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.

 

New law in Washington State starts today

page: 3
12
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 30 2013 @ 02:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero
Since just about everyone NEEDS to drive for a living,


No they do not. They can walk, jog, ride a pushbike or take public transport or even taxi's....




posted on Jul, 30 2013 @ 02:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Jerk_Idiot
 


Personally, if someone drives into me I do not care if they have been drinking, were doing makeup, were reading a book while driving, were texting, eating a Big Mac, were on prescription medicine, or just didn't have enough sleep!
There are laws against texting but yes, there are a lot of stupid people on the road. But have you compared the fatality statistics for distracted driving to those for DUI? In 2011 there were 3,331 fatalities involving distracted drivers in the US (around 1,500 for drowsy drivers). There were 9,878 alcohol related fatalities. It's significantly more likely you will be killed by a drunk driver than by one who is texting. Three times the fatalities are alcohol related.
www.distraction.gov...
www.centurycouncil.org...
Distracted driving is bad but the thing is, you can stash your phone when you come to a roadblock or a cop pulls you over because you weaved so enforcement is a bit more problematic.

Extremely fatigued drivers can be just as dangerous as drunken ones but again, it's hard to prove that someone was too sleepy to be driving.



Final say. This is NOT about safety, it is NOT about removing dangerous drivers from the road, this is NOT about getting an accurate result, this is NOT about saving lives, this is ONLY about getting an increased money stream.

In 1982 there were 43,945 traffic fatalities in the US. 60% of them were alcohol related.
In 2010 there were 32,885 traffic fatalities in the US. 31% of them were alcohol related.
That's 16,000 fewer alcohol related fatalities.
www.alcoholalert.com...

The number of alcohol related fatalities declined 60% between 1982 and 2010.
The number of non Alcohol related fatalites increased by 3%
Stiffer laws and increased enforcement seems to be having some effect.
edit on 7/30/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2013 @ 03:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Jerk_Idiot
 


Personally, if someone drives into me I do not care if they have been drinking, were doing makeup, were reading a book while driving, were texting, eating a Big Mac, were on prescription medicine, or just didn't have enough sleep!
There are laws against texting but yes, there are a lot of stupid people on the road. But have you compared the fatality statistics for distracted driving to those for DUI? In 2011 there were 3,331 fatalities involving distracted drivers in the US. There were 9,878 alcohol related fatalities. It's more likely you will be killed by a drunk driver than by one who is texting. Three times the fatalities are alcohol related.
www.distraction.gov...
www.centurycouncil.org...
The thing is, you can stash your phone when you come to a roadblock or a cop pulls you over because you weaved.



Final say. This is NOT about safety, it is NOT about removing dangerous drivers from the road, this is NOT about getting an accurate result, this is NOT about saving lives, this is ONLY about getting an increased money stream.

In 1982 there were 43,945 traffic fatalities in the US. 60% of them were alcohol related.
In 2010 there were 32,885 traffic fatalities in the US. 31% of them were alcohol related.
That's 16,000 fewer alcohol related fatalities.
www.alcoholalert.com...

Alcohol related fatalities declined 38% between 1991 and 2011.
Stiffer laws and increased enforcement seems to be having some effect.


edit on 7/30/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)


You either should get over using stats, or at least start looking at them to understand them. Stats can be manipulated in a variety of ways. For instance, one of the things that bothered me about "alcohol related deaths" is that if alcohol was in the trunk and no one had been drinking, or their were beer cans in the trunk picked up for salvage it was listed as a alcohol related death. Sort of skews the numbers. As a example. According to YOUR stats above. 1982=43945 deaths. 28 yrs later in 2010 there is only 32885 deaths a drop of 11060 deaths in ALL THAT TIME. Yet you say the following year, 2011, there is ONLY a total of 13,209 deaths for the year, a drop of 19,676. What I found for 2011 was 32,367 deaths.

