To all of you driving is a privelege folks, try arbitrarily taking away people’s “right to drive,” and see what happens. You all seem to be a bunch of pious self-centered individuals who believe the universe revolves around you. The issue against MADD is not wheather drunk driving is safe or unsafe. The issue is how to you effectively convince people to stop bad habits without implementing bad laws. Many of you believe you can control the behavior of others by making laws or instituting harsh punishments. If that was the case then there should not be any murders in states where the death penalty is enforced. Clearly it has not spopped people from killing each other.
You refer to people who cite the constitution as lacking compassion, yet I read your comments and see how you want to have those who disagree with you wrap their vehicle around a tree. You speak of law enforcement as if it is perfected, while we see almost daily people who have been falsely accused cleared through DNA testing.
What about all of the people driving on prescription drugs? I’ll bet a lot of MADD folks are running around in their vehicles with mind numbing prescribed drugs in their veins. Should we apply the full force of the law against them, when they are involved in an accident.
The point is, throwing people in jail and making new laws do not solve our problems. We must apply a higher level of humanity and sensitivity to pursuade people to change their bad habits. Just because you said it and the law states it does not mean it’s going to be followed. People will do whatever they deem necessary to survive. If you take away their license they will drive anyway. They will simply be an angrier driver. so, saying driving is a privelege is a moot point. Keep supporting MADD and instituting bad laws and watch this society continue to crumble around you.
You really don’t want to go that way with me. As an agent I see a lot of behaviors that need to be corrected or punished.
Maybe I missed the first part of the argument where I said that drunks (or those considered legally intoxicated) should be put in jail if they don’t hit/hurt anyone; I don’t believe I ever made that statement. Should they have their license pulled – yes.
Someone with multiple speeding tickets. Not jailed, but definately punished more than just higher rates. Remedial drivers licenses or have their license suspended for a while.
While we’re at it, let’s talk about cell phone use (since you wanted to spread this out over other “groups”). Some states have made their use illegal, I don’t go that far; but I do think if someone is in an at-fault accident while using one the driver should be charged with DWI.
Now you know my side. None of these behaviors is safe; it’s not the drinking thing, it’s the safety aspect. None of these “classes” of drivers is “safe; ” and since it is a dangerous instrumentality they are driving – it is their responsibility to do it safely.
Hey Dis,
You never answered my question. Are you condoning drinking and driving?
It appears that many of you are defending drunk driving. It isn’t a victimless crime. When a drunk driver invades my personal space, destroys my property, affects my personal health, all because they couldn’t say no, call a friend, call a cab… then it becomes an issue. Yes, lock up any REPEAT offenders. You hear that people? I said ANY REPEAT offenders. Speeders, drinkers, cell phone abusers, lock them all up. They are a hazard to the vast majority of people on the road who aren’t drinking, speeding, talking on a cell phone. What is so difficult to understand? Drink yourself stupid, but call a cab, call a friend. Is that such a difficult concept to comprehend?
So to all the MADD haters and MADD fanatics out there, I am not discriminating against drunk drivers. I am discrminating against any idiot who puts their own selfishness before the safety of the majority of responsible drivers on the road.
Regardless. Yanking a license for any amount of time on a first offense for, say, DUI (.079) while driving with a burned out license plate light is not just. On top of that add the excessive fines.
All to change behavior?
Speeding is just as dangerous yet I’m gleaning from your post that a monetary fine is just fine for a first time offender.
All dangerous behaviors need to be treated equal in order for legislation to be just.
I do like the DWI for accident while using a cell phone. But again, excessive fine and license suspension do nothing to solve the problem.
As a society, we got MADD’s point that drinking in excess and driving do not mix. MADD is trying to stay relevant by piling on one ridiculous law after another.
They are legislating us back to prohibition one bad law at a time.
Using the traffic courts to administer VENGEANCE against people that did nothing to their family and nothing to other families is just plain wrong
I’m not condoning DD. The definition of drunk needs to be rethought. The majority of people doing killing that are impaired are hard core alcoholics whose BAC is well over .16%
Reducing BAC levels to .08 only widened the net of people forced to donate to MADD upon arrest.
fyi….DUI, when a victim is involved should be punished harshly. Over 99.99% of the 1.8m arrestees annually kill no one yet they are being punished AS IF they did.
