5 ms·

Welcome to this week’s episode of “attempting to solve social problems using technological means.”

vkou 7y ago
If you have a better mechanism for getting repeat drunk drivers to stop driving drunk, do share. So far, the world hasn't found one. A breathalyser is a pretty small price to pay if you already have two DUIs. Note that anyone who has been caught driving drunk twice has, statistically speaking, probably been driving drunk a lot more times than those two.
- dev_north_east 7y ago
  > If you have a better mechanism for getting repeat drunk drivers to stop driving drunk, do share. Crippling insurance costs? If you're caught here then you better have deep pockets, assuming you get your licence back in a year.
- Udik 7y ago
  Define drunk. I drive beyond the limits (probably, I don't know it for sure) quite often. I go very slow, drive very carefully on roads that I know by heart, and hadn't had a single accident in twenty years.
  - Freak_NL 7y ago
    Most people thought like you did thirty years ago. Societies have changed, and not for a frivolous reason; you might want to update your views. Drunk in this case is precisely defined in the law as a permillage of alcohol in the blood stream (the law varies per country, but you should know the ones applicable to you). Valid methods of measuring this are described as well. Incidentally, what you say is almost literally what every inebriated driver who caused an accident resulting in severe harm or loss of life says afterwards before coming to terms with their actions.
    - Udik 7y ago
      I disagree. I know very well the difference between driving blind drunk and carelessly and possibly very young ("I drive great when I'm drunk") and driving extremely carefully, basically never going beyond 40km/h. And of course what the law defines is an alcohol limit, which is probably very conservative: it cannot define the meaning of the word "drunk". I think every opinion and decision must be challenged, otherwise, when only one side of the debate has legitimacy, you end up with entirely skewed decisions. And since drunk driving does kill people, and nobody dared to defend drinkers, there has been a lack of balance in the initiatives against it. So I'm sacrificing my karma for the sake of some balance :)
      - asaddhamani 7y ago
        > I go very slow, drive very carefully on roads that I know by heart, and hadn't had a single accident in twenty years. Said every drunk driver, ever. I have no respect for drunk drivers. You don't care about your life, that's on you. But you are putting the lives of other people in serious jeopardy by doing this. Someone could end up having their life destroyed, or maybe even dying because of your shitty actions. > And since drunk driving does kill people, and nobody dared to defend drinkers, there has been a lack of balance in the initiatives against it. There is a reason behind this. When you are drunk, you have lowered inhibitions, poor judgement, more (often unwarranted, like in your previous post) self confidence, vision problems, poor hand-eye coordination, drowsiness, the list goes on. You should not in any case be driving while drunk, and you do have to be daring to defend drunk driving. I am happy there has been a lack of balance in that regard. If it was just you driving on am empty field or track where the only person you could harm is yourself, I'd have no problem with it. But you are putting others at risk, and that's where I draw the line.
        Freak_NL 7y ago
        And it's not just the actions you take when driving inebriated yourself. By taking the 'I never had an accident, I just drive slowly and surely' stance, you implicitly tell others that this is fine, and that one or two drinks don't matter (or three, or four), as long as you take it slow and steady, and really, the law is too strict anyway. People are influenced by others, younger drivers in particular. You are not only responsible for your own actions, but also for the message you send to others.
  - gamblor956 7y ago
    When you eventually kill someone driving drunk, these posts of yours will be used against you to give you the maximum possible prison sentence.
    - Udik 7y ago
      The funny thing of this conversation is that the legal BAC limit for driving in the US and Canada is 80mg/100ml. In my country is 50mg/100ml. So at least some of you self-righteous people are happily driving with the same BAC as I do, only within the legal limits, while being mad at me for doing the same. You should all go to jail. :)
- tomcooks 7y ago
  How about talking and understanding, does wonders to the spirit and server baseline costs.
  - yifanl 7y ago
    What does this mean in this context? I can't imagine many people who drive drunk have any reasons about why they decided to drive drunk.
- squiggleblaz 7y ago
  In most of North America the governments effectively require you to drive a car through their town planning and public transport policies. This is not a technical problem, and solving it would be more effective in solving the social problems (and many others besides).
  - sudosysgen 7y ago
    I can't speak for the rest of Québec, but Montréal's public transit is pretty good. You can definitely make it without a car there.
    - duckymcduckface 7y ago
      Rip Laval people
  - vkou 7y ago
    People drive drunk in cities that have excellent public transit. Quite clearly, public transit does not solve this problem.
- tedajax 7y ago
  Reduced reliance on personal transportation through extensive, frequent, reliable, and cheap/free public transport.
  - freeone3000 7y ago
    We did that. What now?
- arpa 7y ago
  Executions come to mind. That surely will stop drunk drivers from driving drunk.
  - tenebrisalietum 7y ago
    You're still using technology, just one that addresses the whole person instead of a localized illness.
- manicdee 7y ago
  You take away their licence, then send them to jail when they continue to drive drunk without a licence. Also you turn to psychologists for assistance with handling recidivist alcoholics.

