Legal Drinking-Driving Limit LOWERED to 0.05.

page: 4
9
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 15 2013 @ 05:03 AM
link   
I`m all for zero tolerance also, knowing what it was like when I used to drink its damn hard to stop at just one for many (one would be too many for me nowadays) so it would be a good practice for most people if they plan to drive then don`t drink at all, regardless of a low 0.05 limit.

People and their vehicle are the cause of so many accidental and deliberate deaths or through dangerous driving, so how on earth can people complain about stricter laws or punishing those who`s judgement and physical abilities are further impaired. Why should these people be allowed to put others and their loved ones at risk.

When cars can easily be compared to a weapon, then being under the influence or irresponsible use of the weapon should carry a hefty penalty.Some, their license or right should be revoked to never being allowed to operate one.




posted on May, 15 2013 @ 05:14 AM
link   
reply to post by gps777
 


We Americans realize you Aussies can't handle your alcohol as well and therefore we understand why you support this position. More likely though since you can't have guns either is that you are further along the police state routine than the U.S.



posted on May, 15 2013 @ 05:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by verylowfrequency
We Americans realize you Aussies can't handle your alcohol as well and therefore we understand why you support this position.

I was speaking of myself, I would have little resistance to alcohol now.



More likely though since you can't have guns either is that you are further along the police state routine than the U.S.



Thats just something else your wrong on.



Since the 1997 gun buyback, your chance of being a victim of gun violence has more than halved. Yet as this newspaper pointed out on Monday, the number of guns in Australia has increased by nearly one-fifth over the same period. What's going on?

To understand the policy success of the National Firearms Agreement, it's important to recognise precisely what happened. Alongside the gun buyback, what had been a patchwork of state and territory regulations were strengthened and harmonised. Self-loading rifles, self-loading shotguns and pump-action shotguns were banned. Firearm owners were required to obtain licences and register their weapons.

www.smh.com.au...


I suppose you only wanted a peeing contest which is very common with alcohol and probably the reason your against a harder line on drink drivers.

Ok I`ll play, we gave up our big bad guns because of the mess they can cause and since we are not affraid without them or of our government stopping us, we are threrefore more civil safe and have more courage than an American like you. lol

Back to topic, 0.05 will only affect those who are already putting others at risk, thats why your grumbling about it.There would have been plenty of people grumbling about texting while driving laws as well and yet idiots still do it, same with speed limits etc it never ends, but most laws are there because of the idiots.

So best case senario: hooray for safer roads (if people over there get behind it) to decent Americans and boohoo to you.

edit on 15-5-2013 by gps777 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2013 @ 05:55 AM
link   
reply to post by CALGARIAN
 


Your title says the limit has been lowered. No state has done so. Wht lie in the title? The truth is that the NTSB, which has no regulatory authority, has recommended that the states lower their "per se" limit. Most states have a 2-pronged DUI law. First, it is a crime to drive while impaired. Second, it is also a crime to drive with a BA above the limit.



posted on May, 15 2013 @ 05:59 AM
link   
reply to post by CALGARIAN
 


Back door prohibition - + more cash in the pockets of the state....



posted on May, 15 2013 @ 06:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Vasa Croe
 


I'd love a better public transportation system. I moved to GA from NJ 3 years ago. People told me how bad the traffic was and I said "Yeah, sure. I'm from the Northeast, how bad can it be?" My commute from Cherokee county to Buckhead takes 40 to 50 minutes on a good day, and that's only about 20 miles or so.

Back to the topic at hand. I'm sure that most would agree that these laws simply generate more revenue. The majority of people on the roads Friday or Saturday nights after 8 pm most likely have some amount of alcohol in their system, even if it was just a beer or glass of wine during a dinner out. If you go outside the 285 corridor, public transit is almost non-existent. I'd be much more inclined to support a law like this if the funds were to be used for educating people on drinking and driving or building a better public transit infrastructure. Unfortunately, they will probably be used to fill the coffers of the local PD and their shiny new buildings and cars like Heff said.



posted on May, 15 2013 @ 07:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Kharron
 


You realize your anecdote supports my opinion, right? There's a law so why was the driver texting?

Let's make it punishable by death. No trial to jury no arrest even. Just blow over the limit and the cop gets to execute you on the spot. Okay?

Now how does that stop me from driving drunk?

This is what so many either cant see or wont see.

I'm piss ass drunk and about to get into my car. What's stopping me?
I'm piss ass drunk and just passed three cops. They didnt pull me over since I wasnt speeding, swerving or had any lights out.
I'm piss ass drunk and just plowed into a group of kids selling Bibles killing the lot of them.

Where was the law? Why didnt it keep those children safe? Why was I (and this is the word people who dont get it will use) "allowed" to drive piss ass drunk?

It's as if all these "gotta do something" people get all fired up for some written law or reg then when they get that law or reg they just wipe their hands and say "good job, we're done" and then completely ignore the very problem they sought to solve from that point forward.



posted on May, 15 2013 @ 07:12 AM
link   
This has nothing to do with saving lives. Don’t get me wrong I DO NOT advocate drinking and driving. It kills. Drunk drivers should go to prison. THIS, HOWEVER, is about revenue generation AND control, but mostly control.


“There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.”― Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
edit on 15-5-2013 by ratcals because: Spelling



posted on May, 15 2013 @ 07:12 AM
link   
So how will they measure driving tired?



posted on May, 15 2013 @ 07:15 AM
link   
So how will they measure driving tired?



posted on May, 15 2013 @ 07:27 AM
link   
I'm quite curious as to the financial aspect to bars and restaurants if states do except this recommendation. Because regardless of what the news media spouts about businesses NOT being hurt by the no smoking law passed here in MI, I am friends with two local bar owners here in our town, and it has significantly hurt their business. So now, like another poster said, a couple going out, for their anniversary, having a glass of wine with dinner, may be less inclined to due so.

