|
|
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,984
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,984 |
The new driverless cars will take care of drinking and driving. No driving. Just plug in house GPS and go home.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 45,014
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 45,014 |
It is all about revenue for governments. Just like recreational pot. Some of these states depend on the tax base from it big time now.
If anyone thinks they GAF about Joe citizen , they are sorely mistaken. It's about the revenue that can be generated and used for politician job security with government programs.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,689
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,689 |
I'm betting cell phones beat that percentage... What did they blame it on before cell phones. The percentage of drivers with cell phones has gone from almost 0% to over 99% in about 30 years. During the same period the number of traffic accidents has plummeted to all time lows. I know there are accidents caused by drivers distracted by phones. And I get as annoyed by some drivers as much as anyone. But the numbers don't add up. I don't think they are causing nearly as many problem as we're being told. There are certain people who simply can't drive worth a crap and the phone just makes them worse. I"m of the opinion that anyone who can't "talk" on a phone and drive simply can't drive anyway. Those people will end up causing a crash with, or without a phone. I don't have a problem with talkers. It is the texting where the danger lies. The .05 standard has applied to anyone with a CDL all along even when not driving a commercial vehicle. I simply don't know enough to say whether someone at .08 is impaired enough to matter. But I certainly don't want impaired drivers out there. Sounds like they are just applying the same rules to everyone. Just a word of warning if you do drink and drive, even a little. About 10 years ago we had a crash where a young mother pulled out of an intersection in front of a guy on his way home from work. The young mother did not have the right of way, the guy did. But the guy had stopped for a beer on the way home. I don't know what his BAC registered, but they could not charge him with DUI. But an overly aggressive DA did push for and win a conviction claiming that the alcohol contributed to the crash. He spent several months in prison before having the conviction thrown out on appeal. There should have never been a trail, but his life was basically ruined by the time he got out. Splitting hairs here but it's .04 if you have a CDL. NYH1.
Take nothing I say personal, remember....it's just the interweb!
ROLLTIDE
YANKEE'S
new yorkistan SUCKS!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2015
Posts: 5,594
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Nov 2015
Posts: 5,594 |
I decided long ago, if I have a beer at dinner the wife drives. If she wants to have one of her margarita's then I drive! No drinking and driving . If you drink and drive you earned the consequences, pretty simple in my mind! I have lost two good friends to drinking and driving. One friend just back from Vietnam, and one a few years ago coming home from fishing! Luckily they only killed themselves!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 33,666
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 33,666 |
A few places I have lived had a zero tolerance policy with roadside stops. Jail ensued. When we drink we are home so no worries for us. And, yes, a money collector as I would guess that 99% of alcohol related accidents folks are well above the current legal threshold.
Conduct is the best proof of character.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,783
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,783 |
I'm betting cell phones beat that percentage... What did they blame it on before cell phones. The percentage of drivers with cell phones has gone from almost 0% to over 99% in about 30 years. During the same period the number of traffic accidents has plummeted to all time lows. I suspect the reason accidents are down is because of draconian DUI laws compared to 30 years ago. Most of the drinkers that I know do it at home or with a designated driver.....they don't take any chances because it is simply not worth it.....and that is with it at 0.08. In my state, Georgia, it is illegal to text and drive but the fines are pretty mild compared to DUI. You do NOT want a DUI in Georgia these days.
"Men must be governed by God or they will be ruled by tyrants". --- William Penn
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 12,153
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 12,153 |
When I was growing up in my state it was.15 which is reasonable, you’re pretty impaired at that level. It was changed to .10 later then .08 with the nationwide mandate. .08 is already pretty ridiculous, I liken it to the 55 mph speed limit, it brings in a lot of revenue but does nothing for safety. Never underestimate the willingness of housewives to vote for anything when a politician wails “it’s for the children”. At .05 you’re not impaired in any way. If you have an accident it’s got some other reason than the drinking, correlation does not equal causation. It’s an idea only a leftist nanny state totalitarian would support. It’s a terrible idea but people are sheep and it’ll probably pass.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 15,289
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 15,289 |
It seems so simple. If you drive, dont drink and dont do drugs. Some people dont do either anyway .
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 31,402
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 31,402 |
Pretty ignorant and frankly pathetic for anyone to claim prohibitive laws about impaired driving is in anyway related to funds collection. People are injured crippled and killed every hour by folks who can't separate their substance use and their driving vehicles on public roadways. Grow the phucqk up.
"I can't be canceled, because, I don't give a fuuck!"
--- Kid Rock 2022
Holocaust Deniers, the ultimate perverted dipchits: Bristoe, TheRealHawkeye, stophel, Ghostinthemachine, anyone else?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,415
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,415 |
nothing to do with public safety? really?
alcohol is involved in one third of fatal traffic accidents.
