"near where people live", not in someone's backyard. The GP said it's 15-20 miles from his suburbs to all the bars in the city. I'm pretty sure you could find a pub-friendly zone within a few miles of well-populated subdivisions, close enough to make a reasonably priced shuttle bus/taxi service economical and profitable.
If it's sooooooo important saving those lives why do we let people who obviously do not have the faculties to be safer than a person with a BAC of 1.0 to continue to drive?
As I've stated elsewhere in this thread, I'd be in full support of mandatory re-testing as a condition of maintaining a license. If you want to keep driving yourself, demonstrate that you can. If you can't do so, take public transit, take a taxi, or have a friend/family member drive you.
So you admit you're already off your peak performance at the times you normally drive, and use that to justify why dulling your senses even more is no big deal?
"I'm already only 70% effective, and that's pretty much the same as 50% effective, so what's the point?"
If that is the case, then anyone over 50 must be taken off the roads immediately as their reflexes won't be as good as any 25 year old who just drank one beer.
Interestingly, though, I'll point out the statistics that say that young males up to ~25 are the MOST likely to die in a car accident, despite their "reflexes" - why? Because they drive more aggressively, and are more prone to risk-taking. By that measure, the 50+ people who have 30 years of driving experience are demonstrably safer, despite your claims that their reflexes are worse.
It's not always about reflexes. Sometimes it's about having the experience to know how to respond to a situation (e.g., turning into a skid), and older drivers are more likely to have that wisdom.
But for the record, I would support mandatory license re-testing in order to renew a license, as well - you must pass a basic skills test every few years to maintain your license, regardless of your age.
But that doesn't give me the right to fuck over people who I think drink too much.
How, exactly, is preventing someone who is over the legal BAC limit "fucking them over"? You're doing them a favor - preventing them from doing something which could land them in jail, or dead. I'd rather they said thank you, and went on their way.
Their behavior is not just "bad" - it is illegal, and demonstrably dangerous.
DWI recidivism implies that they are caught, driving under the influence, a second time.
So what the numbers suggest is that, over the duration of the study, 37% of the people convicted the first time who could have been expected (based on historical statistics) to have a repeat offense were not convicted of a second DUI.
Even if the device isn't installed in the car anymore, it's pretty easy to see that "John Smith got a DUI conviction in 2003, and again in 2008." Thus he is a DWI recidivist, regardless of whether or not the device was still in his car.
Because not everybody has children. You will notice that childseat anchors are pretty standard - giving you the option to install one if you want, or not if you don't have a child.
Why not install front, side, rear airbags in every car?
Driver, passenger, and side curtain airbags are rapidly becoming standard safety equipment.
Seat belts, air bags, crumple zones, better tires, and numerous other safety accoutrements were all optional at one point. I don't think it's too much of a stretch to imagine this becoming reasonable enough and reliable enough to become a standard piece of safety equipment. And I don't think I'd mind seeing that, honestly.
prevents all the kinds of over-reaction driving that you see when big-rigs fishtail out of control and such.
Yes, unfortunately for you, if you slow down your reaction time when a big-rig "fishtails out of control and such," you don't have to worry about over-reacting, instead you can just be red paste on the side of the road because you didn't react in time.
abuse: misuse, improper or excessive use; "alcohol abuse"; "the abuse of public funds"
In the legal sense, yes, driving with 0.09 BAC does fit the definition - it is improper, or excessive, use of alcohol, because anything resulting in a BAC over.08 (* - here, at least, your legal limit may vary) has been defined as "an excessive and improper use."
We are not necessarily talking about the popular definition of "drug abuse," where people think of strung out junkies blowing crackheads so they can score their own $5 rock. We are specifically talking about laws, and punishment for violating them - and in that sense, your.09 BAC at a checkpoint where the legal limit is.08 is most definitely abuse.
Sounds like you've just identified a hell of a business proposition:
1) Open some good pubs & night spots near where people live. 2) Offer low-cost (but still profitable) shuttle and/or taxi service to/from those pubs & night spots.
If there's still alcohol in your blood (which is the point of the article) then no, you haven't "slept it off". The article is warning people that sometimes the alcohol processes out of your body slower than you expect, or sometimes you just have more alcohol in your body than you expect, and so "crashing on the couch for 4 hours to sleep it off" isn't enough time.
The alcohol doesn't just hang out in your mouth, it's still in your bloodstream, from which it is being cleared primarily via metabolism (in the liver), and in smaller part through excretion into urine, breath, sweat & tears.
