Reason Magazine

previous link

=20 REASON.TV VIDEO:Michigan=20 Bar Owners Ban Lawmakers for Banning Smoking! (Nanny=E2=80=A6 = (9.1)=20
=20 REASON.TV VIDEO:Reason-Rupe=20 Poll: Do Americans Feel Safer After 9/11, TSA, and=E2=80=A6 = (9.1)=20
=20 REASON.TV VIDEO:Matt=20 Welch Talks About Subsidized Homeowner Insurance on=E2=80=A6 = (8.31)=20
=20 REASON.TV VIDEO:George=20 Gilder on "The Israel Test," Obama, the Internet...and=E2=80=A6 = (8.31)=20
=20 REASON.TV VIDEO:Matt=20 Welch Discusses Hurricane Hype, Obama's Jobs Plan, and=E2=80=A6 = (8.30)=20
=20 REASON.TV VIDEO:Americans=20 Want to Cut Spending: Q&A with Emily Ekins on new=E2=80=A6 = (8.30)=20
=20 REASON.TV VIDEO:Gov.=20 Gary Johnson: Cut Spending by 43% - and Cut Social = Issues=E2=80=A6 (8.30)=20
=20 REASON.TV VIDEO:Freedom,=20 Science Fiction and the Singularity: A conversation=E2=80=A6 = (8.29)=20
=20 REASON.TV VIDEO:Investor Don Smith on the=20 Economy (8.26)
=20 REASON.TV VIDEO:Romney Edges = Perry in New=20 Reason-Rupe Poll; (8.25)

next link

=E2=9C=95

=
=
more sharing
- StumbleUpon
- Digg
- Reddit

close video

Print|Email=20

Abolish=20 Drunk Driving Laws

If lawmakers are serious about saving lives, they should focus on=20 impairment, not alcohol.

Radley Balko | October 11, 2010

Last week Austin Police Chief Art Acevedo advocated=20 creating a new criminal offense: "driving while ability impaired." The = problem=20 with the current Texas law prohibiting "driving while intoxicated" = (DWI),=20 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=20 impairment.

"People sometimes focus on how many drinks they can have before = they'll go to=20 jail," Acevedo told the Austin-American Statesman. "It = varies=E2=80=A6.A person=20 may be intoxicated at 0.05, and you don't want them out driving." = Acevedo wants=20 to be able to arrest people with BAC levels as low as 0.05 percent, and = he may=20 have support for that idea in the state legislature. John Whitmire = (D-Houston),=20 chairman of the state Senate's Criminal Justice Committee, told the=20 Statesman Acevedo's plan "might be one way to go," adding, = "Some people=20 shouldn't be driving after one drink=E2=80=94probably below the 0.08 = limit=E2=80=94and this=20 could address that."

Bill Lewis, head of the Texas chapter of Mothers Against Drunk = Driving,=20 agreed. "I don't see how it would hurt," he told the paper. "The level = of 0.08=20 is where we know most people are good and drunk...and there are people = who are=20 driving at less than the limit who probably should not be. It might keep = some=20 people from driving [drunk] again."

Acevedo, Whitmore, and Lewis are right, although probably not in the = way they=20 intended. People do react to alcohol differently. For many people one = drink may=20 well be too many, while experienced drinkers can function relatively = normally=20 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=20 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=20 drawing an arbitrary, breathalyzer-based line between sobriety and = criminal=20 intoxication.

The right solution, however, is not to push the artificial line back = farther.=20 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=20 standards to 0.08 from 0.10. At the time, the average BAC in = alcohol-related=20 fatal accidents was 0.17, and two-thirds of such accidents involved = drivers with=20 BACs of 0.14 or higher. In fact, drivers with BACs between 0.01 and 0.03 = were=20 involved in more fatal accidents than drivers with BACs between 0.08 and = 0.10.=20 (The federal government classifies a fatal accident as "alcohol-related" = if it=20 involved a driver, a biker, or a pedestrian with a BAC of 0.01 or more, = whether=20 or not drinking actually contributed to the accident.) In 1995 the = National=20 Highway Traffic Safety Administration studied traffic data in 30 safety=20 categories from the first five states to adopt the new DWI standard. In = 21 of=20 the 30 categories, those states were either no different from or less = safe than=20 the rest of the country.

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

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

Checkpoints are only the beginning of what California DWI attorney = Lawrence=20 Taylor calls=20 "the drunk driving exception to the Constitution." The Fifth Amendment = right=20 against self-incrimination has been turned upside down by state laws = that=20 instantly suspend the licenses of drivers who refuse to take roadside = breath=20 tests. Those breath tests are also fraught with problems. Most = manufacturers of=20 breath test machines have refused=20 to turn over their source code, meaning DWI defendants can't assess the=20 machines' m= argin of=20 error, which can be a significant factor in a case where the = difference=20 between 0.80 and 0.79 for a first offense can be $1,000 or more in = fines,=20 mandatory alcohol awareness classes, and loss of driving privileges for = up to a=20 year.

Blood tests are far more accurate, but by the time a driver is pulled = over,=20 questioned, taken to the nearest hospital, and had his blood drawn, his = BAC may=20 be significantly different from what it was when he was driving. = Perversely, the=20 time lapse can have the effect of protecting guiltier motorists. Imagine = a=20 driver pulled over or stopped at a checkpoint after having "one for the = road,"=20 knowing his house is a short drive away and the last drink won't kick in = until=20 he's sitting on his couch. At the time he is stopped, he is under the = legal=20 limit. But his BAC is rising, and it tops 0.08 by the time his blood is = drawn at=20 the hospital. By contrast, a driver who is impaired when he's pulled = over, but=20 who stopped drinking an hour or so before, benefits from the delay, = since his=20 BAC is falling by the time he arrives at the hospital.

Many states have tried to solve this problem by claiming another = invasive=20 power: They are now allowing police to forcibly take=20 a blood sample on the side of the road.

These ever-expanding enforcement powers miss the point: The threat = posed by=20 drunk driving comes not from drinking per se but from the impairment = drinking=20 can cause. That fact has been lost in the rush to demonize people who = have even=20 a single drink before getting behind the wheel (exemplified by the shift = in the=20 government's message from "Don't Drive Drunk" to "Don't Drink and = Drive").=20 Several studies have found that talking on a cell phone, even with a = hands-free=20 device, causes more driver impairment than a 0.08 BAC. A 2001 American=20 Automobile Association study found several other in-car distractions = that also=20 caused more impairment, including eating, adjusting a radio or CD = player, and=20 having kids in the backseat (for more on such studies, see the 2005 paper I wrote on = alcohol=20 policy for the Cato Institute).

If our ultimate goals are to reduce driver impairment and maximize = highway=20 safety, we should be punishing reckless driving. It shouldn't matter if = it's=20 caused by alcohol, sleep deprivation, prescription medication, text = messaging,=20 or road rage. If lawmakers want to stick it to dangerous drivers who = threaten=20 everyone else on the road, they can dial up the civil and criminal = liability for=20 reckless driving, especially in cases that result in injury or property=20 damage.

Doing away with the specific charge of drunk driving sounds radical = at first=20 blush, but it would put the focus back on impairment, where it belongs. = It might=20 repair some of the civil-liberties damage done by the invasive powers = the=20 government says it needs to catch and convict drunk drivers. If the = offense were=20 reckless driving rather than drunk driving, for example, repeated = swerving over=20 the median line would be enough to justify the charge. There would be no = need=20 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=20 laws would also bring some logical consistency to our laws, which treat = a driver=20 with a BAC of 0.08 much more harshly than, say, a driver distracted by = his kids=20 or a cell phone call, despite similar levels of impairment. The = punishable act=20 should be violating road rules or causing an accident, not the factors = that led=20 to those offenses. Singling out alcohol impairment for extra punishment = isn't=20 about making the roads safer. It's about a lingering hostility toward = demon=20 rum.

Radley Balko is a senior = editor=20 at Reason magazine.

Reason needs your support. Please donate = today!

Tweet
more sharing
- StumbleUpon
- Digg
- Reddit

Try=20 Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if = you are=20 not completely satisfied.

See=20 all 369 comments | Leave=20 a comment

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that = they be=20 civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for=20 comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not=20 represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the = right to=20 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.

=20

Chony|10.11.10=20 @ 12:46PM|#

Murderer!

=20

David|10.11.10=20 @ 1:34PM|#

Communist!

=20

|10.11.10 @ 1:45PM|#

Communist murderer!

=20

DeSelby|10.11.10 @ 2:06PM|#

That one could be construed as a compliment.

=20

antonio|10.11.10 @ 10:45PM|#

Murderer that follows communist ideals!

=20

The=20 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=20 advocated a simple test for impairment. A Reaction Time Recording Device = (RTRD)=20 could be mass produced for a very low price (probably well under $50). = It would=20 have three large buttons with lights built into them (like "tap lights") = in a=20 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=20 hold the other hand behind the back. The driver places the test hand on = the=20 center button and holds it down. After a random 1-5 second delay, one of = the=20 other two buttons will light up. The driver is then to pull the test = hand off=20 the original button and hit the lit button. This process repeats until = 12=20 buttons have been lit and pressed. The system records the time between = light and=20 press, throws out the shortest and longest trials, leaving 10 samples = from which=20 an average is computed by adding them together and shifting the decimal = point=20 (making the math very simple, to keep the cost of the device down). The = law=20 would specify a maximum reaction time for an unrestricted license (drive = anywhere anytime) and a longer maximum for restrictions such as "no = interstate=20 highways".

The entire operation can be recorded on video (including the splits = showing=20 up on a display on the device) for admission into the trial record. The = whole=20 test should take under a minute.

=20

ElCiD|10.25.10=20 @ 5:14PM|#

I always thought that playing Simon should be the standardized test = for=20 driving.

=20

|10.11.10 @ 12:08PM|#

While I can't disagree with any of the arguments made in this = article, I=20 think Mr. Balko does himself a great disservice when he encourages = people to=20 throw shoes at a sitting President of the United States. He also is a=20 sympathizer of anarchists groups and likes to eat tomatoes that are = grown within=20 a 3 mile area of where he lives.

=20

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

Locavore!

=20

Top Notes|10.11.10 @ 2:45PM|#

It's Twist and Shout!

=20

|10.12.10 @ 2:32AM|#

Actually he probably doesn't eat tomatoes that are grown with in 3 = miles of=20 his house. If he believes in free markets he won't listen to the buy = local=20 garbage.

=20

|10.12.10 @ 3:40AM|#

No kidding, I totally agree with you. There is something = fundamentally weird=20 with these local eater people that blows my mind. There is nothing = libertarian=20 about paying $7 a pound for tomatoes instead of $2.79 at the Piggly = Wiggly or=20 WalMart. Here's the deal, Balko and a few others at Reason are not = really=20 libertarians, they're liberals. About late 2007 they were given jobs to = write=20 stories that attack the American way of life from a new bull shit angle = called=20 left-libertarian. It's really just being a liberal and occasionally = attacking=20 both sides, but since nobody listens to Time or Newsweek anymore let's = try=20 another angle. So now we have Obama and the country is in real trouble. = Maybe if=20 we could get that guy in Iraq to throw a shoe at Obama.

=20

JohnD|10.12.10=20 @ 9:21AM|#

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

=20

|10.14.10 @ 1:26PM|#

If you're using some "locavore" fad-following to prove someone isn't = a=20 libertarian, then you aren't proving anything. What he chooses to do = with HIS=20 own money is HIS business, not yours.

=20

|10.16.10 @ 5:01AM|#

Being a locavore is just one of many symptoms for Mr. Balko. Go to = his=20 personal website agitator.com and you will see that he has a large = following of=20 anarchists, routinely makes fun of the tea party (all though he likes = Rand=20 Paul), hates Bush and buys into all the kook 9/11 DailyKos crap. He's a = liberal,=20 which is fine, it's the dishonesty I hate.

=20

|10.11.10 @ 12:10PM|#

the fascist states of america.

don't worry if you haven't actually harmed anyone or anything, they = will=20 throw you in jail.

=20

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

We are all accidents waiting to happen.

=20

Edwin|10.11.10=20 @ 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 -=20 that drunk driving should be completely legal. That you should only be=20 prosecutable AFTER you've hit someone. That's fucking retarded. When = you're=20 driving drunk, you're creating a serious risk, which is an externality. = Can I=20 set up some wood targets in the middle of a public park, and start = target=20 practicing, let's say, facing the playground? Hey, you have no right to = stop me=20 UNTIL I actually shoot one of the kids!!!

Seriously, fucking admit it. Only libertarians are THIS FUCKING = RETARDED on a=20 regular basis (not that all libertarians are this stupid, but such = idiots pop up=20 disproportionately in libertarian circles).
I mean OMG this kind of = shit is=20 SO STUPID. It fucking makes me ashamed that you're part of the same = species as I=20 am.

=20

Edwin|10.11.10=20 @ 1:16PM|#

How long is it going to take before someone admits that retards like = this=20 show up way too much in libertarianism?

=20

Edwin|10.11.10=20 @ 1:16PM|#

and someone making a snide comment assuming I'm a leftist/liberal in = 3...=20 2... 1...

=20

PeeDub|10.11.10=20 @ 1:49PM|#

I just assume you can't read.

=20

|10.11.10 @ 2:06PM|#

You don't have to be a "leftist/liberal". The "right" has just as = many=20 statists, badge fluffers and safety nazis.

=20

rriord2|10.11.10 @ 5:32PM|#

Yes, a bi-partisan initiative leading to the industrial world's = highest=20 drinking age:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Minimum_Drinking_Age= _Act

=20

rriord2|10.11.10 @ 5:33PM|#

Yes, abolish the drinking age! Don't leftists want to be more like = Germany=20 and Belgium anyways?

=20

|10.11.10 @ 2:42PM|#

Did you even read the article?

=20

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

Good god. I have a vastly more libertarian solution. Stop policing = the roads=20 entirely. But sell them to private owners first! The auto-based transit = system=20 in this country is totally socialist in its origins and current=20 implementation.

=20

|10.11.10 @ 2:56PM|#

That's not a bad idea, but I can tell you this: if you sold a road to = a=20 private investor, there is no way he would let you drive it = with any=20 alcohol at all in your blood. Who needs that kind of risk to your = precious=20 investment?

Furthermore, there'd be none of this hide-n-seek game with = enforcement=20 officers trying to catch you on the road. You'd have to submit to a = breath test=20 before you were even allowed on the road. And if you ever = tested=20 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 --=20 your only car, a new one you like, and for which your back is breaking = with=20 payments. If he arrives saying he's had a drink or two, but nooo=20 problem, are you going to hand over the keys and figure you'll sue = him=20 later if he screws up? Ha ha.

This isn't an argument for or against government prohibiting = driving=20 drunk. In the main I agree with Balko. I'm just pointing out that a=20 private investor, with much more than the lives of random = citizens (for=20 which the government bears zero liability) at risk, is going to be = much=20 more careful to prohibit dangerous behaviour up front. And with no = concern at=20 all for Constitutional concerns, because the Constitution doesn't apply = to=20 private property.

=20

|10.11.10 @ 7:44PM|#

Private roads would have their own natural limits to these sorts of = arcane=20 measures. If one road allows for more risk than others in terms of = "drunk"=20 driving, that road will get business (tolls or whatever the model is = based on)=20 than the road owned by the overly conservative owner who goes out of his = way to=20 be a douche bag to his customers. I would even go so far as to say that = one=20 person might open a road parallel to another private road for the = purposes of=20 competing with it. The private owners would therefore have to find a = natural=20 balance of risk and that balance would necessarily have to land clear of = the=20 authoritarian arrangements you described, simply because people would = not be=20 interested in using that road.

Also, the law does not have to be completely silent here. If there = are laws=20 against reckless driving, but none against drunk driving, then the owner = has no=20 criminal legal recourse against the motorists he routinely checks, = therefore,=20 his only legal recourse is the civil enforcement of whatever contract = might be=20 binding between road owner and driver. At a certain point, it would = become cost=20 prohibitive to go through all of these authoritarian checks and stops, = and this=20 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=20 enforcement, the road becomes dangerous or is at least perceived as = dangerous=20 because of its overly lax enforcement so rational people will be less = inclined=20 to use at certain times, out of concern for their own safety. When this=20 mechanism kicks in, the owner will be forced to add enforcement. We see = these=20 market forces at work in bars. The safe bars are safe because the owner=20 exercises some control over who comes in, how much they drink and how = rowdy they=20 are allowed to be before they get tossed. The only problem with this = example is=20 that there are too few bars, simply because in many places it is too = difficult=20 to get a liquor license (among other barriers to entry). If the = development of=20 private roads were to be heavily regulated by the government, there = would be=20 less competition and these market forces that would keep the roads at a = safe=20 medium level of enforcement would be pulled out of alignment by local=20 monopolies.

=20

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

I am simply pointing out that no real libertarian should be = supporting=20 anything but complete privatization of the nation's communal = transportation=20 system. Once that is done, other than laws to protect personal rights = and=20 property in traditional fashion, the government should simply not be=20 involved.

=20

Joe|10.11.10 @=20 1:30PM|#

That's not what he said at all. He's saying the reason you are = impaired=20 should not matter, just that you are in fact, impaired. He is in no way = saying=20 not to arrest reckless drivers until they cause an accident. He is in = fact=20 saying the exact opposite, that more should be arrested regardless of = the=20 factors that lead to them driving recklessly.

=20

|10.11.10 @ 1:45PM|#

Damn, dude, RTFM next time:

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

=20

|10.11.10 @ 1:45PM|#

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

=20

Soonerliberty|10.11.10 @ 3:59PM|#

Except that in experiments in England and the Netherlands, less laws = lead to=20 safer driving behavior. There is also a positive externality to driving = drunk: I=20 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=20 any reason without probable cause.

Privatize the roads and you solve this. They could have much stricter = rules=20 than we do now.

Or you could rant and rave, using language like "OMG, I mean, like, = am I the=20 same specie as you, I mean, like, wow." This does wonders for your = intellectual=20 reputation.

=20

Edwin|10.11.10=20 @ 4:47PM|#

"There is also a positive externality to driving drunk: I have fun = driving=20 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=20 group?

=20

Soonerliberty|10.12.10 @ 7:49AM|#

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

=20

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

You know what's retarded? All the stone-sober Edwins of the world get = to=20 drive like complete idiots and the cops don't do shit because they're = too busy=20 collecting revenue. What were are saying is simple. ALL dangerous = drivers should=20 be treated as such, not just the drunk ones. And having a bit of beer in = your=20 tummy does not automatically make you a murderer-in-waiting.

=20

Edwin|10.12.10=20 @ 2:53PM|#

of course A beer won't, but look at what some of your compatriots are = saying,=20 they're saying a FEW beers, and multiple times I've heard libertarians = saying=20 that drunk driving laws shouldn't be there altogether. There's even a = Lew=20 Rockwell article on it:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/drunkdriving.html<= /P>

If you're going to deny that a shitload of libertarians are fucking = retarded,=20 then you're in denial

=20

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=20 that all dangerous drivers should be taken off the road, no = matter what=20 the "cause" of their poor vehicular operation? If so, why should a = dangerous=20 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=20 main problem is they are too old, or maybe to young/immature, to operate = a=20 vehicle safely. Yet these people seem to get the benefit of the doubt = that=20 someone with a .08 BAC never gets.

