Bill to stop drunk driving reintroduced 2 years after crash that killed Northville family

[roguenuke]

I acknowledge that the only reason it's safer is because people often want to go a little faster. Their reasons why don't matter and they're nobody else's business.

Now, will you acknowledge that slower drivers should keep right because it's safer for everyone?

The reasons why do matter. They still do have an obligation to drive the speed limits, particularly when not on the freeway, for multiple other safety reasons.

I'm actually for speed ranges, and those should be put in place per lane of traffic with overlap for each.

 

[Binary_Digit]

Most people are biased for their own views. Since I started driving long after most people, I was a passenger for most of my life, able to observe traffic jams without driving. They were almost always the result of traffic saturation, bottleneck areas (people coming onto the freeway or leaving), not leaving enough room, and/or those pulling in and out of traffic, switching lanes to try to get ahead, impatience. It was very rarely (with the exceptions almost always being two lane roads) that they were caused by slow drivers blocking traffic. That simply does not match with studies or my experience/observations. Freeways are almost always congested (when they are) due to not leaving enough room or too many people for that area. There is no evidence that slow drivers cause accidents or traffic backups when there are at least a left and right lane for them (since that is basically the type of condition we are discussing) if they do everything else correct and are not unnecessarily and/or unsafely changing lanes. Heck, distracted driving is a bigger cause of traffic problems than slow driving for the given situation.

Oh, I agree that the vast majority of traffic jams are not caused by slow drivers. But some are. Have you never seen or been in a long train of cars behind one person way up ahead?

 

[Binary_Digit]

The reasons why do matter. They still do have an obligation to drive the speed limits, particularly when not on the freeway, for multiple other safety reasons.

I'm actually for speed ranges, and those should be put in place per lane of traffic with overlap for each.

Speed ranges would be great, but in lieu of that why not let the cops deal with speeders and just move over for everyone's safety?!

 

[Indrob]

Have you never seen or been in a long train of cars behind one person way up ahead?

Before the pandemic I saw this everyday on my commute.

That ONE driver at the front was either oblivious to their surroundings or purposely being an ASS!

 

[roguenuke]

Don't Be A Slowpoke: Why Left Lane Driving Causes Traffic

If you've ever yelled at a slowpoke blocking your way on the left lane of a crowded highway, your anger is now justified.

www.npr.org

Slow drivers 'are among most dangerous on roads' and cause crashes

Nearly a third of motorists have had a 'near miss' caused by someone travelling slowly, a report says today.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Study: Slow Drivers Are Dangerous, Causing More Road Death Accidents Than Ever Before

While people often like to blame speedy drivers for their reckless driving, driving slow isn’t much safer than you think it is! According to a report published by the Daily Star, the number of people who are killed or seriously injured in road accidents has been steadily increasing since 2019...

worldofbuzz.com

Why driving too slowly is dangerous

Driving too slowly can be risky, for you and other road-users.

www.saga.co.uk

The NPR link provides no actual evidence of their contentions. Only statements that this is the case without anything to back it up.

The second link, Daily Mail, states this:

"These drivers create such frustration that six out of ten motorists feel stress rise and about half are tempted to 'undertake'. "

It is pretty much what I said earlier in this thread, blaming frustration one person has for not being able to break the law (speed limits) on other drivers.

That third one does the same thing, blaming "slow drivers" for people who cannot control their own tempers, their own emotions, actions.

Drivers who take their time behind the wheel are believed to cause more accidents because they tend to trigger tailgating, overtaking, congestion and road rage which result in serious traffic accidents.

These arguments sound like the arguments bullies make when trying to justify why they went out and hit someone. "Well if he wouldn't answer every question correctly, I wouldn't have gotten so upset with him and hit him." That is basically the argument being used here.

The last one specifies specific situations (for the most part) where driving too slow is bad. In the US, we have minimum speed limits too (they just aren't posted). And yes, coming up to speed (as in at least close to the speed limit) as you enter a freeway or other road is very important. That is not the slow driving situations that are being discussed here. You enter most freeways in the US in the right hand lane. And at least in one section again, they blame the slow drivers for frustration.

There is a difference between driving significantly under the speed limit in the left hand or outside of the righthand lane and driving at or slightly above the speed limit in the left hand lane.

My own state has a law basically requiring people in the left hand lane to be going at least the speed limit, but you can still drive in it.

