Drunk Driving: Too Simple a Solution?

Is there any policy about duplicate stories or blogs here on CR4?

There was a very similar blog (or story) within the last week.

I have the same comment as last time--good (i.e., non-drunken) drivers should not be burdened with having to pay for this technology.

Identifying nearly duplicate posts is relatively easy ... the technology is readily available ... hehehe.

There is a serial killer in our midst... killing with complete randomness, and there are few solutions to stopping the killer.

17,000 deaths... (US) I'm 50 years old.. Im Canadian, so add more... that is more like 1,000,000 innocent people (men, women, children) randomly eliminated in my time on the planet. reducing that number is what the goal is.

non-murdering people still pay for police forces...

Perhaps it would be simpler to simply tax every bottle of alcohol with a 'don't randomly kill innocent people' tax.

and it isn't just the cost of the technology.. what is the cost to a family who loses an family member? what is the cost to a family who has a member that accidentally killed via drinking n driving? the shame, the court costs, the jail time... shattered.

we all pay... even if you think we don't

we might as well accept this, pay the price, and eliminate the problem of driving while impaired.

or... just eliminate alcohol. I gave up alcohol for this exact reason. it takes, and never gives. (its benefits are all illusion)

Chris

I say we should have a suicide tax too ... and a death from hippopotamus tax. And lets not forget .. 'oof a meteor just hit me in the head tax'.

And for my grand finale .... a 'death from the stress of being taxed tax' ...

and breaths per day tax ... because the more you breath the more co2 you make ...

and ... oh noooooo ... the people from tax for people who make fun of taxes are here to collect.

It sounds like the issue has touched you personally somewhere and for that I empathize.

... but the answer is never to tax it ... or make it illegal ... it simply never works and only makes the matter worse. Perfection is so rarely achievable that trying in such a grandiose scale leaves the majority in the path of its wrath.

GA I for one would be prepared to pay for the system. There are too many irresponsible people around.

Off topic "its benefits are all illusion": too bad you live somewhere, they don't make decent beer, I am more than happy to walk to and from the pub.

that is the first time I've heard of Canadians not making decent beer. interesting.

Eliminate alcohol? I think they tried that before. It didn't work so well, and only prioduced large criminal organizations funded from the smuggling and distribution of alcohol, though it did make many canadians wealthier. We can not even control marijauna smoking, and we all already know how dangerous smoking of plant tissues can be on the body. How would you propose we eliminate alcohol consumption?

you sir are my idol!

Well put & greetings from Thunder Bay :D

If cars can be routinely outfitted with distractions like DVD and MP3 players, phones, and GPS systems, shouldn't they also come equipped with in-car alcohol monitoring systems that prevent ignition when driver's don't pass muster?

The difference between cars being fitted/equipped with DVD and MP3 players, phones, GPS systems and in-car alcohol monitoring is that the former devices are not forced on the consumer. Generally they are components the customer desires and is willing to pay for. Whereas the latter is not.

For instance, I do not drink, so why should I have to pay extra for my vehicle to have a device that i do not need?

STOP IT with the intrusive government mandates already!

Amen and GA!!!

@ Doorman. GA.

Let's not forget the old saying: As soon as you make something foolproof, someone invents a bigger fool.

Drunks aren't always drunk, and a persistent drunk will figure out a way to outwit the system. So we'll all be paying more for a system that doesn't work.

Yeah. like getting his 8 year old son to take the alcohol test before he jumps in the car or using his other orifice to blow in the breathalyzer.

Muster got in my way yesterday ... so I bypassed him. I would have bypassed the seatbelt warning light too, but I was on my motorcycle.

Has anyone been pulled over by a motorcycle cop and given a no seatbelt ticket?

I wonder how successful would be the argument that if I had a motorcycle endorsement, I should be allowed to not where my seatbelt in an inherently safer vehicle (car) if I was not required to wear one in an inherently more dangerous one (motorcycle).

With all the motorcycle deaths, wouldn't seat belts be a good idea ... surely the tech ..no... log ... y.......................... no wait ... that would be silly.

