What fun would you be if you expanded your mind? And not in sledguys hippie ways!
Patrol Plans Sobriety Checkpoints
- Thread starter Mafesto
- Start date
What fun would you be if you expanded your mind? And not in sledguys hippie ways!
I think everyone could benefit from expanding their views on this topic.
Seriously lowering the legal limit from .10 to .08 was nothing more than pandering to the "MADD" crowd coupled with an opportunity to expand financial income from fines.
There was no data supporting a need for this change.
A
anziconda
Well-known member
This is a sensitive subject i know. However, you make a good point here... I also know MANY people that drive like ***ging idiots when sober. Have a few buddys that were at a party one night and let a sober guy drive them home. They rolled their vehicle through a field. Luckily the worst injury was a broken leg. I also have to agree with mafesto. Where I live there is a stretch of road that is in a narrow canyon. I regrettably have done the same as mafesto has said...if sober and pissed off after work the canyon is irritating and causes a guy to haul *** and make stupid passes to try to get home faster. If I relax and have a beer the train of cars in front of me doesn't bother me as bad and it is a great way to pass the time. Now don't take this out of context...I'm not saying I get hammered and drive home...I just have a couple of beers which untill recently was legal in our state. Now they have passed a open container law and already there is beer cans all over the roads from people being afraid of getting caught with the emptys in their vehicle. Obviously the law didn't stop people from drinking while driving, it just caused more litter
Just my 02 cents
A
anziconda
Well-known member
Oh yeah, I almost forgot...
BLU DOO...YOU'RE A REAL PIECE OF WORK FOR WISHING INJURY TO MAFESTO FOR HIS COMMENTS IN HIS POST. YOU ARE DOWNRIGHT RUDE AND INSANE TO TAKE IT FURTHER BY WISHING THE SAME ON HIS WIFE...IF YOU DON'T AGREE WITH A POST SPEAK YOUR MIND WITH WHY YOU DON'T, NEVER WISH THINGS LIKE THAT ON ANYBODY...IDIOT!!!!!!!OH YEAH, IF YOU WANT TO DISCUSS THIS IN PERSON I'D BE GLAD TO ACCOMODATE YOU, IM IN BOZEMAN, MT. PM ME!!!!!!!!!!
BLU DOO...YOU'RE A REAL PIECE OF WORK FOR WISHING INJURY TO MAFESTO FOR HIS COMMENTS IN HIS POST. YOU ARE DOWNRIGHT RUDE AND INSANE TO TAKE IT FURTHER BY WISHING THE SAME ON HIS WIFE...IF YOU DON'T AGREE WITH A POST SPEAK YOUR MIND WITH WHY YOU DON'T, NEVER WISH THINGS LIKE THAT ON ANYBODY...IDIOT!!!!!!!OH YEAH, IF YOU WANT TO DISCUSS THIS IN PERSON I'D BE GLAD TO ACCOMODATE YOU, IM IN BOZEMAN, MT. PM ME!!!!!!!!!!
TX I think the legal limit is .03..When I got my CDL I was nervous and stopped once and talked to a couple troopers to answer a question. I asked them if I'm out on the town and not working etc. I get pulled over and blow .05 am I in trouble. THey staed yes, because in SD the legal limit for CDL licenses is half the legal limit at all times because you can climb into a commercial vehicle at any time. But they said it would likely not be enforced unless you have a new guy or some a hole. I talked to a couple state troopers at a booth at the local Ag Show that confirmed it again.
Bingo...
We have checkpoints here all the time. No one tells us when or where they are. I think it's a great idea, we have way too many drunk morons on the road here. I'll be the first to admit i've driven home when i probably shouldn't have... but i scared the hell out of myself every time.
I'm all for protecting our rights, but on the same token... How about the rights of my little sister coming home from work at the coffee shop at 11pm Saturday night.
It's only going to get worse. Innocent until proven guilty has been eliminated and replaced by guilty until proven innocent.
Amen. Sounds like a normal trip to traffic court.
This has turned into a really good thread, as it is a difficult issue to discuss because of the emotions involved.
In my opinion, lawmakers need to pass laws to justify their existance and to try to curry favor with their constituents. As with most of us they are going to take the path of least resistance to meet these ends. Lower the legal limit from .10 to .08. Seems like a minor change, it will curry favor with safety lobby and not raise to much of a fuss from the other side or the sheep (public). After all, who wants to be seen as supporting drinking and driving right? If they went much lower than that it would create too much resistance from the other side.
Now, we can move that issue off the floor, so what is next? Well, we have a study somewhere to support cell phone usage is dangerous. Lets start legislating that. If we completely ban cell phones in cars it will raise too much fuss with cell phone providers and the public, so lets require the use of a hands-free. We are not saying you can't use your cell phone, just that you need to use a hands free. Talking and driving is dangerous, so this is not that big of a sacrifice for everyone to be safe....
The list of possible restrictions are endless, so it gives lawmakers infinite fodder to use as a political tool. Driving while smoking or eating. Driving while listening to the radio, or conversing with passengers.
Meanwhile, people are still getting killed in car crashes, as they always have. People are still driving drunk, as they always have. On top of all of that, police have less latitude in their discretion to be tolerant because of policy and liability.
rant over.
In my opinion, lawmakers need to pass laws to justify their existance and to try to curry favor with their constituents. As with most of us they are going to take the path of least resistance to meet these ends. Lower the legal limit from .10 to .08. Seems like a minor change, it will curry favor with safety lobby and not raise to much of a fuss from the other side or the sheep (public). After all, who wants to be seen as supporting drinking and driving right? If they went much lower than that it would create too much resistance from the other side.
Now, we can move that issue off the floor, so what is next? Well, we have a study somewhere to support cell phone usage is dangerous. Lets start legislating that. If we completely ban cell phones in cars it will raise too much fuss with cell phone providers and the public, so lets require the use of a hands-free. We are not saying you can't use your cell phone, just that you need to use a hands free. Talking and driving is dangerous, so this is not that big of a sacrifice for everyone to be safe....
The list of possible restrictions are endless, so it gives lawmakers infinite fodder to use as a political tool. Driving while smoking or eating. Driving while listening to the radio, or conversing with passengers.
Meanwhile, people are still getting killed in car crashes, as they always have. People are still driving drunk, as they always have. On top of all of that, police have less latitude in their discretion to be tolerant because of policy and liability.
rant over.
A
Anti-Hero
ACCOUNT CLOSED
Why don't they simply stop the people who appear to be driving while impaired.
Wow!
What a novel idea!
Thank you! then that would justify probable cause! as the system should be!!!