Should drunk driving be reduced to a $75 fine?

[msommers]

Originally posted by Toma
I worked in some big night clubs... 300+ cars in the parking lot. EVERYONE was wasted. At the end of the night... parking lot is EMPTY, and I mean completely. Yet, funny... thousands of people were not killed every weekend.

People keep doing it and the odds go up. It's only a matter of time. Unfortunately, it's not just them that will suffer.

[Chojo]

Originally posted by Mibz
I'm not getting involved in this thread, but you misinterpreted what was said.

He's saying that simply drinking and driving shouldn't be criminal. However if you were to injure/kill somebody then it should be. Similar to, and this is just an analogy, how firing a gun isn't criminal, but killing somebody with one is.

Originally posted by Toma
That's different.... if they have actually caused an accident DUE to being drunk, then that's a different story than driving intoxicated and not causing anything.

The point of it is that it's a deterrent though.

You guys may be amazing drunk drivers, but the fact is there are many more people who AREN'T. Taking drinking and driving seriously is just a proactive approach so that there are less regrets after somebody does get killed.

Besides, a drunk driver who gets caught would be care much less about re-offending if all they got was a little fine. Re-offending = roads don't get any less dangerous.

[Mitsu3000gt]

Originally posted by Toma

But only cause driving intoxicated is imo wrongly classed as a criminal offense.

Back in the 70's and 80's, it was pretty common to swig back 4-10 drinks and drive home. Pretty well everyone did it.

It actually still is....

I worked in some big night clubs... 300+ cars in the parking lot. EVERYONE was wasted. At the end of the night... parking lot is EMPTY, and I mean completely. Yet, funny... thousands of people were not killed every weekend.

Don't get me wrong, I dont drink a SINGLE drop, never have, but when a law strikes me as unjust, I cant help but speak my mind.

And the City isnt making things easy....

I'm sure MANY MANY people have no intention of drinking when they go out....

But you go down town with some friends, night wears on, they buy you a shot or two, and you think ... ah, it's just one, two etc... pretty soon, 4 drinks you are legally drunk (most people in a short time)...

Now what, 4 people need to get home, and you CANT leave your car, or it will get ticketed and towed out of the parking lot or off the street.

Lets say a drunk driver, hammered out of his mind, kills your entire family, children, etc. Everyone close to you, leaving you as the only survivor. Also assume the only reason he crashed was because he was drunk, and is a good driver when sober. What would you feel an appropriate punishment for that individual should be, knowing that his drunkenness is the sole reason for you losing your family? A couple years in jail? I'd be curious as to what you thought was 'unjust' then. Would drinking and driving still be no big deal after that?

If you have a couple too many drinks, you split a cab with your buddies or take the train - big deal. You can also call "keys please" or whatever that organization is called. There are MANY options other than driving.

[Mitsu3000gt]

Originally posted by sabad66

That's fine if you don't agree with the comparison, but I like many other people do see it. I'd much rather have a guy driving home drunk (carefully) at 4am than some dude sending txts while driving downtown during lunch time. Do you think this guy should have a criminal record and pretty much have his life ruined if he is caught (even without actually having hurt anyone)? That is the point of this thread.

I can put down my phone, I can't sober up on command. Huge difference.'

Drunks don't drive carefully. Someone who has had 2-3 beers and has a buzz however, I agree is probably driving extra careful and is as good as any other driver. Someone hammered out of his mind is a different story.

I've seen several drunk drivers (running reds, swerving into medians repeatedly, etc.) and I've seen people texting and driving. There is no comparison between someone who is absolutely obliterated, and someone who fires off a quick text then puts their phone away.

[Chojo]

Originally posted by Mitsu3000gt


Lets say a drunk driver, hammered out of his mind, kills your entire family, children, etc. Everyone close to you, leaving you as the only survivor. Also assume the only reason he crashed was because he was drunk, and is a good driver when sober. What would you feel an appropriate punishment for that individual should be, knowing that his drunkenness is the sole reason for you losing your family? A couple years in jail? I'd be curious as to what you thought was 'unjust' then. Would drinking and driving still be no big deal after that?

If you have a couple too many drinks, you split a cab with your buddies or take the train - big deal. You can also call "keys please" or whatever that organization is called. There are MANY options other than driving.

Exactly.

People's feelings about "justice" tend to change only when they realize what it's like to be the victim.

