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: 4
5
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 11:19 AM
link   
I recently had my first DUI in early May. I was in miami and was pulled over for driving to slow, "sorry I was trying to concentrate and make sure I would not cause an accident by staying in the slow lane." pulled over taken to the station after the roadside tests, and my car wasnt even impounded. It was left on the side of I-95 at exit one next to MLK Blvd. I was held at the station, than transferred to TKG which is a newer cleaner jail in miami, After a few hours there I was shackled and put on the paddi-waggon and transfered to the Dade County Jail where I spent just about 20 hours in because I had to wait for the pre-trial in there. Had to have been the best boloagne sandwich Ive ever had in my life. DUI laws are to strict even the founder of M.A.D.D. has 2 DUI's.




posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 11:23 AM
link   
DUI is a victimless crime.

Its the same as a hate crime.It makes no sense.

If you hurt someone or damage somthing,then you have committed a crime.You should be punished for those things at that point.

To many laws,its a scam.I know people get hurt,but you cant make laws for crimes that have no victim.This is just another step toward martial law.



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 11:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Bigjely
 


Perfect example...

IMO you should have been ticketed for driving to slow,not DUI.Driving to slow is driving to slow.It makes no difference that you were over the limit.



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 11:30 AM
link   
This is a difficult subject because you really can't go out in favor of drunk driving.

Special interests groups have inflated DUI statistics to push their own agendas.



MADD makes misleading statements about the number of people killed by drunk drivers in an apparent effort to exaggerate the extent of the problem and enhance fundraising and legislative lobbying efforts. However, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety reports that MADD’s PR makes “the problem look bigger than it is.” 68

Although it's declining, the problem of alcohol-related traffic fatalities remains very serious. However, there’s no legitimate reason to insist falsely that it’s “a growing epidemic.”

Similarly, the Partnership for Safe Driving has criticized the President of MADD for misleading the public about road risks by asserting that "We don't want cell phones and drowsy driving to become the next hot-button issue for the country, because they don't even compare with the problem of drunk driving." The Partnership for Safe Driving points out that there are many forms of dangerous driving, including speeding, aggressive driving, distracted driving, drowsy driving, driving under the influence of alcohol and drugs, dangerous police chases, operating a vehicle with poor brakes or tires, improperly loading vehicles, and unsafe towing practices.


Obviously drinking and driving is something that should be taken seriously. But this assault on the social drinker is just insane. Eight people attend a dinner party at a restaurant and all catch approximately the same amount of buzz and drive home. Seven make it home safely, one rolls a stop sign gets pulled over, blows a .08, cuffed, thrown in jail, fined, placed on probation, loses their license, possibly their job and is considered a pariah by those same seven people that just did the same thing they did. It's absurd to target these people.

It's the habitual, .15 BAC and above drunk drivers that cause the majority of accidents. These are the people that need to have their lives ruined, they are criminals. Not someone that had three cocktails at dinner.

It's neo-prohibitionism in it's worst form and another unfortunate aspect of the nanny-state.



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Choppsmcfame

DUI is a victimless crime.

Its the same as a hate crime.It makes no sense.

If you hurt someone or damage somthing,then you have committed a crime.You should be punished for those things at that point.


The problem with DUI, is that you are wielding a gun that you have no control over and the potential victim is random.

Drinking and driving is brandishing a 4000 pound vehicle and someone not being in full control of their reasoning capacities.

Innocent drinking and driving victims have spurred this action. Mankind seems to be more concerned about his potential loss of driving privilege then the potential loss of life.

Hate crime...sure, a hate crime of " I hate to see people who are acting responsibly get killed by those that aren't.

reply to post by PistolPete
 



Originally posted by PistolPete
Obviously drinking and driving is something that should be taken seriously. But this assault on the social drinker is just insane.


They way you take it seriously is responsible planning. Alcohol is an impairment no matter how you slice it. Since people aren't taking it seriously, those that are charged with keeping the roads safe are.

Peace


[edit on 22-6-2008 by HIFIGUY]



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by HIFIGUY
 


There is a difference between being critically impaired and having a little buzz. Reaching for a CD impairs your driving. Changing the radio impairs your driving. Checking out the girl in the car your passing impairs your driving. Being tired impairs your driving. I sincerely doubt anyone reading this that drives has never had "impaired" driving.

One type of impairment isn't worse than another. Driver distraction causes a lot more accidents than alcohol.



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by HIFIGUY
 


I just wonder where it ends.

If you are under the influence should you not be able to cook because you have no control over your cutlery?We had better make a law!What about a wine glass?Easily converted into a deadly weapon?Make a law you say?

You see where I'm going with this right?



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Choppsmcfame
I just wonder where it ends.

If you are under the influence should you not be able to cook because you have no control over your cutlery?We had better make a law!What about a wine glass?Easily converted into a deadly weapon?Make a law you say?

You see where I'm going with this right?


Yes, I really do. On a personal level, I was taken by the state patrol at one time to a local jail where I was given 4 field sobriety tests in a row which I passed. The officer made it clear to me by holding up his fingers that I was just " that " close to being impaired.

If I passed once, why not let me go? Why four times? Aggressive Officer? I think so in this case.

We have created a society of a particular order and expectation. The enforcement of that expectation comes in the form of laws, customs, and accepted norms. When people go outside of those boundaries, laws are enacted to contain potentially hazardous situations.

Drink all you want in your kitchen. Made a shank out of a wine glass in your house? Personally, I think youd do better using your cutlery.

reply to post by PistolPete
 


As far as the cell phone and looking around comment. Its our job to look around while driving. Its another thing to be tunnel visioned on one thing and creating a hazardous condition. Whether it be a GPS device, text message or dialing a number. Our number one job when driving as a driver is to be safe.

Here in my state, was an interesting test done by the WSP.

www.komonews.com...

And when i did the search, I found out we have a state law against texting while driving.

www.cellular-news.com...

Safe drivers know what safe is. Simple as that. Im not against your opinions, but Im wondering what we can do to achieve the level of safety that the community desires?

Peace


[edit on 22-6-2008 by HIFIGUY]



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by LateApexer313

Why ISN'T there special plates for pedophiles and sex offenders? Why this huge conspiracy over the DUI offenders?


There are plans to do that in Ohio now, if it hasn't already gone into affect. I forget the color, pink or something like that.

I don't see any harm in first time offenders of DUI to have special plates and having it on their record for life. First time offender means first time caught, not necessarily first time driving DUI. First time offenders can kill a family just as easily as a 3rd time offender.



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 12:32 PM
link   
I've seen the amber-and-red plates around town occasionally. At first I reacted with some surprise and possibly a little hard feelings toward the driver, I person I hadn't even met yet. Then I realized that he or she was just another human who had driven drunk at some time or other. Now I don't give the plates a second look. If we really are getting green plates for child molesters and I see one I'll probably go through the same sequence again. I believe long term these special plates will desensitize us to these crimes and the people who commit them. Drunk drivers and child molesters will be "mainstreamed" this way.



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Shadow_Lord
 

I don't see any harm in first time offenders of DUI to have special plates and having it on their record for life. First time offender means first time caught, not necessarily first time driving DUI. First time offenders can kill a family just as easily as a 3rd time offender.


Some people drink and drive thier whole lives and never get a DUI.How about we charge people that kill while under the inluence with murder or manslaughter?

This is not letting anyone off easy.Creating loopholes for murderers to get off because of an addiction is letting these people off easy.

[edit on 22-6-2008 by Choppsmcfame]

[edit on 22-6-2008 by Choppsmcfame]



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 12:50 PM
link   
double post sorry

[edit on 22-6-2008 by Choppsmcfame]



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by PistolPete
 


Comparing momentarily distractions against intoxication is pretty way of. The fact that people still don’t see the difference between them requires the harsh penalties even more. I for one think the penalties for drinkdriving can’t be harsh enough.

Alcomobilists should never be allowed to take off and I think the problem will be eradicated in the near future. Preventing beats punishing.




posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 01:05 PM
link   
[edit on 22-6-2008 by Choppsmcfame]



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 01:08 PM
link   
[edit on 22-6-2008 by Choppsmcfame]



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 01:12 PM
link   
I think we need to distinguish between drunk drivers and drivers who just happen to be a tick or two above the legal limit. If a drunk person is driving dangerously and/or hurting somebody, that person deserves a harsh punishment. On the other hand, people who are otherwise acting safetly who are slightly over the legal limit because they had two drinks instead of one should not be branded with a felony conviction.

People who get drunk driving citations are not necessarily driving dangerously when they get their citations. In many cities police departments use drunk driving laws as a revenue generating schemes.

In many cities, cops will lie in wait outside bars are closing time. They will find some pretext to pull someone over like driving one mile per hour over the speed limit, matching the general description of somebody who committed a crime in the area at any time in the recent or not so recent past (e.g. the driver is a Black person driving a red car and a Black person driving a red car held up a liquor store in the area 3 months ago), or exhibiting "suspicious behavior." They do not necessarily pull people over because they people are driving dangerously. Once they pull over the person they go automatically to a field sobriety test, and these people will often fail the field sobriety test. The people will then have to pay thousands of dollars in fines and legal fees to clear their good names.

Our law enforcement resources are better served not aggressively pursuing good people who do not appear to be acting dangerously. Cops never seem to have the time to go after muggers, rapists, burglars, and other real criminals, yet if you go to an area with a lot of bars you may see dozens of cops lying in wait to hand out DUI's on a Friday or Saturday night.



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by PistolPete
 


One thing we should note is that drivers who are impaired because they are talking on the phone, yelling at their kids in the back seat, putting on their make up, eating, etc. can be found on the roads in large numbers at all times of the day. These people put large numbers of people, including children, at risk because they are on the road at times like rush hour, when the roads are most frequently used.

Drunk drivers on the other hand, are usually out on the road late at night when the bars close. Children are generally not out on the road at these times, nor are large numbers of people. I try to stay off the road at these hours to avoid drunks, and if I do happen to be on the road at these times, I am extra cautious. It is relatively easy to spot and avoid a drunk and dangerous driver on the road because there are few cars out on the road late at night.

I cannot however, their is nothign I can reasonably do to avoid or protect myself from drivers with other types of distractions. Drivers with other distractions are on the roads at all times of day. Their are large numbers of them and they can blend into the crowd of other cars on the road.

Of course society will never go after the cell phone-yapping soccer moms who yell at their brats in the back seat with the same zeal as they go after the so called drunk drivers. Perhaps it is because the cell phone yapping soccer moms have lended their support to MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Drivers, a group that advocates strict DUI laws) because they want to make the road a safer place.



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
I think we need to distinguish between drunk drivers and drivers who just happen to be a tick or two above the legal limit.


I think we should distinguish this by the damage they have done.

If they have done no damage to anyone or anything then they should not be punished.



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by D.Wolf

 




Alcomobilists should never be allowed to take off and I think the problem will be eradicated in the near future. Preventing beats punishing.




This mindset seems like we just keep preventing all of our rights away.We may as well prevent everything and anything that can be dangerous.

I'm sure we will all be forced to buy one of these things as soon as Cheney buys stock in the company.



posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by GradyPhilpott
 


The elderly

I would imagine they account for a higher rate of vehicular homicides than drunks, but thats just a hunch, no facts or figures to back it up.
~Grizzly



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join