DUH!

I am the first to rail against "drunk driving"- where the offenders are dangerous to all- but I am not for laws such as "excess 0.05 driving"- where to a seasoned drinker 0.05- or even 0.08- is nothing. Our local police minister is on record as saying that 30% of fatalities have alcohol in their blood- this means that 70% don't!!- maybe they would still be alive if they were seasoned drinkers!.

"distractions like DVD and MP3 players, phones, and GPS systems"

contribute significantly to accidents. Distractions, inattentiveness, stupidity, and the generally non-existent driving skills and training of drivers on this continent are the major part of the problem. Let's be realistic, getting a drivers license here is simply far too easy.

Accidents caused by drunk driving specifically are tragic, but they are a small percentage of the total. Alcohol abuse is a symptom of much deeper issues. These issues need to be addressed BEFORE the abuse becomes a problem, not covered up with ineffective band-aid solutions like driver-breath-interlocks. We never seem to learn from history. Prohibition didn't/doesn't work. Addressing the reasons for alcohol abuse has at least some chance of reducing alcohol related accidents.

I completely agree with Doorman here, but would like to add some perspective.

I'm a former drinker and driver, (it's been almost 20 years), and no, I didn't kill anyone or get in any accidents. I quit drinking and driving after getting pulled over after having two drinks. I passed the field sobriety test with no problems. I was arrested after blowing in the Breathalyzer and it showed a BAC of .09%. Jail, drunk class, suspended license, the whole whammy. I quit drinking and driving because I didn't want to go to jail for assaulting a police officer if it ever happened again.

I also realize that drinking and driving is stupid, and preach against it whenever it comes up. If someone comes over to my house and drinks on the weekend, they stay until the next morning, period. The benefits are not an illusion, we have a blast.

Back to my point.

1) Do you ever use mouth wash before driving to a meeting? Don't plan on it if this is implemented.

2) Breathalyzers need to be regularly checked and calibrated. Do you want to pay for this?

3) Maybe the most compelling argument of all. I wish the data was available. People that are dumb enough to get completely drunk, drive, and cause accidents, don't tend to be driving around in brand new cars................they are driving old beaters. So while the responsible people are paying for this new alcohol monitor, the worst offenders will still be driving around in pre-monitor cars..............and when those die, they will buy another older used car with no monitor.

Unless of course the government wants to declare all cars without monitors, "clunkers", that must be crushed.

If the government really wanted to save lives, they would ban the sale of alcohol to be consumed on the premises...........no more bars. But they won't, for two reasons.

A) The public backlash would be huge.

B) The dirty little secret, is that for cash strapped states, DWIs equal a large source of much needed revenue............one they've come to depend on.

Please mandate these systems be installed. It shouldn't take me more than 2 hours to design a circuit to defeat it. I can sell them on Ebay for $50 a pop. Ya gotta love regulation and capitalism.

I was just going to say that. If it can be turned on it can be turned off.

The control must be left with the person making the decision to drive under the influence. It happens in the head and not in that car or truck or roadtrain or what ever machine is operated. I know of a guy who can handle a bobcat at will and if he would bloww he would be over the limit for sure. Now you tell Al not to do it and he will just look at you and think his bit and move off the job.

A different thing is when a tipsy person causes an "innocent accident" because distracted by some minor tiny little thing like texting or putting eye liner on. If alcohol is the only problem we face then we are the lucky ones, Ky.

Perhaps if the law had a random death penalty lottery for those convicted of impaired driving...

If it is okay for drinkers to be random killers...

sorry... this one is a pet peeve of mine. seriously I grieve over such avoidable deaths.

Chris

aren't all deaths avoidable from that same perspective of society taking control of the behaviors and activities of others to protect against death. Even most deaths by "natural" causes are avoidable with proper diets through their lives, proper life styles, control of stress, proper living environments and conditions, and very regular health care/monitoring through a persons life.