The point of that article you linked is to say "Take the bus if you've had a WHOLE lot to drink, because the alcohol may not be out of your system yet."
FFS, go read the article. The device needs to stay hooked up for the duration of the offender's probationary period - 6 months to 5 years, depending on the severity.
Yes, 5 years is a long time. No, 5 years is not "the remainder of their lives." I suspect most first time offenders are going to be much closer to 6 months than they are to 5 years, as well.
Given that drunk driving convictions skew to lower income, this has real potential to put even first-time offenders into bankruptcy.
From the article:
The six companies with contracts to provide interlocks must pay the tab if a judge determines an offender can’t. Still, the law requires county officials to make sure the interlocks are installed and to monitor them.
Just what you really wanted to happen in traffic, is some idiot having to pull over to the side of the road because he can't drive because the BAC monitor required him to restart.
Something tells me the device isn't just going to kill your engine on a highway during rush hour. I suspect it'll probably warn you, give you a certain amount of time (2-5 mins) to pull over, blow, and restart, and if you don't do that, it'll probably log the failure, and keep pestering you with some sort of obnoxious noise/flashing light until you pull over and do what you need to.
I don't see how this would lend itself to entrapment at all, you really need to explain that one if you want anybody to take it seriously.
Considering the unit is reportedly equipped with a camera, and helping someone circumvent this protection by blowing for them is punishable by up to a year in jail... I'd say it'll be pretty hard to get someone with a shred of sense to help you start your car.
Perhaps you should have read the article, where it says that the interlock, "must stay hooked up for the duration of the offender’s conditional discharge or probation — anywhere from six months to five years, depending on the sentence."
It's not a "lifelong punitive impediment." It's a condition of your probation, and it ends after a set amount of time. I think that's pretty sensible - since it allows you to keep driving, which means you can keep working and have a life, but you just can't drive while drunk.
Problem is, you are - demonstrably - physically impaired even with very low levels of alcohol in your blood, low enough that you'll say "But I'm not even drunk, what do you think, I'm a pussy who can't hold my liquor?"
If you have a BAC of.03 -.06, effects are reduced concentration, mild euphoria, and relaxation;
When you get into the BAC range of.06 -.10, effects at this point on the "average" physiology includes damping effects on reasoning, depth perception, peripheral vision, and glare recovery.
Beyond that,.11 -.20 is generally where the average "whoa I'm so drunk" feelings kick in - trouble walking, slurred speech, slow reflexes & reaction time, etc. Keep drinking at that point and you get into "pissing-and-shitting-your-pants" drunk & toxic levels of alcohol.
Given that reason, depth perception, peripheral vision, and glare recovery (the ability to adapt quickly to sudden changes in lighting levels) are all affected by the time you are "legally" drunk... I don't think.08 is all that unreasonable.
I also don't think it's unreasonable or all that immoderate for the government to say "when abilities required to drive a car begin to get impaired, you may not drive a car."
First, the country has a name, it is spelled 'Iraq'. Learn to spell it properly if you wish anybody to take your arguments about events IN that country with a shred of seriousness.
And you talk about wild-ass guesses and assumptions and incoherent ramblings
Yes, I do talk about them, because that's all you've offered.
Can you explain _coherently_ how are the communications of US embassy in Iceland relevant to the battle commander of a small unit in Iraq.
It's not. How Manning got his hands on it is certainly curious - whether the information was mis-classified, or he broke into an area of the system where he was not supposed to be. That's one memo - through Mr. Lamo, the informant, we know that he claimed he copied 260k documents and sent them to wikileaks; Wikileaks has denied receiving them - who do we believe?
Can you explain _coherently_ what is the relevance of intel on the operations of a small Taliban group on the Pakistan border two years ago relevant to Mr. Manning's battalion, strategically located 2500km away in Iraq?
I'll say it again: ENEMY CAPABILITIES. Trends in your enemy's apparent capabilities are useful when you are fighting an enemy, as you may well be able to deduce. Given that one of the main insurgent groups that we have been fighting in Iraq calls itself "Al Qaeda in Iraq" and was operated by one of Osama Bin Laden's lieutenants... why would you ever think that the tactics, operations and capabilities of Taliban & al Qaeda forces would be irrelevant to somebody fighting a group which is in communication with (and at least partially influenced, trained, and motivated by) the enemy 2500 km away?
HOPE EYE WUZ ABULL 2 ECKSPLAIN DAT FUR YOO CLEERLEE, sport. Don't get any sikrits in your Eyerack now.