Then I just have to ask this – do we then do nothing because the punishments aren’t “fair”?
All I want is to know what you consider fair.
Each of these behaviors is a choice and fear is a deterrent in making the choices. And to your point, all of them are dangerous in their own context. Is any one more dangerous than the other? Less dangerous.
If you’re driving down a two-lane road at night and another driver is coming toward you, which one do you want: the speeder, the cell phone user or the drunk driver?
If you were a tree, what kind would you be? Now I’m just having fun.
These discussions are what makes the day (and life) fun.
If you’re driving down a two-lane road at night and another driver is coming toward you, which one do you want: the speeder, the cell phone user or the drunk driver?
_________________
See thats where I think you are missing the point. I want the more skilled driver. If they are more skilled, then they will handle the drunekness, or the cell phone better.
It seems like youve made up your mind, but statistics show that you would be safer driving by the driver with a .08 rather than the person on the cell phone.
But you dont believe the statistics, do you? Youve already made up your mind because youve been brain washed.
That’s the most fallacious statment/argument I’ve heard today, and so is your answer.
Tell me the skill level of any of the drivers in my question.
If it’s a race car driver than the speeder is who you want. If they have never been drunk before (amateur drunk) you definately don’t want that person.
You are making assumptions from your narrow view.
Further, a question never indicates someone is brainwashed. A brainwashed person doesn’t want to ask or be asked real questions ‘casue it might challenge their view.
Just by your post, I would assume you drink a bit and maybe sometimes to excess, so you want to protect your feeling that you are right and that what you are doing isn’t unsafe. You used .08 in your argument, but what about someone “drunker” than that, say .12 or higher – do you want that person? Even your non-assuming answer has assumptions.
I’m open, point me and everyone else to these statistics.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
To all of you driving is a privelege folks, try arbitrarily taking away people’s “right to drive,” and see what happens. You all seem to be a bunch of pious self-centered individuals who believe the universe revolves around you. The issue against MADD is not wheather drunk driving is safe or unsafe. The issue is how to you effectively convince people to stop bad habits without implementing bad laws. Many of you believe you can control the behavior of others by making laws or instituting harsh punishments. If that was the case then there should not be any murders in states where the death penalty is enforced. Clearly it has not spopped people from killing each other.
You refer to people who cite the constitution as lacking compassion, yet I read your comments and see how you want to have those who disagree with you wrap their vehicle around a tree. You speak of law enforcement as if it is perfected, while we see almost daily people who have been falsely accused cleared through DNA testing.
What about all of the people driving on prescription drugs? I’ll bet a lot of MADD folks are running around in their vehicles with mind numbing prescribed drugs in their veins. Should we apply the full force of the law against them, when they are involved in an accident.
The point is, throwing people in jail and making new laws do not solve our problems. We must apply a higher level of humanity and sensitivity to pursuade people to change their bad habits. Just because you said it and the law states it does not mean it’s going to be followed. People will do whatever they deem necessary to survive. If you take away their license they will drive anyway. They will simply be an angrier driver. so, saying driving is a privelege is a moot point. Keep supporting MADD and instituting bad laws and watch this society continue to crumble around you.
Hey, I’ll drink to that.
Good post.
Dis.
You really don’t want to go that way with me. As an agent I see a lot of behaviors that need to be corrected or punished.
Maybe I missed the first part of the argument where I said that drunks (or those considered legally intoxicated) should be put in jail if they don’t hit/hurt anyone; I don’t believe I ever made that statement. Should they have their license pulled – yes.
Someone with multiple speeding tickets. Not jailed, but definately punished more than just higher rates. Remedial drivers licenses or have their license suspended for a while.
While we’re at it, let’s talk about cell phone use (since you wanted to spread this out over other “groups”). Some states have made their use illegal, I don’t go that far; but I do think if someone is in an at-fault accident while using one the driver should be charged with DWI.
Now you know my side. None of these behaviors is safe; it’s not the drinking thing, it’s the safety aspect. None of these “classes” of drivers is “safe; ” and since it is a dangerous instrumentality they are driving – it is their responsibility to do it safely.
Hey Dis,
You never answered my question. Are you condoning drinking and driving?