=20

Mike|10.12.10 @=20 5:28PM|#

You're still missing the point, retard. If you drink a few beers and = then=20 start driving down the road swerving, or driving without your lights = on... or=20 driving at a dangerously different speed than other traffic, you will = still get=20 pulled over for reckless driving. It won't matter that there's no drunk = driving=20 law, the reckless asshole will still go to jail.

=20

|10.14.10 @ 1:30PM|#

Considering some breathalyzers will register .05 BAC if you've eaten = a PIECE=20 OF BREAD, we shouldn't be using that shitty technology anyway.

=20

Educator|10.12.10 @ 7:50AM|#

"Except that in experiments in England and the Netherlands, *less* = laws lead=20 to safer driving behavior."

*Fewer*.

=20

Carston|10.11.10 @ 4:19PM|#

The justice system is in place to punish and/or provide justice for = harm=20 done. Once you begin to make laws in the name of prevention, there is no = logical=20 stopping point until the government has micromanaged every aspect of = your=20 life.

=20

Edwin|10.11.10=20 @ 4:48PM|#

Any of yous guys finally ready to admit you've got a lot of retards = in your=20 group?

=20

Brandon|10.11.10 @ 5:06PM|#

I'm sensing a lot of hostility toward the retarded here... Edwin, = where did=20 the special man touch you?

=20

Brian R|10.11.10 @ 7:41PM|#

+1 Hilarious

=20

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

Maybe he touches them.

=20

|10.14.10 @ 3:02PM|#

That depends. Are you in our group?

=20

|10.12.10 @ 1:39PM|#

"The justice system is in place to punish and/or provide justice for = harm=20 done"

Not totally true. Acting in a dangerous manner can/will also get you = in=20 trouble (and it should).

=20

|10.11.10 @ 4:51PM|#

I don't think this article advocates driving while your central = nervous=20 system is altered by a intoxicant; it advocates a more intellegent use = of police=20 observaiton and detection powers to arrest persons who are operating an=20 "intellegently" guided ballistic projectile (motor vehicle) while not = fully=20 cognizant of the task.

That is not a cognitavley impaired observation.

=20

|10.11.10 @ 5:08PM|#

I was going to impersonate a Mother = Against=20 Drunk Driving but I see Edwin already = beat me=20 to it.

=20

Knoss|10.11.10=20 @ 6:02PM|#

Not hit someone. Failing to signal or missing a stop sign or drifting = into=20 the other lane.

=20

|10.11.10 @ 6:58PM|#

When you are driving PERIOD, it is dangerous. Its not the drunkenness = that is=20 of concern here, it is the impairment.

If someone gets into a car and drives through a crowd of people = COMPLETELY=20 SOBER, it is the exact same thing as him doing it COMPLETELY DRUNK. Or = do you=20 believe that the results will somehow be better for the sober = person?

Furthermore, you seemed to have missed the paragraphs pertaining to = cops=20 being on the highway looking for ERRATIC drivers. If I am all over the = road, I=20 am either IMPAIRED or I really suck at driving, but either way, a cop = has a duty=20 at that point to stop me. How do you think you will go about prosecuting = people=20 who text while driving? Are you going to see them doing it all the time? = Do you=20 think people hold their phones up in the air for all to see when they = are=20 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=20 distraction is as bad if not worse than driving drunk in terms of = impairment,=20 but yet, it is not as easy to prove because there is no good test for = it. If I=20 am just scrolling through my recent texts, do you think they will be = able to=20 determine that objectively I was texting? No, because there is nothing = for them=20 to show the judge.

Regarding your shooting arrows in a park, nobody will let you do = this. Only=20 stupid or insane people would even want to try this. The cops are not = going to=20 arrest you for shooting arrows while being stupid, they will arrest you = for=20 shooting arrows recklessly towards children.

And if this is stupid or retarded, please feel free to educate = everyone as to=20 WHY it is stupid or retarded, because simply saying it doesnt make it = so.

=20

Brian R|10.11.10 @ 7:47PM|#

Good point - texting *is* dangerous. Therefore we should outlaw = having a=20 cellphone in the car. That's just as sensible as the "open container" = laws that=20 some states have.

Anyone who says otherwise is retarded.

=20

|10.11.10 @ 8:48PM|#

Texting isnt dangerous. Driving is dangerous. Driving while = distracted is=20 even more dangerous than just driving, but this does not mean that we = should=20 have laws against texting and driving and drinking and driving. We have = laws=20 against driving recklessly. Look for reckless driving and then arrest = those=20 people.

Arbitrarily selecting one or two distractions over all others is=20 retarded.

I was rear ended by a guy who was distracted by a hot chick on the = side of=20 the road. How would we go about preventing this? The point is, if there = was a=20 cop following this guy, they would have seen that he was not staying in = his own=20 lane, and they could arrest him for this, otherwise, they would have to = perform=20 a field boner test. Hope the dudes not wearing sweat pants.

=20

d|10.12.10 @=20 12:53AM|#

Re-adjust your snark detection settings. I think Brian R was kind of = joking=20 about the "open cell phone" laws.

=20

Brian R|10.12.10 @ 7:18PM|#

As long as the "field boner test" is administered by a hot female = cop, I'm=20 all for it!

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

=20

|10.12.10 @ 7:26PM|#

It was hard to tell. Sorry I do tend to be a bit reactionary, plus, I = wanted=20 desperately to use the field boner test example I couldn't resist.

=20

|10.12.10 @ 8:21PM|#

I worry that this test will be used to entrap people for public=20 indecency.

=20

|10.12.10 @ 4:15AM|#

What does an open container prove, other than there's an open = container in=20 the vehicle? You might as well ban fermented fruit.
Why are statists = so=20 afraid of the world? And especially, why are you afraid of the wrong = things?

=20

Botox Porcupine|10.12.10 @ 2:56PM|#

Let me begin by pointing out the irony of you calling someone stupid = whilst=20 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=20 are not against reckless and negligent criminal statutes, nor does Balko = (call=20 him a liberal if you want) purport as much.

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

=20

Edwin|10.12.10=20 @ 5:55PM|#

Bullshit. Libertarians have repeatedly said they want to legalize = drunk=20 driving and repeatedly on this thread denied thet driving drunk is = dangerous.=20 Read the thread and see my links

=20

|10.12.10 @ 7:41PM|#

I would also like to legalize firing flaming arrows into a crowd of = children=20 at the park, lobbing hand grenades at people randomly and shit = sandwiches.

When you say people want to "legalize" drunk driving, you are = obviously=20 missing the finer point of the article. "Drunk" is not the only really = bad way=20 to drive, but yet our legal system focuses heavily on BAC that it = overlooks=20 other less testable situations. Why do you need to make drunk driving = illegal=20 when reckless driving is illegal. If cops are looking to pull someone = over, they=20 should be looking for people who are reckless, if they happen to be = drunk, then=20 that is coincidental.

Driving is dangerous in and of itself. Driving drunk is dangerous. = Texting=20 while driving is dangerous. Getting your knob polished while driving is=20 dangerous. Of these three examples cops can only test for one, yet on = any given=20 day, there are probably more people texting and or getting their knob = polished=20 while driving than there are driving "drunk". Additionally, drunkeness = is a=20 condition that is hard to prove. The BAC does not tell the police if you = are=20 impaired, or even to what degree you are impaired. So instead of making = people=20 blow into a breathalyzer, sing the fucking alphabet backwards or do = fucking nose=20 touches in the middle of the road, just arrest pull over and or arrest = everyone=20 who is seen to be driving dangerously and charge them with reckless = driving. Ya=20 know what, the article says all of this and more, so instead of me = re-typing the=20 whole goddamn thing, just scroll up and read it yourself.

=20

Edwin|10.13.10=20 @ 9:18AM|#

you failed again retard.

Read the fucking comments. Read my links. I'm not commenting on this=20 particular article.
Try paying attention you fucking fuck of a=20 retard-fuck.

=20

|10.13.10 @ 7:09PM|#

Why dont you just post your goddamn links. As far as anybody is = concerned,=20 your post above is on this article. And what exactly are you trying to = prove=20 anyway. Why dont you just come out and explain your points here, because = I have=20 no fucking idea what links you are referencing.

And "fucking retarded fucked up fucktard retarded" comment in=20 3...2...1...

=20

Graham Shevlin|7.28.11 @=20 9:12PM|#

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

=20

|10.14.10 @ 1:34PM|#

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

Otherwise, I agree.

=20

|10.14.10 @ 7:16PM|#

and what species is that?

=20

|2.19.11 @ 2:44PM|#

I'll extrapolate your shooing a gun in the woods argument to the = probability=20 that every time one drives a car, hits a golf ball, etc., he might kill = someone.=20 Shall we outlaw EVERY action with possible ill outcomes? How much do you = trust=20 your government to effectively monitor and punish your everyday = behavior? You=20 might also consider that blindly attacking others' intelligence reflects = more on=20 the attacker than his victim.

=20

Speed Racer|10.11.10 @ 2:34PM|#

Eliminate speed limits.

=20

|10.11.10 @ 7:50PM|#

The most fun I had was in my 1986 Chevy Cavalier. The thing wasnt = fast, but=20 it had one of those digital dashboards that died some time around 1993 = so i=20 could never tell how fast I was going, which got me in trouble with a = few cops=20 along the way. Only side effect was that I could tell when i was low on = gas=20 either.

=20

Brother Wolf|10.11.10 @ 12:12PM|#

Yeah... good luck with that one.

=20

|10.11.10 @ 12:14PM|#

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

=20

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

I do think of the children.
While masterbating.

=20

waffles|10.11.10 @ 2:17PM|#

there oughta be a law against that

=20

|10.11.10 @ 2:49PM|#

thinking?

=20

Sean|10.11.10 @=20 7:10PM|#

No, children.

=20

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

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

=20

Attagirl|10.14.10 @ 12:22PM|#

Misspelling masturbating?

=20

Chris Hanson|10.12.10 @ 10:08AM|#

Have a seat right over there.

=20

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

Wow. The nannies have made so many gains in the thought processes (of = even=20 one of our guys...) Yes, it will all be better when we are nailing the=20 "distracted" drivers too.

1. No matter how much I talk on my phone or to my passenger - I am = not=20 physically impaired.

2. All driving to some degree is distracted. No one can focus on the = road in=20 front of them and never lapse in attention.

3. This statement will justify cell phone =3D talking children =3D = DUI. Trust me,=20 the government will not eliminate DUI, instead they will treat everyone = else as=20 harsh as DUIs.

4. The cell phone "studies" are skewed by people that want laws = against cells=20 in cars. I do not believe that a cell phone, car radio, talking = passengers, etc.=20 are evils that the state must stop.

=20

Pip|10.11.10 @=20 12:52PM|#

"Scrapping the DWI offense in favor of better enforcement of reckless = driving=20 laws would also bring some logical consistency to our laws, which treat = a driver=20 with a BAC of 0.08 much more harshly than, say, a driver distracted by = his kids=20 or a cell phone call, despite similar levels of impairment."

That DUI laws exist in no way hinders enforcement of reckless driving = laws.=20 Quite the non sequitur, eh?

=20

Carston|10.12.10 @ 12:08PM|#

Yes it does, they just chase down people for DUI because they are = such big=20 money makers for the system. If they stop someone for driving = erratically and=20 find they haven't been drinking and don't have any drugs on them, they = let them=20 go.

=20

|10.11.10 @ 12:54PM|#

You missed the point of the article. What Balko is saying is that the = cause=20 of the impairment doesn't matter so much as whether or not a person is = driving=20 recklessly because they are impaired. If someone is talking on a cell = phone=20 while drunk and masturbating to speed metal while driving, as long as = they=20 aren't driving recklessly then it shouldn't be a crime.

=20

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

That's exactly what I told the judge.

=20

Pip|10.11.10 @=20 1:11PM|#

No, I understood the article. My point is we can enforce both Recless = driving=20 and DUI. I see no reason to eliminate DUI laws as I believe any one who = drinks=20 any amount of alcohol and drives is a selfish asshole who is willing to = put=20 others at risk either for convenience's sake or else is too cheap to = pony-up cab=20 fare.

To assert that a 0.05% BAC does not impair some people's ability to = drive is=20 bullshit.

=20

Pip|10.11.10 @=20 1:12PM|#

Recless spelling and punctuation should also be a crime.

=20

|10.11.10 @ 1:23PM|#

SEE! 1st they went after the DUIs, but I don't drive, so I said = nothing. Then=20 they went after the bad spellars and those who, abuse, punctionation... = ...

=20

|10.12.10 @ 6:49AM|#

+10

=20

|10.11.10 @ 1:51PM|#

".....I believe anyone who drinks any amount of alcohol and drives is = a=20 selfish asshole who is willing to put others at risk..."

I am not sure which is more breathtaking, your ignorance or your = arrogance.=20 There are so many things factually wrong with your belief about = "impairment" it=20 is difficult to know where to begin.

If you didn't get enough sleep the night before, you are at least as = impaired=20 as someone who has had two or three drinks. If you drank a large glass = of orange=20 juice with breakfast and then got in your car, well then surprise! = Chances are=20 that OJ had enough natural fermentation going on to give you a BAC of at = least=20 .01 or .02. If you are distracted by kids in the back seat, or you are = listening=20 intently to George Noory's latest guest on the radio, you are impaired. = If you=20 are not feeling well, you are impaired. If you are taking pretty much = any=20 prescription medication, you are impaired. If you ae depressed or upset = about an=20 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=20 from the restaurant is an a-hole and deserves to be arrested is just so = flat-out=20 wrong there are no words. Literally everything and anything that you may = ingest=20 can cause some degree on "impairment". Lack of sleep causes documented=20 impairment in operating machinery, including cars. Emotional and/or = mental=20 stress causes real impairment. To say that none of these matters, and = that the=20 only thing that does matter is whether or not someone had wine with = dinner or a=20 beer at the neighborhood bar on the way home from work is a mindset that = is=20 arbitrary, capricious, and criminal.

As a licensed pilot, the FAA says I can LEGALLY and SAFELY fly an = airplane as=20 long as my BAC is below .04. And while flying an airplane in congested = airspace,=20 there are all kinds of distractions, such as frequent radio = communications with=20 the control tower, the local TRACON, ARTCC, and also monitoring the = common=20 traffic frequency (CTAF). Not to mention getting enroute weather updates = from=20 Flight Service and automated weather reports (AWOS). And the = distractions=20 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=20 of up to .04. But in your judgement, if I drive a car with a BAC of .01 = then I=20 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=20 direction that simply breathing in the aroma of a fine cabernet before = driving=20 is a crime. It is sheer madness. The .08 definition of legal impairment = was=20 politically driven and should never have been lowered from .01. Even the = .01 BAC=20 was probably too stringent. It is not and never was the .08 to 1.2 = social=20 imbibers who were causing most of the the alcohol-related accidents. It = is and=20 always was the .17 to 2.0 and above who were causing most of the wrecks. = The=20 feds and the state and local municipalities have been barking up the = wrong tree=20 for far too long now. It is time that common sense be factored into the = drunk=20 driving laws, as they are currently anything but sensible or reasonable. = (By the=20 way, I have never had a DUI nor ever been pulled over for suspicion of=20 such.)

=20

Pip|10.11.10 @=20 2:55PM|#

You really, really don't get it. I say throw everyone whose ass is = impared=20 while driving into the slammer. In addition to that I say throw = everyone whose ass is driving with alcohol in their syastem into the=20 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=20 arguing with yourself.

=20

|10.11.10 @ 3:18PM|#

No, it is YOU who does not get it, Mr Pipsqueak. The fact is that = EVERYONE,=20 including YOU, has driven while "impaired" and will continue to drive = while=20 "impaired" from time to time. You will find your own ASS thrown in jail = as well=20 as the tens of millions of others who would be jailed under your Kim = Jong=20 Mentally-Ill plan.

Just because YOU think that anyone with .01 of alcohol in their body = is too=20 "impaired" to safely drive a car does NOT mean such an absurd notion is = actually=20 true.

You are a lunatic. Either get over yourself, or get some professional = help,=20 or consider emigrating to Cuba or North Korea, where you could be much = happier=20 having Maximum Leader mandating anything and everything to be a jailable = offense.

=20

The Gobbler|10.11.10 @ 5:58PM|#

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

=20

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

Pip & Edwin, the first links in my wonderful chain of delight. I = call it:=20 The Human Centipede!

=20

Highway|10.11.10 @ 2:09PM|#

Any amount? ANY amount? So you have a regular margarita at the = beginning of a=20 mexican dinner that takes 90 minutes, and you're a 'selfish asshole who = is=20 willing to put others at risk'? Or you go out and sing karaoke for 4 = hours and=20 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.=20 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.

=20

Pip|10.11.10 @=20 2:57PM|#

"Any amount? ANY amount? So you have a regular margarita at the = beginning of=20 a mexican dinner that takes 90 minutes, and you're a 'selfish asshole = who is=20 willing to put others at risk'? Or you go out and sing karaoke for 4 = hours and=20 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.

=20

Mike|10.12.10 @=20 5:52PM|#

Or, you might not.

=20

Mike|10.12.10 @=20 6:38PM|#

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

=20

Tank|10.11.10 @=20 2:45PM|#

Thank you! Being a selfish asshole and/or cheapskate should be = illegal,=20 punishable by death.

Selfishly, I'd like to see them killed by being forced to fight = lions, but=20 that's probably cost-prohibitive.

Oh, shit.

=20

|10.12.10 @ 4:19AM|#

Pip figures "any one who drinks any amount of alcohol and drives is a = selfish=20 asshole who is willing to put others at risk either for convenience's = sake or=20 else is too cheap to pony-up cab fare."
What about parents who drive = without=20 putting their kids in car seats? License suspension for 18 months? = Seized=20 vehicle? Asset forfeiture?
You standard for gratuitous state = intervention is=20 farcically easy to puncture.

=20

|10.14.10 @ 1:37PM|#

The number is only as good as the measurement.

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

=20

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

Um, No. He said similar levels of impairment. What is the basis for = that=20 statemet? The nanny studies that everyone here rails against.

The minute you concede that you are "distracted" by talking on the = phone or=20 to a passenger - you shouldn't drive, vote, or interrupt the adults when = they=20 are talking.

=20

Zeb|10.11.10 @=20 1:52PM|#

Some people are distracted by using the telephone while driving. If = that=20 causes them to drive in a dangerous way, I don't see why that should not = be=20 punished the same as dangerous driving caused by anything else (such as=20 alcohol).

=20

|10.11.10 @ 2:34PM|#

_Some_ people are. It's true. But again, shouldn't wait for someone = commit a=20 crime (in the libertarian sense: harm to another) before they're accused = of a=20 crime?

=20

waffles|10.11.10 @ 2:21PM|#

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

=20

|10.11.10 @ 3:10PM|#

What Balko is saying is that the cause of the impairment doesn't = matter=20 so much as whether or not a person is driving recklessly because they = are=20 impaired

I think that's wrong. See, if you're talking on the cell phone = you can=20 hang up and instantly be unimpaired. If you're yakking with your = friends in=20 the back seat, you can have a near miss and be frightened enough to = realize you=20 should pay attention to what's going on -- and you can. The key = aspect=20 here is that your judgment is unimpaired, meaning if you're = doing=20 something stupid, your brain is working well enough that there's a = chance you=20 can realize it and stop doing it, instantly.

