Drowsy Driving - WTF? (860 hits)
Category: NoneRating: -0.61 on 59 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by <ddas85.at.optonline.net> (View user info) at 2005-12-15 02:24:35 EST
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/20/earlyshow/contributors/melindamurphy/main650271.shtml
So apparently there's now a law against 'drowsy driving' in New Jersey, the state in which I reside. What the hell is this? How do you even enforce a law like this? A police officer pulls up behind you and asks, 'so how many hours have you been up, sir?' 'I don't know, officer, maybe 20, 22?' 'SHIT, thats 4 hours over the legal limit, you're coming with me!'. Or maybe, 'I'm sorry sir, your blood content shows that you have ingested over 200 milligrams of cold medicine. I suggest you hire an attorney'.
Now, NJ has always been fairly law happy. I believe we were the first to pass Megan's law, which means that people must be notified when a sex offender moves into the neighborhood, and we also have one of the toughest gun registration laws (neither of which I am against). Recently, there have been some questionable laws - one town made it illegal to curse in public. Then there was the law against driving while talking on a cell phone. Now this. My question - where does it end?
Sure, drowsy driving is dangerous. I've driven non-stop from Jersey to Miami, and I know you start to hallucinate and stuff (it's kinda cool actually). But you know what? EVERYTHING is dangerous! Talking to your passengers is dangerous. Changing radio stations is dangerous. Eating is dangerous. Looking at billboards is dangerous. Are we going to outlaw all of these?
I believe a CRIME is when you hurt someone or destroy property. Drunk driving or drowsy driving therefore is not a crime in itself - its just behavior that may lead to a greater probability of causing a crime. Therefore, it should not be illegal. Let's get one thing straight - I'm not 'for' drowsy driving any more than I am for drunk driving. I have a solution - how about PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY? If you drive crappily for ANY reason, be it drunkenness, drowsiness, Asianness, whatever, and you cause damage, you are responsible for it. Make the fines/jail time severe enough and people will do what they need to do to make sure they drive well. This has the benefit of NOT turning the US into a police state.
User Reviews
Submitted by nahnoneofit (user info) at 2005-12-16 20:11:51 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
No the fact that you disagree with this law makes you an idiot. It doesn't allow the police to pull you over and question if you had enough sleep. All it does is increase the penalty for causing an accident if you intentionally drive with lack of sleep.
The fact that you think this is a police state makes you a fucking idiot.
-----------
that doesnt make it a police state, but its a step in that direction.
first its just if you get in an accident while perpetrating
THEN, after people forget about the law, they change it again to anytime you get pulled over and are commiting another offense.
then finally it becomes an offense on its own.
call me paranoid but, it makes sense to me. maybe i should be a politician.
Submitted by RamJetMax (user info) at 2005-12-15 13:41:38 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
"I believe a CRIME is when you hurt someone or destroy property."
Well amazingly enought, what you believe is, in fact, not even close to reality.
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2005-12-15 12:21:08 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
You blithering assfuck. I was going to do a post on almost this exact topic but you beat me to it and then you went and fucked it all up.
Thanks a ton, champ.
Submitted by JackalFett (user info) at 2005-12-15 10:49:43 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
if we didnt make all the drowsy drivers wear bike helmets and swim with life guards when they were kids then we wouldnt have to still be protecting (them, or us from them) thier dumb asses now.
Submitted by sinna (user info) at 2005-12-15 10:28:45 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
Submitted by PizzaEagle (user info) at 2005-12-15 03:14:59 (#)
Ranking: 0
I'm aware of what the legal definition of 'crime' is. I'm of the (crazy) opinion that if it doesn't hurt anyone, it shouldn't be illegal. Also, there's a difference between potentially causing harm to someone and actually causing harm to someone.
---------------------------------
Personally I'd rather stop someone from ploughing into me than bollock them afterwards.
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2005-12-15 09:53:52 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Ozzy, they have a test with a gameboy or similar gadget. If you're too tired to get to level 3 of mario brothers or similar, you're out.
I think the game they had was more like 'keep the ball inside a slowly decreasing in size box that moves around on a playing field'
They're using it for difficult to detect drugs at the roadside.
I think old people shouldn't be allowed to drive.
Submitted by matnotharry (user info) at 2005-12-15 09:50:26 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
driving with a mobile (or 'cell' as you so cutely term it) phone is dangerous, how are you meant to change gear and hold the wheel without tilting seriously altering your perception?
