your thoughts on driving checkpoints

[llperez22]

how do you feel about random driving check points and catching someone for a dui at one?

 

[Kevin Rudd]

don't have a huge issue with it. Drunk driving is fucking stupid and I think the penalties as it stands are too lenient. If they wanted to start searching my car then that would be a different story.

 

[llperez22]

don't have a huge issue with it. Drunk driving is fucking stupid and I think the penalties as it stands are too lenient. If they wanted to start searching my car then that would be a different story.

penalties are far from lenient for people who show zero impairment in their driving abilities and statistically are 3x safer then those who use their phone for calling or texting while driving.

 

[Kevin Rudd]

penalties are far from lenient for people who show zero impairment in their driving abilities and statistically are 3x safer then those who use their phone for calling or texting while driving.

WTF are you talking about? Which drunk drivers show zero impairment in their driving abilities?

In regards to you equating texting or use of a phone penalties to drunk driving I fail to see your point, if you think texting laws whilst driving are too lenient, start another thread.

 

[llperez22]

WTF are you talking about? Which drunk drivers show zero impairment in their driving abilities?

In regards to you equating texting or use of a phone penalties to drunk driving I fail to see your point, if you think texting laws whilst driving are too lenient, start another thread.

are you really arguing that everyone over the limit can not drive safely? Can not stay in their lane and drive the limit and be aware of their surroundings? Im not gonna make up stats, but you are insane if you think drinking automatically impairs your ability to drive. Its different for everyone and based on how much you drink.

 

[BareKnucklez**]

There is no legitimate argument to make against drink driving laws. Alcohol makes you more likely to get in an accident and seriously harm or kill other road users.

 

[panamaican]

No problem with it.

 

[edco76]

Roadside execution for dui would be okay with me. It's stupid.

 

[RTR ATL]

I don't mind them at all.

 

[BareKnucklez**]

Roadside execution for dui would be okay with me. It's stupid.

Sounds effective. The thing is some people might be ok to drive after a few beers, but other people will drive horribly after one beer. So the only option is to make it illegal for everyone to have more than one beer.

 

[llperez22]

There is no legitimate argument to make against drink driving laws. Alcohol makes you more likely to get in an accident and seriously harm or kill other road users.

tons of things make you more likely to get in accident. But drinking brings the hammer. Im required by state law for my job to take defensive driving courses and the stats are absolutely overwhelming how much more impairing cell phone use is for driving impairment. But it doesnt get even a fraction of the punishment that drinking and driving does.

i think people should have to show driving impairment before they are pulled over and ticketed.

 

[Kevin Rudd]

are you really arguing that everyone over the limit can not drive safely? Can not stay in their lane and drive the limit and be aware of their surroundings? Im not gonna make up stats, but you are insane if you think drinking automatically impairs your ability to drive. Its different for everyone and based on how much you drink.

Why start a thread asking what your thoughts are on breath tests and then completely go off on a separate tangent regarding the arbitrary measurement of blood alcohol content and how one size does not fit all? Why not just start a thread on that instead?

It took a few posts of bullshit to get to what your actually real issue is here.

 

[bubkusjones]

are you really arguing that everyone over the limit can not drive safely? Can not stay in their lane and drive the limit and be aware of their surroundings? Im not gonna make up stats, but you are insane if you think drinking automatically impairs your ability to drive. Its different for everyone and based on how much you drink.

It's not that EVERYONE is incapable, it's that the vast majority are. You start allowing people that leniency, and you'll get people who shouldn't be behind the wheel, getting behind the wheel. We already have cases of drunk people thinking they're OK to drive, and then end up killing themselves or someone else because of it.

Safer for all to be too tough on drunk driving than too lenient. You may be fine driving after a couple beers, but the guy next to you in the bar might be too drunk to drive, and till you can get an efficient, accurate, simple and cost effective method for testing everyone's drunkenness (and how it affects their driving ability), it's best to play it safe and assume that people aren't capable.

 

[llperez22]

Roadside execution for dui would be okay with me. It's stupid.

maybe you have never drank and drove, but im guessing you would lose numerous friends and family members to roadside execution if you had your way.

 

[Perfidious]

penalties are far from lenient for people who show zero impairment in their driving abilities and statistically are 3x safer then those who use their phone for calling or texting while driving.

Come off it, mate.

 

[llperez22]

Why start a thread asking what your thoughts are on breath tests and then completely go off on a separate tangent regarding the arbitrary measurement of blood alcohol content and how one size does not fit all? Why not just start a thread on that instead?

It took a few posts of bullshit to get to what your actually real issue is here.

a thread about breath tests which are based on blood alcohol content is a completely separate tangent then talking about alcohol blood content for people who have been drinking? Yeah, we are on different pages. I think the two subjects are hand in hand.

 

[Falsedawn]

I have more issue with police using drug dogs at DUI checkpoints than I do the checkpoints themselves.

So potentially unconstitutional, potentially justified, but routinely misused.

 

[llperez22]

Come off it, mate.

not sure what you mean? By come off it, are you just saying "im wrong"? the fact you said "mate" makes me think you are from a different country and maybe i just dont get your lingo. What do i need to come off of?

 

[Kevin Rudd]

a thread about breath tests which are based on blood alcohol content is a completely separate tangent then talking about alcohol blood content for people who have been drinking? Yeah, we are on different pages. I think the two subjects are hand in hand.

The thread is 'your thoughts on random checkpoints' not 'your thoughts on the arbitrary measure of blood alcohol content'

But I see your angle, you're a weirdo who thinks you should be able to drink and drive as long as you can stay in your lane. Sorry I don't subscribe to that stupid point of view.

 

[llperez22]

It's not that EVERYONE is incapable, it's that the vast majority are. You start allowing people that leniency, and you'll get people who shouldn't be behind the wheel, getting behind the wheel. We already have cases of drunk people thinking they're OK to drive, and then end up killing themselves or someone else because of it.

Safer for all to be too tough on drunk driving than too lenient. You may be fine driving after a couple beers, but the guy next to you in the bar might be too drunk to drive, and till you can get an efficient, accurate, simple and cost effective method for testing everyone's drunkenness (and how it affects their driving ability), it's best to play it safe and assume that people aren't capable.

that would be fine if you stopped people at the bar and never let them in their car. Play it safe right. but once they are driving, shouldnt you be able to witness whether they are capable of driving or not. Stopping them as they drive completely fine to find out if they can drive seems odd.