When will drunk driving be taken more seriously?

[Caine]

That is the lamest attempt to explain this that Ive heard so far. Its not even logical. How do you not know they arent doing it repeatedly 40x while driving???
Someone dies from a texting or talking on the phone crash.... are YOU going to tell them your kindergarden-like explaination?

Doesn't matter if they are doing it 41x while driving, they can stop when the recognize and feel they are causing themselves to drive unsafe. The same cannot be said about drunk drivers unless they pull off the roadway. It also says nothing for the ****ty decision making ability of those who are driving drunk.

Wow. :ssst: So you YOU read the study? And you dont think they took into account the amount of people driving while intoxicated and the amount of people that speed there Mr. Detective? :slapme: Take a statistics class.

Already took a statistics class. They aren't taking into consideration the UNKNOWN amount of times a person speeds and does not get caught with the amount of UNKNOWN times that a person drive drunk and does not get caught...........

 

[Caine]

Read this mr. "its only DISTRACTED driving so its not worthy of DUI laws" Lost cell-phone caller drives into river, dies
Let the hypocrisy start.

Its a sad story, but its still not as bad as drug/booze impaired driving.

 

[Ikari]

Its a sad story, but its still not as bad as drug/booze impaired driving.

But in action, it's very similar. Most people who maybe text and drive aren't really going to augment their behavior until after something happens. Either getting a big expensive ticket (which doesn't exist for distracted driving) or perhaps an accident. But the same is true for DUI as well. Sure, the guy on the cell phone could put the cellphone down and be good to go. The drunk guy would have to wait the appropriate amount of time. If perhaps there was a bit of a scare, near miss maybe, the distracted driver may put away the phone. But they've already caused the situation, the same as a drunk driver would. And who is to say that maybe a near miss wouldn't cause a drunk to pull over and wait for a bit? And it still puts others at risk the same as a drunk driver.

I think the main difference between the DUI and distracted driver thing is public perception. We've allowed this demonizing of drunk driving to the point where we want to install overly harsh punishments for the act. But we don't view distracted driving in the same light as drunk driving; maybe because almost all of us are guilty of that from time to time. Maybe because there isn't some crusading organization like Mothers Against Distracted Driving or something like that. But even though both actions can cause similar amounts of risk, we see one as "evil" and one as an inconvenience. And because of that perception difference, we punish the crimes differently. Even though both have very similar real world effects.

 

[Caine]

But in action, it's very similar. Most people who maybe text and drive aren't really going to augment their behavior until after something happens. Either getting a big expensive ticket (which doesn't exist for distracted driving) or perhaps an accident. But the same is true for DUI as well. Sure, the guy on the cell phone could put the cellphone down and be good to go. The drunk guy would have to wait the appropriate amount of time. If perhaps there was a bit of a scare, near miss maybe, the distracted driver may put away the phone. But they've already caused the situation, the same as a drunk driver would. And who is to say that maybe a near miss wouldn't cause a drunk to pull over and wait for a bit? And it still puts others at risk the same as a drunk driver.

I think the main difference between the DUI and distracted driver thing is public perception. We've allowed this demonizing of drunk driving to the point where we want to install overly harsh punishments for the act. But we don't view distracted driving in the same light as drunk driving; maybe because almost all of us are guilty of that from time to time. Maybe because there isn't some crusading organization like Mothers Against Distracted Driving or something like that. But even though both actions can cause similar amounts of risk, we see one as "evil" and one as an inconvenience. And because of that perception difference, we punish the crimes differently. Even though both have very similar real world effects.

What was a horn invented for?
What happens when you blow a horn at an impaired driver compared to when you blow a horn at a distracted driver?

Btw:

X the TXT | Facebook

 

[Ikari]

What was a horn invented for?
What happens when you blow a horn at an impaired driver compared to when you blow a horn at a distracted driver?

They'd both probably be startled and in both cases and could lead to a wreck.

 

[Caine]

They'd both probably be startled and in both cases and could lead to a wreck.

You missed the point.
The horn is used to notify another driver of a potentially hazardous situation so that driver can correct the problem.
The texting cell phone distracted driver can correct this problem.
The drunk driver cannot.

 

[Ikari]

You missed the point.
The horn is used to notify another driver of a potentially hazardous situation so that driver can correct the problem.
The texting cell phone distracted driver can correct this problem.
The drunk driver cannot.

