Drunk driving

[Elwar]

Anyone who kills someone else while driving should be charged with manslaughter.

Not necessarily.  Some accidents are simply not avoidable.  And some people are just naturally not as skilled as others.  That is a risk I take into account every time I get on the road.  (The road built with my tax dollars, by they way.)

That in no way makes it acceptable for some people to put other peoples lives at risk against their will simply because they feel like being irresponsible.  People who do so should be punished for being irresponsible idiots and unnecessarily endangering others against their will for that indiscretion alone.  If they roll the dice and end up killing someone, they should be punished for both opting to roll the dice and for the death (or injury) resulting from their decision.  My society agrees with me.

They should still be charged. If it is found to be the person's fault then they should be convicted.

[tvbcof]

Anyone who kills someone else while driving should be charged with manslaughter.

Not necessarily.  Some accidents are simply not avoidable.  And some people are just naturally not as skilled as others.  That is a risk I take into account every time I get on the road.  (The road built with my tax dollars, by they way.)
...

They should still be charged. If it is found to be the person's fault then they should be convicted.

It's tempting to argue this from the 'limited government red tape' perspective, but...

I'm sure if I killed someone for any reason I'd feel terrible about it.  The details of many, if not most, fatal accidents are probably pretty clear and it would ordinarily be just fine to clean up the mess without undue hardship, but...

I will bet that there are more than a few cases where the participant(s) are known to the authorities and are let off the hook due to their social rank or for good-old-boy reasons.  I would not be adverse to enforcing a formalized no-exception process for clearing anyone of manslaughter no matter what the circumstances.

[myrkul]

Anyone who kills someone else while driving should be charged with manslaughter.

Not necessarily.  Some accidents are simply not avoidable.  And some people are just naturally not as skilled as others.  That is a risk I take into account every time I get on the road.  (The road built with my tax dollars, by they way.)

Do you also take into account that some of those drivers may be impaired?

[teodor87]

Bottomline: drinking and driving is not a good idea. Unless you want to die or kill an innocent.

[tvbcof]

Anyone who kills someone else while driving should be charged with manslaughter.

Not necessarily.  Some accidents are simply not avoidable.  And some people are just naturally not as skilled as others.  That is a risk I take into account every time I get on the road.  (The road built with my tax dollars, by they way.)

Do you also take into account that some of those drivers may be impaired?

Of course.  I'm not naive enough to think that someone people don't break the law.  In fact my father was a terrible menace and it's just good luck that he never killed anyone.  Thankfully they took his licence or he probably would have.  (Oddly he still had a pilot's license though.)

I am also fully aware that if the laws didn't exist at all, or if society accepted such behavior, the risks to myself and my family would be much higher.  That's a non-starter to me...and for the umpteenth time, to most other clear thinking and semi-responsible people in our society as well.

In the same general vein, I am a gun owner also even though the law says that nobody should be breaking and entering my place or stealing my property.

[myrkul]

Anyone who kills someone else while driving should be charged with manslaughter.

Not necessarily.  Some accidents are simply not avoidable.  And some people are just naturally not as skilled as others.  That is a risk I take into account every time I get on the road.  (The road built with my tax dollars, by they way.)

Do you also take into account that some of those drivers may be impaired?

Of course. 

Good. Then you can not claim that drunk drivers are putting you at risk against your will. You knowingly put yourself at risk by getting on the road after taking into consideration that some of the other drivers may be impaired.

I am also fully aware that if the laws didn't exist at all, or if society accepted such behavior, the risks to myself and my family would be much higher.  That's a non-starter to me...and for the umpteenth time, to most other clear thinking and semi-responsible people in our society as well.

I'll agree that if society accepted such behavior then it would indeed be more common. But do you honestly think that the law prevents drunk driving? Drunks, after all, are not a group of people known for their good judgment. The law against drunk driving doesn't stop people from driving drunk. It provides for punishment if they do. And by narrowly focusing on drunkenness, it neglects many other forms of impairment. I've used them as examples earlier in the conversation. Tiredness. Distraction. Anger. Should we punish a person who drives angry? Or with a full bladder? And if a person causes an accident, does it really matter why?

Elwar has the right of it. Hold all accidents to the same standard, and make the guilty party pay, instead of punishing people before they've harmed anyone.

[tvbcof]

I am also fully aware that if the laws didn't exist at all, or if society accepted such behavior, the risks to myself and my family would be much higher.  That's a non-starter to me...and for the umpteenth time, to most other clear thinking and semi-responsible people in our society as well.

