The place for all things wine, focused on serious wine discussions.
User avatar
User

David M. Bueker

Rank

Riesling Guru

Posts

22424

Joined

Thu Mar 23, 2006 12:52 pm

Location

Connecticut

Re: .05 BAC Efforts

by David M. Bueker » Thu May 16, 2013 2:06 pm

Robin Garr wrote:Oh, I think I see it. Marvin was talking about either the national MADD organization or the California unit. This quote from a Rhode Island MADD person is apparently a state-level response. I expect they'll all get on one page before long.


Lowering the BAC level to 0.05 is not going to stop Peter Griffin from driving home after more than a few cold ones at The Drunken Clam.
There behind the glass lies a real blade of grass. Be careful as you pass. Move along. Move along.
User avatar
User

Bill Spohn

Rank

He put the 'bar' in 'barrister'

Posts

5078

Joined

Tue Mar 21, 2006 8:31 pm

Location

Vancouver BC

Re: .05 BAC Efforts

by Bill Spohn » Mon May 20, 2013 11:57 pm

0.05 is a sensible limit.

I'm a big guy and I would not drive if I was anywhere near .05. By .08 I'd be long hammered and way past driving.
YMMV. I carry a decent meter and I pay attention to it!
User avatar
User

Robin Garr

Rank

Forum Janitor

Posts

17399

Joined

Fri Feb 17, 2006 2:44 pm

Location

Louisville, KY

Re: .05 BAC Efforts

by Robin Garr » Tue May 21, 2013 10:10 am

Blake Gray blogs that it's time to call BS on this:

http://blog.wblakegray.com/2013/05/wine ... s-our.html
no avatar
User

Tom V

Rank

Ultra geek

Posts

315

Joined

Fri Jun 16, 2006 12:33 am

Location

nyc

Re: .05 BAC Efforts

by Tom V » Tue May 21, 2013 12:45 pm

Robin Garr wrote:Granted that drunks kill, I have to think there is a little neo-prohibitionism going on here. If all policy were equal, wouldn't we be seeing more attention given to people driving while distracted by cell phones? I see far more dangerous driving in the age of the mobile phone than I ever saw during the age of the drunk.



I couldn't agree more with your statement Robin. Virtually every day of my life I have to honk the horn at people drifting out of their lanes on the highway while fooling with their cell phones. It's ridiculous, if it were really all about saving lives, operating a cell phone while driving would carry the identical penalties as DUI. I am quite certain that if it were possible to do an accurate study covering the last 5 years it would turn out that there are lots more folks in the graveyard because of cell phone abuse than alcohol abuse.

...Not to mention, where is the concern about people driving around zonked out on marijuana? Why isn't there a big push to develop a test to determine if someone is floating in another dimension hammered on THC while driving? Why is there not a MACUWD (mothers against cell use while driving), or a MADWSOG (mothers against driving while stoned on grass)?...I believe you nailed it "neo-prohibitionism".
User avatar
User

Bill Spohn

Rank

He put the 'bar' in 'barrister'

Posts

5078

Joined

Tue Mar 21, 2006 8:31 pm

Location

Vancouver BC

Re: .05 BAC Efforts

by Bill Spohn » Tue May 21, 2013 1:41 pm

Robin Garr wrote:Blake Gray blogs that it's time to call BS on this:

http://blog.wblakegray.com/2013/05/wine ... s-our.html



Not sure that amounts to calling it BS. He just says that a) the economic consequences to hospitality industry is serious, and b) there is no evidence that reducing the limit also reduces accidents. I have no quarrel with either, but I stand by my statement that I don't want to be out on the road with anyone above that, and that I wouldn't drive above that even if it were legal.

Tom, arguing that you shouldn't crack down on something because there are other evils out there that aren't being as effectively dealt with - you didn't really think you'd get away with the trite straw man move on this board, did you? :mrgreen: We may not be top rung in the polemic olympics, but we weren't born yesterday either!

