Reason Magazine

reason.org

reason.com

reason.tv

donate

previous link

REASON.TV VIDEO:Michigan
Bar Owners Ban Lawmakers for Banning Smoking! (Nanny… (9.1)

REASON.TV VIDEO:Reason-Rupe
Poll: Do Americans Feel Safer After 9/11, TSA, and… (9.1)

REASON.TV VIDEO:Matt
Welch Talks About Subsidized Homeowner Insurance on… (8.31)

REASON.TV VIDEO:George
Gilder on "The Israel Test," Obama, the Internet...and… (8.31)

REASON.TV VIDEO:Matt
Welch Discusses Hurricane Hype, Obama's Jobs Plan, and… (8.30)

REASON.TV VIDEO:Americans
Want to Cut Spending: Q&A with Emily Ekins on new… (8.30)

REASON.TV VIDEO:Gov.
Gary Johnson: Cut Spending by 43% - and Cut Social Issues… (8.30)

REASON.TV VIDEO:Freedom,
Science Fiction and the Singularity: A conversation… (8.29)

REASON.TV VIDEO:Investor Don Smith on the
Economy (8.26)

REASON.TV VIDEO:Romney Edges Perry in New
Reason-Rupe Poll; (8.25)

next link

✕

Loading...

more sharing

StumbleUpon

Digg

Reddit

close video

Subscribe

Print

E-Reader

Android
App

iPhone App

Reason E-Mail
Lists

Reason
Stuff

Subscriber
Services

Share

Reason on
Facebook

Reason on Twitter

Reason on Youtube

Reason
RSS

About

About

Contact

Privacy

Reason Foundation

Submission
Guidelines

Staff

Staff

Contributors

Archives

Archives

Print Issues

Cover Gallery

Hit & Run Blog

Brickbats

Topics

Poll

Feeds

Podcasts

RSS

Events

Advertise

Donate

Print|Email

Abolish
Drunk Driving Laws

If lawmakers are serious about saving lives, they should focus on
impairment, not alcohol.

Radley Balko | October 11, 2010

Last week Austin Police Chief Art Acevedo advocated
creating a new criminal offense: "driving while ability impaired." The problem
with the current Texas law prohibiting "driving while intoxicated" (DWI),
Acevedo explained, is that it doesn't allow him to arrest a driver whose
blood-alcohol content (BAC) is below 0.08 percent without additional evidence of
impairment.

"People sometimes focus on how many drinks they can have before they'll go to
jail," Acevedo told the Austin-American Statesman. "It varies….A person
may be intoxicated at 0.05, and you don't want them out driving." Acevedo wants
to be able to arrest people with BAC levels as low as 0.05 percent, and he may
have support for that idea in the state legislature. John Whitmire (D-Houston),
chairman of the state Senate's Criminal Justice Committee, told the
Statesman Acevedo's plan "might be one way to go," adding, "Some people
shouldn't be driving after one drink—probably below the 0.08 limit—and this
could address that."

Bill Lewis, head of the Texas chapter of Mothers Against Drunk Driving,
agreed. "I don't see how it would hurt," he told the paper. "The level of 0.08
is where we know most people are good and drunk...and there are people who are
driving at less than the limit who probably should not be. It might keep some
people from driving [drunk] again."

Acevedo, Whitmore, and Lewis are right, although probably not in the way they
intended. People do react to alcohol differently. For many people one drink may
well be too many, while experienced drinkers can function relatively normally
with a BAC at or above the legal threshold for presuming intoxication. A
person's impairment may also depend on variables such as the medications he is
taking and the amount of sleep he got the night before. Acevedo et al.'s
objections to the legal definition of intoxication highlight the absurdity of
drawing an arbitrary, breathalyzer-based line between sobriety and criminal
intoxication.

The right solution, however, is not to push the artificial line back farther.
Instead we should get rid of it entirely by repealing drunk driving laws.

Consider the 2000 federal law that pressured states to lower their BAC
standards to 0.08 from 0.10. At the time, the average BAC in alcohol-related
fatal accidents was 0.17, and two-thirds of such accidents involved drivers with
BACs of 0.14 or higher. In fact, drivers with BACs between 0.01 and 0.03 were
involved in more fatal accidents than drivers with BACs between 0.08 and 0.10.
(The federal government classifies a fatal accident as "alcohol-related" if it
involved a driver, a biker, or a pedestrian with a BAC of 0.01 or more, whether
or not drinking actually contributed to the accident.) In 1995 the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration studied traffic data in 30 safety
categories from the first five states to adopt the new DWI standard. In 21 of
the 30 categories, those states were either no different from or less safe than
the rest of the country.

Once the 0.08 standard took effect nationwide in 2000, a curious thing
happened: Alcohol-related traffic fatalities increased,
following a 20-year decline. Critics of the 0.08 standard predicted this would
happen. The problem is that most people with a BAC between 0.08 and 0.10 don't
drive erratically enough to be noticed by police officers in patrol cars. So
police began setting up roadblocks to catch them. But every cop manning a
roadblock aimed at catching motorists violating the new law is a cop not on the
highways looking for more seriously impaired motorists. By 2004 alcohol-related
fatalities went down again, but only because the decrease in states that don't
use roadblocks compensated for a slight but continuing increase in the states
that use them.

The roadblocks are also constitutionally problematic. In the 1990 decision Michigan
v.
Sitz
,the Supreme Court acknowledged that stops at sobriety checkpoints constitute
"seizures" under the Fourth Amendment but ruled that the public safety threat
posed by drunk driving made them "reasonable." In the years since, the
checkpoints have become little more than revenue
generators
for local governments. When local newspapers inquire about specific roadblocks
after the fact, they inevitably find lots of citations for seat belt offenses,
broken headlights, driving with an expired license, and other minor infractions.
But the checkpoints rarely catch seriously impaired drivers. In 2009, according
to a recent study by
researchers at the University of California at Berkeley, 1,600 sobriety
checkpoints in California generated $40 million in fines, $30 million in
overtime pay for cops, 24,000 vehicle confiscations, and just 3,200 arrests for
drunk driving. A typical checkpoint would consist of 20 or more cops, yield a
dozen or more vehicle confiscations, but around three drunk driving arrests.

Checkpoints are only the beginning of what California DWI attorney Lawrence
Taylor calls
"the drunk driving exception to the Constitution." The Fifth Amendment right
against self-incrimination has been turned upside down by state laws that
instantly suspend the licenses of drivers who refuse to take roadside breath
tests. Those breath tests are also fraught with problems. Most manufacturers of
breath test machines have refused
to turn over their source code, meaning DWI defendants can't assess the
machines' margin of
error, which can be a significant factor in a case where the difference
between 0.80 and 0.79 for a first offense can be $1,000 or more in fines,
mandatory alcohol awareness classes, and loss of driving privileges for up to a
year.

Blood tests are far more accurate, but by the time a driver is pulled over,
questioned, taken to the nearest hospital, and had his blood drawn, his BAC may
be significantly different from what it was when he was driving. Perversely, the
time lapse can have the effect of protecting guiltier motorists. Imagine a
driver pulled over or stopped at a checkpoint after having "one for the road,"
knowing his house is a short drive away and the last drink won't kick in until
he's sitting on his couch. At the time he is stopped, he is under the legal
limit. But his BAC is rising, and it tops 0.08 by the time his blood is drawn at
the hospital. By contrast, a driver who is impaired when he's pulled over, but
who stopped drinking an hour or so before, benefits from the delay, since his
BAC is falling by the time he arrives at the hospital.

Many states have tried to solve this problem by claiming another invasive
power: They are now allowing police to forcibly take
a blood sample on the side of the road.

These ever-expanding enforcement powers miss the point: The threat posed by
drunk driving comes not from drinking per se but from the impairment drinking
can cause. That fact has been lost in the rush to demonize people who have even
a single drink before getting behind the wheel (exemplified by the shift in the
government's message from "Don't Drive Drunk" to "Don't Drink and Drive").
Several studies have found that talking on a cell phone, even with a hands-free
device, causes more driver impairment than a 0.08 BAC. A 2001 American
Automobile Association study found several other in-car distractions that also
caused more impairment, including eating, adjusting a radio or CD player, and
having kids in the backseat (for more on such studies, see the 2005 paper I wrote on alcohol
policy for the Cato Institute).

If our ultimate goals are to reduce driver impairment and maximize highway
safety, we should be punishing reckless driving. It shouldn't matter if it's
caused by alcohol, sleep deprivation, prescription medication, text messaging,
or road rage. If lawmakers want to stick it to dangerous drivers who threaten
everyone else on the road, they can dial up the civil and criminal liability for
reckless driving, especially in cases that result in injury or property
damage.

Doing away with the specific charge of drunk driving sounds radical at first
blush, but it would put the focus back on impairment, where it belongs. It might
repair some of the civil-liberties damage done by the invasive powers the
government says it needs to catch and convict drunk drivers. If the offense were
reckless driving rather than drunk driving, for example, repeated swerving over
the median line would be enough to justify the charge. There would be no need
for a cop to jam a needle in your arm alongside a busy highway.

Scrapping the DWI offense in favor of better enforcement of reckless driving
laws would also bring some logical consistency to our laws, which treat a driver
with a BAC of 0.08 much more harshly than, say, a driver distracted by his kids
or a cell phone call, despite similar levels of impairment. The punishable act
should be violating road rules or causing an accident, not the factors that led
to those offenses. Singling out alcohol impairment for extra punishment isn't
about making the roads safer. It's about a lingering hostility toward demon
rum.

Radley Balko is a senior editor
at Reason magazine.

Reason needs your support. Please donate today!

Tweet

more sharing

StumbleUpon

Digg

Reddit

Try
Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are
not completely satisfied.

See
all 369 comments | Leave
a comment

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be
civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for
comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not
represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to
delete any comment for any reason at any time.

Spoonman.|10.11.10 @ 12:07PM|#

Sensible and logical. I predict at least one person calls you a murderer.

reply to this

Chony|10.11.10
@ 12:46PM|#

Murderer!

reply to this

David|10.11.10
@ 1:34PM|#

Communist!

reply to this

|10.11.10 @ 1:45PM|#

Communist murderer!

reply to this

DeSelby|10.11.10 @ 2:06PM|#

That one could be construed as a compliment.

reply to this

antonio|10.11.10 @ 10:45PM|#

Murderer that follows communist ideals!

reply to this

The
Monster|10.14.10 @ 4:23PM|#

I lost one of my brothers to a drunk driver, so I have Absolute Moral
Authority here. Drinking is not the problem; impairment is. I have long
advocated a simple test for impairment. A Reaction Time Recording Device (RTRD)
could be mass produced for a very low price (probably well under $50). It would
have three large buttons with lights built into them (like "tap lights") in a
row, spaced 6" apart, and an LED digital display across the top.

The officer instructs the driver to choose a hand to use for the test, and
hold the other hand behind the back. The driver places the test hand on the
center button and holds it down. After a random 1-5 second delay, one of the
other two buttons will light up. The driver is then to pull the test hand off
the original button and hit the lit button. This process repeats until 12
buttons have been lit and pressed. The system records the time between light and
press, throws out the shortest and longest trials, leaving 10 samples from which
an average is computed by adding them together and shifting the decimal point
(making the math very simple, to keep the cost of the device down). The law
would specify a maximum reaction time for an unrestricted license (drive
anywhere anytime) and a longer maximum for restrictions such as "no interstate
highways".

The entire operation can be recorded on video (including the splits showing
up on a display on the device) for admission into the trial record. The whole
test should take under a minute.

reply to this

ElCiD|10.25.10
@ 5:14PM|#

I always thought that playing Simon should be the standardized test for
driving.

reply to this

|10.11.10 @ 12:08PM|#

While I can't disagree with any of the arguments made in this article, I
think Mr. Balko does himself a great disservice when he encourages people to
throw shoes at a sitting President of the United States. He also is a
sympathizer of anarchists groups and likes to eat tomatoes that are grown within
a 3 mile area of where he lives.

reply to this

Point and Shout|10.11.10 @ 1:08PM|#

Locavore!

reply to this

Top Notes|10.11.10 @ 2:45PM|#

It's Twist and Shout!

reply to this

|10.12.10 @ 2:32AM|#

Actually he probably doesn't eat tomatoes that are grown with in 3 miles of
his house. If he believes in free markets he won't listen to the buy local
garbage.

reply to this

|10.12.10 @ 3:40AM|#

No kidding, I totally agree with you. There is something fundamentally weird
with these local eater people that blows my mind. There is nothing libertarian
about paying $7 a pound for tomatoes instead of $2.79 at the Piggly Wiggly or
WalMart. Here's the deal, Balko and a few others at Reason are not really
libertarians, they're liberals. About late 2007 they were given jobs to write
stories that attack the American way of life from a new bull shit angle called
left-libertarian. It's really just being a liberal and occasionally attacking
both sides, but since nobody listens to Time or Newsweek anymore let's try
another angle. So now we have Obama and the country is in real trouble. Maybe if
we could get that guy in Iraq to throw a shoe at Obama.

reply to this

JohnD|10.12.10
@ 9:21AM|#

Obama was lucky it was a book. It should have been a brick.

reply to this

|10.14.10 @ 1:26PM|#

If you're using some "locavore" fad-following to prove someone isn't a
libertarian, then you aren't proving anything. What he chooses to do with HIS
own money is HIS business, not yours.

reply to this

|10.16.10 @ 5:01AM|#

Being a locavore is just one of many symptoms for Mr. Balko. Go to his
personal website agitator.com and you will see that he has a large following of
anarchists, routinely makes fun of the tea party (all though he likes Rand
Paul), hates Bush and buys into all the kook 9/11 DailyKos crap. He's a liberal,
which is fine, it's the dishonesty I hate.

reply to this

|10.11.10 @ 12:10PM|#

the fascist states of america.

don't worry if you haven't actually harmed anyone or anything, they will
throw you in jail.

reply to this

Jorj X. McKie|10.11.10 @ 1:06PM|#

We are all accidents waiting to happen.

reply to this

Edwin|10.11.10
@ 1:15PM|#

See? Here we go. Here's some full-retard in action

multiple times I;ve heard libertarians advance such an argument as this one -
that drunk driving should be completely legal. That you should only be
prosecutable AFTER you've hit someone. That's fucking retarded. When you're
driving drunk, you're creating a serious risk, which is an externality. Can I
set up some wood targets in the middle of a public park, and start target
practicing, let's say, facing the playground? Hey, you have no right to stop me
UNTIL I actually shoot one of the kids!!!

Seriously, fucking admit it. Only libertarians are THIS FUCKING RETARDED on a
regular basis (not that all libertarians are this stupid, but such idiots pop up
disproportionately in libertarian circles).
I mean OMG this kind of shit is
SO STUPID. It fucking makes me ashamed that you're part of the same species as I
am.

reply to this

Edwin|10.11.10
@ 1:16PM|#

How long is it going to take before someone admits that retards like this
show up way too much in libertarianism?

reply to this

Edwin|10.11.10
@ 1:16PM|#

and someone making a snide comment assuming I'm a leftist/liberal in 3...
2... 1...

reply to this

PeeDub|10.11.10
@ 1:49PM|#

I just assume you can't read.

reply to this

|10.11.10 @ 2:06PM|#

You don't have to be a "leftist/liberal". The "right" has just as many
statists, badge fluffers and safety nazis.

reply to this

rriord2|10.11.10 @ 5:32PM|#

Yes, a bi-partisan initiative leading to the industrial world's highest
drinking age:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Minimum_Drinking_Age_Act

reply to this

rriord2|10.11.10 @ 5:33PM|#

Yes, abolish the drinking age! Don't leftists want to be more like Germany
and Belgium anyways?

reply to this

|10.11.10 @ 2:42PM|#

Did you even read the article?

reply to this

Mike the Grouch|10.11.10 @ 1:49PM|#

Good god. I have a vastly more libertarian solution. Stop policing the roads
entirely. But sell them to private owners first! The auto-based transit system
in this country is totally socialist in its origins and current
implementation.

reply to this

|10.11.10 @ 2:56PM|#

That's not a bad idea, but I can tell you this: if you sold a road to a
private investor, there is no way he would let you drive it with any
alcohol at all in your blood. Who needs that kind of risk to your precious
investment?

Furthermore, there'd be none of this hide-n-seek game with enforcement
officers trying to catch you on the road. You'd have to submit to a breath test
before you were even allowed on the road. And if you ever tested
positive, I bet you'd be banned from the road for life.

