WI has particularly poor DUI laws and high incidences of drunk driving.
I would not disagree with that. I don't remember hearing about 9th DUIs in IL or IA.
WI has particularly poor DUI laws and high incidences of drunk driving.
There are additional administrative (DOT) penalties related to obtaining a restricted license for BACs over .10 and .15.The only BAC related penalty increase is that you can't a deferred judgment over .15%. Which is insane, because you can get a deferred judgment for committing felonies, but not for this one, specific serious misdemeanor. Because this country struggles with common sense alcohol laws, a holdover of prohibition.
There are additional administrative (DOT) penalties related to obtaining a restricted license for BACs over .10 and .15.
Its also to blame for people getting together and talking, people meeting new people, people telling when we were drunk stories, and many people that would go on to get married meeting.
That was a unique and strange way to say we should legalize pot.
That's not an alcohol problem. That's a "too many dumb people" problem. There should be an IQ test before people are allowed to have children.This country has an alcohol problem. It's sad how acceptable it is in our society to get hammered and do dumb things.
Reads like a who's-who list of countries on the terrorism watch list. Maybe that's why they're so angry at the US, because we can drink and they cannot. I am kidding. I know the Muslim view of alcohol, so save the crazy response for another day.This list might shed some light on the discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_alcohol_prohibition
They have this really cool thing now call PARENTING where adults teach their children things, such as responsible consumption of alcohol. More people should look into it.I think the youthful taboo on alcohol use makes it difficult for people to learn responsible consumption and contributes to eventual abuse issues.
I think we need to change our focus to cars that can't get in an accident. To me it's kind of embarrassing we haven't reached that point yet.
As soon as you initiate some differentiation between urban and rural, you open a loop hole for lawyers to drag court cases through the ringer. This increases court costs, time of cases and leads to LESS people being punished for an OWI. It's either against the law or it's not. Common sense cannot be allowed when lawyers are involved or it will be exploited to the max.And your chance of an accident decreases dramatically on a crowded city street versus a lightly traveled rural gravel. I think there's been one OWI death in my county in the past 5 years. It's just not that big of a problem some places. However, in order for a state law to exist, it has to apply to everyone. Current OWI laws are very appropriate for urban settings where the dangers are increased, and there are ways for people to go out and socialize and drink to a responsible yet possibly illegal level, and get home without breaking the law. I think that in rural settings they're a tad onerous in comparison to the actual risk to society.
This is an impossible task. There is no way that all factors can ever be taken into account. Road surface, weather, wildlife, pedestrians, other drivers. You cannot eliminate it. Plus, I can 100% guarantee that some people would drive like complete maniacs if they thought they were driving a car that "could not" get in an accident. If someone comes around a curve and a kid runs out on the street, the laws of physics will always exist. If there is not enough time and distance to bring the moving vehicle to a stop then it will either have to hit the kid or change lanes, where there is no guarantee of not hitting something else.I think we need to change our focus to cars that can't get in an accident. To me it's kind of embarrassing we haven't reached that point yet.
This is an impossible task. There is no way that all factors can ever be taken into account. Road surface, weather, wildlife, pedestrians, other drivers. You cannot eliminate it. Plus, I can 100% guarantee that some people would drive like complete maniacs if they thought they were driving a car that "could not" get in an accident. If someone comes around a curve and a kid runs out on the street, the laws of physics will always exist. If there is not enough time and distance to bring the moving vehicle to a stop then it will either have to hit the kid or change lanes, where there is no guarantee of not hitting something else.
To believe that this is a possibility is flat out dumb. Sure, it works in a freaking parking lot or a controlled test. Zero chance it works on a regular basis. Some kid ran out in front of my car this morning when I was taking my daughter to swim practice. If there was traffic coming the other way at the time there is a 0% chance that I would have gotten through that without hitting something. I had to swerve into the oncoming lane to avoid him.Derp
Do we really want everyone living to 90+? Let people smoke, drink, get fat, and be happy.
To believe that this is a possibility is flat out dumb. Sure, it works in a freaking parking lot or a controlled test. Zero chance it works on a regular basis. Some kid ran out in front of my car this morning when I was taking my daughter to swim practice. If there was traffic coming the other way at the time there is a 0% chance that I would have gotten through that without hitting something. I had to swerve into the oncoming lane to avoid him.
Google's driverless car has over 700,000 miles on it and has been in 2 accidents. Both accidents were other cars rear ending it.