your thoughts on driving checkpoints

[jlazer]

Texting and driving is much worse... and completely legal.
Talking on phone is just as bad, probly worse.
Not to mention how many old and bad drivers there are out there that are worse than drunk drivers.

And driving drunk wouldn't be as bad if it weren't for people who can't handle their alcohol and think it's cool to drive fast and stupid.

 

[llperez22]

Driving is not a right, it is a privilege for responsible adults, that is why you have to be a certain age and pass a course. You are then responsible for a large fast piece of machinery that can direct impact others.

Walking down the street is a right, everyone of every age has the right to walk down the street.

Stopping everyone at a check stop is not discriminatory and does not infringe on your rights unless your vehicles searched.

Physically touching a pedestrian infringes on their rights and therefore is wrong.

I suspect you got nailed at a check stop last night and blew over the limit. Since your employer requires safe driving from you,I imagine you are in for a fun Monday morning at work, and are trying to validate your shitty decision this weekend.

to further expound, the reason i created this thread was because there is a street in a nearby city to where i live where they routinely do checkpoints. Every time, there are about a dozen citizens who stand outside with signs stating "turn here, checkpoint ahead". They are people of all ages and backgrounds, they believe that checkpoints are misuse of the law and want to warn people to avoid them.

 

[Exception]

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.

lmao. This quote sums up the thread perfectly. Such an immature and ill-conceived position by TS. People like him shouldn't drive at all, regardless of whether they are drinking or not. If someone has an "opinion" like the one demonstrated in the OP, it's clear that they don't have the cognitive ability to handle a task like driving.

 

[llperez22]

lmao. This quote sums up the thread perfectly. Such an immature and ill-conceived position by TS. People like him shouldn't drive at all, regardless of whether they are drinking or not. If someone has an "opinion" like the one demonstrated in the OP, it's clear that they don't have the cognitive ability to handle a task like driving.

my opinion, that i have stated clearly, is that one should never drive if they are a danger to others, however drinking does not necessarily equate to being a danger. It is a case by case basis and the law should not wrangle drivers up and find out which ones have had a drink and arrest them regardless of their ability to drive. If that opinion makes me wrong in your eyes, then i think very little of your opinion. The fact you further comment by saying i should be unable to drive regardless of having drinks or not but simply based on an opinion i have that is different then your own shows that you do not have the cognitive ability to make rational decisions.

 

[Exception]

my opinion, that i have stated clearly, is that one should never drive if they are a danger to others, however drinking does not necessarily equate to being a danger. It is a case by case basis and the law should not wrangle drivers up and find out which ones have had a drink and arrest them regardless of their ability to drive. If that opinion makes me wrong in your eyes, then i think very little of your opinion. The fact you further comment by saying i should be unable to drive regardless of having drinks or not but simply based on an opinion i have that is different then your own shows that you do not have the cognitive ability to make rational decisions.

The fact that you don't understand or notice why/that most people ITT are treating you like you are retarded is why I believe you may actually be mentally handicapped. I'm not being mean, you just don't understand the words you're typing or don't understand why your opinion would make you substantially less intelligent than most humans on earth. No harm, no foul. It's inherent that some people will be less intelligent than others. It's all good, broseph.

 

[Kevin Rudd]

The fact that you don't understand or notice why/that most people ITT are treating you like you are retarded is why I believe you may actually be mentally handicapped. I'm not being mean, you just don't understand the words you're typing or don't understand why your opinion would make you substantially less intelligent than most humans on earth. No harm, no foul. It's inherent that some people will be less intelligent than others. It's all good, broseph.

harsh...................................but fair.

 

[llperez22]

The fact that you don't understand or notice why/that most people ITT are treating you like you are retarded is why I believe you may actually be mentally handicapped. I'm not being mean, you just don't understand the words you're typing or don't understand why your opinion would make you substantially less intelligent than most humans on earth. No harm, no foul. It's inherent that some people will be less intelligent than others. It's all good, broseph.

you are simply throwing out insults here like a typical internet warrior, you are not forming an argument.

 

[Snackbar]

you do not have the cognitive ability to make rational decisions.