I mean, think of it this way: say your friend wants to borrow your car --
your only car, a new one you like, and for which your back is breaking with
payments. If he arrives saying he's had a drink or two, but nooo
problem, are you going to hand over the keys and figure you'll sue him
later if he screws up? Ha ha.

This isn't an argument for or against government prohibiting driving
drunk. In the main I agree with Balko. I'm just pointing out that a
private investor, with much more than the lives of random citizens (for
which the government bears zero liability) at risk, is going to be much
more careful to prohibit dangerous behaviour up front. And with no concern at
all for Constitutional concerns, because the Constitution doesn't apply to
private property.

reply to this

|10.11.10 @ 7:44PM|#

Private roads would have their own natural limits to these sorts of arcane
measures. If one road allows for more risk than others in terms of "drunk"
driving, that road will get business (tolls or whatever the model is based on)
than the road owned by the overly conservative owner who goes out of his way to
be a douche bag to his customers. I would even go so far as to say that one
person might open a road parallel to another private road for the purposes of
competing with it. The private owners would therefore have to find a natural
balance of risk and that balance would necessarily have to land clear of the
authoritarian arrangements you described, simply because people would not be
interested in using that road.

Also, the law does not have to be completely silent here. If there are laws
against reckless driving, but none against drunk driving, then the owner has no
criminal legal recourse against the motorists he routinely checks, therefore,
his only legal recourse is the civil enforcement of whatever contract might be
binding between road owner and driver. At a certain point, it would become cost
prohibitive to go through all of these authoritarian checks and stops, and this
will make the owners road even less profitable than his competitors.

The door obviously swings both ways. If an owner becomes too lax in his
enforcement, the road becomes dangerous or is at least perceived as dangerous
because of its overly lax enforcement so rational people will be less inclined
to use at certain times, out of concern for their own safety. When this
mechanism kicks in, the owner will be forced to add enforcement. We see these
market forces at work in bars. The safe bars are safe because the owner
exercises some control over who comes in, how much they drink and how rowdy they
are allowed to be before they get tossed. The only problem with this example is
that there are too few bars, simply because in many places it is too difficult
to get a liquor license (among other barriers to entry). If the development of
private roads were to be heavily regulated by the government, there would be
less competition and these market forces that would keep the roads at a safe
medium level of enforcement would be pulled out of alignment by local
monopolies.

reply to this

Mike the Grouch|10.12.10 @ 10:04AM|#

I am simply pointing out that no real libertarian should be supporting
anything but complete privatization of the nation's communal transportation
system. Once that is done, other than laws to protect personal rights and
property in traditional fashion, the government should simply not be
involved.

reply to this

Joe|10.11.10 @
1:30PM|#

That's not what he said at all. He's saying the reason you are impaired
should not matter, just that you are in fact, impaired. He is in no way saying
not to arrest reckless drivers until they cause an accident. He is in fact
saying the exact opposite, that more should be arrested regardless of the
factors that lead to them driving recklessly.

reply to this

|10.11.10 @ 1:45PM|#

Damn, dude, RTFM next time:

"...swerving over the median line would be enough to justify the charge."

reply to this

|10.11.10 @ 1:45PM|#

I meant "RTFA"... but you can RTFM, too if you want. :-)

reply to this

Soonerliberty|10.11.10 @ 3:59PM|#

Except that in experiments in England and the Netherlands, less laws lead to
safer driving behavior. There is also a positive externality to driving drunk: I
have fun driving and I'm more relaxed than the road ragers.

Actually, this is the standard for law. There is no right to stop anyone for
any reason without probable cause.

Privatize the roads and you solve this. They could have much stricter rules
than we do now.

Or you could rant and rave, using language like "OMG, I mean, like, am I the
same specie as you, I mean, like, wow." This does wonders for your intellectual
reputation.

reply to this

Edwin|10.11.10
@ 4:47PM|#

"There is also a positive externality to driving drunk: I have fun driving
and I'm more relaxed than the road ragers."

Wow. Just Wow.

Any of yous guys finally ready to admit you've got a lot of retards in your
group?

reply to this

Soonerliberty|10.12.10 @ 7:49AM|#

Called being facetious...externalities are bullshit is the point. You
obviously missed that.

reply to this

Jorj X. McKie|10.12.10 @ 11:28AM|#

You know what's retarded? All the stone-sober Edwins of the world get to
drive like complete idiots and the cops don't do shit because they're too busy
collecting revenue. What were are saying is simple. ALL dangerous drivers should
be treated as such, not just the drunk ones. And having a bit of beer in your
tummy does not automatically make you a murderer-in-waiting.

reply to this

Edwin|10.12.10
@ 2:53PM|#

of course A beer won't, but look at what some of your compatriots are saying,
they're saying a FEW beers, and multiple times I've heard libertarians saying
that drunk driving laws shouldn't be there altogether. There's even a Lew
Rockwell article on it:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/drunkdriving.html

If you're going to deny that a shitload of libertarians are fucking retarded,
then you're in denial

reply to this

Jorj X. McKie|10.12.10 @ 4:44PM|#

Well I guess denial ain't just a river in Egypt. Look, do you at least agree
that all dangerous drivers should be taken off the road, no matter what
the "cause" of their poor vehicular operation? If so, why should a dangerous
driver be let off the hook just because he isn't drunk?

It seems to me, for instance, that there are many dangerous drivers whose
main problem is they are too old, or maybe to young/immature, to operate a
vehicle safely. Yet these people seem to get the benefit of the doubt that
someone with a .08 BAC never gets.

reply to this

Mike|10.12.10 @
5:28PM|#

You're still missing the point, retard. If you drink a few beers and then
start driving down the road swerving, or driving without your lights on... or
driving at a dangerously different speed than other traffic, you will still get
pulled over for reckless driving. It won't matter that there's no drunk driving
law, the reckless asshole will still go to jail.

reply to this

|10.14.10 @ 1:30PM|#

Considering some breathalyzers will register .05 BAC if you've eaten a PIECE
OF BREAD, we shouldn't be using that shitty technology anyway.

reply to this

Educator|10.12.10 @ 7:50AM|#

"Except that in experiments in England and the Netherlands, *less* laws lead
to safer driving behavior."

*Fewer*.

reply to this

Carston|10.11.10 @ 4:19PM|#

The justice system is in place to punish and/or provide justice for harm
done. Once you begin to make laws in the name of prevention, there is no logical
stopping point until the government has micromanaged every aspect of your
life.

reply to this

Edwin|10.11.10
@ 4:48PM|#

Any of yous guys finally ready to admit you've got a lot of retards in your
group?

reply to this

Brandon|10.11.10 @ 5:06PM|#

I'm sensing a lot of hostility toward the retarded here... Edwin, where did
the special man touch you?

reply to this

Brian R|10.11.10 @ 7:41PM|#

+1 Hilarious

reply to this

Jorj X. McKie|10.12.10 @ 11:30AM|#

Maybe he touches them.

reply to this

|10.14.10 @ 3:02PM|#

That depends. Are you in our group?

reply to this

|10.12.10 @ 1:39PM|#

"The justice system is in place to punish and/or provide justice for harm
done"

Not totally true. Acting in a dangerous manner can/will also get you in
trouble (and it should).

reply to this

|10.11.10 @ 4:51PM|#

I don't think this article advocates driving while your central nervous
system is altered by a intoxicant; it advocates a more intellegent use of police
observaiton and detection powers to arrest persons who are operating an
"intellegently" guided ballistic projectile (motor vehicle) while not fully
cognizant of the task.

That is not a cognitavley impaired observation.

reply to this

|10.11.10 @ 5:08PM|#

I was going to impersonate a Mother Against
Drunk Driving but I see Edwin already beat me
to it.

reply to this

Knoss|10.11.10
@ 6:02PM|#

Not hit someone. Failing to signal or missing a stop sign or drifting into
the other lane.

reply to this

|10.11.10 @ 6:58PM|#

When you are driving PERIOD, it is dangerous. Its not the drunkenness that is
of concern here, it is the impairment.

If someone gets into a car and drives through a crowd of people COMPLETELY
SOBER, it is the exact same thing as him doing it COMPLETELY DRUNK. Or do you
believe that the results will somehow be better for the sober person?

Furthermore, you seemed to have missed the paragraphs pertaining to cops
being on the highway looking for ERRATIC drivers. If I am all over the road, I
am either IMPAIRED or I really suck at driving, but either way, a cop has a duty
at that point to stop me. How do you think you will go about prosecuting people
who text while driving? Are you going to see them doing it all the time? Do you
think people hold their phones up in the air for all to see when they are
texting? No, they put them in their laps so that nobody can see, this is
actually more distracting because your eyes are totally off the road. This
distraction is as bad if not worse than driving drunk in terms of impairment,
but yet, it is not as easy to prove because there is no good test for it. If I
am just scrolling through my recent texts, do you think they will be able to
determine that objectively I was texting? No, because there is nothing for them
to show the judge.

Regarding your shooting arrows in a park, nobody will let you do this. Only
stupid or insane people would even want to try this. The cops are not going to
arrest you for shooting arrows while being stupid, they will arrest you for
shooting arrows recklessly towards children.

And if this is stupid or retarded, please feel free to educate everyone as to
WHY it is stupid or retarded, because simply saying it doesnt make it so.

reply to this

Brian R|10.11.10 @ 7:47PM|#

Good point - texting *is* dangerous. Therefore we should outlaw having a
cellphone in the car. That's just as sensible as the "open container" laws that
some states have.

Anyone who says otherwise is retarded.

reply to this

|10.11.10 @ 8:48PM|#

Texting isnt dangerous. Driving is dangerous. Driving while distracted is
even more dangerous than just driving, but this does not mean that we should
have laws against texting and driving and drinking and driving. We have laws
against driving recklessly. Look for reckless driving and then arrest those
people.

Arbitrarily selecting one or two distractions over all others is
retarded.

I was rear ended by a guy who was distracted by a hot chick on the side of
the road. How would we go about preventing this? The point is, if there was a
cop following this guy, they would have seen that he was not staying in his own
lane, and they could arrest him for this, otherwise, they would have to perform
a field boner test. Hope the dudes not wearing sweat pants.

reply to this

d|10.12.10 @
12:53AM|#

Re-adjust your snark detection settings. I think Brian R was kind of joking
about the "open cell phone" laws.

reply to this

Brian R|10.12.10 @ 7:18PM|#

As long as the "field boner test" is administered by a hot female cop, I'm
all for it!

(for the record, "d" is correct - my prior comment was pure sarcasm.)

reply to this

|10.12.10 @ 7:26PM|#

It was hard to tell. Sorry I do tend to be a bit reactionary, plus, I wanted
desperately to use the field boner test example I couldn't resist.

reply to this

|10.12.10 @ 8:21PM|#

I worry that this test will be used to entrap people for public
indecency.

reply to this

|10.12.10 @ 4:15AM|#

What does an open container prove, other than there's an open container in
the vehicle? You might as well ban fermented fruit.
Why are statists so
afraid of the world? And especially, why are you afraid of the wrong things?

reply to this

Botox Porcupine|10.12.10 @ 2:56PM|#

Let me begin by pointing out the irony of you calling someone stupid whilst
using the initialism "OMG" as if you were a fourteen year old girl.

Are you? A fourteen year old girl, I mean?

Further, you shouldn't criticize that which you have not read. Libertarians
are not against reckless and negligent criminal statutes, nor does Balko (call
him a liberal if you want) purport as much.

Balko's point is that criminal statutes related to driving should be enforced
based on the level of impairment, not how much alcohol one has drunk. After all,
there are people who can easily drive with a .20, whereas an idiot like yourself
probably struggles to drive and construct a valid criticism of an argument at
the same time.

reply to this

Edwin|10.12.10
@ 5:55PM|#

Bullshit. Libertarians have repeatedly said they want to legalize drunk
driving and repeatedly on this thread denied thet driving drunk is dangerous.
Read the thread and see my links

reply to this

|10.12.10 @ 7:41PM|#

I would also like to legalize firing flaming arrows into a crowd of children
at the park, lobbing hand grenades at people randomly and shit sandwiches.

When you say people want to "legalize" drunk driving, you are obviously
missing the finer point of the article. "Drunk" is not the only really bad way
to drive, but yet our legal system focuses heavily on BAC that it overlooks
other less testable situations. Why do you need to make drunk driving illegal
when reckless driving is illegal. If cops are looking to pull someone over, they
should be looking for people who are reckless, if they happen to be drunk, then
that is coincidental.

Driving is dangerous in and of itself. Driving drunk is dangerous. Texting
while driving is dangerous. Getting your knob polished while driving is
dangerous. Of these three examples cops can only test for one, yet on any given
day, there are probably more people texting and or getting their knob polished
while driving than there are driving "drunk". Additionally, drunkeness is a
condition that is hard to prove. The BAC does not tell the police if you are
impaired, or even to what degree you are impaired. So instead of making people
blow into a breathalyzer, sing the fucking alphabet backwards or do fucking nose
touches in the middle of the road, just arrest pull over and or arrest everyone
who is seen to be driving dangerously and charge them with reckless driving. Ya
know what, the article says all of this and more, so instead of me re-typing the
whole goddamn thing, just scroll up and read it yourself.

reply to this

Edwin|10.13.10
@ 9:18AM|#

you failed again retard.

Read the fucking comments. Read my links. I'm not commenting on this
particular article.
Try paying attention you fucking fuck of a
retard-fuck.

reply to this

|10.13.10 @ 7:09PM|#

Why dont you just post your goddamn links. As far as anybody is concerned,
your post above is on this article. And what exactly are you trying to prove
anyway. Why dont you just come out and explain your points here, because I have
no fucking idea what links you are referencing.

And "fucking retarded fucked up fucktard retarded" comment in
3...2...1...

reply to this

Graham Shevlin|7.28.11 @
9:12PM|#

Are you a full-time idiot, or are you just impersonating one?

reply to this

|10.14.10 @ 1:34PM|#

I don't think "whilst" is much better than OMG, Mrs. Bronte.

Otherwise, I agree.

reply to this

|10.14.10 @ 7:16PM|#

and what species is that?

reply to this

|2.19.11 @ 2:44PM|#

I'll extrapolate your shooing a gun in the woods argument to the probability
that every time one drives a car, hits a golf ball, etc., he might kill someone.
Shall we outlaw EVERY action with possible ill outcomes? How much do you trust
your government to effectively monitor and punish your everyday behavior? You
might also consider that blindly attacking others' intelligence reflects more on
the attacker than his victim.

reply to this

Speed Racer|10.11.10 @ 2:34PM|#

Eliminate speed limits.

reply to this

|10.11.10 @ 7:50PM|#

The most fun I had was in my 1986 Chevy Cavalier. The thing wasnt fast, but
it had one of those digital dashboards that died some time around 1993 so i
could never tell how fast I was going, which got me in trouble with a few cops
along the way. Only side effect was that I could tell when i was low on gas
either.

reply to this

Brother Wolf|10.11.10 @ 12:12PM|#

Yeah... good luck with that one.

reply to this

|10.11.10 @ 12:14PM|#

WON'T SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!!

reply to this

Jeff P.|10.11.10 @ 1:20PM|#

I do think of the children.
While masterbating.

reply to this

waffles|10.11.10 @ 2:17PM|#

there oughta be a law against that

reply to this

|10.11.10 @ 2:49PM|#

thinking?

reply to this

Sean|10.11.10 @
7:10PM|#

No, children.

reply to this

Jorj X. McKie|10.12.10 @ 5:28PM|#

It's a well known fact that children are the main cause of pedophilia.

reply to this

Attagirl|10.14.10 @ 12:22PM|#

Misspelling masturbating?

reply to this

Chris Hanson|10.12.10 @ 10:08AM|#

Have a seat right over there.

reply to this

James J.B.|10.11.10 @ 12:15PM|#

Scrapping the DWI offense in favor of better enforcement of reckless driving
laws would also bring some logical consistency to our laws, which treat a driver
with a BAC of 0.08 much more harshly than, say, a driver distracted by his kids
or a cell phone call, despite similar levels of impairment.

Wow. The nannies have made so many gains in the thought processes (of even
one of our guys...) Yes, it will all be better when we are nailing the
"distracted" drivers too.

