What do you think is reasonable?Originally Posted by yachtie10
Forum whore
What do you think is reasonable?
You don't get to be an old dog without learning a few tricks.
Shorai Powersports batteries are very trick!
Bogeyman
If I'm forced to watch another round of "educational" advertisements about drunk driving, (or anything else for that matter) I’m going to explode.
What is it with people who figure that just because other people don’t behave the way they want they must:
a) be wicked, and require locking up and thrashing to within an inch of their lives, or
b): fail to understand why they need to behave the way you want and just need things explaining to them firmly enough, (in words suited to an utter imbecile) and often enough so that it becomes clear to them and they finally behave the way you want them to.
Anyone care to postulate an alternative explanation for these ghastly, abhorrent behaviours?
Go soothingly on the grease mud, as there lurks the skid demon
God's Evil Twin
Current limit is fine, start penalizing judges that hand out "soft" penalties & that person re-offends, make manslaughter minimum charge if someone is killed, murder maximum. Assault with a deadly weapon minimum if someone is injured by a drunk driver.
And aim any ads at stigmatization eventually this will catch on, the shock ones DON'T work (I personally find alot of them hilarious, but I'm also not a drunk driver & quite against drunk driving tho I don't expect them to work any better with them either).
Also breath testers (talk into type) in every bar wouldn't go astray either.
Science Is But An Organized System Of Ignorance"Pornography: The thing with billions of views that nobody watches" - WhiteManBehindADesk
Bogeyman
Oh, and yes zero alcohol tolerance is moronic because it’s unachievable and unenforceable. A limit amounting to "a few hours after a couple of beers" is workable and likely socially acceptable.
Refrain from making laws you can’t or won’t enforce.
Go soothingly on the grease mud, as there lurks the skid demon
Forum whore
I don't follow you. Are you saying drink-driving is acceptable?
You don't get to be an old dog without learning a few tricks.
Shorai Powersports batteries are very trick!
Den tha thriamvéf̱sei páno̱
I received the actual stats today, nothing new, except more definitive.
By supporting (unoffically - as an individual) the idea of two drinks max 'pledge' in the name of personal responsibility, I then unfortunately witnessed my hubby's story go off in support of the lowering limits lobby campaign, by default
I requested educational publication of standard drinks information, variables that will quickly elevate BAC, information on elevated morning BAC and metabolism rates were published, as two drinks (think goblets of wine) could send a small person intoxicated and/or over the limit. I didn't feel it a robust message.
I never officially supported the campaign when asked, I thought it a good thing if the message was educational. Because of what I know - I've never lobbied for lower limits.
I had to pull two stories off the internet, the hard copies were already gone by the time I knew anything. I was then offered apologies and a clarification in form of a letter to the editor, which was then a twisted headline, bah, what can you do?
Let's face it, those that are responsible will support this iniative.
Those that aren't, won't. Simple, you will still have those that go to excess, a little tinkering around the edges will never change this!
Yes, the more you drink the chances of crashes increase, but what's overlooked is the studies overseas have no singular conclusive evidence that lowering limits actually worked, as other intiatves were rolled out alongside, in some cases there was no bench mark data to look back at, in some cases the numbers of convicted drink drivers rose..
IF there were to be any limit lowering - since we can't test ourselves definitively and our individual limits vary day to day dependant on physical/mental health and the variables, I'd suggest zero, because there is no grey area. You just don't do it at all. (And yes we'd still get repeat and hardcore drink driver's)
What has been overshadowed by the rather loud lowering limits debate, is that the Govt are actually moving on serious drink drivers.
Last edited by Genestho; 14th November 2010 at 20:41. Reason: missed a couple of thingys
ter·ra in·cog·ni·taAchievement is not always success while reputed failure often is. It is honest endeavor, persistent effort to do the best possible under any and all circumstances.
Orison Swett Marden
Hardcore Biker
Perosnally I would bring in/back some test that showed a basic level of impairment before conviction was allowed
But I would also nail anyone who was significantly over the limit with much harsher penalties. and repeat offenders would lose the right to a licence for life and do jailtime
Also if you cause an accident where your impairment was a significant factor (proven) and someone was impaired or killed you would be guilty of manslaughter at least.
--------------------------------------
Knowledge is realizing that the street is one-way, wisdom is looking both directions anyway
Forum whore
I think most of us are on the same page here. The courts are far too lenient and need to start imposing the penalties they have at their disposal.
You don't get to be an old dog without learning a few tricks.
Shorai Powersports batteries are very trick!
Bogeyman
No. Gave it a good shot, can't be fookt doing it again.
Go soothingly on the grease mud, as there lurks the skid demon
could catch a monkey
Shit - people agreeing with John Key. Skyryder would be going mental.
Forum whore
I've re-read your post and I think I understand what you're saying, maybe it's just late and I'm tired...
You don't get to be an old dog without learning a few tricks.
Shorai Powersports batteries are very trick!
Forum whore
Jaysus, black and white vision reigns supreme! I'm suprised any of you folks have got a colour TV....or do you see that in monochrome too?
These comments are just too blardy funny for a crowd that mostly flouts the speed limit and argues speed deterrents are misguided at best and simple revenue raisers at worst.
Do your Steinie Challenge or whatever the hell it's called and see the effects of alcohol: suprise suprise you don't ride so good.
Now conjure up a similar manouvering challenge and make people do it at both comfortable and elevated speeds instead: suprise suprise you don't do so good then either.
Why a stoning for one offence and total disregard for the other?
I reckon if I go for a Sunday ride/drive down to Lake Ferry and have a beer while reading the paper I can stop quicker from 100kph on the way home than I could if I'd had a coffee and was riding/driving at 120kph. Yet you'd have me hung drawn and quartered for the beer and not raise an eyebrow at the speeding.
If you're gonna go all medieval on someones arse at least be consistent across the board, don't be the Taliban on one issue and sidestep the rest if it doesn't suit you.
For the particularly assumptive, no, I'm not a fan of drink driving. I'm a fan of moderation, giving people reasonable guidelines, and applying reasonable penalties when they transgress.....or we can just apply the knee jerk "Burn 'em!" mentality and change the name of the country to New Zealandistan.
Irritant
BIG difference. You could be comfortably sitting at 100mph on a lot of the roads, without a single vehicle in sight, perfectly safely. Without your judgement impared, you're able to slow down to a suitable speed for corners and hazards.
You can't switch your impared judgement on and off, like you can adjust your speed.
It's only when you take the piss out of a partially shaved wookie with an overactive 'me' gene and stapled on piss flaps that it becomes a problem.
Anarchic Wild Child
Do you even know what the maximum penalty for Manslaughter is ?
Do you understand the differnece between Manslaughter and Murder and what has to be PROVEN to gain a conviction for Murder ?
"So if you meet me, have some sympathy, have some courtesy, have some taste ..."
Den tha thriamvéf̱sei páno̱
Even though when it happens to a family member it really does feel like murder, gaining a murder conviction is only possible if the driver actually has intent - I know a particular case where it was heard - the driver wanted to kill himself - got drunk, drove and killed and injured another.
Legally - Impaired driving is a 'diminished responsibility' therefor there is no intent (which is needed to prove beyond a doubt - murder - see above)
However for repeats - I do not see why manslaughter shouldn't be a given. I know 'why' within the system, and it's not good enough.
You can't argue - when some one has repeat convictions for the same offence that they didn't know the consequences 'this time'.
ter·ra in·cog·ni·taAchievement is not always success while reputed failure often is. It is honest endeavor, persistent effort to do the best possible under any and all circumstances.
Orison Swett Marden
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks