vicarz | (no subject)

Now 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.

Threaded | Flat

could you direct me to any articles about how cops were complaining they couldnt tell if someone was impaired and that is why they have to rely on devices to measure alcohol? i'd like to read up on that.

I don't know about frat boys, but problem drinkers often badly underestimate how many drinks they've had. "I just had a couple... stiff drinks at the bar. Oh and that one beer. Or was it two? The wine with dinner and the after-work snort don't count..."

(Not to say that the laws make any sense. From my pedestrian perspective, the cell phone is by far the worst impairing factor.)

I am down with the anti-cell phone action! Raise the DWI limit back up to where it is actually impairing, go with the tried-and-true roadside acuity tests, and work on cutting down cell phone usage while driving! I now actually have focused my road rage on cell phone drivers. Fuckers just putt putt along in the "fast" lane, or bob & weave all over the freaking road! I want to build a jammer, or go with my original road rage-borne plan of just adding rocket launchers and a battering ram to my car.

But c'mon, is it any surprise that the right wing and all these pro-law, pro-enforcement lobbies are continuing to whittle it down to the bone. Like so many fanatics, they don't know when to quit, and won't rest until it is stamped out completely. Fanatics don't see outside their own little worlds, and compromise is rarely an option. Sad too, because it is a good goal, but I agree, they need to move on. But then many of us think the same about legalizing weed and not cracking down on adult porn. Ok, so maybe that's just me ;)

They have been showing those commericals up here. The first time I saw it, it was like "WTF? Are you kidding me?" These people need to get lives. The only commericals that have made me not drive when I am buzzed were those commericals with the home movies. That was more effective than seeing all the ones with the actors on it.

I agree. They just want to make criminals out of people who are otherwise capable and throw some tear jerking sob story of some little princess who got run over by a drunk driver. Then they back it up with "if we can save only one, its worth it" bullshit which if done right, the life of some random person not killed by lightning is more important than the millions and millions of people it puts out.

Yeah, kids can be a big distraction in a car, expecially young ones, however, you can't really ignore them. My x-boyfriend used to yell at his kids all the time and when they were rowdy, they would scream so loud it was hard to pay attention (but ofcourse the idiot wasn't smart enough to put two card seats in the car). The girls were only three and four at the time, still very young to be out of the car seat. On the other hand answering my cell phone when I'm driving is something is something I do not do. If you call me and I'm driving then you won't get me, or I'll call back later. People get mad at me for this, but hey I don't want the bad habbit. People have almost ran into while being on the phone so that is why I always look to see what the person is doing. Cell phones are the necesary evil, though.

I completely agree with you. I'm much more dangerous behind the wheel when I'm opening a new cd or eating pizza in the middle of the afternoon than I am after a couple drinks.