1. No matter how much I talk on my phone or to my passenger - I am not
physically impaired.

2. All driving to some degree is distracted. No one can focus on the road in
front of them and never lapse in attention.

3. This statement will justify cell phone = talking children = DUI. Trust me,
the government will not eliminate DUI, instead they will treat everyone else as
harsh as DUIs.

4. The cell phone "studies" are skewed by people that want laws against cells
in cars. I do not believe that a cell phone, car radio, talking passengers, etc.
are evils that the state must stop.

reply to this

Pip|10.11.10 @
12:52PM|#

"Scrapping the DWI offense in favor of better enforcement of reckless driving
laws would also bring some logical consistency to our laws, which treat a driver
with a BAC of 0.08 much more harshly than, say, a driver distracted by his kids
or a cell phone call, despite similar levels of impairment."

That DUI laws exist in no way hinders enforcement of reckless driving laws.
Quite the non sequitur, eh?

reply to this

Carston|10.12.10 @ 12:08PM|#

Yes it does, they just chase down people for DUI because they are such big
money makers for the system. If they stop someone for driving erratically and
find they haven't been drinking and don't have any drugs on them, they let them
go.

reply to this

|10.11.10 @ 12:54PM|#

You missed the point of the article. What Balko is saying is that the cause
of the impairment doesn't matter so much as whether or not a person is driving
recklessly because they are impaired. If someone is talking on a cell phone
while drunk and masturbating to speed metal while driving, as long as they
aren't driving recklessly then it shouldn't be a crime.

reply to this

Night Elf Mohawk|10.11.10 @ 1:00PM|#

That's exactly what I told the judge.

reply to this

Pip|10.11.10 @
1:11PM|#

No, I understood the article. My point is we can enforce both Recless driving
and DUI. I see no reason to eliminate DUI laws as I believe any one who drinks
any amount of alcohol and drives is a selfish asshole who is willing to put
others at risk either for convenience's sake or else is too cheap to pony-up cab
fare.

To assert that a 0.05% BAC does not impair some people's ability to drive is
bullshit.

reply to this

Pip|10.11.10 @
1:12PM|#

Recless spelling and punctuation should also be a crime.

reply to this

|10.11.10 @ 1:23PM|#

SEE! 1st they went after the DUIs, but I don't drive, so I said nothing. Then
they went after the bad spellars and those who, abuse, punctionation... ...

reply to this

|10.12.10 @ 6:49AM|#

+10

reply to this

|10.11.10 @ 1:51PM|#

".....I believe anyone who drinks any amount of alcohol and drives is a
selfish asshole who is willing to put others at risk..."

I am not sure which is more breathtaking, your ignorance or your arrogance.
There are so many things factually wrong with your belief about "impairment" it
is difficult to know where to begin.

If you didn't get enough sleep the night before, you are at least as impaired
as someone who has had two or three drinks. If you drank a large glass of orange
juice with breakfast and then got in your car, well then surprise! Chances are
that OJ had enough natural fermentation going on to give you a BAC of at least
.01 or .02. If you are distracted by kids in the back seat, or you are listening
intently to George Noory's latest guest on the radio, you are impaired. If you
are not feeling well, you are impaired. If you are taking pretty much any
prescription medication, you are impaired. If you ae depressed or upset about an
argument with your spouse or boss, you are impaired.

To say that someone who has a glass of wine with dinner and then drives home
from the restaurant is an a-hole and deserves to be arrested is just so flat-out
wrong there are no words. Literally everything and anything that you may ingest
can cause some degree on "impairment". Lack of sleep causes documented
impairment in operating machinery, including cars. Emotional and/or mental
stress causes real impairment. To say that none of these matters, and that the
only thing that does matter is whether or not someone had wine with dinner or a
beer at the neighborhood bar on the way home from work is a mindset that is
arbitrary, capricious, and criminal.

As a licensed pilot, the FAA says I can LEGALLY and SAFELY fly an airplane as
long as my BAC is below .04. And while flying an airplane in congested airspace,
there are all kinds of distractions, such as frequent radio communications with
the control tower, the local TRACON, ARTCC, and also monitoring the common
traffic frequency (CTAF). Not to mention getting enroute weather updates from
Flight Service and automated weather reports (AWOS). And the distractions
increase exponentially if I an flying on an instrument flight plan.

And yet, the FAA says it is SAFE and LEGAL for me to do all this with a BAC
of up to .04. But in your judgement, if I drive a car with a BAC of .01 then I
am an a-hole and deserve to be prosecuted.

The truth of the matter is that the pundulum has swung so far in the MADD
direction that simply breathing in the aroma of a fine cabernet before driving
is a crime. It is sheer madness. The .08 definition of legal impairment was
politically driven and should never have been lowered from .01. Even the .01 BAC
was probably too stringent. It is not and never was the .08 to 1.2 social
imbibers who were causing most of the the alcohol-related accidents. It is and
always was the .17 to 2.0 and above who were causing most of the wrecks. The
feds and the state and local municipalities have been barking up the wrong tree
for far too long now. It is time that common sense be factored into the drunk
driving laws, as they are currently anything but sensible or reasonable. (By the
way, I have never had a DUI nor ever been pulled over for suspicion of
such.)

reply to this

Pip|10.11.10 @
2:55PM|#

You really, really don't get it. I say throw everyone whose ass is impared
while driving into the slammer. In addition to that I say throw
everyone whose ass is driving with alcohol in their syastem into the
slammer.

Its not an A or B thing, it's an A and B thing.

Get that through you thick head and you will save a shit load of time by not
arguing with yourself.

reply to this

|10.11.10 @ 3:18PM|#

No, it is YOU who does not get it, Mr Pipsqueak. The fact is that EVERYONE,
including YOU, has driven while "impaired" and will continue to drive while
"impaired" from time to time. You will find your own ASS thrown in jail as well
as the tens of millions of others who would be jailed under your Kim Jong
Mentally-Ill plan.

Just because YOU think that anyone with .01 of alcohol in their body is too
"impaired" to safely drive a car does NOT mean such an absurd notion is actually
true.

You are a lunatic. Either get over yourself, or get some professional help,
or consider emigrating to Cuba or North Korea, where you could be much happier
having Maximum Leader mandating anything and everything to be a jailable
offense.

reply to this

The Gobbler|10.11.10 @ 5:58PM|#

That's some damn fine trolling, Pip. I tip my hat to you.

reply to this

Jorj X. McKie|10.12.10 @ 11:39AM|#

Pip & Edwin, the first links in my wonderful chain of delight. I call it:
The Human Centipede!

reply to this

Highway|10.11.10 @ 2:09PM|#

Any amount? ANY amount? So you have a regular margarita at the beginning of a
mexican dinner that takes 90 minutes, and you're a 'selfish asshole who is
willing to put others at risk'? Or you go out and sing karaoke for 4 hours and
have 2 drinks, then switch to Diet Cokes for the last two hours?

There's no impairment there. There's no law breaking there. But you, Mr.
Know-It-All Pip have decided that that's going to kill people.

You were born a century too late. You'd have fit in great with the WCTU.

reply to this

Pip|10.11.10 @
2:57PM|#

"Any amount? ANY amount? So you have a regular margarita at the beginning of
a mexican dinner that takes 90 minutes, and you're a 'selfish asshole who is
willing to put others at risk'? Or you go out and sing karaoke for 4 hours and
have 2 drinks, then switch to Diet Cokes for the last two hours?"

Red Herrings, bucko. In either case, you'd blow a 0.00 % BAC.

reply to this

Mike|10.12.10 @
5:52PM|#

Or, you might not.

reply to this

Mike|10.12.10 @
6:38PM|#

Good thing I know exactly when I'll blow what given an arbitrary unknown
calibration instead of paying attention to how intoxicated I am. You're saying
if I leave 20 minutes earlier and blow a .01 I should be arrested and thrown in
jail but if I wait the 20 minutes I shouldn't? Seems crazy... what makes more
sense to me is that in either case if I'm not swerving, I'm fine, if I am, I'm
not fine.

reply to this

Tank|10.11.10 @
2:45PM|#

Thank you! Being a selfish asshole and/or cheapskate should be illegal,
punishable by death.

Selfishly, I'd like to see them killed by being forced to fight lions, but
that's probably cost-prohibitive.

Oh, shit.

reply to this

|10.12.10 @ 4:19AM|#

Pip figures "any one who drinks any amount of alcohol and drives is a selfish
asshole who is willing to put others at risk either for convenience's sake or
else is too cheap to pony-up cab fare."
What about parents who drive without
putting their kids in car seats? License suspension for 18 months? Seized
vehicle? Asset forfeiture?
You standard for gratuitous state intervention is
farcically easy to puncture.

reply to this

|10.14.10 @ 1:37PM|#

The number is only as good as the measurement.

http://www.duiblog.com/2005/03/08/driving-under-the-influence-of-bread/

reply to this

James J.B.|10.11.10 @ 1:12PM|#

Um, No. He said similar levels of impairment. What is the basis for that
statemet? The nanny studies that everyone here rails against.

The minute you concede that you are "distracted" by talking on the phone or
to a passenger - you shouldn't drive, vote, or interrupt the adults when they
are talking.

reply to this

Zeb|10.11.10 @
1:52PM|#

Some people are distracted by using the telephone while driving. If that
causes them to drive in a dangerous way, I don't see why that should not be
punished the same as dangerous driving caused by anything else (such as
alcohol).

reply to this

|10.11.10 @ 2:34PM|#

_Some_ people are. It's true. But again, shouldn't wait for someone commit a
crime (in the libertarian sense: harm to another) before they're accused of a
crime?

reply to this

waffles|10.11.10 @ 2:21PM|#

shit, I vote at least once, sometimes three, four times a day.

reply to this

|10.11.10 @ 3:10PM|#

What Balko is saying is that the cause of the impairment doesn't matter
so much as whether or not a person is driving recklessly because they are
impaired

I think that's wrong. See, if you're talking on the cell phone you can
hang up and instantly be unimpaired. If you're yakking with your friends in
the back seat, you can have a near miss and be frightened enough to realize you
should pay attention to what's going on -- and you can. The key aspect
here is that your judgment is unimpaired, meaning if you're doing
something stupid, your brain is working well enough that there's a chance you
can realize it and stop doing it, instantly.

That's not the case with chemical intoxication. If you're drunk, then first
of all there's no way you can instantly stop being drunk. Plenty of
people driving drunk realize they shouldn't be doing so, and fervently wish
there was some way to stop being drunk immediately -- hence the black coffee,
the open windows in 32 degree weather, the loud radio, whatever.

Secondly, the problem with intoxication is that your judgment is whacked. You
don't evaluate risks and benefits correctly. Even if there is a way to
minimize the risks of intoxication, you're not likely to take it, because you
aren't evaluating the risks correctly. Heck, this is why it's easy for cops to
nail people who are intoxicated. Almost none of them have the presence of mind
and good judgment to act in their own best interests at a traffic stop.

What Balko's article overlooks is the important distinction between
taking stupid risks and being stupid about evaluating risks.
It's not unreasonable to argue that the latter is a much bigger problem.

reply to this

|10.11.10 @ 7:52PM|#

I stopped masturbating to speed metal after a friend of mine pulled his own
dick off.

reply to this

|10.11.10 @ 2:58PM|#

I suspect the eventual evolution here, in 20 years or so, will be to prohibit
driving a car manually. It will be computers in charge.

reply to this

|10.11.10 @ 7:55PM|#

Leaving your hermetically sealed bubble is prohibited. All persons found
outside of their bubble will be euthanized for the safety of society.

reply to this

|10.12.10 @ 4:21AM|#

Stop stealing Edwin's material.

reply to this

|10.12.10 @ 7:44PM|#

Which one, euthanasia or the bubble?

reply to this

Pope Jimbo|10.18.10 @ 12:00PM|#

Even when cars are completely automated, I would bet my last dollar that it
will still be illegal to be in one while drunk, or to have an open
container.

The nannies will scare anyone with the specter of a system crash which would
require the drivers to take over manually for a bit. And if they are drunk,
"think of the children!" thus the continuing prohibition on being drunk while
moving.

reply to this

|10.11.10 @ 12:18PM|#

So, if Police Chief Art Acevedo can argue that some people are impaired with
a BAC of 0.05 (or less!), he should be willing to admit that there are some
people who are not impaired with a BAC of 0.10 ... right?

reply to this

|10.11.10 @ 1:45PM|#

Don't lay this one on Police Chief Art while he's driving.

reply to this

Beezard|10.11.10 @ 2:41PM|#

+ 3 Schlitzes

reply to this

sarcasmic|10.11.10 @ 12:20PM|#

This entire argument is based on the false premise that laws exist for the
purpose of public safety.

Laws exist to be obeyed.

They exist to punish those who dare to substitute their own judgment for
those superior people who call themselves lawmakers.

We are not a free people ruled by law.

We are subject to rulers who impose their whims on us through a perverted
system of law designed to create criminals and justify the existence of an ever
intrusive police state.

reply to this

Edwin|10.11.10
@ 1:10PM|#

I DON'T GET TO DO EVERY LAST THING I WANT!!!! WEE-OO-WEE-OO-WEE-OO-WEE!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JElywbkSbY

reply to this

Stephen VanDyke|10.11.10 @
1:24PM|#

1 internets to you, good sir... for making me laugh.

reply to this

Officer McDougle|10.11.10 @ 2:39PM|#

Most traffic laws exist to provide revenue.

reply to this

|10.11.10 @ 3:16PM|#

No shit. But that's no argument against them, any more than the typical
leftist/statist complaint that Microsoft sells software not to make
their customers happy, the greedy bastards, but merely to make money so
that they can fly off to the Caribbean and go snorkeling in the winter.

A good libertarian recognizes that actors have different, usually
self-centered, motives for any transaction, and works to harness that
to the mutual good. You can't argue that we should be amoral about actors in the
business market -- but then get all morally indignant when it comes to
evaluating government actors.

reply to this

Edwin|10.11.10
@ 3:39PM|#

uhhhh.... no. Just no. Basic traffic laws were not passed to provide revenue.
You really think that was what the relevant state politicians in each state were
thinking of decades ago when they passed speed limits and drunk driving laws?
Please. It's just common sense safety.

reply to this

Soonerliberty|10.11.10 @ 4:01PM|#

Do you really ascribe only positive qualities to politicians? Do you really
believe they had no ulterior motives? They may have both. You can't assume one
or the other.

reply to this

sarcasmic|10.11.10 @ 4:18PM|#

Public servants are immune from greed.
Their only motivation is the common
good.
They only think of others and never of themselves.
They do not seek
power for the sake of power, and they never abuse power for power's
sake.
Well, Republicans might, but that's only because they are greedy and
abusing their positions for monetary gain.
Besides that you're looking past
intentions.
Only intentions matter.
The fact that these laws have been
abused for the purposes of revenue and power doesn't matter.
If you question
the results then you will be attacked for opposing the intentions.

Got it?

reply to this

|10.11.10 @ 7:58PM|#

Plus they turn into unicorns after they retire. . . which helps explain why
there are no such things as unicorns.

reply to this

Edwin|10.11.10
@ 4:50PM|#

Bullshit. If you're talking about the basic laws like speed limits and drunk
driving, then that's it - safety. Politicians are bastards, but that doesn't
mean every conspiracy theory you idiots come up with is correct. Sometimes, when
there's a simple issue like this, and no real political controversy or
partisanship involved (other than from retardotarians), they just use common
sense.

reply to this

sarcasmic|10.11.10 @ 5:04PM|#

Oh yeah, like some guy all alone on the road with a couple beers in his belly
going a bit faster than the sign says is a threat to public safety.

He is, if caught, going to end up paying thousands and thousands of dollars
between legal fees, fines, paying to get back his confiscated property (if he
gets it back that is), lost income, increased insurance, mandatory classes and
treatment... all in the name of public safety when had he done the same exact
thing in high traffic he would have made it home safely.

When someone questions the results you attack them for opposing the original
intentions.

You, sir, are the retard.

reply to this

Edwin|10.11.10
@ 8:34PM|#

You just said that drunk drivers and speeding doesn't endanger the public any
more than sober people driving under the speed limit

You're the retard

reply to this

|10.12.10 @ 4:25AM|#

No, Edwin, you're the evidence-denying mental defective.
The Alberta Motor
Association (and probably its related organizations in other provinces and
states) has published data that shows that speeding isn't in and of itself the
cause of accidents as much as vehicles travelling at widely variable rates. So
if everybody's speeding, no problem. If everybody's going 60 but you're poking
along at 30 b/c you're afraid of your own shadow, you're the hazard, not the
speeders.
Again, you're so busy calling people retarded that your ability to
process new information has stunted your mental acuity.
Go argue with the
monkeys at the zoo. At least you'll win once in a while.

reply to this

Edwin|10.12.10
@ 9:15AM|#

Wow, OK. So you just proved my point. It is reasonable to set a speed limit,
it reduces danger, since people are going to travel at or around it.

