Go Back  DVD Talk Forum > General Discussions > Other Talk
Reload this Page >

stupid commercial about NY lowering the legal BAC limit

Other Talk "Otterville" plus Religion/Politics

stupid commercial about NY lowering the legal BAC limit

Old 08-06-04, 11:40 AM
  #1  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Bartertown due to it having a better economy than where I really live, Buffalo NY
Posts: 29,706
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
stupid commercial about NY lowering the legal BAC limit

NY recently lowered the limit to .08% from .1%
they have this commercial where this lady says her husband was killed by someone that had a BAC of .08% and that a little less alcohol didn't make her husband any less dead

what I hate about this is that in NY we also have DWAI, driving while ability impared, that is at a lesser level. I can't remember the exact amount but I'm sure .08 would have qualified. so in this case the drunk could have been at .15 and it wouldn't have mattered, since all that really would have stopped it would have been the drunk getting pulled over by a cop, since at .08 if he had been pulled over he would not have been driving anymore

it's bad that this lady lost her husband, but even if the legal limit had been changed to .01 before it happened it still would have happened
Old 08-06-04, 11:45 AM
  #2  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Directionally Challenged (for DirecTV)
Posts: 123,175
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
what I hate about this is that in NY we also have DWAI, driving while ability impared
Frankly, this is what every state should have and throw out DWI. I see no reason why someone who is asleep at the wheel should be treated any differently than someone who is intoxicated. Of course, the state cannot conclusively prove drowsiness like they can intoxication, which is why you'll never see this. The ease of proving something should not be a factor in legal differentiation.
Old 08-06-04, 11:57 AM
  #3  
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Wheaton MD
Posts: 16,215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by Red Dog
Frankly, this is what every state should have and throw out DWI. I see no reason why someone who is asleep at the wheel should be treated any differently than someone who is intoxicated. Of course, the state cannot conclusively prove drowsiness like they can intoxication, which is why you'll never see this. The ease of proving something should not be a factor in legal differentiation.
How are they going to enforce it? I don't care how tired I am, if a cop pulls me over, I'll be wide awake.

Are they going to arrest me because I only had 4 hours of sleep the previous night?

This is starting down a slippery slope. Soon, they'll be arresting people for changing the station on the radio or switching their CD.`
Old 08-06-04, 12:01 PM
  #4  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Directionally Challenged (for DirecTV)
Posts: 123,175
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Originally posted by matta
How are they going to enforce it? I don't care how tired I am, if a cop pulls me over, I'll be wide awake.

Are they going to arrest me because I only had 4 hours of sleep the previous night?

This is starting down a slippery slope. Soon, they'll be arresting people for changing the station on the radio or switching their CD.`

Yeah, but the cop will pull you over because you did something wrong - i.e. driving erratically or wrecklessly. Punish the driver for the offense committed - not what caused the driver to commit the offense. If you kill someone on the road because you were asleep or because you were drunk, does it make a difference? You are just as irresponsible either way.
Old 08-06-04, 12:07 PM
  #5  
DVD Talk God
 
kvrdave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 86,201
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
My state is .08. I honestly don't know how much that is. I ought to get a breathalizer and test it out. Is it two beers, or three or four? I am 6'3" and about 240 right now. But the BAC is really a meaningless number as I don't know what it really means. I know when I can drive and when I cannot.
Old 08-06-04, 12:09 PM
  #6  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Exit 151
Posts: 9,048
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I think that pretty much all the time, just going about my every day business, my BAC is probably at around .08%.
Old 08-06-04, 12:10 PM
  #7  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Directionally Challenged (for DirecTV)
Posts: 123,175
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Originally posted by kvrdave
My state is .08. I honestly don't know how much that is. I ought to get a breathalizer and test it out. Is it two beers, or three or four? I am 6'3" and about 240 right now. But the BAC is really a meaningless number as I don't know what it really means. I know when I can drive and when I cannot.

Exactly - .08 can mean different things to different people. For people who don't drink often, .08 could mean plastered. For people who drink often, .08 could mean nothing.

Furthermore, I have little doubt that there are some who drive better at .08 than many who are sober.