Submitted by Grimm (user info) at 2005-12-15 09:49:18 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
No Comment
Submitted by redskieslookfake (user info) at 2005-12-15 09:36:39 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
If you are tired, and you make a mistake as a result of that, and kill someone, then it's your fault. Surely the law should be there to protect the other people who aren't dumbasses enough to drive while exhausted?
Submitted by podium (user info) at 2005-12-15 09:33:35 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I don't think the post was that bad either.
I was in Jersey last summer and I was amazed at how many people I saw getting pulled over. I started driving the speed limit when I noticed this.
I also heard Jersey might be passing a law banning smoking in your vehicle.
Submitted by wookie (user info) at 2005-12-15 09:30:36 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
Submitted by ozzy (user info) at 2005-12-15 09:14:37 (#)
Ranking: 0
I don't think this post was all that bad. Seems to me that the majority skipped over the actual point: Enforcing this law which says you shouldn't drive while drowsy will be very difficult.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The point of the law isn't so much before-the-fact enforcement and prevention (although that is secondary), the main point of the law is to provide for adequate after-the-fact punishment when someone CHOOSES to drive a vehicle without enough rest. This includes long-haul truck drivers who attempt to drive for long stretches at a time without any rest.
Submitted by leilani (user info) at 2005-12-15 09:29:38 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
woo go jersey
Submitted by ozzy (user info) at 2005-12-15 09:14:37 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I don't think this post was all that bad. Seems to me that the majority skipped over the actual point: Enforcing this law which says you shouldn't drive while drowsy will be very difficult.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2005-12-15 09:11:32 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by nahnoneofit (user info) at 2005-12-15 09:03:17 (#)
Ranking: 0
the fact that i disagree with a law does not make me a BIG BAG DRUG ADDICTED LONG HAIRED HIPPIE ANARCHIST ANTICHRIST.
but what else can you expect from a police state?
-----------------------------------
No the fact that you disagree with this law makes you an idiot. It doesn't allow the police to pull you over and question if you had enough sleep. All it does is increase the penalty for causing an accident if you intentionally drive with lack of sleep.
The fact that you think this is a police state makes you a fucking idiot.
Submitted by wookie (user info) at 2005-12-15 09:05:22 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
The whole point of the law is so that people can be prosecuted and sentenced more harshly if they cause an accident as the result of "drowsy driving"--particularly if they seriously injure or kill someone. Prior to the law, they would have gotten off with a slap on the wrist (relatively).
Submitted by nahnoneofit (user info) at 2005-12-15 09:03:17 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
and dont assume that i dont adhere to the laws im forced to deal with just because itll better your arguement.
dont worry, nazi, i wont drive my car unless i get my government approved amount of sleep.
after all, just because im a human being doesnt mean i know when im ready and able to drive my vehicle.right?
i stand to lose just as much from falling asleep and crashing my car as anyone else does, if not more.
the fact that i disagree with a law does not make me a BIG BAG DRUG ADDICTED LONG HAIRED HIPPIE ANARCHIST ANTICHRIST.
but what else can you expect from a police state?
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2005-12-15 08:57:27 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by PizzaEagle (user info) at 2005-12-15 03:14:59 (#)
Ranking: 0
I'm aware of what the legal definition of 'crime' is. I'm of the (crazy) opinion that if it doesn't hurt anyone, it shouldn't be illegal. Also, there's a difference between potentially causing harm to someone and actually causing harm to someone.
-------------------------------------
Yeah I should be allowed to fire a gun up into the air at croweded gatherings, it is only potentially dangerous.
Submitted by nahnoneofit (user info) at 2005-12-15 08:56:12 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
you wanna talk about taking the next step in logical thinking?
chew on this, nazi: (oh this is fun)
FIRST its just bvehicular manslughter, then becomes if youre speeding or make a traffic violation, THEN, a fine.
but yea, youre right, i misread it.
but still dude this shits getting out of control. you need to know where to draw the line somewhere.
the government should be working toward educating people to the point where they wouldnt need laws like this, not spending their effort enforcing laws against things as mundane as NOT GETTNG ENOUGH SLEEP BEFORE YOU GO TO WORK. its just wrong, and they wouldnt be doing it unless they were working toward the aformentioned police state.
remember that guy who fought for the right to bear arms? they wanted to make you have a lisence for a rifle, and then, as every other country who did that's next move was, take it away from you.
back then, we had people who stood up when they saw shit like this happening.
either we're getting dumber or the mans gettin smarter, either way, youre all fucked.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-12-15 08:49:23 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
and yeah, I can understand where you assholes would think it was a police state if you kept violating laws set by society and kept being held accountable to them.