I would have said that most (early) deaths are avoidable by people taking control of their own behaviours; some are unavoidable and unfortunate; the ones we are concerned about here are the ones caused to completely innocent people because of the irresponsibility of others.

Is anyone ever completely innocent. Isn't there always something that could have been done on their own part to avoid an incident, if they were not ignorant of their environment or other factors.

Plus if you look at the issue of fast food in politics, you can that responsibility is extendable (and thus so is irresponsibility) with regards to many topics. McDonalds can be held responsible for marketing their food products to children (as can the Tobacco industry). They knowingly had the intent of trying to market their products by targeting a specific group. A persons diet could be linked to the industries that made claims are targeted specific groups with marketing efforts, and thus that factor in all deaths could link responsibility to those food industries. Deaths due to recreational activities could be linked to industries that market thos activieitis, equipment, etc.. Bar owners and bartenders, if the bartender was deemed to have reasonable knowledge of the intoxication of the individual and that they could reasonably be assumed to drive, can be held civilly and criminally liable and responsible for drunk driving deaths (of either of both the drunk driver and/or of others). By extension, alcohol industry has through statistics a reasonable knowledge that a certain portion of their consumers will drive drunk and kill someone, and thus could also be held civilly liable if a jury found the argument compelling (just need the right jury).

There are no absolutes here. We as a society assign or limit liabilities and degrees of responsibility.

Is anyone ever completely innocent.

For the purposes of this discussion: yes; I could site lots of examples of people driving completely legally and sensibly, or, even children on the pavement (US sidewalk), being killed by drunken drivers.

There are no absolutes here. We as a society assign or limit liabilities and degrees of responsibility.

Couldn't agree more.

driving legally yes, driving completely sensibly would mean by definition avoiding accidents. Also, just being children doesn't necessarily make them innocent. The question becomes if you are unaware of your situation and get hurt because of your own lack of awareness, are you to any little degree at fault for your own failure to take some precautions or preventative measures? If there was anything anyone involved in an accident could have done to avoid the incident, then they are partly at fault, even if it is not the majority of fault. However, is ignorance or a lack of knowledge a factor. If so consider that means everyone could claim ignorance as an excuse for any incident that occurs.

I think you are going to an extreme.

Is it reasonable to expect a child or group of children walking on a sidewalk to be so in tune with the world (natural and man-made) that they should be able to avoid the ton of metal moving at 30 to 60 mph that doesn't follow the road as the other 20 vehicles have and swerves off the road into them?

Or what about the family driving home from dinner one night on two lane road. A multitude of cars have passed them going the opposite directions.....why should the driver think or expect the next one will cross the line at the last minute causing a head-on collision? The victim is clearly guilty of not being able to predict the future. Depending on when the offending vehicle starts to cross the center line the victim may have had time to react and save his family....but even with both vehicles traveling at safe road speeds and an attentive victim driver the offending vehicle is still able to divert its path into the victim's path causing a fatal accident quicker than the victim is able to react to avoid it.

To say either have any culpability in their demise is pure folly.

reasonable is not absolute, so while it may not be reasonable to expect such of children, they are not absolutely blameless, just relatively blameless. Thus is based on the perspective of the observe, and their own knowledge relating to the observation. this is why you always hear people seeking justifications that ameliorate some of their own liability that are along the line of if such and such hadn't done this the whole thing never would have happened. You have obviously tried to make an exterem example to support your thesis, but how often do drunk drivers actually swerve off the road into a group of children and kill or injure them. You have tried to paint a black and white situation by creating the example to create a emotional response, by using children playing in what is perceived as a relatively innocent activitie away from standard risk. More likely situation would be drunk driver hits someone who runs out in the road or is T-boned by someone when he tries to beat a yellow light and gets caught entering a red. It may or may not have happened to a sober driver, but being drunk he is automatically liable. Such is the way we have defined the law. It is not always so black and white, but the fact someone is intoxicated automatically alleviates anyone else of responsibility in such situations. Surprisingly, however, if a person was just ignorant or a bad driver, and an incident occurred (which I am sure their are more automobile accidents from non-drunk drivers than drunk drivers) they may not necessarily be at fault. Drinking impairs driving abilities, but we do not automatically assign blame on those who are naturally impaired and driving. so the issue with such accidents and preventing them is not just the cause of impairment, because that truly is irrelevent, but that someone drives under conditions where their abilities are impaired relative to some standard expectation of performance. Under all such situations of impairment, persons should be held culpable to the same level of enforcement, whether it is cell phone texting, alcohol, poor mental/physical condition, or just being relatively blind. A physically challenged elderly woman, cuts a corner too soon and runs through a group of children on the sidewalk, is she just as culpable as that drunk person?

