Teenager drivers have the highest rate of accidents of anyone ...probably including drunks! Yet you don't want to keep them from driving, do you? Why not? Baron Max
Having been a chronic of the juice at one time from about age 16 (dry for 15+ years) only the severest of penalities for driving drunk would make people decide before getting blitzed or even partially blitzed is no touchy vehicle. If all 50 states enacted a 6 month minimum jail sentence at a minimum security jail/prison with community service to be done five days a week, I believe drunk driving would lower quickly. Unfortunately we have many legislators/politicians who do drink and when making drunk driving laws take into consideration that one day they may be held accountable to that very law so the laws remain lax for first time offenders.
So you want to punish people for something that they MIGHT do? If we used that same approach for any and all other crimes, I think it would significantly lower the crime rates. If we see someone who MIGHT do a crime, we just throw his ass in jail for 6 months. Yep, I think it MIGHT work! Baron Max
You didn't read my post correctly Baron. The law I presented would be used only for those that drink and then drive and then get busted. The law obviously would not be used for those who 1. don't drink or 2. for those who do drink but don't drive or 3. those that do drink and drive and don't get caught.
But why are you "busting" him? Many drunks drive around all the time and never have any accidents. If it's ONLY about the laws against drunk driving, then even that law is punishing someone for what they MIGHT do. We don't even arrest known felons for what they MIGHT do ...yet we persecute drunk drivers! And if it's about accidents, then surely you know that teenagers have one of the highest incidents of accidents in the nations. So, ...if a cop sees a teenager driving, he's the one they should arrest and throw into jail for 6 months! Baron Max
I've read some of your posts. You have a very excellent way of giving a sentence a twist to show it means what it isn't saying. Your writing is like one of those tests with trick answers. You really have to read to understand what is actually being said. Like the following....you said I said..."But why are you "busting" him?"...but the reality is that I never said that. Just as with this statement you wrote that I did not say...."So you want to punish people for something that they MIGHT do?"......I didn't say I was busting him and I didn't say I wanted to punish anyone for something they had not done. Alcoholism is as old as man. Unfortunately when people having three or more drinks get behind a wheel to drive, they do it in confidence because they have drove impaired before and all went well. They got home and no one was hurt or killed. But.........it only takes that very first time to become a statistic. We have over a 100,000 of those alcohol automobile related statistics every single year. That is why laws for DUI are in place. But I know you understand that.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Bob should be given credit for reaching home safely and Fred should have to make restitution for the damage that he did.
That sounds precisely like the millions of non-drinking drivers on the highways, don't it? And how many auto related statistics are there for non-drinking drivers? See? Maybe we should have laws against non-DUI, too. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! And teenagers? Oooh, they're the worst of all. So we should have "Driving While still a Teen" laws ...DWT punishable by 6 months in county jail. Baron Max
If if that were true, it changes nothing in the discussion. Thousands of drivers who drink have no accidents, so why persecute them? Millions of non-drinking drivers DO have accidents, yet we don't persecute them. Why not? Baron Max
It has to do with the fact that one is impaired when driving drunk. Alcohol depresses your central nervous system, which is why you're clumsier and slower when drunk. It would be like driving down the street with a bomb strapped to your chest. These laws are meant to be deterrents.
That doesn't make sense. Thieves actually cause loss. Drunks are involved in accidents that don't kill anyone, also, but they are liable for property damage and injury.
Those who drink, drive and get busted for (usually) erratic type driving get pulled over when a cop see's that type driving. Also, cops will pull anyone over for erratic type driving whether the reason be they were a. drunk...b. texting...c. talking on a cell phone....d. eating and driving....e. putting on make up or shaving while driving....all of which can resort in the driver getting a ticket for careless/reckless driving. Of the drivers who are not drinking and have accidents, they do suffer and many times are persecuted on the premise of how they were driving that led up to the accident that may or may not have caused injuries and or death.
Exactly. The drunk driver is putting other drivers at excessive and unnecessary risk, which is why they get punished so severely even if they didn't kill anyone or cause any property damage. And rightly so.
So what causes all of the gazillions of accidents by sober drivers? If sober drivers have accidents when they are NOT "impaired", why can't the drinking drivers have exactly the same accident as the sober guys? Why do you see a difference? Sober drivers have more accidents than drinkers, so why aren't we "deterring" them? Why pick on the drinkers? And as to "deterrent", teens have the worst rate of accidents of all drivers. So we should arrest those little bastards ten times more than the drinkers! But we don't, do we? We'd rather pick on the drinkers for some reason. I'm still waiting for someone to give me an accurate RATE of accidents for drinkers. Take the total number of drinkers on the road, then divide by the number of accidents for those drivers. IF that number/rate is higher than regular drivers, then you've convinced me. I do the same for teen drivers and the rate goes up through the roof. Yet we let them drive on our streets and highways. Why? Baron Max