I understand your viewpoint, but am not sympathetic.
Your misunderstanding about how to live in society is my bread and butter.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-12-15 08:47:38 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
money, retards. one more ticket to add to the list, when the police catch you in their roundup.
because you didnt go to bed on time.
============================================
perhaps you failed to read what the law was about in this case.
Cops cannot get you for being tired behind the wheel. They can get you for vehicular homicide, however, if you kill someone with your car and you havent slept in 24 hours.
When you pasty faced anarchist hippy dippy twerps collectively come up with the brain power to comprehend the particulars about issues you obviously have not taken the time to find anything about except the reactionary talking points, come and see me. We'll talk.
Submitted by nahnoneofit (user info) at 2005-12-15 08:33:29 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
you almost have it. Just make that final step in logic.
the law is necessary because those people who are too ignorant or too much of an asshole to use that common sense. It is those people's fault that THE REST OF THE PEOPLE (not some imaginary police state) enacted those laws to hold them criminally liable for damage that they do cause.
-------------
the rest of the people?
you mean those people who need to be told when and when not to drive a car?
or maybe, just maybe, it was the government that proposed, enacted and enforced the law?
"but, why would they do that?"
money, retards. one more ticket to add to the list, when the police catch you in their roundup.
because you didnt go to bed on time.
but nah, no police state here. nah.
Submitted by nahnoneofit (user info) at 2005-12-15 08:21:47 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
and the worst part is, everyone turns a blind eye to it.
welcome to amerika.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-12-15 07:44:56 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Shouldn't it be common sense not to operate a 2 ton vehicle full of gasoline when you're not 100%? Maybe my problem is as much with the people that make such laws necessary, as the laws themselves.
=====================
you almost have it. Just make that final step in logic.
the law is necessary because those people who are too ignorant or too much of an asshole to use that common sense. It is those people's fault that THE REST OF THE PEOPLE (not some imaginary police state) enacted those laws to hold them criminally liable for damage that they do cause.
and as far as your argument that people should be able to do what they want as long as they dont hurt anything, the sleepy driver statute is designed so that THEY CAN ONLY BE HELD RESPONSIBLE IF THEY DO HURT SOMEONE. Remember, the sleepy driver law only allows the suspect to be charged with vehicular homicide. In order for this to occur, a person must be killed by the sleepy driver.
THE LAW BY DEFINITION FITS INTO YOUR WACKJOB VIEW OF THINGS TO BEGIN WITH.
SO WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU GOING ON ABOUT?
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-12-15 07:40:09 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
But are annoying and somewhat arbitrary laws (this one, for example, says you can't drive if you've been up for a certain number of hours)
=====================
there you go misusing big words.
the law is far from arbitrary. It follows standards set by the community and follows past case law where impaired judgement was a factor in a vehicular accident resulting in a fatality.
the very fact that it gives a specific number of hours you have to had been awake in order to be considered for the additional charge of vehicular homicide is in and of itself a standard.
nitwit.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-12-15 07:37:13 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
It says that if you're awake more than 24 hours, then drive and kill someone, you can be charged with vehicular homicide. It's considered recklessness in the state of New Jersey.
===============================
all this law does is allow the state to charge someone with vehicular homicide in cases where they were not allowed to do so prior to the law being enacted.
This is not a 'police state' law. It is not any part of a 'slippery slope"
it isnt even a fucking flake of snow falling onto the ground which might one day become a pile of snow in which a snowball could form and then roll downhill gaining mass, thus becoming a bigger snowball (i.e. the snowball effect, snowballing)
it only allows the people to hold an offender accountable if he doesn't follow your 'honor system'
perhaps you've forgotten that people are generally assholes and need laws to follow in order to get along.
hippie.
Submitted by PizzaEagle (user info) at 2005-12-15 06:40:55 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Shouldn't it be common sense not to operate a 2 ton vehicle full of gasoline when you're not 100%? Maybe my problem is as much with the people that make such laws necessary, as the laws themselves. But are annoying and somewhat arbitrary laws (this one, for example, says you can't drive if you've been up for a certain number of hours) the best way to influence social policy?
