![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Dec. 30th, 2005 07:06 amNow that drunk driving is at an all-time low, the forces of idocy are moving in on "buzzed driving."
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=1448925&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312
See, this just fits a trend I'm sick of. Like the speed limit that no one obeys, not even your grandmommy, the laws about drunk driving are insane. We all agree that driving drunk is a bad idea, but they have set the limits and standards for drunk so low that many people who would otherwise drive fine are giving serious legal problems by a system that is judged on the numbers of convictions it produces.
Cops started complaining at checkpoints when they couldn't tell if people were "impaired" with the new legal limits so low, so a vast array of devices have been created to detect these low limits. Now, me, if I was faced with cops saying they couldn't tell if people were impaired, I'd say they weren't impairied rather than try to measure microscopic particles of split floating in the car.
The article accuses young men of misunderstanding when they say they drive after a couple of beers, which sounds reasonable, then back up that by a couple of beers they mean 8-10. Bullshit on that - show me those statistics and publish the study before you start generalizing. I don't buy a word of it - the most loathsome frat boy does not refer to 8-10 as a couple of anything.
This campaign is just trying to net more people. These anti-drunk driving zealots have outlived their usefulness. The mission was achieved, drunk driving is very low but at great societal cost. They could take on a new enemy, car safety, SUVs, driving tired, driving with cell phones, driving with the radio on, driving while switching cds or playing with the ipod, or better yet fight the greatest traffic hazard of all - children in cars. Nothing says lookthefuckout like a driver with a baby-seat. Those people should be kicked off the road. Don't agree? Then start looking for reasonable standards of care for driving with far less societal costs than we seem to accept today. No one seems to take these laws seriously when they are under the inaccurate belief that these laws don't apply to them.
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=1448925&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312
See, this just fits a trend I'm sick of. Like the speed limit that no one obeys, not even your grandmommy, the laws about drunk driving are insane. We all agree that driving drunk is a bad idea, but they have set the limits and standards for drunk so low that many people who would otherwise drive fine are giving serious legal problems by a system that is judged on the numbers of convictions it produces.
Cops started complaining at checkpoints when they couldn't tell if people were "impaired" with the new legal limits so low, so a vast array of devices have been created to detect these low limits. Now, me, if I was faced with cops saying they couldn't tell if people were impaired, I'd say they weren't impairied rather than try to measure microscopic particles of split floating in the car.
The article accuses young men of misunderstanding when they say they drive after a couple of beers, which sounds reasonable, then back up that by a couple of beers they mean 8-10. Bullshit on that - show me those statistics and publish the study before you start generalizing. I don't buy a word of it - the most loathsome frat boy does not refer to 8-10 as a couple of anything.
This campaign is just trying to net more people. These anti-drunk driving zealots have outlived their usefulness. The mission was achieved, drunk driving is very low but at great societal cost. They could take on a new enemy, car safety, SUVs, driving tired, driving with cell phones, driving with the radio on, driving while switching cds or playing with the ipod, or better yet fight the greatest traffic hazard of all - children in cars. Nothing says lookthefuckout like a driver with a baby-seat. Those people should be kicked off the road. Don't agree? Then start looking for reasonable standards of care for driving with far less societal costs than we seem to accept today. No one seems to take these laws seriously when they are under the inaccurate belief that these laws don't apply to them.