I'm betting cell phones beat that percentage... I wouldn't doubt it... There is NO doubt cell phones kill more people than .05 alcohol consumers. The push to drop to .05 is nothing more than increased revenue. Nothing to do with safety. State and local governments cannot print money and their unfunded liabilities are unsustainable, long term.
"Those that think they know everything are annoying those of us that have Google." - Dr. D. Edward Wilkinson
Note to self: Never ask an old Fogey how he is doing today.
Revised note to self: Keep it short when someone asks how I am doing.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 9,189
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 9,189 |
I'm betting cell phones beat that percentage... What did they blame it on before cell phones. The percentage of drivers with cell phones has gone from almost 0% to over 99% in about 30 years. During the same period the number of traffic accidents has plummeted to all time lows. I know there are accidents caused by drivers distracted by phones. And I get as annoyed by some drivers as much as anyone. But the numbers don't add up. I don't think they are causing nearly as many problem as we're being told. There are certain people who simply can't drive worth a crap and the phone just makes them worse. I"m of the opinion that anyone who can't "talk" on a phone and drive simply can't drive anyway. Those people will end up causing a crash with, or without a phone. I don't have a problem with talkers. It is the texting where the danger lies. The .05 standard has applied to anyone with a CDL all along even when not driving a commercial vehicle. I simply don't know enough to say whether someone at .08 is impaired enough to matter. But I certainly don't want impaired drivers out there. Sounds like they are just applying the same rules to everyone. Just a word of warning if you do drink and drive, even a little. About 10 years ago we had a crash where a young mother pulled out of an intersection in front of a guy on his way home from work. The young mother did not have the right of way, the guy did. But the guy had stopped for a beer on the way home. I don't know what his BAC registered, but they could not charge him with DUI. But an overly aggressive DA did push for and win a conviction claiming that the alcohol contributed to the crash. He spent several months in prison before having the conviction thrown out on appeal. There should have never been a trail, but his life was basically ruined by the time he got out. Traffic accidents are increasing, not decreasing. Fatal accidents are decreasing.
I belong on eroding granite, among the pines.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 57,474
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 57,474 |
nothing to do with public safety? really?
alcohol is involved in one third of fatal traffic accidents.
I'm betting cell phones beat that percentage... I wouldn't doubt it... It's been proven. I've seen studies that compare delayed reaction times of intoxicated subjects vs drivers distracted by cell phones. In distracted drivers response time was affected the same as someone with a BAC of 0.08, the lower limit of DUI in most states. And the use of hands-free devices didn't matter. With marijuana users, accident rates skyrocketed when they were distracted by a bag of doritos placed on the passenger seat. I have not seen the same here with our wreck calls, but we are rural and often rural trends a bit differently than the rest of the world thankfully. I do agree hands or hands free, phones, a conversation, the radio, messing with the AC or heat, thinking of something else, and impairment are all going to be factors in wrecks at one time or another. I"m about sick of us still blaming something in animate rather than the person that had the wreck... or caused it I guess I should say.
We can keep Larry Root and all his idiotic blabber and user names on here, but we can't get Ralph back..... Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over....
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 14,038
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 14,038 |
i am all for 0.05 % on politicians. make it mandatory upon arrival to work and after every meal. go over and lose pay for a year! better yet go over and lose your head.!
the consolidation of the states into one vast republic, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of that ruin which has overwhelmed all those that have preceded. Robert E Lee
~Molɔ̀ːn Labé Skýla~
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 25,076
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 25,076 |
When I was growing up in my state it was.15 which is reasonable, you’re pretty impaired at that level. It was changed to .10 later then .08 with the nationwide mandate. .08 is already pretty ridiculous, I liken it to the 55 mph speed limit, it brings in a lot of revenue but does nothing for safety. Never underestimate the willingness of housewives to vote for anything when a politician wails “it’s for the children”. At .05 you’re not impaired in any way. If you have an accident it’s got some other reason than the drinking, correlation does not equal causation. It’s an idea only a leftist nanny state totalitarian would support. It’s a terrible idea but people are sheep and it’ll probably pass. I'd agree with about all of that.
“Life is life and fun is fun, but it's all so quiet when the goldfish die.”
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 32,030
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 32,030 |
nothing to do with public safety? really?
alcohol is involved in one third of fatal traffic accidents.
And cell phones are involved in more than alcohol is. Your point as related to .5???
The only true cost of having a dog is its death.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 45,996
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 45,996 |
Pretty ignorant and frankly pathetic for anyone to claim prohibitive laws about impaired driving is in anyway related to funds collection. People are injured crippled and killed every hour by folks who can't separate their substance use and their driving vehicles on public roadways. Grow the phucqk up. The laws themselves may not be related to funds collection but if you do get a DUI then the privately-owned companies running the system basically have you by the balls. You get deferred adjudication predicated on complying with a "system" that's run by organizations with a financial interest in keeping you in the system because you are their revenue source.
