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.

 

Is There an Unfair Bias Against Drunk Drivers?

page: 3
5
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 05:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by LateApexer313
reply to post by GradyPhilpott
 


Grady, that's my point, we tolerate pedophiles and sex offenders, giving them not even the amount of fines and/or restrictions of that of the misdemeanor DUI people. Why don't the pedophiles and sex offenders bear a plate like this as well? They are just as dangerous as the DUI offenders, if not more so in my opinion.

People on their cell phones while driving cause as many accidents as people under the influence and do they have to get special plates? It's not even against the law in most states and when it is? It's a ticket.



Many studies have shown that using hand-held cellphones while driving can constitute a hazardous distraction. However, the theory that hands-free sets are safer has been challenged by the findings of several studies. A study from researchers at the University of Utah, published in the summer 2006 issue of Human Factors, the quarterly journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, concludes that talking on a cellphone while driving is as dangerous as driving drunk, even if the phone is a hands-free model. An earlier study by researchers at the university found that motorists who talked on hands-free cellphones were 18 percent slower in braking and took 17 percent longer to regain the speed they lost when they braked.


www.iii.org...

[edit on 21-6-2008 by LateApexer313]


Even hands free? This is going a little too far I think.

Next we'll be told that its a serious offense to talk to the person next to you in your car.......




posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 06:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by jpm1602
I really love the holier than thou let them suffer types. You were never young and dumb?
You have never attended a wedding reception and imbibed? Rubbish.
Think about it.
First time. Fine, classes, within certain limits. .16, no first time easements.
After that, a second offense let them put a blooming neon sign on the roof.


I am still young and stupid, 22 here, yes i've attended weddings and imbibed, but guess what, i didn't drive to the wedding, shock horror huh. There is no excuse to drink and drive and the fact your'e just trying to find a way it's ok is shocking. Maybe if someone runs down a member of your family you'll change your mind, or maybe if you run someone over yourself.



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 06:36 AM
link   
Mothers against being alive and having a life Rofl...

Dui laws are insane, I used to promote night clubs, I'd guesstimate 80,000 drunk drivers a night in the particular city... when the laws for that county became a felony, the number of deaths slipped from 36 for the year to 33

OMG they saved so many lives!!!

Drinking doesn't cause accidents mostly idiots do.

For instance, i'd gladly drink a 1/5th of JD and take a road test against any senior citizen in the world... who is to say where you are impared? What is your skill in the first place?

Sometimes we go through dumb phases of things... should be one Law...

"Driving Like an Arse Hole"

LOL please someone study senior citizen accidents vs dui accidents weekly for a couple of years so we can all laugh.

more morons slip and fall on there heads in the shower every day by a factor of 10 then cause duis and lol in America everyone is on "something" Prozac vs Booze? They sure test big for driving on Meth lol...

I mean it's just so stupid...



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 06:59 AM
link   
reply to post by josephine
 


No. DUI. Driving under the INFLUENCE. It doesn't mean you're hammered out of your mind, but that your driving skills are not up to par, because you've been drinking, whether you feel drunk or not.

I think the limit should be 0.00. Then no-one has an excuse to be wagering other people's lives on them not having to pay for a taxi because they're tight and selfish. Had a drink? Have a cab. Save a life.



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 07:07 AM
link   
This thread is very close to me as i have been on BOTH sides of the argument.

When i was 12 i was an awesome runner, the 100 meters in 11.3 seconds with no training, i was on the cusp of being taken up by a coach and even going to the olympics one day was talked about.
Then one day at about 1:00pm i was riding home with some friends from fishing at a local pond in a field that the nice farmer let people fish in for free.
I was crossing the road on my bike and i was hit by a taxi driver.
My left knee took the force of the impact and myself and my bike landed on my right knee, i havent been able to run much since and i am still in pain 11 years later.
Thinking back the driver was oviously intoxicated when she got out of th car it was obvious, but me being 12 i didn't realise and didn't inform the police when the driver drove away after only seeing if i was still alive.
I was fine apart from my knees and i even managed to stand up, my friends called my parents and they picked me up from the scene.
I didn't get a license plate or anything so my parents couldn't do anything.