And no, that isn't so. You're less of a hazard of you're the slower
odd-man-out than if you are the faster odd-man-out. Ever seen those fucks that
drive like crazy on the highway?

reply to this

Mike|10.12.10 @
6:48PM|#

No, the 30 mph driver is the danger. At least he cited a source. You may not
believe in the legitimacy of the study, which is fine, but you're just throwing
out your own ideas and saying "retarded" after them. Then you go on to attack
him even more, and continue to ignore the actual citations involved. Who's the
retard now? http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2005#comic

reply to this

Edwin|10.11.10
@ 8:45PM|#

Seriously, where do sick fucks like you come from? How the fuck do you become
so jaded that you place all your angers and problems onto one scapegoat ("the
government") and then say stupid, sick shit that blatantly denies reality? What
is it, got beat up too much in high school? Can't get laid? What?

reply to this

Soonerliberty|10.12.10 @ 7:51AM|#

It's not just government. It's the combination of government, corporations,
unions, special interest groups, etc. God, you're blind.

reply to this

Apogee|10.12.10
@ 3:10AM|#

If you're talking about the basic laws like speed limits and drunk
driving, then that's it - safety.

So then you'd be ok with simply punishing people with jail time, and
eliminating the 'fines', right?

After all, revenue has nothing to do with it.

reply to this

Edwin|10.12.10
@ 9:13AM|#

Yes, actually that would work too.

But that would be way too harsh. Moron.

reply to this

DesigNate|10.12.10 @ 3:40PM|#

Thunderstorms directly impair most people's ability to see, as well as
changing the conditions of the road. Unlike talking on the phone or eating a big
mac, you cannot stop the rain and thus you are still impaired by it. I submit to
that we should outlaw rain.

reply to this

Edwin|10.12.10
@ 5:51PM|#

false application of concept - rain can't be outlawed and preventing driving
in it would be too economically damaging, also you just aren't as impaired in it
as say being drunk or texting

reply to this

Apogee|10.19.10
@ 3:31AM|#

Fuck you, Edwin the loser, and stop trying to justify taking people's
money.

You simultaneously imply that driving impaired is dangerous, and then opt for
a system that favors the wealthy over something that actually addresses
dangerous behavior towards others.

If driving impaired is dangerous behavior, then you can incarcerate people
for public endangerment, but you think punishing something that can kill others
is 'harsh'.

So it is about the revenue, which is why you avoided the question,
you shit stain.

reply to this

|10.11.10 @ 12:21PM|#

Earlier this morning, on CNBC, some idiot was equating "drunk" driving with
cellphone/texting distractions, and calling for a ban.

McDonald's is going to be pissed when the feds make them board up all those
drive-in windows.

reply to this

mgd|10.11.10 @
1:41PM|#

McDonals's can apply for a waiver. They know the routine.

reply to this

Ronald|10.11.10
@ 2:41PM|#

Who????

reply to this

|10.11.10 @ 8:00PM|#

I would like a waiver with cheese, hold the mayo.

reply to this

Danno|10.11.10
@ 12:25PM|#

Once when I served jury duty, I was selected for a drunk driving case. But
after I expressed my problem with using the arbitrary blood alcohol measurement
(and how it didn’t truly indicate how impaired the person was), as well as my
objection to sobriety checkpoints (which should be unconstitutional), I was
dismissed as a juror.
But my ideas were evidently too radical for the
courtroom, the entire jury pool was considered ‘tainted’ by the prosecutor and
everyone else was dismissed as well. I felt kinda bad at the time, but now when
I look back on that incident I smile.

reply to this

|10.11.10 @ 12:40PM|#

If it happens again, remember jury nullification! Just keep quiet during voir
dire and then try to get your fellow jurors to judge the law as well as the
facts.

reply to this

sarcasmic|10.11.10 @ 12:49PM|#

I thought jury nullification was a crime.

reply to this

omg|10.11.10 @
12:50PM|#

Haven't people been put in jail for contempt of court for doing that?
Specifically, I believe they have been put in jail for keeping quiet during voir
dire.

reply to this

David|10.11.10
@ 1:45PM|#

I agree that lying during voir dire is contempt of court. I just so happen to
feel a lot of contempt for most courts.

reply to this

Danno|10.11.10
@ 12:55PM|#

I'd rather not resort to jury nullification in a drunk driving case since I
wouldn't want to condone drinking alcohol and then driving (which when done in
excess is both stupid and irresponsible ). Instead, I'd rather save that option
for a case dealing with truly victimless crimes such as drug possession or
prostitution.

reply to this

|10.12.10 @ 4:27AM|#

Shoulda got a medal for that one.

reply to this

|10.11.10 @ 12:25PM|#

we should get rid of it entirely by repealing drunk driving
laws.

I predict a wave of horror, revulsion, and personal attacks. I can't wait to
see you on MSNBC.

reply to this

Orville Redenbacher|10.11.10 @ 12:27PM|#

I agree completely with Mr. Balko. Only problem I can see is that it would
leave police discretion alone to decide whether or not someone is driving
recklessly. I can see the police using the "you crossed the fogline sir" excuse
to arrest anyone they want. Of course this pretty much happens now as well, but
at least with the .08 level you have some burden of proof on the police. I think
a better option is pushing the limit back to .15 or higher. Yes, it is still
arbitrary but I think the other option would lead to more police abuse.

reply to this

|10.11.10 @ 12:45PM|#

Most people who are familiar and objective regarding the subject agree that
.08 is too low. The large majority of serious injuries and fatalities caused by
drunk drivers occur well above that level; I think .15 is a better cut-off if we
have to have one because someone at that level really is too impaired to drive
safely. I do agree with the other commenters that a driver talking on a cell
phone should not be treated as severely as a driver who is so drunk he can
barely stand up.

I tell clients DUI is like domestic violence--at one point society ignored
the problem, and now the pendulum has swung to the other extreme and a lot of
people are getting arrested when they pose no threat to others. No exaggeration,
about a quarter of the people I know have had a DUI. It seems everyone who has
one drink and then drives is at risk. Maybe there will be a backlash as the net
is cast wider and wider. Or maybe it will lose its stigma because it's becoming
so common.

reply to this

Cyto|10.11.10 @
12:53PM|#

Or they could issue a field sobriety test based on reaction time - video
gaming for your life! Test kits would cost less than a breathalyzer and would
work for any drug or drug combination.

reply to this

Night Elf Mohawk|10.11.10 @ 1:09PM|#

Dr. Johnny Fever approves.

reply to this

robc|10.11.10 @
1:18PM|#

Probably my 2nd favorite episode (behind the turkey episode, of course).

reply to this

Night Elf Mohawk|10.11.10 @ 1:53PM|#

The one where Venus explains the structure of the atom is right up there,
imo.

reply to this

Mike the Grouch|10.11.10 @ 1:47PM|#

what? this would be way too sensible.

reply to this

|10.11.10 @ 8:02PM|#

Dangit, now I gotta brush up on my Sonic the Hedgehog.

reply to this

mad libertarian guy|10.11.10 @
1:05PM|#

This.

Turning criminal action that is now determined by an objective line (however
erroneous and arbitrary it may be) into a subjective decision made by cops is a
terrible fucking idea.

I agree that some things here need to change, but taking a cop's word for it
is the last thing I want to have as the sole burden of proof. Radley ought to
know better than to trust the police with this type of decision making.

reply to this

|10.11.10 @ 2:02PM|#

One point getting missed in all of this is that a breath test result is not
required to convict for DUI. All states have 2 types of DUI--"per se" based
solely on a breath test result, and "less safe," which means one is a less safe
driver after having consumed ANY amount of alcohol. For the latter, all the
arresting officer has to testify to is that there was a traffic offense and the
person gave some evidence of alcohol consumption (e.g. alcohol on breath,
slurred speech, admitted drinking, etc.)--no breath test is required for
this.

reply to this

|10.11.10 @ 8:09PM|#

I think that if there were video evidence to support the officer, it would be
helpful. Most cop cars have dash cams. The rule is not perfect because swerving
can be a subjective thing, especially if there is a pothole or a dead animal, or
another person in the road to avoid, but these things could be caught on tape,
and reasonable people can discern a single swerve from reckless driving, even
though it is still subjective. The fact that evidence would need to meet a heavy
subjective burden like this would require cops to be more careful about pulling
people over and they may opt instead to record more evidence.

reply to this

Contrarian P|10.12.10 @ 12:30AM|#

Just require documentation of the suspect's impaired behavior with the dash
mounted camera which practically every police car has these days. It's pretty
hard to argue with videotaped evidence of your car with your license plate
veering into the emergency lane.

reply to this

robc|10.11.10 @
1:08PM|#

I prefer a graduated scale - something like .08-.11 is a ticket, .12-.15 is a
misdemeanor, and .16+ is a felony.

Those are "for instances" not any specific suggestion. But something along
those lines.

reply to this

Edwin|10.11.10
@ 1:20PM|#

See? More retarded libertarian retardation.

reply to this

Xenocles|10.11.10 @ 1:32PM|#

All I see is more question begging from you.

reply to this

|10.11.10 @ 8:13PM|#

So I, a simple retard may understand, what precisely is so retarded here?
Please make a point, otherwise, you are simply making noise. My fucking vacuum
cleaner makes noise, but it doesn't do anything until I put the part that sucks
on the rug.

Please put the suck end on the rug.

reply to this

Xenocles|10.12.10 @ 7:42PM|#

"Put the suck end on the rug" needs to make it into the national lexicon.

reply to this

ACG22|10.12.10
@ 2:18PM|#

No, looks like more reading comprehension and analysis failure from an Edwin.
Moron. (Hey, this childish name-calling is fun!)

reply to this

Jorj X. McKie|10.11.10 @ 1:17PM|#

No one can be arrested for simply crossing a fog line, and it is moot as you
already said "this pretty much happens now"- they already can and will pull you
over for whatever reason they care to conjure up. It's what happens after that
which matters. Proof of reckless driving/endangerment is not too tough. Cops
have these things called cameras, which take videos, which a jury can view and
decide if there was dangerous driving or not.

reply to this

Xenocles|10.11.10 @ 1:37PM|#

In WA you can be arrested for DUI at any BAC if the officer thinks you are
impaired. In some jobs the arrest by itself can irreparably damage your
career.

reply to this

Jorj X. McKie|10.12.10 @ 4:50PM|#

That such a thing could ever hold up in a court of law makes me want to
weep.

reply to this

|10.11.10 @ 2:23PM|#

I hate to sound like a nanny-state fuck on this one. (I really
do)
BUT,
Texas roads have some seriously bad DUI incidents. I'm not
talking about a majority of people driving w/ BAC ~.09. I mean drunks that are
driving on the curb, off the road, or end up passing out in a ditch on the FM
roads. I'm down for whatever makes the use of public roads safer from a
libertarian standpoint. Whatever logical options are available that will be
minimally intrusive are fine, but since it's public space, and not private, I
don't see much of an issue setting very high standards for the motorists. I'm
not sure where I stand on this because getting a DUI here seems to be a 'right
of passage' or something weird among Texans, at least in the DFW metro area.

reply to this

Contrarian P|10.12.10 @ 12:40AM|#

There are laws on the books designed to stop those accidents. Laws do not
prevent stupid behavior. As much as we try, there will always be those who will
drink to excess and then decide to get behind the wheel of a car. Putting more
and more laws into place will not stop this. It will, unfortunately, simply
result in the harassment of more and more people who were no danger to
society.

In my home state, our august legislators decided to make it a primary offense
(meaning one can be stopped for this alone) to drive without a seat belt.
Although I'm sure they thought they were striking a blow for safety, they
basically made it where a law enforcement officer can pull someone over at any
time because they thought there was no shoulder strap in evidence. Think of the
possible abuse that could create.

Face it, increasing the scope and power of the law is not about protecting
anyone, though that is how it is sold. More than anything, it's about bringing
everyone into line with a utopian ideal, no matter how impossible the attainment
of that utopia might be. I really wish there was a way to stop people from
drinking to excess and driving while impaired. As a physician who works in an
emergency department, I see the effects almost every day. Still, I am not
willing to sell all my freedom for the illusion of safety, no matter how many
rosy promises are attached.

reply to this

|10.12.10 @ 4:58AM|#

I detest doing anything to give any more subjective discresionary authority
to police or anything that would equate to more intrusive bullshit. However, I
think that given the public nature of 99.999% of roads, your privacy is not
likely to be taken as top priority.
My biggest problem with most laws
associated with driving are that they are soley designed to generate revenue at
a city, county, or state level. Not wearing your seatbelt? That's 200 bucks. No
insurance? Ouch, that'll cost ya. They're not about the general safety of hte
public, else they'd be revoking a lot more driving privileges.

I'm not advocating for 'more laws', just ones that will maximize freedom for
motorists, while punishing severly those who endanger the safety and well-being
of others. We can pretty much do away with the rest.

reply to this

|10.12.10 @ 4:59AM|#

Preview button works wonders at 4:00am, I hear.

reply to this

|10.12.10 @ 5:00AM|#

Also, thanks for the thoughtful response.

reply to this

|10.12.10 @ 5:00AM|#

Also, thanks for the thoughtful response.

reply to this

|10.11.10 @ 3:20PM|#

I think you're exactly right, which is why I think Balko, while probably
right on the merits, is selling a dangerous fantasy.

The advantage of a specific objective test for a DUI is that if you
pass the test, then it's much harder for a cop and judge who don't like
your looks, your accent, or your attitude to railroad you.

I'm all for very specific laws, with nitpicky specifications of what a crime
is and isn't. I'm not fond of leaving things up to the judgment of the officer
on the scene, the prosecutor, and the judge sitting on a bad hemorrhoid the day
you arrive in court.

reply to this

Apogee|10.12.10
@ 3:19AM|#

If you're all for specific laws with nitpicky specifications, and at the same
time worried about a cop or judge that doesn't like your looks attempting to
railroad you, then you need to figure out what the larger problems with our
justice system are before signing on to more legislation.

reply to this

|10.11.10 @ 12:28PM|#

The underlying discussion with this blog post is the arguments for proactive
vs. reactive laws. While I understand the inefficiencies of drunk laws and their
implementation, I understand the desire to attempt to stop the problem before it
becomes, well, a problem.

Advocating laws to combat reckless behavior without a systematic approach at
determining what exactly causes this reckless behavior is a bit silly. After the
fact laws condemning reckless behavior is playing a game of chicken I'm not
interested in playing.

I understand the difficulty in implementing these specific proactive reckless
behavior laws and its relationship with violating personal liberty, but
advocating for cops to only look for cars that are acting recklessly at the
exact moment the cop sees them is silly. If information exists as to the causes
of reckless behavior, why not advocate or argue laws that prevent reckless
behavior while protecting individual liberty?

reply to this

|10.11.10 @ 1:06PM|#

The very idea of "proactive" law enforcement is at odds with the philosophy
of criminal justice outlined by our Constitution. We're guilty of a crime when
we've committed a crime, not when we've met a certain number of pre-conditions
that have been statistically correlated with crime.

The deterrent effect is supposed to come from efficient, consistent
enforcement of simple and straightforward laws against criminal conduct. A law
that "prevents reckless behavior" is a law against said reckless behavior, not a
law against some statistically correlated condition.

reply to this

|10.11.10 @ 2:21PM|#

The very idea of "proactive" law enforcement is at odds with the
philosophy of criminal justice outlined by our Constitution.

Kinda reminds me of the Tom Cruise movie "Miority Report". It's difficult for
me to understand how an otherwise safe and law-abiding driver who happens to
have had a few beers beforehand should be deemed criminal.

Consider the driver who crosses the center line and hits a Soccer Mom Van and
kills the driver and 5 kids. Is it somehow less tragic or more forgivable
because the offending driver was dunking his McNugget in BBQ Sauce or trying to
advance their CD to Track 7 than it is that they're drunk above
the legal limit? I just don't see how..