You have offered nothing factual or logical to refute, just a long, incoherent ramble about how you assume the system SHOULD work, based on your irrelevant experiences with some other military from 30 years ago.
You clearly have no idea what an intel analyst does, or how the system works, so what points, exactly am I supposed to refute?
If you could offer a shred of evidence to support your suppositions, wild-ass guesses, and assumptions, that would help. But as it is, you've stated clearly that you know nothing about the intel systems, the military, or really the situation in Afghanistant, and you've stated clearly that everything you're saying is assumption based on about a thimble-full of facts which you've managed to glean about the case - though apparently not enough to understand what an intel analyst does, and why "only stuff happening in their immediate vicinity" is not the only things they're allowed to see.
You see, when you're analyzing enemy capabilities, you look for trends - have the enemy forces started demonstrating new tactics in other places? Have the enemy started showing up with unexpected equipment or other capabilities? You look for unexpected peaks or valleys in your data, which indicate holes in your understanding of the capabilities of your enemy.
If all you're looking at are the 20 reports filed within 10 miles of your operating area, you are not doing your job. If the enemy in the eastern mountains suddenly starts showing that they're equipped with shoulder-fired missiles and armored vehicles, that's important data you won't see 80 miles away, until some of your own support aircraft are shot down.
Do you understand that "intel analysts" are granted access to intelligence for *precisely* the reason that they are supposed to be sifting through it, making connections, looking for things that are out of the ordinary & indicative of some change in the dynamics of the conflict? In addition, intel analysts are charged with entering operational data into the computer systems - how do you think the paper reports get into a form Mr. Assange can make money off of?
I can only guess how exactly are the US army intelligence communications implemented,
You can only guess, because you don't know fuck-all about how the US military works, and how security access works? Yeah, I'd say that's pretty much the sum of things here.
What a shock - somebody who doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about, but isn't afraid to write a page or two all about how he thinks it might possibly work today, based on his own irrelevant experiences 30 years ago - HERE, on SLASHDOT?
Please provide citations for your assertion that this has somehow altered the course of the war, and the plans for troop drawdowns. I've seen nothing to that effect; if you can't provide any evidence that this is happening, I think we can agree that this is what's known as "wishful thinking".
As for your "ensure better behavior from soldiers and officers" - again, please provide some links to information *in these leaks* detailing "all of the atrocities" that we are committing? I mean after all, since wikileaks is providing the information documenting this stuff, you should be able to provide links to it because you've actually seen the documentation... right?
Or have you just been accepting the word of people like Mr. Assange who assure you that bad things are happening, but don't deign to offer you proof of those things? If that's the case, I'd say that makes you pretty gullible, wouldn't you agree?
Slashdot Mirror
"near where people live", not in someone's backyard. The GP said it's 15-20 miles from his suburbs to all the bars in the city. I'm pretty sure you could find a pub-friendly zone within a few miles of well-populated subdivisions, close enough to make a reasonably priced shuttle bus/taxi service economical and profitable.
As I've stated elsewhere in this thread, I'd be in full support of mandatory re-testing as a condition of maintaining a license. If you want to keep driving yourself, demonstrate that you can. If you can't do so, take public transit, take a taxi, or have a friend/family member drive you.
So you admit you're already off your peak performance at the times you normally drive, and use that to justify why dulling your senses even more is no big deal?
"I'm already only 70% effective, and that's pretty much the same as 50% effective, so what's the point?"
Somebody on Slashdot fails at math.
Interestingly, though, I'll point out the statistics that say that young males up to ~25 are the MOST likely to die in a car accident, despite their "reflexes" - why? Because they drive more aggressively, and are more prone to risk-taking. By that measure, the 50+ people who have 30 years of driving experience are demonstrably safer, despite your claims that their reflexes are worse.
It's not always about reflexes. Sometimes it's about having the experience to know how to respond to a situation (e.g., turning into a skid), and older drivers are more likely to have that wisdom.
But for the record, I would support mandatory license re-testing in order to renew a license, as well - you must pass a basic skills test every few years to maintain your license, regardless of your age.
How, exactly, is preventing someone who is over the legal BAC limit "fucking them over"? You're doing them a favor - preventing them from doing something which could land them in jail, or dead. I'd rather they said thank you, and went on their way.
Their behavior is not just "bad" - it is illegal, and demonstrably dangerous.
DWI recidivism implies that they are caught, driving under the influence, a second time.
So what the numbers suggest is that, over the duration of the study, 37% of the people convicted the first time who could have been expected (based on historical statistics) to have a repeat offense were not convicted of a second DUI.