I'm not for drunk driving, by any stretch, but not only is this more than likely going to make more money for the police, how much would it hurt local businesses even more?
Maybe that is their goals. No more bars.



posted on May, 15 2013 @ 09:04 AM
link   
reply to post by chiefsmom
 


The strict enforcement of the BAC limit via random mobile testing stations (aka booze buses) has affected drink driving but they still catch them regularly despite the heavy fines and disqualifications imposed. Repeat offenders will eventually get themselves time in the lockup as well. Every police vehicle has a portable breathtest device and pretty much every driver stopped for whatever reason is tested.

It definitely had a negative effect on bars, particularly in the inner city as having a few drinks after work was not a good idea if you had to drive yourself home. That lost business was re-directed into bottleshops so there's an explosion of discount liquor outlets now and the 'designated driver' became commonplace as the solution to a night out via private transport. People and businesses adapt though.



posted on May, 15 2013 @ 09:26 AM
link   
reply to post by F4guy
 


HA!!! That's pretty funny.

I know this from experience in these matters. Here in Oklahoma, you may represent yourself during your trial BUT in all proceedings leading up to said trial, such as disposition hearings and other similar matters which occur before a trial, A defendant MAY NOT even come close to approaching the bench WITHOUT representation. You either have a Public Defender or your own licensed attorney.

That is why I would say such things.



posted on May, 15 2013 @ 10:07 AM
link   
The State could care less if you live or die, this is purely revenue driven. ALWAYS IS.



posted on May, 15 2013 @ 10:17 AM
link   
It's been .05 here in australia for as long as I've known.

In fact just the other day I blew right on the limit.


I'm a big guy and .05 feels juuuust about OK for me, but I'd probably still say its better to err on the side of caution with such things. If I made a mistake and killed someone on the road, even if I was under .05 I'd always wonder from that day on if I'd been less drunk if it would have happened.

Hangon, let me see if I can find a video of the hilarious drink driving skill tests they did in australia many decades ago...
edit on 15-5-2013 by cartesia because: (no reason given)
edit on 15-5-2013 by cartesia because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2013 @ 10:18 AM
link   
I have no problem with this.

I actually got a DUI when I was 21. Ironically, it was on a night (St. Patrick's Day) when I had purposely limited my drinking because I knew the cops would be out and about. I had two beers and a shot of jamison over a 3-4 hour period.

I got pulled over and blew a 0.89 and guess what? I really did feel tipsy. At 0.8, there is a bit of inebriation.



posted on May, 15 2013 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by CALGARIAN
 



The idea is part of an initiative to eliminate drunken driving, which accounts for about a third of all road deaths.


Bull. The idea is to fill the coffers of local government.

Not that it is really a bad thing, as you shouldn't drive drunk anyhow. How difficult is it to take a cab or call a friend? I've been that friend many a time, and even at 2am, it's better than driving to the morgue to identify the body of a friend. Have a designated driver, stay the night, call a cab, or call a friend. There are other options. (and they are FAR less expensive than getting a DUI).



posted on May, 15 2013 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by angryjaimen
 



I got pulled over and blew a 0.89 and guess what? I really did feel tipsy. At 0.8, there is a bit of inebriation.


You should have refused the test, and even a crappy lawyer would have completely gotten you off. You realize that right?

Never got a DUI myself (on the contrary, I'm usually the DD), but I have been in traffic court and seen enough of them go before a judge. (I successfully beat my ticket by the way (wasn't for a DUI, it was due to my street not having signage to tell me I was in an active school zone), so felt pretty damn good about myself).
edit on 15-5-2013 by Gazrok because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2013 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by KewlDaddyFatty
reply to post by F4guy
 


HA!!! That's pretty funny.

I know this from experience in these matters. Here in Oklahoma, you may represent yourself during your trial BUT in all proceedings leading up to said trial, such as disposition hearings and other similar matters which occur before a trial, A defendant MAY NOT even come close to approaching the bench WITHOUT representation. You either have a Public Defender or your own licensed attorney.

That is why I would say such things.


If some whacko judge is doing that, he is violating not only the Supreme Court ruling I referred to, but also 2 separate provisions of the Oklahoma Constitution. Article III, Section b states, ""A judge shall accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding, or that person's lawyer, full right to be heard according to law. Article II, section 6 states, "The courts of justice of the State shall be open to every person, and speedy and certain remedy afforded for every wrong and for every injury to person, property, or reputation, and right and justice shall be administered without sale, denial, delay, or prejudice."
While it is appropriate for a judge to advise a person to obtain counsel, it is reversible error for a judge to deny an adult, mentally competent person the right of self representation. There are a multitude of reasons why a lawyer should be obtained. I can quickly think of one situation where self representation is appropriate. If a defendant has a record of a felony or certain misdemeanors, and he/she takes the stand to testify, the prior record can be introduced in court. However, if the defendant represents himself and makes a closing argument, he is, in effect, testifying, and no prior crimes can be brought up.
Any judge acting as you say should be reported to the Oklahoma Council on Judicial Complaints in Oklahoma City.



posted on May, 15 2013 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by CALGARIAN

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
I think it should be zero tolerance, you take a drink, you don’t drive.

Drink driving kills


Never happen. Restaurants and such would lobby so hard


Like the restaurants stopped the zero tolerance smoking bans?

Although I do not agree with drinking and driving, I have to look at what is happening these days as an attack by the government on fun. All forms of fun. Think about it, if something isn't outright banned or relegated to some small corner of personal space, it's licensed all to hell and back.

Cheers - Dave





top topics
 
9
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join