New Mexico trip a bust
in [Motorcycles]
|
Prev: Packing an equalizer
Next: nortons
From: Vito on 5 Nov 2009 12:22 "S'mee" <stevenkeith2(a)hotmail.com> wrote [ Especially when you consider that PT can't work except in urban areas. [ Sure wouldn't work in a the NW, again excepting urban areas. I tried it once upon a time. The red car from Compton to LA cost a buck round trip - less than half what parking and gas cost. But it was hard to find a parking place at the station because joy riders dumped so many stolen cars there and if I did find one they'd strip my car during the day. Then I got to sit beside the gal who bathed in perfume on the way up and beside the drunk who never bathed on the way back.
From: Vito on 5 Nov 2009 12:31 "Rob Kleinschmidt" <Rkleinsch1216128(a)aol.com> wrote "Vito" <v...(a)cfl.rr.com> wrote: > "BrianNZ" <br...(a)itnz.co.nz> wrote > | Fine them, take their licences and/or throw them in jail. It's not like > | it's a new law .... > > That's my point. We have been fining, jailing and pulling licenses for > over > 50 years that I know of yet we still have drunk drivers. Obviously that > doesn't work. It also punishes the drunks' kids who depend on him/her. It > is time to try some different punishments. Stocks? Flogging? Crucifixion? [ Start by impounding and selling the car. "Due process" won't allow that if the car is owned in part by another person - like his wife or brother. Many police now have video. It is technically easy to make the drunk test available to a judge & jury in real time and them to rule on the spot, allowing the cops to lock the dude inside a chainlink enclosure like a dog kennel for a few days of public abuse. There are a zillion variations on this.
From: Rob Kleinschmidt on 5 Nov 2009 12:58 On Nov 5, 9:31 am, "Vito" <v...(a)cfl.rr.com> wrote: > "Rob Kleinschmidt" <Rkleinsch1216...(a)aol.com> wrote > > "Vito" <v...(a)cfl.rr.com> wrote: > > "BrianNZ" <br...(a)itnz.co.nz> wrote > > | Fine them, take their licences and/or throw them in jail. It's not like > > | it's a new law .... > > > That's my point. We have been fining, jailing and pulling licenses for > > over > > 50 years that I know of yet we still have drunk drivers. Obviously that > > doesn't work. It also punishes the drunks' kids who depend on him/her. It > > is time to try some different punishments. Stocks? Flogging? Crucifixion? > > [ Start by impounding and selling the car. > > "Due process" won't allow that if the car is owned in part by another > person - like his wife or brother. I think due process probably could be made to allow impounding the vehicle the drunk was driving and I suspect it might make folks more careful about loaning their cars to drunks. The thing I like about taking away and keeping the drunk's car is that it's a nice simple easy consequence, not hard to grasp even if you're pretty drunk. That's as compared with all the trial and lawyer stuff that goes with the rest of the process. If you're going to deter drunks, you better do it with stuff that's easy for 'em to wrap their head around and readily believe. Once a couple drinking buddys loose their cars, it might sink in. Better yet would be a mobile car crusher that cubed the car on the spot, but that probably really would be a violation of due process. > > Many police now have video. It is technically easy to make the drunk test > available to a judge & jury in real time and them to rule on the spot, > allowing the cops to lock the dude inside a chainlink enclosure like a dog > kennel for a few days of public abuse. There are a zillion variations on > this.
From: BrianNZ on 5 Nov 2009 14:33 S'mee wrote: > On Nov 4, 3:46 pm, "MikeWhy" <boat042-nos...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> "BrianNZ" <br...(a)itnz.co.nz> wrote in message >> >> news:4af1f45c$1(a)news.orcon.net.nz... >> >> >> >>> I drink and drive all the time.....I don't drive drunk. >> Not till you get caught at it anyway. As he said, Pot/Kettle. > > You are assuming he meant alcoholic beverages... He was correct.... :)
From: BrianNZ on 5 Nov 2009 14:44
Vito wrote: > "BrianNZ" <brian(a)itnz.co.nz> wrote > | The thinking has to happen before the drinking. The person needs to make > | a decision on how much they are going to drink and have the ability to > | either stick to it and stay under the limit or arrange for other > | transport home. As it effects different people in different ways, it's > | important to be able to judge how you feel. If you only have a couple of > | standard drinks and know you are under the limit, but don't feel good > | enough to drive, then use your own judgment (albeit impaired) and don't > | drive till you feel better. > | > You are right, of course. Trouble is a small percentage of people cannot do > that and, since there are so many people, that comprises a whole lot of > drunk drivers. So, how do we deal with them? Current methods have proved > ineffective. > > Same problems down here....and it's common for the drunk driver to have no licence from a previous drunk driving incident. Maybe make it compulsory for people convicted of drunk driving to attend some Alcoholics Anonymous meetings to snap them out of their denial? I like the idea of hardwired (to the ignition) breathalisers as well......and make it an offence as serious as drunk driving for a sober person to blow into it to get the drunk going? It's a hard one cos it really is up to the individual to police themselves. We have random checkpoints all the time....Police 'boozebuses' all kitted out to process the drunk drivers on the spot and patrol cars set out on neighbouring streets to snare any 'runners'. Just last week a 16 year old girl was voted 'most sober' to drive a vanload (7) of partygoers home. She was on her learners licence so is not allowed to carry passengers, be driving after 10.30pm or have any alcohol.....a fail on all three counts and she had a head-on which killed two of her passengers and injured the rest, including the people in the car she hit. A huge loss and cost that could easily have been avoided. |