that's not drunk driving

[The Dude]

FWIW, I don't think measuring deaths in other countries is a good statistic. Do those countries have as good cars? Road rails? I mean this from a safety standpoint.

If country X has lots of older cars, people are going to die more often from the same type of accident than in the US.

Better to look at accident rates among drunk drivers if you want to make an argument (I did not take a side, only made a point regarding an argument).

[John Galt]

[The Dude]

I didn't make an argument since i don't know the data. All I'm saying is I wouldn't look at death rates but rather accident rates due to alcohol.

People seem to only look at drunk driving deaths but that's not right. What about the cost to insurances due to all the accidents. People get injured, even paralyzed (I knew of a kid who was paralyzed from drunk driving).

I'm not arguing the US is worse than those countries. I'm just arguing we're looking at the wrong stats. I don't know what the stats say, though.

edit: And I don't know if those cars have airbags or if they wear seatbelts in Ireland, etc. I mean, I don't know what their laws are (or anywhere else for that matter) or their road rails either. Which is why I'd look at the one thing that won't be influenced as much by other things, accident rate.

[John Galt]

us has the highest accident rate, but only 2.25% of the 10.8 million/year crashes are related to intoxicated drivers from what i can find. but again, we're talking people who are 0.15+ who are the danger. what would be interesting would be an analysis of the costs of f**k someone's life over vs. the amount of accidents caused by someone at 0.05 bac (not involved in, caused by, mind you, someone texting and rear ends some guy who had a couple that's not his fault)

[Homer]

[eynon81]

[John Galt]

[dontworrybehappy]

I don't see how anyone could be against drunk driving laws based on BAC. At least with BAC, you can check YOURSELF before you get behind the wheel. Whereas if you leave it up to the cop, one cop might say you're ok, another thinks you're plastered. How do you know which one will pull you over when you get behind the wheel? I am totally against leaving the interpretation of something like this up to the individual cop. Their job is to enforce the law, not create it on the spot. The law says .08 gets you a free trip downtown. You are at the bar, you have a breathalyzer in the car and blow .07. Now at least you know the law says you're safe. Whether or not you REALLY are is up to you. You are always responsible for your behavior, but why would anyone say its ok to have any alcohol in your system when you drive?

I just don't get it. I think .01 should get you nailed. I have no tolerance for drunk drivers and I would make it a first time offense 25-life, or at least 15-life. Risking my life with your car by driving with alcohol in your system is no different than risking my life by pointing a gun at me.

Zero tolerance from me.

[John Galt]

wow, okay person I disagree with. mod edit- NAB

in reality if you blow a 0.001 and are all over the road you can get a DUI. so no, you can't "test yourself" with a bac. all bac does is force the cop to arrest you even if you're not drunk. you'd have to test yourself in your own judgement as to whether or not you can drive and not be pulled over. remember, while 0.08+ is automatic DUI if you get pulled over, typically you only get a DUI if you're actually drunk, which is 0.15. this is because you're unlikely to be pulled over so long as you're not breaking other traffic laws because you're not all over the road because you're not drunk

and i didn't want to goodwin my own thread but who else is a draconian authoritarian teetotalling ass?

[dontworrybehappy]

Hitler? Really?

Your reply lost all validity at the third word. Too bad. I knew that if a conservative actually wants to enforce the law that Hitler would be brought into it.

Go investigate a conservative group for tax fraud. Make yourself useful. And you'd be in good company!