Drinking a beer while driving?

[swoop10]

I appreciate your passion for this issue. I won't drive if I have had more than one drink. That is my rule, so that I don't have to guess whether or not I have had too much. But you seem insistent that eliminating open container laws will lead to greater incidents of drunken driving. Well, the statistics do not support your argument. States with open container laws fall into the same range as states without open container laws when it comes to drunken driving offenses.

So, as much as it may seem like common sense, the reality proves otherwise. Your passion is clouding your objectivity.

Drunk driving statistics

I agree with you on this, I know that has been a rarity since you started posting here but there you go. My point and I think the one you are making is that open container laws don't really change the minds of the people who will drink and drive. If a person is going to drink and drive they don't care if there is a law saying they can't, they are going to do it. It is too easy to hide a beer as you pass a cop. If a cop isn't stopping a person for something else it is rare for them to catch a person for open container.

 

[crimsonaudio]

Err, well people getting active because it became personal, and affecting legislation through organization, is a possibility. Drinking, not illegal. Driving with good license, not illegal. Driving with open container in most states, illegal. Driving under legal limit, not illegal. Driving over legal limit, illegal. Deciding whether you're a big enough boy to handle your alochol consumption, your decision. So what we're doing is we're taking something perfectly legal, and for no other good reason but because we want to, we are walking the dangerously thin line between sobriety and drunkenness, trying to decide whether we should drive or not. Having the right to have an open container would only exacerbate things. That has been my point. Let's take a bad situation and make it worse. Huh? Like someone alluded to, driving is a privilege, and should be treated as such. Why risk it? I don't understand that, much less risking your life and the lives of others by your perhaps faulty judgment of your own driving capabilities after drinking. There are som many stories of folks that thought they had everything under control. Don't fool yourself... It's not a joke. Having the right to have an open container would only further help to jeopardize the driving privilege, and help you endanger lives... These are the points I'm trying to get across. Apples, oranges, semantics, whatever, what I've said above is what I said earlier. I'm sure I could find yet other different ways to put the same point, but someone else will come up with more semantics, so now, I shut up.

My apologies if somehow I've led you to believe I don't understand your point - I really and truly do.

Your point, paraphrased is this - though you can present zero data showing that the lack of open container laws contribute to greater danger to the citizens, any 'logical' person would have to see it would make things worse, so there should be a law.

I get it, trust me. I just don't have any respect for laws based on emotions instead of facts.

 

[Bama Reb]

I appreciate your passion for this issue. I won't drive if I have had more than one drink. That is my rule, so that I don't have to guess whether or not I have had too much. But you seem insistent that eliminating open container laws will lead to greater incidents of drunken driving. Well, the statistics do not support your argument. States with open container laws fall into the same range as states without open container laws when it comes to drunken driving offenses.

So, as much as it may seem like common sense, the reality proves otherwise. Your passion is clouding your objectivity.

Drunk driving statistics

Then you've never drunk only two beers, and upon reaching for a third, found out that there is no third. :biggrin2: :wink:

 

[bamahippie]

My apologies if somehow I've led you to believe I don't understand your point - I really and truly do.

Your point, paraphrased is this - though you can present zero data showing that the lack of open container laws contribute to greater danger to the citizens, any 'logical' person would have to see it would make things worse, so there should be a law.

I get it, trust me. I just don't have any respect for laws based on emotions instead of facts.

I respect you guys for putting up with me on this thread. Bottom line, I wish things like this didn't even have to mentioned in regards to legislation. The underlying emotion to all of my diatribes is that it should never be an issue in the first place. There would have never been legislation if folks would use common sense. I wish there were no need for such common sense-based laws. I wish folks would not make such blatant errors in judgment. I probably should have separated the driving while drunk argument from the open container laws argument, though they do intertwine at times. Forgive me for sharing what I think is right, and what should make sense. And that is not drinking before driving. Then you wouldn't even think of having an open container while driving, if that was the pervading attitude. I was thinking that the pervading attitude of most folks is that you would not want to have an open container, because you should already not be drinking before driving to begin with. I apologize if I was misled. I'm definitely done...

 

[RamJamHam]

If a cop isn't stopping a person for something else it is rare for them to catch a person for open container.

Most people are entirely missing the point of the vehicle open container law. It is there for the sole purpose of giving the police office sufficient probable cause to pull you over. From there, the officer can assess whether or not you are impaired to the point that you are driving under the influence. Any other benefits from this law are purely incidental.

 

[disneybama]

Then you've never drunk only two beers, and upon reaching for a third, found out that there is no third. :biggrin2: :wink:

LOL - Too many times - but not when driving. I sometimes find out how much I have had to drink the next morning, when I see the empties.

 

[RJ YellowHammer]

Most people are entirely missing the point of the vehicle open container law. It is there for the sole purpose of giving the police office sufficient probable cause to pull you over. From there, the officer can assess whether or not you are impaired to the point that you are driving under the influence. Any other benefits from this law are purely incidental.