My guess is for your size, it would probably take at least 4 drinks in one hour for you to hit .08.
Old 08-06-04, 12:28 PM
  #8  
Needs to contact an admin about multiple accounts
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by Red Dog
Punish the driver for the offense committed - not what caused the driver to commit the offense. If you kill someone on the road because you were asleep or because you were drunk, does it make a difference? You are just as irresponsible either way.
This logic is both obvious and intelligent. Meaning the courts don't work that way. What's the difference between pre-meditated and 'improvised' murder when the outcome is the same? According to the courts, a lot. Why, I have no idea. Morally, it makes no difference given the result.

This commericial is a typically hypocritical NY thing. "that a little less alcohol didn't make her husband any less dead" was evidently a moot point before the law was changed, wasn't it??
Old 08-06-04, 12:30 PM
  #9  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: LA baby
Posts: 294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by kvrdave
My state is .08. I honestly don't know how much that is. I ought to get a breathalizer and test it out. Is it two beers, or three or four? I am 6'3" and about 240 right now. But the BAC is really a meaningless number as I don't know what it really means. I know when I can drive and when I cannot.
6'3" 240??? I would think that you can have at least 4 beers before going over the limit.
Old 08-06-04, 01:14 PM
  #10  
DVD Talk God
 
kvrdave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 86,201
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally posted by mwdkill
6'3" 240??? I would think that you can have at least 4 beers before going over the limit.
Last night I had two beers. I was buzzing after the first.

There doesn't seem to be much rhyme or reason to it. Sometimes one drink is enough, and sometimes 6 won't do anything.
Old 08-06-04, 02:17 PM
  #11  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Bartertown due to it having a better economy than where I really live, Buffalo NY
Posts: 29,706
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I've found I can drink a couple beers and some hard liquor at home alone and not really feel much
but if I go out with friends half as much will mess me up more.
I think it's mostly mental
Old 08-06-04, 02:19 PM
  #12  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Directionally Challenged (for DirecTV)
Posts: 123,175
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Originally posted by mikehunt
I've found I can drink a couple beers and some hard liquor at home alone and not really feel much
but if I go out with friends half as much will mess me up more.
I think it's mostly mental

That happens to me as well.
Old 08-06-04, 03:01 PM
  #13  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Home again, Big D
Posts: 29,209
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally posted by Red Dog
Yeah, but the cop will pull you over because you did something wrong - i.e. driving erratically or wrecklessly. Punish the driver for the offense committed - not what caused the driver to commit the offense. If you kill someone on the road because you were asleep or because you were drunk, does it make a difference? You are just as irresponsible either way.
In general, I would agree with you. IMHO, there should be no cd players, no cassettes, no cell phone usage, etc in cars. You can make the same arguement that a mother who reaches in the back seat to give her baby a bottle to stop crying is also irresponible. IMHO, you should only be driving, when driving. Nothing else.

While I agree that death is death, and a person who died doesn't really care the reason, there are differences our society accepts. If I'm water skiing with a friend and I'm driving the boat and he hits an unmarked and unknown object, it is a terrible accident, but he is dead. If I was drinking and drunk when driving the boat and run him over with the boat while trying to pick him up, is there a difference? Of course there is. Now the real debate can start if I was driving the boat while drunk and he hit the unmarked, unknown object in the water. Or if I ran him over while not drinking and not drunk. There are differences.

There really is no "defense" to drinking and driving. Just don't do it. Is it really all that hard? People blow $50, $60, $100 on drinking in a night, get a cab for $25.00
Old 08-06-04, 03:09 PM
  #14  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Directionally Challenged (for DirecTV)
Posts: 123,175
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
If I'm water skiing with a friend and I'm driving the boat and he hits an unmarked and unknown object, it is a terrible accident, but he is dead. If I was drinking and drunk when driving the boat and run him over with the boat while trying to pick him up, is there a difference? Of course there is.

Of course there are differences. Clearly in your example here, the latter action is negligence or recklessness. The former action is not - no fault. Compare to my scenario of the drunk driver vs the fatigued driver - in both cases, there is negligence or recklessness.

The simple point is that if a driver's negligence or recklessness (drunkenness, drowsiness, fiddling with the radio, etc) causes an accident (or simply causes him to violate a traffic law), he should be held accountable. The type of negligence should not really matter. Furthermore, there should not be strict liability offenses, or at the very least, the bar should be very high for such offenses.

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.