I'll agree that if society accepted such behavior then it would indeed be more common. But do you honestly think that the law prevents drunk driving? Drunks, after all, are not a group of people known for their good judgment. The law against drunk driving doesn't stop people from driving drunk.  ...

Hogwash.  The perception of drunk driving and the incidence of it have gone way down as awareness, laws, and penalties have gone up.

People who would drive drunk are not universally stupid.  The enourmous cost has a significant impact on influencing their actions and many lives have been saved because of it.  Possibly even your own and you'll never know it.

Elwar has the right of it. Hold all accidents to the same standard, and make the guilty party pay, instead of punishing people before they've harmed anyone.

That's fine for people who are ambivalent about the difference between:

 - no accident, or

 - dead self/spouse/kid and some money + payback.

As always, most people draw a distinction and agree with my way of thinking.

[myrkul]

Elwar has the right of it. Hold all accidents to the same standard, and make the guilty party pay, instead of punishing people before they've harmed anyone.

That's fine for people who are ambivalent about the difference between:

 - no accident, or

 - dead self/spouse/kid and some money + payback.

As always, most people draw a distinction and agree with my way of thinking.

I certainly see a difference between no accident and accident + repayment. But you're not drawing a distinction between them. You are treating those who did not cause an accident as though they already have. And still you focus on drunkenness. Driving with a full bladder impairs your ability. Should we prosecute people who drive when they have to pee?

[tvbcof]

Elwar has the right of it. Hold all accidents to the same standard, and make the guilty party pay, instead of punishing people before they've harmed anyone.

That's fine for people who are ambivalent about the difference between:

 - no accident, or

 - dead self/spouse/kid and some money + payback.

As always, most people draw a distinction and agree with my way of thinking.

I certainly see a difference between no accident and accident + repayment. But you're not drawing a distinction between them. You are treating those who did not cause an accident as though they already have. And still you focus on drunkenness. Driving with a full bladder impairs your ability. Should we prosecute people who drive when they have to pee?

If/when it is a factor in 1/3 of the traffic fatalities, ya, probably.

Particularly if it is completely common knowledge that driving with a full bladder kills thousands of people, it is completely trivial to empty one's bladder and thus not expose others to the danger, and the people who are driving with a full bladder do it so for their own perverse enjoyment like boozers do.

[myrkul]

Driving with a full bladder impairs your ability. Should we prosecute people who drive when they have to pee?

If/when it is a factor in 1/3 of the traffic fatalities, ya, probably.

What about sleepy?

In fact, one in every six deadly car crashes results from a fatigue-impaired driver, estimates the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Perfectly legal, except in Jersey. My point is that you're not punishing impairment, you're punishing blood content.

Particularly if it is completely common knowledge that driving with a full bladder kills thousands of people, it is completely trivial to empty one's bladder and thus not expose others to the danger, and the people who are driving with a full bladder do it so for their own perverse enjoyment like boozers do.

It was my understanding that drunk drivers drive drunk because they want to go somewhere (typically, home), and are drunk. I was not aware they are getting a sick thrill from it. Do you have a study that shows that, or is that just your personal opinion?

[tvbcof]

Driving with a full bladder impairs your ability. Should we prosecute people who drive when they have to pee?

If/when it is a factor in 1/3 of the traffic fatalities, ya, probably.

What about sleepy?

In fact, one in every six deadly car crashes results from a fatigue-impaired driver, estimates the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Perfectly legal, except in Jersey. My point is that you're not punishing impairment, you're punishing blood content.

Particularly if it is completely common knowledge that driving with a full bladder kills thousands of people, it is completely trivial to empty one's bladder and thus not expose others to the danger, and the people who are driving with a full bladder do it so for their own perverse enjoyment like boozers do.

It was my understanding that drunk drivers drive drunk because they want to go somewhere (typically, home), and are drunk. I was not aware they are getting a sick thrill from it. Do you have a study that shows that, or is that just your personal opinion?

Boozers make a choice to go away from home and get hammered, and they do so for their own personal enjoyment.  If they drive, everyone else on the road absorbs the cost in terms of extra risk, and most importantly, the fellow travelers do not agree to subsidize the boozers enjoyment.  That is, in fact, why most of us support laws against drunk driving.

Even as a stupid-ass kid in the army we all took turns being a designated driver and planned it out ahead of time.  It is the common-sense decent thing to do, and we would have don't it even if the laws were not so harsh and probably even if they did not exist at all.  I've got no sympathy for someone who lacks this kind of decency and zero interest in taking on the extra risk needed to support their habits.

