From: Brent on 29 Dec 2009 15:18 On 2009-12-29, The Real Bev <bashley101(a)gmail.com> wrote: > necromancer wrote: > >> <dwrousejr(a)nethere.comNOSPAM> wrote: >> >>>The statistics that show drinking and driving goes up during the holidays >>>more than justifies the checkpoints. If the checkpoints got no arrests and >>>no impounds, they would cease to exist on their own. >> >> All things being equal, I'd rather take the risk of encountering a >> drunk driver and rely on my skills as a driver to get out of the >> situation safely than to have to give up more of my rights to the >> fascist police state that america (sic) is becoming in the name of, >> "safety." > > Ditto. > > The only way of getting rid of drunken driving is to make it a capital offense > and carry it out every single time. Eventually they'll all be dead. The > intent here is NOT discouragement of drinking+driving but the elimination of > those stupid enough to do it. Hey, it's a win-win situation! But then drunk driving would have to go back to the definition of decades past.... otherwise it's effective prohibition, which is what MADD wants. And we know how well prohibition works. Criminals and law enforcement types love the profits.
From: The Real Bev on 29 Dec 2009 22:17 Brent wrote: > On 2009-12-29, The Real Bev <bashley101(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> necromancer wrote: >>> <dwrousejr(a)nethere.comNOSPAM> wrote: >>> >>>>The statistics that show drinking and driving goes up during the holidays >>>>more than justifies the checkpoints. If the checkpoints got no arrests and >>>>no impounds, they would cease to exist on their own. >>> >>> All things being equal, I'd rather take the risk of encountering a >>> drunk driver and rely on my skills as a driver to get out of the >>> situation safely than to have to give up more of my rights to the >>> fascist police state that america (sic) is becoming in the name of, >>> "safety." >> >> Ditto. >> >> The only way of getting rid of drunken driving is to make it a capital offense >> and carry it out every single time. Eventually they'll all be dead. The >> intent here is NOT discouragement of drinking+driving but the elimination of >> those stupid enough to do it. Hey, it's a win-win situation! > > But then drunk driving would have to go back to the definition of > decades past.... otherwise it's effective prohibition, which is what > MADD wants. And we know how well prohibition works. Criminals and law > enforcement types love the profits. Of course. Both the crime and anti-crime establishments are strong. Still, a lot of people are religious about having a designated driver, so any drunk who can't manage that probably has no family or friends willing to help him out, so he might as well be dead. My uncle was a well-controlled alcoholic. He drank just enough at home in the evenings and weekends to keep him drunk all his conscious time but still able to be sober by morning and go to work. His wife stayed with him because he worked for UCB in the laboratory supply room (which enabled him to drink pure lab alcohol mixed with orange juice) and had excellent life insurance, on which she eventually collected when his liver gave out. To the best of my knowledge he never drove drunk. His family refused to go anywhere with him unless my aunt drove. Uncle Harold was NOT related to me by blood. His job didn't require too much brain power. If he could manage, why can't smarter people? Sorry, I truly believe that drug/alcohol-impaired people who insist on driving really ARE no better than would-be murderers looking for a handy victim and I have no sympathy for them whatsoever. If we could trust cops to execute (ha!) summary judgment only when it was actually warranted, it would be a much better world. -- Cheers, Bev --------------------------------------- A recent psychic fair was cancelled due to unforeseen circumstances.
From: Brent on 29 Dec 2009 23:47 On 2009-12-30, The Real Bev <bashley101(a)gmail.com> wrote: > His job didn't require too much brain power. If he could manage, why can't > smarter people? Sorry, I truly believe that drug/alcohol-impaired people who > insist on driving really ARE no better than would-be murderers looking for a > handy victim and I have no sympathy for them whatsoever. If we could trust > cops to execute (ha!) summary judgment only when it was actually warranted, it > would be a much better world. > What we are told to put up with from sober drivers makes the idea of a police state to stop drunk drivers absurd. If there were a concentration on poor driving that had negative effects on other road users instead of profit through tickets there would not need to be any drunk driving laws at all. Drunks would rack up so many other violations as to lose their license rather quickly. On one had we are told drunk drivers are evil because they don't control their vehicles well but on the other we are supposed to dodge people who don't control their vehicles well for a variety of reasons and we are then the bad people if we don't like it and expect competency. drunk or sober doesn't matter IMO, how well someone is driving does. If some guy is drunk by BAC law but stays in the right lane and keeps it between the lines and follows all the basic rules of right of way I don't care. Some sober merge impaired driver on the other hand... I just don't care why someone is a poor driver, only that they are a poor driver and a danger matters IMO. Making one reason so much 'worse' than others is foolish. surfing the internet or drinking vodka when they cross the center line and smash into someone really doesn't change things for the person they smashed into.
From: The Real Bev on 30 Dec 2009 01:12 Brent wrote: > On 2009-12-30, The Real Bev <bashley101(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> His job didn't require too much brain power. If he could manage, why can't >> smarter people? Sorry, I truly believe that drug/alcohol-impaired people who >> insist on driving really ARE no better than would-be murderers looking for a >> handy victim and I have no sympathy for them whatsoever. If we could trust >> cops to execute (ha!) summary judgment only when it was actually warranted, it >> would be a much better world. > > What we are told to put up with from sober drivers makes the idea of a > police state to stop drunk drivers absurd. If there were a concentration > on poor driving that had negative effects on other road users instead of > profit through tickets there would not need to be any drunk driving laws > at all. Drunks would rack up so many other violations as to lose their > license rather quickly. Naah, conscientious drunks drive slowly to avoid attracting police attention. Easier for the cops to see some guy in a yellow vette zoom by and give chase than to follow a slow driver for god knows how long waiting to see if he's drunk rather than just overly careful. > On one had we are told drunk drivers are evil because they don't control > their vehicles well but on the other we are supposed to dodge people who > don't control their vehicles well for a variety of reasons and we are > then the bad people if we don't like it and expect competency. If we could figure out (a) a way to identify the totally-incompetent drivers before they crash through a sandwich shop; (b) a way to keep them from actually driving, which just yanking the license doesn't do; and (c) a practical way of moving such non-driving people around from place to place. My MIL never learned to drive. When she was no longer able to walk where she wanted to go she used dial-a-ride, which made a trip to the supermarket or doctor an all-day affair. What do we do with our frail elderly? Lock them in their homes and wait for them to die of starvation? > drunk or sober doesn't matter IMO, how well someone is driving does. If > some guy is drunk by BAC law but stays in the right lane and keeps it > between the lines and follows all the basic rules of right of way I > don't care. Some sober merge impaired driver on the other hand... Little effective difference between drunk and stupid. What kind of law do we write that takes care of both? There's some hope that the drunk will dry out, but stupid goes clear to the bone. > I just don't care why someone is a poor driver, only that they are a > poor driver and a danger matters IMO. Making one reason so much 'worse' > than others is foolish. surfing the internet or drinking vodka when they > cross the center line and smash into someone really doesn't change > things for the person they smashed into. No, but it's easier to prove that somebody was drinking than that he was doing something stupid. Cellphone/texting drivers can stop their distracting activities immediately, but drunks can't sober up instantaneously. I would guess than some/many/most of them don't even want to. Statistics used to indicate that drinking was involved in some huge percentage of deaths resulting from auto crashes. I wonder if cell usage has changed that percentage. -- Cheers, Bev @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ This is Usenet. We *are* the trained body for dealing with psychotics. -- A. Dingley
From: AZ Nomad on 30 Dec 2009 11:56 On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 19:17:14 -0800, The Real Bev <bashley101(a)gmail.com> wrote: >Brent wrote: >> On 2009-12-29, The Real Bev <bashley101(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> necromancer wrote: >>>> <dwrousejr(a)nethere.comNOSPAM> wrote: >>>> >>>>>The statistics that show drinking and driving goes up during the holidays >>>>>more than justifies the checkpoints. If the checkpoints got no arrests and >>>>>no impounds, they would cease to exist on their own. >>>> >>>> All things being equal, I'd rather take the risk of encountering a >>>> drunk driver and rely on my skills as a driver to get out of the >>>> situation safely than to have to give up more of my rights to the >>>> fascist police state that america (sic) is becoming in the name of, >>>> "safety." >>> >>> Ditto. >>> >>> The only way of getting rid of drunken driving is to make it a capital offense >>> and carry it out every single time. Eventually they'll all be dead. The >>> intent here is NOT discouragement of drinking+driving but the elimination of >>> those stupid enough to do it. Hey, it's a win-win situation! >> >> But then drunk driving would have to go back to the definition of >> decades past.... otherwise it's effective prohibition, which is what >> MADD wants. And we know how well prohibition works. Criminals and law >> enforcement types love the profits. >Of course. Both the crime and anti-crime establishments are strong. Still, a >lot of people are religious about having a designated driver, so any drunk who >can't manage that probably has no family or friends willing to help him out, so >he might as well be dead. >My uncle was a well-controlled alcoholic. He drank just enough at home in the >evenings and weekends to keep him drunk all his conscious time but still able >to be sober by morning and go to work. His wife stayed with him because he >worked for UCB in the laboratory supply room (which enabled him to drink pure >lab alcohol mixed with orange juice) and had excellent life insurance, on which >she eventually collected when his liver gave out. >To the best of my knowledge he never drove drunk. His family refused to go >anywhere with him unless my aunt drove. Uncle Harold was NOT related to me by >blood. >His job didn't require too much brain power. If he could manage, why can't >smarter people? Sorry, I truly believe that drug/alcohol-impaired people who >insist on driving really ARE no better than would-be murderers looking for a >handy victim and I have no sympathy for them whatsoever. If we could trust >cops to execute (ha!) summary judgment only when it was actually warranted, it >would be a much better world. he wasn't sober when he drove in the mornings. If he had actually sobered up, he'd be shaking too much to be able to drive.
First
|
Prev
|
Next
|
Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 Prev: Stuck behind Acrophobic driver in the O.C. Next: Church of Euthanasia |