vkou 7y ago

If you have a better mechanism for getting repeat drunk drivers to stop driving drunk, do share. So far, the world hasn't found one. A breathalyser is a pretty small price to pay if you already have two DUIs. Note that anyone who has been caught driving drunk twice has, statistically speaking, probably been driving drunk a lot more times than those two.

dev_north_east 7y ago
> If you have a better mechanism for getting repeat drunk drivers to stop driving drunk, do share. Crippling insurance costs? If you're caught here then you better have deep pockets, assuming you get your licence back in a year.
Udik 7y ago
Define drunk. I drive beyond the limits (probably, I don't know it for sure) quite often. I go very slow, drive very carefully on roads that I know by heart, and hadn't had a single accident in twenty years.
- Freak_NL 7y ago
  Most people thought like you did thirty years ago. Societies have changed, and not for a frivolous reason; you might want to update your views. Drunk in this case is precisely defined in the law as a permillage of alcohol in the blood stream (the law varies per country, but you should know the ones applicable to you). Valid methods of measuring this are described as well. Incidentally, what you say is almost literally what every inebriated driver who caused an accident resulting in severe harm or loss of life says afterwards before coming to terms with their actions.
  - Udik 7y ago
    I disagree. I know very well the difference between driving blind drunk and carelessly and possibly very young ("I drive great when I'm drunk") and driving extremely carefully, basically never going beyond 40km/h. And of course what the law defines is an alcohol limit, which is probably very conservative: it cannot define the meaning of the word "drunk". I think every opinion and decision must be challenged, otherwise, when only one side of the debate has legitimacy, you end up with entirely skewed decisions. And since drunk driving does kill people, and nobody dared to defend drinkers, there has been a lack of balance in the initiatives against it. So I'm sacrificing my karma for the sake of some balance :)
    - asaddhamani 7y ago
      > I go very slow, drive very carefully on roads that I know by heart, and hadn't had a single accident in twenty years. Said every drunk driver, ever. I have no respect for drunk drivers. You don't care about your life, that's on you. But you are putting the lives of other people in serious jeopardy by doing this. Someone could end up having their life destroyed, or maybe even dying because of your shitty actions. > And since drunk driving does kill people, and nobody dared to defend drinkers, there has been a lack of balance in the initiatives against it. There is a reason behind this. When you are drunk, you have lowered inhibitions, poor judgement, more (often unwarranted, like in your previous post) self confidence, vision problems, poor hand-eye coordination, drowsiness, the list goes on. You should not in any case be driving while drunk, and you do have to be daring to defend drunk driving. I am happy there has been a lack of balance in that regard. If it was just you driving on am empty field or track where the only person you could harm is yourself, I'd have no problem with it. But you are putting others at risk, and that's where I draw the line.
      - Freak_NL 7y ago
        And it's not just the actions you take when driving inebriated yourself. By taking the 'I never had an accident, I just drive slowly and surely' stance, you implicitly tell others that this is fine, and that one or two drinks don't matter (or three, or four), as long as you take it slow and steady, and really, the law is too strict anyway. People are influenced by others, younger drivers in particular. You are not only responsible for your own actions, but also for the message you send to others.
- gamblor956 7y ago
  When you eventually kill someone driving drunk, these posts of yours will be used against you to give you the maximum possible prison sentence.
  - Udik 7y ago
    The funny thing of this conversation is that the legal BAC limit for driving in the US and Canada is 80mg/100ml. In my country is 50mg/100ml. So at least some of you self-righteous people are happily driving with the same BAC as I do, only within the legal limits, while being mad at me for doing the same. You should all go to jail. :)
tomcooks 7y ago
How about talking and understanding, does wonders to the spirit and server baseline costs.
- yifanl 7y ago
  What does this mean in this context? I can't imagine many people who drive drunk have any reasons about why they decided to drive drunk.
squiggleblaz 7y ago
In most of North America the governments effectively require you to drive a car through their town planning and public transport policies. This is not a technical problem, and solving it would be more effective in solving the social problems (and many others besides).
- sudosysgen 7y ago
  I can't speak for the rest of Québec, but Montréal's public transit is pretty good. You can definitely make it without a car there.
  - duckymcduckface 7y ago
    Rip Laval people
- vkou 7y ago
  People drive drunk in cities that have excellent public transit. Quite clearly, public transit does not solve this problem.
tedajax 7y ago
Reduced reliance on personal transportation through extensive, frequent, reliable, and cheap/free public transport.
- freeone3000 7y ago
  We did that. What now?
arpa 7y ago
Executions come to mind. That surely will stop drunk drivers from driving drunk.
- tenebrisalietum 7y ago
  You're still using technology, just one that addresses the whole person instead of a localized illness.
manicdee 7y ago
You take away their licence, then send them to jail when they continue to drive drunk without a licence. Also you turn to psychologists for assistance with handling recidivist alcoholics.