Customize

Stricter Drunk Driving Laws

Discussion in 'Projects' started by Anonymous, May 28, 2013.

  1. Anonymous Member

    For as long as cars have been around drinking and driving has been a danger. In the late 70’s catching drunk drivers started to become a priority. Mothers against drunk driving was established in 1980 and helped to shine light on this issue. Since this time there has been many improvements and lives spared with the efforts of this group. However, looking at statistics today and seeing that accidents involving impaired drivers “accounted for 31% of all traffic deaths last year”, it is obvious that there is still more work to be done. (www.centurycouncil.org) Countless lives are lost to the senseless act of getting behind the wheel drunk. Many family’s have been torn apart. Although we have made strides such as reducing the legal limit for blood alcohol from .10 to .08 and implementing sobriety checkpoints; a permanent solution needs to be found. Some may believe our drunk driving laws are strict enough, but it is obvious they are not because every year there are around 9,878 deaths and 350,000 injuries as a result.

    Our government needs to encourage automakers to design a built in feature that would allow excess alcohol levels to be detected. Every car would be required to have a small ignition interlock device that would be installed in all cars. You would need to blow into the device and if your blood alcohol level was less than .08 you would then be allowed to start your car. This may seem like a huge hassle but at this point you need to make saving the 10,000 people annually killed in drunk driving accidents a priority.


    So you may be asking yourself how this will ever work. Well my answer to that is simple! Just as we gradually started installing seat belts years ago, manufactures would be required to start installing a device that attaches to all cars. We would breath into the device, start the engine, fasten our seatbelts and away we go! As far as older cars, there would be a grace period for car owners to get the devices installed in their vehicles. Before license tabs are renewed we would go into a shop just as we do with emissions. In order to get the license renewed we would need a form from the testing site stating we had a device installed and it is working properly. If a car was pulled over for any reason and did not have the blood alcohol device installed there would be a large citation issued. If others are opposed to driving someone else’s car and breathing in their device for health reasons, there is an easy way to handle that as well. Today we all use hand sanitizer and it has become a regular item in our homes, cars, purses, gym bags and at work. So we would create a non-toxic cloth cleaner in a small easy to carry container to wipe the device down quickly before using someone else’s vehicle.


    Some may say this is an inconvenience or argue that it takes away their rights. Well I say no more than a seatbelt requirement, and we’ve all managed to get along fine making this part of our routine when operating a motor vehicle. Wouldn’t you gladly breathe into a device before starting your car to save your own life or the life of a loved one? If we all did your part, and followed these guidelines just think of the incredible change we could make to drastically decrease the deaths and injuries we have in the United States each year! We need to make sure that cars will not start if the blood alcohol level is too high.

    How many more years will it take and how many lives lost before our government and society will take a stand? This surely would be a benefit to all of us as a whole. Sure there will be those that disagree with whatever decisions are being made to prevent lives lost, but that should not detour us from taking an important stand like preventing drunk driving. It seems that only when it hits close to home and people are effected by loosing a dear friend or loved one do changes happen.

    So now, we have drunk driving laws, limits lawmakers have decided are safe to consume before getting behind the wheel of a car and yet people ignore them and drive after consuming too much anyway. Look at a recent man in the news who killed a loving grandma and grandpa who were out for a walk with their daughter-in-law and newborn grandson. This man had been cited 5 times previous and still chose to get behind the wheel of a car well above the legal limit. Those grandparents would be alive today if his car would not have started. Even if he drank too much he couldn’t have hurt anyone else.

    I again say a little inconvenience for the rest of us would be well worth saving lives. How hard could it be to breath into a mandatory device installed in all cars? With all the technology out there in this world today there has to be a company that can create a small easy to breath into device that can be manufactured in all cars. It is just like the seat belt law. We need a sure proof way to make sure cars do not start with drunks behind the wheel. I would surely be willing to do this each time I started my car to save my friends and family, wouldn’t you? I am asking that this be taken into serious consideration sooner rather than later. People’s lives are on the line each hour we wait.
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
  2. It's not a bad idea, but people who have similar devices installed find ways around its functionality.

    Zero-tolerance drinking-driving laws, together with impounding of the vehicle concerned would do a lot to curb offenses. If I knew I could have my car taken away for driving after drinking one beer, I'd take my whiskey home.
  3. Anonymous Member

  4. Anonymous Member

    We are innocent til proven guilty, You want to turn that on its head. Guilty until proven innocent.