That's not the case with chemical intoxication. If you're drunk, then = first=20 of all there's no way you can instantly stop being drunk. = Plenty of=20 people driving drunk realize they shouldn't be doing so, and fervently = wish=20 there was some way to stop being drunk immediately -- hence the black = coffee,=20 the open windows in 32 degree weather, the loud radio, whatever.

Secondly, the problem with intoxication is that your judgment is = whacked. You=20 don't evaluate risks and benefits correctly. Even if there is a = way to=20 minimize the risks of intoxication, you're not likely to take it, = because you=20 aren't evaluating the risks correctly. Heck, this is why it's easy for = cops to=20 nail people who are intoxicated. Almost none of them have the presence = of mind=20 and good judgment to act in their own best interests at a traffic = stop.

What Balko's article overlooks is the important distinction between=20 taking stupid risks and being stupid about evaluating = risks.=20 It's not unreasonable to argue that the latter is a much bigger = problem.

=20

|10.11.10 @ 7:52PM|#

I stopped masturbating to speed metal after a friend of mine pulled = his own=20 dick off.

=20

|10.11.10 @ 2:58PM|#

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

=20

|10.11.10 @ 7:55PM|#

Leaving your hermetically sealed bubble is prohibited. All persons = found=20 outside of their bubble will be euthanized for the safety of = society.

=20

|10.12.10 @ 4:21AM|#

Stop stealing Edwin's material.

=20

|10.12.10 @ 7:44PM|#

Which one, euthanasia or the bubble?

=20

Pope Jimbo|10.18.10 @ 12:00PM|#

Even when cars are completely automated, I would bet my last dollar = that it=20 will still be illegal to be in one while drunk, or to have an open=20 container.

The nannies will scare anyone with the specter of a system crash = which would=20 require the drivers to take over manually for a bit. And if they are = drunk,=20 "think of the children!" thus the continuing prohibition on being drunk = while=20 moving.

=20

|10.11.10 @ 12:18PM|#

So, if Police Chief Art Acevedo can argue that some people are = impaired with=20 a BAC of 0.05 (or less!), he should be willing to admit that there are = some=20 people who are not impaired with a BAC of 0.10 ... right?

=20

|10.11.10 @ 1:45PM|#

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

=20

Beezard|10.11.10 @ = 2:41PM|#

+ 3 Schlitzes

=20

sarcasmic|10.11.10 @ 12:20PM|#

This entire argument is based on the false premise that laws exist = for the=20 purpose of public safety.

Laws exist to be obeyed.

They exist to punish those who dare to substitute their own judgment = for=20 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=20 system of law designed to create criminals and justify the existence of = an ever=20 intrusive police state.

=20

Edwin|10.11.10=20 @ 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=3D0JElywbkSbY

=20

Stephen VanDyke|10.11.10 @=20 1:24PM|#

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

=20

Officer McDougle|10.11.10 @ 2:39PM|#

Most traffic laws exist to provide revenue.

=20

|10.11.10 @ 3:16PM|#

No shit. But that's no argument against them, any more than the = typical=20 leftist/statist complaint that Microsoft sells software not to = make=20 their customers happy, the greedy bastards, but merely to make = money so=20 that they can fly off to the Caribbean and go snorkeling in the = winter.

A good libertarian recognizes that actors have different, usually=20 self-centered, motives for any transaction, and works to = harness that=20 to the mutual good. You can't argue that we should be amoral about = actors in the=20 business market -- but then get all morally indignant when it comes to=20 evaluating government actors.

=20

Edwin|10.11.10=20 @ 3:39PM|#

uhhhh.... no. Just no. Basic traffic laws were not passed to provide = revenue.=20 You really think that was what the relevant state politicians in each = state were=20 thinking of decades ago when they passed speed limits and drunk driving = laws?=20 Please. It's just common sense safety.

=20

Soonerliberty|10.11.10 @ 4:01PM|#

Do you really ascribe only positive qualities to politicians? Do you = really=20 believe they had no ulterior motives? They may have both. You can't = assume one=20 or the other.

=20

sarcasmic|10.11.10 @ 4:18PM|#

Public servants are immune from greed.
Their only motivation is = the common=20 good.
They only think of others and never of themselves.
They do = not seek=20 power for the sake of power, and they never abuse power for power's=20 sake.
Well, Republicans might, but that's only because they are = greedy and=20 abusing their positions for monetary gain.
Besides that you're = looking past=20 intentions.
Only intentions matter.
The fact that these laws have = been=20 abused for the purposes of revenue and power doesn't matter.
If you = question=20 the results then you will be attacked for opposing the intentions.

Got it?

=20

|10.11.10 @ 7:58PM|#

Plus they turn into unicorns after they retire. . . which helps = explain why=20 there are no such things as unicorns.

=20

Edwin|10.11.10=20 @ 4:50PM|#

Bullshit. If you're talking about the basic laws like speed limits = and drunk=20 driving, then that's it - safety. Politicians are bastards, but that = doesn't=20 mean every conspiracy theory you idiots come up with is correct. = Sometimes, when=20 there's a simple issue like this, and no real political controversy or=20 partisanship involved (other than from retardotarians), they just use = common=20 sense.

=20

sarcasmic|10.11.10 @ 5:04PM|#

Oh yeah, like some guy all alone on the road with a couple beers in = his belly=20 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=20 between legal fees, fines, paying to get back his confiscated property = (if he=20 gets it back that is), lost income, increased insurance, mandatory = classes and=20 treatment... all in the name of public safety when had he done the same = exact=20 thing in high traffic he would have made it home safely.

When someone questions the results you attack them for opposing the = original=20 intentions.

You, sir, are the retard.

=20

Edwin|10.11.10=20 @ 8:34PM|#

You just said that drunk drivers and speeding doesn't endanger the = public any=20 more than sober people driving under the speed limit

You're the retard

=20

|10.12.10 @ 4:25AM|#

No, Edwin, you're the evidence-denying mental defective.
The = Alberta Motor=20 Association (and probably its related organizations in other provinces = and=20 states) has published data that shows that speeding isn't in and of = itself the=20 cause of accidents as much as vehicles travelling at widely variable = rates. So=20 if everybody's speeding, no problem. If everybody's going 60 but you're = poking=20 along at 30 b/c you're afraid of your own shadow, you're the hazard, not = the=20 speeders.
Again, you're so busy calling people retarded that your = ability to=20 process new information has stunted your mental acuity.
Go argue with = the=20 monkeys at the zoo. At least you'll win once in a while.

=20

Edwin|10.12.10=20 @ 9:15AM|#

Wow, OK. So you just proved my point. It is reasonable to set a speed = limit,=20 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=20 odd-man-out than if you are the faster odd-man-out. Ever seen those = fucks that=20 drive like crazy on the highway?

=20

Mike|10.12.10 @=20 6:48PM|#

No, the 30 mph driver is the danger. At least he cited a source. You = may not=20 believe in the legitimacy of the study, which is fine, but you're just = throwing=20 out your own ideas and saying "retarded" after them. Then you go on to = attack=20 him even more, and continue to ignore the actual citations involved. = Who's the=20 retard now? http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=3Dcomics&id=3D= 2005#comic

=20

Edwin|10.11.10=20 @ 8:45PM|#

Seriously, where do sick fucks like you come from? How the fuck do = you become=20 so jaded that you place all your angers and problems onto one scapegoat = ("the=20 government") and then say stupid, sick shit that blatantly denies = reality? What=20 is it, got beat up too much in high school? Can't get laid? What?

=20

Soonerliberty|10.12.10 @ 7:51AM|#

It's not just government. It's the combination of government, = corporations,=20 unions, special interest groups, etc. God, you're blind.

=20

Apogee|10.12.10=20 @ 3:10AM|#

If you're talking about the basic laws like speed limits and = drunk=20 driving, then that's it - safety.

So then you'd be ok with simply punishing people with jail time, and=20 eliminating the 'fines', right?

After all, revenue has nothing to do with it.

=20

Edwin|10.12.10=20 @ 9:13AM|#

Yes, actually that would work too.

But that would be way too harsh. Moron.

=20

DesigNate|10.12.10 @ 3:40PM|#

Thunderstorms directly impair most people's ability to see, as well = as=20 changing the conditions of the road. Unlike talking on the phone or = eating a big=20 mac, you cannot stop the rain and thus you are still impaired by it. I = submit to=20 that we should outlaw rain.

=20

Edwin|10.12.10=20 @ 5:51PM|#

false application of concept - rain can't be outlawed and preventing = driving=20 in it would be too economically damaging, also you just aren't as = impaired in it=20 as say being drunk or texting

=20

Apogee|10.19.10=20 @ 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=20 a system that favors the wealthy over something that actually addresses=20 dangerous behavior towards others.

If driving impaired is dangerous behavior, then you can incarcerate = people=20 for public endangerment, but you think punishing something that can kill = others=20 is 'harsh'.

So it is about the revenue, which is why you avoided the = question,=20 you shit stain.

=20

|10.11.10 @ 12:21PM|#

Earlier this morning, on CNBC, some idiot was equating "drunk" = driving with=20 cellphone/texting distractions, and calling for a ban.

McDonald's is going to be pissed when the feds make them board up all = those=20 drive-in windows.

=20

mgd|10.11.10 @=20 1:41PM|#

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

=20

Ronald|10.11.10=20 @ 2:41PM|#

Who????

=20

|10.11.10 @ 8:00PM|#

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

=20

Danno|10.11.10=20 @ 12:25PM|#

Once when I served jury duty, I was selected for a drunk driving = case. But=20 after I expressed my problem with using the arbitrary blood alcohol = measurement=20 (and how it didn=E2=80=99t truly indicate how impaired the person was), = as well as my=20 objection to sobriety checkpoints (which should be unconstitutional), I = was=20 dismissed as a juror.
But my ideas were evidently too radical for the = courtroom, the entire jury pool was considered =E2=80=98tainted=E2=80=99 = by the prosecutor and=20 everyone else was dismissed as well. I felt kinda bad at the time, but = now when=20 I look back on that incident I smile.

=20

|10.11.10 @ 12:40PM|#

If it happens again, remember jury nullification! Just keep quiet = during voir=20 dire and then try to get your fellow jurors to judge the law as well as = the=20 facts.

=20

sarcasmic|10.11.10 @ 12:49PM|#

I thought jury nullification was a crime.

=20

omg|10.11.10 @=20 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=20 dire.

=20

David|10.11.10=20 @ 1:45PM|#

I agree that lying during voir dire is contempt of court. I just so = happen to=20 feel a lot of contempt for most courts.

=20

Danno|10.11.10=20 @ 12:55PM|#

I'd rather not resort to jury nullification in a drunk driving case = since I=20 wouldn't want to condone drinking alcohol and then driving (which when = done in=20 excess is both stupid and irresponsible ). Instead, I'd rather save that = option=20 for a case dealing with truly victimless crimes such as drug possession = or=20 prostitution.

=20

|10.12.10 @ 4:27AM|#

Shoulda got a medal for that one.

=20

|10.11.10 @ 12:25PM|#

we should get rid of it entirely by repealing drunk driving=20 laws.

I predict a wave of horror, revulsion, and personal attacks. I can't = wait to=20 see you on MSNBC.

=20

Orville Redenbacher|10.11.10 @ 12:27PM|#

I agree completely with Mr. Balko. Only problem I can see is that it = would=20 leave police discretion alone to decide whether or not someone is = driving=20 recklessly. I can see the police using the "you crossed the fogline sir" = excuse=20 to arrest anyone they want. Of course this pretty much happens now as = well, but=20 at least with the .08 level you have some burden of proof on the police. = I think=20 a better option is pushing the limit back to .15 or higher. Yes, it is = still=20 arbitrary but I think the other option would lead to more police = abuse.

=20

|10.11.10 @ 12:45PM|#

Most people who are familiar and objective regarding the subject = agree that=20 .08 is too low. The large majority of serious injuries and fatalities = caused by=20 drunk drivers occur well above that level; I think .15 is a better = cut-off if we=20 have to have one because someone at that level really is too impaired to = drive=20 safely. I do agree with the other commenters that a driver talking on a = cell=20 phone should not be treated as severely as a driver who is so drunk he = can=20 barely stand up.

I tell clients DUI is like domestic violence--at one point society = ignored=20 the problem, and now the pendulum has swung to the other extreme and a = lot of=20 people are getting arrested when they pose no threat to others. No = exaggeration,=20 about a quarter of the people I know have had a DUI. It seems everyone = who has=20 one drink and then drives is at risk. Maybe there will be a backlash as = the net=20 is cast wider and wider. Or maybe it will lose its stigma because it's = becoming=20 so common.

=20

Cyto|10.11.10 @=20 12:53PM|#

Or they could issue a field sobriety test based on reaction time - = video=20 gaming for your life! Test kits would cost less than a breathalyzer and = would=20 work for any drug or drug combination.

=20

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

Dr. Johnny Fever approves.

=20

robc|10.11.10 @=20 1:18PM|#

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

=20

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

The one where Venus explains the structure of the atom is right up = there,=20 imo.

=20

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

what? this would be way too sensible.

=20

|10.11.10 @ 8:02PM|#

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

=20

mad libertarian guy|10.11.10 @=20 1:05PM|#

This.

Turning criminal action that is now determined by an objective line = (however=20 erroneous and arbitrary it may be) into a subjective decision made by = cops is a=20 terrible fucking idea.

I agree that some things here need to change, but taking a cop's word = for it=20 is the last thing I want to have as the sole burden of proof. Radley = ought to=20 know better than to trust the police with this type of decision = making.

=20

|10.11.10 @ 2:02PM|#

One point getting missed in all of this is that a breath test result = is not=20 required to convict for DUI. All states have 2 types of DUI--"per se" = based=20 solely on a breath test result, and "less safe," which means one is a = less safe=20 driver after having consumed ANY amount of alcohol. For the latter, all = the=20 arresting officer has to testify to is that there was a traffic offense = and the=20 person gave some evidence of alcohol consumption (e.g. alcohol on = breath,=20 slurred speech, admitted drinking, etc.)--no breath test is required for = this.

=20

|10.11.10 @ 8:09PM|#

I think that if there were video evidence to support the officer, it = would be=20 helpful. Most cop cars have dash cams. The rule is not perfect because = swerving=20 can be a subjective thing, especially if there is a pothole or a dead = animal, or=20 another person in the road to avoid, but these things could be caught on = tape,=20 and reasonable people can discern a single swerve from reckless driving, = even=20 though it is still subjective. The fact that evidence would need to meet = a heavy=20 subjective burden like this would require cops to be more careful about = pulling=20 people over and they may opt instead to record more evidence.

=20

Contrarian P|10.12.10 @ 12:30AM|#

Just require documentation of the suspect's impaired behavior with = the dash=20 mounted camera which practically every police car has these days. It's = pretty=20 hard to argue with videotaped evidence of your car with your license = plate=20 veering into the emergency lane.

=20

robc|10.11.10 @=20 1:08PM|#

I prefer a graduated scale - something like .08-.11 is a ticket, = .12-.15 is a=20 misdemeanor, and .16+ is a felony.

Those are "for instances" not any specific suggestion. But something = along=20 those lines.

=20

Edwin|10.11.10=20 @ 1:20PM|#

See? More retarded libertarian retardation.

=20

Xenocles|10.11.10 @ 1:32PM|#

All I see is more question begging from you.

=20

|10.11.10 @ 8:13PM|#

So I, a simple retard may understand, what precisely is so retarded = here?=20 Please make a point, otherwise, you are simply making noise. My fucking = vacuum=20 cleaner makes noise, but it doesn't do anything until I put the part = that sucks=20 on the rug.

Please put the suck end on the rug.

=20

Xenocles|10.12.10 @ 7:42PM|#

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

=20

ACG22|10.12.10=20 @ 2:18PM|#

No, looks like more reading comprehension and analysis failure from = an Edwin.=20 Moron. (Hey, this childish name-calling is fun!)

=20

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=20 already said "this pretty much happens now"- they already can and will = pull you=20 over for whatever reason they care to conjure up. It's what happens = after that=20 which matters. Proof of reckless driving/endangerment is not too tough. = Cops=20 have these things called cameras, which take videos, which a jury can = view and=20 decide if there was dangerous driving or not.

=20

Xenocles|10.11.10 @ 1:37PM|#

In WA you can be arrested for DUI at any BAC if the officer thinks = you are=20 impaired. In some jobs the arrest by itself can irreparably damage your=20 career.

=20

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=20 weep.

=20

|10.11.10 @ 2:23PM|#

I hate to sound like a nanny-state fuck on this one. (I really=20 do)
BUT,
Texas roads have some seriously bad DUI incidents. I'm = not=20 talking about a majority of people driving w/ BAC ~.09. I mean drunks = that are=20 driving on the curb, off the road, or end up passing out in a ditch on = the FM=20 roads. I'm down for whatever makes the use of public roads safer from a=20 libertarian standpoint. Whatever logical options are available that will = be=20 minimally intrusive are fine, but since it's public space, and not = private, I=20 don't see much of an issue setting very high standards for the = motorists. I'm=20 not sure where I stand on this because getting a DUI here seems to be a = 'right=20 of passage' or something weird among Texans, at least in the DFW metro = area.

=20

Contrarian P|10.12.10 @ 12:40AM|#

There are laws on the books designed to stop those accidents. Laws do = not=20 prevent stupid behavior. As much as we try, there will always be those = who will=20 drink to excess and then decide to get behind the wheel of a car. = Putting more=20 and more laws into place will not stop this. It will, unfortunately, = simply=20 result in the harassment of more and more people who were no danger to=20 society.

In my home state, our august legislators decided to make it a primary = offense=20 (meaning one can be stopped for this alone) to drive without a seat = belt.=20 Although I'm sure they thought they were striking a blow for safety, = they=20 basically made it where a law enforcement officer can pull someone over = at any=20 time because they thought there was no shoulder strap in evidence. Think = of the=20 possible abuse that could create.

Face it, increasing the scope and power of the law is not about = protecting=20 anyone, though that is how it is sold. More than anything, it's about = bringing=20 everyone into line with a utopian ideal, no matter how impossible the = attainment=20 of that utopia might be. I really wish there was a way to stop people = from=20 drinking to excess and driving while impaired. As a physician who works = in an=20 emergency department, I see the effects almost every day. Still, I am = not=20 willing to sell all my freedom for the illusion of safety, no matter how = many=20 rosy promises are attached.

=20

|10.12.10 @ 4:58AM|#

I detest doing anything to give any more subjective discresionary = authority=20 to police or anything that would equate to more intrusive bullshit. = However, I=20 think that given the public nature of 99.999% of roads, your privacy is = not=20 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=20 a city, county, or state level. Not wearing your seatbelt? That's 200 = bucks. No=20 insurance? Ouch, that'll cost ya. They're not about the general safety = of hte=20 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=20 motorists, while punishing severly those who endanger the safety and = well-being=20 of others. We can pretty much do away with the rest.