Did a guy arguing the merits of drunk driving actually just post this?

 

[llperez22]

Did a guy arguing the merits of drunk driving actually just post this?

i never argued the merits of drunk driving as if it is a positive. I argued that in some cases, drunk driving is not harmful and people should not be penalized without showing driving impairment.

 

[SowingSeason]

DUI checkpoints are fine with me. Now other random checkpoints and wanting to search my car is another thing.

Don't drink and drive. Period.

 

[panamaican]

i never argued the merits of drunk driving as if it is a positive. I argued that in some cases, drunk driving is not harmful and people should not be penalized without showing driving impairment.

You don't really understand how laws work.

Something is illegal that means there are laws against it. People are penalized for breaking the law, not for being impaired.

The BAC doesn't have to actually make everyone impaired for the law to make every level above a set point illegal.

As a final parallel. We have speed limits. It doesn't matter that some people can safely operate a vehicle above the speed limit. The limit is the limit regardless of your driving skills. Such is law and society.

 

[llperez22]

You don't really understand how laws work.

Something is illegal that means there are laws against it. People are penalized for breaking the law, not for being impaired.

The BAC doesn't have to actually make everyone impaired for the law to make every level above a set point illegal.

As a final parallel. We have speed limits. It doesn't matter that some people can safely operate a vehicle above the speed limit. The limit is the limit regardless of your driving skills. Such is law and society.

I understand how laws work just fine. im not arguing whether or not it is a law or violation of a law. Im arguing whether you agree with the practice.

 

[panamaican]

I understand how laws work just fine. im not arguing whether or not it is a law or violation of a law. Im arguing whether you agree with the practice.

And your basis for arguing with the practice seems to be centered around the fact that some people above the limit aren't impaired. It's a worthless argument since the checkpoints aren't checking for impairment, they're checking for people above the BAC levels.

 

[Throttlehead]

i never argued the merits of drunk driving as if it is a positive. I argued that in some cases, drunk driving is not harmful and people should not be penalized without showing driving impairment.

There isn't a drunk driver on the planet who thinks he is impaired while driving.

Not sure how to debate the bold part, I suppose its only harmful AFTER the accident.

 

[sangreporsangre]

I have no problems with them at all. Here we have the RIDE program and also the cops do stings to catch people texting and driving. They post up on streetcars or buses, or they pose as panhandlers at the lights where you get off the highway. Both DUI and driving while texting are really stupid and dangerous. And yes, obviously some people have a higher threshold for alcohol and more control of a vehicle than others when intoxicated, nobody is gonna argue that. But you don't have some god given right to drink an intoxicant like alcohol and then operate a motor vehicle. There's a BAC amount that you aren't allowed to exceed, I guess it might be slightly different from region to region. Maybe that amount is a bit low, maybe it errs on the side of caution a bit. But so what, safety is the number 1 concern. It's your responsibility to make arrangements for your life that you don't drive when your BAC exceeds those limits. You already know this so there's no excuses anyone can possibly make.

 

[llperez22]

There isn't a drunk driver on the planet who thinks he is impaired while driving.

Not sure how to debate the bold part, I suppose its only harmful AFTER the accident.

lol at highlighting half the sentence

IN SOME CASES, DRUNK DRIVING (by legal defenitition) IS NOT HARMFUL.
yeah not sure how you would debate that either.

 

[llperez22]

And your basis for arguing with the practice seems to be centered around the fact that some people above the limit aren't impaired. It's a worthless argument since the checkpoints aren't checking for impairment, they're checking for people above the BAC levels.

im aware of what they are checking for.

 

[Throttlehead]

lol at highlighting half the sentence

IN SOME CASES, DRUNK DRIVING (by legal defenitition) IS NOT HARMFUL.
yeah not sure how you would debate that either.

How was the legal definition set or established?

 

[llperez22]

How was the legal definition set or established?

not sure.

 

[7437]

lol at highlighting half the sentence

IN SOME CASES, DRUNK DRIVING (by legal defenitition) IS NOT HARMFUL.
yeah not sure how you would debate that either.

sometimes driving 150mph ( by legal definition) is not harmful.