    You also have a problem understanding the difference between encourage and require. You say the government should encourage the car makers, then the very next sentence you say they should be required. Which is it? One requires words and cajolery, while the other requires laws, guns and the threat of jail.

    So, you want to use the force of law to violate our presumption of innocence in order to implement your idea.

    God, where do you come up with this shit?
    • Like Like x 4
  5. Anonymous Member

    No, just no.
    Whether you use a seatbelt or not has no bearing on whether or not you can use your car – something that is distinctly not true of the device you are advocating for. Such devices which involve detection through chemical means have a high tendency to degrade over time, which is a real issue that could leave innocents high and dry. The other important consideration is that seatbelts provide a positive protection for innocents who use them – something that would not apply to your device. Therefore, seatbelts do not bolster your argument.

    Anything being introduced that will hinder innocent people in any way must meet a certain burned of proof as to its efficacy. A device than can be circumvented with a fucking balloon hardly passes that test. It wasn’t surprising to me that evidence supporting the lack of efficacy was available in real-world data (and this with reference to first-time offender DUIs):
    http://www.dmv.ca.gov/about/profile/rd/210_ignition_interlock_report.pdf
    The results of this outcome study clearly show that IIDs are not effective in
    reducing DUI convictions or incidents for first DUI offenders, even those with
    high BACs at arrest. While their high blood alcohol levels suggest that they are
    an alcohol-dependent population, ignition interlock does not appear to be the
    answer to reducing their drinking and driving risk.

    So no, just no.
  6. You mean like all voice, email, text, and online chats being scoured by NSA/DIA/CIA/DoJ?
    Who's watching the watchers?

    Who's going to enforce the "burned of proof", you?

    Maybe you should employ a spellchecker first. Get back to us after.
  7. Anonymous Member

    ^ I don't understand how that comment in any responded to what I wrote, even though it apparently quoted me.
  8. Anonymous Member

    They would get another to blow for them just as under agers buy beer.
    It could be a business, a will blow service. Whatever it is, there will be way around and all the while the gov't will have more ways to intrude upon the law abiding. Would morman's have to have them? What about those who had never had a sip of alcohol in their lives? What about drug screeners in cars? What about people who drive when they are a sobbing mess (done that and not smart.)
    Anhoo, I admire your drive, but do not agree with the way to go about it.
  9. Anonymous Member

  10. Anonymous Member

  11. Anonymous Member

    Those breath test devices have lots of problems
    They can't tell the difference between acetone on the breath and alcohol .
    They re-test randomly and require a breath sometimes on the freeway and sometimes during hazardous driving (imagine breath test while driving on ice.) They turn off the engine if the breath test isn't done.
    They malfunction like any other device but during driving it's dangerous.
    I think they do work as a deterrent.
  12. Anonymous Member

    http://drowsydriving.org/about/facts-and-stats/

    According to the National Sleep Foundation’s 2005 Sleep in America poll, 60% of adult drivers – about 168 million people – say they have driven a vehicle while feeling drowsy in the past year, and more than one-third, (37% or 103 million people), have actually fallen asleep at the wheel! In fact, of those who have nodded off, 13% say they have done so at least once a month. Four percent – approximately eleven million drivers – admit they have had an accident or near accident because they dozed off or were too tired to drive.
    The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration conservatively estimates that 100,000 police-reported crashes are the direct result of driver fatigue each year. This results in an estimated 1,550 deaths, 71,000 injuries, and $12.5 billion in monetary losses. These figures may be the tip of the iceberg, since currently it is difficult to attribute crashes to sleepiness.
    • There is no test to determine sleepiness as there is for intoxication, i.e. a “Breathalyzer”.
    • State reporting practices are inconsistent. There is little or no police training in identifying drowsiness as a crash factor. Every state currently addresses fatigue and/or sleepiness in some way in their crash report forms. However, the codes are inconsistent and two states (Missouri and Wisconsin) do not have specific codes for fatigue and/or fell asleep.
    • Self-reporting is unreliable.
    • Drowsiness/fatigue may play a role in crashes attributed to other causes such as alcohol. About one million such crashes annually are thought to be produced by driver inattention/lapses.
    • According to data from Australia, England, Finland, and other European nations, all of whom have more consistent crash reporting procedures than the U.S., drowsy driving represents 10 to 30 percent of all crashes.
    __________________________________________________________
    My bold. Derail over.
  13. Anonymous Member