=20

|10.12.10 @ 4:59AM|#

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

=20

|10.12.10 @ 5:00AM|#

Also, thanks for the thoughtful response.

=20

|10.12.10 @ 5:00AM|#

Also, thanks for the thoughtful response.

=20

|10.11.10 @ 3:20PM|#

I think you're exactly right, which is why I think Balko, while = probably=20 right on the merits, is selling a dangerous fantasy.

The advantage of a specific objective test for a DUI is that = if you=20 pass the test, then it's much harder for a cop and judge who = don't like=20 your looks, your accent, or your attitude to railroad you.

I'm all for very specific laws, with nitpicky specifications of what = a crime=20 is and isn't. I'm not fond of leaving things up to the judgment of the = officer=20 on the scene, the prosecutor, and the judge sitting on a bad hemorrhoid = the day=20 you arrive in court.

=20

Apogee|10.12.10=20 @ 3:19AM|#

If you're all for specific laws with nitpicky specifications, and at = the same=20 time worried about a cop or judge that doesn't like your looks = attempting to=20 railroad you, then you need to figure out what the larger problems with = our=20 justice system are before signing on to more legislation.

=20

|10.11.10 @ 12:28PM|#

The underlying discussion with this blog post is the arguments for = proactive=20 vs. reactive laws. While I understand the inefficiencies of drunk laws = and their=20 implementation, I understand the desire to attempt to stop the problem = before it=20 becomes, well, a problem.

Advocating laws to combat reckless behavior without a systematic = approach at=20 determining what exactly causes this reckless behavior is a bit silly. = After the=20 fact laws condemning reckless behavior is playing a game of chicken I'm = not=20 interested in playing.

I understand the difficulty in implementing these specific proactive = reckless=20 behavior laws and its relationship with violating personal liberty, but=20 advocating for cops to only look for cars that are acting recklessly at = the=20 exact moment the cop sees them is silly. If information exists as to the = causes=20 of reckless behavior, why not advocate or argue laws that prevent = reckless=20 behavior while protecting individual liberty?

=20

|10.11.10 @ 1:06PM|#

The very idea of "proactive" law enforcement is at odds with the = philosophy=20 of criminal justice outlined by our Constitution. We're guilty of a = crime when=20 we've committed a crime, not when we've met a certain number of = pre-conditions=20 that have been statistically correlated with crime.

The deterrent effect is supposed to come from efficient, consistent=20 enforcement of simple and straightforward laws against criminal conduct. = A law=20 that "prevents reckless behavior" is a law against said reckless = behavior, not a=20 law against some statistically correlated condition.

=20

|10.11.10 @ 2:21PM|#

The very idea of "proactive" law enforcement is at odds with = the=20 philosophy of criminal justice outlined by our = Constitution.

Kinda reminds me of the Tom Cruise movie "Miority Report". It's = difficult for=20 me to understand how an otherwise safe and law-abiding driver who = happens to=20 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=20 kills the driver and 5 kids. Is it somehow less tragic or more = forgivable=20 because the offending driver was dunking his McNugget in BBQ Sauce or = trying to=20 advance their CD to Track 7 than it is that they're = ~~drunk~~ above=20 the legal limit? I just don't see how..

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

Changing the radio station while not having an accident is not a = crime. Why=20 should driving under the influence without causing an accident or = breaking any=20 other rule of the road be one?

=20

Ice Nine|10.11.10 @ 1:09PM|#

Yeah, what say we not solely wait for cop-witnessed reckless behavior = because=20 the reckless behavior the cop witnesses just might well be some drunken = asshole=20 plowing his car head-on into mine, containing me and my family. I'm not = a=20 nanny-stater by any stretch but c'mon let's not ignore the obvious. = Alcohol is=20 involved in most trauma (35 yrs in the ER, trust me) and that goes for = MVAs in=20 spades (motor vehicle accidents, sorry). This is easy.

I don't like sobriety check points and am fine with banning them. But = I hate=20 with a passion drunk drivers, having had a fairly steady diet of their=20 handiwork. Use the legal limit law as a way to throw the freaking book = at them=20 (and yeah, we need to work on that part too) after we've found at least = some of=20 them incidentally, with cause. Do the obvious. Try at least to make a = dent in=20 homicidal drunk driving. I'm with the Japanese and the Europeans - legal = alcohol=20 limit when driving =3D .000. Those guys drink a whole lot and they do = just fine=20 with that. The only right that is thus abridged is the 'right' to commit = a=20 particularly prevalent form of vehicular mayhem.

=20

|10.11.10 @ 3:23PM|#

The average person has no means of determining what his BAC is. This = makes it=20 difficult to avoid driving if your BAC is above the .08 limits but you = are not=20 actually impaired.

The point of well written laws should be for the average person to = know when=20 he/she is in violation of the law.

=20

Ice Nine|10.11.10 @ 5:25PM|#

There are tables to figure this. Of course they are not perfectly = accurate.=20 If it turns out you don't fit those norms you can determine that you are = outside=20 of them pretty readily. Don't want to do that, buy a personal = breathalyzer for=20 30 bucks.

"Not actually impaired"? Guarantee you that 90% of the people who = think they=20 aren't impaired, are impaired.

=20

Apogee|10.12.10=20 @ 3:35AM|#

I'll also guarantee you that 90% of people mistakenly think they're = great=20 drivers (drunk or not), but nobody talks about requiring additional=20 training.

I'd gladly ride passenger with Danica Patrick blowing a .12 over an = 85 y/o=20 grandparent blowing stone cold sober.(I know, I said "blowing")

There is nothing keeping people from driving impaired and plowing = into your=20 family - whether the reason is alcohol, drugs, sleep deprivation, = stupidity or=20 even just youth. Should we prohibit driving to anyone under 25? - that's = also a=20 statistically relevant group that causes accidents.

Eliminate the revenue source (no fines, just criminal), and you'll = see an=20 actual shift towards public safety. The checkpoints are an = unconstitutional scam=20 - it's about the money.

=20

Mohindrance|10.12.10 @ 8:14AM|#

"Yeah, what say we not solely wait for cop-witnessed reckless = behavior=20 because the reckless behavior the cop witnesses just might well be some = drunken=20 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=20 to suggest banning sobriety checkpoints. I suppose you would be all in = favor of=20 mandatory breathalyzer starters installed in every car?

And, for that matter, a completely closed driver capsule preventing = any=20 contact with other passengers, cellular telephone technology, radio = adjustment=20 dials, etc! After all, this is your FAMILY, for god's sake! YOUR = FAMILY!!!

=20

DesigNate|10.12.10 @ 3:45PM|#

If you're gonna go statist like Edwin (not saying you in particular = are) I=20 think we should go full blown statist and make the car companies invent=20 something that reads your fingerprint and tests your BAC at the same = time and=20 install it on all things with wheels.

=20

DesigNate|10.12.10 @ 3:45PM|#

=20

|10.12.10 @ 4:35AM|#

If you worked in ER all those years, then you'll have no problem = advocating=20 for the elimination of prescription drugs, since they murder - ahem - an = order=20 of magnitude much greater number than drivers with BAC's > = .000.
But then,=20 prescription drugs aren't a lobby group's well=3Dfunded hobby horse, = like=20 zero-tolerance driving is for the MADD wack-jobs.

=20

mad libertarian guy|10.11.10 @=20 1:12PM|#

It is this very argument that fuels the War on Drugs, and is a = terrible=20 one.

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

=20

|10.11.10 @ 8:15PM|#

Maybe if we can somehow convince them to ban the road to fuckdom, we = can=20 initiate a war on the road to fuckdom.

=20

|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=20 variety of other areas such as hate crimes legislation and firearms = laws.

Punish the behavior not the law abiding citizen.

=20

Apogee|10.12.10=20 @ 3:36AM|#

Where's the money in that?

=20

|10.11.10 @ 12:37PM|#

If information exists as to the causes of reckless behavior, why = not=20 advocate or argue laws that prevent reckless behavior while protecting=20 individual liberty?

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

=20

Edwin|10.11.10=20 @ 1:05PM|#

Not really. Our society does this all the time, and it's perfectly=20 reasonable. There's only so much one law or another can do, because of = the=20 limits of real-life effective enforcement. If a few small restrictions = help more=20 effectively protect more important freedoms, then that's a net plus. = It's called=20 trade-offs. You'll have grown up when you finally accept that they = exist.

=20

|10.11.10 @ 1:09PM|#

Please don't be his porn.

=20

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.

=20

Edwin|10.11.10=20 @ 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=20 might need to pass other laws to EFFECTIVELY protect a freedom that was = only=20 TECHNICALLY legally protected. Is that so hard to understand/think of = examples=20 where our society has done this?

=20

|10.12.10 @ 4:37AM|#

So the solution to bad laws is to pass more laws?
Oddly, my = solution to=20 feeling drunk is to drink more booze.

=20

Edwin|10.12.10=20 @ 9:19AM|#

that's not what I said.

How about you actually try thinking every once in a while? You guys = really=20 are a bunch of reactionaries.

=20

Soonerliberty|10.11.10 @ 4:05PM|#

"Our" society. Just who is we? Are you including me in your we? Why = this is=20 just dandy collectivist anthill philosophy? We are a Volkskoerper and = our=20 overlords are really just us. This is braindead nonsense and the most = tyrannical=20 of thinking.

=20

Sky|10.11.10 @=20 12:43PM|#

The problem with using the term "distracted" driving is that it gives = police=20 wide discretionary powers, and it seems libertarians don't much trust = the=20 judgment of the police. But as long as the police were able to = articulate what=20 was reckless about the way a person was driving - weaving in and out of = a lane=20 more than once, driving more than 25 miles over the speed limit, driving = 10=20 miles below the speed limit, tailgating too closely, etc. - I think this = would=20 be a better way to go. One would not be pulled over simply for the act = of using=20 a cell phone or telling one's children to pipe down in the backseat, but = for=20 weaving, speeding, etc. The results would be judged without relevance to = the=20 cause of the results. On the other hand - if I'm distracted by my kids = and get=20 in an accident, I don't want to be judged as harshly as someone who = drinks ten=20 glasses of wine and then gets in a car and has an accident. There is a = different=20 moral quality there. So...I'm not sure where I stand on this.

=20

Nash|10.11.10 @=20 1:05PM|#

I think context can be used here. The distracted driving / reckless = driving=20 degrees can be used as well. Also, dumping DWI doesn't mean = breathalyzers=20 couldn't be used to prove a driver reckless.

=20

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

Wouldn't this be the difference between = negligent/reckless/knowing/willful in=20 terms of legal levels of wrongness? Being distracted by kids might be = neligent;=20 drinking ten glasses of wine would be willful.

I think those were the four levels as related to me by a friend many = years=20 back when he was a 1L and just learning the stuff. I'm not a lawyer.

=20

|10.11.10 @ 2:25PM|#

Being distracted by kids might be neligent; drinking ten = glasses=20 of wine would be willful.

Willful how? Willful implies intent. Do you believe that the 10 glass = drinker=20 actually wanted to go out and have an accident and harm others?

=20

|10.12.10 @ 4:40AM|#

"On the other hand - if I'm distracted by my kids and get in an = accident, I=20 don't want to be judged as harshly as someone who drinks ten glasses of = wine and=20 then gets in a car and has an accident. There is a different moral = quality=20 there. "

Whoever it is that you kill while being distracted by your = ill-mannered kids=20 probably doesn't gain much comfort in heaven/hell/the cold hard ground = that you=20 weren't 10 drinks into an all-night bender.

=20

|10.11.10 @ 12:43PM|#

Am I advocating any current laws or processes? No, i'm not. I'm = merely=20 suggesting that further discussion should be had in determining the most = efficient laws to combat reckless behavior before we simply rely on = reactive=20 laws that heavily rely on police's proactive actions in the line of = duty.

=20

=E2=99=A3|10.11.10 @=20 12:44PM|#

"instead focus on reckless driving"

And who, pray tell, will do the "focusing"? The same cops you don't = trust to=20 enforce drunk-driving laws? Find the logical error!

=20

mark|10.11.10 @=20 12:50PM|#

this.

Police judgment would be questioned even more than now.

=20

mad libertarian guy|10.11.10 @=20 1:17PM|#

Police judgment is questioned now?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Sorry, I almost choked a little bit

=20

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=20 giving the cops the ability to subjectively decide?

=20

Danno|10.11.10=20 @ 1:00PM|#

The issue is reaction time. Just as the DMV checks our eyes when we = get our=20 license, they should also have a response time test (like a falling ball = and=20 button to stop it) and print our results on our license. Police could = carry a=20 similar testing unit with them. If your response time is too slow (due = to=20 drinking, lack of sleep, old age, etc.) then you can't drive. Distracted = driving=20 would be another issue and would require testimony from the officer to = be=20 considered.

=20

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=20 going to test as slowly as possible while still getting a license. I = know I=20 would.

And what if my reaction time is slower than that shown on my license = but=20 still faster than average or faster than what other people have on their = licenses?

=20

Danno|10.11.10=20 @ 2:18PM|#

Having a record of optimum reaction time would only be used to inform = drivers=20 how much they're currently impaired. As long as their reaction time is = above=20 some standard level (a level that would apply to everyone), then no law = has been=20 broken. This is no different than the vision requirement.

=20

|10.11.10 @ 2:28PM|#

Assuming that one performs optimally on their baseline test. In what = way do=20 we ensure that the testees (*snicker*) took the test on a good day?

=20

|10.11.10 @ 1:03PM|#

They already have that. The police are already pulling people over on = some=20 suspicion to give a test, or it's just a checkpoint.

=20

Some Guy|10.11.10 @ 2:28PM|#

But once pulled over, there is an objective (if imperfect) physical=20 measurement that has to corroborate the cop's subjective one.

=20

Edwin|10.11.10=20 @ 1:02PM|#

"Scrapping the DWI offense in favor of better enforcement of reckless = driving=20 laws would also bring some logical consistency to our laws"

Yeah. Because everyone cares about "logical consistency" in laws. = It's not=20 like things like the actual enforce-ability of laws, and simplicity in = doing so,=20 or limiting their scope to avoid authority over-reach = matter.
Breathalyzers=20 are quick and easy to administer, and Balko's proposals set the stage = for high=20 amounts of government over-reach, by way of the vagueness inherent in = them. You=20 guys can't even apply your own philosophy effectively.

Wonder why I keep saying you guys are fucking retarded? You really = take this=20 whole philosophy full retard.

If you think the BAC level is too low, just say that, and say it = should be=20 changed. Don't go off all retarded on retarded tangents.

=20

|10.11.10 @ 1:04PM|#

Please don't be his porn.

=20

Old Mexican|10.11.10 @=20 1:06PM|#

Re: Sugarfree,

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

=20

OO=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3DD|10.11.10 @ 1:18PM|#

Can he be my porn? Because if so, I would first lube his ass = up=20 really good, you know, just to get it relaxed and accepting, after which = I would=20 slowly and erotically insert his pinhead.

=20

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

Dude, your balls are on wrong.

=20

|10.12.10 @ 5:47AM|#

Every time you say that, I keep imagining he's sitting at a computer = desk=20 with the lights dimmed, a nice glass of merlot in one hand, wearing a=20 turtle-neck, his pants around his ankles, and furiously masturbating at = his own=20 posts.

=20

|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...

=20

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

laws that prevent reckless behavior while protecting individual=20 liberty?

How do you feel about shooting goats?

=20

zoltan|10.11.10=20 @ 1:11PM|#

Austin Police Chief Art Acevedo wants to instate "DWI = lite" or=20 DWAIs for those who blow .05 to .07 BACs. No penalty proposed = yet

=20

|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=20 them do dangerous things.

Let's just make sure all cops have dash cams, and require video = evidence of=20 every "impairment", that is, driving in a dangerous way:

"But as long as the police were able to articulate what was reckless = about=20 the way a person was driving - weaving in and out of a lane more than = once,=20 driving more than 25 miles over the speed limit, driving 10 miles below = the=20 speed limit, tailgating too closely, etc."

=20

Ariock|10.11.10 @ = 3:53PM|#

It is amusing to me that the libertarian response to violations of = privacy by=20 the police is to mount video cameras on all police cars.

=20

Contrarian P|10.12.10 @ 12:54AM|#

The cameras are already there. Your objection therefore appears to be = that we=20 are advocating the use of existing equipment. Cameras on police cars are = very=20 libertarian, as they provide a means to collect objective evidence to=20 substantiate accusations. Recording the police to prevent abuse of power = is the=20 most libertarian thing I can think of.

=20

TwoFingers|10.12.10 @ 2:51AM|#

Cameras, radios, computers, etc, in cop cars are, by definition, = distracting=20 to driving and therefore should be banned. Prohibit reckless = policing!

=20

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=20 is doing his job right. I don't see the problem really. Although I wish = the cops=20 would stop parking in my bedroom. My realdoll girlfriend gets freaked = out.

=20

Travis Ormsby|10.11.10 @ 1:27PM|#

It would have been nice for you to link to the actual data on alcohol = related=20 fatalities, instead of a Cato study providing their characterization of = the=20 data.

For what it's worth, you can get the actual numbers from the National = Highway=20 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=20 you) shows a sustained decrease between 1994 (the first year available) = to 2008=20 (the last) from 5.03 to 3.57. There was a minor uptick in this statistic = from=20 1999 - 2000 from 4.12 to 4.29, but this was the only year in the time = range=20 where the value increased.

Fatalities per mile traveled is a much better metric than total = fatalities=20 because it controls for miles driven. All else being equal, we would = expect=20 there to be extra fatalities in years where people drove more. = Characterizing=20 the data this way nearly completely eliminates the "increase" in alcohol = related=20 fatalities Cato presumed to find.

Additionally, contrary to your assertion that the federal government=20 classifies an accident as "alcohol related" when BAC is above 0.01, = NHTSA=20 clearly states that "alchohol related" crashes involve only those = driving whose=20 BAC is above 0.08.

But let's not let a little thing like information get in the way of a = nicely=20 ideological debate.

=20

Beezard|10.11.10 @ = 1:53PM|#

A fair point, but is there a huge decrease in fatalities since states = went to=20 0.08% after you jiggle the numbers?

Some more poignant information would be the massive increases in = money made=20 by the state (and lawyers) since .08 was instituted.

=20

Travis Ormsby|10.11.10 @ 2:14PM|#

The decrease from 2000 to to 2008 was about 17%, about the same as = the=20 decrease from 1994 to 2000 of 15%.

However, it's reasonable to assume decreasing marginal returns on = drunk=20 driving enforcement. That is to say that you don't have to do very much = at first=20 to get a whole bunch of drinkers off the road, but soon all that's left = are the=20 hard core drunks. Getting them off the road requires substantially more = effort.=20 In that context, absent some additional policy or social changes, we = would have=20 expected the decrease from the pre 0.08 period to be greater than the = post 0.08=20 period. The fact that they're not suggests there was some social or = policy=20 change that had a real impact on alcohol related traffic fatalities.

=20

Beezard|10.11.10 @ = 2:23PM|#

If that's the whole point then why don't we breathalyze anyone who = leaves a=20 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=20 immeasurable: how much has
changing cultural attitudes towards drunk = driving=20 lessened it's impact?