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-12-15 06:31:33 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
In all fairness Pizza you've got to accept that laws are there to lend structure to our lives and make sure we know where we stand with one another. It's like having a rota for the washing up, it's not really about getting the washing up done (cleaning never ends afterall), it's about letting everyone know where they stand with regards to the washing up.
Submitted by PizzaEagle (user info) at 2005-12-15 06:14:26 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
kuzi - it seems like you are saying that they should make whatever laws they want because they affect other people, not you
Submitted by PizzaEagle (user info) at 2005-12-15 06:09:37 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I responded to Rad the way I did because his points were all lame, irrelevant, and also he resorted to attacks on my character which offended me deeply. However, I will stop making fun of him because I just found out that I had sex with his mother and I am, in fact, his father.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-12-15 06:03:53 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
so, where exactly should I not drive if I want to be safe?
Submitted by kuzi16 (user info) at 2005-12-15 06:01:06 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Im all for personal responsibility... but others have no idea what responsibility is. I want to be protected from those people
Submitted by Berty (user info) at 2005-12-15 05:59:06 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
This is hilarious. Rad presents a nice, neat series of points and the other guy leaps up and down shouting "I WIN! IT TOTALY PWNERIZED YOU, IAM TEH rOxx0RS!!22211121!"
Calling him a 'tard was mean though Rad. They prefer the term 'special needs'.
Submitted by PizzaEagle (user info) at 2005-12-15 05:53:57 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Hahah, I win. You pretty much just admitted that you are a fascist and all these laws that are meant to 'protect' us are actually just to oppress us. Viva la revolucion.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-12-15 05:50:20 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I can live with that.
I'll see you next week when you come up with some more nonsensical horseshit.
Submitted by PizzaEagle (user info) at 2005-12-15 05:43:44 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
OK, Hitler.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-12-15 05:41:14 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
right now I got you pegged as either
1. some dope running an alter masturbating to my reviews.
2. a complete fucking bleedingheart liberal pussy anarchist dope smoking college/highschool kid with too much time on their hands.
Either way, get a haircut.
and a real job.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-12-15 05:39:17 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
I hope that you are never out practicing your personal responsibility and a drunk/sleepy driver hits your car.
Furthermore, I hope that that person who refused to do the right thing doesn't kill your spouse and your children when this collision happens because you were acting responsible.
I hope that this accident doesnt leave you without any control of your body while your family is dead and you have to live the rest of your life in anguish that you cannot even escape through suicide because you are too paralyzed to kill yourself.
and I hope that you don't finally realize that anarchist scumbags like yourself are full of shit at this late juncture, where it will be too late to have supported that law that held the asshole who hit you and your family (who didnt even get a scratch by the way) accountable for his actions.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-12-15 05:34:50 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
in other words, this statement you made
"Part of accepting personal responsibility means that the authority shouldn't have to tell you exactly what and what not to do."
is utter horseshit in the context in which you try to place it.
THE REASON THE LAW IS IN PLACE IS BECAUSE SCUMBAGS (which I assume you are a member of that subculture) REFUSE TO TAKE PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND NEED TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS.
IMPAIRED DRIVING IS A LEADING CAUSE OF TRAFFIC FATALATIES - FACT
THEREFORE, A LAW IS IN PLACE TO ALLIEVIATE THE MORTALITY ON THE STREETS AND HIGHWAYS.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-12-15 05:31:06 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
accepting personal responsibility and being held accountable are not mutually exclusive.
I'll wait while you
1. look up the big words
2. wrap your anti-authoritarian junkie teenage/angsty brain around it.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-12-15 05:29:16 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
*shakes head*
*watches the 'tard drool on himself*
Submitted by PizzaEagle (user info) at 2005-12-15 05:18:49 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
"driving is a privilege where you have to accept some personal responsibility, such as not driving while your judgement is impaired."
This is exactly what I'm saying, idiot. Part of accepting personal responsibility means that the authority shouldn't have to tell you exactly what and what not to do.
I should stop arguing with you idiots, its pointless.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-12-15 05:18:30 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
there is no way you can be a real person with real thoughts and real emotions like this.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-12-15 05:17:51 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by PizzaEagle (user info) at 2005-12-15 04:54:47 (#)
Ranking: 0
yeah, you're right. But why stop there, let's ban driving altogether. Also, violent video games, movies, alcohol, soccer (riots, ya know)...