However that is NOT my point. Between 1982-2011 the number of deaths that has dropped is ONLY 11,578. I believe most of those can be attributed to better cars, air bags both front and side, better breaks, etc. At least I hope so or otherwise we have paid an amazing amount of money for safety devices that do not work. My question to you is how many MORE lives would have been saved if the police instead of going ONLY after drunk drivers would have gone after ALL bad drivers? Drunk drivers are bad drivers right? The prevailing theory? Then would they also not have been caught for THEIR bad driving as well? Instead bad drivers who do not drink get to kill and kill again because they do not drink. They get a pass.



posted on Jul, 30 2013 @ 03:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Jerk_Idiot
 


For instance, one of the things that bothered me about "alcohol related deaths" is that if alcohol was in the trunk and no one had been drinking, or their were beer cans in the trunk picked up for salvage it was listed as a alcohol related death
What is your source for that information?


28 yrs later in 2010 there is only 32885 deaths a drop of 11060 deaths in ALL THAT TIME.
Don't you think there would have been more drivers on the road in 2010 than there were in 1982? There were 16,000 fewer fatalities which involved alcohol.


Between 1982-2011 the number of deaths that has dropped is ONLY 11,578. I believe most of those can be attributed to better cars, air bags both front and side, better breaks, etc.
That explains why the number of fatalities did not increase as much as the increase in driving. It does not explain why there was a 60% decrease in the number of alcohol related fatalities while there was a 3% increase in the number of non-alcohol related fatalities. If what you claim were correct, there would have been a comparable increase in alcohol related fatalities because there were more people on the road. Unless it is your position that drunk drivers are safer than sober ones.


My question to you is how many MORE lives would have been saved if the police instead of going ONLY after drunk drivers would have gone after ALL bad drivers?
How do prove that someone is too sleepy at the wheel? How do you prove that someone was texting? With DUIs you can test, and prove, that someone was impaired.



Instead bad drivers who do not drink get to kill and kill again because they do not drink. They get a pass.
Unfortunately, yes. Fortunately, that is not so much the case with drunk drivers though of course, it does happen. But drunk drivers are not just "bad drivers".

edit on 7/30/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2013 @ 03:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Jerk_Idiot
 

Between 1982 and 2011 there was a 91% increase in Vehicle Miles Traveled in the US. With nearly twice as much vehicle travel the number of non-alcohol related fatalities rose by only 3%. As you pointed out, cars are safer now so the increase in fatalities did not keep pace with the increase in travel. Now, why did the number of alcohol related fatalities decline by 60% if drunk driving laws don't work?

research.stlouisfed.org...[1][id]=M12MTVUSM227NFWA

Sorry, it's one of those links that doesn't show up very well on ATS.

edit on 7/30/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2013 @ 04:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


For instancBest I can e, one of the things that bothered me about "alcohol related deaths" is that if alcohol was in the trunk and no one had been drinking, or their were beer cans in the trunk picked up for salvage it was listed as a alcohol related death

What is your source for that information?
My answer to that is news reports and police officers. Best I can do for you. If you think that is bad you should try the NCIC computer for missing kids. One year in New Mexico over 400 were reported missing in just one city in a three month period. According to the NCIC computer only 4 were missing FOR THE WHOLE STATE.

Between 1982-2011 the number of deaths that has dropped is ONLY 11,578. I believe most of those can be attributed to better cars, air bags both front and side, better breaks, etc.

That explains why the number of fatalities did not increase as much as the increase in driving. It does not explain why there was a 60% decrease in the number of alcohol related fatalities while there was a 3% increase in the number of non-alcohol related fatalities. If what you claim were correct, there would have been a comparable increase in alcohol related fatalities because there were more people on the road. Unless it is your position that drunk drivers are safer than sober ones.
I will take that as non-sarcasm. These days, yes, most LEGALLY drunk drivers are safer then sober ones. With the continual dropping of the blood alcohol content required to charge someone with drunk driving most of the so called LEGALLY drunk drivers drive so carefully that they are safer. They know the punishment for a fender bender might destroy their lives even if they are not at fault while a sober driver who is a bad driver is not worried.