    Damn, it's a good thing that people who have been drinking never use their cell phones!
  14. Emptyvoid Member

    there are all ready things like this. after violations of drunk driving, you can sometimes be placed on a Breathalyzer to allow you to start your car. If you fail, it doesn't turn on and won't turn on for a period of time. Finding away around this would prove difficult, especially if its visible to a police officer whose giving you a ticket, if it's been tampered with you must get a new one installed and are fined. Cell phone blockers are a retarded idea because there may be an emergency or your getting directions etc.
  15. NTSB UNVEILS INTERVENTIONS TO REACH ZERO ALCOHOL-IMPAIRED CRASHES

    may 14

    Today that National Transportation Safety Board released a bold set of targeted interventions to put the country on a course to eliminate alcohol-impaired driving crashes. The 19 recommendations call for stronger laws, swifter enforcement and expanded use of technology.

    “Most Americans think that we’ve solved the problem of impaired driving, but in fact, it’s still a national epidemic,” NTSB Chairman Deborah A.P. Hersman said. “On average, every hour one person is killed and 20 more are injured.”

    Each year in the United States, nearly 10,000 people are killed in crashes involving alcohol-impaired drivers and more than 173,000 are injured, with 27,000 suffer incapacitating injuries. Since the mid-1990s, even as total highway fatalities have fallen, the proportion of deaths from accidents involving an alcohol-impaired driver has remained constant at around 30 percent. In the last 30 years, nearly 440,000 people have died in alcohol related crashes.

    Today, investigators cited research that showed that although impairment begins with the first drink, by 0.05 BAC, most drivers experience a decline in both cognitive and visual functions, which significantly increases the risk of a serious crash. Currently, over 100 countries on six continents have BAC limits set at 0.05 or lower. The NTSB has asked all 50 states to do the same.

    “The research clearly shows that drivers with a BAC above 0.05 are impaired and at a significantly greater risk of being involved in a crash where someone is killed or injured,” said Hersman.

    Among the other findings, investigators said that high-visibility enforcement efforts, such as sobriety checkpoints and saturation patrols paired with media campaigns, deter alcohol-impaired driving. And to increase the effectiveness of these programs, the NTSB recommended that police use passive alcohol sensors to help better detect alcohol vapor in the ambient environment.

    The NTSB, which in December 2012 recommended that states require ignition interlocks for all DWI offenders, said that because only about one in four offenders ordered to have an interlock actually have one installed, states should employ measures to improve interlock compliance.

    Further, the Board said that an intervention known as administrative license suspension, which allows law enforcement authorities to immediately suspend or revoke a driver’s license at the time of a DWI arrest, would be more effective if states required offenders to have an ignition interlock on their vehicles before licenses could be fully reinstated.

    The NTSB recognized the effectiveness of specialized state DWI courts in addressing the particular challenges represented by repeat offenders. DWI courts hold offenders accountable through intensive monitoring, treatment for underlying disorders, alcohol testing and graduated sanctions. The NTSB recommended that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration assist states in maximizing their effectiveness by providing the courts with current best practices.

    Over the past year, the NTSB sharpened its focus on impaired driving and has taken a number of actions, including issuing recommendations following a December 2012 special report on wrong-way driving. That report revealed that more than 60 percent of wrong-way crashes were caused by alcohol-impaired drivers. In May 2012, the Board hosted a forum on substance-impaired driving to understand how the latest research, technology, and countermeasures were being used by a range of advocacy groups as well as federal, state and local authorities to address substance-impaired driving.

    Today, the NTSB issued 10 safety recommendations and reiterated nine others to NHTSA, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the National Sheriffs’ Association, the Automotive Coalition for Traffic Safety, all 50 states, Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia.

    “Alcohol-impaired crashes are not accidents,” said Hersman. “They are crimes. They can – and should – be prevented. The tools exist. What is needed is the will.”

    The report, “Reaching Zero: Actions to Reduce Alcohol-Impaired Driving,” is available at http://go.usa.gov/TeQe.
  16. Anonymous Member

    No tampering required. Just use a balloon.
  17. Anonymous Member

    This idea is good. For the companies that manufacture breathalyzers.

    I'm really offended by stealth marketing masquerading as a political movement. I want to kill all that shit with fire.
    • Like Like x 1
  18. RightOn Member

    they need to add texting too
  19. Anonymous Member

    NEED MOAR FASCIST GOVERNMENT CONTROL NAO!!!
    • Like Like x 2
  20. Anonymous Member

    While we're at it why don't we just ban alcohol and mobile phones, problem solved
  21. Anonymous Member

    Look how well Prohibition worked...