Fucking sheep.
====================
1. video games don't directly kill tens of thousands each year
2. movies dont directly kill tens of thousands each year
3. alcohol consumption is part of what you are arguing for, and it does cause the death of tens of thousands when coupled with driving.
4. soccer does not directly kill tens of thousands each year.
Impaired judgement does.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-12-15 05:15:24 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
driving is a privilege where you have to accept some personal responsibility, such as not driving while your judgement is impaired. Driving your car is not a right.
Your argument hasn't a leg to stand on.
Submitted by PizzaEagle (user info) at 2005-12-15 04:54:47 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
yeah, you're right. But why stop there, let's ban driving altogether. Also, violent video games, movies, alcohol, soccer (riots, ya know)...
Fucking sheep.
Submitted by celine (user info) at 2005-12-15 04:25:14 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
i agree with rad (for once). -2 for you.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-12-15 04:20:29 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
you driving in a state of impaired judgement is a hazard to others.
you have no right to do that, and that is why there is a law against it.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-12-15 04:19:38 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
wrongo.
your rights end where you start encroaching on the rights of others.
Submitted by PizzaEagle (user info) at 2005-12-15 03:14:59 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I'm aware of what the legal definition of 'crime' is. I'm of the (crazy) opinion that if it doesn't hurt anyone, it shouldn't be illegal. Also, there's a difference between potentially causing harm to someone and actually causing harm to someone.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-12-15 03:01:39 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by PizzaEagle (user info) at 2005-12-15 02:45:28 (#)
Ranking: 0
What is wrong with you people? I thought I made it clear that I do NOT drive drunk or drowsy or anything. But, I refrain from it because of personal responsibility, not because its illegal. If you believe that we should outlaw all possibly dangerous actions, you deserve the police state we will end up with.
====================
slow down there turbo.
there is a difference between a dangerous activity where you hurt only yourself and a dangerous activity where you put others at risk.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-12-15 03:00:21 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
a crime is an act or ommission forbidden by law.
doesn't matter if you believe a crime is two care bears skipping rope to "the ghost of tom joad"
Submitted by PizzaEagle (user info) at 2005-12-15 02:45:28 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
What is wrong with you people? I thought I made it clear that I do NOT drive drunk or drowsy or anything. But, I refrain from it because of personal responsibility, not because its illegal. If you believe that we should outlaw all possibly dangerous actions, you deserve the police state we will end up with.
Submitted by Dreg (user info) at 2005-12-15 02:43:21 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
the review system here is an average rating, to give you a 0 would bring my average rating to you up. Same as if i had given you a +2 and then a 0 from then on, your rating would be brought down. The fair thing for me to do is to continue to give the rating i thought you deserved unless something changes my mind.
Submitted by PizzaEagle (user info) at 2005-12-15 02:38:38 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
"That said posts wherey ou link to an article and state your opinion on it but me thus the -1."
I'm not sure what you meant by that, but I'd just like to say that normally people only rate the first review they post. When arguing a point, it is customary to rate 0 on the other reviews. Thats just the nice thing to do.
Submitted by crazyaardvark (user info) at 2005-12-15 02:35:55 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Don't drive tired, moron, it's just as dangerous as drink-driving. Of course there should be a law against it.
Submitted by Dreg (user info) at 2005-12-15 02:35:12 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
Point not missed, I disagree with your idea that just because something is dangerous doesn't mean it should be outlawed. Any danger where you are putting other people at risk should be made as little as possible.
That said posts wherey ou link to an article and state your opinion on it but me thus the -1.
Submitted by PizzaEagle (user info) at 2005-12-15 02:32:15 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Dreg, congrats on completely missing my point. I agree that drivers should be more careful but I don't think outlawing every single dangerous behavior is the way to do it.
Submitted by Dreg (user info) at 2005-12-15 02:28:57 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
and it'll end when people realize that driving is not a right that they don't have to oay attention to. Many drivers pay more attention to eating their fast fod or talking on their phone than driving.
Submitted by Dreg (user info) at 2005-12-15 02:26:23 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
If you are caught swerving and are pulled over, you get penalized just as much as if you were drunk driving. You get more than reckless driving because you made the choice to get on the road and drive when you were not in a condition to do so. Driving drowsy is more dangerous than drunk driving.