I disagree, the children in the scene I described are blameless. If a pedestrian (child or adult) is walking along, being cautious and paying attention, it is still possible for a driver to take action where the pedestrian is injured or killed regardless of what actions the pedestrian takes.

This is regardless of whether the driver is drunk or not.

I did not use children to elicit an emotional response. I used children because they are not expected to be responsible for their behavior to the extent an adult is. A child that is doing what they are taught should not be blamed for negative results from situations they have not been prepared for.

I do not hold blameless all children or all victims of those who are drinking and driving. In 2004 a woman in my community was driving home late at night (I don't recall the exact time, but it was well after dark...perhaps 10 PM). There was some question as to whether or not she had been drinking. Regardless, on her way home, she hit 4 children (ages 2 to 13) were hit by the women's car as they crossed a dark street killing two and injuring the other two. They were returning home from playing at a local community center. The driver was leaving her job as a dance instructor at nearby elementary school.

While I see Porter (the driver) as being primarily responsible, I also believe the parents and older children should share in the blame. However, I do not see how the 2 year old should share in the any part of the blame what-so-ever.

To answer your final question.....yes, she is responsible...is she just as culpable? I would say that may depend on the degree of her physical challenge. She is not breaking the law intentionally....thus an accident. The drunk is breaking the law.

in broad strokes, yes...

however, we have to pick our battles, because of limited resources.

Yes the technology is available.. yes it can be installed, and yes some bright spark WILL invent a way to get round it. People just love the challenge!

However in a recent topic regarding texting while driving, someone said that while the technology to stop texting is out there, it would, in the USA, impinge on the first amendment, regardless of the number of deaths it would save/stop.

Is this little bit of technology to stop DUI impinging on someones rights (in the USA)?

Whereas in the UK, this has been tried, but NOT adopted, not sure if its to do with the cost or reliability. But as so aptly stated.. whatever the device, another device can be made to cancel it out.

So is it the governments not wanting to be a "Nanny State", vehicle makers not wanting to install even more technology into their cars, or something else?

I made a statement in the "Driving while Texting" debate, that a driving licence is a privilege not to be abused.

With that said, maybe the penalties for the abuse are not sufficient or hard hitting enough!!

In certain countries in Europe, if caught DUI, its a jail sentence, end of!

The vehicle is impounded and MUST be bought back from the police at the current market value, there is a HEAVY fine in addition to the mandatory custodial sentence, in the thousand of Euro's, a loss of job & income, plus a 10 year driving ban

Only the few are stupid enough to drink and drive! I believe that if you drive while drunk, and God forbid you should kill or maim someone, you should be charged with murder or attempted murder.

ps: the in-car breath tester trailed in the UK would take air samples and if ANY alcohol was detected, even if below the limit, the vehicle would not start. So having your wee boy to breath on the tube or whatever might get the vehicle started but once alcohol was detected, it would switch of the engine. A bugger if you're a drunk passenger trying to get home!!

I resent your implicit assumption that ANYone who has a drink of alcohol & drives is a killer- it obviously depends on the individual- this is why mandatory laws applying to EVERYone are wrong- obviously you are a wowser. Education of all drivers would be a good start- such as visiting the local morgue!. As a driver- motor cyclist of 50 years, a drinker of 45 years, a mortuary attendant of several years, & a drink driver in a city for many years- this is what matters:- a realisation of one's limits & capabilities & what is only an instant away from happening if an error is made. ( A long time dead!). So I am saying that the stupid revenue raising laws against 0.05 driving etc are unjust & an infringement of civil liberties!. If I was paralytic drunk (say 0.4!- in my case!) I would be the 1st to say "copper- please- get me out of here!"- Just don't happen- folks!- I make very sure I don't drive now if over 0.05. Yet at home for 95% of time- I have a quiet drink(mostly home brew beer)- over 12 hours- my breath meter may say 0.2- but I am as sober as any of you!. So there- all you do gooders who don't know what you are talking about!.

Dear En,

"I resent your implicit assumption that ANYone who has a drink of alcohol & drives is a killer"

I've promoted this idea as much as anyone... but I find myself somewhat in agreement with you. In fact, i think that we are all 'impaired' at different times for different reasons. I'm not saying I think that one is not impaired with any alcohol in their system, but just that on the Bell Curve of statistics, that those with .05 or less is on par with someone who might have taken pain killers or is simply tired.

The human body is a complex system, and has a tremendous number of factors, including simple aging, that affect vehicular awareness and response times... all leading to potential accidents... and obviously we aren't about to propose laws for all those variables.

But alcohol is an easier one to measure, establish limits for, and develop statistics for... and in larger quantities, it most certainly impairs beyond the ability of any individual to respond appropriately to rapidly changing road and driving conditions.

I get upset when I see people planning parties, inviting guests, and serving large amounts of alcohol, and making no plans at all to prevent drunk driving. This one is on the party planners.

I also get upset when I see people who consciously (alcoholic or enthusiastic teenager) drink and drive while drunk out of their minds... and having a group of people surrounding them who are willing somewhat to condone these behaviours. This is like having nuclear fuel reactions without enough moderators in place... something is guaranteed to go wrong.

Statistically... these basic partying mentalities produce tragedies on a regular basis.

I'm not trying to stop the partying.. I'm trying to stop the tragedies.

so it gets really simple... if there is no driving (with any alcohol) there is no tragedy that can be attributed to it... Just imagine if you had a daughter or son killed in such a way.... would you be saying the same things, and justifying just as hard?

(ps... great username)

Chris

"This one is on the party planners."

Here we go again blaming anyone/everyone but the actual offender. [My response]. What ever happened to PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY? Using that argument we are ALL children and are never responsible for our own actions? So EVERYONE who gives out candy at Halloween is responsible when a child eats and gets sick on too much candy later that night? It's not any fault of the child or the parents? STOP already.

Nice specious emotional touch citing a nuclear analogy which I'm certain the ill informed general populace will eagerly embrace. Ooh... drunk driving is just like a nuclear disaster!

For the record I've never had a DUI/DWI or been involved in any alcohol related accidents. I do regularly drink beer (well below the niaaa guidelines) but never drive after. Bus, Taxi, walk, finding a designated driver are MY RESPONSIBILITY, and I take that responsibility very seriously. About 98% of the time I COULD legally drive, but I still don't.

One of my oldest friends (from 5th grade through age 32, RIP) was T-boned by a drunk driver running a red light and killed instantly. His wife survived the crash and thankfully their new baby daughter was at home with other family members. I saw my friend's wife at the service a week later and she looked like one big bruise in a body cast. Even in an approved child seat, I think the baby would have also died in that crash. I could sense her physical pain but couldn't imagine the depth of her inner pain.

I later heard the offending driver was the daughter of a local politician. Deep pockets and a good lawyer got her off with a slap on the wrist. In this situation, such a reckless disregard for another life should have been considered manslaughter (vehicular homicide?) with some real jail time required. IMO 3-7 years, but even this still seems light for recklessly taking another persons life. Anything less and there are effectively NO consequences for such stupid behavior. That sets a really bad example.

Even with this personal experience, I still think that any proposed driver interlock mandated on all vehicles will be ineffective and a gross waste of time and money. Educating people that they are RESPONSIBLE for their reckless actions AND holding them accountable for those actions could be implemented immediately and would be marginally more effective.

