mmarshall

The point I was making, jakex, is that, while both are foolish and hazardous, you can get rid of the other hazards in just a second or two......by putting the book down you're reading, turning off the laptop, cell phone, etc.....

With alcohol, if you have ingested enough to be drunk, you can't simply undo those effects in a second or two like with a cell phone. Same with lack of sleep...in some ways it is as bad as alcohol. Drowsiness and lack of sleep is not something you can instantly turn off with a button either, although sometimes strong coffee will help a little. But in the end, there is no substitute for rest and sleep either.

tzu911

Are you still 17 like what it says in your sig? Coz if you are....

tuan92129

Well, in our AP Gov class, we talked about this too.

O. L. T.

iTrader: (17)

See that's where your argument lost merit. There should be a period there instead.

Things are what they are, there are no comparisons that can change that. Drunk driving is drunk driving. (notice the period)

The whiners of the country want to compare things to make them look less evil. This is called "Redirecting the attention from the problem".

The ugly girlfriend in the group may make the less homely look better, but they are all still going home together and watching Jeopardy at the end of the night.

The issue that makes DUI so much more severe is FREE WILL and ability. If you are in the car and talking on the cell phone you have both the free will and the ability to hang up, but if you are in the car drunk then you do not have the ability to say "ok I'll be un-drunk for the next 20 miles". Ok the phone I can see someone swerve in front of me and slam on my brakes, drunk I won't hit my brakes at all (or 2 seconds after I hit them).

On the phone you can be a hazard on 23rd street and the perfect driver on 24th street. Drunk, you are a hazard the whole way, ....and here's the period.

Bring that up in class. You can't argue it. That's what it is and why, the end.

(Edit: I see mmarshall beat me to it and is perfectly correct)

Tekknikal

drunk driving laws are very fair as far as i understand them

if you're arguing that the punishment on other offenses is too light thats a different story

greyBLITZ

iTrader: (2)

^ I agree with Tekknikal's point. Even with punishments, some individuals still insist on driving drunk, so I believe that it may not even be severe enough. We are all more than sufficiently educated about the hazards and risks of driving drunk, not only to ourselves but to others as well, so why is it still being done? It is basically the self-discipline of the individual that matters.

tex2670

Being distracted while driving is totally different from driving while your judgment and abilities are physically impaired. When you are smoking, do you end up blacking out and not even remembering how you got home? This may be the case while drinking. When your senses are not impaired while talking/smoking/etc, you have the ability to realize that you need to pay attention--you are talking to your passenger, and they yell "the light is red!" and you slam on the brakes. If you are drinking, your reaction time is delayed, and you may not even hit the brake at all.

I have heard of ONE account where a person was on a cell phone and ran a stop sign and killed someone (unfortunately, a small child in another car). All of us have heard MANY stories of someone killed by a drunk driver, and probably know of someone personally affected by drunk driving.

The next closest example you cite is driving drowsy. That may rise to the level of drunk driving, and you very well may go to jail if you kill someone doing that. BUT--you can pull to a rest stop, or 7-11, get some fresh air, and be re-invigorated enough to drive again, esp. if it is the "within 30 minutes" you refer to above. You get out of the car for some fresh air--and you're still drunk.

There may be some good arguments comparing driving while on the cell phone to some of the other activities you list, but there is no comparing them to drunk driving.

Vlad_Stein

+1 for the idea.
Also, "drunk driving" is not an accurate term. Definition of drunk driving would be inability to react (due to intoxication) to road conditions in a timely manner necessary to operate a vehicle at legal speed. That is not always the case with DUI convictions (as Threxx mentioned). Even if one's reactions are slower than normal, it does not automatically mean that they are inadequate (as is currently the practice). Granted, that most really drunk drivers can be spotted (wide turns and not staying in one lane are the best telltale signs).

While the accidents and the damage that they do to people's lives are horrible, they are no more horrible than accidents caused by any other reason. I have heard anecdotal evidence that says that the #1 cause of fatalities in the US is single vehicle accidents where the driver dozes off and runs off the road and that cell phone use raises your accident risk on par with having BAC well above the legal limit. I do think that because of MADD and similar organizations and the stigma that the drinking carries in our society the stick on DUI is bent over too far. If god forbid a man kills someone in an accident (may be) because of the 2 beers that he had, most people would feel about it a lot harsher than if it was a woman with 5 kids in the car because of distraction.

If the gov really wanted to get rid of drunk driving, as it is called, they would put a certified BAC meter in every place that has a liquor license and would sell certified BAC meters for personal use (by "certified", I mean legally admissible readings). Right now, there's one blanket rule - don't drink and drive - ever. That is sometimes not a good option and that leaves many people in a gray zone where they can get caught in a legal grinder, even if they are actually capable of operating a car.