[Toma]

Originally posted by Mitsu3000gt


Lets say a drunk driver, hammered out of his mind, kills your entire family, children, etc. Everyone close to you, leaving you as the only survivor. Also assume the only reason he crashed was because he was drunk, and is a good driver when sober. What would you feel an appropriate punishment for that individual should be, knowing that his drunkenness is the sole reason for you losing your family? A couple years in jail? I'd be curious as to what you thought was 'unjust' then. Would drinking and driving still be no big deal after that?

If you have a couple too many drinks, you split a cab with your buddies or take the train - big deal. You can also call "keys please" or whatever that organization is called. There are MANY options other than driving.

I had a friend get into an accident involving a guy speeding through a light that just turned red (trying to make the light).

I saw the accident, and felt that even though it was completely the other guys fault, my friend could have avoided the accident if better attention was being paid.

Neither was at all intoxicated.

Who's to blame? Is jail time warranted? Would it change ANYTHING at all if the at fault party was over the limit?

When humans stop being human, and start being computers and robots, I say that it would be ok to punish them for MISTAKES.

Until that happens, it is immoral to punish someone severely for basic human nature.

Driving is an interactive process, and though usually one person is more at fault then another, it's very rare that an accident could not have been prevented by one of the parties.

[Freeskier]

Say that drunk driving increases the chance of getting into a fatal crash by 0.01%

For every 10000 people on the road, that's one more fatal accident.
Is that an increase that we're willing to live with as a society?
What if it was 1%, 10%, 0.0001%?

Edit, I just got up, so I hope my math is sound lol

[sabad66]

Originally posted by Mitsu3000gt


Lets say a drunk driver, hammered out of his mind, kills your entire family, children, etc. Everyone close to you, leaving you as the only survivor. Also assume the only reason he crashed was because he was drunk, and is a good driver when sober. What would you feel an appropriate punishment for that individual should be, knowing that his drunkenness is the sole reason for you losing your family? A couple years in jail? I'd be curious as to what you thought was 'unjust' then. Would drinking and driving still be no big deal after that?

If you have a couple too many drinks, you split a cab with your buddies or take the train - big deal. You can also call "keys please" or whatever that organization is called. There are MANY options other than driving.

Fair enough, but that same situation is entirely possible with txting and driving being the cause instead of drunkenness. Should a person be given the same treatment as a DUI if a cop is driving beside you and catches you sending a text?

[Toma]

Originally posted by Freeskier
Say that drunk driving increases the chance of getting into a fatal crash by 0.01%

For every 10000 people on the road, that's one more fatal accident.
Is that an increase that we're willing to live with as a society?
What if it was 1%, 10%, 0.0001%?

Edit, I just got up, so I hope my math is sound lol

Same can be said for being tired, driving a truck instead of a prius, driving a sports car instead of a minvan.

Hell, speeding while driving a diesel CERTAINLY is x% more potentially fatal then speeding in a Civic.

Take a GOOD defensive driving course (note the name, defensive), learn to be aware of your surroundings, and worry about your actions, and your accidents (at fault or not) will drop more than criminalizing texting, or DUI, or speeding in a 9000 pound truck.

In other words, worry about yourself, and less about others.

After all, no one is as good a driver as you!

[Mitsu3000gt]

Originally posted by Toma


I had a friend get into an accident involving a guy speeding through a light that just turned red (trying to make the light).

I saw the accident, and felt that even though it was completely the other guys fault, my friend could have avoided the accident if better attention was being paid.

Neither was at all intoxicated.

Who's to blame? Is jail time warranted? Would it change ANYTHING at all if the at fault party was over the limit?

When humans stop being human, and start being computers and robots, I say that it would be ok to punish them for MISTAKES.

Until that happens, it is immoral to punish someone severely for basic human nature.

Driving is an interactive process, and though usually one person is more at fault then another, it's very rare that an accident could not have been prevented by one of the parties.

Well, clearly the guy who ran the red is to blame. I don't really see the point. He disobeyed the rules of the road and should be punished for doing so according to the extent of damage he caused. Now if he was drunk, knowingly removing his ability to react, think straight, use common sense, etc. you are knowingly introducing something to the situation that makes it exponentially more unsafe yet is 100% avoidable. You can't remove stupid from someone to prevent an at-fault accident (although I wish you could...) but you can choose not to drink and remove that variable.

I'm willing to bet in nearly every single drunk driving accident, the accident could have been prevented by the drunk driver not being drunk...