It appears that many of you are defending drunk driving. It isn’t a victimless crime. When a drunk driver invades my personal space, destroys my property, affects my personal health, all because they couldn’t say no, call a friend, call a cab… then it becomes an issue. Yes, lock up any REPEAT offenders. You hear that people? I said ANY REPEAT offenders. Speeders, drinkers, cell phone abusers, lock them all up. They are a hazard to the vast majority of people on the road who aren’t drinking, speeding, talking on a cell phone. What is so difficult to understand? Drink yourself stupid, but call a cab, call a friend. Is that such a difficult concept to comprehend?
So to all the MADD haters and MADD fanatics out there, I am not discriminating against drunk drivers. I am discrminating against any idiot who puts their own selfishness before the safety of the majority of responsible drivers on the road.
God bless america!
Maybe I misunderstood your other post.
Regardless. Yanking a license for any amount of time on a first offense for, say, DUI (.079) while driving with a burned out license plate light is not just. On top of that add the excessive fines.
All to change behavior?
Speeding is just as dangerous yet I’m gleaning from your post that a monetary fine is just fine for a first time offender.
All dangerous behaviors need to be treated equal in order for legislation to be just.
I do like the DWI for accident while using a cell phone. But again, excessive fine and license suspension do nothing to solve the problem.
As a society, we got MADD’s point that drinking in excess and driving do not mix. MADD is trying to stay relevant by piling on one ridiculous law after another.
They are legislating us back to prohibition one bad law at a time.
Using the traffic courts to administer VENGEANCE against people that did nothing to their family and nothing to other families is just plain wrong
I’m not condoning DD. The definition of drunk needs to be rethought. The majority of people doing killing that are impaired are hard core alcoholics whose BAC is well over .16%
Reducing BAC levels to .08 only widened the net of people forced to donate to MADD upon arrest.
fyi….DUI, when a victim is involved should be punished harshly. Over 99.99% of the 1.8m arrestees annually kill no one yet they are being punished AS IF they did.
That’s MADD Vengeance my friend
Dis.,
Then I just have to ask this – do we then do nothing because the punishments aren’t “fair”?
All I want is to know what you consider fair.
Each of these behaviors is a choice and fear is a deterrent in making the choices. And to your point, all of them are dangerous in their own context. Is any one more dangerous than the other? Less dangerous.
If you’re driving down a two-lane road at night and another driver is coming toward you, which one do you want: the speeder, the cell phone user or the drunk driver?
If you were a tree, what kind would you be? Now I’m just having fun.
These discussions are what makes the day (and life) fun.
If you’re driving down a two-lane road at night and another driver is coming toward you, which one do you want: the speeder, the cell phone user or the drunk driver?
_________________
See thats where I think you are missing the point. I want the more skilled driver. If they are more skilled, then they will handle the drunekness, or the cell phone better.
It seems like youve made up your mind, but statistics show that you would be safer driving by the driver with a .08 rather than the person on the cell phone.
But you dont believe the statistics, do you? Youve already made up your mind because youve been brain washed.
Doug,
That’s the most fallacious statment/argument I’ve heard today, and so is your answer.
Tell me the skill level of any of the drivers in my question.
If it’s a race car driver than the speeder is who you want. If they have never been drunk before (amateur drunk) you definately don’t want that person.
You are making assumptions from your narrow view.
Further, a question never indicates someone is brainwashed. A brainwashed person doesn’t want to ask or be asked real questions ‘casue it might challenge their view.
Just by your post, I would assume you drink a bit and maybe sometimes to excess, so you want to protect your feeling that you are right and that what you are doing isn’t unsafe. You used .08 in your argument, but what about someone “drunker” than that, say .12 or higher – do you want that person? Even your non-assuming answer has assumptions.
I’m open, point me and everyone else to these statistics.
These discussions ARE fun. We will disagree but at least we are still free to do that for now.
Unfortunately, I disagree with a powerful lobby group that is trying to remain relevant after their point has been made and taken.
I don’t wish harm to come to anyone at the hands of a sober or drinking driver.
IMO Penalties for DUI amount to cruel and unusual punishment for a crime with no victim.
No need to respond. We are not going to resolve our differences in opinion in this forum.
Good day.