Let's be realistic, there are NO fool-proof solutions to this problem. There will always be some people who will be reckless until they do injure or kill someone. There will also be a few who just don't care and who will be repeat offenders regardless of the consequences. The best we can do is to educate and really hold people accountable for their OWN actions.

Can you really hold somoneone who is identifiably impaired to the point they are deemed legally incapable of making decisions about having sex, as being more mentally competent to decide about something as mundane as driving which they are used to doing routinely every day for sometimes many hours a day.

I think we need to.

Or, maybe shift the focus--hold them accountable for getting drunk enough to be impaired for driving.

you can not hold someone liable for committing a legal action. So getting drunk enough to be too impaired to drive is not illegal, you could not hold them accountable for that. It is the driving while impaired that is illegal (but only under certain types of impairments obviously, because driving while on the telephone or distracted in any means is far more dangerous).

Nor could you reasonably claim someone is too drunk to make decisions solely on the basis of their sexual orientation or other factors, and then turn around as say that people of other orientations or ethnicities can be held liable for their action when making such decisions. The law does by the way currently do this, but only for women in colleges that go out binge drink and then do crazy things they regret. If you are going to claim they are too impaired to make decisions, part of the law is that a person must be capable of making a rational decision, else they are mentally incompetent at that time. It seems like only intoxicated people are excluded, even though it is a long recognize mental and psychological impairment. Maybe it is because we feel sympathy for someone who commits murder and claims a temporary psychologic justification, but not so much for someone who voluntarily consumes something they know causes such impairments.

Re: not so much for someone who voluntarily consumes something they know causes such impairments.

+1

Oh so someone who voluntarily entered a situation that will cause impairments should be held responsible, even if they don't plan or believe they will get that impaired?

Yes.

Are they idiots to not know the effect of, for example, alcohol on them?

how about the affects of psychologically abusive partners? Most people being abused know beforehand, at least in some general cocept, what the person is like and what they did to previous partners. Is that justification, if it was not direct self defense?

how about the affects of high stress environments? Everyone knows that can cause people to do crazy things and impair their judgement. More suicides are caused by high stress.

What about old age, everyone know that severely impairs judgement and ability? The elderly can be much worse than drunks. they forget things, can not see well, can not hear well, and have severely limited reaction times and motor skills.

In all these cases all the people who suffer fromt hese impairments believe they are the ones who got lucky and aren't impaired, until it is too late.

RCE,

I'm having difficulty following what you are getting at.

Are you arguing that older people are more impaired and a greater danger on the roads than drunk drivers? Or that older impaired people should be held more responsible for their accidents than drunks?

The statistics from the NHSTA (2008) paint a different picture. Those over 65 only caused 11.1% of fatal accidents where as 21.8% of fatal accidents were related to alcohol.

You must have read my mind, word by word.

GA for that. Fair assessment. I would have nothing to ad but the introduction of simple tests which one could perform on oneself and be objective enough to obey common sense.

Well done, Ky.

The problem with a performance test, is that law enforcement has in the last 2 decades moved away from field sobriety toward BAC, which isn't performance (a measure of intoxication) based, but rather a measure the chemical parameter that leads to intoxication. so if people used a performance based test, some would be fairly competent at the performance test at a BAC of 0.08 and other would not, but all would be illegal.

I would propose that most 20 year old college student at a 0.08 BAC would substantially outperform an 80 year old at nearly any physical testing, and probably a basic timed IQ test which is a way to measure mental aptitude and response time.

I concede that that is the case. The problem is that a high percentage of 20 to 30 year olds with a 0.08 BAC try to drive much much faster than the average 80 year old.

Also many don't stop drinking when they get to 0.08.

WHAT you don't seem to understand, my fine feathered young friend, is that a seasoned drinker, such as(ahem) my good self, can, with the passage of years of moderate beer consumption(mostly home brew), can outperform young un-seasoned drinkers (it was such with myself- 3 bots of beer at 24 & i would be very affected)- NOW- HUH!!!- it just don,t matter!!!- SO- what I am saying is that every case of DUI or DUE SHOULD be evaluated by a impartial judge!!!- misfortunately- folks- jist don't happen!!. SO- yes all unsafe drunk drivers should be incarcerated- BUT!!!- all SAFE drivers such as(ahem) my good self should have a exemption certificate up to the limit eg in my case 0.3 would be regarded as the same as a young idiots 0.02!!!- & no - I ain,t yolking! folks! I now turn to evidence- Ihave got home for the last 40 years DESPITE being legally over the average alcohol limit!!! AND- I ain,t killed or injured anyone, incl myself!! So there you go- an average breath test( cos it,s easy!- & revenue raising!- despite ignoring the partition rate may be (& is!) different in EVERY person!!!.

Wow, what's frightening is that you seem quite proud of the fact that not only have you been driving legally drunk, but you have are also breaking the law.

I'm not all that in favor of the government regulating and making a lot of activities illegal. However, regardless of whether I agree with the law or not, I still make an attempt to obey the law and would certainly not brag about breaking it.

What you are missing here is that the LAW & reality are different- the LAW is made by stupid hooman beans- usually to revenue raise- becuz they are in power. We all know that power corrupts- but what is really sad is that these dumb bunnies continually have to make new laws becuz the older ones ain,t working!- & never will!! while ever citizens have a mind & a brain !! So there you go- you sad apology for the( "SYSTEM").

Actually, laws are made for a number of reasons. Some, perhaps the majority, are for reasons you sight. I do not deny some laws are for revenue generation or just because one group (the lawmakers at the time) are drunk with power and think they know what is best for everyone.

Even though it may seem like common sense not to murder your neighbor, there is a law against it for a reason (and it's not to generate revenue or because some politician is on a power trip).

I disagree with many speed limits that are posted as most seem quite low to me. That may be because:

• I over estimate my driving skills
• I my driving skills are superior driver to others
• the speed limit is set conservatively too low for all drivers

Regardless of my perception of the limit, I do realize it's unrealistic for the local law enforcement to set different limits for different skill level drivers. It's economically prohibative for law enforcement to determine who is violating their own personal speed limitations relative to their particular skill set. So society is stuck with the alternative. Personally, I would like to see tougher standards in order to obtain a license which I think would allow society to reduce the need for traffic laws.

Don't forget that these dumb bunnies are, in most cases, voted into office by the public. So start a campaign to fight against ridiculous laws and I will support you.

Not obeying the laws just because you think they shouldn't apply to you is arrogant and foolish.

You say "while ever citizens have a mind & a brain" I don't disagree with the statement by itself, but you seem to imply with it that because citizens have a brain that we don't need laws. It's those very citizens that push and vote for the laws (both the ridiculous laws and the sensible laws).

Why do products have obsurd warning lables on them (toasters - do not use in the bath tub) or the need for obvious instructions (years ago purchased a phone, long before cordless phones were around, and it came with instructions on to operate it.....the first step was to pick up the handset). Those are not their because of a law requiring them (in most cases), but to limit liability because some citizen was not using their brain and did something stuipid, then had the balls to turn around and sue the company for not making their product idiot proof.

J B Tardis?- is it the tardis of Dr Who? You don't seem to realise that we all Hooman Beans are different in our abilities knowledge skills- the only thing we have in common are that a father & mother made each of us- don"t even think of a deity being involved!THAT is why laws to cover the AVERAGE hooman bean are wrong- because my dna is different to you & just about every other bean. Now as to attitude- we all have our personalities, our memories, our life experiences- this what makes "us- US". Then for a mob of politicians to make, & for police to enforce, a totally stupid law in my opinion -I hate it!!- BUT- because the average bean puts up with it- there we all are!! Then, because beans still get injured/killed in car accidents(usually because of lack of vigilance- 70% are killed with NO alcohol in their blood)- the @#$%^& in power make even more draconian laws!!!- Oh my god- let me be born again & live 50 years ago!!. The !@#$% in power will never ban motor vehicles because the revenue from taxes is too attractive- if they were dinkum they would ban motor vehicles- & the world would have a major source of greenhouse gases removed.