I think at the moment of horn blow, both are distracted similarly and both would have similar responses. You can say if it was a near miss and the parties went on their way that the guy on the cell phone can just put his phone down and continue on his way with full ability. Whereas the drunk would have to pull over and wait till he sobered up in order to continue with full ability. But at the point of incident, both are in similar circumstances.

 

[Manc Skipper]

A horn blow makes anyone in earshot aware of that vehicle's presence. No more, no less.
The car of a texter travelling at 40mph is moving at nearly 60 feet every second they are looking at the phone, and not where they are going.

 

[Caine]

A horn blow makes anyone in earshot aware of that vehicle's presence. No more, no less.
The car of a texter travelling at 40mph is moving at nearly 60 feet every second they are looking at the phone, and not where they are going.

Umm... okay......
Is there a point you were getting at?

 

[The Giant Noodle]

Already took a statistics class. They aren't taking into consideration the UNKNOWN amount of times a person speeds and does not get caught with the amount of UNKNOWN times that a person drive drunk and does not get caught...........

So a "sample" and "statistical mean" isnt having them consider the amount of times vehicles speed down various roads? Do you know how we can 'model' certain events on a computer? Of course you cant find EVERYONE speeding and doccument EVERYONE that has driven legally impaired. Its all about sample rates and deviation....... and Im not going to write a text book, but Caine you just are not correct on this matter in my humble Noodle opinion.

 

[Caine]

So a "sample" and "statistical mean" isnt having them consider the amount of times vehicles speed down various roads? Do you know how we can 'model' certain events on a computer? Of course you cant find EVERYONE speeding and doccument EVERYONE that has driven legally impaired. Its all about sample rates and deviation....... and Im not going to write a text book, but Caine you just are not correct on this matter in my humble Noodle opinion.

You cannot use statistics to explain everything. It just doesn't work that way when it comes to this topic. Statistics cannot account for the number of times something occurrs and nothing happens to be reported or documented. A computer cannot "guess" the number of times this happens with any level of accuracy. And the user of said computer can have alot to do with the type of data that it "guesses".

 

[Ikari]

You cannot use statistics to explain everything. It just doesn't work that way when it comes to this topic. Statistics cannot account for the number of times something occurrs and nothing happens to be reported or documented. A computer cannot "guess" the number of times this happens with any level of accuracy. And the user of said computer can have alot to do with the type of data that it "guesses".

Thus all we can go off of then is the measured data with significant error bars. No one can guess, well not in a legal sense, since there were no measurements of that system. All we can do is go from the measured data. In which case distracted driving is just as dangerous as drunk driving. But I maintain that because we perceive these things so differently, we have come up with radically different punishments even though the probabilities are similar.

 

[Caine]

Thus all we can go off of then is the measured data with significant error bars. No one can guess, well not in a legal sense, since there were no measurements of that system. All we can do is go from the measured data. In which case distracted driving is just as dangerous as drunk driving. But I maintain that because we perceive these things so differently, we have come up with radically different punishments even though the probabilities are similar.

The "error bars" as you call them are so significant that they void looking at two completely different sets of data and attempting to compare the two.
Im not short sighted enough to be swooned by the display of statistics in a situation that I know enough about to realize that the statistics we really need are impossible to come up with.
Anything short of that specific set of data, is not usable.

 

[GayLibertarian]

El Salvador used to execute *by hanging* all convicted drunk drivers (after the second offense).

 

[danarhea]

You drive drunk, you lose your license for 6 months and your vehicle becomes state property. Perhaps that will make folks think twice before doing something this dangerous and this avoidable.

That could be a problem. Most drivers don't own their cars, but finance them. If the government seizes those cars, who is going to continue to make the payments? The government?

 

[rivrrat]

Not specific to drunk driving, but....

Facebook - video

Hopefully that works for y'all. I'm not sure how to link to it outside of facebook

 

[Manc Skipper]

Umm... okay......
Is there a point you were getting at?

Sounding a horn does not "notify of a hazardous situation." It notifies that someone pressing horn is nearby. If a driver is distracted, then their reaction time to a horn-blow or to a hazardous situation is extended. Numerous studies both live and in simulators show reaction times of distracted/phone users in the same range as those drivers impaired through drink or drugs. The penalties for driving in a similarly impaired state, should be similar.

