PA tightens drinking and driving
#1
Cars are an addiction
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Nazareth, PA
Age: 46
Posts: 1,302
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PA tightens drinking and driving
Damn, you cant even touch a drink anymore without being over some limit in PA.
"the state House on Monday approved a bill reducing the standard to 0.08 percent from a blood-alcohol ratio of 0.10 percent."
"Compared to existing law, the bill the House approved Monday eases some penalties for first-time offenders by leavening jail time with treatment. But hard-core drunken drivers face sanctions of at least a year in jail, thousands of dollars in fines and the mandated use of car ignition systems that require drivers to pass a breath test."
"For example, a first-time offender with a blood-alcohol ratio of 0.08 percent to 0.99 percent would be charged with an ungraded misdemeanor, face a maximum of six months' probation, pay a $300 fine, and be required to attend an alcohol highway-safety school. They would also be required to undergo treatment as a part of their sentence."
"But a fourth-time offender with a blood-alcohol level of 0.10 to 0.159 percent would be charged with a first-degree misdemeanor, receive a one-year mandatory jail sentence, pay $1,500 to $10,000 in fines, have their license revoked for 18 months, and be required to use an ignition-interlock system for one year. They would also be required to undergo treatment as a condition of their sentence."
- From The Morning Call, Sept 30, 2003.
"the state House on Monday approved a bill reducing the standard to 0.08 percent from a blood-alcohol ratio of 0.10 percent."
"Compared to existing law, the bill the House approved Monday eases some penalties for first-time offenders by leavening jail time with treatment. But hard-core drunken drivers face sanctions of at least a year in jail, thousands of dollars in fines and the mandated use of car ignition systems that require drivers to pass a breath test."
"For example, a first-time offender with a blood-alcohol ratio of 0.08 percent to 0.99 percent would be charged with an ungraded misdemeanor, face a maximum of six months' probation, pay a $300 fine, and be required to attend an alcohol highway-safety school. They would also be required to undergo treatment as a part of their sentence."
"But a fourth-time offender with a blood-alcohol level of 0.10 to 0.159 percent would be charged with a first-degree misdemeanor, receive a one-year mandatory jail sentence, pay $1,500 to $10,000 in fines, have their license revoked for 18 months, and be required to use an ignition-interlock system for one year. They would also be required to undergo treatment as a condition of their sentence."
- From The Morning Call, Sept 30, 2003.
#3
Where is my super sauce?
Downgrading to 0.08 = good.
Decreasing penalties for first time offenders = bad.
Personally, I think the rate should be dropped to nearly 0.00 (maybe 0.01 or 0.02 to make up for error) and a zero tolerance policy should be mandated. Penalties should be severe. Driving is a privilege, not an inherant right.
Decreasing penalties for first time offenders = bad.
Personally, I think the rate should be dropped to nearly 0.00 (maybe 0.01 or 0.02 to make up for error) and a zero tolerance policy should be mandated. Penalties should be severe. Driving is a privilege, not an inherant right.
#4
Disproportionate Member
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Austin, Texas
Age: 57
Posts: 538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whatever it takes so that people start getting the @*@*!@ message and stop drinking and driving... There just isn't any excuse, and it seems like every time someone gets killed by a drunk driver it's never the dumb-assed drunk.
Trending Topics
#8
Racer
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Philly, Pennsylvania
Posts: 403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
drinking and driving laws are so relaxed in this country wtf? germany legal drinking age is 16 but you get thrown in jail for years if you get caught so no one does it.
costa rica has VERY severe penalties, and as a result no deaths due to drinking and driving.
costa rica has VERY severe penalties, and as a result no deaths due to drinking and driving.
#10
Homeless
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern DEL-A-Where?
Age: 51
Posts: 9,210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think .08 will make an impact on who does/doe not drink & drive.
The ones that are doing all the damage(accidents, fatalities, etc) are more than likely way over .08...more like .20...
I think the roadblocks will have more effect than the new legislature.
