Total Posts:183|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Legalize Drunk Driving

BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 3:11:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
http://mises.org...

This article convinced me.

BTW, I know a lot don't like Mises, but, if you comment, please actually read the article.
APB
Posts: 267
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 3:29:36 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
When you're drunk, you have less control over your actions. Your ability to navigate and respond to things is impaired. You may even be distracted.

Thus you are a danger to other road users, even if you don't wish to harm them (that's why we call them "accidents"). I see no reason to change the law that forbids drunk driving, although the Feds are still abusing their power.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 7:51:19 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/14/2013 3:29:36 AM, APB wrote:
When you're drunk, you have less control over your actions. Your ability to navigate and respond to things is impaired. You may even be distracted.

Thus you are a danger to other road users, even if you don't wish to harm them (that's why we call them "accidents"). I see no reason to change the law that forbids drunk driving, although the Feds are still abusing their power.

You can insert tired/emotionally distressed/on pain meds and other drugs/on phone for drunk driving and it works, yet none of those carry the same strict punishments. Texting and driving is far worse than driving with a .09 buzz.
If the article is the same one I've read, it states that reckless driving should be the crime, irregardless of the reason you're being reckless.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 7:56:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Logically it makes sense, but the campaign against drunk driving has been successful at not curbing drunk driving (which don't get me wrong is a good thing) but demonizing the act to the point any suggestion the current system may not be the best or penalties in some cases may be too harsh is met with extreme opposition.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 8:25:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
The probability argument can be dealt with quite easily by showing a reductio ad absurdum as I do below.

Most cities have laws against firing a gun in city limits. This is because of the increase in probabilities of someone being hit by a stray bullet. According to this argument, this law should be removed, and people should be allowed to discharge a firearm in city limits regardless of the odds. They should only be punished if someone gets hurt.

This argument neglects the quite clear ramifications. If you allow people to do things that might hurt others, those things will happen more often. And rather then a chance, you will have a guarantee.

The argument is an assertion anyways, and is not supported by anything but another assertion. They simply state that this is the way it should be.

Now the argument that we can't know our blood alcohol content is just ridiculous, because it is easily dealt with by one simply sentence. If you want to drive, don't drink any, if you want to drink any, don't drive. It isn't hard.

I'd deal with any more in there, but I can't be bothered reading any more of this drivel. I have better things to read.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 9:01:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/14/2013 8:25:09 AM, muzebreak wrote:
The probability argument can be dealt with quite easily by showing a reductio ad absurdum as I do below.

Most cities have laws against firing a gun in city limits. This is because of the increase in probabilities of someone being hit by a stray bullet. According to this argument, this law should be removed, and people should be allowed to discharge a firearm in city limits regardless of the odds. They should only be punished if someone gets hurt.

This argument neglects the quite clear ramifications. If you allow people to do things that might hurt others, those things will happen more often. And rather then a chance, you will have a guarantee.

The argument is an assertion anyways, and is not supported by anything but another assertion. They simply state that this is the way it should be.

Now the argument that we can't know our blood alcohol content is just ridiculous, because it is easily dealt with by one simply sentence. If you want to drive, don't drink any, if you want to drink any, don't drive. It isn't hard.

I'd deal with any more in there, but I can't be bothered reading any more of this drivel. I have better things to read.

Some cities and counties outlaw alcohol completely, they can chose to do whatever they want on the local level. There is no federal law, to my knowledge, against discharging a firearm within city limits.
You also didn't address the main issue, that is the law should punish the behavior, reckless driving, not the cause. The argument is that what caused the person to become reckless shouldn't influence the punishment disproportionally.
As I pointed out, texting and driving is more dangerous than buzzed driving.
But you have better things to read, don't bother with this drivel anymore.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 9:16:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
When I was in Alberta they had recently passed a law outlawing eating and driving at the same time. There were signs advertising the huge fines that you would face if you were caught popping a pretzel in your mouth while behind the wheel. It's just obscene. Punish reckless driving, and punish it heavily. Not drunk driving, distracted driving, tired driving or elderly driving.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 9:17:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/14/2013 9:01:05 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 4/14/2013 8:25:09 AM, muzebreak wrote:
The probability argument can be dealt with quite easily by showing a reductio ad absurdum as I do below.

