Re: UK: Drivers may be banned from smoking at the wheel

["Brian Loe" <knobdy () gmail com>]

On 5/14/07, sam stover <sam.stover () gmail com> wrote:
> I'll provide a counterpoint to this - I think people *DO* look at the
> results of those laws, just not in the manner that best serves the
> constituency.  I would say that the laws are primarily evaluated on
> their revenue generating merits, and not the ability the curtail the
> "crime" (and I use that term loosely).  What if I could come up with
> legislation that would put a stop to speeding immediately.  Would it be
> enacted?  Hell no - too much money comes from speeding tickets.  I would
> step further out on this limb to say that the insurance companies
> benefit a whole lot when it comes to DUI/DWI legislation (e.g. just
> cause to increase rates).  Sometimes I think nobody cares about the
> consumer, except as a source of revenue.

Sometimes? I think this is a fact - well known among all thinking
parties. However, that's the beauty of the market. Even if the
consumer is nothing more than that (interesting that you're calling us
"consumers" rather than, say, "citizens" or "the People"), a consumer,
they have to try and keep us around, fat and happy, to remain so.

> > So, in short, do I think someone who is too drunk to drive should be
> > allowed to drive? Yes. Should they go to jail when caught? Perhaps,
> > for the night. Should they be punished to the fullest extent of the
> > law when they drive drunk and do someone else damage? ABSOLUTELY.
>
> If someone in my family had ever been killed by a drunk driver, I'm
> pretty sure I would not be able to respond to this in a calm manner.  ;-)

I've had people in my family affected by drunk driving - on both
sides, in fact. Doesn't change my ability to reason out the arguments.

(scarier still, I have a daughter just 2 short years from joining the
ranks of teen drivers - the most deadly group on the face of the
planet)

> That said, I think (revenue issues aside), there is some merit to "a
> couple of bad apples ruined it for the rest of the class" approach by
> our legislation.  You honestly believe it is worth the risk to your life
> to allow someone the "right" to drive drunk?

Again, I'm not saying you have a "right" to anything here - even to
drive. That's a privilege. In answer to your question, its not about
"allowing" anyone to do anything. Its about the government's, and our,
inability to prevent it. Its GOING to happen no matter what we do.

And, remember, there ain't no such thing as a free lunch, freedom
ain't free, when its your time just hope you prayed enough or that it
won't matter.

> I'm not sure I agree w/
> you on that one.  I'll have to mull that over a bit.  My knee jerk is
> that after the first fatality, people, normal people, emotional people,
> clamored for legislation that would (rightfully?) punish someone who did
> drive drunk and hurt/maim/kill someone else.

Since the beginnings of America's love affair of the automobile and
open highways there have been fatalities from drunk drivers. Before
cars there were deadly accidents with drunk cowboys on horses or
buckboards. It happens. Its always happened. It always will happen.

How do you punish someone for something they were going to do? Or
worse, MIGHT have done?

> I'm all for the govt.
> staying out of my business, but if someone does something stupid (i.e.
> drive drunk), I think they should be punished for it, and if the
> punishment isn't severe enough, what's to stop them from doing it again,
> and again, until they do hurt/maim/kill someone?

Whats to stop them in the first place? Most of those types of people
are alcoholics - which law is in place to help them?

> There's obviously a line there to be drawn, and if you feel that the
> legislation is too far right of that line, that's cool.  I, personally,
> am not sure.

Its all over the line. Go back to the cop being merciful and helpful.
You can stop just as many drunk or bad drivers - you just don't have
to ruin their lives.
_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.