    ...or the War on Drugs...

    Nevermind how banning something always fails... Lets ban everything!
  22. Anonymous Member

    Except gov't cause they are so smart and know better about what is best for us.
    No.
  23. the alcohol and drunk driving seems to be obvious to the person to know that you can not drive, and you will not be aware of what you do, so you must know that when you drink alcohol, you should not drive because it can be held responsible for the bad things that can happen, and spend the other's right to do something wrong in that case even get to kill someone is a crime and they should to complain if they do is save life despite the costs that are required, and if you suffer so much for what you pay for driving drunk, you better not drive. On the part of the phone today there are hands free, and if you do not want to use them, why not use the loudspeaker? or because they simply refuse to do, enjoy your freedom, right?
    my view may be used and in fact refuted by many, you think.
  24. Anonymous Member

    Clever screen name. I suggest you put away the Bailey's.
  25. What country are you in? In the US, that is not legal. After the car is manufactured, the state can't require you to improve the pollution controls, safety features, or anything else (and it would take great engineering skill to do it). The state can force you to get insurance, but that is not physically doing anything to the car. States can only inspect to make sure these features are still present and working properly (and the insurance is still in effect).

    (It could be worse -- India forces you to stop driving the vehicle when it reaches a certain age, even if its pollution devices are working. And California has banned people from using any two-stroke chain saws or two-stroke lawnmowers. Two-stroke boat engines are probably banned from use also. But modifying the vehicle/engine after the fact cannot be required, AFAIK.)

    Repeat offenders, like my uncle, will not stop drink-driving. Increasing penalties will help however. Special "habitual drunkard" plates (Ohio and Wisconsin have them) have caused embarrassment to those guilty of DUI. Newspaper stories confirm it.

    [EDIT: Several other states now require DUI plates, and more are considering them. GOOD FOR THEM!! (If you don't agree to put them on your car, the judge won't let you drive at all, and you'll probably lose your job.)]

    And if one person out of four has the interlock device, when all four convicted people are required to have it, perhaps we should enforce the laws we already have instead of passing new ones. Take the example of the Brady background check for guns. IIRC, the only people that can prosecute you for LYING on the paperwork is the Federal government ("I swear I'm not a career criminal, alcoholic or insane"). But the last time I heard, the Feds seldom/never choose to prosecute. Even though you are CLEARLY caught LYING.
  26. Paroxetine Samurai Moderator

    There is huge problems with this idea as most Anons have pointed out, but let me state some that have been missed:

    1) Seat belts installed in cars were made mandatory by the Feds, however car manufacturers didn't put up a fight as they had studies too that corroborated what the Feds were saying.

    2) Seat belt laws and DUI laws are state laws, not Federal law.

    3) Because both seat belt and DUI laws are done on the state level, the requirements/levels/punishment vary.

    4) The legal limit suggested by the NTSB and MADD is merely a suggestion. There is no force behind it other than the law that says states have to have DUI laws in book. How those laws are written is up to the states.

    5) In some states, you cannot be pulled over and get a ticket for no belt. You can only get a ticket for no belt if you are pulled over for something else. (Where I live, they will make up a reason even though they are not suppose to. Considering that a town nearby can pull you over and give you a ticket for going 1 mile above the speed limit, I imagine they can make up a whole plethora of reasons to slam you for no belt as a bonus...)

    6) In my state, the IID is payed for by the offender and can be randomly checked on by the state/local PD. Not sure if other states do that as well.

    7) Having the IIDs installed into every new car is cost ineffective. Not to mention Constitutionally wrong. Why should I, who never drinks at home and exponentially less in public, have to have a new car with this device?

    8) IIDs aren't perfect. People have mentioned if the thing malfunctions, but what if it gets a false positive? What if it won't work when the driver hasn't drunk but it swears it does? What if the person has a metabolism problem and the machine keeps getting false positives?

    9) Car manufacturers aren't going to accept this without screaming bloody murder. They, along with most people and the law, see this as what it really is: Trying to assume everybody is guilty until proven innocent. Nobody will pass such a federal law as it would get blown out of the sky by the Supreme Court. States aren't going to ruffle the feathers of the car makers who will move their factories elsewhere. Car makers aren't going to ruffle the feathers of it's non-drinking/responsible drinkers customers because of the irresponsibility of a few drunk bastards. People aren't going to buy cars with them installed and certainly won't tolerate any politician who votes for this absurd bill.

