It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

One drink may put you over the limit

page: 2
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 02:31 AM
link   
Driving while tired is equally if not more dangerous than drinking under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

I do not condone operating anything if you're impaired, but let's keep this in perspective.

Are you going to put breathalizers in every single vehicle?

Do you plan on putting blood testers in every vehicle to make sure people aren't on drugs?

There's no way to follow through with this law aside from random check points and speeders.

I am against abuses of our rights, but driving impaired is foolish. However, do not think I am all 'high and mighty' and say people who do so are 'bad.'

People make mistakes, that's a fact of life.

If I have a beer or two I am no more impaired than if I was sober. Its called tolerance, as someone else had stated.

If you use proper judgement, there is no need for these laws.

Let's just hope the idiots who do drink and drive on a consistent basis get caught. Everyone makes a mistake once in a while.

I would not like to see a policeman on every corner because they are enforcing some bull# alcohol law...

Let's educate people instead of incarcerating them...

The prisons are already full of drug offenders and instead of letting them lose, child molesters and murderers go free.




posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 02:52 AM
link   
If a person took a shot of whiskey, then got his shotgun and went out into the road and started shooting randomly, and actually hit someone, the penalty would be some kind of attempted manslaughter (I'm not up on the terms) or worse.

Why allow a person to get into a 2 ton vehicle, drunk or impaired and do the same? I say get rid of the 'motor vehicle' related DUI type charges and make them the same as reckless disregard with dangerous weapons penalties, or whatever.

As far as limits and swabbing, I'm more concerned with 'impairment'.

Forget the intrusive testing and just have them do a standard impairment test. If they fail, license is suspended and they have to re-take the exam in 'x' months.

That will get the drunks, drugs, and 90 y.o. peeps who are still trying to drive.

The test should be hard enough (they do it for truck drivers) that it's more difficult than driving, so you pass the test and you've had a several shots of vodka, then heck, you're not impaired. Likewise if you're tripping or high and pass the test, though extremely unlikely, then you are not impaired.

People that never drink might become impaired at very low levels. I don't want them driving, even though they're below some arbitrary cut off.

However if you've just had a couple tablespoons of cough syrup, then that might show on a breathalyser, but you'd hardly be impaired.

2 cents...



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 02:55 AM
link   
If people are REALLY serious about cutting road deaths as a result of drink driving, then zero BAC is the only way to go...

Sure, cutting the legal limit from .08 to .05 is a good start and should result in some reduction of road deaths. If this is the approach taken, then random breath testing should be introduced....

The Australian experience with having uniform .05 BAC limits and very little
leeway over this level, combined with random breath testing as contributed to a significant reduction in road deaths over the last 20 yrs...

The other facto in reducing the road toll here, of course, is much better and faster trauma care for accident victims...

I do love a drink or three, and I admit to driving over the legal limit in my 20's, and as I get older I still love a drink or five but would not even dream of getting into a car for at least 6 hours or so, even longer depending on how much I've had...

It just isn't worth the risk, ever...As the old cliché goes, "It will never happen to me"...But it does happen to lots of people, and you have no way of knowing if and when your number is up if you engage in this type of behaviour...

Peace


EDIT - grammar
[edit on 1-12-2007 by Rilence]

[edit on 1-12-2007 by Rilence]



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 03:34 AM
link   
I've only been 'drunk' twice in my life, and both times I was on foot, or in my room.

However back in the day, we used to always have a beer in the car and I remember getting special holders to put the Miller GD bottles in. When we'd go camping, part of the packing ritual was to put a case in the car and carry enough ice to last the two day trip. We didn't drink but one or two beers on the way, and I never had any 'high' - it was a thirst quencher.

I never drank liquor, and three beers was my limit.

Now I don't drink at all. If I have half a bottle of beer I can feel it. I've probably had less than three beers total in about 20 years, though I'll sit at home and have one glass of champagne for NewYears some years and not finish it.

Not saying I'm holier than thou...but seems there's more traffic and people are more distracted than ever (cell phones, eating stuff, putting on makeup, shaving). It's all bad, imo.

As you say, if he penalties are sufficently high - zero tolerance, then people won't do it. It's too much of a risk to even be caught once...

But again, I don't like the personal searching and bio-intrusiveness.

It would be nice if there was some way to detect impairment of all kinds (age, sleepiness, stupidity, inattentiveness, lack of mechanical aptitude, substances, booze, you name it) If you are impaired then you can't get the car started or something.

The solution is probably to have all automated cars where we're just passengers.


In some ways I'm more afraid of 18-wheelers on meth who haven't slept in 4 days than I am of a casual drinker with a BAC of 0.08.

