Jazzmoose Posted May 16, 2013 Report Share Posted May 16, 2013 I'd like to see a comparison in reaction times. Who's worse, a twenty-five year old who's had a couple of beers or a completely sober sixty year old? I know my reaction time has slowed considerably since my youth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim McG Posted May 16, 2013 Report Share Posted May 16, 2013 I'd like to see a comparison in reaction times. Who's worse, a twenty-five year old who's had a couple of beers or a completely sober sixty year old? I know my reaction time has slowed considerably since my youth. Wait. Are you being serious this time or is this another sarcastic post?I can see the bar has been lowered beyond my expectations. Expectations of what...? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Alfredson Posted May 16, 2013 Report Share Posted May 16, 2013 If you've been drinking you shouldn't drive. Period. I don't see why this is a point of contention. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jazzmoose Posted May 16, 2013 Report Share Posted May 16, 2013 I'd like to see a comparison in reaction times. Who's worse, a twenty-five year old who's had a couple of beers or a completely sober sixty year old? I know my reaction time has slowed considerably since my youth. Wait. Are you being serious this time or is this another sarcastic post? Why don't you just put me on ignore and save us both a lot of stress? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sonnymax Posted May 16, 2013 Report Share Posted May 16, 2013 ...The 0.05 level now cuts into the population of responsible drinkers and that, my friend, is my problem with it. A drinker with a BAC of .05 is "responsible", until he sits behind the wheel of an automobile. Studies show that driving skills are impaired at the .02 level, and are "significantly affected" at .04. ...This law isn't about keep drunks off the road. It's about keeping ANYBODY who drinks off the road. And that is not what government should be involving itself in. Unless, of course, it is [as I said] the "new prohibition". And how would the government keep anybody who drinks off the road? Do they have radar guns that detect BAC? Will a driver have to pass an on-board BAC test to start their car? Aside from situations where a motorist is stopped for some other violation, the vast majority of incidents we're talking about occur when a person has already exhibited impaired/dangerous driving behavior. If we're lucky, the police have witnessed this behavior and pulled them over. If there's reason to suspect that alcohol is involved, and if the driver agrees to a BAC test, and if the test's results are significant, and if the person is subsequently convicted of DUI in a court of law, then and only then might they be restricted in their use of an automobile for a period of time. Imo, that's a fair balance between the rights and protections afforded people who drive impaired, and the rest of us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim McG Posted May 16, 2013 Report Share Posted May 16, 2013 If you've been drinking you shouldn't drive. Period. I don't see why this is a point of contention. Agreed. Which why i don't drive if I drink. I was bringing to light the unintended consequences of a arbitrarily low BAC number. I'd like to see a comparison in reaction times. Who's worse, a twenty-five year old who's had a couple of beers or a completely sober sixty year old? I know my reaction time has slowed considerably since my youth. Wait. Are you being serious this time or is this another sarcastic post? Why don't you just put me on ignore and save us both a lot of stress? That's quite a remark. Tough day? ...The 0.05 level now cuts into the population of responsible drinkers and that, my friend, is my problem with it. A drinker with a BAC of .05 is "responsible", until he sits behind the wheel of an automobile. Studies show that driving skills are impaired at the .02 level, and are "significantly affected" at .04. >...This law isn't about keep drunks off the road. It's about keeping ANYBODY who drinks off the road. And that is not what government should be involving itself in. Unless, of course, it is [as I said] the "new prohibition". And how would the government keep anybody who drinks off the road? Do they have radar guns that detect BAC? Will a driver have to pass an on-board BAC test to start their car? Aside from situations where a motorist is stopped for some other violation, the vast majority of incidents we're talking about occur when a person has already exhibited impaired/dangerous driving behavior. If we're lucky, the police have witnessed this behavior and pulled them over. If there's reason to suspect that alcohol is involved, and if the driver agrees to a BAC test, and if the test's results are significant, and if the person is subsequently convicted of DUI in a court of law, then and only then might they be restricted in their use of an automobile for a period of time. Imo, that's a fair balance between the rights and protections afforded people who drive impaired, and the rest of us. In the mean time, a perfectly innocent person is rousted by the police. Those are a lot of "ifs" to justify it all, SonnyMax. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sonnymax Posted May 16, 2013 Report Share Posted May 16, 2013 In the mean time, a perfectly innocent person is rousted by the police. Those are a lot of "ifs" to justify it all, SonnyMax. I honestly don't understand your response to what I posted. Under what circumstances will a "perfectly innocent person" be "rousted by the police"? The "ifs" I posited aren't a justification, but an argument against the likelihood that what you fear will happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aggie87 Posted May 16, 2013 Report Share Posted May 16, 2013 Or at city planners who think it's fabby to add a "calming device" that causes your average driver to verve into the bike lane for fear of hitting the island. What is this? Some sort of electronic tin-foil-hat device that attaches via electrodes to our noggins? <john tesh music>"...You will veer into the bike lane no matter what, but you will remain remarkably calm about it while doing so, biker present or not..."</john tesh music> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeweil Posted May 16, 2013 Report Share Posted May 16, 2013 If you've been drinking you shouldn't drive. Period. I don't see why this is a point of contention. Just my thoughts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Train Posted May 16, 2013 Report Share Posted May 16, 2013 (edited) If you've been drinking you shouldn't drive. Period. I don't see why this is a point of contention. Just my thoughts. All but one. Edited May 16, 2013 by Blue Train Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim McG Posted May 17, 2013 Report Share Posted May 17, 2013 (edited) In the mean time, a perfectly innocent person is rousted by the police. Those are a lot of "ifs" to justify it all, SonnyMax. I honestly don't understand your response to what I posted. Under what circumstances will a "perfectly innocent person" be "rousted by the police"? The "ifs" I posited aren't a justification, but an argument against the likelihood that what you fear will happen. The issue is 0.05 equals drunk driving. I'm saying that is just not true. I seriously fail to see how one glass of wine or one beer equals a DUI. If you've been drinking you shouldn't drive. Period. I don't see why this is a point of contention. Just my thoughts. All but one. ONE person in the entire population of America...really? In the mean time, a perfectly innocent person is rousted by the police. Those are a lot of "ifs" to justify it all, SonnyMax. I honestly don't understand your response to what I posted. Under what circumstances will a "perfectly innocent person" be "rousted by the police"? The "ifs" I posited aren't a justification, but an argument against the likelihood that what you fear will happen. A person with alcohol on his breath. This 0.05 gives the police even more control over our lives and precludes any REAL reasoning relative to detaining a person for hours even if he is innocent.The "ifs" are predicated on the police deciding if the alcohol on your breath means they can detain you for hours while they figure it all out. The responsible drinker is now a criminal. The police gain WAY too much power over people who drive a car. TBH, I am not sure why that is a mystery. I call that tyranny. You guys call that controlling DUIs. A 0.05 is NOT a stone, sloppy drunk. What you guys are advocating for is a police state. I object. Edited May 17, 2013 by JSngry Removed pasrsonally directed dtatement Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Train Posted May 17, 2013 Report Share Posted May 17, 2013 (edited) In the mean time, a perfectly innocent person is rousted by the police. Those are a lot of "ifs" to justify it all, SonnyMax. I honestly don't understand your response to what I posted. Under what circumstances will a "perfectly innocent person" be "rousted by the police"? The "ifs" I posited aren't a justification, but an argument against the likelihood that what you fear will happen. The issue is 0.05 equals drunk driving. I'm saying that is just not true. I seriously fail to see how one glass of wine or one beer equals a DUI. >>>> If you've been drinking you shouldn't drive. Period. I don't see why this is a point of contention. Just my thoughts. All but one. ONE person in the entire population of America...really? In the mean time, a perfectly innocent person is rousted by the police. Those are a lot of "ifs" to justify it all, SonnyMax. I honestly don't understand your response to what I posted. Under what circumstances will a "perfectly innocent person" be "rousted by the police"? The "ifs" I posited aren't a justification, but an argument against the likelihood that what you fear will happen. A person with alcohol on his breath. This 0.05 gives the police even more control over our lives and precludes any REAL reasoning relative to detaining a person for hours even if he is innocent.The "ifs" are predicated on the police deciding if the alcohol on your breath means they can detain you for hours while they figure it all out. The responsible drinker is now a criminal. The police gain WAY too much power over people who drive a car. TBH, I am not sure why that is a mystery. I call that tyranny. You guys call that controlling DUIs. A 0.05 is NOT a stone, sloppy drunk. What you guys are advocating for is a police state. I object. I rest my case. Edited May 17, 2013 by Blue Train Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted May 17, 2013 Report Share Posted May 17, 2013 I will agree that different body sizes and chemestrys affect the way an individual can proceed drinking (or any other thing, really). But I also agree that if we all know what the