Most cities have laws against firing a gun in city limits. This is because of the increase in probabilities of someone being hit by a stray bullet. According to this argument, this law should be removed, and people should be allowed to discharge a firearm in city limits regardless of the odds. They should only be punished if someone gets hurt.

This argument neglects the quite clear ramifications. If you allow people to do things that might hurt others, those things will happen more often. And rather then a chance, you will have a guarantee.

The argument is an assertion anyways, and is not supported by anything but another assertion. They simply state that this is the way it should be.

Now the argument that we can't know our blood alcohol content is just ridiculous, because it is easily dealt with by one simply sentence. If you want to drive, don't drink any, if you want to drink any, don't drive. It isn't hard.

I'd deal with any more in there, but I can't be bothered reading any more of this drivel. I have better things to read.

Some cities and counties outlaw alcohol completely, they can chose to do whatever they want on the local level. There is no federal law, to my knowledge, against discharging a firearm within city limits.

I meant states. And why does it matter whether it is a federal law or not?

You also didn't address the main issue, that is the law should punish the behavior, reckless driving, not the cause.

Wow. So you let me get this straight; you want to charge people with reckless driving, not DUI?

The argument is that what caused the person to become reckless shouldn't influence the punishment disproportionally.

I am not aware that it does.

As I pointed out, texting and driving is more dangerous than buzzed driving.

Evidence?

But you have better things to read, don't bother with this drivel anymore.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 9:19:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/14/2013 9:16:37 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
When I was in Alberta they had recently passed a law outlawing eating and driving at the same time. There were signs advertising the huge fines that you would face if you were caught popping a pretzel in your mouth while behind the wheel. It's just obscene. Punish reckless driving, and punish it heavily. Not drunk driving, distracted driving, tired driving or elderly driving.

There is no crime called tired driving or elderly driving, and the last one isn't even punishable. But please do tell, why should they simply punish drunk drivers under the reckless driving laws?
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 9:37:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Forgetting the anecdotal evidence which says texting is worst
http://www.cnbc.com...
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 9:42:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Drunk driving laws are clearly dis proportional, fall asleep and hit a tree then get buzzed and hit a tree, if alcohol is found in your system you're getting in a lot more trouble.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 9:49:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/14/2013 9:37:25 AM, lewis20 wrote:
Forgetting the anecdotal evidence which says texting is worst
http://www.cnbc.com...

What the heck proof is two guys doing an independent test? Do you seriously expect me to trust those results?

I will agree, after doing some research, that it seems that texting while driving apparently reduces ones reaction time worse then a .08 blood alcohol level, the legal limit in most states. But you should really learn the difference between a credible experiment, like a double blind study, and an incredible experiment, like this one.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 9:54:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/14/2013 9:42:34 AM, lewis20 wrote:
Drunk driving laws are clearly dis proportional, fall asleep and hit a tree then get buzzed and hit a tree, if alcohol is found in your system you're getting in a lot more trouble.

That's because falling asleep at the wheel isn't against the law. And it also isn't voluntary. While drinking and driving is both.

There is, on the other hand, talk of making it against the law to drive while drowsy. But the issue would be in determining whether one is drowsy whole behind the wheel..
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 9:58:15 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
And you still haven't answered my question:

Are you actually saying that people should be charged with reckless driving rather then DUI?
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 10:08:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/14/2013 9:49:55 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/14/2013 9:37:25 AM, lewis20 wrote:
Forgetting the anecdotal evidence which says texting is worst
http://www.cnbc.com...

What the heck proof is two guys doing an independent test? Do you seriously expect me to trust those results?

I will agree, after doing some research, that it seems that texting while driving apparently reduces ones reaction time worse then a .08 blood alcohol level, the legal limit in most states. But you should really learn the difference between a credible experiment, like a double blind study, and an incredible experiment, like this one.

