Joe Minton

leanneg:

I submit that driving is more complicated than flying at least in urban traffic. I've done both and much prefer flying.

I consider a near-majority of drivers to be, essentially, incompetent: young women following too close; young men darting in and out of traffic at speed; cell phone use at all ages, etc. These folks, including those impaired by drugs (of any sort) should not be driving a car or any other vehicle.

I’d pull the license (for a year) of anyone found guilty of a DUI with a year in jail if subsequently arrested for the same offence. We need to be treated like pilots.

A couple of years ago, a 17-year old was texting when she ran into a van stopped at a light. The impact pushed the van into the path of a loaded semi. All seven members of the family in the van were crushed and/or burned to death.
A few months ago, a 20-year old was texting, wandered out of the lane and rear-ended a cyclist, killing him. This person then jerked into the oncoming lane and killed a motorcyclist.

We need to stop this. We need to get such people off the road. Drivers/riders need to start thinking about others instead just about themselves. We need to stop making excuses.

Joe

rydabent

Why not zero tolerance against drunk driving. Simply put people simply do not have to drink, and everyone knows you should not drink and drive. Society does not need and should have zero tolerance against fools that drink and drive.

mr_bill

EU limits.

Most of the EU disagrees with you. Except for the UK, where it is also the Goldilock's just right value of 0.08. Except for Scotland, where it is 0.05.
(No matter, UK is not long for the EU, and Scotland might not be long for the UK.)

Some of the EU *strongly* disagrees with you.

-mr. bill

howsteepisit

And what the EU thinks matters how?

mr_bill

And what you think matters how?

I think g should be a bit lower than 1.0. About 0.8-0.9 I'd be able to climb faster, no longer brake so much on descents, *and* dunk.

-mr. bill

howsteepisit

What I and you think only matters in that this is a forum for individuals to express their opinions. Taking a clue from you, I was too cryptic in my comment. To be clear, what the EU thinks about DUI matters very little to me. If it matters to you that's fine, but it will not have any influence what so ever on my thoughts on DUI.
And DUI limit are fundamentally different than physical constants, if you want g to be equal to .8 great, you still will not be able to dunk.

mr_bill

What you think matters not a whit. Utah's law was in fact signed on Thursday, and will go into effect December 30, 2018.

BTW NTSB disagrees with you too. But hey, you think, therefore you think.

-mr. bill

howsteepisit

I can think of a great many things that people do not have to do, the freedom to do so makes life more enjoyable. the reality is that I am somewhat libertarian, and think unless its glaringly needed, laws/regulation are unneeded. My own opinion is that even .08 is overly restrictive, but if you want more governmental intrusion into your life than call for a total ban on any public consumption. That's your right, hopefully more think my way than yours.

howsteepisit

What any forum users think mater not a whit. And I am aware of Utah's new regulation, I was merely stating that I disagree with that. As far as NTSB - their job is to make the roads as safe as possible, and others have the job of balancing freedom with restriction.

mr_bill

I was unaware that the NTSB has closed all roads. Pointer to this breaking news?

-mr. bill

rydabent

I too am not for having all that many laws. However like in this case there are too many people that are willing to live responsibly in society. Laws have to be put on the books to protect society from those people.

This mayor like so many elected people move around in convoys and are protected by guns. This is not true for the rest of us. That is why we need laws and courts to protect us from drunks and the likes of fool b'crats like him.

howsteepisit

Nice redirect!

howsteepisit

Yea, those responsible people are a royal pain in the butt.

merlinextraligh

Context.

Deblasio said a non injury DUI is not a serious offense, in the context of what offenses are sufficiently serious that they should lead to deportation.

So, should we be deporting people, and severing families in the process, for someone who causes no injury and blows a .09?

Personally, I think that person deserves to be punished. I'm not so sure that person and his family, deserves to be punished to the extent of having their family torn apart, and being deported to a country, where he or she may never have lived except as a young child, and where he or she does not even speak the language.

mr_bill

Oh, so you "just think" that the NTSB mission is "...to make the roads as safe as possible." I "just think" that *this* is the NTSB mission.

I also "just think" the sky has no color at all in your world.

-mr. bill

mr_bill

"So, any serious and violent crime, we're going to work with them. Someone commits a minor offense, for example, right now, if you didn't have clear definitions like we have -- let's say someone had a small amount of marijuana -- let's say someone went through a stop sign -- they could be deported for that, and their family could be torn apart.

And you could have children left behind where the breadwinner in the family is sent back home to a home country. That's not good for anyone."

Actual transcript.

-mr. bill

howsteepisit

What in the hell are you off about?

kevindsingleton 

"Our Mission

Independently Advancing Transportation Safety"

I read that as functionally equivalent to "...to make the roads as safe as possible."

Juan Foote

Yeah, at least "drunk" drivers are attempting to drive. People trying to eat or text, aren't.

It is impossible to take a stance that says this particular level of BAC is the same impairment to everyone. Not only does physiology and genetics play a role, but metabolism, amount of time spent drinking regularly, and more.
Where we certainly cannot turn a blind eye to people who are impaired by any substance and let them get behind the wheel, the current law/punishment system does absolutely zero to protect anyone. Its only focus is to generate funds and create groups of people with less rights and choices than others.

ItsJustMe

A non-injury DUI is only non-injury from random chance. It's a chance for society to slap the sh*t out of that person. IMO it should count as their one-and-only warning. It should get some penalty, but it should also mean "that's it, we will not tolerate this anymore. You're only lucky you didn't kill someone. Do it again, injury or not, and you forfeit your car and you're in jail for a year.

merlinextraligh

Right or wrong, that's the way it is with a vast number of criminal acts.

Our system includes the severity of the consequences as a factor in determining severity of punishment.

You start a fire for insurance proceeds, the criminal liability is radically different if someone happens to be asleep inside, you shoot a gun in the air, the results vary dramatically on whether it comes down into someone; you punch someone in the face, it changes things a whole lot if they unfortunately fracture their skull and die falling on a rock.

merlinextraligh

And do you think you should be deported for it?

Only way anyone should be upset with DiBlasio if they think people should be deported for DUI's.

Immigration policy is a whole nother debate. But I think the point here is not that DiBlasio is condoning drunk driving, rather he's saying a first offense DUI, particularly without injury shouldn't get you deported.

howsteepisit

Ahhh the A&S faithful stand ready to distort anything and anyone who stands in the way of their own particular definition of righteous justice. I also thought that DiBlasio's comments were grossly distorted here, but was too lazy to get into the who deportation thing.

Note I am agreeing with you Merlin

KD5NRH

AFAIK, all three have provisions for a good faith attempt to commit the act without causing the indicated harm; checking the building to a reasonable standard before burning, (at least here, it's legal to burn your own building down in a safe and otherwise legal manner, though the insurance claim would be fraud) firing the gun in the air in a location where one can reasonably believe no one else is within range, or putting on boxing gloves and sparring headgear, to use your own examples. The only way one could do that with drunk driving is to stay on private property under the driver's control...and AFAIK, at least some states don't consider that a crime.

merlinextraligh

Hum, no. You commit arson, you're guilty of arson. Someone unintentionally dies, despite your efforts to determine no one is in the building, you're guilty of felony murder ( under the common law, and many state statutes).

Hit someone intentionally, without legal provocation, you're guilty of battery. They die in a freak circumstance, because of a genetic defect, or falling on a sharp edge, and it's a degree of murder.

My example of shooting in the air, in a crowd, where there's a good chance it will hit someone, the exact nature of the crime and the extent of the punishment turns on the luck of whether it hits and kills someone or not.

There are tons of examples where the severity of punishment turns on the luck of the outcome.