Drunk driving laws.
#91
#92
Here's an article that some of you may find interesting.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/crovelli5.html
(I'm only going to quote some highlights):
There's more, I suggest reading the whole article.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/crovelli5.html
(I'm only going to quote some highlights):
When driving past the Rocky Flats Lounge, one cannot help being struck by the fact that its location is extremely conducive to drunk driving. Imbibing customers must drive at least fifteen minutes in either direction to get to civilization of any kind, and taxis are almost nonexistent in the area. I have driven past the Rocky Flats Lounge hundreds of times, and I’ve always wondered whether its patrons were driving under the influence on the same highway with me.
In the years before I came to understand anything about economics, I would think to myself as I drove past this bar, "How can the State allow them to have a liquor license, when it’s so obvious that their customers will have to drive home drunk on this dangerous highway?" Not knowing anything about economics, I understandably only sought for a proximate solution to this problem. The more I studied economics, however, the more my view of the matter changed, to the point where I now think to myself as I drive past the Rocky Flats Lounge, "Drunk driving should be legalized, so that the customers of the Rocky Flats Lounge can get home safely."
I came to this realization, in the first place, because I couldn’t figure out why drunk drivers on this highway didn’t choose to slow down. I imagined that if I were a drunk driver on this highway, I would want to slow down to make sure I didn’t fly off the highway or get into a fiery crash with another car. Why were the drunk drivers not doing this?
It then occurred to me that I wasn’t thinking about the costs of drunk driving in the right way, because I was only considering one cost of drunk driving. Under our current drunk driving laws, however, there is an additional cost that every drunk driver is certainly aware of; namely, getting caught drunk driving. The drunk driver is thus faced with two serious costs to consider: 1) dying in a fiery crash, and 2) getting caught by the police and going to jail. The cost of getting caught drunk driving and going to jail, moreover, is drastically increased if the driver chooses to drive in a manner that draws attention to himself – like driving ten miles per hour – even if the driver knows that driving slowly is the safer thing to do.
So, the drunk driver is faced with the following choices: 1) drive slowly and safely, and almost certainly get arrested and go to jail for drunk driving, or 2) drive the speed limit, and have a decent chance of not getting arrested, although this increases one’s chances of getting in an accident. Understandably, many drunk drivers choose the latter alternative, simply because the chance of arrest and jail time is a certainty, whereas the chance of a fiery crash is only a distant risk. (If you think my reasoning here is unsound, ask yourself whether you’ve ever driven 80 miles per hour because you’re running late for a meeting, believing that the certain costs of being late outweigh the increased, though distant, costs associated with driving faster). In other words, the prohibition of drunk driving actually serves to increase unsafe driving practices, simply because drunk drivers don’t want to go to jail, and are, consequently, unwilling to drive slower than the speed limit.
Even more importantly, these costs make drunk driving at the speed limit even more likely the more times a man was arrested for drunk driving. If a man already has a DUI, then the next DUI he gets will carry a much more severe penalty. Given this even stiffer penalty, he is even less likely to slow down and drive safely, because the costs of getting caught are so much higher.
This problem cannot be solved, moreover, simply by getting rid of speed limits, (although, to be sure, speed limits are totally arbitrary, and ought indeed to be completely abolished for this reason alone). Getting rid of speed limits would only encourage drunk drivers to drive even faster so that they can get off the road even faster to avoid a drunk driving arrest.
Imagine, on the other hand, that drunk driving was totally legalized. The costs for the average drunk driver would alter dramatically, because the only serious cost he would have to consider and avoid is getting into a fiery crash, and going to jail for negligent manslaughter or murder. The average drunk driver would no longer have to race along at the speed limit, nervously eyeing his rear view mirror, anxiously trying to avoid arrest. He would simply slow down to make sure he didn’t get into an accident. This conclusion holds irrespective of the fact that more people would probably choose to drive drunk if it were legalized.
In the years before I came to understand anything about economics, I would think to myself as I drove past this bar, "How can the State allow them to have a liquor license, when it’s so obvious that their customers will have to drive home drunk on this dangerous highway?" Not knowing anything about economics, I understandably only sought for a proximate solution to this problem. The more I studied economics, however, the more my view of the matter changed, to the point where I now think to myself as I drive past the Rocky Flats Lounge, "Drunk driving should be legalized, so that the customers of the Rocky Flats Lounge can get home safely."
I came to this realization, in the first place, because I couldn’t figure out why drunk drivers on this highway didn’t choose to slow down. I imagined that if I were a drunk driver on this highway, I would want to slow down to make sure I didn’t fly off the highway or get into a fiery crash with another car. Why were the drunk drivers not doing this?
It then occurred to me that I wasn’t thinking about the costs of drunk driving in the right way, because I was only considering one cost of drunk driving. Under our current drunk driving laws, however, there is an additional cost that every drunk driver is certainly aware of; namely, getting caught drunk driving. The drunk driver is thus faced with two serious costs to consider: 1) dying in a fiery crash, and 2) getting caught by the police and going to jail. The cost of getting caught drunk driving and going to jail, moreover, is drastically increased if the driver chooses to drive in a manner that draws attention to himself – like driving ten miles per hour – even if the driver knows that driving slowly is the safer thing to do.
So, the drunk driver is faced with the following choices: 1) drive slowly and safely, and almost certainly get arrested and go to jail for drunk driving, or 2) drive the speed limit, and have a decent chance of not getting arrested, although this increases one’s chances of getting in an accident. Understandably, many drunk drivers choose the latter alternative, simply because the chance of arrest and jail time is a certainty, whereas the chance of a fiery crash is only a distant risk. (If you think my reasoning here is unsound, ask yourself whether you’ve ever driven 80 miles per hour because you’re running late for a meeting, believing that the certain costs of being late outweigh the increased, though distant, costs associated with driving faster). In other words, the prohibition of drunk driving actually serves to increase unsafe driving practices, simply because drunk drivers don’t want to go to jail, and are, consequently, unwilling to drive slower than the speed limit.
Even more importantly, these costs make drunk driving at the speed limit even more likely the more times a man was arrested for drunk driving. If a man already has a DUI, then the next DUI he gets will carry a much more severe penalty. Given this even stiffer penalty, he is even less likely to slow down and drive safely, because the costs of getting caught are so much higher.
This problem cannot be solved, moreover, simply by getting rid of speed limits, (although, to be sure, speed limits are totally arbitrary, and ought indeed to be completely abolished for this reason alone). Getting rid of speed limits would only encourage drunk drivers to drive even faster so that they can get off the road even faster to avoid a drunk driving arrest.
Imagine, on the other hand, that drunk driving was totally legalized. The costs for the average drunk driver would alter dramatically, because the only serious cost he would have to consider and avoid is getting into a fiery crash, and going to jail for negligent manslaughter or murder. The average drunk driver would no longer have to race along at the speed limit, nervously eyeing his rear view mirror, anxiously trying to avoid arrest. He would simply slow down to make sure he didn’t get into an accident. This conclusion holds irrespective of the fact that more people would probably choose to drive drunk if it were legalized.
#93
Registered User
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 5,686
From: I was up above it, now I'm down in it
Car Info: New Government Motors SUV!
I agree that it over reaches to that extent. Maybe DUI regs should be revised to specify only street legal vehicles on public roads or some such limit (as opposed to your riding mower in your backyard as that is excessive by any reasonable measure).
#94
What I am basically saying is that everyone knows the laws and risks. You choose to drink and drive, you choose to do drugs, you choose to steal. No one makes you a criminal, your decisions in life make you a criminal. People only like the cops when they need them which is BS. Its funny hows peoples opinions change after something happens to them. Live and learn!
#95
iClub Silver Vendor
iTrader: (25)
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 15,494
From: Participating in some Anarchy!
Car Info: 2005 LGT wagon
What I am basically saying is that everyone knows the laws and risks. You choose to drink and drive, you choose to do drugs, you choose to steal. No one makes you a criminal, your decisions in life make you a criminal. People only like the cops when they need them which is BS. Its funny hows peoples opinions change after something happens to them. Live and learn!