This is not an argument for DUI, if you haven't figured it out by now, but more for leveling the playing field a little bit. Right now, the odds are stacked way against the driver.

P.S.
Oh, and I did a little experiment one of these days and played Gran Turismo spec A on my PS2 while moderately intoxicated (definitely more than I would care to drive with) and my lap times were comparable with my normal times.

Jakex1

thank you vlad, that was the argument i was trying to make, sorry if anyone misunderstood. That organizations SUCH as MADD or SADD places drunk driving as an extreme taboo. Lol vlad made it so much more concise and precise. Also what if a man who is .08 borderline "legally" drunk yet capable of driving a car, gets in a accident with another person who has kids in the car screaming, watching nemo, and talking on the cellphone trying to finalize whatever plans the person may have. The drunk driver will definitely be placed at fault. Because society views drunk driving lowly but having screaming kids may be perfectly acceptable.

S8B

Anyone who believes the punishment for a DUI is pushed too far have:

-a probability of driving drunk in the future
-already driven drunk or have a DUI

The punishment isn't enough for the many innocent deaths of drunk drivers.

You shouldn't compare the irresponsibilities of drunk driving vs other distractions.

.

Vlad_Stein

What do you propose, skater? Firing squads or being eaten alive by driver ants in public? I think you meant "the many innocent deaths caused by drunk drivers". But again, what about accident deaths from other causes (exhaustion, cell phones, not knowing the rules, not paying attention, etc.)? Shoot them too?
Even though you state that these are not on the same level as drunk driving, you don't explain why... Just because you said so or are there some statistics from a neutral body to back this up (that DUI accidents are indeed THE major cause of accidents in the country)? Because, based on the punishment, it would seem that they are (which I doubt).

I just think that there is a big difference between a driver that is about to puke from being intoxicated and having double vision and a driver that had a couple of beers. The law treats them the same - I think that is not fair.

Agree to disagree, though.

Tekknikal

i cant believe there are so many skeptics here on the impact of drinking and driving. yes, being tired while you drive is dangerous, BUT THATS A SEPARATE ISSUE. the question is, are the penalties for drunk driving excessive. when you look at what it is and what the results are, how can you say no?

penalties help curb behavior. you dont need large penalties for driving while exhausted because in general, i think its safe to say that people dont like doing it, and its not as big of a problem. people love to drink though, and then think they can drive, but they cant. that behavior needs to be stopped. this is not like speeding, cell phones, or being tired.

tex2670

So--do you propose to criminalize being "distracted"? And, if we are talking about sliding scales, does your example -- kids screaming, dvd going, cell phone talking--carry a heavier penalty than just tuning your stereo? When you are drunk, whether buzzed or blitzed, you can't eliminate your condition. You CAN hang up the phone, turn off the radio, tell the kids to pipe down. THAT'S the difference. You can't just say "That was a close one--I better stop being drunk."

If you actually kill or injure someone while you were distracted talking on the phone, you will pay the price for reckless driving--which covers ANYTHING reckless.

Jakex1

If your argument is to get off the phone, tell the kids to quiet down, the drunk driver can give his keys to a cab company, or sleep in the car for a while. Thing is drunk drivers can sleep in the car and wait till they sober up but they don't. And people who are talking on the cell phone can finish their calls later but they DONT. So Either drunk driving is punished too hard and everything else carries a fair penalty, or drunk driving is punished fairly and everything else that causes distractions are punished too lightly. Also when people go into crash diets and starve for long periods of time they can go into states similar to being tipsy, yet if pulled over they wont get a ticket for being just as dangerous as a drunk driver with a .08 BAC.

Think about it if people never pushed for laws to come out because so many drunk drivers have killed others, MORE people would be driving drunk, and people would treat drunk driving accidents equally as other accidents where the driver had other distractions.


shouldnt jump to conclusions. i.e. Many men are pro-choice or pro-life but they probably never had children or plan to have children in the future. Its just ethics on everyones idea of right and wrong, just as the penalties for drunk driving is.

gengar

Sure. But IMO, the real issue is that many drunk drivers can't make these decisions properly while they are intoxicated. Frequently, laws are passed for the lowest common denominator - or, as I like to put it personally, to protect the world from idiots. I'm sure we've all heard the stories of people who have racked up numerous DUI charges and I just think (besides "how on earth are they not in jail?") but "how stupid do they have to be that they keep doing this and getting arrested?". And many of these people don't have any other criminal record whatsoever.

This type of behavior demonstrates that when a person becomes sufficiently intoxicated, they lose their ability to make rational decisions. The level of intoxication at which this occurs may vary dramatically from person to person, and certainly many people may never allow themselves to pass this limit. But laws designed to protect people from idiots will always be based on the idiots.