 

[roguenuke]

Speed ranges would be great, but in lieu of that why not let the cops deal with speeders and just move over for everyone's safety?!

Because changing lanes unnecessarily is more likely to cause accidents than people simply slowing down and being more patient.

An example, my turnoffs near my house on the main highway are all on the left, whether going into our downtown or going actually straight home. Once I'm in the left lane (where I will have to get eventually) it is pointless for me to move over simply because someone is speeding well over the speed limit because of their impatience (my normal driving speed is within 5 MPH of the speed limit, almost always over unless weather). I likely got into the left lane because no one else was around and most go that speed. I shouldn't make it more dangerous for myself because someone else is being a wreckless driver by trying to go way more over the speed limit than I'm already going.

 

[Noodlegawd]

I acknowledge that the only reason it's safer is because people often want to go a little faster. Their reasons why don't matter and they're nobody else's business.

Now, will you acknowledge that slower drivers should keep right because it's safer for everyone?

Yes, their reasons why matter. The reason why is that they almost always get away with it, and when the don't get away with it, the punishment is a joke. That would be easy to fix.

I never denied that "slower drivers should keep right," so I don't know why you need me to acknowledge that. What I said is that a person driving the speed limit in the left lane should not be expected to move out of the way so someone else can break the law without being inconvenienced.

 

[roguenuke]

Oh, I agree that the vast majority of traffic jams are not caused by slow drivers. But some are. Have you never seen or been in a long train of cars behind one person way up ahead?

On a two lane road, where the two lanes were opposing lanes, not the same direction. I have very rarely seen it with multiple lanes going the same direction, especially if they are below the speed limit. It is extremely rare for that to be the cause.

But we weren't really talking about that sort of situation. The discussion was about driving in the left lane, which would exclude the situation above where there is no way to get around that one driver (it would have to be at least 2 drivers for it to involve left lane driving).

 

[Mircea]

I had to get one of my young sailors out of jail for a DUI for sleeping in a parking lot of bar that was part of a strip mall. He had to much to drink so he decided to not drive back to the ship. It was winter and he had the engine running to keep warm.

He was dead asleep when the cops banged on his door.

Did he deserve a felony?

Read the statute. It's about "control." If the keys were in the ignition, or anywhere within arm's reach, then he potentially had control of the vehicle and that is sufficient to sustain an OVI.

I question how accurately any kind of passive sensing system could detect BAC. I suspect that either the sensitivity would be so low you'd have to be several times over the legal limit for it to detect that you're drunk or it would return a lot of false positives.

You are right to question it. We're talking about Medicine; not Science.

Medicine is not Science and never will be. Yes, Medicine uses scientific methodology and scientific principles, but then so do Psychology, Sociology and Psychiatry and none of them are Science and never will be.

Some people THING they can handle 15 drinks and drive competently. No one actually can.

You don't know what you're talking about.

I made 134 OVI arrests with 131 convictions for DWI (0.10), 1 conviction for DUI (driving under the influence 0.08), one conviction for driving while impaired and one unfounded.

I got a woman convicted with a BAC of 0.02. She handed me a credit card instead of her license and then she face planted after I asked to step out of the vehicle. She was mouthy so I called the paramedics to CYA and because she might actually have a medical issue, but she was belligerent and combative in the ER and it was all on video, so the court had no problem convicting her.

Professional Drunks --- you know, alcoholics -- typically have a BAC of 0.15 all day long every day and they function normally. They don't actually get drunk until their BAC is 0.25 or 0.30.

BAC only measures blood alcohol (and not always accurately) but that doesn't tell you if someone is impaired.

Whether someone is actually impaired by alcohol depends on how much sleep they've gotten in the last 24 hours; the amount and quality of sleep in the last 72 hours; how much they've eaten; what they've eaten (proteins, carbohydrates, starches); the type of beverage they consumed (wine, liquor, liquor with a carbonated mixer, liquor with a juice mixer, beer etc); their mental state (happy, depressed, anxious etc); their physical condition; their height and weight; and their DNA.

Two beers will knock a Pacific Islander or Aboriginal on their ass. Asians tolerate a little better. Blacks and Whites have the highest tolerance levels.

