TV Tropes Org

Forums

search forum titles
google site search
Total posts: [91]  1  2  3
4

Why is drunk driving so lightly punished?:

 76 Black Humor, Sat, 4th Jun '11 7:20:23 PM from Zombie City
Back before there were easy means to determine a person's BAC outside of a laboratory, the legal definition of a DUI was usually defined as a lack of coordination rather than a certain BAC.

I wish they hadn't changed it; changing it to a specific BAC made it too easy to get false positives with not-so-dangerous drunk drivers and too hard to catch other influences people might be driving under.
I'm convinced that our modern day analogues to ancient scholars are comedians. -0dd1
 77 drunkscriblerian, Sat, 4th Jun '11 7:23:13 PM from Castle Geekhaven Relationship Status: In season
Street Writing Man
@BH: Agreed. It's a person's competence behind the wheel that's at issue, not how much alcohol is in their bloodstream.
If I were to write some of the strange things that come under my eyes they would not be believed.

~Cora M. Strayer~
Well, they didn't take any of the rest of the laws off the books, you can still get charged even if alcohol isn't an issue. And I'm pretty sure they still do the rest of the procedure as part of the standard protocol.

 
 79 Madrugada, Sat, 4th Jun '11 8:05:15 PM Relationship Status: In season
Zzzzzzzzzz
Being under the limit doesn't protect you from "reckless driving", "improper lane usage", "too fast (or too slow) for conditions", or a host of other traffic violations.
'He strutted across the bedroom, his hard manhood pointing the way' sounds like he owns a badly named seeing-eye dog. 'Sit, Hard Manhood!
life is a game
@del diablo: I think the thing you are asking about (doing something that is very likely to hurt or kill someone, but not actually harming anybody) is called reckless endangerment.

EDIT:
RCW 9A.36.050 Reckless Endangerment
(1) A person is guilty of reckless endangerment when he or she recklessly engages in conduct not amounting to drive-by shooting but that creates a substantial risk of death or serious physical injury to another person.
(2) Reckless endangerment is a gross misdemeanor.

edited 4th Jun '11 9:03:02 PM by Glidergun

Each night, he abandons the trappings of civilization.
Each morning, he repairs the front door.
 81 Pykrete, Sat, 4th Jun '11 9:08:55 PM from Viridian Forest
NOT THE BEES
No drunk driving is not deliberately malicious. Yes, it's vacuously stupid, and seeing how it's the direct cause of somewhere around a third of traffic deaths overall and 100% preventable via trivial means, it still warrants harsh punishment. The law needs to be understanding of the occasional mistake, but not outright catering to the recklessly stupid.

 82 drunkscriblerian, Sat, 4th Jun '11 9:17:26 PM from Castle Geekhaven Relationship Status: In season
Street Writing Man
@Pykrete: ...Which is why I agree with Black Humor; sobriety tests instead of BAC.
If I were to write some of the strange things that come under my eyes they would not be believed.

~Cora M. Strayer~
 83 Pykrete, Sat, 4th Jun '11 9:40:16 PM from Viridian Forest
NOT THE BEES
At least a breathalyzer gives a measure of solid evidence you can't really dispute. Sobriety tests are unfortunately a bit too easy to abuse. Sat in on a jury a while back where the someone got pulled over for wobbly driving (she was inexperienced) and DUI'd because she couldn't recite the alphabet backwards (she was dyslexic).

I get that ideally the best measure of "too drunk" is observation and good judgment, but frankly I don't trust traffic cops to do that if they've got a quota.

edited 4th Jun '11 9:41:47 PM by Pykrete

 84 Black Humor, Sat, 4th Jun '11 9:46:47 PM from Zombie City
You can totally dispute a breathalyzer.
I'm convinced that our modern day analogues to ancient scholars are comedians. -0dd1
 85 drunkscriblerian, Sat, 4th Jun '11 9:47:10 PM from Castle Geekhaven Relationship Status: In season
Street Writing Man
@Pykrete: Just because there are flaws in the current system of sobriety testing does not mean that the base concept is flawed.

Also, with BAC level requirements being what they are, you can get a DUI without any alcohol in your system at all (mouthwash, breath spray) or so little as to have no physical/mental impairment. So, either way you look at it the system's broken.
If I were to write some of the strange things that come under my eyes they would not be believed.

~Cora M. Strayer~
 86 Pykrete, Sat, 4th Jun '11 9:48:08 PM from Viridian Forest
NOT THE BEES
Fair enough. I'm willing to accept a simple "the system is broken all around", sure tongue

There's a reason many jurisdictions prefer the blood test, not just the Breathalyzer.

 
 88 del diablo, Sun, 5th Jun '11 11:29:56 AM from Somewher in mid Norway
Den harde nordmann
Still waiting for proper refutal... The one(person) who has pointed at the law, has done(the argument) it properly.

Tuefel Hunden IV: It is not about the function of a gun vs the function of a automobile, it is about intent vs damage.
You can use a gun for 2 things:
  • Training to shoot something
  • Shoot something
    But that is irrelevant if the scenario is appropriate.
    Drunk driving is intentionally doing something that can end with something very very harmful.
    Taking a AK 47, in a non-deserted area, and pointing it in a random direction, and then shooting is also very very harmful.
    There is a difference: Amount of structural damage they can cause.
    With the car you have 1000-2000+ kilos of metal at a impact of high speed. Either you hit another car(everybody will most likely die), you drive of the road(most likely killing yourself), you hit a building(likely death yourself and destroying a lot of a house), or nothing happens.
    With the gun you hit people(wounding or killing them), or nothing happens.
    The point is: The harm is not intended, but the chance of harm is major. And the harm is great if it happens.
    Hence the 2 situations is equal.
    And do not say "But who would do that?", because after all "Who would drive drunk?".

    Edit
    Glidergun: Allright, i missed your post there. It was endangerment I was attempting to convey.

edited 5th Jun '11 12:10:32 PM by del_diablo

A guy called dvorak is tired. Tired of humanity not wanting to change to improve itself. Quite the sad tale.
Refuting what? I don't even get your second sentence there.

But if you mean your conception of how the law is formed?

If you want to know the reasoning why a given law was written the way it was, you'd probably have to read the legislative discussion.

edited 5th Jun '11 11:34:30 AM by blueharp

 
 90 del diablo, Sun, 5th Jun '11 11:51:53 AM from Somewher in mid Norway
Den harde nordmann
[up]: I am going to ask you to stop skimming my posts, and read them.
A guy called dvorak is tired. Tired of humanity not wanting to change to improve itself. Quite the sad tale.
I'm sorry, but I can't be sure what you mean, since sometimes you've been quite unclear with what you're saying. I don't even know what you're trying to express with your second sentence there.

It really won't hurt you to expand on your words a bit more, and clarify your meaning when it's not apparent.

edited 5th Jun '11 12:00:02 PM by blueharp

 
The system doesn't know you right now, so no post button for you.
You need to Get Known to get one of those.
Total posts: 91
 1  2  3
4


TV Tropes by TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from thestaff@tvtropes.org.
Privacy Policy