It's also human nature to do whatever the hell we want, and whatever makes us happy, so what if I wanted to speed with a blindfold through the playground zone your children were playing near ever day? Would you be OK with that?

[Freeskier]

Toma i agree totally lol. See what I wrote earlier in this thread.

[Mitsu3000gt]

Originally posted by sabad66

Fair enough, but that same situation is entirely possible with txting and driving being the cause instead of drunkenness. Should a person be given the same treatment as a DUI if a cop is driving beside you and catches you sending a text?

I guess it's a tough call because it's a momentary thing, and that phone can be put down - granted it only takes a split second to cause an accident. A drunk can't instantly sober up. I don't mean to say texting while driving is safe, I really don't think it is at all, but I do think it is less severe than driving drunk. In some situations, I'm guessing it probably is just as bad as driving drunk, but I'm also guessing that most situations aren't even close to as bad. And by drunk I mean hammered, not with a buzz after a couple beers.

One thing I don't agree with is how someone can be charged for drunk driving while sleeping in their car with keys present. I guess not always, but USUALLY the person is trying to be responsible and not drive by sleeping off the booze. You should at least have to start to actually drive before getting a DUI.

[Toma]

Originally posted by Mitsu3000gt



I'm willing to bet in nearly every single drunk driving accident, the accident could have been prevented by the drunk driver not being drunk...

And this is where the root of our disagreement lies.

First, blaming every accident on blowing over .08 and saying it was preventable if they blew under .08 seems naive to me, but to each their own.

I feel a good defensive driver could avoid most accidents whether or not he was at fault, whether or not the other party is drunk, tired, or texting.

In fact, I have only read about maybe 3 or 4 accidents in my entire life that I thought "holy fuck, now THAT'S an accident that could not have been prevented by the 'victim'.

[Toma]

Originally posted by Freeskier
Toma i agree totally lol. See what I wrote earlier in this thread.

I know, you just set up a good question for me

[HiTempguy1]

Originally posted by Toma

But you go down town with some friends, night wears on, they buy you a shot or two, and you think ... ah, it's just one, two etc... pretty soon, 4 drinks you are legally drunk (most people in a short time)...

You argue well about many things Toma, but considering the testing rage2 has been doing and then you saying this. Give your head a shake.

[Mitsu3000gt]

Originally posted by Toma


And this is where the root of our disagreement lies.

First, blaming every accident on blowing over .08 and saying it was preventable if they blew under .08 seems naive to me, but to each their own.

I feel a good defensive driver could avoid most accidents whether or not he was at fault, whether or not the other party is drunk, tired, or texting.

In fact, I have only read about maybe 3 or 4 accidents in my entire life that I thought "holy fuck, now THAT'S an accident that could not have been prevented by the 'victim'.

I will agree with the part of defensive driving to some extent. You aren't going to be able to stop a drunk from rear ending you at 100 km/h when you're stopped at a light with cars on either side of you though. I guess my point then would be why let people knowingly create extremely dangerous situations that everyone else has to avoid thet they otherwise could not worry about?

Should I be allowed to drive around sober with my blindfold on too, then? If all people have to do is drive defensively and avoid me, it should be no problem right? Or should I not be doing something that so blatantly affects the safety of those around me?

Drinking is just one of those things that we KNOW reduces reaction times, ability to focus, motor skills, etc. You can't just automatically sober up when you want to. It seems very reasonable to me that it should be a serious offense to do so and then drive.

[Freeskier]

I'm with Toma on that one. Rage did some decent testing and it's a good benchmark. But the differences between people and their tolerances are huge.
I've got a friend who's best bud is a cop, so we've tried the breathalyzer once before. I blew a 0.10 and felt ok, but there have been times where I've had a lot less to drink and felt way drunker.

[mx73someday]

Toma all the way on this one. Introducing risk is not a crime, there is no injured party.

[C_Dave45]

Originally posted by Toma


And what is even worse....

Refusing to Blow is also a criminal offence!! Jesus.

Yeah!!!! I think those poor drivers, Dan Tschetter and Darren Coupal should have just gotten a couple of fines when they were caught drunk driving. Ridiculous!!! What's the chance they actually might go out and kill someone?!! Preposterous. Criminal charges. Pfft. How unfair!!!!

[Freeskier]

I still think there should be a baseline limit for everyone though. It's the only way to enforce something like drinkng and driving laws. Pretty much just arguing semantics lol