The more the drinking culture starts thinking of drunk driving as a = risky=20 behavior (because they can hurt someone not because they could go to = court)=20 instead of a sport, the more those numbers will be (and already have = been=20 effected) regardless of policy.

=20

Travis Ormsby|10.11.10 @ 3:30PM|#

Proponents of the lowered BAC policy can point to that policy as a = potential=20 source of the greater than expected decline in alcohol related traffic=20 fatalities per mile driven. Can you clearly establish that there has = been an=20 accelerated change in drinking culture's perception of drunk = driving?

But the main thrust of my original post is that Balko published = something=20 that is demonstrably untrue regarding how the government keeps track of = drunk=20 driving statistics (it considers drivers at 0.08 or above, not 0.01). = That's a=20 fairly minor point.

The bigger deal is that the claim that drunk driving deaths were = increasing=20 was both poorly sourced and, at best, misleading. The appropriate metric = is=20 actually steadily declining, not increasing. Balko ought to provide some = clarification there.

=20

Beezard|10.11.10 @ = 3:54PM|#

Can you clearly establish that there has been an accelerated = change in=20 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=20 was afraid I might be armed either. But it's obviously an important = factor in=20 whether guns improve public safety.

According to the law of the land in most places, ANYONE who has been = drinking=20 at a bar and gone home is guilty of DWI. Obviously fear of arrest = doesn't keep=20 all these people from doing it. This suggests to a decrease in = fatalities is due=20 to a more responsible drinker (or drinking establishment).

Cato and Balko might be viewing the stats in their own favor. But my = thrust=20 is that reliance on stats to determine the value of public policies is = over=20 rated.

=20

Apogee|10.12.10=20 @ 3:49AM|#

Also, improvements to passenger car safety systems may factor into = passenger=20 fatalities, along with improved handling characteristics.

Drunk and surviving or avoiding accidents altogether may affect the=20 statistics in a way that has nothing to do with the presence of alcohol=20 impairment.

=20

Zizhiqu|10.14.10 @ 1:43AM|#

Thank you Travis.

=20

|10.18.10 @ 1:36AM|#

That's actually not true. "Alcohol-related" and "alcohol-impaired = statistics"=20 are 2 different things.

The NHTSA until 2007 released "alcohol-related" reports. The totals = would=20 include any fatal crash where anyone (any driver, pedestrian, or = cyclist)=20 involved had a BAC of .01 or higher. As part of those statistics, if one = looked=20 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=20 releasing a different report that used the term alcohol-impaired and = counts=20 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=20 more people than distracted drivers:

In 2008, 37,261 people died in traffic collisions=20 (http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pubs/811172.pdf). 5,870 were from driver=20 distraction (http://www.distraction.gov/stats-and-facts/).

Also, in 2008, 11,773 people died in alcohol-impaired traffic fatal=20 accidents. Of those, 8,048 were by a driver with a BAC of .15 or higher=20 (http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811155.PDF). Simple subtraction tells = us that=20 3,725 of those killed in alcohol-impaired traffic fatal accidents = involved a BAC=20 of .08-.14.

So, driver distraction caused 5,870 traffic deaths which is 16% of = all=20 traffic deaths. Drivers with a BAC of .08-.14 killed 3,725 people on the = roads=20 which was 10% of all traffic deaths that year. Distracted drivers killed = 60%=20 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=20 all traffic deaths that year.

It should be further stated that the NHTSA admits that they estimate = on many=20 of the alcohol-impaired traffic deaths because the BAC levels are not = known. On=20 average, 60% of the deaths they say were alcohol-impaired actually had = no BAC=20 data, so it is estimated = (http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/809-450.pdf). You=20 see this asterisk in their data tables. It reads, "NHTSA estimates = alcohol=20 involvement when alcohol test results are unknown"=20 (http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/States/StatesAlcohol.aspx).

=20

|10.11.10 @ 1:27PM|#

As others have pointed out, the legal concept of "impaired" is too=20 subjective. From a libertarian standpoint, objective standards such as = an=20 alcohol level are preferable. But the limit should be higher than 0.08 = and=20 punishment should be correlated with the blood alcohol level. Somebody = who is=20 0.200 and driving, for instance, deserves much harsher sanctions than = somebody=20 at 0.100 or lower.

As an emergency physician, I agree that the blood alcohol level is = not the=20 sole determinant of impairment, especially with professional drinkers=20 (alcholics). But professional drinkers are among the most dangerous = drivers -=20 they are more likely to drive seriously impaired. They do some crazy = shit -=20 driving the wrong way for instance. If they are driving at a high blood = alcohol=20 level routinely, they should be taken off the road.

=20

|10.11.10 @ 1:34PM|#

It would be perfectly safe to change the rule about stopping at a = stop sign=20 from "make a full stop and start again if there is no cross traffic" to = "roll=20 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=20 illegal activities that places dangerous behavior squarely in the = illegal=20 category. Even if it results in a small amount of harmless behavior = being=20 prohibited.

=20

Apogee|10.12.10=20 @ 3:51AM|#

But one of the reasons to place the behavior in the illegal category = is the=20 corresponding placement in the profitable category.

And that has nothing to do with safety.

=20

|10.11.10 @ 1:29PM|#

If you're talking on a cell phone or yelling at kids in the back = seat, you=20 can choose to stop doing this when you enter a more dangerous bit of = driving=20 (construction zone, ice and snow, congested road, school zone, etc). = Also, you=20 are keenly aware that you're not focusing on the road when partaking in = these=20 activities.

When you're drunk or high, you can't will yourself sober when you = perceive=20 the need to focus more closely on your driving. Indeed, you may not even = be=20 aware of being impaired.

So it makes sense to outlaw driving under conditions where your = judgement is=20 compromised for a duration of time whose length you cannot control.

=20

|10.11.10 @ 1:56PM|#

you can choose to stop doing this when you enter a more dangerous = bit of=20 driving

....uhhh, unless you're too distracted to realize you've entered "a = more=20 dangerous bit of driving".

Besides, you're assuming that people actually prioritize this shit = correctly.=20 Ever seen some asshole texting at 75 mph drift into the other lane, come = *this*=20 close to slamming into someone, veer wildly back into the original lane, = and=20 then keep texting? The ability to put the phone down is = no more=20 meaningful than the lack of an ability to think oneself sober.

=20

waffles|10.11.10 @ 2:44PM|#

I have definitely thought myself sober. I was so sober one Sunday = morning=20 that I chucked my volvo off the road, down an icy slope, bounced off a = birch=20 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=20 even give me a ticket, just a ride home.

God help me if I weren't sober.

=20

jacob|10.11.10=20 @ 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=20 yourself in a "fight-or-flight" type predicament, say when you encounter = a cop,=20 the buzz wears off lickely split and you're not high any more. It's one = of the=20 advantages of marijuana.

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

=20

DesigNate|10.12.10 @ 4:35PM|#

Rain can seriously impair a persons ability to see and react. You = cannot=20 choose to stop the rain. Therefore we should either outlaw the rain, or = outlaw=20 driving in the rain.

=20

Travis Ormsby|10.11.10 @ 1:30PM|#

Correction: There was also a small increase from 3.94 to 4.08 alcohol = related=20 fatalities per billion miles traveled from 2004 - 2005

=20

Leroy|10.11.10=20 @ 1:39PM|#

So why not make the criteria driving while impaired, have a standard = field=20 test designed to test for impairment? This test could be similiar to a = field=20 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=20 test for reaction time, dexterity, and coordination would be fine. If an = officer=20 has a reasonable suspicion of impairment (weaving, speeding up and = slowing down=20 erratically, etc) they can pull you over and perform the test. Pass = you're on=20 your way, fail you're under arrest.

=20

|10.11.10 @ 8:57PM|#

Distraction is not the same as chemical influence. If I see a hot = chick with=20 nice tits on the side of the road, I am distracted and I might drive = poorly as a=20 result. If I pull over and that chick decides to come for a ride, I am = going to=20 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=20 distraction while driving is significant. If I am driving in a = hazardously, the=20 cops can pull me over and arrest me for hazardous driving, DUI or TWD or = BJWD do=20 not enter into the equation, because I was driving dangerously.

=20

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

Never accept a BJ in a car. Even if you aren't moving. Watch The = World=20 According to Garp to see why.

=20

|10.11.10 @ 1:43PM|#

If you really want to stop reckless behavior, you should just = castrate all=20 boys at age eight.

That should take care of it.

=20

|10.11.10 @ 2:04PM|#

It'll teach those speeding females a lesson too...vicariously, but = it'll=20 learn em good.

=20

jacob|10.11.10=20 @ 9:08PM|#

There was a SNL skit back in the 80's with Phil Hartman (I think) = about=20 this.

=20

Beezard|10.11.10 @ = 1:46PM|#

Places already arrest people for being under 0.08% and it stands up = in court=20 all the time.

=20

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=20 I've actually known who were nabbed for "drunk driving" were in the=20 couple-of-drinks and-a-block-from-home range.

=20

Michael Ejercito|10.11.10 @=20 4:33PM|#

Places already arrest people for being under 0.08% and it = stands=20 up in court all the time.

Were they convicted?

=20

|10.11.10 @ 1:47PM|#

I say this in all seriousness--we need AI that is adequate to safely = driving=20 cars. Then drunk riding will be awesome!

=20

|10.11.10 @ 2:02PM|#

Don't be ridiculous. The real solution is for a police officer to = ride with=20 you in your car at all times.

=20

|10.11.10 @ 2:05PM|#

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

=20

|10.11.10 @ 2:06PM|#

Not really a robot, of course, since the union wouldn't allow cop = jobs to be=20 displaced. Rather, it's a robot body with a human brain.

=20

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

We call it... RoboNarc!

=20

Zeb|10.11.10 @=20 2:09PM|#

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

=20

|10.11.10 @ 2:10PM|#

Probably because the AI needs a backup.

=20

|10.11.10 @ 2:19PM|#

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

=20

|10.11.10 @ 2:23PM|#

http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/innovation/10/11/google.testi= ng.cars.mashable/

=20

|10.11.10 @ 2:28PM|#

There's plenty of effort going into this--just look at the progress = made in=20 the DARPA Challenge--but it'll be a while before we can = even begin=20 to rely on automated drivers.

=20

Fatty Bolger|10.11.10 @ 5:03PM|#

Yeah, I'm of two minds on this. In terms of increased production, it = could be=20 fantastic. Roads could serve far more traffic, more efficiently, and you = could=20 do something useful while riding. Car weights could be safely lowered = without=20 making the car less comfortable.

On the other hand I know I would miss being in control of the = vehicle, and=20 driving can be a real pleasure sometimes.

=20

|10.11.10 @ 7:03PM|#

You don't live in Dallas/LA/NYC obviously...Driving was fun when I = was 16-18;=20 at this point I just want to spend as little time in traffic jams as = possible=20 (or if I have to would rather be doing anything else but driving).

=20

BoscoH|10.11.10=20 @ 1:51PM|#

By the time you can point out the economic benefit of the actors = because of a=20 stupid law, it's too late. If the turd in the punchbowl is chilling the = punch,=20 it's an ice cube.

=20

Zeb|10.11.10 @=20 2:08PM|#

I wouldn't have much of a problem with DUI laws if checkpoints were = made=20 illegal, the presumption of guilt at refusing a breath or blood test = were=20 removed and if they actually had to demonstrate that a driver was in = fact=20 impaired. As it is, DUI law seems to have turned into some sort of = magical zone=20 where the constitution does not apply.

=20

jacob|10.11.10=20 @ 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=20 if you refuse a breathalyzer. In fact, that's one of the loopholes to = get out of=20 DUI in the first place. The penalty for not blowing is not DUI (which is = a=20 felony), it's loss of license for a year. While the end effect may seem = the=20 same, trust me it's better to not blow if they've got you dead to = rights. And=20 yes, I've been in that situation before so I speak with firsthand = knowledge.

=20

|10.12.10 @ 4:50AM|#

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

You are in Canada, where "failure to provider a sample" =3D "impaired = driving."

=20

Beezard|10.11.10 @ = 2:09PM|#

For my money, the harshest penalties should only be reserved for = those that=20 DO something to someone else. (Hurt or Kill someone or destroy their=20 property).

All this focus on prevention (or in this case, pre-crime) may seem = effective=20 but it just leads to stupid illegal legislation like check points and = open=20 container laws.

=20

Beezard|10.11.10 @ = 2:25PM|#

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

=20

Apogee|10.12.10=20 @ 3:57AM|#

Bingo.

Remove the money. No fines, just jail time.

=20

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

The problem: too many people are getting plea bargains because = prosecutors=20 and police are overloaded. The solution: expand the definition of crime = so that=20 they will have more cases to plead out. Brilliant.

=20

Tony|10.11.10 @=20 3:02PM|#

More public transportation!

=20

|10.11.10 @ 9:04PM|#

Private Transportation is pretty effective, actually. One tactic is = to call=20 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=20 the fare.

Public transportation very seldom accomidates everybody in the = surrounding=20 suburbs and outskirts.

=20

Tony|10.11.10 @=20 10:29PM|#

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

=20

|10.12.10 @ 2:40AM|#

So everybody should either live in MegaCities or on a farm? I see = you're all=20 about the options and choice man. Any other reason for wanting to = "reduce the=20 prevalence of suburbs"?

=20

Tony|10.12.10 @=20 10:08AM|#

Cities are more efficient. Also, suburbs are ugly.

=20

|10.12.10 @ 4:33PM|#

Suburbs keeps me safe from niggers.

=20

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

Yowza.

=20

wackystuff|10.11.10 @ 3:47PM|#

A majority of accidents and collisions often involve entirely sober = drivers.=20 Shouldn't we outlaw sober driving as well?

=20

Apogee|10.12.10=20 @ 3:59AM|#

Outlaw everything. Then we'll finally be safe.

=20

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

But then only the criminals will be criminals!

=20

Michael Ejercito|10.11.10 @=20 4:08PM|#

How is drunk driving different from firing a machine gun in the = direction of=20 a crowd of people?

=20

robc|10.11.10 @=20 4:53PM|#

It isnt different (maybe) at .2 bac.

At .08? It isnt remotely similar.

=20

Fatty Bolger|10.11.10 @ 4:59PM|#

It doesn't involve a gun, for one.

=20

|10.11.10 @ 8:34PM|#

It doesn't involve hundreds or even thousands of projectiles hurtling = at=20 incredible speed on a trajectory that cannot be changed by the person = who fired=20 the projectiles. Crowds of people are generally not what you find in the = middle=20 of most roads. The driver is actually attempting to get somewhere, = whereas the=20 person firing the machine gun is simply trying to kill people, = (otherwise why is=20 he doing it?).

But all that said, the cops would stop the guy who is firing the gun = into the=20 crowd and they would stop the driver who is swerving all over the = street.

=20

sarcasmic|10.11.10 @ 5:21PM|#

If you had read the entire piece instead of just the title you would = know=20 that the author supports stopping people from impaired driving, focusing = on=20 impairment instead of an arbitrary amount of alcohol in the blood.

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

=20

sarcasmic|10.11.10 @ 5:28PM|#

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

I also developed a deep disrespect for the law and for those tasked = with=20 enforcing it.

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

=20

Edwin|10.12.10=20 @ 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=20 driving too fast? Hate to break it to you, but you're still retarded. = Just=20 because you went the other way around philosophically doesn't stop you = from=20 being a retard.

You'll be sensiblke and worth listening to when you start being = reasonable=20 and stop denying reality.

=20

DesigNate|10.12.10 @ 4:56PM|#

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

=20

Edwin|10.12.10=20 @ 5:48PM|#

that guy said that a drunk guys speeding poses no extra danger = compared to a=20 sober person going normally - that sure as hell ain't reality

=20

BillC|10.11.10=20 @ 5:49PM|#

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

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

=20

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=20 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=20 met one.

Without exception every cop I've met was a childhood bully in an = adult body=20 who takes great pleasure in dealing out pain, suffering, and even = death.

=20

Edwin|10.12.10=20 @ 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=20 realities just in the name of some stupid philosophy.

=20

G Mc|10.11.10 @=20 6:38PM|#

Threshold tests are, like deadlines, at once completely arbitrary, = and=20 completely necessary to administrative function.

=20

G Mc|10.11.10 @=20 6:39PM|#

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

=20

|10.11.10 @ 7:20PM|#

Sleep apnea and micro-sleeping are the worst.

=20

|10.11.10 @ 7:39PM|#

I usually have about 3 -4 drinks, and then drive home. I've never = been=20 arrested or pulled over for it. Why? Because I don't speed or fuck up = while I'm=20 driving. Most people that get DUI's are just bad drivers anyway.

My only arguement against Drunk Driving laws would be to abolish = sobriety=20 check points. They're gay as shit.

=20

|10.11.10 @ 8:38PM|#

I agree with the checkpoints. I just go around them anyway by taking = all the=20 back roads home. I call this deer hunting.

=20

|10.11.10 @ 9:00PM|#

My only problems with the checkpoints is that they're largely a waste = of=20 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,=20 improper turns, failing to signal lane changes, etc), then you shouldn't = be=20 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=20 around on the road, then you'll probably be detained and arrested for = DUI. Not=20 my problem.

Listen to song "Drinking and Driving" by The Business . Explains=20 everything.

=20

|10.11.10 @ 9:44PM|#

I agree with this, however I would add that testing people for = intoxication=20 is arbitrary because you cannot test people for texting. The tests are=20 unnecessary if the purpose of the law is to stop reckless drivers.

Its like hate crimes. Killing people is illegal, that means killing = gay=20 people is just as wrong as killing straight people under the law. Dont = arrest a=20 person because they killed a gay person, arrest them for killing = period.

=20

|10.11.10 @ 9:45PM|#

I am talking about tests done AFTER the driver is pulled over for = reckless=20 driving in some manner or another.

=20

|10.11.10 @ 10:43PM|#

Good points.

=20

jacob|10.11.10=20 @ 10:47PM|#

Killing someone without premeditation and killing someone while = planning it=20 out is the exact same thing. But for some silly reason, a = person who=20 kills after planning out a murder gets a higher penalty. The victim is = no more=20 or less dead, but the penalty is different.

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

=20

|10.11.10 @ 11:17PM|#

"Hate Crimes" means you just had a motive to commit a crime. Hate = Crime and=20 Jealous Boyfriend Rampage Crime are the same thing only because it = involves=20 intent. Accidentally killing someone is different becaue there is no = motive, it=20 was just, an accident.

=20

jacob|10.12.10=20 @ 8:54PM|#

Your argument doesn't address my point.

Homicide that was planned out and homicide that was not pre-planned = ("crimes=20 of passion") are sentenced differently.

Just because you kill someone and didn't plan it out doesn't mean it = was an=20 accident.

=20

|10.11.10 @ 9:07PM|#

and someone making a snide comment assuming I'm a leftist/liberal = in 3...=20 2... 1...

Fuckin' Pinko. haha, haven't heard that one in a while.... But = seriously=20 dude, nobody likes you, stop trying to impose your nambi pambi liberal = bullshit=20 on me before I beat my balls against yer chin.

=20

|10.11.10 @ 9:47PM|#

And someone making snide "teabagger" comment based on head/nutsack = contact=20 desire in 3...2...1...