Sigh...



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 04:24 AM
link   
How hard is it to not drink and drive? Being under the influence of any mind altering substance is unacceptable, and in my opinion, completely selfish! Get a cab, call a friend, whatever you have to do, do it. It's not anybody else's fault that you find yourself making irresponsible decisions with your liquor.



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 04:32 AM
link   
For me, I won't drink at all if i'm planning on driving. im only little 5'3 wieght 50kg. But i do think its funny that i can drink huge men under the table and still be reasonably sensible. Why is that?



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 10:05 AM
link   
I am sure some of you have taken a problem solving class. What are some of the factors that come into play when you try and find countermeasures to stop the problem from happening?

1. You get everyone involved, so that would include:
a. drinkers
b. alcohol producers
c. law enforcement
d. places that sell alcohol
e. public and private transportation companies
f. society in general, this covers many other aspects
g. gov't

So how many of these were brought in to discuss a solution?

What is another step in the process? Finding numerous ways to prevent this from happening, not just one.

1. Is lowering the BAC level the only way to help prevent this? No.
2. How much will it help? We don't know, although you can see what other countries did to get an idea but not an exact answer
3. Where does the real problem lie? Is it in the people or the way society is failing to provide countermeasures?

So would a better public transportation system help? I say yes.
Would a public that looks out for each other help out? Yes
If drinking establishments take more responsibility and help prevent drunks from driving would we see a change in DUIs? another yes from me

This is just an idea of what should be going on. Changing one part doesn't get to the root cause. This is a band aid fix if you ask me. Changing the way everyone thinks will work, anything else is just wishful thinking.


apc

posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 10:54 AM
link   
That's pretty scary if they want to be able to pull people over at random with no probable cause just to test them.

Seems like a HUGE waste of time and taxpayer money. They could pull someone over who was driving perfectly, stone cold sober, and waste 15 minutes of their time and the officer's. Meanwhile a half dozen completely wasted drivers cruise on by that the officer would have noticed had he not been violating the privacy and passage of an innocent.

If you people still have a right to dissent over there, this is certainly something to start an uproar over.



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by goosdawg
I don't know, do you think it was safe to drink two pints and drive?

Just wondering.



Beer? Yes, for the average size man. Liqour? Well then I'd have to say no.



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 11:33 AM
link   
Here in the UK its the nanny state syndrome, the police cannot deal with serious crime but there hot on crime that pays, that is the offender pays a fine. Road users are a soft target and whilst I dont condone drink driving the road user is just a soft target that is hit all the time by the police and city surveilance cameras.

Smoking controls were introduced not for public health but to prevent massive law suits against employers. Alcohol wont be banned and the only way forward with drink driving is two fold, educate people against the dangers and use technology to preven a vehicle from being driven if the driver is not safe to do so.

Unfortunately we seem to be introducing crackpot laws that cannot either be enforced or dont get enforced, many argue that using a mobile phone whilst driving is worse than drink driving, do you see that law getting policed, for every driver over the limit there must be a hundred on mobile phones. Again its just a case of education, what did people do before mobile phones.

But personally I dont se why anyone needs to drink and drive, unless you live in a fairly remote location it si not apoblem for most of us who wish to drink and can leave our cars at home, all it takes is common sense and resposibility, a change of attitude, better to do that than have stupid laws introduced.



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by NJ Mooch
 


The thing is that the majority of drunk driving incidents(accidents/fatalities/property damage), are caused by folks well above the current .08 level. There just isn't evidence that folks in the .05-.08 level are a great menace to society, so this looks like a solution in search of a problem. All this will do is criminalize more people, without making society safer, as well as further encroach on 4th Amendment rights.



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 12:04 PM
link   
Okay - the bad aspects of driving impaired aside ~ I'd like to know why they (UK gov) are planning to reduce the drink drive limit now... Have there been a big increase in accidents, deaths? Or has there been an increase in arrests?

I personally think the current level fine - considering that tired drivers, consistently aggressive and inconsiderate drivers, people on low incomes running death traps and all the other problems going on I think that gongs after drink drivers is the easiest way to placate the grumbling masses.



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by NJ Mooch
 


Excellent, and starred.

One example of 'people looking out for each other' was accomplished in Sweden or one of the European countries.

In one area, instead of more traffic lights, raised sidewalks, and stop signs, they removed the lights, put in some minor right-of-way prompts, and made the sidewalks level with the street.

Critics said it was going to be a disaster.

What happened was remarkable. Everyone slowed down and looked out for each other and became polite sharers. There were virtually no accidents. It was like putting in a crossing in a Mall. Drivers knew this was a 'take care' area and they did. Everyone, walkers, joggers, bikers, drivers did superbly.