Then 7 years later aged 19, i was driving home froma party in ther next town and i was stopped by the police.
I had drank 1 pint and i hadn't even finished that so i was well below the limit.
The police breathalised me and the result came out as a blank, a non-reading due to the medication i was on at the time.
Now i had asked my doctor if it was o.k. to drink with the medication and he said it was fine as long as i didn't drink too much.
Well i had only had one and that went unfinished so i was fine.
The police due to the breat test comming out blank which the policeman said was very unusual, they took me to the police station and gave me another test which also came out as a blank.
They then decided on a unrine test and i was given 1 hour in orded to produce a urine sample.
Well i had gone to the toilet just before leaving the party, and a side effect of my medication was that i produced less urine and went to the toilet less than normal.
I couldn't produce a sample within the hour they gave me and i was subsequently charged with "refusing" to provide a sample for testing.
I appealed the charge but due to the side effect of "reduced flow" (not going to the toilet as often as normal) being such an unusual and unprovable side effect and the fact that by the time it came to court i had been off the medication for two months i couldn't defend my case.
I lost my license and even now nearly 5 years later i still can't afford to get my license back let alone the increased insurance premium due to the conviction.

So i have been on both sides of the argument and i have come to thiss conclusion.
Those who are rightfully guilty of drunken driving desearve what they get, but remember there are a minority of convicted people who are actually innocent.
Smokey.



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 07:14 AM
link   
reply to post by smokey101
 


Damn that sucks. You should have asked for them to take a blood sample instead of a urine sample, or at least got the cops to speak to your doctor (or spoken to a police forensic examiner, if they have those in the US - they'd know what's up).



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 07:26 AM
link   
The might have them in the U.S. but here in England we are lucky sometimes if the police even bother to go as far as to investigate something let alone go to the trouble of get a forensic examiner involved.
The police in all countries are being bogged down by so much paper work that they only bother with the big things or things that require the least paper work or "desk time".



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 07:40 AM
link   
reply to post by smokey101
 


That sounds odd to me because any good solicitor would be able to argue about your medication you were on at the time. There have been similar cases here in the UK i know of under similar conditions. They had to fight but they got their conviction overturned.



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 08:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Driving under the influence is a crime that is not taken seriously enough.

The measures you cite are extreme, but the crime is equally extreme.

A person who drives under the influence is putting everyone in his path in danger.

There is a conspiracy here and it is a justifiable conspiracy.

As a class, drunk or otherwise chemically impaired drivers kill tens of thousands of people each year in America.

What other class of individuals this deathly dangerous would we tolerate?



[edit on 2008/6/21 by GradyPhilpott]

This is not as black and white as you would have us believe. Know what the limit is in most states? .08

I believe it was either Sweden or Norway who undertook a study of how people drive under the effects of alcohol. Know who did the best? People that were at .06. They even did better than TOTALLY SOBER people. Do you think it is a coincidence that none of you have heard of this study, and it's replications?

You see, government officials like to say "drunk drivers kill people", but no one stops to ask the obvious question: "How drunk?" You don't see people that are .08 killing people. Every time it is .15 or .18, or .20. Notice the news stories about this one. See if you can find someone who has killed someone else from "drunk driving" when they were at .08 or .10. There might be a couple out there, but I haven't seen them.

Also, see if you can find ANYONE who has done a study showing a correlation between how drunk the people actually were, versus whether they were in an accident, or killed someone. If you can't find one, ask yourself this: "If this is so important, why hasn't someone studied it?"

Last thought. Notice that we now have the technology to almost totally eliminate drunk driving, but it hasn't been implemented. As yourself why it hasn't. Here's a hint: Think $$$$$.

[edit on 22-6-2008 by sir_chancealot]



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 09:02 AM
link   
I was a drunk driver once, good thing it was only a scooter and I was in a park in the middle of the night. Result, scooter and I got hit by the pavement very soon

I was feeling very confident about riding the scooter right there, now I just hope to remember to not try anything if drunk, and stay away from any kind of vehicle. No police was involved, but if they would have caught me I would have deserved special number plates



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 09:05 AM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 


Glad you think you can tell people they have a problem. You don't know me or them. Who are you?


Listen Freud, .08 is nothing. It's 2 beers at best. I can drink 2 beers and ace a calculus exam. There are plenty of police testimonials about how it is tricky to catch drivers who are near the limit because their driving is not erratic.

Here, at least take a read of the other side before you go judging and psychoanalyzing the situation:

.08 is too low

*Edit:

I do want to point out that I think you have a previous bias against people who drink alcohol. You clearly seem to think that anyone who may have a glass or two of wine with dinner has a problem.

