Abolish drunk driving laws?

[The Texas Pirate!]

when I drive angry, or tired, Im a mutch greater risk to the public, that at a 0.20 BAC.

[rumborak]

I am pretty sure they didn't just pick that number out of the air.

rumborak

It seems arbitrary, given that people don't respond to alcohol identically.

Yes, that's why they (I assume) will have looked at the distribution and made a judgment based on that.

I personally don't see the good argument from your sides guys, seriously, other than being pissed off at cops making you blow into a tube. BAC tests are objective, fast and currently set at quite a high level (0.08). FSTs would be even more arbitrary and more intrusive, and I can't see how one would suggest that as a better alternative.

rumborak

[El Barto]

Like I've said, the problem is with enforcing an arbitrary standard rather than dealing with specifically dangerous behaviors.  The thing is, they've locked onto a small subset of people who few will defend to score $10k+ a pop, because that's much easier than addressing real problems which would involve all of us, and would therefore never fly. 

Do you think there would be any support for a bill that made driving while talking on a cellphone (including hands-free devices) an offense that would cost you $12k and a night in jail?  Fuck no.  Again, I'm in favor of keeping drunks off the road, but the system we have in place is a for-profit enterprise and has little if anything to do with that purpose. 

Furthermore, there are plenty of people who get wrongly hosed by this deal, solely to maintain the charade that's been manufactured. 

[XJDenton]

Do you think there would be any support for a bill that made driving while talking on a cellphone (including hands-free devices) an offense that would cost you $12k and a night in jail?

Hello.

[7StringedBeast]

There was something on the news about technology in phones that would shut them down if they were traveling at a certain speed. 

This seems like a really terrible idea though.  You would not be able to use them on trains, plains, or sitting in the passenger seat of an automobile.

[rumborak]

Do you think there would be any support for a bill that made driving while talking on a cellphone (including hands-free devices) an offense that would cost you $12k and a night in jail?

Hello.

Hello++;

rumborak

[rumborak]

The ideal solution, in my humble opinion, is a black box. It records everything you're doing while driving, be it talking on the cellphone, reaching backwards to the back seat wile driving, getting a blowjob by the passenger etc. etc.
And this recording stays on the black box (and gets automatically deleted after a while), but can be accessed by a judge after an accident to establish the innocence or guilt of the accused.

rumborak

[Adami]

The ideal solution, in my humble opinion, is a black box. It records everything you're doing while driving, be it talking on the cellphone, reaching backwards to the back seat wile driving, getting a blowjob by the passenger etc. etc.
And this recording stays on the black box and can only be accessed by a judge after an accident to establish the innocence or guilt of the accused.

rumborak

Pretty sure that's called Big Brother.

[rumborak]

No, Big Brother would be if you're being watched against your will and at leisurely access by whoever. This black box is essentially part of your car and thus your property. I believe there is already something like that in some cars that records acceleration etc that can be used for later accident analysis. Isn't that how they busted the Prius driver who claimed he couldn't decelerate?

rumborak

[Adami]

No, Big Brother would be if you're being watched against your will and at leisurely access by whoever. This black box is essentially part of your car and thus your property. I believe there is already something like that in some cars that records acceleration etc that can be used for later accident analysis. Isn't that how they busted the Prius driver who claimed he couldn't decelerate?

rumborak

Fine, it's Big Sister.

Either way, how someone can be against the .08 bac, but for banning cell phone talking in cars is beyond me. Not you by the way. I just happen to be quoting you at the moment.

[El Barto]

The black box idea is the wet dream of every insurance company in America.  However, the pitfalls of such an idea are severe.  None of us are perfect drivers, and given good telemetry, the folks at Allstate could find an excuse to invalidate 95% of the claims.  Contrary to the William Wallace perspective, where naturally they'll pass all that savings along to us, I don't think we'd see any benefits to that scenario. 

