Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: zxcvbob on May 14, 2013, 11:43:42 AM
-
NTSB is recommending lowering the drunk-driving threshhold to .05%:
http://www.kttc.com/story/22241869/progress-sought-on-drunken-driving-deaths
Most alcohol-related deaths are caused by drivers well-over the ancient .15% limit -- and often repeat offenders at that. So the obvious answer is to criminalize the the ones who are *not* part of the problem. That makes the statistics go up, justifying the existence of more regulation.
-
I just saw on the late night news recently some biatch talking about a .gov funded study she did on the costs of drinking. She concluded that alcohol needed to be taxed at the same rate cigarettes are. I almost kicked the tv off the stand.
-
I just saw on the late night news recently some biatch talking about a .gov funded study she did on the costs of drinking. She concluded that alcohol needed to be taxed at the same rate cigarettes are. I almost kicked the tv off the stand.
We need more revenue, to fund more studies.
-
Its for the children.
-
Its for the children.
Nearly half of all accidents are caused by people driving drunk.
Which means that more than half are cause by people driving sober.
So we need to make a crime to drive sober :facepalm:
-
Nearly half of all accidents are caused by people driving drunk.
Which means that more than half are cause by people driving sober.
So we need to make a crime to drive sober :facepalm:
Most every auto accident is caused by people who have imbibed saliva prior to the accident. The answer is clear: outlaw saliva or make the imbibing of saliva illegal.
-
Every accident, every murder... every bad thing that happens in the world, is caused by someone or something that has come into contact with oxygen
If we ban oxygen, we fix EVERYTHING
-
Every accident, every murder... every bad thing that happens in the world, is caused by someone or something that has come into contact with oxygen
If we ban oxygen, we fix EVERYTHING
MAOO
Mothers Against O2
-
Why can't these Prohibitionists try to make a run at passing the Volstead Act again, or leave us all alone?
Gutless cowards. Either make a stand, or go away. This whining, hand wringing ploy is annoying to everyone involved.
-
You all are obviously just a bunch of drunks who want to be able to drive while sloshed. :angel: :laugh:
-
I want to see objective evidence of wht BAC actually constitutes impairment that measurably degrades driving safety. If that is .05 then so be it. If that is .03 then go down to there. If, as I suspect, it is more like .08 or higher then they need to *expletive deleted*ck off and leave well enough alone.
-
Read the reports on drunk driving fatalities and injuries.
You don't see folks with BAC of .0anything. Pretty much every such report I've ever seen has had someone with a BAC of .1 or higher (and many, it seems, would be more properly stated as an ABC)
-
MAOO
Mothers Against O2
Just call it a diatomic molecular chalcogen, and get people to sign a petition demanding government controls.
-
Read the reports on drunk driving fatalities and injuries.
You don't see folks with BAC of .0anything. Pretty much every such report I've ever seen has had someone with a BAC of .1 or higher (and many, it seems, would be more properly stated as an ABC)
This... I'd love to see a report on the # of accidents caused by people w/ a BAC between .05 and .08. Because clearly if they say it would "save lives" then there must be some verifiable evidence of accidents happening in that range. Because otherwise it'd be nothing but an attempt to increase revenues by fining people thousands of dollars for something that doesn't actually contribute to DUII accidents.......
-
Even if there were such numbers it wouldn't be meaningful. Remember most accidents happen with a BAC of near zero, and that doesn't mean zero BAC is a contributing factor.
-
To the tune of Werewolves Of London: MAOOOOOOO!
The presumptive level of guilt for most of my driving is .04% (link.) (http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/registration-licensing/cdl/cdl.htm) Originally, that law provided for a (job, maybe career threatening) 24 hour shut down for any detectable BAC and had problems landing on drivers who used too much aftershave or Lysoled the cab for stench control. CDL drivers are also subject to random testing and post accident testing. Come on guys! Get with the program!
