| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Motiva
United States1774 Posts
I know several drunk drivers, and most of them make it home safely every night. I think everyone in this thread is being absurdly results oriented. The issue isn't simple. Personal responsibility is key, but that also isn't a reason to ignore the status quo and social norms of our industrialized alcoholic societies. I feel the need to mention that I myself very rarely drink, and don't particularly enjoy the effects of alcohol in most settings. | ||
|
Kwidowmaker
Canada978 Posts
On January 03 2010 15:28 motbob wrote: For most crimes, whether or not the crime is a repeat offense should be a big factor in the severity of the punishment. But for drunk driving, it's my opinion that the deluge of "over the limit under arrest" commercials and stuff like that negates the usefulness of the repeat offender policy. Maybe I'm being too harsh, though. Too harsh I think. It's an error of judgement, not malicious intent. | ||
|
baubo
China3370 Posts
On January 03 2010 17:04 Motiva wrote: I know several drunk drivers, and most of them make it home safely every night. I think everyone in this thread is being absurdly results oriented. The issue isn't simple. Personal responsibility is key, but that also isn't a reason to ignore the status quo and social norms of our industrialized alcoholic societies. I don't see how what you say justify drunk driving. It's true. Even while under the influence of alcohol, the odds of getting into an accident is still relatively low. But it's MUCH, MUCH higher than regular driving. If you want to talk about driving home safely after drinking... I had an old friend who celebrated his 21st birthday getting wasted, and then proceeded to drive back to the dorm on a one way street with a friend THE WRONG WAY. He didn't get into an accident. But that doesn't mean what he did wasn't ridiculously reckless, and one he should ever repeat in his life. | ||
|
lazz
Australia3119 Posts
On January 03 2010 17:04 Motiva wrote: I know several drunk drivers, and most of them make it home safely every night. most of them? lol | ||
motbob
United States12546 Posts
On January 03 2010 17:04 Kwidowmaker wrote: Too harsh I think. It's an error of judgement, not malicious intent. This is exactly why I don't support strict jail time. But when an error of judgment can lead to the death of innocent people, it's important to take away the chance of the error being made again. In other words, it's important to take the license away. | ||
|
duckhunt
Canada311 Posts
| ||
|
Motiva
United States1774 Posts
On January 03 2010 17:33 baubo wrote: I don't see how what you say justify drunk driving. It's true. Even while under the influence of alcohol, the odds of getting into an accident is still relatively low. But it's MUCH, MUCH higher than regular driving. If you want to talk about driving home safely after drinking... I had an old friend who celebrated his 21st birthday getting wasted, and then proceeded to drive back to the dorm on a one way street with a friend THE WRONG WAY. He didn't get into an accident. But that doesn't mean what he did wasn't ridiculously reckless, and one he should ever repeat in his life. EDIT: wow, no idea how I wrote so much lol boredom ftw. lol. I'm not sure I was trying to justify driving drunk. I was simply saying that it's a fact. It happens, and that simply saying that there is nothing much we can do about this. Morally judging people on this is pretty absurd... Most people who drink alcohol and live in a setting that requires driving, will at some point in their life drink and drive with some amount of alcohol in their system. I'm not condoning drinking and driving, but more so, people's perspective and personal bias on the situation. The law is abusrd as well... .06 and .07 aren't nearly the threat that .08 is?! To the degree that .07 is LEGAL and .08 is ILLEGAL? ROFLFL and to the 2nd quote. Yes most of them. That is. Safely as in, they are conscious of the risk they are posing to themselves and others, and act maturely and rationally. As in: They've been driving with some level of alchohol in their system multiple times a week for multiple years, and have never gotten into an accident, had a ticket, or any other severe complications (like staying on your side of the road). I also have friends, within similar circles, who consistently lie to themselves and overdrink and drive more/farther/faster/ect than they should. As such they've done things like accidently drive off the road, hit cars, get multple DWIs. I however certainly talk to people in this circle less frequently and as a matter of personal responsibility do