Everyone gets sleepy and there is nothing anyone can do about it.  Only first-class losers go out on the road drunk.  There is a difference that most people see.  That said, it is irresponsible to drive when one is totally exhausted also, and if they do so with extreme negligence and kill someone because of it then they should suffer the consequences as well.  Jury of one's peers...it can be a bitch...cry me a river.

[myrkul]

That said, it is irresponsible to drive when one is totally exhausted also, and if they do so with extreme negligence and kill someone because of it then they should suffer the consequences as well.  Jury of one's peers...it can be a bitch...cry me a river.

I agree. It is irresponsible to drive impaired, for whatever reason. And if you cause an accident - again, for whatever reason - you should suffer the consequences. But I don't think anyone should be punished for pre-crime. Merely getting on the road increases the risk for every other driver on that road. If you really want to limit risk, we should outlaw driving entirely.

[tvbcof]

That said, it is irresponsible to drive when one is totally exhausted also, and if they do so with extreme negligence and kill someone because of it then they should suffer the consequences as well.  Jury of one's peers...it can be a bitch...cry me a river.

I agree. It is irresponsible to drive impaired, for whatever reason. And if you cause an accident - again, for whatever reason - you should suffer the consequences. But I don't think anyone should be punished for pre-crime. Merely getting on the road increases the risk for every other driver on that road. If you really want to limit risk, we should outlaw driving entirely.

Balance of reason.  That's how democracy works (and pretty much every other social system for that matter.)  Suck it up...or move to one of the Libertarian or Anarchist micro-nations if you can catch one before it goes defunct.

[Elwar]

We would likely not care one bit about people drunk on the roads if it were not for the fact that the ancient government road technology has not been improved upon in over 100 years.

Telephones were only a government monopoly and hardly changed technology for 50 years. We have come a long way since the monopoly was lifted. Imagine if we had done the same with roads at the time. People would not be driving their cars anymore, the smart roads would.

[myrkul]

That said, it is irresponsible to drive when one is totally exhausted also, and if they do so with extreme negligence and kill someone because of it then they should suffer the consequences as well.  Jury of one's peers...it can be a bitch...cry me a river.

I agree. It is irresponsible to drive impaired, for whatever reason. And if you cause an accident - again, for whatever reason - you should suffer the consequences. But I don't think anyone should be punished for pre-crime. Merely getting on the road increases the risk for every other driver on that road. If you really want to limit risk, we should outlaw driving entirely.

Balance of reason.  That's how democracy works (and pretty much every other social system for that matter.)  Suck it up...or move to one of the Libertarian or Anarchist micro-nations if you can catch one before it goes defunct.

Democracy is based on a logical fallacy: that three men make a tiger.

Would you like to know how I would fix the problem? (no, it's not by letting everyone drive drunk on all the roads.)

[ripbitinstant]

Would you like to know how I would fix the problem?

I would. Please proceed...

[tvbcof]

That said, it is irresponsible to drive when one is totally exhausted also, and if they do so with extreme negligence and kill someone because of it then they should suffer the consequences as well.  Jury of one's peers...it can be a bitch...cry me a river.

I agree. It is irresponsible to drive impaired, for whatever reason. And if you cause an accident - again, for whatever reason - you should suffer the consequences. But I don't think anyone should be punished for pre-crime. Merely getting on the road increases the risk for every other driver on that road. If you really want to limit risk, we should outlaw driving entirely.

Balance of reason.  That's how democracy works (and pretty much every other social system for that matter.)  Suck it up...or move to one of the Libertarian or Anarchist micro-nations if you can catch one before it goes defunct.

Democracy is based on a logical fallacy: that three men make a tiger.

It's working acceptably well for me and most of the people I know, but YMMV.  Working as well as can be expected, though there is certainly room for improvement.  And welcoming drunk drivers to menace everyone who wishes to get from point-A to point-B is hardly along the the lines of what would appeal to most people.

Would you like to know how I would fix the problem? (no, it's not by letting everyone drive drunk on all the roads.)

My solution would be along the lines of subsidizing the aformentioned micro-nations enough to keep them operational and thus, hopefully, help keep the BFL types from contaminating ours.

[myrkul]

Would you like to know how I would fix the problem?

I would. Please proceed...

