That wasn’t me, it was lgw. I’m clone53421. Do try to keep up.
Your argument is flawed. It is easy to punish people for having the potential to commit a crime: All you have to do is make “having the potential to commit a crime” a crime itself. Then you aren’t punishing people for having the potential to commit a crime; you’re just punishing criminals.
Suppose, for the sake of argument, that you believe that sale/ownership of handguns increases the potential for crime in those areas where handguns can be purchased/owned.
Now, you would like to punish people for having the potential to commit a crime? Easy – just make it illegal to buy or own handguns. What originally was merely “increased potential for crime” is now something that you can punish people for.
Getting drunk and running someone off the road should be no more serious a crime than running them off the road while sober. Running a stoplight while drunk and killing someone should be no more serious than running the same stoplight and killing someone while sober. (And beating someone with a crowbar because they were dark-skinned should be no worse than beating them with a crowbar for any other reason, but that’s an entirely different issue...)
Um, even if it isn’t your car, you’re not supposed to be driving it if you’re over the legal limit, either... I don’t care whose car it is, if you’re over the legal limit I’m not going to start it up so that you can drive it. If you get pulled over, the cop won’t care if you did borrow the car – if it has an interlock he’s going to want to know how the hell you started it, and I don’t want my name coming up in that conversation.
And I say that fully believing that driving with a 0.08 BAC is only a very minimal increase in risk.
can you cite an examples where people are punished for having the potential for a crime? it's a pretty big line to cross and this issue doesn't even go near it.
The whole reason for making DUI a crime in the first place is because of the heightened potential for an accident.
Funny, but until it starts filling with water it’s always going to be buoyancy-neutral. It will simply displace a little more water to make up for your weight. Unless you have a magical flying canoe, in which case you’ve definitely been using something and I doubt that it was alcohol.
Yes, he could walk to work. That would also take about 2 hours, and he’d arrive hot and sweaty. Sure, the bicycle would probably only take 30 minutes, but he’d still arrive hot and sweaty.
P.S. A bicycle with an electric assist is probably considered a motor vehicle. He cannot drive a motor vehicle.
If you mean sufficiently inebriated to be a danger while behind the wheel to him/herself and others, then yes, absolutely. It doesn't take much.
I’ve seen plenty of drivers who were a danger while behind the wheel and for whom zero drinks was sufficiently inebriated. I say they should all get DUIs too, for consistency’s sake.
But if you go to a bar, have a beer or two, then have two shots on your way out, you'll pass a breathalyser to start your car, and become "drunk" while on the way home
No, what’ll happen is that the alcohol from the shots you just drank will still be in your mouth and you’ll blow something obscene like a 0.50 unless you wash your mouth out with some water.
You want an interesting example of reductio ad absurdum?
They took away your freedom to operate a multi-ton mechanical vehicle while intoxicated. They took away your freedom to operate a several-hundred-pound mechanical riding lawnmower while intoxicated. They took away your freedom to operate a 25-pound mechanical bicycle while intoxicated. They took away your freedom to operate a buoyancy-neutral canoe while intoxicated.
See, I have this strange notion that I should be secure in my person and effects from unreasonable and unjust searches.
Or maybe it’s the notion that the air from inside my lungs is mine to do what I want with, and that doesn’t include blowing it into your silly little device unless you have a very good reason to compel me to do so – maybe that was the notion that was so strange.
Meh. I know I have those notions, and something must be strange about them because a lot of people don’t seem to agree with me.
That is partly because the legal limit is so damn low that “slightly buzzed” is over.
It is also partly because if you are involved in an accident and blow a 0.08, you automatically “caused” the accident, and it chalks up another accident in the “drunk driving accidents” tally.
Let’s pose a hypothetical scenario.
You are driving down a 2-lane road at night. Some asshole in the oncoming lane decides to pass a semi at the top of a hill, hitting you head-on. Miraculously, you both survive the head-on crash. Who caused the accident?
Caveat: You blow a 0.08; the asshole is sober. It’s just another “drunk driving accident”.
Not sure how I feel about the interlocks either. Maybe we ought to put them on all cars? It would be VERY amusing to see the large numbers of people who have never had a DUI suddenly unable to start their cars after a dinner out with limits going ever lower.
Hell, I’d have a lot less problem if the interlocks were set to the legal limit. And the legal limit’s already too low, IMHO.
0.025?
Come on!
Like you said... it’s a race to the bottom. Prohibitionists won’t be satisfied until the legal limit is 0.000. They really don’t want you drinking at all, but all they can legally do is keep you from driving. And so they will. And from boating, riding a bicycle,... hell, I’ve heard of people getting DUIs for riding a horse, and the horse knew where it was going.
Slashdot Mirror
Stop giving them ideas.
That wasn’t me, it was lgw. I’m clone53421. Do try to keep up.
Your argument is flawed. It is easy to punish people for having the potential to commit a crime: All you have to do is make “having the potential to commit a crime” a crime itself. Then you aren’t punishing people for having the potential to commit a crime; you’re just punishing criminals.
Suppose, for the sake of argument, that you believe that sale/ownership of handguns increases the potential for crime in those areas where handguns can be purchased/owned.
Now, you would like to punish people for having the potential to commit a crime? Easy – just make it illegal to buy or own handguns. What originally was merely “increased potential for crime” is now something that you can punish people for.
Getting drunk and running someone off the road should be no more serious a crime than running them off the road while sober. Running a stoplight while drunk and killing someone should be no more serious than running the same stoplight and killing someone while sober. (And beating someone with a crowbar because they were dark-skinned should be no worse than beating them with a crowbar for any other reason, but that’s an entirely different issue...)