=20

Edwin|10.12.10=20 @ 10:45AM|#

Understanding that drunk driving laws makes sense is solely a liberal = trait?=20 Jesus Christ kid, you're detached

=20

|10.12.10 @ 4:26PM|#

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

=20

|10.12.10 @ 8:27PM|#

No, it has nothing to do with liberals. Conservative republicans and = liberal=20 democrats are both equally retarded in this regard.

=20

Edwin|10.13.10=20 @ 9:22AM|#

It's retarded to understand that drunk driving is highly dangerous to = both=20 the driver and the public?

Are you listening to yourself?

=20

|10.13.10 @ 7:28PM|#

Its retarded because the laws do nothing but promote idiotic BAC = tests and=20 random checkpoints to stop "drunk" drivers.

Checkpoints do nothing at all to curb drunk driving, but if you read = the=20 article you would know that. Random checkpoints are also questionable in = that it=20 forces innocent people to bear the burden of the check point so this = becomes a=20 matter of civil liberties. Of course Republicans and Democrats will say = that it=20 is okay to infringe on liberty to stop drunk drivers, but they aren't = really=20 even doing that. If cops are going to do anything useful at all in terms = of=20 stopping drunk drivers, they mind as well get out on the roads and look = for=20 reckless or dangerous drivers. If they find a person who is swerving and = driving=20 erratically, then it doesn't matter if he is drunk, texting, getting a = hummer,=20 wearing a blindfold, cooking fajitas, or completing a crossword puzzle, = he is=20 driving recklessly and will be punished accordingly.

BAC and field sobriety tests only test for ALCOHOL and they dont do = it very=20 well. If you are so worried about drunk drivers, then you should be = EQUALLY=20 concerned with all other distracted or impaired drivers. If you are = going to=20 deal with this hazard, you cant simply pass a law against every = conceivable=20 thing that could cause an accident and half the time you cant even prove = these=20 things were happening or were an impairment to the driver. You can = however be=20 reasonably certain that someone who is driving dangerously is a danger = to others=20 and himself, so pulling people over for this is the only real way to = prevent=20 accidents and discourage ALL forms of distraction and impairment. With = modern=20 video technology, it shouldn't be too difficult for a cop with a dash = cam to log=20 reasonable evidence of reckless driving.

The current laws are skewed towards drunkenness and therefore skew = away from=20 other issues. Drunk driving laws are the public hazard because our = limited=20 resources are being applied to breathalyzers, field sobriety tests, = checkpoints=20 and cops having to spend all sorts of time in court testifying in drunk = driving=20 cases because the evidence is so fucking shoddy.

=20

|10.11.10 @ 9:22PM|#

"It shouldn't matter if it's caused by alcohol, sleep deprivation,=20 prescription medication, text messaging, or road rage."
Add to that = list old=20 drivers.

=20

|10.11.10 @ 9:49PM|#

And people who like to look smart while they try to solve the NYT = crossword=20 on the way to work.

=20

|10.12.10 @ 4:54AM|#

and Chinese

=20

|10.12.10 @ 8:28PM|#

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

And women.

=20

|10.11.10 @ 10:34PM|#

I'm tellin' ya, the worst thing is driving while you're tired. I live = in MD,=20 I used to drive to MA every other thursday to visit my girl who went to = school=20 up there. I would work 10-14 hours (nightshift), then drive 8 hours to = meet up=20 with her. I fell asleep a couple times behind the wheel and ran off the = road=20 once. Fortunately it was so early in the morning there weren't many = other=20 drivers out yet.

=20

|10.11.10 @ 10:38PM|#

I had this debate before about the drinking and driving laws. It's=20 embarrassing to me that a grown man can't stop by a local pub, drink a = sixer,=20 then drive home. But like I told my brother, for every guy that can get = drunk=20 and make it home safe... there's some stupid bitch that can't and ends = up=20 flipping her car, then doesn't think she did anything wrong 'cuz people = let her=20 drive drunk.

The smartest thing you can do, if you're seriously stuck in a = situation where=20 driving home is worth the risk... wait 'til 4 or 5am. Sleep in the car = for a=20 little while if you have to. 2am-3am is when they're watching for the = shit. At=20 least around here.

=20

|10.11.10 @ 10:41PM|#

Like I said, if you're being cool and followin' the rules of the road = you=20 should be good to go. If you're absolutely shitfaced and can barely = walk... just=20 pass out in the car. If the cops are following their SOP, they won't = pull you=20 over unless you give them a reason.

=20

jacob|10.11.10=20 @ 10:44PM|#

Sleeping in the car while intoxicated is illegal. I had a friend who = did the=20 same thing and got arrested for DUI. I agree that after 3 am most police = are not=20 patrolling anymore. I also agree that it's not a big deal to drink 4 or = 5 then=20 drive (after a couple of hours). However, I think you and I are in the = silent=20 majority.

=20

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

You must be the first person ever to describe Drunk Punk as being=20 "silent".

=20

|10.11.10 @ 11:13PM|#

Did he leave the car running?

=20

jacob|10.11.10=20 @ 11:15PM|#

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

=20

|10.11.10 @ 11:18PM|#

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

=20

|10.12.10 @ 4:56AM|#

That's the way it works in Canada.
Just having the keys in your = possession=20 while sitting drunk in the car qualifies the driver for being = charged.

=20

|10.12.10 @ 4:49PM|#

Sounds like we need to be more like Canada. I'd say, if someone has a = beer=20 bottle in one hand, and a set of keys in the other... even if they're = not even=20 drunk yet, they should be jailed for life for potentially taking away = someone=20 else's life.

=20

Brian R|10.12.10 @ 7:21PM|#

Works that way in Minnesota too, even if you're in the back seat of = the=20 car.

=20

jacob|10.12.10=20 @ 8:55PM|#

Methinks it works that way in every jurisdiction

=20

jacob|10.12.10=20 @ 8:54PM|#

Dayton, Ohio

=20

|10.12.10 @ 8:29PM|#

This makes perfect sense, you never know what those keys are doing = while you=20 are asleep.

=20

|10.11.10 @ 11:20PM|#

Crime prevention is the root of all fascism

=20

|10.12.10 @ 4:58AM|#

Last time I called the local pigs to attend to a matter where = physical=20 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=20 out-of-state license plate.
Fkn pigs are just gun-toting tax=20 collectors.
Douchebags. Every. Last. One of them.

=20

NotPartyAffiliated|10.12.10 @ 11:55AM|#

A few words to the courageous author of this article: Misuse of=20 statistics.

=20

|10.12.10 @ 12:15PM|#

Radley your right on. But the stupid politicians don't listen to = common=20 sense. Previous dui convictions show this, whereas somebody is arrested = in a=20 parked car, riding a horse, in a boat with a trolling motor, ect. You = can't fix=20 stupid.

=20

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

I completely agree we should stop drivers driving bad now instead of = focusing=20 on drivers who might potentially drive bad sometime. I asked about this = in=20 Dallas, and was told police/prosecutors prefer to do substance stops = because=20 it's concrete evidence in court (test results) instead of he said/she = said about=20 whether a person was using their blinker. I don't care. It's wrong, and = blaming=20 every accident on alcohol is wrong when 95% of overall accidents are = caused by=20 other reasons, simply driving bad, and we have "wreckless driving" laws = for=20 that. If it's illegal to stop and ask for paper to check for illegal = aliens, it=20 is surely unconstitutional to drunk test someone stopped for no = reason.

=20

|10.12.10 @ 4:40PM|#

If you don't like drunk driving, stay home and cry in a corner. = Nobody is=20 forcing you to drive.

This is our culture: We're shitty drivers. We work a lot, eat in the = car,=20 talk on our cell phones, get drunk and drive, and don't pay attention to = anybody=20 elses' problems. That is who we are. Deal with it. We punish the people = who are=20 simply living by default in their own self-destructive, bullshit, house = of cards=20 life?

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

=20

|10.12.10 @ 4:47PM|#

Let me just say one more thing about Safety and Health. It's = anti-human to=20 dwell on this shit.

This is where fascism is coming from today...If you want to make it a = law,=20 just say "Unsafe!", or "Unhealthy!"

It's like these people that wrap their house in duct tape 'cos of = terrorist=20 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=20 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=20 because of the bullshit lecturing rhetoric or some self-righteous MADD=20 mother.

=20

|10.12.10 @ 8:37PM|#

All I can think of is all these kids I see riding their bikes with = helmets. I=20 found out that they have to wear a helmet. Hmm. When i was a kid, we = werent=20 required to wear a helmet. Yes, we did some stupid stunts, but because = we did=20 not have a helmet, we were keenly aware of our limits and avoided really = stupid=20 risks. This is not to say we didn't take risks, but risk is life. Jumps = were=20 fun, ghost riding was fun, stunts were fun, but when someone came up = with the=20 idea of jumping the sand pit, the rocks below were an obvious risk and = none of=20 us attempted the stunt.

I am not saying kids shouldn't wear helmets, but why does the state = need to=20 tell them to wear a helmet?

Ok, I'm gonna wrap myself in bubble wrap and masturbate to speed = metal now.=20 Wish me luck.

=20

Anonymous|10.12.10 @ 9:46PM|#

Excellent article! I have come to realize many of your points on my = own and=20 it's wonderful to hear an echo.

The closest I have ever gotten to hitting another car was when I was = sober=20 and exhausted. Where's the special mandatory felony charge for evil = night owls=20 like me?

Also, why was it that I was able to get pulled over drunk and high = and under=20 21, lie to a cop about if I had been drinking, and then get through the = sobriety=20 tests with just a stop sign ticket? Because I wasn't so fucked up that = the guy=20 pulled his breathalyzer on me. He was fair and I performed. And as a = side note,=20 I wasn't driving dangerously. The town had gotten new squad cars and I = didn't=20 realize I needed to not roll through a stop sign in the DEAD of night at = 3=20 mph.

B.A.C. does NOT =3D impairment, nor does it =3D an automatic = significant risk. A=20 complex combination of factors that varies from person to person may. I = doubt=20 even a brain scan could tell you for sure who's impaired and who isn't. = As for=20 cops performing highway-side blood-letting, let's just say "creepy" is = now=20 officially well-defined.

Zero tolerance =3D zero intelligence.

=20

blogsniper|10.13.10 @ 1:53AM|#

Even so, you could still be arrested for public intoxication, such as = CA=20 Penal code 647f, a safety hazard to yourself and others. That would = still get=20 you more than the idiot who was switching tracks on his Air Supply = 8-track=20 tape.

=20

|10.13.10 @ 10:05AM|#

Missouri's DWI law doesn't mention a "magic number". We focus on the=20 intoxicated or drugged behavior of the individual in order to reach a = probable=20 cause arrest decision. Sadly the prosecutors are hung up on a magic = number=20 (though the law does not require it). We also have an illegal per se = statute=20 which does mention a number (0.080 as with all other US States). I agree = that=20 impairment should be the issue. Good article.

=20

|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=20 enforced at the whim of police.

For the flaws in BAC, it is, at least, a number that can be measured = within=20 some margin of error.

Next, let's get rid of the speed limits because that's an arbitrary = number=20 too.

=20

rhhardin|10.14.10 = @=20 11:30AM|#

Sociologist Joseph R Gusfield has a series of books out on seizing = political=20 power through "public problems" by discovering them and then taking = ownership of=20 them, starting with "The Culture of Public Problems: Drinking-Driving = and the=20 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=20 problem.

The possibility is today hard to imagine; but life went on very = nicely=20 without the conversion.

Child sexual abuse didn't exist before the 70s; and child abuse = (bruises and=20 the like) before the 60s, as public problems.

A lot of hysteria came with those conversions.

=20

|10.14.10 @ 3:01PM|#

It used to be that regular people didn't own cars, and rich people = had=20 drivers. Maryjo Kopechne would disagree about drunk driving only being a = personal failing in 1969.

=20

|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=20 police, prosecutors and courts? Discretion that you just know will be = subject to=20 abuse.

Absent such a standard and test, this opens a can of worms that is = best left=20 closed and on the shelf.

=20

|10.14.10 @ 11:51AM|#

What ever happened to common sense? Having a glass or two of wine = with dinner=20 and then driving home should not be a crime if it does not cause you to = drive=20 recklessly.

Why aren't individuals with THREE DWI offenses under the present laws = taken=20 OFF THE ROAD for several years.

=20

|10.14.10 @ 12:32PM|#

I'm with Marty. The one benefit of having a standard is that it poses = an=20 objective test that can be used, even though it's poor. The alternative = is=20 handing over everything to police officers' completely subjective = analysis, and=20 while I think for a lot of cops that'd be just fine there are always a = few bad=20 apples. (With modern technology there might be a solution, in that = always having=20 the sobriety check in front of a dash cam would be a way to prove to a = judge or=20 jury that the stop was warranted.) Until we come up with a better = option, we=20 should improve the way the standard is measured. If a breathalyzer = manufacturer=20 refuses to release technical specs needed for defense, rule that brand's = data=20 inadmissible and watch the company crumble. If a person has a ratio of = alcohol=20 output in their lungs that throws off the breathalyzer and makes it read = too=20 high, let them attach that info to their license so the police can = calibrate the=20 machine. Whether we improve the standard or throw it out, we need to = have a good=20 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=20 roads--there's good reason to ban them. No it's not easy to enforce, and = there=20 may be the rare person who can do this safely, but for pure stupidity = and danger=20 it's hard to top.

=20

|10.14.10 @ 6:42PM|#

So it would be up to the cop's judgment whether I was impaired or = not? Hmm. I=20 might opt for the blood test, at least it isn't biased in the way a cop = might=20 be. Doing this would certainly *not* reduce arrests for reckless or = impaired=20 driving, it would just make enforcement and the legal process more = nebulous. How=20 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=20 baseline as imperfect as they may be. To be honest, the .08 level is a=20 deterrent. I know if I have more than a couple I should not be on the = road=20 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.

=20

|10.14.10 @ 10:33PM|#

You are so "right on". I've been told by a number of physicians that = I have a=20 very uncommon tolerance of pain. I have asserted to them that there has = to be a=20 correlation to my body's ability (or lack of ability) to be put to sleep = for an=20 operation. Starting at the age of 10 for a tonsilectomy (sp?) I couldn't = be put=20 to sleep with sodium pentathol and I heard the doctor's saying (on = ether) "if=20 this kid's not asleep in 5 seconds we're going to have to stop". I = closed my=20 eyes but was awake throughout the operation. the surgeries I've had = since=20 (stapedechetomys and colonoscopys) have had a similar outcome. Since my = body=20 (liver enzymes) has that type of response it's not possible that = alchohol has=20 the kind of impact on me that it has others. To place a "once size fits = all" on=20 all people relative to alchohol consumption is riduculous -- you make = excellent=20 statements!

=20

|10.14.10 @ 10:51PM|#

"I might opt for the blood test, at least it isn't biased in the way = a cop=20 might be. Doing this would certainly *not* reduce arrests for reckless = or=20 impaired driving, it would just make enforcement and the legal process = more=20 nebulous."

First, I am not sure the word nebulous fits in with the argument you = are=20 making here. If you are saying that blood tests would help to support = legal=20 enforcement by providing additional supporting evidence, then "nebulous" = is=20 suggesting the opposite of this assertion.

Assuming you think that road side blood tests are a helpful law = enforcement=20 tool...

So having cops spending all sorts of time administering blood tests = on the=20 side of the road wont limit their capacity to be on the lookout for = reckless=20 drivers? How long do you think this test takes and how many cops do you = think we=20 have that we can waste all of this time just for the sake of proving = that=20 somebody had more than three beers? If this driver was pulled over = because they=20 were swerving all over the road, or speeding, wouldn't it be more = efficient to=20 simply punish them for reckless driving, especially if the punishment = was at=20 least as harsh as the drunk driving punishment? Also, wouldn't video = evidence of=20 reckless driving be enough evidence? Why do we need to prove someone is = drunk in=20 order to prove they were driving recklessly? Also, proving someone has = been=20 drinking does not actually prove they were driving recklessly or that = they were=20 even impaired to the point of being dangerous. If someone is driving=20 dangerously, which is marked by swerving, speeding and other such = indicators,=20 then it really doesn't matter if they are impaired or not, they should = be=20 stopped and tried for reckless driving. The evidence is on the video. I = think=20 that reasonable people can tell the difference between safe driving and = unsafe=20 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=20 impairments are just as bad, but it is not so easy to test for texting = while=20 driving. Should we bias our enforcement towards just one form of = dangerous=20 driving? If there are two drivers on the road in the middle of the night = and=20 they are both swerving, one because they were texting and the other = because they=20 are drunk, is it reasonable to hold one more accountable than the other = simply=20 because you cannot prove they were texting? What about if you are = driving safely=20 and you get pulled over because of a broken tail light and the cop = thinks he=20 smells booze and so you take a breathalyzer and fail do you think this = is the=20 same service to public safety as pulling over a person who is actually = driving=20 recklessly? Could this time be used more effectively to spot drivers who = are=20 already a threat to public safety? Would it matter that any number of = other=20 impairments would be ignored by the cop that pulled you over simply = because they=20 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=20 drunk. Be more aggressive about spotting reckless driving. Make the = penalties=20 stronger for reckless driving. Look, I am not a fan of leaving it up to = a cop to=20 decide if I am driving recklessly, but if there is reasonable video = evidence=20 that a jury would recognize as reckless driving, then we can limit the=20 possibility of an over zealous cop making an arbitrary decision. This is = actually an argument FOR more aggressive reckless driving laws and = enforcement.=20 Having to prove drunkenness to punish a reckless driver effectively is = not=20 particularly effective at reducing all of the other causes of reckless = driving.=20 With that in mind, it is totally unreasonable to expect or create a law = for=20 every conceivable cause of reckless driving, but most people know why = they are=20 driving recklessly and so if there is a deterrent against reckless = driving, most=20 people will try to avoid these things that may cause them to drive=20 recklessly.

=20

Sandy|10.15.10=20 @ 11:36AM|#

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

=20

|10.15.10 @ 7:06PM|#

Punish all reckless driving regardless of cause the same as drunk = driving and=20 spend more time looking for reckless drivers than attempting to prove = someone is=20 drunk. Or, Aggressively prosecute all forms of distracted or impaired = driving by=20 aggressively prosecuting reckless driving.

=20

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

Chief Acevedo has brought up a valid point by saying there is no = punitive=20 section available to his officers for driving "impaired". We have all=20 encountered "light weight" drinkers who are impaired by just one drink. = Basic=20 DUI wet labs have taught us that alcohol in the human body effects our = higher=20 brain functions, causing our inhibitions to decrease. We have all been = brought=20 up with the term "liquid courage" to describe the effect a "shot" of = wiskey has=20 on our system which gives us "courage" to ask that girl for a dance, = etc. Here=20 is something we need to ask ourselves: Mercedes Benz has been = advertising their=20 "smart" cars can detect objects in the road and control the vehicle = accordingly.=20 So, does this make the owners of these vehicles more liable for causing = a=20 collision while their impaired?