[edit on 22-6-2008 by Sublime620]



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 09:43 AM
link   
I wont lay out my own experiences with DD incidents, rather address the original thought of this thread.
OP, I read the story that you linked. The colored plates are in use during suspension while under driving priviledge.
Lets examine this. Ok, a person goes out, drinks too much and makes the stupid decision to drive. They get pulled over or go through a checkpoint and get caught driving under the influence (or OVI). They are charged, found guilty and jump through all of the hoops. Normally, this comes with a license and driving priviledge suspension. This would seriously hinder the ability to work and take care of normal life. They are issued a priviledge to drive (in my state its called Hardship) because they have to in order to continue their normal life. The consequence of this priviledge is that they have to wear this yellow and blue brand for the duration of the suspesion of priviledge (to drive). This brand is only for the short time that they are under suspension, not a permanent brand for life.
It tells the police that this person is driving on suspension legally but have shown a potential for breaking the law.
Ok, so for several months this person has to deal with some fallout for what many consider to be a stupid mistake in judgement. Since the time you are a child, you learn that humiliation is often a hard, but convincing, teaching tool. As well, this makes a statement to others that they might want to think twice about drinking and driving, if for no other reason than to avoid humiliating themselves and their family.
I think this is a unique deterant to OVI (or DUI/DWI, depending on where you live).

(in contrast to the first line in my post) Perhaps my step brother would be alive today if the guy that killed him while DUI would have been through this type of humiliation.



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 09:44 AM
link   
reply to post by LateApexer313
 


i am grateful that i am in a position where i no longer have to drive a car------i've experienced my share of drunk drivers and road ragers and street racers and tail gaters and just plain inconsiderate road hogs that drive below the speed limit where it is not legal to pass them and then speed up and exceed the limit where it is legal to pass them and now its drugged drivers besides that have joined in the madness on the highways.
it wouldn't bother me in the least if all of these lose their driving privileges forever the very first time that they get caught.
i don't see why i should have to live in jeopardy because some others want to live "on the edge"



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Sublime620
 


Don't misquote me, i said that anyone who can't have dinner without a drink has a problem. If you know it's illegal and probably unsafe to drive whilst intoxicated, and yet you simply cannot do without your drink with dinner. Then yes i say that means you have a problem, if you can't say no to a drink, yep problem.

I'm not against alcohol, i have no previous bias, hell if you read my posts you'll see i said i drink sometimes myself. Look at the context of what i said. I didn't say "Having a drink with dinner means you have a problem". That alone wouldn't make any sense.



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Sublime620
 

I agree 0.08 is way too low which leads me to believe this is one giant money machine here in Michigan. Its not for safety anymore or education. You have one beer and your life is ruined for at least 2 years.

A few years back on a Friday night I had to reboot a server and when I finally got out of work it was 1:30 am. I got pulled over and the cop was a real prick when I wouldn't tell him where I was coming from or where I was going. I asked him why he pulled me over and he said my right turn signal was broke? My turn signal was jacked up as it did blink really fast but it still indicated a right turn so I am not sure where the law is for that... I am sure in his eyes and from his posture it deserved a water boarding session.

Anyway, clearly he was looking for drunks on the road and decided I looked like the type or he was board so he stopped me. Because I wouldn't tell him what I was doing he did make me get out of the car, walk the line in front of everyone passing by on the road and then gave me the breathalyzer. He asked me again what I was doing but I refused to tell him. At that point I really wanted to tell him I was running interference for the drunks but I'm not that brave...


I did feel a little victory though. In the end I never did tell him what I was doing, where I was coming from or where I was going. I also didn't get a ticket so my turn signal must meet standards.

If he was nice about the whole thing I would have told him what I was doing but he was robo cop from the get go and assumed he was the only one on the job at that hour...

I don't know why most cops can't say "how ya doing tonight?" Not this one... My hands were clearly at the top of my steering wheel. He has his hand on gun standing behind my left ear almost shouting license and registration... At that point all bets are off with me being nice as well... I still wish I would have told him I was running interference for the drunks... Maybe if there is a next time I might have the courage to push it..



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 10:39 AM
link   
No need to have special plates, just equip every single vehicle with an alcokey. Byebye drunk driving.

Child molesters don’t need special plates either. They need some permanent surgery down below.

This leaves us Dutch our yellow plates, thank you.



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 


I couldn't afford my own solicitor so the court appointed one to my case.
Trouble was out of the three times i had to appear in court over the matter, i never got to see the same solicitor twice! lol.



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 


I couldn't afford my own solicitor so the court appointed one to my case.
Trouble was out of the three times i had to appear in court over the matter, i never got to see the same solicitor twice! lol.



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 10:54 AM
link   
double post sorry. damn computer keyboard was covered in grease from my pizza i just ate and i was cleaning it while posting lol.

[edit on 22/6/2008 by smokey101]



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 11:06 AM
link   
i don't think it's fair to brand someone with something that everyone on the road can discriminate against.

the people getting the DUI's are already having to deal with their actions in court, huge fines, the the fact that they may have killed someone, etc.

being put out in public to be judged is primitive and not a good way to handle this.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join