BTW, I agree with you completely that cell phones and especially texting kills people. It makes me happy when they enact laws against it and happier if they actually enforce them. The fines should be sufficient to pay for the enforcement, which often requires court appearance and evidence obtained from the phone company that texting or calling were taking place in a single occupant car immediately prior to the stop.

I am also in favour of installing damping fields in public gathering spaces (theatres, lecture halls etc.) to prevent cell use during performances, but apparently that would outrage the civil rights enthusiasts.....?
no avatar
User

Tom V

Rank

Ultra geek

Posts

315

Joined

Fri Jun 16, 2006 12:33 am

Location

nyc

Re: .05 BAC Efforts

by Tom V » Tue May 21, 2013 2:13 pm

Bill, you say regarding cell phone use while driving:

"The fines should be sufficient to pay for the enforcement, which often requires court appearance and evidence obtained from the phone company that texting or calling were taking place in a single occupant car immediately prior to the stop."


...but that illustrates my point, using a cell phone whether texting or speaking on it while driving is every bit as dangerous as driving under the influence of alcohol, so why then this difference in penalties?

In my state, New York, here's the difference:


CELL PHONE USE: "If you use a hand held mobile phone device while driving you can receive a traffic ticket and pay a maximum fine of $100 and mandatory surcharges and fees of up to $85. For offenses committed on and after October 5, 2011, this violation also carries three driver violation points."


ALCOHOL: "Your first conviction for driving while intoxicated (DWI) in the State of New York with a BAC of .08 percent or higher is a misdemeanor. You will be fined from $500 to $1,000 and you could spend up to 1 year in jail. Your drivers license will be suspended for a minimum of 6 months and you will be ordered to pay a mandatory conviction surcharge. You will also be ordered alcohol screening and evaluation prior to sentencing.

Your second conviction for a DWI in New York State within 10 years of the first DWI will be a Class E Felony. This felony will cost you a minimum fine of $1,000 or up to $5,000. You will also receive a minimum jail sentence of 10 days in jail or be ordered to perform 60 days of community service.

The minimum 10 day jail sentence can be increased by the court up to 7 years in jail. Your driver license will be revoked for a minimum of 1 year plus you will have to pay for an ignition interlock device that will be placed on your vehicle once your suspension is over. The court will also have you pay for your alcohol assessment.

A 3rd drunk driving conviction in New York is a class D felony. You will be fined a minimum of $2,000 up to $10,000. You could be sentenced up to 7 years in jail, 10 days of which is mandatory. "


Both problems should be regulated equally, it makes no sense to be concerned about the one and lenient when it comes to the other simply because it might be less popular with more people and their politicians, that stance is not only tragic to those who die and become maimed because of it, but it is also enormously hypocritical of American society. IMHO.
User avatar
User

Bill Spohn

Rank

He put the 'bar' in 'barrister'

Posts

5078

Joined

Tue Mar 21, 2006 8:31 pm

Location

Vancouver BC

Re: .05 BAC Efforts

by Bill Spohn » Tue May 21, 2013 2:30 pm

Cell phones while driving is a hot button for me as well, and I would whack offenders with a $500 minimum fine, as that might get through their obviously thick skulls. But I think it may be some time before the various legislatures come around to our way of thinking.
no avatar
User

Tom V

Rank

Ultra geek

Posts

315

Joined

Fri Jun 16, 2006 12:33 am

Location

nyc

Re: .05 BAC Efforts

by Tom V » Tue May 21, 2013 2:51 pm

Bill Spohn wrote:Cell phones while driving is a hot button for me as well, and I would whack offenders with a $500 minimum fine, as that might get through their obviously thick skulls. But I think it may be some time before the various legislatures come around to our way of thinking.


Of course you're right Bill, the politicos will never come around to our way of thinking, all their "internal polls" tell them that'd be a mistake, and they certainly wouldn't want to piss off all those MADD supporters who are riding around chewing the fat on their cell phones. :x
Previous

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 2 guests

Powered by phpBB ® | phpBB3 Style by KomiDesign