The ideal scenario, as it turns out, is the Google car that drives itself.  I discussed this with my brother last night (currently a pedestrian due to a DWI several years ago), and he correctly pointed out that my opposition was all wrong.  While I wouldn't give up my right to drive my own car however the hell I want, I'll be dead in 20 years and the kids today don't share my concerns.  Today's generation would love to relinquish the need to drive to somebody/something else.  They're incredibly utilitarian about cars, where we're the exact opposite.  The problem of people driving drunk will be a non-issue pretty soon, and The Man will have created new ways of gouging the people.

[rumborak]

Today's generation would love to relinquish the need to drive to somebody/something else.  They're incredibly utilitarian about cars, where we're the exact opposite. 

Speak for yourself
I'm exactly that, completely utilitarian about cars. They're means of transportation for me, in no way or fashion do I find anything else interesting about them.

rumborak

[William Wallace]

The black box idea is the wet dream of every insurance company in America.  However, the pitfalls of such an idea are severe.  None of us are perfect drivers, and given good telemetry, the folks at Allstate could find an excuse to invalidate 95% of the claims.  Contrary to the William Wallace perspective, where naturally they'll pass all that savings along to us, I don't think we'd see any benefits to that scenario. 

How is a mandatory "black box" at all consistent with my views?

And I'm still not seeing any justification for the .08 standard, other than political motivations.

[rumborak]

You don't see the pragmatic value of BAC tests? No offsense, WW, but I'm really getting tired of the constant shoe-horning of anything and everything into "political motivations". I mean, believe it or not, there *are* and were people who really just want to make the streets a safer place to be on. No intrigues, no ulterior motives, no money-making schemes, just plain fucking wanting-to-be-safe.

rumborak

[El Barto]

The black box idea is the wet dream of every insurance company in America.  However, the pitfalls of such an idea are severe.  None of us are perfect drivers, and given good telemetry, the folks at Allstate could find an excuse to invalidate 95% of the claims.  Contrary to the William Wallace perspective, where naturally they'll pass all that savings along to us, I don't think we'd see any benefits to that scenario. 

How is a mandatory "black box" at all consistent with my views?

And I'm still not seeing any justification for the .08 standard, other than political motivations.

As soon as I saw yours was the last post, I knew what it was about. 

I was only referring to the libertarian idea that saving an industry money will save the consumer money.  When you save insurance companies money, they increase profits and hire more/better lawyers to further squeeze the consumer.  I'm certainly aware that you'd share my opposition to black boxes.

You don't see the pragmatic value of BAC tests? No offsense, WW, but I'm really getting tired of the constant shoe-horning of anything and everything into "political motivations". I mean, believe it or not, there *are* and were people who really just want to make the streets a safer place to be on. No intrigues, no ulterior motives, no money-making schemes, just plain fucking wanting-to-be-safe.

rumborak

Yeah, Candy Lightner was one of those people.  The problem is that MADD's method of accomplishing this goal included making it a cash-cow for the state so-as to encourage enforcement.  For the record, I give praise to MADD for hammering home a good message.  They've accomplished a great deal to make the roads safer.  Unfortunately, they also created a bureaucratic monster in the process.  It's very simple.  When you turn law enforcement into a for-profit enterprise, bad, bad things will happen.

[rumborak]

I think the solution should be looked for elsewhere then. For example, don't charge fees, just put points on your driver's license that you eventually end up losing your license with.
Problem however is that people are also never willing to pay the taxes it takes to run certain services. That ends up forcing institutions  to look for ways of raising money in ways like that.

rumborak

[El Barto]

I think the solution should be looked for elsewhere then. For example, don't charge fees, just put points on your driver's license that you eventually end up losing your license with.

I'd be much more alright with that.  And some aspects of the current system don't necessarily appall me.  It's just all of them as a whole, particularly when they're detracting from equally dangerous situations.  There's far too much hypocrisy and bullshit in the current system.

Problem however is that people are also never willing to pay the taxes it takes to run certain services. That ends up forcing institutions  to look for ways of raising money in ways like that.

The fact that you're equating DWI enforcement as a form of taxation is exactly the sort of problem I have with the whole thing. 

[rumborak]

Yeah, but why are you looking only at the symptom, not the cause? It's a governmental institution, so nobody is directly lining their pockets with the money the cops are getting (unless you're also saying that it's completely corrupt, but that then borders conspiracy theory). So, the issue is really, why do they need the money? Is it because they're a bloated institution? That could be, even though I actually don't think that's the case. Rather, they get too little money from the public to do their job.

rumborak

[El Barto]

The money gets spread around all over the place.  The Feds hand out tons of money in grants to keep Johnny on the street.  That's the incentive for state and local LE to bust as many people as possible.  Anytime you hear about a roadblock setup somewhere, it's because they're getting grant money.
Plus there's the highway funding which is a long-time, government wielded whip.

The Probation department get's a pretty nice monthly check to keep tabs on you.  The state collects a $3000 surcharge, just because they can.  Then you've got various outside organizations that have lobbied to get themselves contracts.  My stepbrother has to pay huge monthly fees to some guy the judge appoints to deliver anti-alcohol messages.  A AA kind of deal (which he doesn't need since he no longer drinks), that the legislature insists everybody has to attend if they've been convicted.  You also wind up paying MADD a fair chunk of change for all they do to help you.  Then there's a separate fee to the state to continue driving since they technically suspended your license. 

I won't bitch about the massive insurance markup, since there's actually some validity to that, but they really do go overboard with it. 

[William Wallace]

The black box idea is the wet dream of every insurance company in America.  However, the pitfalls of such an idea are severe.  None of us are perfect drivers, and given good telemetry, the folks at Allstate could find an excuse to invalidate 95% of the claims.  Contrary to the William Wallace perspective, where naturally they'll pass all that savings along to us, I don't think we'd see any benefits to that scenario. 

How is a mandatory "black box" at all consistent with my views?

And I'm still not seeing any justification for the .08 standard, other than political motivations.

As soon as I saw yours was the last post, I knew what it was about. 

I was only referring to the libertarian idea that saving an industry money will save the consumer money.  When you save insurance companies money, they increase profits and hire more/better lawyers to further squeeze the consumer.  I'm certainly aware that you'd share my opposition to black boxes.

Insurance regulations are another matter, but profits don't come before people's privacy as far as I'm concerned.

You don't see the pragmatic value of BAC tests? No offsense, WW, but I'm really getting tired of the constant shoe-horning of anything and everything into "political motivations". I mean, believe it or not, there *are* and were people who really just want to make the streets a safer place to be on. No intrigues, no ulterior motives, no money-making schemes, just plain fucking wanting-to-be-safe.

rumborak

Why does disagreeing with you have to mean I sport a tinfoil hat? When I said "political motivations" I was referring more to the means of achieving safer roads than to that end itself. I like safety. But groups like MAAD see only one way to reduce drunk driving - temperance. The less alcohol you can have before getting behind the wheel, the better. So there's nothing especially scientific about the .08 limit; it's mostly politics so far as I can tell.

[rumborak]

Why does disagreeing with you have to mean I sport a tinfoil hat?

I think the tough part is to tease apart which part, when you post an article, you espouse and which not. My immediate assumption upon a posted article is that you completely endorse it. Some of the articles you post are much more extreme than your own views.

But groups like MAAD see only one way to reduce drunk driving - temperance. The less alcohol you can have before getting behind the wheel, the better. So there's nothing especially scientific about the .08 limit; it's mostly politics so far as I can tell.

Well, the exact limit itself certainly is defined mostly by politics since there is a tug-of-war going on.
In my humble opinion, even 0.08 is too high. I mean, my train of thought is that anyone who wants to drive a car on the street should be at the full mental capacity. If they are by nature too stupid too drive, the idea is that they never got the license in the first place.
Now, putting a zero-tolerance in place is problematic because of medications that contain alcohol, or even certain food items. Because of that one must allow for a certain statistical wriggle room around 0.00.
The problem with something like 0.08 is that it inherently says "drink up, just be careful to stay below this arbitrary line", which is a bad message to send. I've seen people routinely do calculations like "if I drink X beers in the first hour, by 2am I will be below 0.08 again, so I should be fine".

rumborak