Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#7
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Aug 11, 1:27�pm, wrote:
I guess I think the problem is we're concentrating too much on preventing behaviors that *might* lead to dangerous activity and not enough on preventing the dangerous activity itself. For example (bear with me here!) DUI is not in itself dangerous. Yes, it is. Here's why: First, one of the prime properties of drinking ethanol is behavorial disinhibition - meaning that a person's restraint and judgement tend to be impaired. That makes it more likely they will do something dangerous than if they were sober. (Some might say that behavioral disinhibition is a prime reason to drink ethanol, but that's a different discussion...) Second, another of the prime properties of drinking ethanol is that it slows down reaction time and impairs driving skills and coordination. This is readily demonstrated by having a person drive a test route sober and then with varying blood alcohol levels. The result is that a driving situation in which a sober person would stop in time, swerve to avoid an obstacle, etc., can turn into an accident simply because the person's reactions and skills are impaired. This is true even if the person doesn't speed, doesn't run red lights, etc. Heck, on any given night the vast majority of drunks on the road get home without harming anyone or anything. Yes, they do. But that doesn't prove DUI isn't dangerous. The vast majority of people who do all sorts of dangerous driving things, like running a stop sign, get away with it simply because all the conditions for a disaster aren't there at the same time. The dangerous activity is running red lights, driving way too fast, moving out of your lane without regard for the presence of other vehicles, etc... That depends on how we define "dangerous". Most of those activities are only dangerous if other conditions are present. For example, if there are no other cars present, what's the danger of running a red light? Of course, being drunk makes you FAR, FAR more likely to commit one of these dangerous activities. Exactly! And that alone makes DWI dangerous, at least by some definitions. But if your mom gets run over by someone blowing through a red light at 30 over the limit, should that person get off more lightly because they were sober and just thought they were too important to obey traffic signals? It depends on the case. Intent is a major factor in determining whether an action is a crime, and how severe a crime it is. Because we know that DWI unnecessarily increases the risk of a tragedy, DWI itself becomes a crime. For example, suppose A shoots B and B dies. A's intent could be the difference between self-defense and first-degree murder. IMHO we should be spending more resources patrolling our roads and stopping those who are actually doing dangerous things, *regardless* of why they're doing it -- and stop diverting those resources to people who are doing things that *might* be dangerous. Well, I don't know about where you are, but around here, I see far more resources allocated to stopping dangerous behaviors (speeding, running red lights, failing to signal, following too closely, etc.) than to trying to find DWIs. The DWIs I do know about in this area are usually the result of a traffic stop for another reason (police see somebody blow through a red light, they pull the car over, turns out the driver has had too many too recently. Driver gets charged with both the red light violation and the DWI.) Maybe it's different where you are. -- Here's an analogy: Here in PA we have annual auto safety inspections. One of the things checked is tire wear; if your tires are down to a certain point, they have to be replaced. If you're stopped with below-wear-limit tires, you can get a ticket. But in most situations worn-down tires aren't any more dangerous than new ones. The difference only matters in wet, snow, ice and high-speed conditions. Yet even if it's a dry summer day and you're driving slow, you can get a ticket for worn-out tires because of the *potential* hazard if it should rain or you take the car on the freeway. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
driving at night | CB | |||
[RAC-Bulletin] Message from Bill Unger, VE3XT - Distracted Diving legislation (Bill118) | Info | |||
While driving through Columbus, I SAID" !" | CB | |||
IC-746 driving a Drake L4-B | Equipment | |||
IC-746 driving a Drake L4-B | Equipment |