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: 9
5
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 10:52 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 


But see it doesn't really matter, does it? You can find the study if you'd like. It wouldn't make one bit of difference.

Let me ask you, are you in favor of lowering the limit even more? Your study says that .001 hinders driving ability. That's practically a sip. Would you have them in jail?

You are quite right that many handle their alcohol differently (though I do disagree that one drink is dangerous to anyone - even Asians). I will remain consistent with my argument that .08 is too low simply because it's low enough that the only way you'd know they are over the limit is though chemical testing.

If an officer doesn't see swerving, erratic driving, or any other dangers, there is no reason to incarcerate someone for supposedly endangering lives.

Do you not deem it fair that the person should be able to tell themselves whether or not they are safe to drive? By that I mean, most who are at .08 would not even realize it... shouldn't they be able to tell if they are feeling the effects?

I think your own point that people feel differently at different BAC's actually hurts your case. Why should someone get a DUI at .08 if they are not feeling any effects?

What if a test came out to show how much sleep you had? People have different sleep patterns. Perhaps 5 hours of sleep to one is good enough, whereas another would need 8. Should the person who got 5 be punished because the person who needs 8 would be unsafe?

By your own admission, some who are fine at .08 are being punished because others are not. Do you feel that evil must be done in order to do good? What of the many drivers who get DUI's who were not endangering any lives?

[edit on 28-6-2008 by Sublime620]




posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 10:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Sublime620
 


Hiyah Sublime....

Thanks for the time and effort and data you have been continuously bringing to this thread, I really appreciate it.

Your logical arguments and your calm debate have made this discussion more enjoyable for me, so I thank you


It's hard to get past this "Drinking and driving is so bad that we should hang them, even if they have one drink" mentality.

And no I have never been falling down drunk from one beer, no more then a little warm tingly, not much more affect then kissing a good kisser


[edit on 28-6-2008 by LateApexer313]



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 11:17 PM
link   
reply to post by LateApexer313
 


Thanks, man. I'm just trying to bring some logical arguments to the table.

Here's some more facts about tired driving:

Tired Driving


What are the Legal Ramifications?
New Jersey passed 'Maggie's Law' in 2003. It allows sleep deprived drivers who cause accidents and have been awake more than 24 hours to be charged with vehicular homicide. The law also provides liability for companies that require employees to keep such hours. Existing laws in all states may cover the prosecution of drowsy drivers for damages caused, but unfortunately do little to prevent an impaired driver from getting behind the wheel in the first place.


I lived in New Jersey when this law passed. Just like alcohol, it will end up dropping from 24 hours. Why? Because more people will die. People get angry when people die. So something has to be done. To please the mob, new laws are created (that do nothing other than hurt the people that the law "protects").

Soon it will be at least 3 hours of sleep. Studies will be shown that some people react much slower if they don't get at least 6 hours. New laws will be created. People will be jailed, fined, etc.

More Sources


When you are behind the wheel of a car, being sleepy is dangerous. Although most people know how dangerous drinking and driving is, they may not fully realize that drowsy driving can be just as fatal as driving drunk.


This does not excuse driving drunk. I do bet that many "alcohol related accidents" probably occur more due to the person being tired than having consumed alcohol.

The site shows this:

Falling Asleep

In New York State, falling asleep caused half as many accidents as alcohol. Keep in mind this is ONLY falling asleep. It does not include just being tired and having a fender bender (etc).

Tired Driving Effects


People often think that driver fatigue means falling asleep at the wheel. Falling asleep, however, is an extreme form of fatigue.

Fatigue is tiredness, weariness or exhaustion. You can be fatigued enough for it to impair your driving long before you 'nod off' at the wheel. For example, when you are fatigued:

* your reactions are much slower
* your ability to concentrate is reduced
* it takes longer to interpret and understand the traffic situation.

Why fatigue is a problem

The most common effects of fatigue on driving are:

* difficulty keeping your car within a lane
* drifting off the road
* more frequent and unnecessary changes in speed
* not reacting in time to avoid a dangerous situation.


Hmm, sounds like something else we have discussed.

Now I know many will say, "Well I don't drive tired". That's a lie. Everyone has driven tired at some point or another. Guess what? You just endangered lives. You risked lives as much as many of the people who get arrested for DUI's. Not the drunk ones, but the .10 or the .12 ones.

Anyway, people can lie to themselves and pretend that they have never driven tired, ate food while driving, talked on a cell phone, read off of a piece of paper, or any other numerous things that impair abilities. It's not my problem that everyone thinks he/she is innocent.




[edit on 28-6-2008 by Sublime620]



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 12:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sublime620
But see it doesn't really matter, does it? You can find the study if you'd like. It wouldn't make one bit of difference.


So science is useless, good to know.


Originally posted by Sublime620
Let me ask you, are you in favor of lowering the limit even more? Your study says that .001 hinders driving ability. That's practically a sip. Would you have them in jail?


Yep i am in favour of lowering the drink limit, but every case has to be assessed fairly, there was a women in the UK who nearly got arrested after having one drink and a cherry trifle. If the limit was lowered to low then a cherry trifle could be enough to get you arrested and i think it's unfair as anyone could make that very easy mistake.

As for prison, no i'm afraid i dn't agree with drink drivers going to prison, in the UK they ban them from driving for a minimum of 12 months. Lots of people learn from that. As i said earlier a member of my own family was banned for 15 months and regrets it so much he swears not a drop of alcohol will ever touch his lips when he knows he'll be driving. Seems sensible to me.


Originally posted by Sublime620
You are quite right that many handle their alcohol differently (though I do disagree that one drink is dangerous to anyone - even Asians). I will remain consistent with my argument that .08 is too low simply because it's low enough that the only way you'd know they are over the limit is though chemical testing.


Well believe what you wish i was quoting science again which you dont seem to trust. I was also giving personal experience of a big man i saw get absolutely bladdered after one bottle of beer, and no we didn't fill it with vodka



Originally posted by Sublime620
If an officer doesn't see swerving, erratic driving, or any other dangers, there is no reason to incarcerate someone for supposedly endangering lives.


Well that's a poor indicator of reaction time, whit all of these things would show heavy intoxication and a danger to road users. Simple hinderance to reaction times is harder to see until a dangerous situation occurs. Then it shows, this is also why i'm for testing drivers over 60 every 5 years as their reactions can be slowed, that's another thread though i suppose.


Originally posted by Sublime620
Do you not deem it fair that the person should be able to tell themselves whether or not they are safe to drive? By that I mean, most who are at .08 would not even realize it... shouldn't they be able to tell if they are feeling the effects?


Absolutely not, you don't seem to grasp alcohols effects even though you've been intoxicated yourself. Oh and i'm not saying being intoxicated is wrong generally just to be clear, have nothing against drinking. Alcohol effects your reactions and your sense of self, most people will think they're a better driver when drunk, even severly drunk. Alcohol inhibits your ability to make good decisions, afterall no one would eat a donor kebab from some of the awful chip shops i've seen if they were sober :lol


Originally posted by Sublime620
I think your own point that people feel differently at different BAC's actually hurts your case. Why should someone get a DUI at .08 if they are not feeling any effects?


They might not feel the effects but the effects are usually there, so we have to apply it to the masses. I've read the studies and not yet found one that said alcohol increased reaction time. It does however cause people to not realise their reactions are awful. Whilst some people (like myself) can keep a clear head on alcohol and know we're drunk, the majority can't. I'm not saying i'm special here, i've just never done anything stupid whilst intoxicated as i seem to keep my normal brain, just my body doesn't work.

My point being that we ourselves are not good juges of whether our reactions are slowed by a second or more.


Originally posted by Sublime620
What if a test came out to show how much sleep you had? People have different sleep patterns. Perhaps 5 hours of sleep to one is good enough, whereas another would need 8. Should the person who got 5 be punished because the person who needs 8 would be unsafe?


Well any test that did that would test wakeful response, so whilst i only need 3 hours sleep to operate at the same level as smeone else, we would score the same on the test if we were both rested at our respectful levels. So your analogy is incorrect. People do get drunk at diffrent levels of alcohol, but their motor functions are effected in pretty much the exact same ways for each person.


Originally posted by Sublime620
By your own admission, some who are fine at .08 are being punished because others are not. Do you feel that evil must be done in order to do good? What of the many drivers who get DUI's who were not endangering any lives?