not put myself in situations they routinely find themselves in. I would say that even when these people make it home without any complications, as they still typically do, it was not done so safely. To say that by not going out and forcing a change in these peoples lifestyle is negligence is absurd. Many of these people struggle with alcoholism and have acquired 15,000+ in fines to the govt. if not much more. There is nothing I could do but alienate myself away from these people and in the end, just simply not have that friend when/if they come out of their shit-storm lifestyle. As such I simply tell them the truth, and as a result rarely see them. I also think I have a skewed viewpoint on motor transportation as from the age of 18 to 23 my primary source of transportation was a motorcycle. I should mention that I lived at that time roughly 20 miles from Houston City limits, but worked 5 miles into Houston. Also during this time my profession was Bartending. As such I spent countless hours getting to work at 5pm (rush hour) and getting home from work at 3am (drunk time). My point of view, ESPECIALLY on a motorcycle is that your personal safety is again a massive personal responsibility. If someone comes out of nowhere in hits you, it is still your fault for not seeing and anticipating. If an 18 wheeler turns into you because he did not see you, then it is your fault for not being aware that he could not see you. If someone pulls out directly in front of you (had happened to me countless times on a bike) then it is your fault for not watching them, anticipating, and most of all ALWAYS being EXTREMELY ready to react INTELLIGENTLY. Of course there are always unforeseeable things, but humans are huge fans of inflating that list more so than it needs to be. There will always be inherit risks in everything, from drinking and driving, to simply driving or simply drinking. Some people are so risk-adverse that they can't even leave their houses. It's a matter of personal responsibility and awareness. I can be sure that my life experiences have made me severely bias, and critical. I'm alright with that. EDIT2: rofl time to add more wordz~ I figure I should point out that I agree with motbob that a matter of huge importance here is of course how this is regulated. I know some of the people I mentioned above, the notoriously bad ones, are the ones with Rich parents who can easily cover all of the fines. Some of these same people continue to drive (and drink) even after their licenses have been taken. I'm clearly not claiming to be an expert on regulating this quite complicated social phenomena (drunk driving) based on my few life experiences and those of the people I know. There is certainly room for improvement. | ||
|
Grobyc
Canada18410 Posts
dont plan on it, any whenever i drink i try to give my keys to someone sober i know even though i have always been a smart enough drunk to know not to even think about it. | ||
|
Radiomouse
Netherlands209 Posts
| ||
|
Mykill
Canada3402 Posts
Start driving THEN drink!  but seriously keep in mind this endangers other lives so dont do it unless your drinking and gokarting and you cant hurt others with your stupid decision  | ||
|
LordWeird
United States3411 Posts
http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?topic_id=88154 | ||
|
Emon_
3925 Posts
"Sorry Judge, I was drunk. Had no control over my actions." "Aight, bro. I feel ya. You still get one year though." "I understand." I heard some guy in New York got 20years because he was drunk and killed a young girl. Thats sounds about right. Nobody's forcing you to drink, much less to drink and drive. Its a conscious choice and you should therefore suffer the consequences of your actions. | ||
|
ShcShc
Canada912 Posts
On January 03 2010 16:22 bEsT[Alive] wrote: Friend, acquaintance, stranger, or not. It's about accountability man. Everything else is negligence =/ Drunk driving happens a lot because: a) people believe it won't happen to them: "It was only one drink." b) self-image: they don't want to look bad/weak. Kind of absurd don't you think? c) don't be that guy (the party killer): "Give me your keys man." "Why? "Because you had a few drinks." d) negligence & responsibility. This one pertains to everybody unfortunately including the bartenders and you. o: heh, of course. Though if someone had to be the "give me your keys" guy, he would have to do it at every clubbing nights. I see drunk driving (friends, strangers, whoever) every time I go clubbing. Almost as if it was normal. That itself is pretty disturbing. | ||
|
Adeeler
United Kingdom764 Posts