All driving fatalities are probably preventable if the right person had noticed the right thing at the right time.
Um, even if it isn’t your car, you’re not supposed to be driving it if you’re over the legal limit, either... I don’t care whose car it is, if you’re over the legal limit I’m not going to start it up so that you can drive it. If you get pulled over, the cop won’t care if you did borrow the car – if it has an interlock he’s going to want to know how the hell you started it, and I don’t want my name coming up in that conversation.
And I say that fully believing that driving with a 0.08 BAC is only a very minimal increase in risk.
can you cite an examples where people are punished for having the potential for a crime? it's a pretty big line to cross and this issue doesn't even go near it.
The whole reason for making DUI a crime in the first place is because of the heightened potential for an accident.
Funny, but until it starts filling with water it’s always going to be buoyancy-neutral. It will simply displace a little more water to make up for your weight. Unless you have a magical flying canoe, in which case you’ve definitely been using something and I doubt that it was alcohol.
Yes, he could walk to work. That would also take about 2 hours, and he’d arrive hot and sweaty. Sure, the bicycle would probably only take 30 minutes, but he’d still arrive hot and sweaty.
P.S. A bicycle with an electric assist is probably considered a motor vehicle. He cannot drive a motor vehicle.
Ask any state trooper.
If you mean sufficiently inebriated to be a danger while behind the wheel to him/herself and others, then yes, absolutely. It doesn't take much.
I’ve seen plenty of drivers who were a danger while behind the wheel and for whom zero drinks was sufficiently inebriated. I say they should all get DUIs too, for consistency’s sake.
But if you go to a bar, have a beer or two, then have two shots on your way out, you'll pass a breathalyser to start your car, and become "drunk" while on the way home
No, what’ll happen is that the alcohol from the shots you just drank will still be in your mouth and you’ll blow something obscene like a 0.50 unless you wash your mouth out with some water.
.05 for me is about 3 stubbies (375 mL), at 5.5%/vol, over 1.5 hours.
So... just barely more than 3 “American” beers (12 fl. oz., i.e. 355 mL) at the same 5.5%/vol, over the same 1.5 hours.
You’re funny. 2 sixpacks in the course of 1 hour?
You want an interesting example of reductio ad absurdum?
They took away your freedom to operate a multi-ton mechanical vehicle while intoxicated.
They took away your freedom to operate a several-hundred-pound mechanical riding lawnmower while intoxicated.
They took away your freedom to operate a 25-pound mechanical bicycle while intoxicated.
They took away your freedom to operate a buoyancy-neutral canoe while intoxicated.
You have to blow hard enough to satisfy the interlock. Blowing through a filter won’t.
You are allowed 7.5% bloodalcohol in the us?
No, you’re assuming it’s a decimal. It’s actually a percent, just with the % symbol left off. The legal limit in the US is 0.08%.
See, I have this strange notion that I should be secure in my person and effects from unreasonable and unjust searches.
Or maybe it’s the notion that the air from inside my lungs is mine to do what I want with, and that doesn’t include blowing it into your silly little device unless you have a very good reason to compel me to do so – maybe that was the notion that was so strange.
Meh. I know I have those notions, and something must be strange about them because a lot of people don’t seem to agree with me.
She wasn’t the only one who got lucky. If they had killed her, first offense or not I can guarantee they wouldn’t have got off with community service.
I can also guarantee the driver wasn’t anywhere close to 0.08.
That is partly because the legal limit is so damn low that “slightly buzzed” is over.
It is also partly because if you are involved in an accident and blow a 0.08, you automatically “caused” the accident, and it chalks up another accident in the “drunk driving accidents” tally.
Let’s pose a hypothetical scenario.
You are driving down a 2-lane road at night. Some asshole in the oncoming lane decides to pass a semi at the top of a hill, hitting you head-on. Miraculously, you both survive the head-on crash. Who caused the accident?
Caveat: You blow a 0.08; the asshole is sober. It’s just another “drunk driving accident”.
Your logic would be more logical if drunk drivers meant drivers who were drunk.
Last time I checked, the legal limit is still 0.08. A BAC of 0.025 is still, technically, not “drunk”. Nor is 0.075.
So if they’re not drunk, why is it interfering with their ability to drive their vehicle?
Not sure how I feel about the interlocks either. Maybe we ought to put them on all cars? It would be VERY amusing to see the large numbers of people who have never had a DUI suddenly unable to start their cars after a dinner out with limits going ever lower.
Hell, I’d have a lot less problem if the interlocks were set to the legal limit. And the legal limit’s already too low, IMHO.
0.025?
Come on!
Like you said... it’s a race to the bottom. Prohibitionists won’t be satisfied until the legal limit is 0.000. They really don’t want you drinking at all, but all they can legally do is keep you from driving. And so they will. And from boating, riding a bicycle, ... hell, I’ve heard of people getting DUIs for riding a horse, and the horse knew where it was going.
On another note, which foreign dictionaries were polled?
They had C3PO on staff.
This takes Your Relationship with Anonymous Coward (666) to a whole new level (Sorry, this is not an option).
That would tell you if that exact password was previously used. He said “at least 3 characters different”.
Here’s an even neater trick: Collapse blocked elements.
Oh wait, that’s AdBlock Plus.
I'm afraid to click either the platitude or the heart, but I can't really find any evidence about what the hell is going on.
See that “Like” button underneath the post? Go ahead, click it. It won’t hurt you... honest. (It just perpetuates the spam, is all.)