The ones that are doing all the damage(accidents, fatalities, etc) are more than likely way over .08...more like .20...
I think the roadblocks will have more effect than the new legislature.
#11
Doin' da crack shuffle
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Philly and Bowie
Age: 46
Posts: 10,847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Slimey
Downgrading to 0.08 = good.
Decreasing penalties for first time offenders = bad.
Personally, I think the rate should be dropped to nearly 0.00 (maybe 0.01 or 0.02 to make up for error) and a zero tolerance policy should be mandated. Penalties should be severe. Driving is a privilege, not an inherant right.
Downgrading to 0.08 = good.
Decreasing penalties for first time offenders = bad.
Personally, I think the rate should be dropped to nearly 0.00 (maybe 0.01 or 0.02 to make up for error) and a zero tolerance policy should be mandated. Penalties should be severe. Driving is a privilege, not an inherant right.
#12
Where is my super sauce?
Originally posted by Red-CL
That can't be done cause things like cough syrup and mouthwash have alcohol in them. If you just used one of those products, you could be hauled off to jail for all the wrong reasons.
That can't be done cause things like cough syrup and mouthwash have alcohol in them. If you just used one of those products, you could be hauled off to jail for all the wrong reasons.
Or, in other words, being drunk on cough syrup should be penalized no differently then being drunk on Jack Daniels.
Again, ZERO tolerance. Severe Penalities.
#14
Check out the penalties those convicted of DUI face in other countries. Best one is last.
England- one year in jail, $250 fine and one year license suspension.
France- Three year suspension, one year in jail and $1,000 fine.
Australia- Driver's name sent to local papers and printed under the headline "He's drunk and in Jail."
Malaysia- Driver jailed, if married spouse is jailed too.
Turkey- Drunk driver taken 20 miles from town and forced to walk back, under police escort.
Norway- Driver sentenced to three weeks in jail with hard labor and one year loss of license. License revoked for life if second offense occurs within five years.
Finland/Sweden- Automatic jail sentence of one year at hard labor.
Costa Rica- License plate removed from drivers car. Loss of license.
Russia- License revoked for life.
Poland- Driver jailed, fined, and forced to attend political lectures.
Bulgaria- Second conviction results in execution.
El Salvador- First offense, execution by firing squad.
England- one year in jail, $250 fine and one year license suspension.
France- Three year suspension, one year in jail and $1,000 fine.
Australia- Driver's name sent to local papers and printed under the headline "He's drunk and in Jail."
Malaysia- Driver jailed, if married spouse is jailed too.
Turkey- Drunk driver taken 20 miles from town and forced to walk back, under police escort.
Norway- Driver sentenced to three weeks in jail with hard labor and one year loss of license. License revoked for life if second offense occurs within five years.
Finland/Sweden- Automatic jail sentence of one year at hard labor.
Costa Rica- License plate removed from drivers car. Loss of license.
Russia- License revoked for life.
Poland- Driver jailed, fined, and forced to attend political lectures.
Bulgaria- Second conviction results in execution.
El Salvador- First offense, execution by firing squad.
#15
Senior Moderator
I got real lucky, I live in PA and about 3 weeks ago I blew a .095 and got off real easy considering it just dropped. And looking at the penalities above if I lived in another country lol
If PA didn't lower their limit they lose goverment funding.
If PA didn't lower their limit they lose goverment funding.
#16
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by JokerABC
Check out the penalties those convicted of DUI face in other countries. Best one is last.
England- one year in jail, $250 fine and one year license suspension.
France- Three year suspension, one year in jail and $1,000 fine.
Australia- Driver's name sent to local papers and printed under the headline "He's drunk and in Jail."
Malaysia- Driver jailed, if married spouse is jailed too.
Turkey- Drunk driver taken 20 miles from town and forced to walk back, under police escort.
Norway- Driver sentenced to three weeks in jail with hard labor and one year loss of license. License revoked for life if second offense occurs within five years.
Finland/Sweden- Automatic jail sentence of one year at hard labor.