Even if the device isn't installed in the car anymore, it's pretty easy to see that "John Smith got a DUI conviction in 2003, and again in 2008." Thus he is a DWI recidivist, regardless of whether or not the device was still in his car.
Because not everybody has children. You will notice that childseat anchors are pretty standard - giving you the option to install one if you want, or not if you don't have a child.
Driver, passenger, and side curtain airbags are rapidly becoming standard safety equipment.
Seat belts, air bags, crumple zones, better tires, and numerous other safety accoutrements were all optional at one point. I don't think it's too much of a stretch to imagine this becoming reasonable enough and reliable enough to become a standard piece of safety equipment. And I don't think I'd mind seeing that, honestly.
Hey, how about we put one in yours?
Oh shit, I just suggested it. Now what?
Yes, unfortunately for you, if you slow down your reaction time when a big-rig "fishtails out of control and such," you don't have to worry about over-reacting, instead you can just be red paste on the side of the road because you didn't react in time.
Good thought, make it so, Number One.
In the legal sense, yes, driving with 0.09 BAC does fit the definition - it is improper, or excessive, use of alcohol, because anything resulting in a BAC over .08 (* - here, at least, your legal limit may vary) has been defined as "an excessive and improper use."
We are not necessarily talking about the popular definition of "drug abuse," where people think of strung out junkies blowing crackheads so they can score their own $5 rock. We are specifically talking about laws, and punishment for violating them - and in that sense, your .09 BAC at a checkpoint where the legal limit is .08 is most definitely abuse.
I hope the camera on the device captures video, because I really want to see this exchange:
"Hey, hey, miss - excuse me, can you help me out?"
"Sure mister, what's up?"
"I'll give you $5 to blow on something for me, whaddya say?"
Sounds like you've just identified a hell of a business proposition:
1) Open some good pubs & night spots near where people live.
2) Offer low-cost (but still profitable) shuttle and/or taxi service to/from those pubs & night spots.
If there's still alcohol in your blood (which is the point of the article) then no, you haven't "slept it off". The article is warning people that sometimes the alcohol processes out of your body slower than you expect, or sometimes you just have more alcohol in your body than you expect, and so "crashing on the couch for 4 hours to sleep it off" isn't enough time.
The alcohol doesn't just hang out in your mouth, it's still in your bloodstream, from which it is being cleared primarily via metabolism (in the liver), and in smaller part through excretion into urine, breath, sweat & tears.
The point of that article you linked is to say "Take the bus if you've had a WHOLE lot to drink, because the alcohol may not be out of your system yet."
FFS, go read the article. The device needs to stay hooked up for the duration of the offender's probationary period - 6 months to 5 years, depending on the severity.
Yes, 5 years is a long time. No, 5 years is not "the remainder of their lives." I suspect most first time offenders are going to be much closer to 6 months than they are to 5 years, as well.
From the article:
Something tells me the device isn't just going to kill your engine on a highway during rush hour. I suspect it'll probably warn you, give you a certain amount of time (2-5 mins) to pull over, blow, and restart, and if you don't do that, it'll probably log the failure, and keep pestering you with some sort of obnoxious noise/flashing light until you pull over and do what you need to.
I don't see how this would lend itself to entrapment at all, you really need to explain that one if you want anybody to take it seriously.
Considering the unit is reportedly equipped with a camera, and helping someone circumvent this protection by blowing for them is punishable by up to a year in jail... I'd say it'll be pretty hard to get someone with a shred of sense to help you start your car.
Perhaps you should have read the article, where it says that the interlock, "must stay hooked up for the duration of the offender’s conditional discharge or probation — anywhere from six months to five years, depending on the sentence."
It's not a "lifelong punitive impediment." It's a condition of your probation, and it ends after a set amount of time. I think that's pretty sensible - since it allows you to keep driving, which means you can keep working and have a life, but you just can't drive while drunk.
Problem is, you are - demonstrably - physically impaired even with very low levels of alcohol in your blood, low enough that you'll say "But I'm not even drunk, what do you think, I'm a pussy who can't hold my liquor?"
If you have a BAC of .03 - .06, effects are reduced concentration, mild euphoria, and relaxation;
When you get into the BAC range of .06 - .10, effects at this point on the "average" physiology includes damping effects on reasoning, depth perception, peripheral vision, and glare recovery.
