Hacker News Reader

Comment by samketchup | Hacker News Reader

More people are killed on the road in accidents caused by elderly folks than drunk drivers. I know this sounds insane, but drunk driving should be no harm no foul.

View on HN

My friend who was killed by a repeated drunk driver might have argued otherwise. If you can't drive responsibly, it's in society's interest to make sure you never do.

This is whataboutism. Drunk driving kills and should be harshly punished. People who are unsafe drivers for other reasons (e.g. too old) should be handled separately, but their existence is not an excuse for irresponsible behavior.

Elderly folks should be taken off the road as well?

They often are, and there is some (at least in some places in the US) cultural inertia to intervene and get someone to voluntarily surrender their driving privilege (either formally by giving up their license in favor of a State ID or informally by giving up their vehicles) before the state does it for you.

I've been around for those conversations with grandparents on a few occasions now, and many people I know have too.

I don't think its an anomaly, but it is anecdotal

In some sense, it is. Barring random sobriety checkpoints (which are generally avoidable).

We don't have checkpoints where I live near Detroit. Are these really a thing? I've seen them in movies and TV but never experienced it.

I've seen a handful in CA. Usually they're visible from a large distance, given the flashing lights and traffic backup. Sometimes they'll even have signs up a few blocks in advance warning about the upcoming stop.

I used to commute in a red sports car at midnight, and my direct path to the freeway and home was regularly blocked by a checkpoint. The officer started to instruct me on being checked, and I whined that I was tired, and he waved me by. Town was notorious for interfering with traffic with their checkpoints and speed enforcement. Sometimes checkpoints were disclosed on radio. Looking back it’s amazing they didn’t cite me for my confessed exhaustion. Also this was a long time ago so YMMV.

Arizona has very aggressive checkpoints by the lakes and rivers during the holiday's

Leaving aside the freedom argument for a moment, does it have the intended effect? (1) Catch drink-drivers, and/or (2) reduce drink-driving?

https://www.findlaw.com/dui/arrests/dui-checkpoint-laws-by-s...

Varies from state to state - in some states they are illegal under state law or state constitutions, etc. Looks like they're illegal in MI.

I guess I have some not so unique experience. I was given a DUI in 2011 during a routine traffic stop. They officer cited I cut the protected left turn too tightly. The officer then said he smelled marijuana, even though I was currently smoking a normal cigarette. I was arrested immediately, my blood was taken, and being an occasional pot smoker, THC was in my blood, I got a DUI while completely sober driving to work at 9 AM.

Sucks. Shoulda got a better lawyer. I know folks who have gotten out of full on crashes at 0.18 BAC thanks to lawyer shenanigans.

Was fresh out of high school and grew up poor, I never had a chance of beating it. But hey, at least I got to visit tent city before it was shut down.

Seems like a lot of folks in this thread would call situations like yours "necessary collatoral damage." Some of the stuff I'm reading here is genuinely disgusting, and it makes me uneasy to think I might work with some of the folks espousing it.

I don't see how this is necessary collateral damage for the prevention of drunk driving. I think most folks in this thread would agree that current implementations leave an awful lot to be desired, regardless of what they believe the best approach to be theoretically.

That's a problem with specifics though, not with the general existence of DUI laws. Weed will be hard to enforce but BAC is more cut and dry, I don't see a problem with having a BAC cutoff for driving.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com