Costa Rica- License plate removed from drivers car. Loss of license.
Russia- License revoked for life.
Poland- Driver jailed, fined, and forced to attend political lectures.
Bulgaria- Second conviction results in execution.
El Salvador- First offense, execution by firing squad.
Check out the penalties those convicted of DUI face in other countries. Best one is last.
England- one year in jail, $250 fine and one year license suspension.
France- Three year suspension, one year in jail and $1,000 fine.
Australia- Driver's name sent to local papers and printed under the headline "He's drunk and in Jail."
Malaysia- Driver jailed, if married spouse is jailed too.
Turkey- Drunk driver taken 20 miles from town and forced to walk back, under police escort.
Norway- Driver sentenced to three weeks in jail with hard labor and one year loss of license. License revoked for life if second offense occurs within five years.
Finland/Sweden- Automatic jail sentence of one year at hard labor.
Costa Rica- License plate removed from drivers car. Loss of license.
Russia- License revoked for life.
Poland- Driver jailed, fined, and forced to attend political lectures.
Bulgaria- Second conviction results in execution.
El Salvador- First offense, execution by firing squad.
#17
Suzuka Master
Originally posted by Slimey
Downgrading to 0.08 = good.
Decreasing penalties for first time offenders = bad.
Personally, I think the rate should be dropped to nearly 0.00 (maybe 0.01 or 0.02 to make up for error) and a zero tolerance policy should be mandated. Penalties should be severe. Driving is a privilege, not an inherant right.
Downgrading to 0.08 = good.
Decreasing penalties for first time offenders = bad.
Personally, I think the rate should be dropped to nearly 0.00 (maybe 0.01 or 0.02 to make up for error) and a zero tolerance policy should be mandated. Penalties should be severe. Driving is a privilege, not an inherant right.
"more punishment" is a very concervative approach that is doomed to be a failure.
I can drink 1-2 drinks and drive my car safer than a lot of sobber morons, or senior citizens from the 7th cloud.
#18
Where is my super sauce?
Originally posted by russianDude
More of harsh punishment has never detered the offenders and will not decrease the number of DUI related accidents.
"more punishment" is a very concervative approach that is doomed to be a failure.
I can drink 1-2 drinks and drive my car safer than a lot of sobber morons, or senior citizens from the 7th cloud.
More of harsh punishment has never detered the offenders and will not decrease the number of DUI related accidents.
"more punishment" is a very concervative approach that is doomed to be a failure.
I can drink 1-2 drinks and drive my car safer than a lot of sobber morons, or senior citizens from the 7th cloud.
Convicted DUI should at the very least equal removal from the driving pool.
...just because you are competent when you have alcohol on board doesn't defeat the fact that drunk driving is a serious public health issue. Drunk drivers do cost other people their lives, cost us all moneys in property damage, court fees, etc. This is a major problem that can be controlled more effectively.
#19
Disproportionate Member
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Austin, Texas
Age: 57
Posts: 538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by russianDude
<snip>
I can drink 1-2 drinks and drive my car safer than a lot of sobber morons, or senior citizens from the 7th cloud.
<snip>
I can drink 1-2 drinks and drive my car safer than a lot of sobber morons, or senior citizens from the 7th cloud.
Stiff sentences, many DUI roadblocks. That'll stop them.
#20
Suzuka Master
Originally posted by Slimey
It's simple -- in addition to any criminal penalities you receive for a DUI -- remove the legal ability to drive, forever. No first time offense leeway. Do not pass go...
Convicted DUI should at the very least equal removal from the driving pool.
...just because you are competent when you have alcohol on board doesn't defeat the fact that drunk driving is a serious public health issue. Drunk drivers do cost other people their lives, cost us all moneys in property damage, court fees, etc. This is a major problem that can be controlled more effectively.
It's simple -- in addition to any criminal penalities you receive for a DUI -- remove the legal ability to drive, forever. No first time offense leeway. Do not pass go...
Convicted DUI should at the very least equal removal from the driving pool.
