Er... we already do it that way.

Post #98,101 by admin 4/22/03 10:56:05 PM Reply	Er... we already do it that way. Weaving in traffic has it's own ticket: improper lane usage. There's also "crossing the center line". We also have an "unsafe speed for conditions" ticket, "careless driving", "unsafe lane change", and "following too closely". As it is, the blood alcohol test only applies if you get pulled over for erratic behavior, breaking a traffic law, get in an accident, etc. Simply apply the same standard: if you do something noticed by an officer of the law (weaving, running someone over, etc.) then you get a ticket for it, regardless of the cause. Punish the result, not the cause. In the end it doesn't matter if you ran someone over because you were drunk, high, loopy from cold medicine, or just plain incapable of driving safely. You still ran someone over. The basic rule should be: don't drive if you know you shouldn't. And don't drive if you aren't capable of determining if you shouldn't. Legislating the cause of the bad driving isn't going to fix the bad driving. It will just have unintended consequences, as is evident from the entire "drug war" debacle. Regards, -scott anderson "Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
Post #98,108 by Another Scott 4/22/03 11:32:39 PM Reply	True. Good points. Of course, if people behaved rationally like that, we wouldn't need police (or at least not as many). :-) Cheers, Scott.
Post #98,171 by deSitter 4/23/03 10:24:13 AM Reply	Re: Er... we already do it that way. The lazy cops should be out driving around in traffic, instead of hiding behind hills, signs etc. A simple analysis would surely prove that spending a few extra dollars for dedicated rolling traffic officers in HIGHLY marked cars, would save much more in costs to trauma centers and the other needed emergency personnel. Also - jack the damn fines into the stratosphere. If you knew you would get a ticket at $100 per MPH over the limit, you'd think twice about driving like an idiot. -drl Light is heavy: R{} = (2R/W)T - (1/2W){D-2,D-2}W Heavy is light: (D-3)(RF[] + 5/4 g) = 0
Post #98,197 by drewk 4/23/03 11:02:31 AM Reply	No, that's all backwards Also - jack the damn fines into the stratosphere. If you knew you would get a ticket at $100 per MPH over the limit, you'd think twice about driving like an idiot. It's all about volume. They'd rather have 100 people pay fines of $100 than 10 people pay fines of $1000. It seems counter-intuitive, but would you bother fighting a $100 ticket for something you actually did? Now would you fight a $1000 ticket, even if you did it? Don't believe me? Look at DUI (which conincidentally this thread started about). Every time someone wants to get tougher on DUI they do it by lowering the threshhold, not by toughening the punishment. The people who weren't deterred by the existing fine at 0.10 won't be deterred at 0.08. All the changes do is criminalize more behavior. I started out thinking this was going to be a sarcastic post, but I realize the pattern is all too common. You don't prove you're tough on crime by being tougher on the existing criminals, you do it by making more people criminals. === Implicitly condoning stupidity since 2001.
Post #98,200 by deSitter 4/23/03 11:08:29 AM Reply	Damn - you're right Stupid me, forgetting it was about ticket revenue. Okay, next try: Leave the tickets alone, make people look at grisly photos of accident victims as part of their penance. Keep the same fines, but require a visit to the local horror chamber kept at the nearest cop shop. Ever seen a newly dead person wearing his transmission? Not something you're likely to forget. Oh, charge admission, too. -drl Light is heavy: R{} = (2R/W)T - (1/2W){D-2,D-2}W Heavy is light: (D-3)(RF[] + 5/4 g) = 0

Welcome to IWETHEY!