Can't find the cite, but the point is a multi-factorial solution is a good idea. Bring in people to discuss. Don't just make a tougher law which is one-sided, 'us against them', while failing to effectively enforce the current laws or better, look for root causes and solve them.



[edit on 1-12-2007 by Badge01]



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 12:11 PM
link   
As much as I dislike government intervention in our personal lives I would hope for a zero tolerance for alcohol concerning drivers.

I have been to too many funerals of friends that were killed on the highway by drinking drivers. It is especially horrific when it's a whole family that gets killed.

I am not anti-alcohol. I've had my share over my life time and will have more if I desire. But after the one and only time 20 years ago when I went to jail for driving under the influence of alcohol I don't drink and drive anymore.

IMO a person should be able to drink alcohol, do other things, and have total freedom in their homes as long as it isn't causing physcial harm to another human.

The highways are for public use. They should be as safe as possible for all using them. Our homes are private and should be kept private.

Marilyn



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anubis Kanubis

A good driver is like Minnesota Fatts and pool. The more you drink, the better you drive.


Have you killed anyone yet? Others may say I'm harsh but that is a reasonable question considering your comment. It is the fact that drunk people believe that statement that leads to so many deaths. So many innocent deaths I should say. The more drinks a person has the less common sense they have.

I thought the same when I was young and DUMB. My best friend now speaks to young people about this topic. After just two Vodkas, after having convinced himself he was safe to drive, he hit and killed a young Lady on the side of the road. The cause? Two drinks of Vodka slowed his reflexes enough it caused the Girls death at the ripe age of 18. He did 7 years in State Prison. Being an honest Man, or he would not be my friend, he admits he deserved every minute of that 7 years and often tries to convince others to TAKE A TAXI! If you can afford to drink, you can afford to hire a Cab. It is just that simple. If you spend so much on drinking that you can not afford a Cab your an Alcoholic anyway and need help.

The random pulling over of vehicles is a whole other matter. That is wrong. Punishing others for someone else's stupid behavior is ridiculous.
Lucky for me, I live in a place where our State Constitution protects my Privacy. Unfortunately our Countries Costitution does not. Do you have that protection in the UK?



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 12:51 PM
link   
I'm all for this. There are days when I can have a glass of wine, and feel perfectly fine. There are other days when I can have two sips and feel two sheets to the wind. It's all about body chemistry and how the alcohol interacts at the time, but it isn't worth driving with that in your system in the first place.



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by niteboy82
 


Well then they might as well stop performing field sobriety tests, and go straight to the breathalyzer. My feelings on the matter is that we want impaired drivers off the road, not someone with an arbitrary blood alcohol content number off the road. I want safe roads too, but I am against absurdity. By this lower standard, the driver can exhibit no physical effects of impairment, either in their driving performance, or in performing the sobriety test, yet still get convicted. That's wrong, and it doesn't make society safer.



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 01:13 PM
link   
This is kind of a hard one for me. I don't believe people should be allowed to drive impaired, my friend's parents were killed by a drunk driver. He's only 16 and has no parents now. On the other hand, my mom might have a glass of wine before she drives me somewhere, and not be "impaired". Cuz I'll tell ya, I'm 5'2" and I don't even get a buzz off a glass of wine, but that's just me. But, if it is hard liquor, that's different. I don't know the comparison of say one glass of wine to a shot of jim beam or something of that sort. So, I don't like the not a drop thing, but I agree the BA limit should be somewhat low.



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Badge01
 


One of the well known experiments was in the village of Oudehaske in the Netherlands, I think that's where the idea of "shared space" between pedestrians and motorists was first pioneered and in the way you've described. Drivers instinctively slowed down as the divide between road and pavement/sidewalk was removed, resulting in fewer accidents & casualties.

The Highway Code advises drivers not to drink & drive at all. It doesn't say you're allowed to drive up to 80mg with absolute impunity ... it tells you to bear in mind that any amount of alcohol will affect your ability to drive safely. 80mg is simply the threshold above which you'll be prosecuted. That's a fine distinction but an important one.

Highway Code

I'm all for lowering the limit because it should hopefully criminalise anyone who drinks & drives. But I've got a particular axe to grind. My cousin's Wife was killed and their two children injured in a collision between their car and that of a guy who was only 20mg over the limit. If you've ever had to attend such a funeral you wouldn't be quite so sure about criticising the so called nanny state.



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 02:55 PM
link   
It is called "Having Presence of Mind" which is not the case with some people either drunk or sober. They continue to Deny Their Own Ignorance!





top topics



 
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join