[edit on 28-6-2008 by Sublime620]


Whislt the minority require more alcohol to have negative effects to their reaction times, they are a very tiny minority according to studies. Therefore we have to apply the blanket ban because if you said some could and the majority coudlnt' then you create inequality, you also create a case for anyone to claim they're fine under the influence and then when they have an accident tests would have to be done for each individual.

Maybe you would prefer it be part of the driving test? Consume enough to raise your BAC to 0.8 and then test their reaction times, if they pass then they get a shiny gold star on their license allowing them to drive with more alcohol in their system than a normal person?

Or maybe that's just rediculous



Originally posted by Sublime620
Thanks, man. I'm just trying to bring some logical arguments to the table.


So my arguements, backed by scientific research aren't logical?


Originally posted by Sublime620
Now I know many will say, "Well I don't drive tired". That's a lie. Everyone has driven tired at some point or another.


See now that isn't logical at all, you are making a blanket statement with absolutely nothing to back it up. I have never driven tired and that's a promise my friend, when i have felt tired i have pulled over and taken a nap. I plan my lng journeys so that i do not, ever drive tired, because i know the dangers all to well.

Please don't call me a liar for telling the truth.

I don't know what it's like in the states, but anyone found endangering other road users is arrested. If they're swerving everywhere and found to just be tired they can be arrested right then and there.

[edit on 29-6-2008 by ImaginaryReality1984]



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 


No, science is not useless. I think we both know, however, that studies can be twisted and turned in any direction the designer would like it.

You're own story is ridiculous. That's shameful that she was arrested for that. One drink and a trifle. Pfft.

Also, your personal anecdote is just that, an anecdote. Perhaps he was looking for attention? Yes, sadly, I have seen guys fake being drunk for attention also.

Another point is that you keep bringing up reaction time. I have shown many other activities that slow reaction time that don't come with a heavy fine and loss of license. How can you pretend to know what everyone's reaction time will be after one beer?

Perhaps my reaction time after one beer is still better than yours. What then?

And yes, some think they are better drivers when drunk. They should be arrested. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about people who can't even tell if they are over the limit because they are practically sober and can't feel the effects of the alcohol.


They might not feel the effects but the effects are usually there, so we have to apply it to the masses. I've read the studies and not yet found one that said alcohol increased reaction time. It does however cause people to not realise their reactions are awful.


So the person who is driving responsibly at .08 deserves a loss of license over the person who fiddles with the radio, while on a cell phone, and a bit tired after a long day of work?


I have never driven tired and that's a promise my friend, when i have felt tired i have pulled over and taken a nap. I plan my lng journeys so that i do not, ever drive tired, because i know the dangers all to well.


Do you not drive to work? You always get the recommended amount of sleep? You've never yawned while driving? You've never driven home after a long day of work?

There is almost no possible way that you could have never driven while fatigued.

*Edit:

I'm actually going to go ahead and give you the benefit of the doubt that you meant tired as in almost falling asleep. That you've never driven like that. Again, that's not what I'm talking about. I just mean tired as in tired... the way most people mean it. Awake but in need of sleep. That doesn't mean you're about to pass out, but it certainly slows your reaction time (something you apparently think is so deadly that you should lose your license for).

[edit on 29-6-2008 by Sublime620]



posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sublime620
No, science is not useless. I think we both know, however, that studies can be twisted and turned in any direction the designer would like it.


Yay something we agree on, i always hope i can agree on something with someone. However when it comes to reaction times it's kind of hard to falsify unless your'e acusing the scientists of willfully changing results.


Originally posted by Sublime620
You're own story is ridiculous. That's shameful that she was arrested for that. One drink and a trifle. Pfft.


Actually i agree, if you read my post you will see i said we shoudln't lower the limit so low that you can be arrested for a cherry trifle. I'm glad she was aquitted.


Originally posted by Sublime620
Also, your personal anecdote is just that, an anecdote. Perhaps he was looking for attention? Yes, sadly, I have seen guys fake being drunk for attention also.


I wish it were fake, it wasn't however, i've seena few people like it. Tell you the truth, after years of very minimal drinkng my tolerance has become very low to alcohol, one beer makes me go quite flighty.


Originally posted by Sublime620
Another point is that you keep bringing up reaction time. I have shown many other activities that slow reaction time that don't come with a heavy fine and loss of license. How can you pretend to know what everyone's reaction time will be after one beer?


Actually here in the UK all of these can get you in trouble. So your point is null and void, at least in this country
However the point is we're talking about alcohol not the other ones and so they're pointless. I can say the majorities reactions according to science are reduced under alcohol because the studies all, and i mean all point that way. Sorry i will go with science.


Originally posted by Sublime620
Perhaps my reaction time after one beer is still better than yours. What then?


Well i can't say your'e wrong because i've never had mine tested against yours and to claim otherwise would defy logic. If it were the case then you would be in the minority and we would still have to apply the rule of the majority, that most people suffer reduced reaction times with consumption of alcohol.


Originally posted by Sublime620
And yes, some think they are better drivers when drunk. They should be arrested. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about people who can't even tell if they are over the limit because they are practically sober and can't feel the effects of the alcohol.


Well that's a contradiction. Most peopel when drunk can't tell they're drunk. I've seen peopel out of their tree claim they're perfectly sober, people barely able to stand. I've seen people arrested over it ona saturday night, the idiots.


Originally posted by Sublime620

So the person who is driving responsibly at .08 deserves a loss of license over the person who fiddles with the radio, while on a cell phone, and a bit tired after a long day of work?


Apples and oranges. Firstly in the UK you can be done with all of them, driving without due care and attention it's called. However say one were legal and the other wasn't, then you coudn't compare, each case on it's merit, stop trying to bring in other things which you believe are acceptable to a case where it's illegal. I agree with doing none of these things if you're going to push the issue and think they should also be arrestable.



Originally posted by Sublime620
Do you not drive to work? You always get the recommended amount of sleep? You've never yawned while driving? You've never driven home after a long day of work?

There is almost no possible way that you could have never driven while fatigued.

*Edit:

I'm actually going to go ahead and give you the benefit of the doubt that you meant tired as in almost falling asleep. That you've never driven like that. Again, that's not what I'm talking about. I just mean tired as in tired... the way most people mean it. Awake but in need of sleep. That doesn't mean you're about to pass out, but it certainly slows your reaction time (something you apparently think is so deadly that you should lose your license for).


I know it may seem odd to you but i've always gone out of my way not to drive whilst tired. I only need about 3 hours of sleep a night to be at my optimum, there is no real measured recommended hours of sleep. Whislt the government may claim there is the studies don't support them at all. It's different with alcohol consumption though i'm afraid. I've been lucky enough to have jobs where i msotly work from home, computer support often done by phone or remote access


Yes i believe a low reacin time is something you should lose your license over as it can endanger life. That's again why i think you should be tested every 5 years after the age of 60, as this is when reaction time tends to naturally decrease rather rapidly. Are you saying that risking a persons life just so you can drive is acceptable?



posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 


It is good that we finally agree on something.



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 05:53 PM
link   
What kind of world has this become? Why don't we chop peoples hands off for stealing? Hmm maybe because this is an excessive punishment. Maybe sometimes people deserve a second chance, a chance to learn from their mistake. There is a huge difference between being say one and a half times the drink driving limit and five times over the limit. Drink driving is wrong and thats why there are driving bans and fines and sentences depending on the severity of the offence. However, why should you have to declare this for the next eleven years on your license destroying any chance of getting a job in driving. I am a truck driver and a very good driver, probably more alert and attentive than most and i was slightly over the limit in my car (NOT IN A TRUCK!!) for my mistake I recieved a 12 month ban and a fine which is a fair punishment, BUT it does not end there... now I have a code endorsed on my license which everybody gets to see for the next eleven years which means no job and ultimately no life. Employers want to give me work but they can't... why? Because insurance companies load their premiums so high that it just is not worth it. Many more people are killed by drivers who are unfit to drive through tiredness but nobody talks about this!!!! No company is ever taken to court because one of their truck drivers has killed somebody after being tired because they were forced to drive excessive distances. Every truck driver has experienced that feeling of being too tired to drive but at the same time knowing that if you refuse to drive you will lose your job!! I think it would be interesting to compare the statistics for road deaths caused by drinking and those caused by tiredness. I am pretty sure that if I went out and stabbed somebody with a knife I would get a lesser punishment than simply being one and a half times the drink driving limit. This is ridiculous stop being brainwashed people...........




top topics



 
5
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join