 

[Caine]

That could be a problem. Most drivers don't own their cars, but finance them. If the government seizes those cars, who is going to continue to make the payments? The government?

The person who owes the bank money still has to pay for it.

I've seized vehicles of people who still owed payments. Oh well, their loss.

 

[Caine]

Sounding a horn does not "notify of a hazardous situation." It notifies that someone pressing horn is nearby. If a driver is distracted, then their reaction time to a horn-blow or to a hazardous situation is extended. Numerous studies both live and in simulators show reaction times of distracted/phone users in the same range as those drivers impaired through drink or drugs. The penalties for driving in a similarly impaired state, should be similar.

Unenforcable.
I can't even enforce the no cell phone while driving under 18 years old law because the way it is written.

 

[Ikari]

Unenforcable.
I can't even enforce the no cell phone while driving under 18 years old law because the way it is written.

Not uneforcable....selectively enforcable. That's one problem I think with a lot of our laws. Some of it's nit picky, and of that there's a ton of selectively enforced laws. Don't always give a ticket out, but if one doesn't like the cut of another's jib; hey maybe they're getting a ticket.

But I've wondered about this no texting law, it's not that I don't disagree (well I kinda do) but how the heck do you know? Or do the cops just roll around looking for the college age girl driving down the road because dollars to donuts, she's texting? It's not something which is actively enforced, and if we're not actively enforcing it, then screw it.

 

[danarhea]

In response to the OP, if you live in Texas, DWI is taken extremely seriously. I am living proof of that. About a year and a half ago, I drove after drinking 3 beers, and got busted for DWI. I still have a year to go on my probation, had to serve 3 days in jail, had to take a class that lasted 15 weeks, had to perform 40 hours of community service, had to make a payment to crime stoppers, had to attend a DWI victim impact panel, had to be tested for possible drug or alcohol abuse (I passed that one - LOL), had to pay a hefty fine and court costs, and had to do a bunch of other stuff. By the time I get off probation, and pay my surcharges to the State of Texas, it will have cost me, including what I had to pay my lawyer, about $18,000.00. That comes out to about $6,000.00 per beer.

In addition, I am not allowed to drink, consume, nor purchase alcohol until my probation ends, I am not allowed to possess firearms, I lost my driver's license for 6 months, and whenever I travel outside of Houston to play a gig, I have to get a travel pass. If I am stopped by a police officer for any reason, I have to show him my driver's license, insurance, travel pass, and my offender's card. If I fail to show even one of those, I will go to jail for one year.

Take it from me. I have been there. You don't want to drive after drinking in Texas. If you are drinking, do NOT drive. If you are partying, then get a designated driver. Period.

Some might ask me if I am angry that the court went medieval on me when I only had 3 beers. Yes, I believe they did, but I also understand. Harris County, where Houston is located, has the highest per-capita of drunk driving accidents and deaths in the entire nation.

I didn't say I like what happened to me. Just that I understand, and one thing is absolutely certain. I will never drive after drinking again - Not even after ONE beer. The consequences are just not worth it.

Let me also add that I had been drinking a couple of beers during every gig I played for about 4 decades, and you know what? I had no idea how much that slowed me down. Since I have not been drinking during gigs, I am playing better than I have my whole life, and have had the privilege of playing in bands that opened for Moe Bandy, John Conlee, Johnny Rodriguez, and Johnny Lee. I am also having more fun. That, in it's own way, has been the bright spot on an otherwise very sucky episode in my life. LOL. I will never drink before, during, or after a gig, ever again.

 

[Caine]

Not uneforcable....selectively enforcable. That's one problem I think with a lot of our laws. Some of it's nit picky, and of that there's a ton of selectively enforced laws. Don't always give a ticket out, but if one doesn't like the cut of another's jib; hey maybe they're getting a ticket.

But I've wondered about this no texting law, it's not that I don't disagree (well I kinda do) but how the heck do you know? Or do the cops just roll around looking for the college age girl driving down the road because dollars to donuts, she's texting? It's not something which is actively enforced, and if we're not actively enforcing it, then screw it.

Like I said, Unenforcable.
The additional restrictions and rules of these laws prevent them from being enforced properly.