Yeah So I wont be Dinking and driving anymore

[Chump Change]

Btw fwiw imho ldo, Jmam made a very good point about the one of the big absurdities of drunk driving laws, i'm not sure why it was getting knocked.

[[Phill]]

Where did Jman make any point? Not joking about or anything.

[ QUOTE ]
What you are doing is neither hilarious, nor funny. Notice that everyone else in the thread disagrees with you? You're actually the [censored] that is endangering the lives of others, and you're committing what is probably a felony reckless endangerment in most states, to combat what you are witnessing, which is most likely a misdemeanor driving while intoxicated. good job. Also, I don't believe a word you've written.

Edit: By the way, I just drove home from Atlantic city, and just got home. I don't drink alcohol, but i was pretty tired. Its possible I may have swerved slightly out of my lane once or twice during the 3 hour drive home. I'm glad I didn't run into you.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, cant be the first paragraph, so i guess paragraph two. So what absurdity did he 'prove'?

[leehrat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Japans new DUI Laws are insane.

1. Driving Under the Influence, BAC .08 or higher
Previous maximum sentence: Imprisonment with hard labor not to exceed 3 years or a fine not exceeding 500,000 yen
New maximum: Imprisonment with hard labor not to exceed 5 years or fine not exceeding 1,000,000 yen.
2. Driving While Impaired, BAC .03 to .79


[/ QUOTE ]

found a loophole, hope this helps

[/ QUOTE ]

.80+ not illegal. Drink more

[/ QUOTE ]

#1 has no cap, they were shrewd

[jcg2005]

[ QUOTE ]
I hope rebelrebel is a level/gimmick. If not then wtf man? You're a terrible person. Drunk driving laws are unnecessarily harsh.

If you had a relative killed by a 40 year old business man going to work would you feel the same about their right to drive (or live)? What a [censored] idiot. If anyone shouldn't be driving it should be asians, old people, and women. Seriously.

[/ QUOTE ]

wow plz be leveling....

[leehrat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


As someone who has lost three family members to drunk drivers, Japans law's (And America's) seem very weak.

In RebelRebel's world, 1-6 would be about the same, except change Yen to $$.

Also, #7 would be about double, and if you kill someone in a drunk driving accident, you should be treated the same way as if you put a gun to their head and pulled the trigger, as it is the same crime.

FWIW, whenever I see a driver weaving, I pull up in my SUV and attempt to run them into a ditch.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just curious, the loved ones that you lost due to drunk drivers, were you able to find out how drunk the drivers were? were they like .05 bac? ie had like 2 or 3 beers over lets say an hour or 2. Or were they absolutely smashed? like 4 or 5 times over the legal limit? My guess is they were absolutely smashed and didn't just have a few beers and in the .04 to .08 range.

I fully understand how people who have lost loved ones in drunk driving accidents want the laws to be harsher. However, most of the time when i hear of a drunk driver killing someone, they are usually very intoxicated much over the .08 bac etc... So why does this translate to wanting the laws to be much harsher for those that aren't really drunk but instead maybe "slightly buzzed", and are under the .08 limit and aren't swerving around or driving erratically. Having 2 beers in an hour puts you at like .05, and this is no where near drunk for a typical adult male. I would say the so called impaired driving at this stage is probably comparable to a sober person talking on their cell while driving or listening to loud music while driving or having a conversion with the person in the passenger seat, or someone driving while tired due to lack of sleep.

I just think the dui laws should focus the harshest punishment on those that are truly driving drunk and at a much higher risk for killing someone. While from what i've heard often someone who gets nailed for having a .06 and being barely buzzed will get fairly similar punishment to someone who had a .14 and was seriously impaired and at a much much higher risk for causing an accident.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, this dude was pretty [censored] up

This better fits what come to mind when I think of dangerous BAC's.

[4drugmoney]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


As someone who has lost three family members to drunk drivers, Japans law's (And America's) seem very weak.

In RebelRebel's world, 1-6 would be about the same, except change Yen to $$.

Also, #7 would be about double, and if you kill someone in a drunk driving accident, you should be treated the same way as if you put a gun to their head and pulled the trigger, as it is the same crime.

FWIW, whenever I see a driver weaving, I pull up in my SUV and attempt to run them into a ditch.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just curious, the loved ones that you lost due to drunk drivers, were you able to find out how drunk the drivers were? were they like .05 bac? ie had like 2 or 3 beers over lets say an hour or 2. Or were they absolutely smashed? like 4 or 5 times over the legal limit? My guess is they were absolutely smashed and didn't just have a few beers and in the .04 to .08 range.

I fully understand how people who have lost loved ones in drunk driving accidents want the laws to be harsher. However, most of the time when i hear of a drunk driver killing someone, they are usually very intoxicated much over the .08 bac etc... So why does this translate to wanting the laws to be much harsher for those that aren't really drunk but instead maybe "slightly buzzed", and are under the .08 limit and aren't swerving around or driving erratically. Having 2 beers in an hour puts you at like .05, and this is no where near drunk for a typical adult male. I would say the so called impaired driving at this stage is probably comparable to a sober person talking on their cell while driving or listening to loud music while driving or having a conversion with the person in the passenger seat, or someone driving while tired due to lack of sleep.

