Who here hates MADD(mother against drunk driving)as much as i do. Supporting tougher laws and those unconstitutional DUI check points.

quote:

---

I would be happy if DUIs were given for reaction times not BAC. Different people react differently too alcohol. Crashes are caused by poor judgement and slow reaction times, BAC measures neither.

---

Several flaws in this: Actually, poor judgment and slow reaction times do *not* causes accidents, people do. They can be considered factors in accidents, but are not the only factors.
On reaction time alone, one should be given a DUI? What about not being able to stand on one's own two feet, much less walk? Or see clearly?

Perhaps your point is more that BACs are overrated, not DUIs? If so, then I have to say I don't disagree, nor do I completely agree. Aren't BACs usually given after other forms of sobriety tests? Meaning, if you're given a breathilizer, you're probably given one for good reason. The legal limit was established where it was because by that point, most, if not all, people are somehow affected by the alcohol. I'm not saying this is right, or fair, but it is to help protect innocent people from being hurt, or killed. And *that* affects everyone.

Your opinions would change if you lost a friend to a drunk driver. Now, I know you will say that's not true, but you don't know what it's like to have someone ripped away from you because somebody thought it would be okay to drive after having 'just a couple of beers'. If you're lucky you never will.

yes you did read it incorrectly, my opiions wouldnt change of i was to be hit by a "drunk driver"

quote:

---

phucking stupid.

---

haha. clever

quote:

---

Who here hates MADD(mother against drunk driving)as much as i do. Supporting tougher laws and those unconstitutional DUI check points.

---

I'm sure you'll be saying the same thing when you're fighting for your life at some hospital after being hit by a drunk driver.

quote:

---

I would be happy if DUIs were given for reaction times not BAC. Different people react differently too alcohol.

---

Ahh, so if the drunk diver gets lucky and doesn't hit any pedestrians and/or kill anyone, then he should not get a DUI;, but if he DOES hit someone, thus injuring/killing them, he should be issued a DUI?

I hope I'm misinterpreting this erroneously, because I don't think people can really be so phucking stupid.

If you drink and drive while under ANY influence of alcohol, your *** needs to be thrown into jail, your license taken away, and you should have mandatory community service. People know not to drive when drinking, so if they do, they should have to serve the preceding consequences.

People react MORE than just slightly different to alcohol.

Reaction time better judges how impaired you are.

http://damm-madd.com/BAC_Myth.shtml
READ THAT

Yes, some people react slightly differently to alcohol, just like some drunk drivers get lucky and don't hit anything, some drunk drivers hit things, some sober drivers get unlucky and get in accidents.

The issue is that being drunk, no matter if you handle driving drunk comparatively well, is an easily controllable decreaser of your driving safety. If two people have the same blood alcohol content, and one of them is a slightly better driver when drunk, both of them have still commit the exact same act of endangerment.

I would be happy if DUIs were given for reaction times not BAC. Different people react differently too alcohol. Crashes are caused by poor judgement and slow reaction times, BAC measures neither.

What i meant by searching your vehicle is when they stop you for no reason other then you happened to be driving down that road the police officer gets a chance to smell your vehicle and do sobriety checks.

Point taken, but would you be happy if police could only give out DUI's based on breathalizer tests and were not allowed to search you vehicle?

Uh...yes. This is true. Radar detectors are not yet proven to be sentient beings. There is no recorded sighting of radar detectors locomoting under their own power. There is a single lack of observation as to radar detectors' ability to interact with human beings, or any living thing.

This is the truest thing you have ever posted.

RADAR DETECTORS AND SPEED TRAPS DONT SEARCH YOUR CAR.

and even if drunk drivers were equally responsible (which as ComradeSmurf pointed out they aren't) we should still do whatever we can to prevent them from endangering people. We do the same thing for sober drivers, thats what speeding tickets and tickets for driving recklessly are for. Driving drunk is just like speeding and if cops can use radar detectors and speed traps, why can't they use breathalizers and DUI checkpoints?

quote:

---

Why don't you just complain of about those damn people at March of Dimes or Walk Far for NAAR.

---

Why would i want to complain about them?

Why is it different if a drunk driver kills somebody and if a sober driver kills somebody.
They should both get the same punishment.

. . .

why not a drunk driveing program?

Wow, somebody died in the ocean at my school, does that mean we all shouldn't be able to go to the ocean.

Wow, that's cool. They let u drink and drive...hey, do they let u drive...even though u'r high???? I'd love that. I can't stand not being on drugs for more than 2 hours. Guess i'm addicted (Dah!!!)

quote:

---

Just because somebody crashes when there drunk doesn't mean the alcohol is to blame.

---

Of course it isn't inherent at first, but we aren’t limited to just plain out principles of logic here; we do have the ability TO EXPERIMENT, which therefore makes your attempt to claim Post Hoc as faulty. But I'm sure you will say all the scientific studies that show impairment from alcohol don't mean anything. You are going to be hard pressed to find any evidence to support your claim. Driving under the influence is STUPID and so are you.
But lets completely ignore the statistic that show Someone driving with a BAC of between .05 and .09 is 11 times more likely to be killed in a crash than a driver with no alcohol in his/her system.
No, that isn't a clear indication that alcohol is to blame. Or let alone the chemical reaction your body has to alcohol, that’s not a clear indication that alcohol is to blame.


[This message was edited by djmagnusa on March 23, 2004 at 04:59 AM.]

Just because somebody crashes when there drunk doesn't mean the alcohol is to blame. What about all the crashes drunks have saved by drinking and not driveing fast.