And 100% of fatal car wrecks involve someone doing something stupid. Yet one cause has been made into this huge profit making system in the name of "the public good." Increased penalties for DWI's were a good thing at one time. But these days it has been blown far too far out of proportion. As has been stated. Two glasses of wine at dinner doesn't make you a crazed death trap of a driver out there. Certainly no more than someone talking on a phone, but current law places that person in the same regard as some buffoon that went on a bender and is swerving in and out of lanes at 2:00 a.m.
I see what you are saying. I will say this though, most people who have two drinks at dinner aren't getting pulled over. Normally if you are getting pulled over for a DWI, you've done something to alert an officer. The OP was falling asleep at the wheel and got pulled over. He was a death trap on the road, and he was incredibly irresponsible. He hadn't had much sleep, knew he was tired, and still elected to go drink instead of go home. His story is incredibly common and if often ends with someone dead. I agree with you that the guy who has two glasses of wine shouldn't be punished like the guy on a bender. I don't know how the law works exactly and whether they are treated the same. I also agree with you that the gov uses a lot of "public good" causes for their own benefit. I'll still say I have no sympathy for someone who gets pulled over for falling asleep at the wheel, driving erratically, etc. and ends up with a DWI.
Ok. You just need to stop posting. You're throwing out baseless information and trying to rationale your drinking and driving. Driving is a privilege, not a right. It doesn't matter if the law says DUI is .01 or .08, obey the driving laws. When you get hammered with a DUI of .09, don't cry. Fatal accidents should be 0% stupid, but they will never be that low because some people think they are above the law.
it is not okay to drink and drive. however, the lack of public transportation across america allows this poor choice to be made over and over again. it would be a beautiful thing to see bars become proactive in this regard.
FWIW, I've never been pulled over for a DWI. That said, you, as well as others who post in extremes are the ones who need to stop posting. You bring nothing to the discussion. TIA.
If you were not drunk and you are sure of that, why did you refuse the breathalizer and bloodwork? Those would show that you are not drunk and that would be the end of this.
I think the thing with the DWI law is that it is to severe for first time offenders. There is a big difference between DWI and DUI, instead of giving good honest people who mad a bad decision the chance to change, they are forever branded with a scarlet letter.
Quick, would you rather be on the road with a drunk person asleep at the wheel or a sober person asleep at the wheel?
So, if I am driving along, obeying all laws, completely sober and a deer jumps into the road, I run into it and someone in my car dies - what stupid thing did I do? There are plenty of times that a fatal accident occurs where the driver(s) are doing nothing stupid.
I'd love to see the statistics showing how many traffic fatalities are caused where nobody is at fault. Once again, using extreme circumstances as an argument is silly, and the only people who would agree with these are people who don't drink.
Ironic since you said 100% of fatal traffic accidents involve someone doing something stupid. Can't get more extreme than 100%.
You are the one who used the "100%" statistic right? This thread has been massively derailed, but to continue on with it... You are a drinker, and if I recall your posts from the past few years, you are a massive drinker. It isn't shocking to me that someone who used to revel in his drunken exploits on a message board would think that DUI/DWI laws are ridiculous.
It just seemed odd to me that you complain about folks posting extreme examples while you claimed that each and every single fatal accident was caused by someone doing something stupid. You don't see the contradiction in what you posted and what you are complaining about?
I think it would be fairly obvious to anyone thinking rationally that my "100%" statistic was to counter your "40%" argument. It wasn't meant to be taken literally, and the true derailment is trying to argue the semantics of how it was meant. (ooooooh! But you said 100%! Talk about extreme!") I love people who play word games.