Before you drag out some "study" by MADD/SADD, you should know those are all fatally flawed. I did one at Miami University where you have a drink then negotiate some cones on a closed course. I hadn't even finished half of the first beer, and they like, "Wow! You're really plastered. You can barely sit up." I was like what hell are you people talking about?

Yeah, that's right, don't underestimate the power of suggestion. If you doubt, might I suggest you read the study on poison ivy/poison oak. Those people were told poison ivy would be rubbed on their arms when in fact it was just a non-allergenic lotion, and they all physically reacted with hives just as though they had their arms smeared with poison ivy (even though they didn't).

 

[SCrider]

Bill to stop drunk driving reintroduced 2 years after crash that killed Northville family

Representatives Debbie Dingell (D-MI), Kathleen Rice (D-NY), and David McKinley (R-WV) today reintroduced legislation to reduce drunk driving deaths across the country. The legislation, the Honoring Abbas Family Legacy to Terminate (HALT) Drunk Driving Act, will require the commercialization and...

www.clickondetroit.com

I wonder if this bill will ever see the light of day. I would settle for making drunk driving a felony on the first offense. That would probably be more effective. But I guess some public health crises that our lawmakers are complicit in ignoring are more "epidemicy" than others.

Why can't we just offer thoughts and prayers to victims of drunk drivers and nothing else?

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Too many issues with that... some people can handle 15 drinks and drive competently and some lightweight can smell beer and get woozy...

The system is already bullshit.

I don't think anyone can handle 15 drinks and drive competently. Though, I agree you can't do a one size fits all.

 

[Noodlegawd]

Professional Drunks --- you know, alcoholics -- typically have a BAC of 0.15 all day long every day and they function normally. They don't actually get drunk until their BAC is 0.25 or 0.30.

Yeah, they function normally for a professional drunk. If you want to advocate for a "professional drunk" exception to our DUI laws, be my guest. I hope that works out for you.

15 drinks in a typical evening will get an average male to around .3% BAC or higher, more than three times the legal limit. If you have some evidence that any significant number of people with that level of intoxication can safely operate a vehicle, I'm all ears. But you'll have to forgive me if I'm not convinced by your personal achievement stories.

 

[Noodlegawd]

I don't think anyone can handle 15 drinks and drive competently. Though, I agree you can't do a one size fits all.

We have no choice but to do one size fits all when it comes to our DUI laws.

 

[Binary_Digit]

The NPR link provides no actual evidence of their contentions. Only statements that this is the case without anything to back it up.

The second link, Daily Mail, states this:

"These drivers create such frustration that six out of ten motorists feel stress rise and about half are tempted to 'undertake'. "

It is pretty much what I said earlier in this thread, blaming frustration one person has for not being able to break the law (speed limits) on other drivers.

That third one does the same thing, blaming "slow drivers" for people who cannot control their own tempers, their own emotions, actions.



These arguments sound like the arguments bullies make when trying to justify why they went out and hit someone. "Well if he wouldn't answer every question correctly, I wouldn't have gotten so upset with him and hit him." That is basically the argument being used here.

The last one specifies specific situations (for the most part) where driving too slow is bad. In the US, we have minimum speed limits too (they just aren't posted). And yes, coming up to speed (as in at least close to the speed limit) as you enter a freeway or other road is very important. That is not the slow driving situations that are being discussed here. You enter most freeways in the US in the right hand lane. And at least in one section again, they blame the slow drivers for frustration.

There is a difference between driving significantly under the speed limit in the left hand or outside of the righthand lane and driving at or slightly above the speed limit in the left hand lane.

My own state has a law basically requiring people in the left hand lane to be going at least the speed limit, but you can still drive in it.

I acknowledge that the only reason it's safer is because people often want to go a little faster. Their reasons why don't matter and they're nobody else's business.

Now, will you acknowledge that slower drivers should keep right because it's safer for everyone?

Yes, their reasons why matter. The reason why is that they almost always get away with it, and when the don't get away with it, the punishment is a joke. That would be easy to fix.

I never denied that "slower drivers should keep right," so I don't know why you need me to acknowledge that. What I said is that a person driving the speed limit in the left lane should not be expected to move out of the way so someone else can break the law without being inconvenienced.

What's it to you whether they get away with it or not? It's none of your business as long as you're out of their way. Which brings us full circle.

If you don't deny that slower drivers should keep right for safety, then why do you reverse your position whenever the slower driver is going the speed limit? That doesn't change the safety dynamics at all, it's just being a Nazi for the sake of some letter-of-the-law principle.