Since MADD air bags and seat belt laws managed to push the
percentage of drunk driving fatalities (stats in which MADD's deliberately
included passengers, pedestrians, and bicyclists even when the drinker had not
caused the accident) from ~50% in early '80s to 40% in the latter part of that
decade, the figure's remained pretty consistent for the 20+ years since. IOW,
lowering and re-lowering the legal limit's had no effect at all on the portion
of alcohol related fatalities on the road. None. Zilch. Zero.

Changing the radio station while not having an accident is not a crime. Why
should driving under the influence without causing an accident or breaking any
other rule of the road be one?

reply to this

Ice Nine|10.11.10 @ 1:09PM|#

Yeah, what say we not solely wait for cop-witnessed reckless behavior because
the reckless behavior the cop witnesses just might well be some drunken asshole
plowing his car head-on into mine, containing me and my family. I'm not a
nanny-stater by any stretch but c'mon let's not ignore the obvious. Alcohol is
involved in most trauma (35 yrs in the ER, trust me) and that goes for MVAs in
spades (motor vehicle accidents, sorry). This is easy.

I don't like sobriety check points and am fine with banning them. But I hate
with a passion drunk drivers, having had a fairly steady diet of their
handiwork. Use the legal limit law as a way to throw the freaking book at them
(and yeah, we need to work on that part too) after we've found at least some of
them incidentally, with cause. Do the obvious. Try at least to make a dent in
homicidal drunk driving. I'm with the Japanese and the Europeans - legal alcohol
limit when driving = .000. Those guys drink a whole lot and they do just fine
with that. The only right that is thus abridged is the 'right' to commit a
particularly prevalent form of vehicular mayhem.

reply to this

|10.11.10 @ 3:23PM|#

The average person has no means of determining what his BAC is. This makes it
difficult to avoid driving if your BAC is above the .08 limits but you are not
actually impaired.

The point of well written laws should be for the average person to know when
he/she is in violation of the law.

reply to this

Ice Nine|10.11.10 @ 5:25PM|#

There are tables to figure this. Of course they are not perfectly accurate.
If it turns out you don't fit those norms you can determine that you are outside
of them pretty readily. Don't want to do that, buy a personal breathalyzer for
30 bucks.

"Not actually impaired"? Guarantee you that 90% of the people who think they
aren't impaired, are impaired.

reply to this

Apogee|10.12.10
@ 3:35AM|#

I'll also guarantee you that 90% of people mistakenly think they're great
drivers (drunk or not), but nobody talks about requiring additional
training.

I'd gladly ride passenger with Danica Patrick blowing a .12 over an 85 y/o
grandparent blowing stone cold sober.(I know, I said "blowing")

There is nothing keeping people from driving impaired and plowing into your
family - whether the reason is alcohol, drugs, sleep deprivation, stupidity or
even just youth. Should we prohibit driving to anyone under 25? - that's also a
statistically relevant group that causes accidents.

Eliminate the revenue source (no fines, just criminal), and you'll see an
actual shift towards public safety. The checkpoints are an unconstitutional scam
- it's about the money.

reply to this

Mohindrance|10.12.10 @ 8:14AM|#

"Yeah, what say we not solely wait for cop-witnessed reckless behavior
because the reckless behavior the cop witnesses just might well be some drunken
asshole plowing his car head-on into mine, containing me and my family."

How would eliminating the .08 BAC level prevent this? You even go so far as
to suggest banning sobriety checkpoints. I suppose you would be all in favor of
mandatory breathalyzer starters installed in every car?

And, for that matter, a completely closed driver capsule preventing any
contact with other passengers, cellular telephone technology, radio adjustment
dials, etc! After all, this is your FAMILY, for god's sake! YOUR FAMILY!!!

reply to this

DesigNate|10.12.10 @ 3:45PM|#

If you're gonna go statist like Edwin (not saying you in particular are) I
think we should go full blown statist and make the car companies invent
something that reads your fingerprint and tests your BAC at the same time and
install it on all things with wheels.

reply to this

DesigNate|10.12.10 @ 3:45PM|#

If you're gonna go statist like Edwin (not saying you in particular are) I
think we should go full blown statist and make the car companies invent
something that reads your fingerprint and tests your BAC at the same time and
install it on all things with wheels.

reply to this

|10.12.10 @ 4:35AM|#

If you worked in ER all those years, then you'll have no problem advocating
for the elimination of prescription drugs, since they murder - ahem - an order
of magnitude much greater number than drivers with BAC's > .000.
But then,
prescription drugs aren't a lobby group's well=funded hobby horse, like
zero-tolerance driving is for the MADD wack-jobs.

reply to this

mad libertarian guy|10.11.10 @
1:12PM|#

It is this very argument that fuels the War on Drugs, and is a terrible
one.

The compulsion to stop whatever bad may happen is the road to fuckdom.

reply to this

|10.11.10 @ 8:15PM|#

Maybe if we can somehow convince them to ban the road to fuckdom, we can
initiate a war on the road to fuckdom.

reply to this

|10.11.10 @ 12:36PM|#

Okay, I agree regarding the drunk driving laws.

However, I also think that this line of thought should be applied to a
variety of other areas such as hate crimes legislation and firearms laws.

Punish the behavior not the law abiding citizen.

reply to this

Apogee|10.12.10
@ 3:36AM|#

Where's the money in that?

reply to this

|10.11.10 @ 12:37PM|#

If information exists as to the causes of reckless behavior, why not
advocate or argue laws that prevent reckless behavior while protecting
individual liberty?

You apparently have a somewhat unique view of "liberty".

reply to this

Edwin|10.11.10
@ 1:05PM|#

Not really. Our society does this all the time, and it's perfectly
reasonable. There's only so much one law or another can do, because of the
limits of real-life effective enforcement. If a few small restrictions help more
effectively protect more important freedoms, then that's a net plus. It's called
trade-offs. You'll have grown up when you finally accept that they exist.

reply to this

|10.11.10 @ 1:09PM|#

Please don't be his porn.

reply to this

West Texas Boy|10.11.10 @ 1:10PM|#

You'll have grown up when you finally accept that they exist.

He's not the one who wants Daddy watching all the time.

reply to this

Edwin|10.11.10
@ 3:41PM|#

I don't want daddy watching all the time.

All I said is that I recognize that laws are imperfect, and sometimes you
might need to pass other laws to EFFECTIVELY protect a freedom that was only
TECHNICALLY legally protected. Is that so hard to understand/think of examples
where our society has done this?

reply to this

|10.12.10 @ 4:37AM|#

So the solution to bad laws is to pass more laws?
Oddly, my solution to
feeling drunk is to drink more booze.

reply to this

Edwin|10.12.10
@ 9:19AM|#

that's not what I said.

How about you actually try thinking every once in a while? You guys really
are a bunch of reactionaries.

reply to this

Soonerliberty|10.11.10 @ 4:05PM|#

"Our" society. Just who is we? Are you including me in your we? Why this is
just dandy collectivist anthill philosophy? We are a Volkskoerper and our
overlords are really just us. This is braindead nonsense and the most tyrannical
of thinking.

reply to this

Sky|10.11.10 @
12:43PM|#

The problem with using the term "distracted" driving is that it gives police
wide discretionary powers, and it seems libertarians don't much trust the
judgment of the police. But as long as the police were able to articulate what
was reckless about the way a person was driving - weaving in and out of a lane
more than once, driving more than 25 miles over the speed limit, driving 10
miles below the speed limit, tailgating too closely, etc. - I think this would
be a better way to go. One would not be pulled over simply for the act of using
a cell phone or telling one's children to pipe down in the backseat, but for
weaving, speeding, etc. The results would be judged without relevance to the
cause of the results. On the other hand - if I'm distracted by my kids and get
in an accident, I don't want to be judged as harshly as someone who drinks ten
glasses of wine and then gets in a car and has an accident. There is a different
moral quality there. So...I'm not sure where I stand on this.

reply to this

Nash|10.11.10 @
1:05PM|#

I think context can be used here. The distracted driving / reckless driving
degrees can be used as well. Also, dumping DWI doesn't mean breathalyzers
couldn't be used to prove a driver reckless.

reply to this

Ted S.|10.11.10 @ 1:45PM|#

Wouldn't this be the difference between negligent/reckless/knowing/willful in
terms of legal levels of wrongness? Being distracted by kids might be neligent;
drinking ten glasses of wine would be willful.

I think those were the four levels as related to me by a friend many years
back when he was a 1L and just learning the stuff. I'm not a lawyer.

reply to this

|10.11.10 @ 2:25PM|#

Being distracted by kids might be neligent; drinking ten glasses
of wine would be willful.

Willful how? Willful implies intent. Do you believe that the 10 glass drinker
actually wanted to go out and have an accident and harm others?

reply to this

|10.12.10 @ 4:40AM|#

"On the other hand - if I'm distracted by my kids and get in an accident, I
don't want to be judged as harshly as someone who drinks ten glasses of wine and
then gets in a car and has an accident. There is a different moral quality
there. "

Whoever it is that you kill while being distracted by your ill-mannered kids
probably doesn't gain much comfort in heaven/hell/the cold hard ground that you
weren't 10 drinks into an all-night bender.

reply to this

|10.11.10 @ 12:43PM|#

Am I advocating any current laws or processes? No, i'm not. I'm merely
suggesting that further discussion should be had in determining the most
efficient laws to combat reckless behavior before we simply rely on reactive
laws that heavily rely on police's proactive actions in the line of duty.

reply to this

♣|10.11.10 @
12:44PM|#

"instead focus on reckless driving"

And who, pray tell, will do the "focusing"? The same cops you don't trust to
enforce drunk-driving laws? Find the logical error!

reply to this

mark|10.11.10 @
12:50PM|#

this.

Police judgment would be questioned even more than now.

reply to this

mad libertarian guy|10.11.10 @
1:17PM|#

Police judgment is questioned now?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Sorry, I almost choked a little bit

reply to this

Some Guy|10.11.10 @ 12:52PM|#

I like this in theory, but how do we decide who is and isn't impaired? Are we
giving the cops the ability to subjectively decide?

reply to this

Danno|10.11.10
@ 1:00PM|#

The issue is reaction time. Just as the DMV checks our eyes when we get our
license, they should also have a response time test (like a falling ball and
button to stop it) and print our results on our license. Police could carry a
similar testing unit with them. If your response time is too slow (due to
drinking, lack of sleep, old age, etc.) then you can't drive. Distracted driving
would be another issue and would require testimony from the officer to be
considered.

reply to this

Night Elf Mohawk|10.11.10 @ 1:17PM|#

I stand corrected. Dr. Johnny Fever approves of this.

If there's no benefit to a faster reaction at initial testing, people are
going to test as slowly as possible while still getting a license. I know I
would.

And what if my reaction time is slower than that shown on my license but
still faster than average or faster than what other people have on their
licenses?

reply to this

Danno|10.11.10
@ 2:18PM|#

Having a record of optimum reaction time would only be used to inform drivers
how much they're currently impaired. As long as their reaction time is above
some standard level (a level that would apply to everyone), then no law has been
broken. This is no different than the vision requirement.

reply to this

|10.11.10 @ 2:28PM|#

Assuming that one performs optimally on their baseline test. In what way do
we ensure that the testees (*snicker*) took the test on a good day?

reply to this

|10.11.10 @ 1:03PM|#

They already have that. The police are already pulling people over on some
suspicion to give a test, or it's just a checkpoint.

reply to this

Some Guy|10.11.10 @ 2:28PM|#

But once pulled over, there is an objective (if imperfect) physical
measurement that has to corroborate the cop's subjective one.

reply to this

Edwin|10.11.10
@ 1:02PM|#

"Scrapping the DWI offense in favor of better enforcement of reckless driving
laws would also bring some logical consistency to our laws"

Yeah. Because everyone cares about "logical consistency" in laws. It's not
like things like the actual enforce-ability of laws, and simplicity in doing so,
or limiting their scope to avoid authority over-reach matter.
Breathalyzers
are quick and easy to administer, and Balko's proposals set the stage for high
amounts of government over-reach, by way of the vagueness inherent in them. You
guys can't even apply your own philosophy effectively.

Wonder why I keep saying you guys are fucking retarded? You really take this
whole philosophy full retard.

If you think the BAC level is too low, just say that, and say it should be
changed. Don't go off all retarded on retarded tangents.

reply to this

|10.11.10 @ 1:04PM|#

Please don't be his porn.

reply to this

Old Mexican|10.11.10 @
1:06PM|#

Re: Sugarfree,

I won't. I make a solemn promise, I won't.

reply to this

OO======D|10.11.10 @ 1:18PM|#

Can he be my porn? Because if so, I would first lube his ass up
really good, you know, just to get it relaxed and accepting, after which I would
slowly and erotically insert his pinhead.

reply to this

Jorj X. McKie|10.12.10 @ 4:59PM|#

Dude, your balls are on wrong.

reply to this

|10.12.10 @ 5:47AM|#

Every time you say that, I keep imagining he's sitting at a computer desk
with the lights dimmed, a nice glass of merlot in one hand, wearing a
turtle-neck, his pants around his ankles, and furiously masturbating at his own
posts.

reply to this

|10.12.10 @ 4:42AM|#

"Breathalyzers are quick and easy to administer..."

Actually, they're cumbersome and unreliable.

The zoo monkeys are calling your name...

reply to this

West Texas Boy|10.11.10 @ 1:08PM|#

laws that prevent reckless behavior while protecting individual
liberty?

How do you feel about shooting goats?

reply to this

zoltan|10.11.10
@ 1:11PM|#

Austin Police Chief Art Acevedo wants to instate "DWI lite" or
DWAIs for those who blow .05 to .07 BACs. No penalty proposed yet

reply to this

|10.11.10 @ 1:17PM|#

"I like this in theory, but how do we decide who is and isn't impaired?"

It's quite simple: how do normal people decide who's impaired now? We watch
them do dangerous things.

Let's just make sure all cops have dash cams, and require video evidence of
every "impairment", that is, driving in a dangerous way:

"But as long as the police were able to articulate what was reckless about
the way a person was driving - weaving in and out of a lane more than once,
driving more than 25 miles over the speed limit, driving 10 miles below the
speed limit, tailgating too closely, etc."

reply to this

Ariock|10.11.10 @ 3:53PM|#

It is amusing to me that the libertarian response to violations of privacy by
the police is to mount video cameras on all police cars.

reply to this

Contrarian P|10.12.10 @ 12:54AM|#

The cameras are already there. Your objection therefore appears to be that we
are advocating the use of existing equipment. Cameras on police cars are very
libertarian, as they provide a means to collect objective evidence to
substantiate accusations. Recording the police to prevent abuse of power is the
most libertarian thing I can think of.

reply to this

TwoFingers|10.12.10 @ 2:51AM|#

Cameras, radios, computers, etc, in cop cars are, by definition, distracting
to driving and therefore should be banned. Prohibit reckless policing!

reply to this

Jorj X. McKie|10.12.10 @ 5:04PM|#

The camera is for the benefit of the jury. It only helps the cop when the cop
is doing his job right. I don't see the problem really. Although I wish the cops
would stop parking in my bedroom. My realdoll girlfriend gets freaked out.

reply to this

Travis Ormsby|10.11.10 @ 1:27PM|#

It would have been nice for you to link to the actual data on alcohol related
fatalities, instead of a Cato study providing their characterization of the
data.

For what it's worth, you can get the actual numbers from the National Highway
Traffic Safety administration here:

http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Crashes/CrashesAlcohol.aspx

Checking the number of alcohol related fatalities per 1 billion miles
traveled (you'll have to calculate this yourself since the feds won't do it for
you) shows a sustained decrease between 1994 (the first year available) to 2008
(the last) from 5.03 to 3.57. There was a minor uptick in this statistic from
1999 - 2000 from 4.12 to 4.29, but this was the only year in the time range
where the value increased.

Fatalities per mile traveled is a much better metric than total fatalities
because it controls for miles driven. All else being equal, we would expect
there to be extra fatalities in years where people drove more. Characterizing
the data this way nearly completely eliminates the "increase" in alcohol related
fatalities Cato presumed to find.

Additionally, contrary to your assertion that the federal government
classifies an accident as "alcohol related" when BAC is above 0.01, NHTSA
clearly states that "alchohol related" crashes involve only those driving whose
BAC is above 0.08.

But let's not let a little thing like information get in the way of a nicely
ideological debate.

reply to this

Beezard|10.11.10 @ 1:53PM|#

A fair point, but is there a huge decrease in fatalities since states went to
0.08% after you jiggle the numbers?

Some more poignant information would be the massive increases in money made
by the state (and lawyers) since .08 was instituted.

reply to this

Travis Ormsby|10.11.10 @ 2:14PM|#

The decrease from 2000 to to 2008 was about 17%, about the same as the
decrease from 1994 to 2000 of 15%.

However, it's reasonable to assume decreasing marginal returns on drunk
driving enforcement. That is to say that you don't have to do very much at first
to get a whole bunch of drinkers off the road, but soon all that's left are the
hard core drunks. Getting them off the road requires substantially more effort.
In that context, absent some additional policy or social changes, we would have
expected the decrease from the pre 0.08 period to be greater than the post 0.08
period. The fact that they're not suggests there was some social or policy
change that had a real impact on alcohol related traffic fatalities.

reply to this

Beezard|10.11.10 @ 2:23PM|#

If that's the whole point then why don't we breathalyze anyone who leaves a
bar and gets in the drivers seat? It can't be a question of rights.

Also, the problem with any of these numbers and factoids is the simple great
immeasurable: how much has
changing cultural attitudes towards drunk driving
lessened it's impact?

The more the drinking culture starts thinking of drunk driving as a risky
behavior (because they can hurt someone not because they could go to court)
instead of a sport, the more those numbers will be (and already have been
effected) regardless of policy.

reply to this

Travis Ormsby|10.11.10 @ 3:30PM|#

Proponents of the lowered BAC policy can point to that policy as a potential
source of the greater than expected decline in alcohol related traffic
fatalities per mile driven. Can you clearly establish that there has been an
accelerated change in drinking culture's perception of drunk driving?

But the main thrust of my original post is that Balko published something
that is demonstrably untrue regarding how the government keeps track of drunk
driving statistics (it considers drivers at 0.08 or above, not 0.01). That's a
fairly minor point.

The bigger deal is that the claim that drunk driving deaths were increasing
was both poorly sourced and, at best, misleading. The appropriate metric is
actually steadily declining, not increasing. Balko ought to provide some
clarification there.

reply to this

Beezard|10.11.10 @ 3:54PM|#

Can you clearly establish that there has been an accelerated change in
drinking culture's perception of drunk driving?

No. And that's my problem with statistics uber alles.

I can't prove how many crimes were thwarted by the mere fact that a criminal
was afraid I might be armed either. But it's obviously an important factor in
whether guns improve public safety.

According to the law of the land in most places, ANYONE who has been drinking
at a bar and gone home is guilty of DWI. Obviously fear of arrest doesn't keep
all these people from doing it. This suggests to a decrease in fatalities is due
to a more responsible drinker (or drinking establishment).

Cato and Balko might be viewing the stats in their own favor. But my thrust
is that reliance on stats to determine the value of public policies is over
rated.

reply to this

Apogee|10.12.10
@ 3:49AM|#

Also, improvements to passenger car safety systems may factor into passenger
fatalities, along with improved handling characteristics.

Drunk and surviving or avoiding accidents altogether may affect the
statistics in a way that has nothing to do with the presence of alcohol
impairment.

reply to this

Zizhiqu|10.14.10 @ 1:43AM|#

Thank you Travis.

reply to this

|10.18.10 @ 1:36AM|#

That's actually not true. "Alcohol-related" and "alcohol-impaired statistics"
are 2 different things.

The NHTSA until 2007 released "alcohol-related" reports. The totals would
include any fatal crash where anyone (any driver, pedestrian, or cyclist)
involved had a BAC of .01 or higher. As part of those statistics, if one looked
at the detailed report, they could see how many were at .08 and above.

Starting in 2007, the NHTSA came up with new terminology and started
releasing a different report that used the term alcohol-impaired and counts
those at .08 or above (http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pubs/810985.pdf).

But, interestingly, alcohol-impaired drivers at BACs from .08-.14 don't kill
more people than distracted drivers:

In 2008, 37,261 people died in traffic collisions
(http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pubs/811172.pdf). 5,870 were from driver
distraction (http://www.distraction.gov/stats-and-facts/).

Also, in 2008, 11,773 people died in alcohol-impaired traffic fatal
accidents. Of those, 8,048 were by a driver with a BAC of .15 or higher
(http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811155.PDF). Simple subtraction tells us that
3,725 of those killed in alcohol-impaired traffic fatal accidents involved a BAC
of .08-.14.

So, driver distraction caused 5,870 traffic deaths which is 16% of all
traffic deaths. Drivers with a BAC of .08-.14 killed 3,725 people on the roads
which was 10% of all traffic deaths that year. Distracted drivers killed 60%
more people in 2008 than drunk drivers with a BAC of .08-.14.

By contrast, those with a BAC of .15 or higher killed 8,048 people, or 22% of
all traffic deaths that year.

It should be further stated that the NHTSA admits that they estimate on many
of the alcohol-impaired traffic deaths because the BAC levels are not known. On
average, 60% of the deaths they say were alcohol-impaired actually had no BAC
data, so it is estimated (http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/809-450.pdf). You
see this asterisk in their data tables. It reads, "NHTSA estimates alcohol
involvement when alcohol test results are unknown"
(http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/States/StatesAlcohol.aspx).

reply to this

|10.11.10 @ 1:27PM|#

As others have pointed out, the legal concept of "impaired" is too
subjective. From a libertarian standpoint, objective standards such as an
alcohol level are preferable. But the limit should be higher than 0.08 and
punishment should be correlated with the blood alcohol level. Somebody who is
0.200 and driving, for instance, deserves much harsher sanctions than somebody
at 0.100 or lower.

As an emergency physician, I agree that the blood alcohol level is not the
sole determinant of impairment, especially with professional drinkers
(alcholics). But professional drinkers are among the most dangerous drivers -
they are more likely to drive seriously impaired. They do some crazy shit -
driving the wrong way for instance. If they are driving at a high blood alcohol
level routinely, they should be taken off the road.

reply to this

|10.11.10 @ 1:34PM|#

It would be perfectly safe to change the rule about stopping at a stop sign
from "make a full stop and start again if there is no cross traffic" to "roll
past the stop sign at 0.01 mph and accelerate if there is no cross traffic".

But it's important to have a bright-line discriminant between legal and
illegal activities that places dangerous behavior squarely in the illegal
category. Even if it results in a small amount of harmless behavior being
prohibited.

reply to this

Apogee|10.12.10
@ 3:51AM|#

But one of the reasons to place the behavior in the illegal category is the
corresponding placement in the profitable category.

And that has nothing to do with safety.

reply to this

|10.11.10 @ 1:29PM|#

If you're talking on a cell phone or yelling at kids in the back seat, you
can choose to stop doing this when you enter a more dangerous bit of driving
(construction zone, ice and snow, congested road, school zone, etc). Also, you
are keenly aware that you're not focusing on the road when partaking in these
activities.

When you're drunk or high, you can't will yourself sober when you perceive
the need to focus more closely on your driving. Indeed, you may not even be
aware of being impaired.

So it makes sense to outlaw driving under conditions where your judgement is
compromised for a duration of time whose length you cannot control.

reply to this

|10.11.10 @ 1:56PM|#

you can choose to stop doing this when you enter a more dangerous bit of
driving

....uhhh, unless you're too distracted to realize you've entered "a more
dangerous bit of driving".

Besides, you're assuming that people actually prioritize this shit correctly.
Ever seen some asshole texting at 75 mph drift into the other lane, come *this*
close to slamming into someone, veer wildly back into the original lane, and
then keep texting? The ability to put the phone down is no more
meaningful than the lack of an ability to think oneself sober.

reply to this

waffles|10.11.10 @ 2:44PM|#

I have definitely thought myself sober. I was so sober one Sunday morning
that I chucked my volvo off the road, down an icy slope, bounced off a birch
tree and landed on someone's front porch.

Yeah I hadn't slept in 36 hours, but sure as shit was sober. The cop didn't
even give me a ticket, just a ride home.

God help me if I weren't sober.

reply to this

jacob|10.11.10
@ 9:07PM|#

When you're drunk or high, you can't will yourself sober

You've never been high and needed to sober up. When you're high and you find
yourself in a "fight-or-flight" type predicament, say when you encounter a cop,
the buzz wears off lickely split and you're not high any more. It's one of the
advantages of marijuana.

I agree that you can't just sober up with you are drunk.

reply to this

DesigNate|10.12.10 @ 4:35PM|#

Rain can seriously impair a persons ability to see and react. You cannot
choose to stop the rain. Therefore we should either outlaw the rain, or outlaw
driving in the rain.

reply to this

Travis Ormsby|10.11.10 @ 1:30PM|#

Correction: There was also a small increase from 3.94 to 4.08 alcohol related
fatalities per billion miles traveled from 2004 - 2005

reply to this

Leroy|10.11.10
@ 1:39PM|#

So why not make the criteria driving while impaired, have a standard field
test designed to test for impairment? This test could be similiar to a field
sobriety test, and video taped by the officer.

It really is irrelevant what substance someone has in their body. The
relevant question is whether or not they are fit to drive. A simple impairment
test for reaction time, dexterity, and coordination would be fine. If an officer
has a reasonable suspicion of impairment (weaving, speeding up and slowing down
erratically, etc) they can pull you over and perform the test. Pass you're on
your way, fail you're under arrest.

reply to this

|10.11.10 @ 8:57PM|#

Distraction is not the same as chemical influence. If I see a hot chick with
nice tits on the side of the road, I am distracted and I might drive poorly as a
result. If I pull over and that chick decides to come for a ride, I am going to
be distracted by the BJ she is giving me.

They cant do a field test on me unless I am still getting a BJ, yet my
distraction while driving is significant. If I am driving in a hazardously, the
cops can pull me over and arrest me for hazardous driving, DUI or TWD or BJWD do
not enter into the equation, because I was driving dangerously.

reply to this

Jorj X. McKie|10.12.10 @ 5:08PM|#

Never accept a BJ in a car. Even if you aren't moving. Watch The World
According to Garp to see why.

reply to this

|10.11.10 @ 1:43PM|#

If you really want to stop reckless behavior, you should just castrate all
boys at age eight.

That should take care of it.

reply to this

|10.11.10 @ 2:04PM|#

It'll teach those speeding females a lesson too...vicariously, but it'll
learn em good.

reply to this

jacob|10.11.10
@ 9:08PM|#

There was a SNL skit back in the 80's with Phil Hartman (I think) about
this.

reply to this

Beezard|10.11.10 @ 1:46PM|#

Places already arrest people for being under 0.08% and it stands up in court
all the time.

reply to this

Beezard|10.11.10 @ 1:58PM|#

And the breathalyzers are fidgety.

Ive blown an impossible .06% ripped to the tits, while half of the people
I've actually known who were nabbed for "drunk driving" were in the
couple-of-drinks and-a-block-from-home range.

reply to this

Michael Ejercito|10.11.10 @
4:33PM|#

Places already arrest people for being under 0.08% and it stands
up in court all the time.

Were they convicted?

reply to this

|10.11.10 @ 1:47PM|#

I say this in all seriousness--we need AI that is adequate to safely driving
cars. Then drunk riding will be awesome!

reply to this

|10.11.10 @ 2:02PM|#

Don't be ridiculous. The real solution is for a police officer to ride with
you in your car at all times.

reply to this

|10.11.10 @ 2:05PM|#

You lack vision, my friend. An AI driver and a robot cop.

reply to this

|10.11.10 @ 2:06PM|#

Not really a robot, of course, since the union wouldn't allow cop jobs to be
displaced. Rather, it's a robot body with a human brain.

reply to this

Jorj X. McKie|10.12.10 @ 5:11PM|#

We call it... RoboNarc!

reply to this

Zeb|10.11.10 @
2:09PM|#

MADD will think of some reason why that should be illegal too.

reply to this

|10.11.10 @ 2:10PM|#

Probably because the AI needs a backup.

reply to this

|10.11.10 @ 2:19PM|#

There was an article just a day or two ago about Google having this
technology almost fully functional. Some Google cars drive themselves, although
can be overridden by a human driver. Won't be surprised/sad if within 20 years
human driving is a thing of the past.

reply to this

|10.11.10 @ 2:23PM|#

http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/innovation/10/11/google.testing.cars.mashable/

reply to this

|10.11.10 @ 2:28PM|#

There's plenty of effort going into this--just look at the progress made in
the DARPA Challenge--but it'll be a while before we can even begin
to rely on automated drivers.

reply to this

Fatty Bolger|10.11.10 @ 5:03PM|#

Yeah, I'm of two minds on this. In terms of increased production, it could be
fantastic. Roads could serve far more traffic, more efficiently, and you could
do something useful while riding. Car weights could be safely lowered without
making the car less comfortable.

On the other hand I know I would miss being in control of the vehicle, and
driving can be a real pleasure sometimes.

reply to this

|10.11.10 @ 7:03PM|#

You don't live in Dallas/LA/NYC obviously...Driving was fun when I was 16-18;
at this point I just want to spend as little time in traffic jams as possible
(or if I have to would rather be doing anything else but driving).

reply to this

BoscoH|10.11.10
@ 1:51PM|#

By the time you can point out the economic benefit of the actors because of a
stupid law, it's too late. If the turd in the punchbowl is chilling the punch,
it's an ice cube.

reply to this

Zeb|10.11.10 @
2:08PM|#

I wouldn't have much of a problem with DUI laws if checkpoints were made
illegal, the presumption of guilt at refusing a breath or blood test were
removed and if they actually had to demonstrate that a driver was in fact
impaired. As it is, DUI law seems to have turned into some sort of magical zone
where the constitution does not apply.

reply to this

jacob|10.11.10
@ 11:15PM|#

the presumption of guilt at refusing a breath or blood test

Not that I disagree with you, but this statement is wrong. You are not guilty
if you refuse a breathalyzer. In fact, that's one of the loopholes to get out of
DUI in the first place. The penalty for not blowing is not DUI (which is a
felony), it's loss of license for a year. While the end effect may seem the
same, trust me it's better to not blow if they've got you dead to rights. And
yes, I've been in that situation before so I speak with firsthand knowledge.

reply to this

|10.12.10 @ 4:50AM|#

"You are not guilty if you refuse a breathalyzer."

You are in Canada, where "failure to provider a sample" = "impaired
driving."

reply to this

Beezard|10.11.10 @ 2:09PM|#

For my money, the harshest penalties should only be reserved for those that
DO something to someone else. (Hurt or Kill someone or destroy their
property).

All this focus on prevention (or in this case, pre-crime) may seem effective
but it just leads to stupid illegal legislation like check points and open
container laws.

reply to this

Beezard|10.11.10 @ 2:25PM|#

and a whole lotta moolah for the state and legal parasites.

reply to this

Apogee|10.12.10
@ 3:57AM|#

Bingo.

Remove the money. No fines, just jail time.

reply to this

Art "Crankshots" Acevedo|10.11.10 @ 2:28PM|#

The problem: too many people are getting plea bargains because prosecutors
and police are overloaded. The solution: expand the definition of crime so that
they will have more cases to plead out. Brilliant.

reply to this

Tony|10.11.10 @
3:02PM|#

More public transportation!

reply to this

|10.11.10 @ 9:04PM|#

Private Transportation is pretty effective, actually. One tactic is to call
yer girlfriend, wake her ass up, and make her come get you from the pub.

IF that doesn't work, let your friend drive drunk and eat the DUI.

If everyone is a pussy and doesn't want to risk it, then call a cab and split
the fare.

Public transportation very seldom accomidates everybody in the surrounding
suburbs and outskirts.

reply to this

Tony|10.11.10 @
10:29PM|#

That's why I'm for reducing the prevalence of suburbs.

reply to this

|10.12.10 @ 2:40AM|#

So everybody should either live in MegaCities or on a farm? I see you're all
about the options and choice man. Any other reason for wanting to "reduce the
prevalence of suburbs"?

reply to this

Tony|10.12.10 @
10:08AM|#

Cities are more efficient. Also, suburbs are ugly.

reply to this

|10.12.10 @ 4:33PM|#

Suburbs keeps me safe from niggers.

reply to this

Jorj X. McKie|10.12.10 @ 5:12PM|#

Yowza.

reply to this

wackystuff|10.11.10 @ 3:47PM|#

A majority of accidents and collisions often involve entirely sober drivers.
Shouldn't we outlaw sober driving as well?

reply to this

Apogee|10.12.10
@ 3:59AM|#

Outlaw everything. Then we'll finally be safe.

reply to this

Jorj X. McKie|10.12.10 @ 5:14PM|#

But then only the criminals will be criminals!

reply to this

Michael Ejercito|10.11.10 @
4:08PM|#

How is drunk driving different from firing a machine gun in the direction of
a crowd of people?

reply to this

robc|10.11.10 @
4:53PM|#

It isnt different (maybe) at .2 bac.

At .08? It isnt remotely similar.

reply to this

Fatty Bolger|10.11.10 @ 4:59PM|#

It doesn't involve a gun, for one.

reply to this

|10.11.10 @ 8:34PM|#

It doesn't involve hundreds or even thousands of projectiles hurtling at
incredible speed on a trajectory that cannot be changed by the person who fired
the projectiles. Crowds of people are generally not what you find in the middle
of most roads. The driver is actually attempting to get somewhere, whereas the
person firing the machine gun is simply trying to kill people, (otherwise why is
he doing it?).

But all that said, the cops would stop the guy who is firing the gun into the
crowd and they would stop the driver who is swerving all over the street.

reply to this

sarcasmic|10.11.10 @ 5:21PM|#

If you had read the entire piece instead of just the title you would know
that the author supports stopping people from impaired driving, focusing on
impairment instead of an arbitrary amount of alcohol in the blood.

But you didn't read anything other than the title.

reply to this

sarcasmic|10.11.10 @ 5:28PM|#

True story - Back in my 20s I was riding a bicycle and hit by a car that ran
a red light. Because I had had a couple drinks I was charged with OIU and had to
fix the car that hit me. Witnesses who were trying to give me their info so I
could use them for a defense were chased off by the cop who threatened to start
handing out tickets for loitering. At the time I couldn't believe it because I
was a good little liberal fresh out of public high school.
It wasn't long
before I discovered that most everything I was taught in government schools was
a lie, and soon I decided to stop being taught and to instead begin to
learn.

I also developed a deep disrespect for the law and for those tasked with
enforcing it.

99% of cops give the good ones a bad name.

reply to this

Edwin|10.12.10
@ 10:41AM|#

so your solution to having been a liberal is to go full-retard in the
oppositew direction? Denying the reality of the dangers of drunk driving and
driving too fast? Hate to break it to you, but you're still retarded. Just
because you went the other way around philosophically doesn't stop you from
being a retard.

You'll be sensiblke and worth listening to when you start being reasonable
and stop denying reality.

reply to this

DesigNate|10.12.10 @ 4:56PM|#

Please enlighten us with what reality is, oh great and powerful Edwin.

reply to this

Edwin|10.12.10
@ 5:48PM|#

that guy said that a drunk guys speeding poses no extra danger compared to a
sober person going normally - that sure as hell ain't reality

reply to this

BillC|10.11.10
@ 5:49PM|#

"99% of cops give the good ones a bad name."

I'd say it's closer to 60/40

reply to this

sarcasmic|10.11.10 @ 6:29PM|#

I've never met that 1% I joked about.

In my experience people who seek out a job where they carry a club and a gun
do so because they look forward to using the tools of the trade.

I hear talk of cops who take pride in never used deadly force.
I've never
met one.

Without exception every cop I've met was a childhood bully in an adult body
who takes great pleasure in dealing out pain, suffering, and even death.

reply to this

Edwin|10.12.10
@ 10:43AM|#

Yo haven't met a lot of cops, so you're just talking out of your ass.

And they're still better than you, who can fool himself into denying basic
realities just in the name of some stupid philosophy.

reply to this

G Mc|10.11.10 @
6:38PM|#

Threshold tests are, like deadlines, at once completely arbitrary, and
completely necessary to administrative function.

reply to this

G Mc|10.11.10 @
6:39PM|#

And, of course, in this case, BAC threshold levels are not completely
arbitrary.

reply to this

|10.11.10 @ 7:20PM|#

Sleep apnea and micro-sleeping are the worst.

reply to this

|10.11.10 @ 7:39PM|#

I usually have about 3 -4 drinks, and then drive home. I've never been
arrested or pulled over for it. Why? Because I don't speed or fuck up while I'm
driving. Most people that get DUI's are just bad drivers anyway.

My only arguement against Drunk Driving laws would be to abolish sobriety
check points. They're gay as shit.

reply to this

|10.11.10 @ 8:38PM|#

I agree with the checkpoints. I just go around them anyway by taking all the
back roads home. I call this deer hunting.

reply to this

|10.11.10 @ 9:00PM|#

My only problems with the checkpoints is that they're largely a waste of
motorist time, and taxpayer money.

The reality of the situation is simple:

(1) If you're driving drunk, and are not creating any problems (unsafe speed,
improper turns, failing to signal lane changes, etc), then you shouldn't be
pulled over... and are probably not going to be.

(2) If you're drunk and you're a dumb cunt that thinks it's cool to fuck
around on the road, then you'll probably be detained and arrested for DUI. Not
my problem.

Listen to song "Drinking and Driving" by The Business . Explains
everything.

reply to this

|10.11.10 @ 9:44PM|#

I agree with this, however I would add that testing people for intoxication
is arbitrary because you cannot test people for texting. The tests are
unnecessary if the purpose of the law is to stop reckless drivers.

Its like hate crimes. Killing people is illegal, that means killing gay
people is just as wrong as killing straight people under the law. Dont arrest a
person because they killed a gay person, arrest them for killing period.

reply to this

|10.11.10 @ 9:45PM|#

I am talking about tests done AFTER the driver is pulled over for reckless
driving in some manner or another.

reply to this

|10.11.10 @ 10:43PM|#

Good points.

reply to this

jacob|10.11.10
@ 10:47PM|#

Killing someone without premeditation and killing someone while planning it
out is the exact same thing. But for some silly reason, a person who
kills after planning out a murder gets a higher penalty. The victim is no more
or less dead, but the penalty is different.

It's sort of the same thing with hate crimes....

reply to this

|10.11.10 @ 11:17PM|#

"Hate Crimes" means you just had a motive to commit a crime. Hate Crime and
Jealous Boyfriend Rampage Crime are the same thing only because it involves
intent. Accidentally killing someone is different becaue there is no motive, it
was just, an accident.

reply to this

jacob|10.12.10
@ 8:54PM|#

Your argument doesn't address my point.

Homicide that was planned out and homicide that was not pre-planned ("crimes
of passion") are sentenced differently.

Just because you kill someone and didn't plan it out doesn't mean it was an
accident.

reply to this

|10.11.10 @ 9:07PM|#

and someone making a snide comment assuming I'm a leftist/liberal in 3...
2... 1...

Fuckin' Pinko. haha, haven't heard that one in a while.... But seriously
dude, nobody likes you, stop trying to impose your nambi pambi liberal bullshit
on me before I beat my balls against yer chin.

reply to this

|10.11.10 @ 9:47PM|#

And someone making snide "teabagger" comment based on head/nutsack contact
desire in 3...2...1...

reply to this

Edwin|10.12.10
@ 10:45AM|#

Understanding that drunk driving laws makes sense is solely a liberal trait?
Jesus Christ kid, you're detached

reply to this

|10.12.10 @ 4:26PM|#

Hippie bastard. Try drinking... It'll loosen up the sand in yer pussy.

reply to this

|10.12.10 @ 8:27PM|#

No, it has nothing to do with liberals. Conservative republicans and liberal
democrats are both equally retarded in this regard.

reply to this

Edwin|10.13.10
@ 9:22AM|#

It's retarded to understand that drunk driving is highly dangerous to both
the driver and the public?

Are you listening to yourself?

reply to this

|10.13.10 @ 7:28PM|#

Its retarded because the laws do nothing but promote idiotic BAC tests and
random checkpoints to stop "drunk" drivers.

Checkpoints do nothing at all to curb drunk driving, but if you read the
article you would know that. Random checkpoints are also questionable in that it
forces innocent people to bear the burden of the check point so this becomes a
matter of civil liberties. Of course Republicans and Democrats will say that it
is okay to infringe on liberty to stop drunk drivers, but they aren't really
even doing that. If cops are going to do anything useful at all in terms of
stopping drunk drivers, they mind as well get out on the roads and look for
reckless or dangerous drivers. If they find a person who is swerving and driving
erratically, then it doesn't matter if he is drunk, texting, getting a hummer,
wearing a blindfold, cooking fajitas, or completing a crossword puzzle, he is
driving recklessly and will be punished accordingly.

BAC and field sobriety tests only test for ALCOHOL and they dont do it very
well. If you are so worried about drunk drivers, then you should be EQUALLY
concerned with all other distracted or impaired drivers. If you are going to
deal with this hazard, you cant simply pass a law against every conceivable
thing that could cause an accident and half the time you cant even prove these
things were happening or were an impairment to the driver. You can however be
reasonably certain that someone who is driving dangerously is a danger to others
and himself, so pulling people over for this is the only real way to prevent
accidents and discourage ALL forms of distraction and impairment. With modern
video technology, it shouldn't be too difficult for a cop with a dash cam to log
reasonable evidence of reckless driving.

The current laws are skewed towards drunkenness and therefore skew away from
other issues. Drunk driving laws are the public hazard because our limited
resources are being applied to breathalyzers, field sobriety tests, checkpoints
and cops having to spend all sorts of time in court testifying in drunk driving
cases because the evidence is so fucking shoddy.

reply to this

|10.11.10 @ 9:22PM|#

"It shouldn't matter if it's caused by alcohol, sleep deprivation,
prescription medication, text messaging, or road rage."
Add to that list old
drivers.

reply to this

|10.11.10 @ 9:49PM|#

And people who like to look smart while they try to solve the NYT crossword
on the way to work.

reply to this

|10.12.10 @ 4:54AM|#

and Chinese

reply to this

|10.12.10 @ 8:28PM|#

LOL, it was only a matter of time... but ...

And women.

reply to this

|10.11.10 @ 10:34PM|#

I'm tellin' ya, the worst thing is driving while you're tired. I live in MD,
I used to drive to MA every other thursday to visit my girl who went to school
up there. I would work 10-14 hours (nightshift), then drive 8 hours to meet up
with her. I fell asleep a couple times behind the wheel and ran off the road
once. Fortunately it was so early in the morning there weren't many other
drivers out yet.

reply to this

|10.11.10 @ 10:38PM|#

I had this debate before about the drinking and driving laws. It's
embarrassing to me that a grown man can't stop by a local pub, drink a sixer,
then drive home. But like I told my brother, for every guy that can get drunk
and make it home safe... there's some stupid bitch that can't and ends up
flipping her car, then doesn't think she did anything wrong 'cuz people let her
drive drunk.

The smartest thing you can do, if you're seriously stuck in a situation where
driving home is worth the risk... wait 'til 4 or 5am. Sleep in the car for a
little while if you have to. 2am-3am is when they're watching for the shit. At
least around here.

reply to this

|10.11.10 @ 10:41PM|#

Like I said, if you're being cool and followin' the rules of the road you
should be good to go. If you're absolutely shitfaced and can barely walk... just
pass out in the car. If the cops are following their SOP, they won't pull you
over unless you give them a reason.

reply to this

jacob|10.11.10
@ 10:44PM|#

Sleeping in the car while intoxicated is illegal. I had a friend who did the
same thing and got arrested for DUI. I agree that after 3 am most police are not
patrolling anymore. I also agree that it's not a big deal to drink 4 or 5 then
drive (after a couple of hours). However, I think you and I are in the silent
majority.

reply to this

Jorj X. McKie|10.12.10 @ 5:23PM|#

You must be the first person ever to describe Drunk Punk as being
"silent".

reply to this

|10.11.10 @ 11:13PM|#

Did he leave the car running?

reply to this

jacob|10.11.10
@ 11:15PM|#

No, but the argument was that the keys were in the car with him.

reply to this

|10.11.10 @ 11:18PM|#

What city and state was he in? I'll check into it.

reply to this

|10.12.10 @ 4:56AM|#

That's the way it works in Canada.
Just having the keys in your possession
while sitting drunk in the car qualifies the driver for being charged.

reply to this

|10.12.10 @ 4:49PM|#

Sounds like we need to be more like Canada. I'd say, if someone has a beer
bottle in one hand, and a set of keys in the other... even if they're not even
drunk yet, they should be jailed for life for potentially taking away someone
else's life.

reply to this

Brian R|10.12.10 @ 7:21PM|#

Works that way in Minnesota too, even if you're in the back seat of the
car.

reply to this

jacob|10.12.10
@ 8:55PM|#

Methinks it works that way in every jurisdiction

reply to this

jacob|10.12.10
@ 8:54PM|#

Dayton, Ohio

reply to this

|10.12.10 @ 8:29PM|#

This makes perfect sense, you never know what those keys are doing while you
are asleep.

reply to this

|10.11.10 @ 11:20PM|#

Crime prevention is the root of all fascism

reply to this

|10.12.10 @ 4:58AM|#

Last time I called the local pigs to attend to a matter where physical
violence was the issue, the broad who got her job thanks to gender quota
requirements - I mean, let's face it - started lecturing me about my
out-of-state license plate.
Fkn pigs are just gun-toting tax
collectors.
Douchebags. Every. Last. One of them.

reply to this

NotPartyAffiliated|10.12.10 @ 11:55AM|#

A few words to the courageous author of this article: Misuse of
statistics.

reply to this

|10.12.10 @ 12:15PM|#

Radley your right on. But the stupid politicians don't listen to common
sense. Previous dui convictions show this, whereas somebody is arrested in a
parked car, riding a horse, in a boat with a trolling motor, ect. You can't fix
stupid.

reply to this

Politically Incorrect in Dalla|10.12.10 @ 4:30PM|#

I completely agree we should stop drivers driving bad now instead of focusing
on drivers who might potentially drive bad sometime. I asked about this in
Dallas, and was told police/prosecutors prefer to do substance stops because
it's concrete evidence in court (test results) instead of he said/she said about
whether a person was using their blinker. I don't care. It's wrong, and blaming
every accident on alcohol is wrong when 95% of overall accidents are caused by
other reasons, simply driving bad, and we have "wreckless driving" laws for
that. If it's illegal to stop and ask for paper to check for illegal aliens, it
is surely unconstitutional to drunk test someone stopped for no reason.

reply to this

|10.12.10 @ 4:40PM|#

If you don't like drunk driving, stay home and cry in a corner. Nobody is
forcing you to drive.

This is our culture: We're shitty drivers. We work a lot, eat in the car,
talk on our cell phones, get drunk and drive, and don't pay attention to anybody
elses' problems. That is who we are. Deal with it. We punish the people who are
simply living by default in their own self-destructive, bullshit, house of cards
life?

Oh yeah, blame the victims, that's really good. ASsholes.

reply to this

|10.12.10 @ 4:47PM|#

Let me just say one more thing about Safety and Health. It's anti-human to
dwell on this shit.

This is where fascism is coming from today...If you want to make it a law,
just say "Unsafe!", or "Unhealthy!"

It's like these people that wrap their house in duct tape 'cos of terrorist
attacks, or are still afraid of white vans 'cos of the DC sniper.

Stop being pussies!!! If someone has made you afraid, then they have control
of you.

Anxiety is almost always worse than the drop, dude.

I'd rather be hospitalized by a drunk driver than to see another law passed
because of the bullshit lecturing rhetoric or some self-righteous MADD
mother.

reply to this

|10.12.10 @ 8:37PM|#

All I can think of is all these kids I see riding their bikes with helmets. I
found out that they have to wear a helmet. Hmm. When i was a kid, we werent
required to wear a helmet. Yes, we did some stupid stunts, but because we did
not have a helmet, we were keenly aware of our limits and avoided really stupid
risks. This is not to say we didn't take risks, but risk is life. Jumps were
fun, ghost riding was fun, stunts were fun, but when someone came up with the
idea of jumping the sand pit, the rocks below were an obvious risk and none of
us attempted the stunt.

I am not saying kids shouldn't wear helmets, but why does the state need to
tell them to wear a helmet?

Ok, I'm gonna wrap myself in bubble wrap and masturbate to speed metal now.
Wish me luck.

reply to this

Anonymous|10.12.10 @ 9:46PM|#

Excellent article! I have come to realize many of your points on my own and
it's wonderful to hear an echo.

The closest I have ever gotten to hitting another car was when I was sober
and exhausted. Where's the special mandatory felony charge for evil night owls
like me?