Alright, let me get this straight, I'm wrong, but I'm right, but I'm wrong? I'm right for the wrong reasons or I'm right but didn't give you enough enough although you know that I'm right?
Long story short I'm correct that texting is worst than being slightly over the legal limit?
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 10:12:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/14/2013 9:54:58 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/14/2013 9:42:34 AM, lewis20 wrote:
Drunk driving laws are clearly dis proportional, fall asleep and hit a tree then get buzzed and hit a tree, if alcohol is found in your system you're getting in a lot more trouble.


That's because falling asleep at the wheel isn't against the law. And it also isn't voluntary. While drinking and driving is both.

Getting behind the wheel while sleepy and sleep deprived ins't voluntary?
Also would falling asleep behind the wheel being legal have any bearing on the fact that it's as dangerous as drunk driving?

There is, on the other hand, talk of making it against the law to drive while drowsy. But the issue would be in determining whether one is drowsy whole behind the wheel..

Right, you can try to outlaw every plausible reason to drive recklessly, or you could simply outlaw driving recklessly, no matter the reason.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 10:14:13 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/14/2013 10:08:01 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 4/14/2013 9:49:55 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/14/2013 9:37:25 AM, lewis20 wrote:
Forgetting the anecdotal evidence which says texting is worst
http://www.cnbc.com...

What the heck proof is two guys doing an independent test? Do you seriously expect me to trust those results?

I will agree, after doing some research, that it seems that texting while driving apparently reduces ones reaction time worse then a .08 blood alcohol level, the legal limit in most states. But you should really learn the difference between a credible experiment, like a double blind study, and an incredible experiment, like this one.

Alright, let me get this straight, I'm wrong, but I'm right, but I'm wrong? I'm right for the wrong reasons or I'm right but didn't give you enough enough although you know that I'm right?
Long story short I'm correct that texting is worst than being slightly over the legal limit?

As I have said, very clearly; I agree that there is good evidence to support the idea that texting while driving lowers reaction time more then having a .08 blood alcohol level, which is the legal limit in most states.

But you need to learn what is good evidence, and what is bad evidence. What you gave, was bad evidence.

Now, what is your point in stating that texting while driving is worse then driving above the legal limit?
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 10:15:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/14/2013 9:58:15 AM, muzebreak wrote:
And you still haven't answered my question:

Are you actually saying that people should be charged with reckless driving rather then DUI?

I'm saying if someone is driving recklessly and are a danger to others, the police should get them off the road, whether it's because they didn't get their full 8 hours, took one too many hydrocodone or are .01 over the legal limit.
One shouldn't be a slap on the wrist while the other is a year in jail.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 10:17:52 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/14/2013 9:19:46 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/14/2013 9:16:37 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
When I was in Alberta they had recently passed a law outlawing eating and driving at the same time. There were signs advertising the huge fines that you would face if you were caught popping a pretzel in your mouth while behind the wheel. It's just obscene. Punish reckless driving, and punish it heavily. Not drunk driving, distracted driving, tired driving or elderly driving.

There is no crime called tired driving or elderly driving, and the last one isn't even punishable. But please do tell, why should they simply punish drunk drivers under the reckless driving laws?

I'm making an analogy; the principle is exactly the same. That the government should have the power to punish you for getting behind the wheel while under a condition which statistically increases your chance of getting in an accident. My point is that doing so is on its face absurd. There's a neighborhood bar in my town. Our town has one road in it. People will go to the bar on Thursdays, have a few drinks, then carefully and slowly drive home, for less than a mile, never going over 30 miles an hour. They aren't raving drunk, they aren't swerving into opposing traffic. They are very careful people. Yet I watch cops pull people over every Thursday across the field, who aren't driving recklessly, breathalyze them, and then slap them with charges that make their life miserable for the next few months. All because they belong to a group deemed high-risk. What is accomplished by this? Meanwhile, I read in the paper a few weeks back that a man was just arrested on his TWELFTH charge of reckless drunk driving, driving on a suspended license for, I think, the third time. Would it not make more sense to consider driving a privilege, not a right, to suspend a license after much less points have accrued, to dedicate our police force to catching people who are actually speeding instead of sitting at the gas station farming tickets to earn themselves a new cappuccino machine? It's gotten to the point where local drag races are held on Thursday because everyone knows that the cops will be occupied. Then, when a license is suspended, make the sentence for driving with one mandatory jail time. But milquetoast penalties for actual dangerous driving and disproportionately harsh punishments for driving after a few drinks is just stupid policy driven by hysteria and what amounts to brainwashing by the likes of MADD, who support such moronic policies as raising the drinking age even higher.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 10:19:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/14/2013 10:14:13 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/14/2013 10:08:01 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 4/14/2013 9:49:55 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/14/2013 9:37:25 AM, lewis20 wrote:
Forgetting the anecdotal evidence which says texting is worst
http://www.cnbc.com...