 

[RF667799]

We have no choice but to do one size fits all when it comes to our DUI laws.

If my 80yo mother has .07 BAC (legal), and Jeff Gordon has .08; who is likely the better driver?

Maybe if we really were serious, we would have zero tolerance. Then we would just have to worry about all the morons who are naturally impaired drivers by virtue of their idiocy.

 

[Noodlegawd]

Why can't we just offer thoughts and prayers to victims of drunk drivers and nothing else?

Dems can't even be bothered to do that. They're too busy obsessing over keeping "shoulder things that go up" out of the wrong hands in order to inevitably fail at stopping a hundred or so murders per year, to even think about the couple hundred drunk driving deaths that happen EVERY WEEK.

 

[roguenuke]

I acknowledge that the only reason it's safer is because people often want to go a little faster. Their reasons why don't matter and they're nobody else's business.

Now, will you acknowledge that slower drivers should keep right because it's safer for everyone?


What's it to you whether they get away with it or not? It's none of your business as long as you're out of their way. Which brings us full circle.

If you don't deny that slower drivers should keep right for safety, then why do you reverse your position whenever the slower driver is going the speed limit? That doesn't change the safety dynamics at all, it's just being a Nazi for the sake of some letter-of-the-law principle.

The reasons why do matter. They are usually being impatient and my convenience and safety should not be put at risk for their impatience. By having to change lanes for them wanting to go excessive speeds, that puts me at a greater danger due to having to change those lanes.

And speed limits are in place for a reason. There is a difference between those who are driving significantly under the speed limit despite no road hazards, hazardous conditions, and driving slower than traffic around them because that traffic is driving significantly over the posted speed limits.

If I'm going the speed limit or near it, then it is still their problem if they want to go significantly faster than the speed limit and cannot because I am traveling in the most efficient lane for me to travel in. It isn't about just "getting away with it". You are basically trying to make a case that people have a right to drive significantly over the speed limit and those who do not want to drive significantly over the speed limit need to move out of the way or they are causing problems because of those who are trying to break the law as it is and it shouldn't matter if this causes more issues to those people, more inconvenience and puts them more at risk because they have to change lanes to do that, just to allow the person to drive faster, which does put others in danger, particularly if done on city or smaller roads.

Tips to driving safe and preventing accidents on the road

Defensive driving ensures that everyone on the road has a safe journey. Here is a list of a few simple, yet essential, defensive driving tips to ensure a stress-free trip. - Issue Date: Dec 01, 2012

www.businesstoday.in

Drivers who are not driving at least within 5 MPH of the speed limit (slower) should stay right (school buses should always be in the right lane for instance unless they are turning within a short reasonable distance). Those going at least the speed limit should be able to drive in whichever lane eliminates the most changing of lanes, since changing lanes is what causes the majority of accidents.

Driving around the speed limit is the safest way to drive for various reasons, not a single reason. Once you get faster, you need increased stopping time to be able to stop safely in the event of an accident or unforeseen obstacle in the road.

Choosing a Safe Speed: The Effects of Speed on Stopping Distance

Motorists must choose a safe speed based on the posted speed limit, the speed of other vehicles around them and current driving conditions. Traveling faster gives you less time to see and react to hazards, makes maneuvering more difficult and means it will take longer for your vehicle to stop...

www.epermittest.com

Now, this doesn't mean that we shouldn't determine if some roads have limits that are too low, but most likely that is not the case. Most roads likely have speed limits that are really reasonable and pretty close to what is safest. That doesn't mean some are not low.

 

[Noodlegawd]

If my 80yo mother has .07 BAC (legal), and Jeff Gordon has .08; who is likely the better driver?

I have no idea. Maybe your mother -- she might be a lot more careful than someone who is used to driving >100mph and probably thinks he's the best driver in the world and no amount of booze can keep him down.

 

[RF667799]

I have no idea. Maybe your mother -- she might be a lot more careful than someone who is used to driving >100mph and probably thinks he's the best driver in the world and no amount of booze can keep him down.

In which case, the drinking was irrelevant to the driving.

 

[Binary_Digit]

The reasons why do matter. They are usually being impatient and my convenience and safety should not be put at risk for their impatience. By having to change lanes for them wanting to go excessive speeds, that puts me at a greater danger due to having to change those lanes.