I own a particular rifle that was legally purchased in California.
A few years after purchasing said rifle, they changed the law; register the rifle or become a criminal.
I am now a criminal.
I have no use for police; they do not prevent crime.
Recently, I had a wallet stolen from my shop that contained several thousands of dollars...I was gonna make a run to the bank but the thief struck first.
My cop friend told me not to bother reporting the crime as nothing will come of it.
BTW, just because a law exists, does not make it correct.
#96
Policies, rules, and regulations change due to new information and/or theories that come out.
IE
Redlight Camera's going through trial and might end up being pulled due to lack of evidence supporting "preventing wrecks" and actually increasing wrecks.
The DUI debate is very common in sense.
Do something illegal, get a ticket & DUI.
Do something illegal, get a ticket.
Do nothing illegal, get a ticket for DUI.
The illegality is legitimate for a ticket, if you are always DUI and get multiple tickets, then that is your fault and your license might be revoked. Doing nothing wrong shouldn't warrant a ticket. Cops are supposed to be catching people breaking laws. Driving perfectly fine, but still intoxicated shouldn't be a penalty as no one is endangered.
If you wanted to stop someone who was DUI from driving again, cut off their hands when caught with a DUI, that will fix any previous DUI driver from driving. Even with tickets, jail time, license revoked, people will still end up DUI'ing by other means. Doesn't fix anything, just another $$ money trick the law uses.
IE
Redlight Camera's going through trial and might end up being pulled due to lack of evidence supporting "preventing wrecks" and actually increasing wrecks.
The DUI debate is very common in sense.
Do something illegal, get a ticket & DUI.
Do something illegal, get a ticket.
Do nothing illegal, get a ticket for DUI.
The illegality is legitimate for a ticket, if you are always DUI and get multiple tickets, then that is your fault and your license might be revoked. Doing nothing wrong shouldn't warrant a ticket. Cops are supposed to be catching people breaking laws. Driving perfectly fine, but still intoxicated shouldn't be a penalty as no one is endangered.
If you wanted to stop someone who was DUI from driving again, cut off their hands when caught with a DUI, that will fix any previous DUI driver from driving. Even with tickets, jail time, license revoked, people will still end up DUI'ing by other means. Doesn't fix anything, just another $$ money trick the law uses.
#98
Registered User
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 5,686
From: I was up above it, now I'm down in it
Car Info: New Government Motors SUV!
This is not always the case.
I own a particular rifle that was legally purchased in California.
A few years after purchasing said rifle, they changed the law; register the rifle or become a criminal.
I am now a criminal.
I have no use for police; they do not prevent crime.
Recently, I had a wallet stolen from my shop that contained several thousands of dollars...I was gonna make a run to the bank but the thief struck first.
My cop friend told me not to bother reporting the crime as nothing will come of it.
BTW, just because a law exists, does not make it correct.
I own a particular rifle that was legally purchased in California.
A few years after purchasing said rifle, they changed the law; register the rifle or become a criminal.
I am now a criminal.
I have no use for police; they do not prevent crime.
Recently, I had a wallet stolen from my shop that contained several thousands of dollars...I was gonna make a run to the bank but the thief struck first.
My cop friend told me not to bother reporting the crime as nothing will come of it.
BTW, just because a law exists, does not make it correct.
#99
What I am basically saying is that everyone knows the laws and risks. You choose to drink and drive, you choose to do drugs, you choose to steal. No one makes you a criminal, your decisions in life make you a criminal. People only like the cops when they need them which is BS. Its funny hows peoples opinions change after something happens to them. Live and learn!
#100
For example, speeding isn't dangerous until you crash. Running a red light isn't dangerous if there is no-one in the intersection. Driving the wrong way on an empty street is safe. DUI is "safe" as long as nothing goes wrong.
Laws like these are put in place to reduce the chances of an accident happening.
#101
Churro Aficionado
iTrader: (38)
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 54,642
From: IG - @thomas.teammoist
Car Info: IG - @TEAMMOISTOFFICIAL
Yes - doesn't this apply to many laws?