My question to you is how many MORE lives would have been saved if the police instead of going ONLY after drunk drivers would have gone after ALL bad drivers?

How do prove that someone is too sleepy at the wheel? How do you prove that someone was texting? With DUIs you can test, and prove, that someone was impaired.
The same way they did it in the 60's. With eyes. Oh that is right it is 2013. How about with dash cams? Reckless and negligent driving has been on the books for over five decades.

I noticed you skipped answering my question. My question to you is how many MORE lives would have been saved if the police instead of going ONLY after drunk drivers would have gone after ALL bad drivers? Drunk drivers are bad drivers right? The prevailing theory? Then would they also not have been caught for THEIR bad driving as well? Instead bad drivers who do not drink get to kill and kill again because they do not drink. They get a pass.

That was the whole quote. Not just the part you wished to answer at the end.



posted on Jul, 30 2013 @ 04:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Jerk_Idiot
 


These days, yes, most LEGALLY drunk drivers are safer then sober ones.
Ok.


most of the so called LEGALLY drunk drivers drive so carefully that they are safer.
Then why do they cause so many accidents? More than their fair share?


I noticed you skipped answering my question. My question to you is how many MORE lives would have been saved if the police instead of going ONLY after drunk drivers would have gone after ALL bad drivers?

I don't know. Do you? But as I pointed out, alcohol is involved in twice as many fatalities as distracted and fatigued drivers combined. So it's partly a matter of going after the worst problem first.


My question to you is how many MORE lives would have been saved if the police instead of going ONLY after drunk drivers would have gone after ALL bad drivers?
So you think there are no arrests for bad driving? Only drunk drivers are targeted? That can't be your point. And it also sort of doesn't make sense if your claim is that it is only about collecting revenue. If it was only about bringing in money, why wouldn't they go after everyone the could?


edit on 7/30/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2013 @ 04:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


You keep dodging the question. I never said drunk driving laws do not work against drunk drivers. I said that drunk drivers by definition are bad drivers. lol. There already were laws against bad drivers. ALL bad drivers. Those laws are not enforced in favor of going after drunk drivers because of money. If they had enforced the laws already on the books they would have gotten the drunk drivers as well. The police just would not have gotten the extra money. Keep your eye on the ball Phage. This is about money not safety. It always has been. If it was not then the DUI checkpoints would have stopped a long time ago as they get almost no drunk drivers that way. What they do get is money for other violations. When this was first started a case was started to allow the police to ONLY go after drunk drivers. You know, the given REASON for them? Illegal search and seizure? But the police would lose ALL THAT MONEY!



posted on Jul, 30 2013 @ 04:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Jerk_Idiot
 


I never said drunk driving laws do not work against drunk drivers.
So then you agree that it does help to remove dangerous drivers from the roads.


Final say. This is NOT about safety, it is NOT about removing dangerous drivers from the road, this is NOT about getting an accurate result, this is NOT about saving lives, this is ONLY about getting an increased money stream.
If it were just about an "increased money stream" why not be just as harsh with every "bad driver"?


If it was not then the DUI checkpoints would have stopped a long time ago as they get almost no drunk drivers that way.
And, like your claim about what constitutes "alcohol related" I'm sure you have something to back that claim up with.


When this was first started a case was started to allow the police to ONLY go after drunk drivers. You know, the given REASON for them? Illegal search and seizure?
What are you talking about? You think drivers are only arrested for drunk driving?

edit on 7/30/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2013 @ 04:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Jerk_Idiot
 

Oh. By the way:

Alcohol related fatalities are defined as fatalities that occur in crashes where at least one driver or nonoccupant (pedestrian or pedalcyclist) involved in the crash has a positive Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) value

www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov...
So no. Empty bottles don't do it.




edit on 7/30/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2013 @ 04:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 

Then why do they cause most of the accidents?
I do not believe they do.

I noticed you skipped answering my question. My question to you is how many MORE lives would have been saved if the police instead of going ONLY after drunk drivers would have gone after ALL bad drivers?


I don't know. Do you? But as I pointed out, alcohol is involved in twice as many fatalities as distracted and fatigued drivers combined. So it's partly a matter of going after the worst problem first.

No it is not. Nor is it a problem of being able to prove negligent or reckless driving these days as I pointed out to you. Technology has evolved.

My question to you is how many MORE lives would have been saved if the police instead of going ONLY after drunk drivers would have gone after ALL bad drivers?

So you think there are no arrests for bad driving? Only drunk drivers are targeted? That can't be your point. And it also sort of doesn't make sense if your claim is that it is only about collecting revenue. If it was only about bringing in money, why wouldn't they go after everyone the could?
edit on 7/30/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

To your two questions the answer is yes. That IS my point. As to collecting revenue. There is no federal funds to arrest bad drivers. Only for arresting drunken ones. Which makes the police no longer impartial. Why do you think they do not want to accept blood tests? You get fined for getting an ACCURATE test. An example. In the city I live in a few years ago the police rarely went after those who ran red lights. Then they got a grant from the feds to arrest red light runners. It lasted a month. There was a whole lot of red light running tickets that month. and ONLY for that month until the money ran out.

In the state of NM it is illegal to use red light cameras the same as it is now in many states. However the city still uses them and charges people even though they have lost in court several times. The original reason supposedly was for safety. Those camera's have been proven to DECREASE safety and cause more accidents then before, but many cities across the nation still use them in violation of their state laws because they generate to much revenue!



posted on Jul, 30 2013 @ 04:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Jerk_Idiot
 


In the state of NM it is illegal to use red light cameras the same as it is now in many states.
In New Mexico, only on state and federal roads. County and city roads are another matter.
www.iihs.org...



Ok. You win.
Let's leave the drunk drivers alone. They're safer than anyone else on the road because they drive so carefully.

edit on 7/30/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2013 @ 04:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Jerk_Idiot
 

Oh. By the way:

Alcohol related fatalities are defined as fatalities that occur in crashes where at least one driver or nonoccupant (pedestrian or pedalcyclist) involved in the crash has a positive Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) value

www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov...
So no. Empty bottles don't do it.




edit on 7/30/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)


Ah oops, I said cans not bottles. lol. There is the official statement and then there is reality. So long as free money is being handed out to the police to arrest drunk drivers, what they are SUPPOSED to do anyways, they will find a way to ensure there are more drunk drivers to get the money. Reality is frightening isn't it? Why do I think that if you took away the drunk driving money from the police and require them to do the job they are already paid for that the so called number of drunk drivers or drunk accidents would drop? Or if the money was shifted to NON-drunk driving accidents they would go up? Cynical I know. I have seen the books cooked so many ways IN OR OUT of government that I know the only truth, statements, or statistics you can believe are those that have no basis in money and there are very few of those. When I came to NM anyone from out of state had to pay for a $65 DUI class. You took the test at the beginning of class, it was corrected and given back to you to copy onto your final exam. When I asked why, the state police officer who was giving the class stated it was not to teach us anything but to collect money for OT.



posted on Jul, 30 2013 @ 04:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Jerk_Idiot
 


In the state of NM it is illegal to use red light cameras the same as it is now in many states.
In New Mexico, only on state and federal roads. County and city roads are another matter.
www.iihs.org...



Ok. You win.
Let's leave the drunk drivers alone. They're safer than anyone else on the road because they drive so carefully.

edit on 7/30/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)


Still coping out Phage? Again I never said to leave drunken drivers alone. Just to treat all bad drivers equally. You keep avoiding that issue. As to above I know that very well. So tell me why they are still doing it on state roads in the city? Money of course. The same as drunk driving laws. As the mayor said they will keep them up until the state comes down and takes them down. They should get a few more million in the meantime.



posted on Jul, 30 2013 @ 05:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jerk_Idiot
Those camera's have been proven to DECREASE safety and cause more accidents then before,


Source for that claim?

Red light/speeding camera fines are known as the stupid tax here, as only stupid drivers get caught by them!



posted on Jul, 30 2013 @ 05:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by Jerk_Idiot
Those camera's have been proven to DECREASE safety and cause more accidents then before,


Source for that claim?

Red light/speeding camera fines are known as the stupid tax here, as only stupid drivers get caught by them!


University of New Mexico. The city has already received two studies paid for by the city that says the same and has been paid to make a third study. It seems they will keep paying for studies until they get the one they want.



posted on Jul, 30 2013 @ 07:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jerk_Idiot

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by Jerk_Idiot
Those camera's have been proven to DECREASE safety and cause more accidents then before,


Source for that claim?

Red light/speeding camera fines are known as the stupid tax here, as only stupid drivers get caught by them!


University of New Mexico.


Actually, the study disagrees with your claim....

While there was very little change in the count of total crashes there were larger and statistically significant differences between crash type and injury type. Angle crashes and injury crashes statistically significantly reduced from the before time period to the after time period
....

The primary finding of a moderate net cost benefit supports the continued use of RLCs in Albuquerque. The moderate net cost benefit primarily derives from the reduction in the number of injury crashes relative to the increase in PDO crashes.
 The finding that this benefit varies by intersection suggests a more targeted approach to the use of RLC systems. This is further supported by the finding that the mix of injury and PDO crashes also varies considerably by intersection.
 The reduction of red light running citations and speeding citations provides evidence and parallels the findings of other studies that RLC programs reduce the number and rate of red light running violations.


Also en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jul, 30 2013 @ 10:52 AM
link   


Yes. Because in using public roads you are expressing implied consent to testing.



what a joke, what's next?

show your papers when crossing a county, city, or state line?

how do I know your not a terrorist? I'm scared there might be terrorists using the roads while I''m driving.

ya know.. because in using public roads you are expressing implied consent to testing, screening, questioning

After all, your exercising a "privilege" even though you were held at gun point & taxed for the roads, federal

highways,traffic lights ..and of course the very police harassing you and it was implied that you give up your

inalienable rights to travel. to go to work to get taxed.

its absolutely terrible how educated people completely go anti-American with emotional pleas.

sad times we live in folks.. sad times indeed.



posted on Jul, 30 2013 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by benrl
Driving is a privilege not a right.

As someone that lost a best friend to a drunk driver (19 year old college freshman walking home after studying) I would say harsher fines the better.

Take the car as well, If you drive drunk you deserve everything you get.


You know that ANY accident with a BAC above .00 is registered as a drunk driver, no matter if the driver is at fault or not. I would bet that fatigue leads to more, but we all just think of the guy that is drunk and can barely drive as our one example to justify anything.

I guess we can all ALL meds and if the driver has not had 8 hours or rest too to put people in prison to fine them until their life is ruined.


edit on 30-7-2013 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)


Being tired wont raise you're BAC, and yea when you step behind the wheel of a several ton projectile YES YOU better be capable of operation of said vehicle.

It really is that simple, if there was a test for "sleepy" drivers, Id say yea damn right cops should ticket them too.

I guess some people don't view themselves as responsible for what ever happens if they drive impaired (in any way shape or form) I do, and it took losing friends to that to make me that way.

ETA: Remind me not to get in an argument with Phage, he brings the heavy bat of knowledge where ever he goes lol.

edit on 30-7-2013 by benrl because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2013 @ 02:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Xtrozero
 

Perhaps then you can provide a link showing that the new law does not require a breath or blood test.


I did a search and I couldn't find a direct link, I'm not sure where the one I read went, but it has been news worthy here and the point that has been put forth in the news is as written a person can receive a civil fine of 1000 dollars to turn down a breath test. Reading the new law it doesn't spell that out word for word but it seems that is the general understanding of it if a person elects for a blood test instead.




top topics



 
12
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join