If you're driving slower than the established cultural norms of the road, or if you're not yet familiar with the established cultural norms of the road, then you shouldn't change lanes into the fast lane in the first place. Problem solved!

And speed limits are in place for a reason. There is a difference between those who are driving significantly under the speed limit despite no road hazards, hazardous conditions, and driving slower than traffic around them because that traffic is driving significantly over the posted speed limits.

That's between me and the cops. It's none of your business, nor is it your rightful place to enforce traffic laws.

If I'm going the speed limit or near it, then it is still their problem if they want to go significantly faster than the speed limit and cannot because I am traveling in the most efficient lane for me to travel in. It isn't about just "getting away with it".

Why is that lane the most efficient for you, because you don't like driving behind slower people either?

You are basically trying to make a case that people have a right to drive significantly over the speed limit and those who do not want to drive significantly over the speed limit need to move out of the way or they are causing problems because of those who are trying to break the law as it is and it shouldn't matter if this causes more issues to those people, more inconvenience and puts them more at risk because they have to change lanes to do that, just to allow the person to drive faster

Yes, exactly.

, which does put others in danger, particularly if done on city or smaller roads.

Tips to driving safe and preventing accidents on the road

Defensive driving ensures that everyone on the road has a safe journey. Here is a list of a few simple, yet essential, defensive driving tips to ensure a stress-free trip. - Issue Date: Dec 01, 2012

www.businesstoday.in

Drivers who are not driving at least within 5 MPH of the speed limit (slower) should stay right (school buses should always be in the right lane for instance unless they are turning within a short reasonable distance). Those going at least the speed limit should be able to drive in whichever lane eliminates the most changing of lanes, since changing lanes is what causes the majority of accidents.

Driving around the speed limit is the safest way to drive for various reasons, not a single reason. Once you get faster, you need increased stopping time to be able to stop safely in the event of an accident or unforeseen obstacle in the road.

I'm perfectly capable of determining what is and is not too fast for myself by myself. The rest is between me and the cops and is none of your business because you'll be behind me if you just move over.

 

[Noodlegawd]

In which case, the drinking was irrelevant to the driving.

No, it's still relevant (both are actually impaired), just not in the way you wanted it to be.

 

[Winston]

Bring on the driverless cars, I say. Can’t come soon enough.

 

[roguenuke]

If you're driving slower than the established cultural norms of the road, or if you're not yet familiar with the established cultural norms of the road, then you shouldn't change lanes into the fast lane in the first place. Problem solved!


That's between me and the cops. It's none of your business, nor is it your rightful place to enforce traffic laws.


Why is that lane the most efficient for you, because you don't like driving behind slower people either?


Yes, exactly.


I'm perfectly capable of determining what is and is not too fast for myself by myself. The rest is between me and the cops and is none of your business because you'll be behind me if you just move over.

Do you not understand that we have left hand turnoffs from the roads? And that many roads have "norms" that are close to the speed limit but some few drivers will drive much, much faster than that? If 9 drivers out of 10 or even 4 out of 5 are driving within 5-10 MPH of the speed limit in the left lane, then that is the norm for the speed driven on that road, not the 1 out of 10 or even 5 wanting to drive 15+MPH more on that road.

Driving the speed limit or around it in front of you when you are impatient to go faster is not enforcing the traffic laws. It is simply driving what is comfortable and efficient for me.

I explained earlier that there are many times when people have to turn left, hence being in the left lane is most efficient. We also have deer who come out into the road unexpectedly, which would mean the closer to the middle you are to the road, the more time you have to actually see the deer coming, react to them.

 

[Winston]

How exactly does it distinguish the driver from the passenger? What if you are DD for the night and your whole car of passengers are shit faced. Would that set it off?

 

[roguenuke]

How exactly does it distinguish the driver from the passenger? What if you are DD for the night and your whole car of passengers are shit faced. Would that set it off?

I sort of asked this earlier in the thread. To me, this could be a big problem.

Also, is it able to distinguish between mouth wash or Listerine strips (which can/could cause problems before with the breathalizers used by LEOs) or hand sanitizer (for the touch ones) vs actual alcohol? How about the error rates and levels of the tests? If someone's car doesn't start in the morning because they have strong mouth wash and/or their sensor malfunctions, how do they get to work?