What the heck proof is two guys doing an independent test? Do you seriously expect me to trust those results?

I will agree, after doing some research, that it seems that texting while driving apparently reduces ones reaction time worse then a .08 blood alcohol level, the legal limit in most states. But you should really learn the difference between a credible experiment, like a double blind study, and an incredible experiment, like this one.

Alright, let me get this straight, I'm wrong, but I'm right, but I'm wrong? I'm right for the wrong reasons or I'm right but didn't give you enough enough although you know that I'm right?
Long story short I'm correct that texting is worst than being slightly over the legal limit?

As I have said, very clearly; I agree that there is good evidence to support the idea that texting while driving lowers reaction time more then having a .08 blood alcohol level, which is the legal limit in most states.

But you need to learn what is good evidence, and what is bad evidence. What you gave, was bad evidence.

Now, what is your point in stating that texting while driving is worse then driving above the legal limit?

If I were making a disputed claim I'd have posted more than the first article that popped up in google.
The point is that the person texting behind the wheel is a greater danger to other drivers than the person just over the legal limit, yet the less dangerous driver will be thrown in jail and have their license revoked.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 10:20:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/14/2013 10:12:57 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 4/14/2013 9:54:58 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/14/2013 9:42:34 AM, lewis20 wrote:
Drunk driving laws are clearly dis proportional, fall asleep and hit a tree then get buzzed and hit a tree, if alcohol is found in your system you're getting in a lot more trouble.


That's because falling asleep at the wheel isn't against the law. And it also isn't voluntary. While drinking and driving is both.

Getting behind the wheel while sleepy and sleep deprived ins't voluntary?

Don't put words in my mouth. I did not say that. I said falling asleep while driving is not voluntary. Getting behind the wheel is while tired is voluntary, and as I said; legislation is being discussed on the matter.

Also would falling asleep behind the wheel being legal have any bearing on the fact that it's as dangerous as drunk driving?

Is it? And at what level of tiredness does it start. In fact, for that matter, how do we measure tiredness?

This isn't as simple a matter as drunk driving, so don't treat it as such.


There is, on the other hand, talk of making it against the law to drive while drowsy. But the issue would be in determining whether one is drowsy whole behind the wheel..

Right, you can try to outlaw every plausible reason to drive recklessly, or you could simply outlaw driving recklessly, no matter the reason.

Drunk driving, tired driving, and any other kind of impaired driving do not necessarily involve reckless driving.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 10:22:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
To the point about discharging a firearm within city limits, that is correct in being a local level issue. The federal government shouldn't place a national ban on it. If the town of a 1000 people in rural Iowa wants to make shooting guns within their 'city' limits legal, that should be perfectly fine. Just because Chicago doesn't want people shooting guns within the city limits doesn't mean there should be a national ban on it.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 10:24:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/14/2013 10:20:37 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/14/2013 10:12:57 AM, lewis20 wrote:
Also would falling asleep behind the wheel being legal have any bearing on the fact that it's as dangerous as drunk driving?

Is it?

Do you disagree? That falling asleep while driving is more dangerous than someone driving with a buzz?
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 10:25:32 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/14/2013 10:20:37 AM, muzebreak wrote:
Drunk driving, tired driving, and any other kind of impaired driving do not necessarily involve reckless driving.

Exactly, so why should there be checkpoints and extremely harsh penalties to check for one but not the others?
Shouldn't we just punish the reckless drivers?
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 10:26:59 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/14/2013 10:20:37 AM, muzebreak wrote:
Don't put words in my mouth. I did not say that. I said falling asleep while driving is not voluntary. Getting behind the wheel is while tired is voluntary, and as I said; legislation is being discussed on the matter.

How can you separate getting behind the wheel while tired and falling asleep behind the wheel?
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 10:30:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/14/2013 10:20:37 AM, muzebreak wrote:
Is it? And at what level of tiredness does it start. In fact, for that matter, how do we measure tiredness?

This isn't as simple a matter as drunk driving, so don't treat it as such.

You're exactly right it's not a simple matter, neither is drunk driving. A functioning alcoholic can drive perfectly fine at .1 yet a small driver whose never consumed alcohol might be a terrible risk at .08.

The point is that there's no simple metric for either of these actions and no simple and fair way to prevent them. There is however a way to stop drivers who, for whatever reason, are not driving in a safe fashion.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 10:32:32 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/14/2013 10:19:01 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 4/14/2013 10:14:13 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/14/2013 10:08:01 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 4/14/2013 9:49:55 AM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/14/2013 9:37:25 AM, lewis20 wrote:
Forgetting the anecdotal evidence which says texting is worst
http://www.cnbc.com...

What the heck proof is two guys doing an independent test? Do you seriously expect me to trust those results?

I will agree, after doing some research, that it seems that texting while driving apparently reduces ones reaction time worse then a .08 blood alcohol level, the legal limit in most states. But you should really learn the difference between a credible experiment, like a double blind study, and an incredible experiment, like this one.

Alright, let me get this straight, I'm wrong, but I'm right, but I'm wrong? I'm right for the wrong reasons or I'm right but didn't give you enough enough although you know that I'm right?
Long story short I'm correct that texting is worst than being slightly over the legal limit?

As I have said, very clearly; I agree that there is good evidence to support the idea that texting while driving lowers reaction time more then having a .08 blood alcohol level, which is the legal limit in most states.

But you need to learn what is good evidence, and what is bad evidence. What you gave, was bad evidence.

Now, what is your point in stating that texting while driving is worse then driving above the legal limit?

If I were making a disputed claim I'd have posted more than the first article that popped up in google.
The point is that the person texting behind the wheel is a greater danger to other drivers than the person just over the legal limit, yet the less dangerous driver will be thrown in jail and have their license revoked.

So..... your point is essentially a tu quoque fallacy?

The most this can actually argue for is increased penalties for texting whie driving, which I definitely agree to.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 10:38:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/14/2013 10:32:32 AM, muzebreak wrote:
So..... your point is essentially a tu quoque fallacy?

The most this can actually argue for is increased penalties for texting whie driving, which I definitely agree to.

So would you be for nationwide legislation that would attempt to stamp out any activity that impairs your driving? Ban on eating while driving, texting while driving, driving while sleepy, driving on certain meds etc. ?
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2013 10:40:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/14/2013 10:30:16 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 4/14/2013 10:20:37 AM, muzebreak wrote:
Is it? And at what level of tiredness does it start. In fact, for that matter, how do we measure tiredness?

This isn't as simple a matter as drunk driving, so don't treat it as such.

You're exactly right it's not a simple matter, neither is drunk driving.

Now, it wasn't a simple matter. Now that we have done large amounts of research it is.

A functioning alcoholic can drive perfectly fine at .1

Now, see the thing is, we don't decide safety laws based on the people that have the skills to not require them, that would be absurd. We decide them based on those who don't have said skills, especially when they are the vast majority.

yet a small driver whose never consumed alcohol might be a terrible risk at .08.

Yes, and in greater amounts of such situations 'might' becomes 'guaranteed'. That is why we punish people for drinking and driving, and not only when the drinking and driving results in harm.


The point is that there's no simple metric for either of these actions and no simple and fair way to prevent them.

Actually, there is a simply metric for drinking and driving. It's called BAC, or blood alcohol content.

There is however a way to stop drivers who, for whatever reason, are not driving in a safe fashion.

Define 'safe fashion' and explain this method.
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.