=20

mee|1.25.11 @=20 9:59PM|#

if your getting pulled over chances are you were reckless driving = first, then=20 they gave you a breathalizer to see if thats the reason. If your = drinking wasnt=20 impairing your driving what was? do you expect people to think it was = just a=20 coincidence. plus the law needs to be strict because the consequences of = the=20 actions of a drunk driver are so serious

=20

mee|1.25.11 @=20 10:00PM|#

=20

|3.18.11 @ 12:46AM|#

people are just assholes on the road they go out of their way to pass = you up=20 so they can stop at the light first iagree with judgeing perfomance that = would=20 put a lot people off the road get rid of the assholes

=20

|3.18.11 @ 12:46AM|#

=20

|3.18.11 @ 12:46AM|#

=20

|3.18.11 @ 12:46AM|#

=20

|3.18.11 @ 12:47AM|#

=20

nike shoes UK|8.4.11 @=20 5:13AM|#

is good

=20

=D9=82=D8=A8=D9=84=D8=A9 = =D8=A7=D9=84=D9=88=D8=AF=D8=A7=D8=B9|8.16.11 @=20 9:18PM|#

thank u

=20

Latest Articles on Reason Online

The=20 Debt and A Good Old Fashioned Orgy, Kurt = Loder,=20 September 1, 2011
Th= e Gay=20 Marriage Debate, John Stossel, September 1, 2011
Michigan=20 Bar Owners Ban Lawmakers for Banning Smoking! (Nanny of the Month, Aug = 2011), Ted Balaker, September 1, 2011
Obama's=20 Jobs Program: If the Choice is Between "Go Big or Go Home," Start = Packing=20 Now., Nick Gillespie, September 1, 2011
The=20 Conservative Reversal on Science, Steve Chapman, = September 1,=20 2011
Matt=20 Welch Talks About Subsidized Homeowner Insurance on Freedom Watch, = Matt Welch, August 31, 2011
You=20 Don't Have To Be =E2=80=9CSmart,=E2=80=9D Just Right, David = Harsanyi, August 31,=20 2011

Latest Posts on Hit & Run

Former=20 LA Teacher Union Head Starts Charter, Now Hates Teacher Tenure, = Nick=20 Gillespie, September 1, 2011
New at=20 Reason: Kurt Loder on The Debt and A Good Old Fashioned=20 Orgy, September 1, 2011
How=20 Eminent Domain Transformed a Nice Neighborhood into a Dump, = Damon W.=20 Root, September 1, 2011
More=20 Apparent Evidence Tampering From Michael West, Bite Mark "Expert", = Lucy Steigerwald, September 1, 2011
'Childhood=20 Itself Is Now in Crisis', Jacob Sullum, September 1, 2011 =
Obama:=20 Ban Discrimination Against Non-Workers, Tim Cavanaugh, = September=20 1, 2011