For example, speeding isn't dangerous until you crash. Running a red light isn't dangerous if there is no-one in the intersection. Driving the wrong way on an empty street is safe. DUI is "safe" as long as nothing goes wrong.
Laws like these are put in place to reduce the chances of an accident happening.
For example, speeding isn't dangerous until you crash. Running a red light isn't dangerous if there is no-one in the intersection. Driving the wrong way on an empty street is safe. DUI is "safe" as long as nothing goes wrong.
Laws like these are put in place to reduce the chances of an accident happening.
#102
Yes - doesn't this apply to many laws?
For example, speeding isn't dangerous until you crash. Running a red light isn't dangerous if there is no-one in the intersection. Driving the wrong way on an empty street is safe. DUI is "safe" as long as nothing goes wrong.
Laws like these are put in place to reduce the chances of an accident happening.
For example, speeding isn't dangerous until you crash. Running a red light isn't dangerous if there is no-one in the intersection. Driving the wrong way on an empty street is safe. DUI is "safe" as long as nothing goes wrong.
Laws like these are put in place to reduce the chances of an accident happening.
Speeding... that's a more appropriate example. But then again, I don't believe there should be speed limit laws in most circumstances, especially on highways.
#103
I'm participating in the same discussion on another forum, and here are some key points that I made:
Because getting into an accident is not a crime, hence it is not redundant. The crime was driving recklessly.
You mean a tool like pulling someone over for reckless driving?
In fact, any time you get pulled over for "drunk driving," you're actually getting pulled over for a different reason because they don't know you're drunk until they've had to pull you over for some other infraction like speeding, driving recklessly, failure to stop, etc.
But they don't know that until they've already pulled you over for reckless driving.
Originally Posted by saqwarrior
Originally Posted by Deiouss
I grasp completely what you are saying, but using the same line of reasoning can only lead to the conclusion that laws preventing reckless driving are also redundant.
That's true, and you could also say that there are already laws in place that cover the problems/accidents caused by reckless drivers. If I am driving recklessly and I happen to collide with someone's car, why should I be charged with reckless driving?
That's true, and you could also say that there are already laws in place that cover the problems/accidents caused by reckless drivers. If I am driving recklessly and I happen to collide with someone's car, why should I be charged with reckless driving?
Originally Posted by saqwarrior
Originally Posted by Deiouss
Anyways, for those of us that recognize the necessity of preventative law, drunk driving laws are not redundant because they provide a tool by which law enforcement can remove reckless drivers from the streets before their behavior has serious consequences.
In fact, any time you get pulled over for "drunk driving," you're actually getting pulled over for a different reason because they don't know you're drunk until they've had to pull you over for some other infraction like speeding, driving recklessly, failure to stop, etc.
Originally Posted by saqwarrior
Originally Posted by Deiouss
It is not possible for the officer who just pulled you over to know that in 10 minutes you are going to run off the road and kill someone because you were looking for your cell phone, but it is possible for him to know you are under the influence of a substance which impairs your ability in some cases to even walk, let alone drive.
#104
iClub Silver Vendor
iTrader: (25)
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 15,494
From: Participating in some Anarchy!
Car Info: 2005 LGT wagon
Most laws are created as a knee jerk reaction; cell phoning whilst driving, "assault" weapon bans, etc.
Politicians pass laws to give us the appearance that they are actually useful people.
Politicians pass laws to give us the appearance that they are actually useful people.
#105
Yes - doesn't this apply to many laws?
For example, speeding isn't dangerous until you crash. Running a red light isn't dangerous if there is no-one in the intersection. Driving the wrong way on an empty street is safe. DUI is "safe" as long as nothing goes wrong.
Laws like these are put in place to reduce the chances of an accident happening.
For example, speeding isn't dangerous until you crash. Running a red light isn't dangerous if there is no-one in the intersection. Driving the wrong way on an empty street is safe. DUI is "safe" as long as nothing goes wrong.
Laws like these are put in place to reduce the chances of an accident happening.
as long as you dont mess up