A wise man is frequently humbled.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 12,608
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 12,608 |
When I was growing up in my state it was.15 which is reasonable, you’re pretty impaired at that level. It was changed to .10 later then .08 with the nationwide mandate. .08 is already pretty ridiculous, I liken it to the 55 mph speed limit, it brings in a lot of revenue but does nothing for safety. Never underestimate the willingness of housewives to vote for anything when a politician wails “it’s for the children”. At .05 you’re not impaired in any way. If you have an accident it’s got some other reason than the drinking, correlation does not equal causation. It’s an idea only a leftist nanny state totalitarian would support. It’s a terrible idea but people are sheep and it’ll probably pass. I'd agree with about all of that. "Impaired" driving, "drunk" driving, "buzzed" driving, et al, should be subject to severe penalty no doubt about it. But I'd like to see the numbers supporting 0.05 as the break point. I don't get "impaired" and drive. Matter of fact my average consumption level is low; maybe 2 or 3 beers or glasses of wine a week at the most. Liquor is a rarity though a few times a year a wee dram of Scotch or Irish does speak to me. I just don't keep it on hand. But on the fairly rare occasion when wife and I splurge and have a nice steak dinner, upscale Italian of something similar I very well may have 2 glasses of wine. Now state, don't tell me I just lost my ability to drive safely or that I'm endangering others on the road. In that scenario if I'm at 0.05 then that is an undue burden on my freedom to choose and is no increased risk to the public. Even worse is the limitation on concealed carry. Here in NC if a CCW holder can be shown to have had any recent alcohol consumption while carrying concealed it's a state crime. Give me a break. Just because I may have had a beer at a friends house I'm suddenly a danger to society? Why should this not be based on real impairment rather than a yes/no question? Freedoms are much easier to lose than to regain. You get deferred adjudication predicated on complying with a "system" that's run by organizations with a financial interest in keeping you in the system because you are their revenue source. How about the insurance lobby? Let's say just hypothetically you get a DUI for being at 0.052 Are you really a high risk driver at that point of just subject to much higher insurance rates. If that's the only violation indicating your increased risk you're a good client to have. More revenue for no real increased risk. And like I said, I'd just like to see proof that 0.05 is a valid reference point.
“When Tyranny becomes Law, Rebellion becomes Duty”
Colossians 3:17 (New King James Version)
"And whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through Him."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 42,697
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
OP
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 42,697 |
Seafire, arrests for DUI/marijuana along ŵith training for all the local police have been a focus here and in the news.
I'm not defending intoxicated drivers of any type but your post seems to imply that marijuana users get a free pass and they don't. well Kudos to Colorado for that... from what I see here locally in Oregon... they don't get nailed a lot in our county... or our little corner of the state.
"Minus the killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime rates in the Country" Marion Barry, Mayor of Wash DC
“Owning guns is not a right. If it were a right, it would be in the Constitution.” ~Alexandria Ocasio Cortez
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 42,697
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
OP
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 42,697 |
Pretty ignorant and frankly pathetic for anyone to claim prohibitive laws about impaired driving is in anyway related to funds collection. People are injured crippled and killed every hour by folks who can't separate their substance use and their driving vehicles on public roadways. Grow the phucqk up. excuse me? What utopia do you live in? you think the complaint is, over people getting injured, crippled or killed is acceptable because of thinking dropping the BAL to this 0.05? I don't drink or use drugs at all... strictly because of these issues.. personal choice... one common denominator in people hurt, crippled, or killed in car accidents is they were in a car.. lets ban cars and everyone walk, that would great reduce the problems don't ya think? or are you another campfire member who thinks, that if someone doesn't think the exact way you do... they are 'ignorant, frankly pathetic and need to grow the Phucqk up".... sure sounds like it...
"Minus the killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime rates in the Country" Marion Barry, Mayor of Wash DC
“Owning guns is not a right. If it were a right, it would be in the Constitution.” ~Alexandria Ocasio Cortez
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 7,511
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 7,511 |
I'm cool with 0.00% alcohol and 0.00% pot. 0.00%..... Agreed. Sick of the overuse and glorification of that poison. "Mommy juice" ...who are we kidding? It's a scourge on society, and no, I'm not 'recovering' as I've drank sparingly in my lifetime. I like a good bourbon, but seeing the end results for so many?..... f*ck no, I'll pass. My dad taught me from an early age that the [bleep] kills, maims and destroys lives; and as usual, dad was right.
|
|
|
|
|
592 members (257man, 10gaugeman, 1_deuce, 222Sako, 222ND, 10Glocks, 64 invisible),
2,614
guests, and
1,329
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,190,671
Posts18,456,023
Members73,909
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
![[Linked Image]](https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/gallery/80/medium/45390.png)