rules are and get caught in violation of them, then what's your excuse? I know what the rules are but I chose not to follow them because the don't apply to me the same way that they do some other people? Tell you what, then - let's have everybody get a DWD license, where they're field-tested to establish their own personal level of actually being impaired. Comes up for renewal the same time your regular divers license does. Then you really have no excuse, and can beat any rap you think you can beat. And if you're wrong, OOPS! Or, everybody could just be smart about the rules and proceed accordingly. Debates on ideals are fine, but Life In A Civilization means that there will be rules, and that they will not be 100% fair to all people at all times. If there's a way around, that, let's have the details, please. What I'm not in favor of, in any way, in any case, for any crime is all this "mandatory minimum sentence" bullshit. But we're not discussing that, are we? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Train Posted May 17, 2013 Report Share Posted May 17, 2013 I will agree that different body sizes and chemestrys affect the way an individual can proceed drinking (or any other thing, really). But I also agree that if we all know what the rules are and get caught in violation of them, then what's your excuse? I know what the rules are but I chose not to follow them because the don't apply to me the same way that they do some other people? Tell you what, then - let's have everybody get a DWD license, where they're field-tested to establish their own personal level of actually being impaired. Comes up for renewal the same time your regular divers license does. Then you really have no excuse, and can beat any rap you think you can beat. And if you're wrong, OOPS! Or, everybody could just be smart about the rules and proceed accordingly. Debates on ideals are fine, but Life In A Civilization means that there will be rules, and that they will not be 100% fair to all people at all times. If there's a way around, that, let's have the details, please. What I'm not in favor of, in any way, in any case, for any crime is all this "mandatory minimum sentence" bullshit. But we're not discussing that, are we? FTW! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jazzmoose Posted May 17, 2013 Report Share Posted May 17, 2013 If there's reason to suspect that alcohol is involved, and if the driver agrees to a BAC test, and if the test's results are significant, and if the person is subsequently convicted of DUI in a court of law, then and only then might they be restricted in their use of an automobile for a period of time. Imo, that's a fair balance between the rights and protections afforded people who drive impaired, and the rest of us. I don't know anything about the laws in MA, but in the places I've lived, if you refuse to take the BAC test, you lose your license period, so you've got a few too many ifs there.Under what circumstances will a "perfectly innocent person" be "rousted by the police"? Ah. I see; you're new in this country. Never mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Train Posted May 17, 2013 Report Share Posted May 17, 2013 If there's reason to suspect that alcohol is involved, and if the driver agrees to a BAC test, and if the test's results are significant, and if the person is subsequently convicted of DUI in a court of law, then and only then might they be restricted in their use of an automobile for a period of time. Imo, that's a fair balance between the rights and protections afforded people who drive impaired, and the rest of us. I don't know anything about the laws in MA, but in the places I've lived, if you refuse to take the BAC test, you lose your license period, so you've got a few too many ifs there. >Under what circumstances will a "perfectly innocent person" be "rousted by the police"? Ah. I see; you're new in this country. Never mind. Every state now has "implied consent" laws for anyone that gets a DL. You can legally refuse to be tested, but you're also going to get punished in one way or another for refusing. Have to laugh at the 2nd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim McG Posted May 17, 2013 Report Share Posted May 17, 2013 (edited) So you are in favor of giving police more control then. Criminalize the responsible drinker. Perfect. Edited May 17, 2013 by JSngry "as-hominem" portion of response removed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeweil Posted May 17, 2013 Report Share Posted May 17, 2013 "Responsible drinker"? I wonder what kind of person that should be ... there is enough proof that even 0.05 impairs reaction time etc. while driving - any drug has that effect, even much medication. So driving under any influence of that kind is irresponsible, simply because it does not only effect yourself, but any other person that might be involved in the accident you cause. I can understand you are weary of police control powers, but that may be due to other things they do. Over here I wish they would enact more control - every day I experience critical situations just because of drivers using their mobile phone behind the wheel. But I never see someone getting a ticket for this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim McG Posted May 17, 2013 Report Share Posted May 17, 2013 (edited) "Responsible drinker"? I wonder what kind of person that should be ... there is enough proof that even 0.05 impairs