Yes, the Tardis is from Dr. Who

I do realize we have different abilities and skills which is why it's impossible for laws to be anything but general, as it's impractical to enforce laws based on an individual's personal capacity or limitations.

Do you advocate holding a person blameless for taking another's life if that killer shows they have no capacity to differentiate between right and wrong? While some murders do get off with an insanity plea, they are not set free....generally they are institutionalized in some manner as society needs to be protected from that individual.

I am not in favor of purposeless laws or laws by politicians just to control other's lives. However, drinking and driving is a serious problem. My expectation on the highway is that everyone should obey the laws that exists, whether they agree with them or not. I am experienced enough to know that not everyone will, so I have adequate insurance and I drive defensively. The highways are publicly funded and maintained and for use by the general public. It is in societies best interest for rules and laws to be in place. If you want to drive while legally drunk, do everyone a favor, build your own roads on your own land and do you drunk driving there.

Well JB my young friend- I think you have a HELL of a lot to learn about life! So you adopt a Tardis in your psuedonym- which means you are an escapist! really!!- believing that a telephone box can transport you or anyone else to another dimension! The fact you endorse one-for -all testing for alcohol or anything else as far as I can see is a measure of your stupid incapacity to reALISE THE question of fairness by a stupid man made law to revenue raise without having a slightest on fatalities!by legislating that ALL deniers of the utterly STOOPID laws are STOOPID & CRIMINALS!!!! by default!!!- & which is why these gestapo can STOP_ DETAIN_ IMPRiSON- decent citizens whose ONLY crime is to have a few drinks of a legal substance which is taxed highly by the same gestapo-without taking into account the individual capacity of each individual to be quite capable at most levels defined by the same gestapo as impossible!!!. In my driving- even without any drinking, I see others driving recklessly- passing where not safe - not indicating- while no cops around- which means we all drivers realise that the stoopid laws are a revenue raising boolshoot !!!. As I said before I am all in favour of a driver being removed if UNSAFE!!! to the rest!!!- BUT!! - these days- the rest of drivers( supposedly safe) are a bigger threat to all than the habitual drinker !!!- So there you are - you fantasist escapist Dr Who fan!!!

I think you are reading far too much into my pseudonym. Because I find the show interesting, and chose the TARDIS does not mean that I believe it to be possible. Besides, if the Dr. if the camilian circuit worked he could transform it into a looking like a space/time ship.....would that make my believing in it acceptable?

You make an assumption about me based on my avatar, yet you yourself have none, what does that say about you? I choose not to read anything into it....but certainly could.

Regarding drunk driving laws....if you want to argue about the blood/alchohol level authorities have chosen to gauge being too drunk to drive, that's fine....provide some data (other than just personal experience) and I am happy to engage in that converstion. If you are just going to rant and complain about politicians abusing their power (while I agree they do that all too often), then I see no point in further debate/discussion with you.

Obviously if you can see no avatar- you can see no point! in converstion! Goodbye! Cretin!-(in my humble opinion!)

No, what I see no point in is discussing an issue that you only rant and rave about as oppose to presenting any coherent argument.

Your lack of an avatar means nothing to me, I stated I choose to not read anything into it as a counter to your analysis of me based on my avatar. I find it enjoyable to discuss and debate a variety of topics with individuals here when those individuals actually use reason, facts, and logic. You, on the other hand, make conclusions about me based on a picture associated with my member name. So if you make such an idiotic assumption, the basis for your decisions and opinions become suspect.

In car alchohol monitoring systems are long overdue.

Not that hard to do either.

JP

Technology is a wonderful thing.. but can be outdone by fools and idiots...

The bottom line is.. if you drink, you don't drive!

simple really... and those caught DUI should be punished accordingly and severely.