Beyond that, .11 - .20 is generally where the average "whoa I'm so drunk" feelings kick in - trouble walking, slurred speech, slow reflexes & reaction time, etc. Keep drinking at that point and you get into "pissing-and-shitting-your-pants" drunk & toxic levels of alcohol.
Given that reason, depth perception, peripheral vision, and glare recovery (the ability to adapt quickly to sudden changes in lighting levels) are all affected by the time you are "legally" drunk... I don't think .08 is all that unreasonable.
I also don't think it's unreasonable or all that immoderate for the government to say "when abilities required to drive a car begin to get impaired, you may not drive a car."
* Note for clarity: "he claimed he copied 260k" = "PFC Manning claimed that Manning copied 260k..."
First, the country has a name, it is spelled 'Iraq'. Learn to spell it properly if you wish anybody to take your arguments about events IN that country with a shred of seriousness.
Yes, I do talk about them, because that's all you've offered.
It's not. How Manning got his hands on it is certainly curious - whether the information was mis-classified, or he broke into an area of the system where he was not supposed to be. That's one memo - through Mr. Lamo, the informant, we know that he claimed he copied 260k documents and sent them to wikileaks; Wikileaks has denied receiving them - who do we believe?
I'll say it again: ENEMY CAPABILITIES. Trends in your enemy's apparent capabilities are useful when you are fighting an enemy, as you may well be able to deduce. Given that one of the main insurgent groups that we have been fighting in Iraq calls itself "Al Qaeda in Iraq" and was operated by one of Osama Bin Laden's lieutenants... why would you ever think that the tactics, operations and capabilities of Taliban & al Qaeda forces would be irrelevant to somebody fighting a group which is in communication with (and at least partially influenced, trained, and motivated by) the enemy 2500 km away?
HOPE EYE WUZ ABULL 2 ECKSPLAIN DAT FUR YOO CLEERLEE, sport. Don't get any sikrits in your Eyerack now.
You have offered nothing factual or logical to refute, just a long, incoherent ramble about how you assume the system SHOULD work, based on your irrelevant experiences with some other military from 30 years ago.
You clearly have no idea what an intel analyst does, or how the system works, so what points, exactly am I supposed to refute?
If you could offer a shred of evidence to support your suppositions, wild-ass guesses, and assumptions, that would help. But as it is, you've stated clearly that you know nothing about the intel systems, the military, or really the situation in Afghanistant, and you've stated clearly that everything you're saying is assumption based on about a thimble-full of facts which you've managed to glean about the case - though apparently not enough to understand what an intel analyst does, and why "only stuff happening in their immediate vicinity" is not the only things they're allowed to see.
You see, when you're analyzing enemy capabilities, you look for trends - have the enemy forces started demonstrating new tactics in other places? Have the enemy started showing up with unexpected equipment or other capabilities? You look for unexpected peaks or valleys in your data, which indicate holes in your understanding of the capabilities of your enemy.
If all you're looking at are the 20 reports filed within 10 miles of your operating area, you are not doing your job. If the enemy in the eastern mountains suddenly starts showing that they're equipped with shoulder-fired missiles and armored vehicles, that's important data you won't see 80 miles away, until some of your own support aircraft are shot down.
Do you understand that "intel analysts" are granted access to intelligence for *precisely* the reason that they are supposed to be sifting through it, making connections, looking for things that are out of the ordinary & indicative of some change in the dynamics of the conflict? In addition, intel analysts are charged with entering operational data into the computer systems - how do you think the paper reports get into a form Mr. Assange can make money off of?
You can only guess, because you don't know fuck-all about how the US military works, and how security access works? Yeah, I'd say that's pretty much the sum of things here.
What a shock - somebody who doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about, but isn't afraid to write a page or two all about how he thinks it might possibly work today, based on his own irrelevant experiences 30 years ago - HERE, on SLASHDOT?
Oh, hush with your "logic" and "reasonable arguments." This is slashdot, enjoy the down-mods! :)
Please provide citations for your assertion that this has somehow altered the course of the war, and the plans for troop drawdowns. I've seen nothing to that effect; if you can't provide any evidence that this is happening, I think we can agree that this is what's known as "wishful thinking".
As for your "ensure better behavior from soldiers and officers" - again, please provide some links to information *in these leaks* detailing "all of the atrocities" that we are committing? I mean after all, since wikileaks is providing the information documenting this stuff, you should be able to provide links to it because you've actually seen the documentation... right?
Or have you just been accepting the word of people like Mr. Assange who assure you that bad things are happening, but don't deign to offer you proof of those things? If that's the case, I'd say that makes you pretty gullible, wouldn't you agree?