The penalty the guy should get is Life(whole life) in prison or the death penalty if available in the state the crime took place. There is no point in a deterrent if it's soft which clearly they are in the US. Too harsh I think. It's an error of judgement, not malicious intent. It could have quite easily been 10-20 ppl run over not just 2. Any more then 0 is too many ppl hurt and possibly killed/disabled for life. | ||
|
WhuazGoodJaggah
Lesotho777 Posts
On January 04 2010 01:11 Adeeler wrote: They should put breathalisers into every car so you have to take a breath test just to start the engine. They could easily do it but it'd cost a few extra dollars so thats not gonna happen. The penalty the guy should get is Life(whole life) in prison or the death penalty if available in the state the crime took place. There is no point in a deterrent if it's soft which clearly they are in the US. It could have quite easily been 10-20 ppl run over not just 2. Any more then 0 is too many ppl hurt and possibly killed/disabled for life. yeah and then we kill the killer who killed this man and then we kill the killer of the killer of this man: while(someone alive){ kill; } morron | ||
|
synapse
China13814 Posts
On January 04 2010 01:11 Adeeler wrote: They should put breathalisers into every car so you have to take a breath test just to start the engine. They could easily do it but it'd cost a few extra dollars so thats not gonna happen. The penalty the guy should get is Life(whole life) in prison or the death penalty if available in the state the crime took place. There is no point in a deterrent if it's soft which clearly they are in the US. It could have quite easily been 10-20 ppl run over not just 2. Any more then 0 is too many ppl hurt and possibly killed/disabled for life. 1. If by a few extra dollars you meant a few hundred dollars => totalling millions, then your second sentence would be correct. 2. What about the majority of the population that don't drink at all? | ||
|
muse5187
1125 Posts
On January 04 2010 02:14 WhuazGoodJaggah wrote: yeah and then we kill the killer who killed this man and then we kill the killer of the killer of this man: while(someone alive){ kill; } morron lool | ||
|
ggrrg
Bulgaria2716 Posts
Just NEVER EVER drive drunk! @topic if your acquaintance really did drink then he is a total asshole. And he will surely receive a (heavy) penalty because he was involved in an accident. | ||
|
motbob
United States12546 Posts
On January 04 2010 02:36 synapse wrote: 1. If by a few extra dollars you meant a few hundred dollars => totalling millions, then your second sentence would be correct. Well, let's think about this. - Looking at stats online I'm gonna estimate that roughly 25% of fatal crashes are caused by alcohol (about 35% involve alcohol but obviously there's no way to tell which crashes were *caused* by it.) - 37,261 people died last year in motor accidents in the U.S. - Let's say that these breathalyser cars would slash drunk driving accidents by half. If we assume that, then these breathalyser cars would save ~4657 lives. If we're taking the EPA measurement of the value of a life, the value of those lives saved is about $22 billion. 7,667,066 vehicles were sold in the U.S. in 2006. Thus, if it costs less than $2855 per car to install these breathalysers, we should. ...obviously it's not that simple just something to think about. | ||
|
StorkHwaiting
United States3465 Posts
On January 04 2010 03:19 motbob wrote: Well, let's think about this. - Looking at stats online I'm gonna estimate that roughly 25% of fatal crashes are caused by alcohol (about 35% involve alcohol but obviously there's no way to tell which crashes were *caused* by it.) - 37,261 people died last year in motor accidents in the U.S. - Let's say that these breathalyser cars would slash drunk driving accidents by half. If we assume that, then these breathalyser cars would save ~4657 lives. If we're taking the EPA measurement of the value of a life, the value of those lives saved is about $22 billion. 7,667,066 vehicles were sold in the U.S. in 2006. Thus, if it costs less than $2855 per car to install these breathalysers, we should. ...obviously it's not that simple just something to think about.Wish there was a way to collate the stats of how many accidents are caused by texting while driving and added those into your calculations. I bet the cost of breathalyzer + coverage blocker would be <<<< cost in human lives. | ||
| ||
|
|
PiGosaur Monday
WardiTV Summer Champion…
Stormgate Nexus
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
The PondCast
WardiTV Summer Champion…
Replay Cast
LiuLi Cup
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
RSL Revival
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
