former means that something is the leading cause of something. The latter means that it's the most dangerous. I don't think you understand hypocrisy. Say, I start a foundation that focuses on healthy eating, culinary literacy and farm-to-table initiatives, it's not hypocritical for my organization to not actively talk about physical education. Phys ed is simply outside the scope of my foundation. So you're saying that if this one thing and this other thing have the same effect, we need to lump them together or we're hypocrites? I won't pardon it because it's a pretty stupid assumption based on a dash of sexism and a likely tablespoon of confirmation bias.
so again, why are the penalties associated with drinking and driving so much more severe than distracted or drowsy driving? but yeah, I'm sure no MADD woman, or Jake, has ever engaged in distracted or drowsy driving. so I cannot accuse them of being sanctimonious or hypocritical... Driving drowsy as dangerous as driving drunk, studies show http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/09/driving-drowsy-as-dangerous-as-driving-drunk-studies-show/ Drowsy Driving May Be More Dangerous Than Drunk Driving http://www.nysdwilawblog.com/2010/11/drowsy-driving-may-be-more-dangerous-than-drunk-driving.shtml Texting Is More Dangerous Than Driving Drunk http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/25/texting-is-more-dangerous-than-driving-drunk/ Texting while driving more dangerous than drinking and driving http://www.vsuspectator.com/2010/02...ing-more-dangerous-than-drinking-and-driving/ Distractions and errors more dangerous than alcohol for teen drivers http://www.lafayettepersonalinjuryb...dangerous-than-alcohol-for-teen-drivers.shtml Distracted Driving Now Amongst Deadliest Road Hazards http://www.accidents.com/texting-while-driving-what-is-distracted-driving.html
I agreed with both these statements. The husband of one of my colleagues is the head of the alchoholism unit at the NIH. He claims that the only argument for keeping the drinking age at 21 is that by raising it, the number of automobile-related deaths in those 16-21 have been greatly reduced. There are several studies in this country and others that show this result. The combination of alchohol, distraction and inexperience is the problem.
Correct. I am familiar with the data from NZ Drink driving was a massive outlier factor in nasty accidents. Via tough penalties and a focus on detection it has been heavily reined in. People like the OP love to engage in irrational exercises where the targeting of speed and drink are big govt gone mad - but transport is one area where it is very easy to make decent policy based on data. On the other hand whilst Joe Six Pack loves to excuse his own speeding, he gets very upset about boy racers - as do the media. Yet the data shows these are an outlier best ignored. They have a strong darwinian factor and either kill themselves, or grow out of the behaviour.