-
This... I'd love to see a report on the # of accidents caused by people w/ a BAC between .05 and .08. Because clearly if they say it would "save lives" then there must be some verifiable evidence of accidents happening in that range. Because otherwise it'd be nothing but an attempt to increase revenues by fining people thousands of dollars for something that doesn't actually contribute to DUII accidents.......
It wouldn't matter. Once those people have caused an accident, enforcement is meaningless. No, the only way to figure out any effectiveness would be DUI accident numbers with and DUI accident numbers without enforcement.
-
I want to see objective evidence of wht BAC actually constitutes impairment that measurably degrades driving safety. If that is .05 then so be it. If that is .03 then go down to there. If, as I suspect, it is more like .08 or higher then they need to *expletive deleted* off and leave well enough alone.
I would be willing to bet I am much, MUCH more dangerous driving my auto with two kids in the back than I would be driving at 0.08BAC with no one in the auto. I would have to be completely blotto to be more distracted than when my kiddos are tired, hungry, cranky, and fighting.
-
When she was recently arrested for DUI, Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg had a blood alcohol level of 0.239, about three (3) times the current 0.08 limit. I don't see how lowering the legal limit to 0.05 would provide any material benefits.
Travis County includes Austin, TX and several suburban areas.
For a chuckle: http://austin.ynn.com/content/top_stories/291541/da-lehmberg-guilty-of-dwi--begins-45-day-jail-sentence
-
I would be willing to bet I am much, MUCH more dangerous driving my auto with two kids in the back than I would be driving at 0.08BAC with no one in the auto. I would have to be completely blotto to be more distracted than when my kiddos are tired, hungry, cranky, and fighting.
i think a law allowing muzzling kids wives in cars would help
-
Ah yes, another attempt at making asinine laws rather than dealing with the root cause of the problem.
-
i think a law allowing muzzling kids wives in cars would help
A man can dream.... :angel:
Heck, even when my kids are behaving well, but are talking to me from the back seat, I am distracted. Probably a couple beer's worth.
-
A man can dream.... :angel:
Heck, even when my kids are behaving well, but are talking to me from the back seat, I am distracted. Probably a couple beer's worth.
yup though not in the same way
i have some experience in cocktailing and driving
ironically i did have 2 accidents getting stoned key word getting
biggest offender in my life is driving tired/asleep
-
This whole thing is for more tax money. A DUI generates a whole lot a revenue to .gov and the lawyer's make money too. They found .1 was good money maker, .08 was even better, how many more people can they nail with .05?
You can do whatever you want, but stay in the house and lock the doors.
-
way more than tax money . their are dui millionaire lawyers. as well as the whole support industry. breathalyzers etc.asap its a machine. heck madd pulls in cash and paid well
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2
-
When she was recently arrested for DUI, Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg had a blood alcohol level of 0.239, about three (3) times the current 0.08 limit. I don't see how lowering the legal limit to 0.05 would provide any material benefits.
Lowering the legal limit would actually make things worse, because then she would have been driving at nearly five times the legal limit.
-
Tallpine, think like a liberal~ At 5 times the legal limit think of all the revenue she would be paying to the state, $$$$ A win for the DA's office, a win for her lawyer and a win for the courts. She is the only loser in the deal.
-
Lowering the legal limit would actually make things worse, because then she would have been driving at nearly five times the legal limit.
thats what they did with lead levels
-
Impairment is not the issue. As mentioned in numerous posts above, impairment/distraction is caused by many things. However, just because I am distracted or impaired does NOT mean I am causing accidents. We need to admit as a country that you don't need to be 100% to drive as we ALL drive with distractions or other issues that cause us to not be at 100%. We don't need to be harassing drivers because they "might" be impaired by a small amount of alcohol. We need to be going after actual drunk drivers.
Driving my butt home does not require me to be a good enough to pass a some fancy driver test with cones and sudden turns. I just need to keep it between the lines and stay awake.
-
MAOO
Mothers Against O2
Could we maybe go with "Mothers Opposing Oxygen"? or "MOO"?
-
It's gotten so I won't even drink a beer with dinner out if I'm driving.
If I get the ticket I lose my job. Even if I beat the charges I'm still out of a job.