    10) Even if it were technically and cost possible and even in the unlikely event that a bill like this would pass and be ignored by the Supreme Court, in about 3 mins there would be a Youtube video on how to defeat it. The ones defeating it wouldn't be the drunks, but the responsible/non drinkers who don't like such an intrusion of their rights.
  27. Anonymous Member

    Hello everyone,
    The majority of us know someone who has been affected by drunk driving in one way or another. Whether these people were negatively affected as a result of personal choices, or the actions of others, it is undeniable that certain precautions could have deterred these events. In an era where there are more drivers on the road, evidence suggests there are proportionately more drunk driving incidents, many of which are repeat offences. Some may place the blame of these events on the intoxicated drivers themselves. However, I say we are all to blame. Why not protect everyone on the road simultaneously with proactive measures? Legislation placing mandatory sobriety sensors in American vehicles would be an influential step toward eliminating this social issue and providing us with safer roads.
    It is no secret that our nation has experienced a steady increase in population since the automobile came into existence. In fact, since the modern car was invented in 1886 there has been a population increase of 256,018,511 people in the United States. (census.gov) Thus, it should also come with no surprise that each year there are also more drivers on the road. Since 1980 the number of licensed drivers within the U.S. increased by 23.73%. (U.S. Department of Transportation) With this increase in drivers there comes a proportionately larger number of intoxicated drivers operating motor vehicles. The trend is obvious. This undoubtedly produces a rise in deaths due to drunk driving crimes. In order to counteract this trend, immediate action must be taken. If the majority of lawmakers settle for the current restrictive measures, they will prove no match for rapidly expanding population. Without making changes to current laws, the yearly death tolls resulting from drunk driving incidents will only continue to rise in relation to our substantial population growth.
    A large portion of drunk drivers repeat the offense many times before they are caught. In fact, “an average drunk driver has driven drunk 80 times before his or her first arrest.” (Center of Disease Control and Prevention) As you can see these numbers are alarming. Just imagine how many times you and your loved ones have been sharing the same roadways with these drunk drivers. As lawmakers you are in the position to make a difference. Doesn’t it make more sense to be proactive and prevent these accidents from happening in the first place?
    Recently, data has surfaced suggesting that offenders charged with drunk driving crimes are even more likely to become repeat offenders. Although it seems unlikely that those receiving the initial punishment would have the ability or desire to duplicate their crime, they have unfortunately demonstrated otherwise. Look at a recent man in the news who killed a loving grandma and grandpa who were out for a walk with their daughter-in-law and newborn grandson. This man had been previously cited 5 times and still chose to get behind the wheel of a car with a blood alcohol level of .22 which is almost 3 times the legal limit. (seattletimes.com)In the United Sates, “…about one third of all drivers arrested or convicted of DUI each year are repeat offenders and 1 out of 8 intoxicated drivers in fatal crashes have had a prior DUI conviction within the past three years.” (National Highway
Traffic Safety
Administration) With that being said, it should be hard for you, as lawmakers, to ignore the fact that these laws must be tailored to discourage such actions. The current laws are simply too lax. Drivers previously convicted of driving under the influence should neither want, nor be given the opportunity to place themselves or others in danger for a second time.
    No current written law will have the capability to physically take drunk driving out of the equation, despite the desperate need to do so. As previously stated I am suggesting that we protect our roads by placing mandatory sobriety sensors in all vehicles driven in America. In order to start your car you would be required to blow into the device. If your blood alcohol level was less than .08 you would then be allowed to start your vehicle.
    So you may be asking yourself how this will ever work. Well my answer to that is simple! Just as we gradually started installing seatbelts years ago, manufactures would be required to start installing a device that attaches to all cars. As far as older cars, there would be a grace period for car owners to get the devices installed in their vehicles. Before license tabs are renewed we would go into a shop just as we do with emissions. In order to get the license renewed we would need a form from the testing site stating we had a device installed and it is working properly. If a car was pulled over for any reason and did not have the blood alcohol device installed a large citation would be issued.
    Thirty one percent of all traffic accidents are the result of drunk driving. (www.centurycouncil.org) Aside from the fact that 9,878 deaths a year would be eliminated by installing these devices, financial costs resulting from drunk driving would be less than the cost to ensure that no harm could come from such choices at all. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, “Drunk driving costs each adult in this country almost $500 per year.” (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration), while an alcohol detection device for your vehicle can be found at a one time expense of around $200. Which makes economic sense to you?
    In offering the idea of an alcohol detection system as a way of eliminating drunk driving, I have received much support, as well as a number of critics. One reoccurring theme amongst these critics seemed to come with the idea that those over the legal limit wishing to operate their vehicles would simply have a sober person blow for them. “This would never work. People will just have someone else blow for them.” one skeptic stated. To those standing behind this opposition I then ask, why would a person be willing to drive under the influence when there is someone perfectly legal already in the vehicle? Numerous others have argued that this would encourage individuals to enter the “blow and go service” industry, A hypothetical industry that would provide sober parties to start cars for drunk drivers. I challenge them to think rationally. First off, this would be made illegal, just as it is unruly to provide alcohol to minors. And secondly, we already have a service that drives to assist those enjoying alcoholic beverages in where they need to be going, it’s a legal operation called a taxi.
    Drunk driving is a deadly mistake that has been on the rise for decades. Now, more than ever, I encourage you to support the necessity of an immediate social confrontation of the issue. Placing mandatory sobriety sensors inside of all American operated vehicles would not only detour drunk driving, but come close to eliminating it completely. Numerous states already issue these alcohol detection systems to those who have previously been convicted of drunk driving. By expanding this requirement to all drivers we could remove the risk of making bad decisions ourselves, and protect others at the same time.

    Thanks for listening!
  28. Anonymous Member

  29. Paroxetine Samurai Moderator

    It's been moved to this thread.

    This thread has explained it all. Repeatedly.

    In case people do in fact have terminal ADHD and are going to suffer serious mental and physical exhaustion before the end of this sentence, the TL;DR:
    1. No.
    2. It is "innocent until proven guilty" not the other way around.
    3. The technology is costly. So unless you enjoy the thought of paying over $1,000 or more per car, then I'm sure nobody here will be behind this.
    4. The technology isn't foolproof. Drunken lush bastards will find ways around it. Remember: Drunk, not Stupid.
    5. In addition: The technology can report false positives. So, totally sober people will be unable to drive because the POS says their drunk.
    6. What about people like me who don't drink, much less drink and drive? Fuck them because it stops the drunk faggots, right?
    7. I hate drunks as much as MADD, but I hate overwhelmingly massive amounts of innocent people being punished/inconvenienced/having their rights stripped away over the actions of a few even more with something that isn't 100% foolproof and my cats can defeat in 30 seconds or less.
    8. The Fed Gov. can't do shit about any alcohol issue. Drunk Driving is a state/local dealt with issue. Thank Prohibition for that.
    So, the best solution would be to get in touch with MADD or SADD or whatever ADD there is and get local PDs and state legislatures to get tougher on those who repeatedly offend or kill somebody under the influence. However, punishing those who are not responsible or don't participate at all in the risk factor is just wrong on so many levels.
    • Like Like x 1
  30. Anonymous Member

    I salute your madd copypasta skills!
    • Like Like x 1
  31. Anonymous Member

  32. Anonymous Member

    I C wut U did thar.
  33. Roger Wilco Member

    Might as well put speed monitoring devices on our vehicles as well. That way we can automatically be fined when we go over the speed limit :D.
  34. EveStropping Member

    After being hit by a drunk driver at the beginning of May , I underwent 12 hours of surgery to have a metal plate put in my left leg as the tib and fib are broken, each in two places. It's going to be another 4 months before it heals properly. .That just one of the injuries I sustained at the time. I am all in favour of heavier penalties for drinking and driving, you do one or the other but not both.
    • Like Like x 1
  35. Anonymous Member

    It is a crime, not a mistake.
    • Like Like x 2
  36. EveStropping Member

    If he had hit a child instead of me chances are the damage could have been much worse.
  37. Anonymous Member

    ^^^ This.

    OP, no! And fuck those Mad Mothers, too. The Mad Mothers are kind of like the cult in that they inflate their membership numbers, too.
    • Dislike Dislike x 2
  38. Paroxetine Samurai Moderator

    You want to have a good LOL about irony/hypocrisy?

    The former president of MADD was busted for Drunk Driving. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20036544-504083.html

    LOL away, dear Anon, LOL your heart's content.

    Forcing car companies to put such flawed technology into cars is such a bad idea and punishes/inconveniences exponentially more innocent people than it does guilty ones.
  39. You nailed it and are sooooooooooo correct.



Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors

Close

Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins