Motorcycle Forum banner

1 - 19 of 19 Posts

·
It's all fun and games until someone loses an eye
Joined
·
8,665 Posts
Discussion Starter #1

·
It's all fun and games until someone loses an eye
Joined
·
8,665 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
I always love this kinda logic....

Arresting murderers hasn't stopped murders either, maybe we should just leave them alone.:rolleyes:
 

·
It's all fun and games until someone loses an eye
Joined
·
8,665 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
All those laws worked really well for drunk drivers...
Hell I can remember growing up, it was common for the wannabe Cowboys to have sliding windows installed in their pick-ups so they could throw their beer cans into the bed.
There are only more drunks, because there are more drivers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,758 Posts
The sliding rear window made a huge difference in the temperature of the cab, being able to toss your beer can into the bed was just icing.
 

·
Nightfly
Joined
·
4,238 Posts
In 2000 federal law pressured states to lower their BAC standards to 0.08 from 0.10. At the time two thirds of alcohol related accidents involved drivers with BAC's of 0.14 or higher. In fact, drivers with BAC's between 0.01 and 0.03 were involved in more fatal accidents than drivers BAC's between 0.08 and 0.10. The federal government classifies a fatal accident as alcohol related if it involved a drive, biker or pedestrian with a BAC of 0.01 or more. whether or not drinking actually contributed to the accident.

Once the 0.08 standard took effect nationwide a curious thing happened. Alcohol related fatalities increased, following a 20 year decline. Critics of the 0.08 standard predicted this would happen. A problem is that most people with a BAC between 0.08 and 0.10 don't drive erratically enough to be noticed by police officers in patrol cars. So this is where law enforcement decided to kick the constitution to the curb and begin using roadblocks.

The Supreme Court in their infinite wisdom said that while checkpoints constitute seizures under the fourth amendment, they still ruled that checkpoints are necessary because of the threat posed by drunk driving, they said it was reasonable. Thanks to that ruling these checkpoints have become nothing more than revenue generators.

A murderer is only caught after the fact. Almost never is a murder prevented. With checkpoints everyone is assumed to be drunk and so they stop every car on that road. Now in California, where else would he come from, a lawyer is calling for drunk driving exception to the Constitution. The fifth amendment right against self-incrimination has been turned upside down by state laws that instantly suspend the licenses of drivers who refuse to take a roadside breath test. Because so many of these machines are fraught with problems, most manufacturers refuse to turn over their source of code, meaning DWI defendants can't assess the machines margin of error, which has been proven to be a significant factor in cases that are borderline DUI for first offense.
If our ultimate goals are to reduce driver impairment and maximize highway safety, we should be punishing reckless driving. It shouldn't matter if it's caused by alcohol, sleep deprivation, prescription medication, text messaging, or road rage. If lawmakers want to stick it to dangerous drivers who threaten everyone else on the road, they can dial up the civil and criminal liability for reckless driving, especially in cases that result in injury or property damage.

Doing away with the specific charge of drunk driving sounds radical at first, but it would put the focus back on impairment, where it belongs. Not that someone had half a beer or one shot an hour before driving. It might repair some of the civil-liberties damage done by the invasive powers the government says it needs to catch and convict drunk drivers. If the offense were reckless driving rather than drunk driving, for example, repeated swerving over the median line would be enough to justify the charge. There would be no need for a cop to jam a needle in your arm alongside a busy highway.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,168 Posts
The Aussie CEL citations appear to be based on actual observed practices, not random stops like trapping "drunk drivers" with a road block. To me there is a huge difference between observing someone violating the law and stopping 100 people in hopes of finding one who has had too much to drink but was not showing any signs of being impaired.
 

·
It's all fun and games until someone loses an eye
Joined
·
8,665 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
Yeah, we're not talking about checkpoints, in most State's an unmarked vehicle can't pull you over anyway if I recall correctly. But I wonder if since the uniformed officer is visible on the bike if that will let them get away with it here.

I'm all for the classification of reckless being used on texters as it is distracted driving which is already classified such. I'm also for a minimum of 6 months license revocation.
 

·
MODERATOR
Joined
·
7,488 Posts
In 1981, my best friend was killed by a 5 time DUI piece of POOP that ran a red light and T-boned him, killing him instantly. He left a wonderful wife and three Son's all in College. He also left ME, his long time riding friend. We both had just bought brand new 1981 Yamaha XS1100's and were enjoying our weekend rides. We had planned a trip, with the wives to Austria and would pickup our new BMW's at the Factory, tour around for 2 weeks, have the bikes flown back to the United States and have lots of great memories to savor.

Random checks for drinking and drunk drivers is a no brainer to me. That they catch some for alcohol usage, drug usage, outstanding warrants etc is icing on the cake.

Now, in States that allow POT to be grown, imported and sold, the LEO's will really have a field day with these stoners who in their stupidity will think that it's okay to drive while high. After all, the President said it's no worse than Alcohol.:mad:

Recently, since the Cell phone craze, about the only time I've almost been killed is when someone is talking and/ or texting while driving, and moves into my lane from the side or even head on---and they don't even put the phone down--they just keep on driving and enjoying their phone.

I am all for somehow disabling a cell phone while a vehicle is in motion.

Sam:coffeescreen:
 

·
American Legion Rider
Joined
·
21,200 Posts
Laws have never fixed anything. What we need is good parenting. My parents would have just thrashed me to near death if I even thought about doing something that might harm someone else. Parenting today is near nothing. They use schools as babysitters and the schools teach them how to be a good socialist. Get back to basic with good moral parenting. And throw in a little church might help too.

Oh, now I did it.:)
 

·
MODERATOR
Joined
·
7,488 Posts
Hog, those are good points for sure.

Electronic communication devices are so widespread now that it would be very hard to retroactively limit their use.

Good parent's or not, kids will be kids. I don't think I've seen a kid in a long time that didn't have a cell phone superglued to his/ her head/ mouth or the obligatory head phones attached to an MP3 player or fancy smart phone.

While we are at it, what about all of the people killed because of not wearing seat belts. Where I live, the media always reports whether or not seatbelts were or were not being used in a fatal accident. My own personal survey of teenage accidents has shown: excessive speed, driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs (Recently three sixteen year old girls were killed smelling glue as they went off the road and hit a telephone pole---no seatbelts) or sexting, texting, phoning or playing a game, like ANGRY BIRDS as they drive down the road.

Church? You bet and I wouldn't have it any other way---we are all one breath away from eternity and I know where I want to spend it:biggrin: John 3:16 is my favorite!

Sam:coffeescreen:
 

·
It's all fun and games until someone loses an eye
Joined
·
8,665 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
Laws have never fixed anything. What we need is good parenting. My parents would have just thrashed me to near death if I even thought about doing something that might harm someone else. Parenting today is near nothing. They use schools as babysitters and the schools teach them how to be a good socialist. Get back to basic with good moral parenting. And throw in a little church might help too.

Oh, now I did it.:)
Parenting???? Damn near half the offenders I see are adults.
I think it's some kind of severe tech addiction and it's not just kids who are the problem. I sat almost completely through a red light yesterday, while some 40 something y/o broad diddled with her phone. She threw her hands up in disgust when I honked at her, like I was interrupting her Facebook session or something. I've quit inviting some friends to dinner, because you never see their eyes, because they can't put their ****ing phone down.
 

·
American Legion Rider
Joined
·
21,200 Posts
I think those adults you speak of are the beginning of those kids that never got good moral up bringing so yes they are part of the problem. I think kids that graduated high school in the early 70"s are the last that had morals and I'd question some of those. This started way back in other words.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
215 Posts
Cell phones are a sickness, I don't understand why some people have to talk to someone all the time. I believe we are becoming the Borg, and folks will be having communication implants installed soon.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
699 Posts
Hell I can remember growing up, it was common for the wannabe Cowboys to have sliding windows installed in their pick-ups so they could throw their beer cans into the bed.
There are only more drunks, because there are more drivers.
Well, to be fair, you pretty much would have to drink constantly to endure living in OK! ;)

To be serious, though, cell phone users seem like a bigger problem because there are more of them.
 

·
Commute Racer
Joined
·
2,225 Posts
Back to the posted video:

I'd be happier if most of the people he pulled over were actually driving while on their phone. I don't see anything wrong with checking your messages or looking something up while waiting at a light.

That said, I wish they did that sort of thing here. It would catch many cell phone users, and make people more on the lookout for bikes. But good luck trying to lame split and sneak up on people on a road king with hard bags open pipes (like most of the police bikes I see around here)
 

·
It's all fun and games until someone loses an eye
Joined
·
8,665 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
Well, to be fair, you pretty much would have to drink constantly to endure living in OK! ;)

To be serious, though, cell phone users seem like a bigger problem because there are more of them.
If you enjoy the rat race this isn't the place for you. If you've never lived here you'll never understand.;)
 

·
American Legion Rider
Joined
·
21,200 Posts
Heck, Norman is big city compared to my one horse town. We finally got to buy beer at the grocery store just a couple years ago. But I wouldn't trade it for anything.
 
1 - 19 of 19 Posts
Top