reaction time etc. while driving - any drug has that effect, even much medication. So driving under any influence of that kind is irresponsible, simply because it does not only effect yourself, but any other person that might be involved in the accident you cause. I can understand you are weary of police control powers, but that may be due to other things they do. Over here I wish they would enact more control - every day I experience critical situations just because of drivers using their mobile phone behind the wheel. But I never see someone getting a ticket for this. I am completely with you regarding cell phones. That is the worst sort of impairment any driver can under take. However, glasses impair driving ability, so does listening to the radio or CD changer...a conversation with a passenger distracts as well. The point is this is a one-size-fits-all approach that criminalizes perfectly legal behavior. And can you imagine the wasted taxpayer dollars for all the pretend stops the police could make? With all due respect, it is a fool's paradise to believe that every single person who has a BAC of 0.05 is drunk. Or impaired or whatever. Again, I am all in favor of not driving when you've had anything to drink, but reality dictates otherwise. Let's keep those drunks off the road, but leave the responsible citizen who has a brew with his buddies after work out of this. The police have enough control over our lives. Edited May 17, 2013 by GoodSpeak Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quincy Posted May 17, 2013 Report Share Posted May 17, 2013 Or at city planners who think it's fabby to add a "calming device" that causes your average driver to verve into the bike lane for fear of hitting the island. What is this? Some sort of electronic tin-foil-hat device that attaches via electrodes to our noggins? <john tesh music>"...You will veer into the bike lane no matter what, but you will remain remarkably calm about it while doing so, biker present or not..."</john tesh music> Mostly chicanes with islands and the day of my post I had some green van that came very close to getting me which is why I stupidly felt compelled to post in this thread when I should have searched for the bike safety thread (though I imagine it's one long rant about Lance with pages of personal attacks edited out by Larry. Uh, happy belated birthday). It seems like if a driver has a choice between hitting concrete or flesh & some moving metal they tend to choose the latter, even though theoretically if one uses the steering wheel the vehicle (as long as it's not something long like a hook & ladder fire engine) should be able to stay between the lines. If you really want to know this PDX site shows some of the silly crap we have in the Yuge. It's a shame but the law of unintended consequences is the rule with these things. http://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/35929 Heck, I don't care if they lower the alcohol threshold but like Moose I have a general complaint in that there are plenty of sober & incompetent & downright dangerous drivers out on the roads than just those who have some amount of alcohol in their system. Personally I would love to have po-leece be more aggressive against all of the bad drivers, be they sober, a wee bit tipsy or drunk, but especially the texters. Death to texters! because one these days one of those fuckers is going to kill me while I'm cycling (and I'm a law abiding cyclist btw). Maybe I should switch to a horsey on springs & switch from my helmet to a foil hat as it looks like I'd be a lot less grumpy. How long have you waiting to use that photo anyway? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Nessa Posted May 17, 2013 Report Share Posted May 17, 2013 Sorry, I haven't bothered to read all the posts BUT maybe this could be tied to gun ownership. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted May 17, 2013 Report Share Posted May 17, 2013 Some of the very best drivers I've known have been some of the very best drinkers. That's why there's lawyers, for if you have a taillight out and shit goes bad or something like that. It's all about reaction time, and somebody who really knows how to drink also knows how to get into that "don't fuck up zone". Seen it more than a few times, and will not be convinced otherwise by statistics that It Can't Ever Possibly Be So. But you can't make a law based on catching people who know - really know - how to break it. You should make a law on the Most Likely Stupid Behavior. Should... Again, that's why there's lawyers, that's why life is not fair, and that's why there ain't no perfect world. Drink up, drive friendly, and don't be stupid! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Train Posted May 18, 2013 Report Share Posted May 18, 2013 (edited) Sorry, I haven't bothered to read all the posts BUT maybe this could be tied to gun ownership. Same simple mindedned thinking. "Responsabile" drinkers and guns. Edited May 18, 2013 by Blue Train Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted May 18, 2013 Report Share Posted May 18, 2013 Shots don't drink people. People drink shots. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Train Posted May 18, 2013 Report Share Posted May 18, 2013 Shots don't drink people. People drink shots. haha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_forumlogo.png.a607ef20a6e0c299ab2aa6443aa1f32e.png)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.