Also, why was it that I was able to get pulled over drunk and high and under
21, lie to a cop about if I had been drinking, and then get through the sobriety
tests with just a stop sign ticket? Because I wasn't so fucked up that the guy
pulled his breathalyzer on me. He was fair and I performed. And as a side note,
I wasn't driving dangerously. The town had gotten new squad cars and I didn't
realize I needed to not roll through a stop sign in the DEAD of night at 3
mph.

B.A.C. does NOT = impairment, nor does it = an automatic significant risk. A
complex combination of factors that varies from person to person may. I doubt
even a brain scan could tell you for sure who's impaired and who isn't. As for
cops performing highway-side blood-letting, let's just say "creepy" is now
officially well-defined.

Zero tolerance = zero intelligence.

reply to this

blogsniper|10.13.10 @ 1:53AM|#

Even so, you could still be arrested for public intoxication, such as CA
Penal code 647f, a safety hazard to yourself and others. That would still get
you more than the idiot who was switching tracks on his Air Supply 8-track
tape.

reply to this

|10.13.10 @ 10:05AM|#

Missouri's DWI law doesn't mention a "magic number". We focus on the
intoxicated or drugged behavior of the individual in order to reach a probable
cause arrest decision. Sadly the prosecutors are hung up on a magic number
(though the law does not require it). We also have an illegal per se statute
which does mention a number (0.080 as with all other US States). I agree that
impairment should be the issue. Good article.

reply to this

|10.14.10 @ 11:14AM|#

Great. How do we measure "impairment" exactly. The word of a cop? How
impaired is too impaired to drive? We don't need laws that are arbitrarily
enforced at the whim of police.

For the flaws in BAC, it is, at least, a number that can be measured within
some margin of error.

Next, let's get rid of the speed limits because that's an arbitrary number
too.

reply to this

rhhardin|10.14.10 @
11:30AM|#

Sociologist Joseph R Gusfield has a series of books out on seizing political
power through "public problems" by discovering them and then taking ownership of
them, starting with "The Culture of Public Problems: Drinking-Driving and the
Symbolic Order."

Like Goffman, he's a decent writer too.

It used to be that drunk driving was a personal moral failing, not a public
problem.

The possibility is today hard to imagine; but life went on very nicely
without the conversion.

Child sexual abuse didn't exist before the 70s; and child abuse (bruises and
the like) before the 60s, as public problems.

A lot of hysteria came with those conversions.

reply to this

|10.14.10 @ 3:01PM|#

It used to be that regular people didn't own cars, and rich people had
drivers. Maryjo Kopechne would disagree about drunk driving only being a
personal failing in 1969.

reply to this

|10.14.10 @ 11:50AM|#

all well and good, except what is the objective standard and test for
"driving while impaired" that doesn't give a HUGE amount of discretion to the
police, prosecutors and courts? Discretion that you just know will be subject to
abuse.

Absent such a standard and test, this opens a can of worms that is best left
closed and on the shelf.

reply to this

|10.14.10 @ 11:51AM|#

What ever happened to common sense? Having a glass or two of wine with dinner
and then driving home should not be a crime if it does not cause you to drive
recklessly.

Why aren't individuals with THREE DWI offenses under the present laws taken
OFF THE ROAD for several years.

reply to this

|10.14.10 @ 12:32PM|#

I'm with Marty. The one benefit of having a standard is that it poses an
objective test that can be used, even though it's poor. The alternative is
handing over everything to police officers' completely subjective analysis, and
while I think for a lot of cops that'd be just fine there are always a few bad
apples. (With modern technology there might be a solution, in that always having
the sobriety check in front of a dash cam would be a way to prove to a judge or
jury that the stop was warranted.) Until we come up with a better option, we
should improve the way the standard is measured. If a breathalyzer manufacturer
refuses to release technical specs needed for defense, rule that brand's data
inadmissible and watch the company crumble. If a person has a ratio of alcohol
output in their lungs that throws off the breathalyzer and makes it read too
high, let them attach that info to their license so the police can calibrate the
machine. Whether we improve the standard or throw it out, we need to have a good
plan.

However I still take issue with the people who are so concerned about
Nannyism running amuck that they completely downplay the significance of
something like texting while driving. I've seen these people on the
roads--there's good reason to ban them. No it's not easy to enforce, and there
may be the rare person who can do this safely, but for pure stupidity and danger
it's hard to top.

reply to this

|10.14.10 @ 6:42PM|#

So it would be up to the cop's judgment whether I was impaired or not? Hmm. I
might opt for the blood test, at least it isn't biased in the way a cop might
be. Doing this would certainly *not* reduce arrests for reckless or impaired
driving, it would just make enforcement and the legal process more nebulous. How
is a judge or jury supposed to evaluate a cop's judgment after the fact?

A breathalyzer or blood test at least provides some sort of definitive
baseline as imperfect as they may be. To be honest, the .08 level is a
deterrent. I know if I have more than a couple I should not be on the road
because I know I will be over, whether I think I am impaired or not.

Another case of a Libertarian not thinking past stage one. Tut tut.

reply to this

|10.14.10 @ 10:33PM|#

You are so "right on". I've been told by a number of physicians that I have a
very uncommon tolerance of pain. I have asserted to them that there has to be a
correlation to my body's ability (or lack of ability) to be put to sleep for an
operation. Starting at the age of 10 for a tonsilectomy (sp?) I couldn't be put
to sleep with sodium pentathol and I heard the doctor's saying (on ether) "if
this kid's not asleep in 5 seconds we're going to have to stop". I closed my
eyes but was awake throughout the operation. the surgeries I've had since
(stapedechetomys and colonoscopys) have had a similar outcome. Since my body
(liver enzymes) has that type of response it's not possible that alchohol has
the kind of impact on me that it has others. To place a "once size fits all" on
all people relative to alchohol consumption is riduculous -- you make excellent
statements!

reply to this

|10.14.10 @ 10:51PM|#

"I might opt for the blood test, at least it isn't biased in the way a cop
might be. Doing this would certainly *not* reduce arrests for reckless or
impaired driving, it would just make enforcement and the legal process more
nebulous."

First, I am not sure the word nebulous fits in with the argument you are
making here. If you are saying that blood tests would help to support legal
enforcement by providing additional supporting evidence, then "nebulous" is
suggesting the opposite of this assertion.

Assuming you think that road side blood tests are a helpful law enforcement
tool...

So having cops spending all sorts of time administering blood tests on the
side of the road wont limit their capacity to be on the lookout for reckless
drivers? How long do you think this test takes and how many cops do you think we
have that we can waste all of this time just for the sake of proving that
somebody had more than three beers? If this driver was pulled over because they
were swerving all over the road, or speeding, wouldn't it be more efficient to
simply punish them for reckless driving, especially if the punishment was at
least as harsh as the drunk driving punishment? Also, wouldn't video evidence of
reckless driving be enough evidence? Why do we need to prove someone is drunk in
order to prove they were driving recklessly? Also, proving someone has been
drinking does not actually prove they were driving recklessly or that they were
even impaired to the point of being dangerous. If someone is driving
dangerously, which is marked by swerving, speeding and other such indicators,
then it really doesn't matter if they are impaired or not, they should be
stopped and tried for reckless driving. The evidence is on the video. I think
that reasonable people can tell the difference between safe driving and unsafe
driving when they see it in a video. Leave it up to a jury and they will
decide.

Also, drunkeness is but one impairment. Like the article pointed out, other
impairments are just as bad, but it is not so easy to test for texting while
driving. Should we bias our enforcement towards just one form of dangerous
driving? If there are two drivers on the road in the middle of the night and
they are both swerving, one because they were texting and the other because they
are drunk, is it reasonable to hold one more accountable than the other simply
because you cannot prove they were texting? What about if you are driving safely
and you get pulled over because of a broken tail light and the cop thinks he
smells booze and so you take a breathalyzer and fail do you think this is the
same service to public safety as pulling over a person who is actually driving
recklessly? Could this time be used more effectively to spot drivers who are
already a threat to public safety? Would it matter that any number of other
impairments would be ignored by the cop that pulled you over simply because they
do not have a way to prove them or even be aware of them?

If you want to stop drunk driving, you do not need to find out if people are
drunk. Be more aggressive about spotting reckless driving. Make the penalties
stronger for reckless driving. Look, I am not a fan of leaving it up to a cop to
decide if I am driving recklessly, but if there is reasonable video evidence
that a jury would recognize as reckless driving, then we can limit the
possibility of an over zealous cop making an arbitrary decision. This is
actually an argument FOR more aggressive reckless driving laws and enforcement.
Having to prove drunkenness to punish a reckless driver effectively is not
particularly effective at reducing all of the other causes of reckless driving.
With that in mind, it is totally unreasonable to expect or create a law for
every conceivable cause of reckless driving, but most people know why they are
driving recklessly and so if there is a deterrent against reckless driving, most
people will try to avoid these things that may cause them to drive
recklessly.

reply to this

Sandy|10.15.10
@ 11:36AM|#

Legalize Drunk Driving--Because other bad shit is legal (sarcasm)

reply to this

|10.15.10 @ 7:06PM|#

Punish all reckless driving regardless of cause the same as drunk driving and
spend more time looking for reckless drivers than attempting to prove someone is
drunk. Or, Aggressively prosecute all forms of distracted or impaired driving by
aggressively prosecuting reckless driving.

reply to this

I M Patroling|10.22.10 @ 4:29AM|#

Chief Acevedo has brought up a valid point by saying there is no punitive
section available to his officers for driving "impaired". We have all
encountered "light weight" drinkers who are impaired by just one drink. Basic
DUI wet labs have taught us that alcohol in the human body effects our higher
brain functions, causing our inhibitions to decrease. We have all been brought
up with the term "liquid courage" to describe the effect a "shot" of wiskey has
on our system which gives us "courage" to ask that girl for a dance, etc. Here
is something we need to ask ourselves: Mercedes Benz has been advertising their
"smart" cars can detect objects in the road and control the vehicle accordingly.
So, does this make the owners of these vehicles more liable for causing a
collision while their impaired?

reply to this

mee|1.25.11 @
9:59PM|#

if your getting pulled over chances are you were reckless driving first, then
they gave you a breathalizer to see if thats the reason. If your drinking wasnt
impairing your driving what was? do you expect people to think it was just a
coincidence. plus the law needs to be strict because the consequences of the
actions of a drunk driver are so serious

reply to this

mee|1.25.11 @
10:00PM|#

if your getting pulled over chances are you were reckless driving first, then
they gave you a breathalizer to see if thats the reason. If your drinking wasnt
impairing your driving what was? do you expect people to think it was just a
coincidence. plus the law needs to be strict because the consequences of the
actions of a drunk driver are so serious

reply to this

|3.18.11 @ 12:46AM|#

people are just assholes on the road they go out of their way to pass you up
so they can stop at the light first iagree with judgeing perfomance that would
put a lot people off the road get rid of the assholes

reply to this

|3.18.11 @ 12:46AM|#

people are just assholes on the road they go out of their way to pass you up
so they can stop at the light first iagree with judgeing perfomance that would
put a lot people off the road get rid of the assholes

reply to this

|3.18.11 @ 12:46AM|#

people are just assholes on the road they go out of their way to pass you up
so they can stop at the light first iagree with judgeing perfomance that would
put a lot people off the road get rid of the assholes

reply to this

|3.18.11 @ 12:46AM|#

people are just assholes on the road they go out of their way to pass you up
so they can stop at the light first iagree with judgeing perfomance that would
put a lot people off the road get rid of the assholes

reply to this

|3.18.11 @ 12:47AM|#

people are just assholes on the road they go out of their way to pass you up
so they can stop at the light first iagree with judgeing perfomance that would
put a lot people off the road get rid of the assholes

reply to this

nike shoes UK|8.4.11 @
5:13AM|#

is good

reply to this

قبلة الوداع|8.16.11 @
9:18PM|#

thank u

reply to this

Leave a Comment

* NAME:

EMAIL: WEBSITE:
Remember name, email, and website on this
computer for 30 days? * COMMENT:

More Articles by Radley Balko

Bad Boys,
Radley Balko, June 27, 2011

The
Crime Rate Puzzle, Radley Balko, June 20, 2011

Wrongful
Convictions, Radley Balko, June 7, 2011

Related Articles (Alcohol, Civil Liberties, Transportation, Automobiles, Criminal Justice, Constitutional Law, Police)

Your Lying
Eyes, Jacob Sullum, August 31, 2011

Injustice,
In Plain Sight, Steve Chapman, August 29, 2011

Reading
Is Fundamentally Forbidden, Greg Beato, August 25, 2011

Liberating
Libya, Jacob Sullum, August 24, 2011

Reason.tv:
Jay Beeber Defeats LA's Red Light Cameras, August 23, 2011

Latest Articles on Reason Online

The
Debt and A Good Old Fashioned Orgy, Kurt Loder,
September 1, 2011

The Gay
Marriage Debate, John Stossel, September 1, 2011

Michigan
Bar Owners Ban Lawmakers for Banning Smoking! (Nanny of the Month, Aug
2011), Ted Balaker, September 1, 2011

Obama's
Jobs Program: If the Choice is Between "Go Big or Go Home," Start Packing
Now., Nick Gillespie, September 1, 2011

The
Conservative Reversal on Science, Steve Chapman, September 1,
2011

Matt
Welch Talks About Subsidized Homeowner Insurance on Freedom Watch,
Matt Welch, August 31, 2011

You
Don't Have To Be “Smart,” Just Right, David Harsanyi, August 31,
2011

Latest Posts on Hit & Run

Former
LA Teacher Union Head Starts Charter, Now Hates Teacher Tenure, Nick
Gillespie, September 1, 2011

New at
Reason: Kurt Loder on The Debt and A Good Old Fashioned
Orgy, September 1, 2011

How
Eminent Domain Transformed a Nice Neighborhood into a Dump, Damon W.
Root, September 1, 2011

More
Apparent Evidence Tampering From Michael West, Bite Mark "Expert",
Lucy Steigerwald, September 1, 2011

'Childhood
Itself Is Now in Crisis', Jacob Sullum, September 1, 2011

Obama:
Ban Discrimination Against Non-Workers, Tim Cavanaugh, September
1, 2011

Reason RUPE: Public Opinion Survey

Americans believe that
benefits from additional security have come at the expense of some privacy and
freedom (9.1)

Reason-Rupe Poll: 55
Percent of Americans Say We’ve Given Up Too Much Freedom and Privacy in the
Name of Security Since 9/11 (9.1)

Exploring Real Attitudes
Toward Entitlement Reform (8.31)

Americans Are Open to
Reforming Social Security and Medicare (8.31)

The Public Is Conflicted
Over Where to Place Responsibility for Retirement Savings
(8.30)

Most Popular Stories

Viewed

Commented

Emailed

Damn
This Recession! (8.29)

How
Does a Wine Monopoly Lose Money? (8.30)

"What
do you think of interracial marriage? It would be hard, offhand, to think of a
question less relevant to libertarianism" (8.30)

Presidential
Candidate Gov. Gary Johnson: Cut Federal Spending by 43% - and Cut Social
Issues From GOP Agenda (8.30)

'FIRE
Is Sticking Up for Penises Everywhere' (8.29)

The
Conservative Reversal on Science (9.1)

Reason
Morning Links: NLRB Goes Nuts, Stories From the Early Days of DHS, Registering
Atheists Like Sex Offenders (8.31)

Michael
Lind: Libertarians "Apologize for Autocracy" and "Side with the
Confederacy" (8.31)

Reason
Morning Links: Shifting Speeches Edition (9.1)

Why
Gary Johnson and Jon Huntsman Should go After the Hispanic Vote
(8.30)

How
Does a Wine Monopoly Lose Money? (8.30)

The
Nanny State's "Bill of Rights" (8.31)

You
Don't Have To Be “Smart,” Just Right (8.31)

Presidential
Candidate Gov. Gary Johnson: Cut Federal Spending by 43% - and Cut Social
Issues From GOP Agenda (8.30)

The
Conservative Reversal on Science (9.1)

advertisements

Get Reason E-mail Updates!

First Name
Last Name Email Manage your Reason e-mail list
subscriptions

Site comments/questions:

Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:

(310) 367-6109

Editorial & Production Offices:

3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310)
391-2245

Home|About|Advertise|Privacy|Contact
Copyright 2011, Reason
Magazine