Well, I've pointed out three main problems:
1) Public property means it's their road too.
2) We're currently punishing blood content instead of impairment
3) We're treating people who have harmed no one like criminals

The first one is as simple as defining the problem. Public property is the problem, so private property is the solution. Privately owned roads would allow the owners to set the rules for people who drive on them. There could, theoretically be roads which allowed people to drive impaired (which would likely be deathtraps - Darwin at work) and roads which did not allow people to drive impaired. People could then decide how much risk they wanted to take, rather than being forced into a one-size fits all risk plan.

The answer to the second one follows from the first. Private road owners who prohibit impairment would probably like to keep their insurance rates down, as well as make it as pleasant as possible to use their roads, so as to increase their customers. To this end, they would likely want to make sure that impaired drivers don't cause accidents. The surest way, of course, is to remove all the impaired drivers from the road. With the option of taking the other road open to them, fewer will drive on the road that prohibits their behavior, but for those that do, an arbitrary blood alcohol content is a poor indicator of impairment, especially for the other forms of impairment I've mentioned. Therefore, impairment testing, such as the "road sobriety test" and various other more high-tech means, would likely replace the breathalyser or blood tests as measures of impairment. Being private property, the road owners can set punishment for driving impaired, but being business owners, would likely limit this to refusal of service (ie banning from that road).

And finally, by holding all accidents to the same standard, regardless of why the responsible party caused them, and requiring that they pay restitution, you hold the driver responsible for their actions. This, I think, will greatly reduce all forms of irresponsible driving, from drunkenness to road rage. True, restitution does not return a lost loved one, but neither will paying for caging a man, and at least he's supporting you in your time of need, instead of the other way around.

My solution would be along the lines of subsidizing the aformentioned micro-nations enough to keep them operational and thus, hopefully, help keep the BFL types from contaminating ours.

You're assuming they wouldn't end up subsidizing the welfare states to keep the leeches from contaminating them.

[ripbitinstant]

Would you like to know how I would fix the problem?

I would. Please proceed...

Therefore, impairment testing, such as the "road sobriety test" and various other more high-tech means, would likely replace the breathalyser or blood tests as measures of impairment.

But is this possible/feasible? Is there really a way to measure sleepiness or distractedness or whatever else? If there is, your idea I think is something I would agree with.

I'ven't ever heard a plan like this, but it is indeed quite intriguing, particularly the last paragraph.

[tvbcof]

Would you like to know how I would fix the problem?

I would. Please proceed...

Well, I've pointed out three main problems:
1) Public property means it's their road too.
2) We're currently punishing blood content instead of impairment
3) We're treating people who have harmed no one like criminals

The first one is as simple as defining the problem. Public property is the problem, so private property is the solution. Privately owned roads would allow the owners to set the rules for people who drive on them. There could, theoretically be roads which allowed people to drive impaired (which would likely be deathtraps - Darwin at work) and roads which did not allow people to drive impaired. People could then decide how much risk they wanted to take, rather than being forced into a one-size fits all risk plan.

The answer to the second one follows from the first. Private road owners who prohibit impairment would probably like to keep their insurance rates down, as well as make it as pleasant as possible to use their roads, so as to increase their customers. To this end, they would likely want to make sure that impaired drivers don't cause accidents. The surest way, of course, is to remove all the impaired drivers from the road. With the option of taking the other road open to them, fewer will drive on the road that prohibits their behavior, but for those that do, an arbitrary blood alcohol content is a poor indicator of impairment, especially for the other forms of impairment I've mentioned. Therefore, impairment testing, such as the "road sobriety test" and various other more high-tech means, would likely replace the breathalyser or blood tests as measures of impairment. Being private property, the road owners can set punishment for driving impaired, but being business owners, would likely limit this to refusal of service (ie banning from that road).

And finally, by holding all accidents to the same standard, regardless of why the responsible party caused them, and requiring that they pay restitution, you hold the driver responsible for their actions. This, I think, will greatly reduce all forms of irresponsible driving, from drunkenness to road rage. True, restitution does not return a lost loved one, but neither will paying for caging a man, and at least he's supporting you in your time of need, instead of the other way around.

My solution would be along the lines of subsidizing the aformentioned micro-nations enough to keep them operational and thus, hopefully, help keep the BFL types from contaminating ours.

You're assuming they wouldn't end up subsidizing the welfare states to keep the leeches from contaminating them.

Oh, I see.  A fascist state to solve three problems which don't exist.  What a great idea!  I again vote to chip in to keep one of the LFC style micro-nations where they attempt such a thing alive for long enough to see how it works out.  It would probably be entertaining enough that a media conglomerate could make money with a reality TV show and thus they might even be able to pull their own weight for a while.