...just because you are competent when you have alcohol on board doesn't defeat the fact that drunk driving is a serious public health issue. Drunk drivers do cost other people their lives, cost us all moneys in property damage, court fees, etc. This is a major problem that can be controlled more effectively.
Its all subjective, some sobber people are more dangerous then people who had 1-2 drinks... some people are just stupid, or talk about senior citizens who have no fuking clue what is happening with them are still behind the wheel and get off easy.
no no, I will oppose all this rediculous harsh punishment for doing nothing wrong.
#21
Disproportionate Member
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Austin, Texas
Age: 57
Posts: 538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by russianDude
O yeah, what if you get pulled over during random DUI check (without breaking any law), and your alcohol is right on the cusp of being illegal.
O yeah, what if you get pulled over during random DUI check (without breaking any law), and your alcohol is right on the cusp of being illegal.
Should you loose your license for the rest of your life? Are you fuking kidding me? Maybe you want to give them an electric chair as well?
If you drink and drive, you are not the victim.
#22
Suzuka Master
Originally posted by Aquineas
If you drink and drive, you are not the victim.
If you drink and drive, you are not the victim.
Is it also drunk's fault and he must loose his license for the rest of his life? How is this fare? Why stupid people or old people get off so easy, why are they still allowed to drive?
There are some sobber drivers who are stupid, and do very dangerous sh*t which is more dangerous than having few drinks. Yet, they get off easy. I guess its better to be stupid, cause if you are born stupid its not your fault, but if you drink you are guilty. I am sorry, I am not buying this primitive logic.
And I am also against random soberty check points, its a direct violation of your privacy, and secondly, it goes against US constitution ( as I rember we have "presumption of innocence" ), but those stupid road checks not only waste your personal time, cause traffics, waste of gas(bad for environment), but also falsely presuming my guilt without any reason or cause.
Yes, I have liberal views.... what you gonna do about that?
#23
Suzuka Master
I am not advocating that drunk driving is good, it is bad.
.... But I also don't want to hear all this stupid sh*t: "No matter what they must be severly punished, given electric chair and etc". You really need to look on a case by case basis, can't generalize things like that.
.... But I also don't want to hear all this stupid sh*t: "No matter what they must be severly punished, given electric chair and etc". You really need to look on a case by case basis, can't generalize things like that.
#24
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Woodstock, GA
Age: 54
Posts: 9,431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What a hot topic. At no point do I condone drinking and driving and am all for limits, etc. However, some broad statements fail to include tolerance and noted abilities.
The law states that someone is impaired at a specified level and is all encompassing. It does not account for that person's tolerance level or competency level. There is no question that an individual’s ability to drive deteriorates as the BAC increases. But does that mean that an individual with extremely high tolerance and is an exceptional driver is not competent at 0.08 BAC??
My point is not to support drinking and driving but to point out that this is a focal group and the laws are often being directed inappropriately. Many elderly drivers could not pass a field sobriety test and have a BAC of 0.00. According to the field test they should not be driving, yet are allowed. Whereas the subject individual mentioned in the previous paragraph might pass with flying colors but be charged. So what does that say about the laws or the administration of them; are they too focused on numbers and less on the actual issue??
How many people are driving tired, this is proven to be just as dangerous as someone over 0.10 but yet is not illegal.
The repeat and well over the limits offenders is what gets me. I have no tolerance for this and the laws should be applied strictly and swiftly. All too often the justice system fails to do its job with these people. Next thing you know this repeat offender kills a family after entering the interstate the wrong way and has a BAC of over 0.20.
The law states that someone is impaired at a specified level and is all encompassing. It does not account for that person's tolerance level or competency level. There is no question that an individual’s ability to drive deteriorates as the BAC increases. But does that mean that an individual with extremely high tolerance and is an exceptional driver is not competent at 0.08 BAC??
My point is not to support drinking and driving but to point out that this is a focal group and the laws are often being directed inappropriately. Many elderly drivers could not pass a field sobriety test and have a BAC of 0.00. According to the field test they should not be driving, yet are allowed. Whereas the subject individual mentioned in the previous paragraph might pass with flying colors but be charged. So what does that say about the laws or the administration of them; are they too focused on numbers and less on the actual issue??
How many people are driving tired, this is proven to be just as dangerous as someone over 0.10 but yet is not illegal.
The repeat and well over the limits offenders is what gets me. I have no tolerance for this and the laws should be applied strictly and swiftly. All too often the justice system fails to do its job with these people. Next thing you know this repeat offender kills a family after entering the interstate the wrong way and has a BAC of over 0.20.
#25
Where is my super sauce?
You (russianDude) are arguing that driving with alcohol on board is OK as long as you are following the rules.
I guess my viewpoint is different. I suggest ZERO tolerance and it means just that. Alcohol + driving should be illegal in all circumstances, stopping at the red light or following the speed limit is immaterial. It should never be OK to drive with alcohol on board. As said above, I think this issue is too big of a problem to accept at any level.
We'll agree to differ on this matter.
I'm still not sure what I think of drunk road blocks/traps. Although I agree with the concept of keeping the drunks off the road, I'm not all for illegal search and seizure. I'll leave it to the attorneys & judges to argue this one though. Since I don't drink & drive, no harm, no foul.
...and the so-called stupid but sober driver has nothing to do with this scenario. We're talking about DUI or alcohol and driving, not who deserves to lose their license. I agree there are plenty of people out there who should not be driving, drunk or sober.
I guess my viewpoint is different. I suggest ZERO tolerance and it means just that. Alcohol + driving should be illegal in all circumstances, stopping at the red light or following the speed limit is immaterial. It should never be OK to drive with alcohol on board. As said above, I think this issue is too big of a problem to accept at any level.
We'll agree to differ on this matter.
I'm still not sure what I think of drunk road blocks/traps. Although I agree with the concept of keeping the drunks off the road, I'm not all for illegal search and seizure. I'll leave it to the attorneys & judges to argue this one though. Since I don't drink & drive, no harm, no foul.
...and the so-called stupid but sober driver has nothing to do with this scenario. We're talking about DUI or alcohol and driving, not who deserves to lose their license. I agree there are plenty of people out there who should not be driving, drunk or sober.
#26
Where is my super sauce?
Originally posted by russianDude
...You really need to look on a case by case basis, can't generalize things like that.
...You really need to look on a case by case basis, can't generalize things like that.
#27
Disproportionate Member
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Austin, Texas
Age: 57
Posts: 538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Believe it or not, I actually agree that the .08 alcohol level (or any other pre-defined level) wouldn't be valid for everyone. I'm 220 pounds, and I know that when I have a headache that I have to take at least 3 aspirin or it won't help (I also know that because I'm not a drinker, it doesn't take me much to get a buzz either).
But here's the thing. If we left it up to individuals to determine that they're okay to drive based on "what they can handle", then I guarantee you that most people who are impaired will tell you that they're "okay to drive", when many of them clearly aren't. If you try to legislate the variance in tolerance levels, you get into all kinds of interpretations about body chemistry, resistance to alcohol, all of which will vary dramatically from individual to individual.
The truth is, it's impossbile to write a law which takes into consideration an individual's ability to tolerate alcohol; because so many factors come into play (genetics, body-weight, how much alcohol they've been exposed to in general). So rather than try and make a law such that it is dependent on individual resistances, the obvious solution is to set an across-the-board limit. That across-the-board limit has to be low enough to insure that the 115 pound woman who has 3 drinks and is impaired will be covered by the law, as well as the 295 pound defensive tackle driving in his Corvette with his nephew on a New Jersey Road (Jerome Brown).
I go back to my original point. Drunk people swear up and down that they're okay to drive, even when they aren't. And Americans (as opposed to Canadians, which is the most direct cultural comparison) don't take drunk driving seriously enough. The only way to make them START taking it seriously is to make the penalty painful enough that they are deterred, the idea being that when they do that self-analysis and "think" they're okay to drive, that someone near them (or perhaps their own reasoning) kicks in and says: "Wait a minute, I may think I'm okay to drive and I may feel fine, but that strict-assed law would probably have me impaired, and I don't want to risk that. "
I don't believe in random rights of search, but a cop doesn't need to search your car to see if you're drunk...
But here's the thing. If we left it up to individuals to determine that they're okay to drive based on "what they can handle", then I guarantee you that most people who are impaired will tell you that they're "okay to drive", when many of them clearly aren't. If you try to legislate the variance in tolerance levels, you get into all kinds of interpretations about body chemistry, resistance to alcohol, all of which will vary dramatically from individual to individual.
The truth is, it's impossbile to write a law which takes into consideration an individual's ability to tolerate alcohol; because so many factors come into play (genetics, body-weight, how much alcohol they've been exposed to in general). So rather than try and make a law such that it is dependent on individual resistances, the obvious solution is to set an across-the-board limit. That across-the-board limit has to be low enough to insure that the 115 pound woman who has 3 drinks and is impaired will be covered by the law, as well as the 295 pound defensive tackle driving in his Corvette with his nephew on a New Jersey Road (Jerome Brown).
I go back to my original point. Drunk people swear up and down that they're okay to drive, even when they aren't. And Americans (as opposed to Canadians, which is the most direct cultural comparison) don't take drunk driving seriously enough. The only way to make them START taking it seriously is to make the penalty painful enough that they are deterred, the idea being that when they do that self-analysis and "think" they're okay to drive, that someone near them (or perhaps their own reasoning) kicks in and says: "Wait a minute, I may think I'm okay to drive and I may feel fine, but that strict-assed law would probably have me impaired, and I don't want to risk that. "
I don't believe in random rights of search, but a cop doesn't need to search your car to see if you're drunk...
#28
The Creator
New York went to 0.08 a few months ago.
my girlfriend got pulled over with 0.07 the night it went into effect... heh. she had only one beer more than half an hour before.
my girlfriend got pulled over with 0.07 the night it went into effect... heh. she had only one beer more than half an hour before.
#29
Suzuka Master
Originally posted by scalbert
How many people are driving tired, this is proven to be just as dangerous as someone over 0.10 but yet is not illegal.
How many people are driving tired, this is proven to be just as dangerous as someone over 0.10 but yet is not illegal.
And the second issue of being "fair". Like you said, if somebody is tired and as dangerous as someone over 0.10, why is he getting less punishment? There are some big gaps in the current law.
#31
Suzuka Master
Originally posted by Aquineas
But here's the thing. If we left it up to individuals to determine that they're okay to drive based on "what they can handle", then I guarantee you that most people who are impaired will tell you that they're "okay to drive", when many of them clearly aren't. If you try to legislate the variance in tolerance levels, you get into all kinds of interpretations about body chemistry, resistance to alcohol, all of which will vary dramatically from individual to individual.
But here's the thing. If we left it up to individuals to determine that they're okay to drive based on "what they can handle", then I guarantee you that most people who are impaired will tell you that they're "okay to drive", when many of them clearly aren't. If you try to legislate the variance in tolerance levels, you get into all kinds of interpretations about body chemistry, resistance to alcohol, all of which will vary dramatically from individual to individual.
#32
Suzuka Master
Originally posted by Aquineas
I don't believe in random rights of search, but a cop doesn't need to search your car to see if you're drunk...
I don't believe in random rights of search, but a cop doesn't need to search your car to see if you're drunk...
It should be illegal for cops to do random soberty checks, or road blocks. As I said before, random soberty checks have the following problems:
1. Presumption of guilt (vs. constitutional presumption of inoncence)
2. Traffic
3. Waste of gas => environment & polution
4. Interfering with personal time and freedom to move.
#33
What, me worry?
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Carrollton, tx. land of heaving pavement & revenue generating pigs.
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How did the Taliban get in on this thread. How many of the hard a$$es here even drink. I wish people who want zero tolerance would come up with solutions rather than point fingers. How about starting a volunteer service to drive people home. Unlike Europe our public transportation is in the stone age. Or if we had pubs on the local corner people could walk but everything is set up for driving over here.
#34
Where is my super sauce?
Originally posted by isbworking
How did the Taliban get in on this thread. How many of the hard a$$es here even drink. I wish people who want zero tolerance would come up with solutions rather than point fingers. How about starting a volunteer service to drive people home. Unlike Europe our public transportation is in the stone age. Or if we had pubs on the local corner people could walk but everything is set up for driving over here.
How did the Taliban get in on this thread. How many of the hard a$$es here even drink. I wish people who want zero tolerance would come up with solutions rather than point fingers. How about starting a volunteer service to drive people home. Unlike Europe our public transportation is in the stone age. Or if we had pubs on the local corner people could walk but everything is set up for driving over here.
It's not about not drinking alcohol (do what you want, no one really cares). It's about drinking and driving, and guess what, it's not that hard to drink and avoid getting behind a steering wheel. I do it quite often.
Ever hear of a taxi-cab? I've yet to be in a city or even rural location that was without a taxi service.
Starting a volunteer service? Well, some locales have them, or have free taxi rides. But the bigger question askes why do I have to provide for your shortcomings? If you shouldn't be behind a wheel, it's your problem. You got yourself into this predicament, you figure a way out (and I figured that way out for you -- see last paragraph).
This thread really has digressed and gone on tangents. I thought we were discussing blood alcohol levels and legislation -- now we're to so-called stupid but sober drivers, old folks, and drunks who are afraid of those who don't drink and the Taliban.
#35
Originally posted by GoldieAlek
Congrads your post is complete BS
Congrads your post is complete BS
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/boo...sbn=1568068379
#36
Suzuka Master
#37
.08 is bullcrap. i'm all for cracking down on drunk drivers but .08 as Soopa pointed out can happen with 1-2 beers. If you can't drive after 1-2 beers you shouldn't be driving to begin with...unless you're mini-me or something.
#38
Suzuka Master
Originally posted by zeroday
.08 is bullcrap. i'm all for cracking down on drunk drivers but .08 as Soopa pointed out can happen with 1-2 beers. If you can't drive after 1-2 beers you shouldn't be driving to begin with...unless you're mini-me or something.
.08 is bullcrap. i'm all for cracking down on drunk drivers but .08 as Soopa pointed out can happen with 1-2 beers. If you can't drive after 1-2 beers you shouldn't be driving to begin with...unless you're mini-me or something.
#39
Suzuka Master
Based on my own expirence, when I have one drink I calm down a little. I begin to drive all relaxed and alert at the same time, I am not rushing like crazzy.
Sometimes when I am sobber I tend to be careless..... always in the rush....
Go figure which way is safer....
Sometimes when I am sobber I tend to be careless..... always in the rush....
Go figure which way is safer....
#40
Homeless
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern DEL-A-Where?
Age: 51
Posts: 9,210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by russianDude
Based on my own expirence, when I have one drink I calm down a little. I begin to drive all relaxed and alert at the same time, I am not rushing like crazzy.
Sometimes when I am sobber I tend to be careless..... always in the rush....
Go figure which way is safer....
Based on my own expirence, when I have one drink I calm down a little. I begin to drive all relaxed and alert at the same time, I am not rushing like crazzy.
Sometimes when I am sobber I tend to be careless..... always in the rush....
Go figure which way is safer....
A cop doesn't have probable cause to pull you over...(.8 or .38) unless you happen to commit a reasonably SERIOUS offense(atleast in DE).
In DE, that means even if you run a red light & you are .12, etc...they can't ticket you for DUI. I just took an advanced defensive driving class Monday night & the head of these new DUI roadblocks(state cop) taught it. He stated it would have to be an accident, etc to add-on the DUI charge.
So, whether they lower the BAC or not, you still have to drive like a moron to get pulled over. Now, if you drive into a roadblock...that's a whole diff ballgame.