I just think the dui laws should focus the harshest punishment on those that are truly driving drunk and at a much higher risk for killing someone. While from what i've heard often someone who gets nailed for having a .06 and being barely buzzed will get fairly similar punishment to someone who had a .14 and was seriously impaired and at a much much higher risk for causing an accident.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, this dude was pretty [censored] up

This better fits what come to mind when I think of dangerous BAC's.

[/ QUOTE ]

Holly [censored].

[[Phill]]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


As someone who has lost three family members to drunk drivers, Japans law's (And America's) seem very weak.

In RebelRebel's world, 1-6 would be about the same, except change Yen to $$.

Also, #7 would be about double, and if you kill someone in a drunk driving accident, you should be treated the same way as if you put a gun to their head and pulled the trigger, as it is the same crime.

FWIW, whenever I see a driver weaving, I pull up in my SUV and attempt to run them into a ditch.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just curious, the loved ones that you lost due to drunk drivers, were you able to find out how drunk the drivers were? were they like .05 bac? ie had like 2 or 3 beers over lets say an hour or 2. Or were they absolutely smashed? like 4 or 5 times over the legal limit? My guess is they were absolutely smashed and didn't just have a few beers and in the .04 to .08 range.

I fully understand how people who have lost loved ones in drunk driving accidents want the laws to be harsher. However, most of the time when i hear of a drunk driver killing someone, they are usually very intoxicated much over the .08 bac etc... So why does this translate to wanting the laws to be much harsher for those that aren't really drunk but instead maybe "slightly buzzed", and are under the .08 limit and aren't swerving around or driving erratically. Having 2 beers in an hour puts you at like .05, and this is no where near drunk for a typical adult male. I would say the so called impaired driving at this stage is probably comparable to a sober person talking on their cell while driving or listening to loud music while driving or having a conversion with the person in the passenger seat, or someone driving while tired due to lack of sleep.

I just think the dui laws should focus the harshest punishment on those that are truly driving drunk and at a much higher risk for killing someone. While from what i've heard often someone who gets nailed for having a .06 and being barely buzzed will get fairly similar punishment to someone who had a .14 and was seriously impaired and at a much much higher risk for causing an accident.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.erso.eu/knowledge/content/05_...fects_on_driver

[ QUOTE ]
According to an overview of studies carried out in laboratories, driving simulators and instrumented vehicles, Muscovite and Robinson [27] come to the conclusion that most skills related to the driving task already start to deteriorate at a BAC-level as low as 0.2 g/l.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Reaction times when driving get longer. There is a difference between a driver's capability on simple reaction time tasks and choice reaction time task. In a simple reaction time task a driver has to press a key as quickly as possible after a stimulus (auditory or visual) has been presented. In a choice reaction time task a driver has to respond differently to two stimuli by pressing one key for event A and a separate key for event B. Choice reaction time begin to deteriorate at a BAC of 0.6

[/ QUOTE ]

Im not sure how official these tests are, but whilst its true that the most dangerous drink drivers are the ones who have drunk the most (obviously) there is evidence that a really small amount of alcohol inhibits performance.

[vhawk01]

We'd need to know how significant "being to deteriorate" is and then compare it to other completely legal, socially acceptable things which might also deteriorate driving skills. So, a .02 is worse than a .00, but is a .02 worse than a driver having a bad day? Worse than someone having a conversation? Someone with the flu? Of course skills "start to deteriorate" at low BACs but we are willing to accept some level of deterioration, aren't we?

[Klompy]

[ QUOTE ]
We'd need to know how significant "being to deteriorate" is and then compare it to other completely legal, socially acceptable things which might also deteriorate driving skills. So, a .02 is worse than a .00, but is a .02 worse than a driver having a bad day? Worse than someone having a conversation? Someone with the flu? Of course skills "start to deteriorate" at low BACs but we are willing to accept some level of deterioration, aren't we?

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem IMO is that .08 is WAY less of a problem for driving then any other distraction or ailment such as being tired. I'm not trying to condone drunk driving, or even say that driving at .07 is necessarily a "good" idea. I just hate how if someone gets an owi for driving at .09 they're instantly a baby killer, but people don't blink an eye at any other things that hinder your driving (cough old people)

[[Phill]]

Dunno how it works in the US, but here in the UK there have been several laws brought in recently to limit mobile phone use whilst driving for this very purpose.

Also im sure its true stuff like talking to passengers, listening to music and being tired inhibit capability, none are as easy to test as how much you have drunk. Maybe thats a double standard, maybe its just a simple case of a limit in what we can test.

If there was a simple way to test for tiredness, then i wouldnt be shocked if there was a tired driving law brought in because studies show tiredness to be more dangerous than being drunk - i forget the levels used, but i believe it was the point you are just over the limit versus being up 24 hours straight, been a while since i read it.