").append(res.responseText.replac= e(//g,"")).find(selector):res.responseText);self.= each(callback,[res.responseText,status,res]);}});return = this;},serialize:function(){return = jQuery.param(this.serializeArray());},serializeArray:function(){return = this.map(function(){return = jQuery.nodeName(this,"form")?jQuery.makeArray(this.elements):this;}).filt= er(function(){return = this.name&&!this.disabled&&(this.checked||/select|textarea/i.test(this.no= deName)||/text|hidden|password/i.test(this.type));}).map(function(i,elem)= {var val=3DjQuery(this).val();return = val=3D=3Dnull?null:val.constructor=3D=3DArray?jQuery.map(val,function(val= ,i){return{name:elem.name,value:val};}):{name:elem.name,value:val};}).get= ();}});jQuery.each("ajaxStart,ajaxStop,ajaxComplete,ajaxError,ajaxSuccess= ,ajaxSend".split(","),function(i,o){jQuery.fn[o]=3Dfunction(f){return = this.bind(o,f);};});var = jsc=3Dnow();jQuery.extend({get:function(url,data,callback,type){if(jQuery= .isFunction(data)){callback=3Ddata;data=3Dnull;}return = jQuery.ajax({type:"GET",url:url,data:data,success:callback,dataType:type}= );},getScript:function(url,callback){return = jQuery.get(url,null,callback,"script");},getJSON:function(url,data,callba= ck){return = jQuery.get(url,data,callback,"json");},post:function(url,data,callback,ty= pe){if(jQuery.isFunction(data)){callback=3Ddata;data=3D{};}return = jQuery.ajax({type:"POST",url:url,data:data,success:callback,dataType:type= });},ajaxSetup:function(settings){jQuery.extend(jQuery.ajaxSettings,setti= ngs);},ajaxSettings:{url:location.href,global:true,type:"GET",timeout:0,c= ontentType:"application/x-www-form-urlencoded",processData:true,async:tru= e,data:null,username:null,password:null,accepts:{xml:"application/xml, = text/xml",html:"text/html",script:"text/javascript, = application/javascript",json:"application/json, = text/javascript",text:"text/plain",_default:"*/*"}},lastModified:{},ajax:= function(s){s=3DjQuery.extend(true,s,jQuery.extend(true,{},jQuery.ajaxSet= tings,s));var = jsonp,jsre=3D/=3D\?(&|$)/g,status,data,type=3Ds.type.toUpperCase();if(s.d= ata&&s.processData&&typeof = s.data!=3D"string")s.data=3DjQuery.param(s.data);if(s.dataType=3D=3D"json= p"){if(type=3D=3D"GET"){if(!s.url.match(jsre))s.url+=3D(s.url.match(/\?/)= ?"&":"?")+(s.jsonp||"callback")+"=3D?";}else = if(!s.data||!s.data.match(jsre))s.data=3D(s.data?s.data+"&":"")+(s.jsonp|= |"callback")+"=3D?";s.dataType=3D"json";}if(s.dataType=3D=3D"json"&&(s.da= ta&&s.data.match(jsre)||s.url.match(jsre))){jsonp=3D"jsonp"+jsc++;if(s.da= ta)s.data=3D(s.data+"").replace(jsre,"=3D"+jsonp+"$1");s.url=3Ds.url.repl= ace(jsre,"=3D"+jsonp+"$1");s.dataType=3D"script";window[jsonp]=3Dfunction= (tmp){data=3Dtmp;success();complete();window[jsonp]=3Dundefined;try{delet= e = window[jsonp];}catch(e){}if(head)head.removeChild(script);};}if(s.dataTyp= e=3D=3D"script"&&s.cache=3D=3Dnull)s.cache=3Dfalse;if(s.cache=3D=3D=3Dfal= se&&type=3D=3D"GET"){var ts=3Dnow();var = ret=3Ds.url.replace(/(\?|&)_=3D.*?(&|$)/,"$1_=3D"+ts+"$2");s.url=3Dret+((= ret=3D=3Ds.url)?(s.url.match(/\?/)?"&":"?")+"_=3D"+ts:"");}if(s.data&&typ= e=3D=3D"GET"){s.url+=3D(s.url.match(/\?/)?"&":"?")+s.data;s.data=3Dnull;}= if(s.global&&!jQuery.active++)jQuery.event.trigger("ajaxStart");var = remote=3D/^(?:\w+:)?\/\/([^\/?#]+)/;if(s.dataType=3D=3D"script"&&type=3D=3D= "GET"&&remote.test(s.url)&&remote.exec(s.url)[1]!=3Dlocation.host){var = head=3Ddocument.getElementsByTagName("head")[0];var = script=3Ddocument.createElement("script");script.src=3Ds.url;if(s.scriptC= harset)script.charset=3Ds.scriptCharset;if(!jsonp){var = done=3Dfalse;script.onload=3Dscript.onreadystatechange=3Dfunction(){if(!d= one&&(!this.readyState||this.readyState=3D=3D"loaded"||this.readyState=3D= =3D"complete")){done=3Dtrue;success();complete();head.removeChild(script)= ;}};}head.appendChild(script);return undefined;}var = requestDone=3Dfalse;var xhr=3Dwindow.ActiveXObject?new = ActiveXObject("Microsoft.XMLHTTP"):new = XMLHttpRequest();if(s.username)xhr.open(type,s.url,s.async,s.username,s.p= assword);else=0A= xhr.open(type,s.url,s.async);try{if(s.data)xhr.setRequestHeader("Content-= Type",s.contentType);if(s.ifModified)xhr.setRequestHeader("If-Modified-Si= nce",jQuery.lastModified[s.url]||"Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 = GMT");xhr.setRequestHeader("X-Requested-With","XMLHttpRequest");xhr.setRe= questHeader("Accept",s.dataType&&s.accepts[s.dataType]?s.accepts[s.dataTy= pe]+", = */*":s.accepts._default);}catch(e){}if(s.beforeSend&&s.beforeSend(xhr,s)=3D= =3D=3Dfalse){s.global&&jQuery.active--;xhr.abort();return = false;}if(s.global)jQuery.event.trigger("ajaxSend",[xhr,s]);var = onreadystatechange=3Dfunction(isTimeout){if(!requestDone&&xhr&&(xhr.ready= State=3D=3D4||isTimeout=3D=3D"timeout")){requestDone=3Dtrue;if(ival){clea= rInterval(ival);ival=3Dnull;}status=3DisTimeout=3D=3D"timeout"&&"timeout"= ||!jQuery.httpSuccess(xhr)&&"error"||s.ifModified&&jQuery.httpNotModified= (xhr,s.url)&&"notmodified"||"success";if(status=3D=3D"success"){try{data=3D= jQuery.httpData(xhr,s.dataType,s.dataFilter);}catch(e){status=3D"parserer= ror";}}if(status=3D=3D"success"){var = modRes;try{modRes=3Dxhr.getResponseHeader("Last-Modified");}catch(e){}if(= s.ifModified&&modRes)jQuery.lastModified[s.url]=3DmodRes;if(!jsonp)succes= s();}else=0A= jQuery.handleError(s,xhr,status);complete();if(s.async)xhr=3Dnull;}};if(s= .async){var = ival=3DsetInterval(onreadystatechange,13);if(s.timeout>0)setTimeout(funct= ion(){if(xhr){xhr.abort();if(!requestDone)onreadystatechange("timeout");}= },s.timeout);}try{xhr.send(s.data);}catch(e){jQuery.handleError(s,xhr,nul= l,e);}if(!s.async)onreadystatechange();function = success(){if(s.success)s.success(data,status);if(s.global)jQuery.event.tr= igger("ajaxSuccess",[xhr,s]);}function = complete(){if(s.complete)s.complete(xhr,status);if(s.global)jQuery.event.= trigger("ajaxComplete",[xhr,s]);if(s.global&&!--jQuery.active)jQuery.even= t.trigger("ajaxStop");}return = xhr;},handleError:function(s,xhr,status,e){if(s.error)s.error(xhr,status,= e);if(s.global)jQuery.event.trigger("ajaxError",[xhr,s,e]);},active:0,htt= pSuccess:function(xhr){try{return!xhr.status&&location.protocol=3D=3D"fil= e:"||(xhr.status>=3D200&&xhr.status<300)||xhr.status=3D=3D304||xhr.status= =3D=3D1223||jQuery.browser.safari&&xhr.status=3D=3Dundefined;}catch(e){}r= eturn false;},httpNotModified:function(xhr,url){try{var = xhrRes=3Dxhr.getResponseHeader("Last-Modified");return = xhr.status=3D=3D304||xhrRes=3D=3DjQuery.lastModified[url]||jQuery.browser= .safari&&xhr.status=3D=3Dundefined;}catch(e){}return = false;},httpData:function(xhr,type,filter){var = ct=3Dxhr.getResponseHeader("content-type"),xml=3Dtype=3D=3D"xml"||!type&&= ct&&ct.indexOf("xml")>=3D0,data=3Dxml?xhr.responseXML:xhr.responseText;if= (xml&&data.documentElement.tagName=3D=3D"parsererror")throw"parsererror";= if(filter)data=3Dfilter(data,type);if(type=3D=3D"script")jQuery.globalEva= l(data);if(type=3D=3D"json")data=3Deval("("+data+")");return = data;},param:function(a){var = s=3D[];if(a.constructor=3D=3DArray||a.jquery)jQuery.each(a,function(){s.p= ush(encodeURIComponent(this.name)+"=3D"+encodeURIComponent(this.value));}= );else=0A= for(var j in = a)if(a[j]&&a[j].constructor=3D=3DArray)jQuery.each(a[j],function(){s.push= (encodeURIComponent(j)+"=3D"+encodeURIComponent(this));});else=0A= s.push(encodeURIComponent(j)+"=3D"+encodeURIComponent(jQuery.isFunction(a= [j])?a[j]():a[j]));return = s.join("&").replace(/%20/g,"+");}});jQuery.fn.extend({show:function(speed= ,callback){return = speed?this.animate({height:"show",width:"show",opacity:"show"},speed,call= back):this.filter(":hidden").each(function(){this.style.display=3Dthis.ol= dblock||"";if(jQuery.css(this,"display")=3D=3D"none"){var = elem=3DjQuery("<"+this.tagName+" = />").appendTo("body");this.style.display=3Delem.css("display");if(this.st= yle.display=3D=3D"none")this.style.display=3D"block";elem.remove();}}).en= d();},hide:function(speed,callback){return = speed?this.animate({height:"hide",width:"hide",opacity:"hide"},speed,call= back):this.filter(":visible").each(function(){this.oldblock=3Dthis.oldblo= ck||jQuery.css(this,"display");this.style.display=3D"none";}).end();},_to= ggle:jQuery.fn.toggle,toggle:function(fn,fn2){return = jQuery.isFunction(fn)&&jQuery.isFunction(fn2)?this._toggle.apply(this,arg= uments):fn?this.animate({height:"toggle",width:"toggle",opacity:"toggle"}= ,fn,fn2):this.each(function(){jQuery(this)[jQuery(this).is(":hidden")?"sh= ow":"hide"]();});},slideDown:function(speed,callback){return = this.animate({height:"show"},speed,callback);},slideUp:function(speed,cal= lback){return = this.animate({height:"hide"},speed,callback);},slideToggle:function(speed= ,callback){return = this.animate({height:"toggle"},speed,callback);},fadeIn:function(speed,ca= llback){return = this.animate({opacity:"show"},speed,callback);},fadeOut:function(speed,ca= llback){return = this.animate({opacity:"hide"},speed,callback);},fadeTo:function(speed,to,= callback){return = this.animate({opacity:to},speed,callback);},animate:function(prop,speed,e= asing,callback){var optall=3DjQuery.speed(speed,easing,callback);return = this[optall.queue=3D=3D=3Dfalse?"each":"queue"](function(){if(this.nodeTy= pe!=3D1)return false;var = opt=3DjQuery.extend({},optall),p,hidden=3DjQuery(this).is(":hidden"),self= =3Dthis;for(p in = prop){if(prop[p]=3D=3D"hide"&&hidden||prop[p]=3D=3D"show"&&!hidden)return= = opt.complete.call(this);if(p=3D=3D"height"||p=3D=3D"width"){opt.display=3D= jQuery.css(this,"display");opt.overflow=3Dthis.style.overflow;}}if(opt.ov= erflow!=3Dnull)this.style.overflow=3D"hidden";opt.curAnim=3DjQuery.extend= ({},prop);jQuery.each(prop,function(name,val){var e=3Dnew = jQuery.fx(self,opt,name);if(/toggle|show|hide/.test(val))e[val=3D=3D"togg= le"?hidden?"show":"hide":val](prop);else{var = parts=3Dval.toString().match(/^([+-]=3D)?([\d+-.]+)(.*)$/),start=3De.cur(= true)||0;if(parts){var = end=3DparseFloat(parts[2]),unit=3Dparts[3]||"px";if(unit!=3D"px"){self.st= yle[name]=3D(end||1)+unit;start=3D((end||1)/e.cur(true))*start;self.style= [name]=3Dstart+unit;}if(parts[1])end=3D((parts[1]=3D=3D"-=3D"?-1:1)*end)+= start;e.custom(start,end,unit);}else=0A= e.custom(start,val,"");}});return = true;});},queue:function(type,fn){if(jQuery.isFunction(type)||(type&&type= .constructor=3D=3DArray)){fn=3Dtype;type=3D"fx";}if(!type||(typeof = type=3D=3D"string"&&!fn))return queue(this[0],type);return = this.each(function(){if(fn.constructor=3D=3DArray)queue(this,type,fn);els= e{queue(this,type).push(fn);if(queue(this,type).length=3D=3D1)fn.call(thi= s);}});},stop:function(clearQueue,gotoEnd){var = timers=3DjQuery.timers;if(clearQueue)this.queue([]);this.each(function(){= for(var = i=3Dtimers.length-1;i>=3D0;i--)if(timers[i].elem=3D=3Dthis){if(gotoEnd)ti= mers[i](true);timers.splice(i,1);}});if(!gotoEnd)this.dequeue();return = this;}});var = queue=3Dfunction(elem,type,array){if(elem){type=3Dtype||"fx";var = q=3DjQuery.data(elem,type+"queue");if(!q||array)q=3DjQuery.data(elem,type= +"queue",jQuery.makeArray(array));}return = q;};jQuery.fn.dequeue=3Dfunction(type){type=3Dtype||"fx";return = this.each(function(){var = q=3Dqueue(this,type);q.shift();if(q.length)q[0].call(this);});};jQuery.ex= tend({speed:function(speed,easing,fn){var = opt=3Dspeed&&speed.constructor=3D=3DObject?speed:{complete:fn||!fn&&easin= g||jQuery.isFunction(speed)&&speed,duration:speed,easing:fn&&easing||easi= ng&&easing.constructor!=3DFunction&&easing};opt.duration=3D(opt.duration&= &opt.duration.constructor=3D=3DNumber?opt.duration:jQuery.fx.speeds[opt.d= uration])||jQuery.fx.speeds.def;opt.old=3Dopt.complete;opt.complete=3Dfun= ction(){if(opt.queue!=3D=3Dfalse)jQuery(this).dequeue();if(jQuery.isFunct= ion(opt.old))opt.old.call(this);};return = opt;},easing:{linear:function(p,n,firstNum,diff){return = firstNum+diff*p;},swing:function(p,n,firstNum,diff){return((-Math.cos(p*M= ath.PI)/2)+0.5)*diff+firstNum;}},timers:[],timerId:null,fx:function(elem,= options,prop){this.options=3Doptions;this.elem=3Delem;this.prop=3Dprop;if= (!options.orig)options.orig=3D{};}});jQuery.fx.prototype=3D{update:functi= on(){if(this.options.step)this.options.step.call(this.elem,this.now,this)= ;(jQuery.fx.step[this.prop]||jQuery.fx.step._default)(this);if(this.prop=3D= =3D"height"||this.prop=3D=3D"width")this.elem.style.display=3D"block";},c= ur:function(force){if(this.elem[this.prop]!=3Dnull&&this.elem.style[this.= prop]=3D=3Dnull)return this.elem[this.prop];var = r=3DparseFloat(jQuery.css(this.elem,this.prop,force));return = r&&r>-10000?r:parseFloat(jQuery.curCSS(this.elem,this.prop))||0;},custom:= function(from,to,unit){this.startTime=3Dnow();this.start=3Dfrom;this.end=3D= to;this.unit=3Dunit||this.unit||"px";this.now=3Dthis.start;this.pos=3Dthi= s.state=3D0;this.update();var self=3Dthis;function t(gotoEnd){return = self.step(gotoEnd);}t.elem=3Dthis.elem;jQuery.timers.push(t);if(jQuery.ti= merId=3D=3Dnull){jQuery.timerId=3DsetInterval(function(){var = timers=3DjQuery.timers;for(var = i=3D0;ithis.options.duration+this.startTime){this.now=3D= this.end;this.pos=3Dthis.state=3D1;this.update();this.options.curAnim[thi= s.prop]=3Dtrue;var done=3Dtrue;for(var i in = this.options.curAnim)if(this.options.curAnim[i]!=3D=3Dtrue)done=3Dfalse;i= f(done){if(this.options.display!=3Dnull){this.elem.style.overflow=3Dthis.= options.overflow;this.elem.style.display=3Dthis.options.display;if(jQuery= .css(this.elem,"display")=3D=3D"none")this.elem.style.display=3D"block";}= if(this.options.hide)this.elem.style.display=3D"none";if(this.options.hid= e||this.options.show)for(var p in = this.options.curAnim)jQuery.attr(this.elem.style,p,this.options.orig[p]);= }if(done)this.options.complete.call(this.elem);return false;}else{var = n=3Dt-this.startTime;this.state=3Dn/this.options.duration;this.pos=3DjQue= ry.easing[this.options.easing||(jQuery.easing.swing?"swing":"linear")](th= is.state,n,0,1,this.options.duration);this.now=3Dthis.start+((this.end-th= is.start)*this.pos);this.update();}return = true;}};jQuery.extend(jQuery.fx,{speeds:{slow:600,fast:200,def:400},step:= {scrollLeft:function(fx){fx.elem.scrollLeft=3Dfx.now;},scrollTop:function= (fx){fx.elem.scrollTop=3Dfx.now;},opacity:function(fx){jQuery.attr(fx.ele= m.style,"opacity",fx.now);},_default:function(fx){fx.elem.style[fx.prop]=3D= fx.now+fx.unit;}}});jQuery.fn.offset=3Dfunction(){var = left=3D0,top=3D0,elem=3Dthis[0],results;if(elem)with(jQuery.browser){var = parent=3Delem.parentNode,offsetChild=3Delem,offsetParent=3Delem.offsetPar= ent,doc=3Delem.ownerDocument,safari2=3Dsafari&&parseInt(version)<522&&!/a= dobeair/i.test(userAgent),css=3DjQuery.curCSS,fixed=3Dcss(elem,"position"= )=3D=3D"fixed";if(elem.getBoundingClientRect){var = box=3Delem.getBoundingClientRect();add(box.left+Math.max(doc.documentElem= ent.scrollLeft,doc.body.scrollLeft),box.top+Math.max(doc.documentElement.= scrollTop,doc.body.scrollTop));add(-doc.documentElement.clientLeft,-doc.d= ocumentElement.clientTop);}else{add(elem.offsetLeft,elem.offsetTop);while= (offsetParent){add(offsetParent.offsetLeft,offsetParent.offsetTop);if(moz= illa&&!/^t(able|d|h)$/i.test(offsetParent.tagName)||safari&&!safari2)bord= er(offsetParent);if(!fixed&&css(offsetParent,"position")=3D=3D"fixed")fix= ed=3Dtrue;offsetChild=3D/^body$/i.test(offsetParent.tagName)?offsetChild:= offsetParent;offsetParent=3DoffsetParent.offsetParent;}while(parent&&pare= nt.tagName&&!/^body|html$/i.test(parent.tagName)){if(!/^inline|table.*$/i= .test(css(parent,"display")))add(-parent.scrollLeft,-parent.scrollTop);if= (mozilla&&css(parent,"overflow")!=3D"visible")border(parent);parent=3Dpar= ent.parentNode;}if((safari2&&(fixed||css(offsetChild,"position")=3D=3D"ab= solute"))||(mozilla&&css(offsetChild,"position")!=3D"absolute"))add(-doc.= body.offsetLeft,-doc.body.offsetTop);if(fixed)add(Math.max(doc.documentEl= ement.scrollLeft,doc.body.scrollLeft),Math.max(doc.documentElement.scroll= Top,doc.body.scrollTop));}results=3D{top:top,left:left};}function = border(elem){add(jQuery.curCSS(elem,"borderLeftWidth",true),jQuery.curCSS= (elem,"borderTopWidth",true));}function = add(l,t){left+=3DparseInt(l,10)||0;top+=3DparseInt(t,10)||0;}return = results;};jQuery.fn.extend({position:function(){var = left=3D0,top=3D0,results;if(this[0]){var = offsetParent=3Dthis.offsetParent(),offset=3Dthis.offset(),parentOffset=3D= /^body|html$/i.test(offsetParent[0].tagName)?{top:0,left:0}:offsetParent.= offset();offset.top-=3Dnum(this,'marginTop');offset.left-=3Dnum(this,'mar= ginLeft');parentOffset.top+=3Dnum(offsetParent,'borderTopWidth');parentOf= fset.left+=3Dnum(offsetParent,'borderLeftWidth');results=3D{top:offset.to= p-parentOffset.top,left:offset.left-parentOffset.left};}return = results;},offsetParent:function(){var = offsetParent=3Dthis[0].offsetParent;while(offsetParent&&(!/^body|html$/i.= test(offsetParent.tagName)&&jQuery.css(offsetParent,'position')=3D=3D'sta= tic'))offsetParent=3DoffsetParent.offsetParent;return = jQuery(offsetParent);}});jQuery.each(['Left','Top'],function(i,name){var = method=3D'scroll'+name;jQuery.fn[method]=3Dfunction(val){if(!this[0])retu= rn;return = val!=3Dundefined?this.each(function(){this=3D=3Dwindow||this=3D=3Ddocumen= t?window.scrollTo(!i?val:jQuery(window).scrollLeft(),i?val:jQuery(window)= .scrollTop()):this[method]=3Dval;}):this[0]=3D=3Dwindow||this[0]=3D=3Ddoc= ument?self[i?'pageYOffset':'pageXOffset']||jQuery.boxModel&&document.docu= mentElement[method]||document.body[method]:this[0][method];};});jQuery.ea= ch(["Height","Width"],function(i,name){var = tl=3Di?"Left":"Top",br=3Di?"Right":"Bottom";jQuery.fn["inner"+name]=3Dfun= ction(){return = this[name.toLowerCase()]()+num(this,"padding"+tl)+num(this,"padding"+br);= };jQuery.fn["outer"+name]=3Dfunction(margin){return = this["inner"+name]()+num(this,"border"+tl+"Width")+num(this,"border"+br+"= Width")+(margin?num(this,"margin"+tl)+num(this,"margin"+br):0);};});})(); ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01CC68C0.EDA1B870 Content-Type: application/octet-stream Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: http://reason.com/media/js/commentposting.js /*=0A= Class for managing the comment form used for threaded replies.=0A= */=0A= function CommentReplyForm(template) {=0A= this.template =3D template;=0A= }=0A= CommentReplyForm.preparetemplate =3D function(id) {=0A= // This is dependent on the markup the view creates.=0A= var template =3D $(document.getElementById(id)).clone();=0A= template.find('.error').empty();=0A= template =3D template.removeAttr('id'); // remove the id attribute=0A= template.children('h2').text('Reply to Comment'); // Change header=0A= template.addClass('reply'); // styling hook=0A= return template;=0A= }=0A= CommentReplyForm.prototype.show =3D function(parentcommentid) {=0A= this.template.find('form = input.comment_parentnumber').val(parentcommentid);=0A= this.template.attr('style','display:none');=0A= $('#comment_'+parentcommentid).append(this.template);=0A= this.template.removeAttr('style');=0A= var button =3D this.template.prevAll('button.comment_reply');=0A= if (button.length) {=0A= button.data('replytext', button.text());=0A= button.text('cancel reply')=0A= .get(0).comment_formopen=3Dtrue;=0A= }=0A= };=0A= =0A= CommentReplyForm.prototype.hide =3D function() {=0A= this.template.attr('style','display:none');=0A= this.template.find('form input.comment_parentnumber').val('');=0A= var button =3D this.template.prevAll('button.comment_reply');=0A= if (button.length) {=0A= button.text(button.data('replytext'))=0A= .get(0).comment_formopen=3Dfalse;=0A= }=0A= };=0A= CommentReplyForm.prototype.getCurrentParentId =3D function(self) {=0A= return self.template.find('form input.comment_parentnumber').val();=0A= };=0A= CommentReplyForm.prototype.replyButtonHandler =3D function(e) {=0A= var self =3D e.data.self;=0A= if (e.target.comment_formopen) {=0A= self.hide();=0A= } else {=0A= var currentparentcommentid =3D self.getCurrentParentId(self);=0A= // IE 6/7 have a button element bug where 'value' is always overwritten=0A= // with .textContent=0A= // Below is the only way to get the real value attribute value in IE.=0A= // Even .getAttribute('value') doesn't work.=0A= // I don't think this method is available in IE5.5, so they're out of = luck=0A= var parentcommentid =3D e.target.getAttributeNode('value').nodeValue;=0A= if (parentcommentid!=3Dcurrentparentcommentid) {=0A= if (currentparentcommentid!=3D=3Dnull) {=0A= self.hide();=0A= }=0A= self.show(parentcommentid);=0A= }=0A= }=0A= };=0A= CommentReplyForm.prototype.bindHandlers =3D function(replybuttons) {=0A= var data =3D {self:this};=0A= $(replybuttons).bind('click', data, this.replyButtonHandler);=0A= };=0A= =0A= var CommentPreview =3D {};=0A= CommentPreview.previewResponseHandler =3D function(commentform, data, = textStatus) {=0A= var preview =3D commentform.find('div.commentpreview');=0A= preview.empty();=0A= if (textStatus=3D=3D=3D'error') {=0A= preview.append('Unable to retrieve = preview').fadeIn();=0A= } else {=0A= preview.append(data).fadeIn();=0A= }=0A= };=0A= CommentPreview.previewButtonHandler =3D function(e) {=0A= var commentform =3D e.data.commentform;=0A= var responsecallback =3D function(data, textStatus) {=0A= CommentPreview.previewResponseHandler(commentform, data, textStatus);=0A= };=0A= commentform.find('div.commentpreview').fadeOut();=0A= $.ajax({=0A= url : e.data.previewurl,=0A= type : 'POST',=0A= dataType : 'html',=0A= data : e.data.commentform.find('form').serialize(),=0A= success : responsecallback,=0A= error : responsecallback=0A= });=0A= };=0A= CommentPreview.bindHandlers =3D function(commentform, previewbutton, = previewurl) {=0A= var data =3D {commentform:commentform, previewurl:previewurl};=0A= $(previewbutton).bind('click', data, = CommentPreview.previewButtonHandler).show();=0A= };=0A= =0A= $(function(){=0A= var template =3D CommentReplyForm.preparetemplate('commentform');=0A= var crf =3D new CommentReplyForm(template);=0A= crf.bindHandlers('div.com-block button.comment_reply');=0A= var previewurl =3D $('#commentform = form').attr('action').replace(/\/post$/, '/preview');=0A= CommentPreview.bindHandlers(template, template.find(':button.preview'), = previewurl);=0A= CommentPreview.bindHandlers($('#commentform'), $('#commentform = :button.preview'), previewurl);=0A= });=0A= ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01CC68C0.EDA1B870 Content-Type: application/octet-stream Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: http://reason.com/media/js/jcarousellite_1.0.1.min.js (function($){$.fn.jCarouselLite=3Dfunction(o){o=3D$.extend({btnPrev:null,= btnNext:null,btnGo:null,mouseWheel:false,auto:null,speed:200,easing:null,= vertical:false,circular:true,visible:3,start:0,scroll:1,beforeStart:null,= afterEnd:null},o||{});return this.each(function(){var = b=3Dfalse,animCss=3Do.vertical?"top":"left",sizeCss=3Do.vertical?"height"= :"width";var = c=3D$(this),ul=3D$("ul",c),tLi=3D$("li",ul),tl=3DtLi.size(),v=3Do.visible= ;if(o.circular){ul.prepend(tLi.slice(tl-v-1+1).clone()).append(tLi.slice(= 0,v).clone());o.start+=3Dv}var = f=3D$("li",ul),itemLength=3Df.size(),curr=3Do.start;c.css("visibility","v= isible");f.css({overflow:"hidden",float:o.vertical?"none":"left"});ul.css= ({margin:"0",padding:"0",position:"relative","list-style-type":"none","z-= index":"1"});c.css({overflow:"hidden",position:"relative","z-index":"2",l= eft:"0px"});var g=3Do.vertical?height(f):width(f);var = h=3Dg*itemLength;var = j=3Dg*v;f.css({width:f.width(),height:f.height()});ul.css(sizeCss,h+"px")= .css(animCss,-(curr*g));c.css(sizeCss,j+"px");if(o.btnPrev)$(o.btnPrev).c= lick(function(){return = go(curr-o.scroll)});if(o.btnNext)$(o.btnNext).click(function(){return = go(curr+o.scroll)});if(o.btnGo)$.each(o.btnGo,function(i,a){$(a).click(fu= nction(){return = go(o.circular?o.visible+i:i)})});if(o.mouseWheel&&c.mousewheel)c.mousewhe= el(function(e,d){return = d>0?go(curr-o.scroll):go(curr+o.scroll)});if(o.auto)setInterval(function(= ){go(curr+o.scroll)},o.auto+o.speed);function vis(){return = f.slice(curr).slice(0,v)};function = go(a){if(!b){if(o.beforeStart)o.beforeStart.call(this,vis());if(o.circula= r){if(a<=3Do.start-v-1){ul.css(animCss,-((itemLength-(v*2))*g)+"px");curr= =3Da=3D=3Do.start-v-1?itemLength-(v*2)-1:itemLength-(v*2)-o.scroll}else = if(a>=3DitemLength-v+1){ul.css(animCss,-((v)*g)+"px");curr=3Da=3D=3DitemL= ength-v+1?v+1:v+o.scroll}else = curr=3Da}else{if(a<0||a>itemLength-v)return;else = curr=3Da}b=3Dtrue;ul.animate(animCss=3D=3D"left"?{left:-(curr*g)}:{top:-(= curr*g)},o.speed,o.easing,function(){if(o.afterEnd)o.afterEnd.call(this,v= is());b=3Dfalse});if(!o.circular){$(o.btnPrev+","+o.btnNext).removeClass(= "disabled");$((curr-o.scroll<0&&o.btnPrev)||(curr+o.scroll>itemLength-v&&= o.btnNext)||[]).addClass("disabled")}}return false}})};function = css(a,b){return parseInt($.css(a[0],b))||0};function width(a){return = a[0].offsetWidth+css(a,'marginLeft')+css(a,'marginRight')};function = height(a){return = a[0].offsetHeight+css(a,'marginTop')+css(a,'marginBottom')}})(jQuery); ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01CC68C0.EDA1B870 Content-Type: application/octet-stream Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: http://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/swfobject/2.2/swfobject.js /* SWFObject v2.2 =0A= is released under the MIT License = =0A= */=0A= var swfobject=3Dfunction(){var = D=3D"undefined",r=3D"object",S=3D"Shockwave = Flash",W=3D"ShockwaveFlash.ShockwaveFlash",q=3D"application/x-shockwave-f= lash",R=3D"SWFObjectExprInst",x=3D"onreadystatechange",O=3Dwindow,j=3Ddoc= ument,t=3Dnavigator,T=3Dfalse,U=3D[h],o=3D[],N=3D[],I=3D[],l,Q,E,B,J=3Dfa= lse,a=3Dfalse,n,G,m=3Dtrue,M=3Dfunction(){var aa=3Dtypeof = j.getElementById!=3DD&&typeof j.getElementsByTagName!=3DD&&typeof = j.createElement!=3DD,ah=3Dt.userAgent.toLowerCase(),Y=3Dt.platform.toLowe= rCase(),ae=3DY?/win/.test(Y):/win/.test(ah),ac=3DY?/mac/.test(Y):/mac/.te= st(ah),af=3D/webkit/.test(ah)?parseFloat(ah.replace(/^.*webkit\/(\d+(\.\d= +)?).*$/,"$1")):false,X=3D!+"\v1",ag=3D[0,0,0],ab=3Dnull;if(typeof = t.plugins!=3DD&&typeof = t.plugins[S]=3D=3Dr){ab=3Dt.plugins[S].description;if(ab&&!(typeof = t.mimeTypes!=3DD&&t.mimeTypes[q]&&!t.mimeTypes[q].enabledPlugin)){T=3Dtru= e;X=3Dfalse;ab=3Dab.replace(/^.*\s+(\S+\s+\S+$)/,"$1");ag[0]=3DparseInt(a= b.replace(/^(.*)\..*$/,"$1"),10);ag[1]=3DparseInt(ab.replace(/^.*\.(.*)\s= .*$/,"$1"),10);ag[2]=3D/[a-zA-Z]/.test(ab)?parseInt(ab.replace(/^.*[a-zA-= Z]+(.*)$/,"$1"),10):0}}else{if(typeof O.ActiveXObject!=3DD){try{var = ad=3Dnew = ActiveXObject(W);if(ad){ab=3Dad.GetVariable("$version");if(ab){X=3Dtrue;a= b=3Dab.split(" = ")[1].split(",");ag=3D[parseInt(ab[0],10),parseInt(ab[1],10),parseInt(ab[= 2],10)]}}}catch(Z){}}}return{w3:aa,pv:ag,wk:af,ie:X,win:ae,mac:ac}}(),k=3D= function(){if(!M.w3){return}if((typeof = j.readyState!=3DD&&j.readyState=3D=3D"complete")||(typeof = j.readyState=3D=3DD&&(j.getElementsByTagName("body")[0]||j.body))){f()}if= (!J){if(typeof = j.addEventListener!=3DD){j.addEventListener("DOMContentLoaded",f,false)}i= f(M.ie&&M.win){j.attachEvent(x,function(){if(j.readyState=3D=3D"complete"= ){j.detachEvent(x,arguments.callee);f()}});if(O=3D=3Dtop){(function(){if(= J){return}try{j.documentElement.doScroll("left")}catch(X){setTimeout(argu= ments.callee,0);return}f()})()}}if(M.wk){(function(){if(J){return}if(!/lo= aded|complete/.test(j.readyState)){setTimeout(arguments.callee,0);return}= f()})()}s(f)}}();function f(){if(J){return}try{var = Z=3Dj.getElementsByTagName("body")[0].appendChild(C("span"));Z.parentNode= .removeChild(Z)}catch(aa){return}J=3Dtrue;var X=3DU.length;for(var = Y=3D0;Y0){for(var af=3D0;af0){var = ae=3Dc(Y);if(ae){if(F(o[af].swfVersion)&&!(M.wk&&M.wk<312)){w(Y,true);if(= ab){aa.success=3Dtrue;aa.ref=3Dz(Y);ab(aa)}}else{if(o[af].expressInstall&= &A()){var = ai=3D{};ai.data=3Do[af].expressInstall;ai.width=3Dae.getAttribute("width"= )||"0";ai.height=3Dae.getAttribute("height")||"0";if(ae.getAttribute("cla= ss")){ai.styleclass=3Dae.getAttribute("class")}if(ae.getAttribute("align"= )){ai.align=3Dae.getAttribute("align")}var ah=3D{};var = X=3Dae.getElementsByTagName("param");var ac=3DX.length;for(var = ad=3D0;ad'}}aa.outerHTML=3D'