Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Legalize Drunk Driving

page: 41
64
<< 38  39  40    42  43  44 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 03:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


Well< i would have to ask the OP, but doing something reckless, is NOT a crime.

Doing something reckless, that causes harm, is a crime.

We will have to wait for an explanation from the OP in that regard.

Thing is, are we to make every reckless behavior illegal, talking is reckless if you put it to the test.
Anything could be considered reckless. So are we to make everything that could be possibly dangerous illegal, that is the question.




posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 03:30 AM
link   
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower
 


I think we already know what constitutes reckless driving.

Strangely though, under the current system a person who was drunk and the best driver in the world (whilst drunk or sober) could still be charged for drunk driving, as if he posed an actual danger.

Under the OP's system, our driver would have to be endangering people to be charged (e.g. using both lanes at once, driving the wrong way, steering with his private parts or butt etc.). He has to actually pose a danger to people who are actually present.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 03:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


"If you are driving recklessly then you should be charged with reckless driving . That is what the OP says."

And who will take the responsibility when this reckless driver not only will drive reckless but kill an innocent bystander? OP?

Or is it better to stop such a man just in case? Any saved live is infinity times worth more than drunk drivers rights to run free.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 04:00 AM
link   
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower
 


In such a case if you didn't directly threaten anybody or didn't do harm you are not supposed to go to jail. Unless you don't pay a fine and there's no other options (community based labor or smthg). Unless you drive drunk just too often ofc. Then other arguably measures must be taken.
I agree with you here completely.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 04:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 





steering with his private parts or butt etc.


What if the driver can steer well with his private parts? He could not be punished under your logic then.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 04:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pitons
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


"If you are driving recklessly then you should be charged with reckless driving . That is what the OP says."

And who will take the responsibility when this reckless driver not only will drive reckless but kill an innocent bystander? OP?



The person who committed the homicide is the one who gets charged for it.

In this case, that would be the driver.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 05:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


"The person who committed the homicide is the one who gets charged for it.

In this case, that would be the driver."

If OP would be in the government and would issue a law as he suggests I say a driver and the man who made the law (and those who agreed and voted) would be responsible for taken life EQUALLY. Just the law man and his buddies would be responsible for thousands of deaths overall.

And I 100 % advocate the law which forces a drunken dude to not drive a vehicle. For community and his safety.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 05:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Pitons
 


Exactly. If you know someone is going to kill someone with high probability, and you wont act to prevent it even if you can, you are also responsible for the death. Thus law man and police will also be responsible if they wont stop drunk driver and he kills someone.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 05:16 AM
link   
A vehicle is a lethal weapon and even just a small amount of drink can impair ones judgment - costing you or someone else their life. Just getting behind the wheel is 'endangering' people ffs. Now seat belt laws - fine. It should be my choice if I wear one. But my seat belt is not going to kill anyone else is it?
We need the drink driving legislation as a deterrent if nothing else.

PS OP. I do hope you are not in the UK. If you are can you put out advance notice if you are taking to the roads? Thanks ever so much.
edit on 27-12-2010 by starchild10 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 05:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by starchild10
But my seat belt is not going to kill anyone else is it?


Interestly, it has been argued that when you wear your seatbelts you are more dangerous to pedestrians and cyclists - as you will tend to drive more aggressively.

Seatbelt Laws Cause More Pedestrian And Cyclist Deaths

*Anyhow, lives would be saved if we banned women from driving.

edit on 27-12-2010 by Exuberant1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 05:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 




Anyhow, lives would be saved if we banned women from driving.


Not true. Statistics actually show that men have slightly higher average accident rate than women. Not even talking about lives that would be lost, both directly and indirectly, by banning women from driving. In case of drunk driving, there is both strong casual relationship to accident rate, and number of lives saved by it is almost zero (and in case of emergency, DUI is legal). False analogy.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 05:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


Are you arguing that by removing a large percentage (let's say 40 percent) of drivers from the roads would not reduce traffic accidents?

Is that what you are claiming?



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 06:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


Of course it would, at first. But it would also cause more deaths and suffering, both directly and indirectly. Net effect will be detrimental. If you prove to me that the NET effect of banning 40% of drivers would not significantly reduce quality of life for all (in effect causing more deaths as it prevented), I am all for it. But its just not true. I would agree with banning driving if there was a teleporter.

If you prove to me that legalizing drunk driving would significantly improve quality of life for all and in net effect save more lives than those 400 per year saved now by banning it, I will agree with you. But this is again simply not true, socioeconomic improvement would be negligible compared to damage.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 07:46 AM
link   
I think they should ban driving, it causes death.

I mean if you REALLY look into it, the cause of death due to driving is a HUGE contributor to death.

Let us just make driving ILLEGAL, that way we can get EVERYONE that is a criminal.

Those damn criminal drivers, causing death everywhere you look.

BANISH THEM to the realm of illegality!



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
I think they should ban driving, it causes death.

I mean if you REALLY look into it, the cause of death due to driving is a HUGE contributor to death.

Let us just make driving ILLEGAL, that way we can get EVERYONE that is a criminal.

Those damn criminal drivers, causing death everywhere you look.

BANISH THEM to the realm of illegality!


Compared to drunk driving, normal driving is order of magnitude safer, and crucial for the economy and quality of life. Thats why drunk driving should be banned (except emergencies), and normal driving only limited and regulated.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


No, our current automobile transportation isn't crucial for our economy, we should have built a much better system long ago, that is far less dangerous for the general public, and far more efficient.

Our current automobile transportation system is crucial to the enormous profits of the oil industry and the insurance industry.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 02:32 PM
link   
I really think there are people out there that drink way too much and drive because they just dont give a crap. These people crash into houses, kill pasengers, kill other motorists. This has to be a joke.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 09:13 PM
link   
Ok, i dont now if was posted before. But I want to share anyway.



drive sober and safe.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
Under the OP's system, our driver would have to be endangering people to be charged (e.g. using both lanes at once, driving the wrong way, steering with his private parts or butt etc.). He has to actually pose a danger to people who are actually present.


The problem with that is, if the intoxicated driver crosses into the oncoming lane, an Officer could only issue a citation for Driving on the Wrong Side of the Road. It is not an arrestable offense, at least in Texas. If the intoxicated driver veers into another lane or onto the shoulder, the Officer would have to issue a citation for Failure to Maintain a Single Marked Lane. Again, not an arrestable offense, so the driver would have to be released.

So, what happens when the intoxicated driver is released, after an Officer has observed his/her inability to drive safely and recognized symptoms and evidence of intoxication, then the intoxicated driver crosses into oncoming traffic, just a couple of miles farther down the road.... only this time, it is head on into another vehicle? It would be unfortunate that the Officer could have saved lives, if only he'd had the ability to arrest the intoxicated driver, rather than just write a ticket.



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 05:44 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


hey i didn't read your post, bit i agree with the title.
we should legalize drinking and driving respinsibly.
it's laready legal basically.
i'm certified to sell alcohol and the laws are already pretty lax.
but the Jews want to kill us all w/ alcohol
cuz they're so f'd in the head.
those scums won;t last long...

-WGH~~~~





new topics

top topics



 
64
<< 38  39  40    42  43  44 >>

log in

join