I think I made that point on page 2 or 3, so I agree it is one of the reasons behind the law.
Posted via Mobile Device

 

[disneybama]

I think I made that point on page 2 or 3, so I agree it is one of the reasons behind the law.
Posted via Mobile Device

The problem with that argument being that drinking while driving, even where legal, can still be used as probable cause to stop a driver and perform a field sobriety test. So, even if that is the reason offered, it fails the sniff test...

 

[gmart74]

You should tell your friend to try playing Mario Kart after a few. After the USCe game I wasn't in the mood for more football so I decided to waste some time playing my son's Wii. I think you know that I had more beers than one but my driving didn't meet my usual standards.:wink:

i typically play mariokart better once im drunk. im not willing to try this in a car but video games arent directly comparable to real life.

drinking a beer in a car is no more dangerous than drinking a coke. BAC is the only relevant data point in this conversation... unless drinking a coke is considered distracted driving then maybe that can be relevant.

0.1 BAC as the cutoff point of being legally drunk. now some states have it down to 0.08 or 0.05. basically as scumball lawyers get people out of charges, prosecutors get the laws to be ever more stringent. the end result being that people who arent a danger to others get caught without a good lawyer and get punished severely for doing something that isnt harmful in the first place.
driving drunk is stupid and should be punished. driving after having a drink or two is about as dangerous as driving with kids in the back seat.

 

[Bama Reb]

i typically play mariokart better once im drunk. im not willing to try this in a car but video games arent directly comparable to real life.

drinking a beer in a car is no more dangerous than drinking a coke. BAC is the only relevant data point in this conversation... unless drinking a coke is considered distracted driving then maybe that can be relevant.

0.1 BAC as the cutoff point of being legally drunk. now some states have it down to 0.08 or 0.05. basically as scumball lawyers get people out of charges, prosecutors get the laws to be ever more stringent. the end result being that people who arent a danger to others get caught without a good lawyer and get punished severely for doing something that isnt harmful in the first place.
driving drunk is stupid and should be punished. driving after having a drink or two is about as dangerous as driving with kids in the back seat.

Hence the "Buzzed driving is drunk driving" commercials. Their sole purpose is to lower the legal limit even further.

 

[gmart74]

Hence the "Buzzed driving is drunk driving" commercials. Their sole purpose is to lower the legal limit even further.

the main problem in america is that most communities are not designed for mass transit. most people drive to and from their bars. in clemson i drove obliterated almost every friday night (as did almost every person in the bars i went to). however in baltimore i take a taxi since a taxi is about the same cost as one beer. if you truly want people to stop driving while drunk then you have to provide easy and cheap public transportation.

 

[Bama Reb]

the main problem in america is that most communities are not designed for mass transit. most people drive to and from their bars. in clemson i drove obliterated almost every friday night (as did almost every person in the bars i went to). however in baltimore i take a taxi since a taxi is about the same cost as one beer. if you truly want people to stop driving while drunk then you have to provide easy and cheap public transportation.

Maybe that should be suggested to the Birmingham city council, or better yet, to both the Jefferson County and the Shelby County commissions.
"We need mass transit to and from the bars." :biggrin::biggrin:
Heck, the only think the idiots over in the Jefferson County commission have been able to do is to drive the county into bankruptcy. (They probably have their own private bar right there in their offices. :biggrin

 

[It's On A Slab]

Is it against the law to drink a beer while sexting while driving?

Brett Favre on line one.

 

[jps1983]

All that a police officer needs is probable cause to pull someone over.

Actually, an officer just needs a "reasonable suspicion" (a much lower legal standard) to pull a vehicle over. Probable cause is needed when doing searches (in lieu of a warrant) or making the actual arrest.

 

[jps1983]

0.1 BAC as the cutoff point of being legally drunk. now some states have it down to 0.08 or 0.05. basically as scumball lawyers get people out of charges, prosecutors get the laws to be ever more stringent. the end result being that people who arent a danger to others get caught without a good lawyer and get punished severely for doing something that isnt harmful in the first place.
driving drunk is stupid and should be punished. driving after having a drink or two is about as dangerous as driving with kids in the back seat.

I am a young criminal defense attorney and it seems that scumball attorneys are also the good ones in your mind? So if I want to be good at my profession, I need to be a scumbag too I guess.

 

[disneybama]

Actually, an officer just needs a "reasonable suspicion" (a much lower legal standard) to pull a vehicle over. Probable cause is needed when doing searches (in lieu of a warrant) or making the actual arrest.

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[RJ YellowHammer]

The removal of open container laws doesn't make DUI legal. It's legal for me to wear a crimson hat in public if I wish. if someone robs a bank wearing a similar hat and I'm nearby, I might be detained for questioning due to my crimson hat. The same is true with alcohol. Right now, in most states it's perfectly legal to drive after drinking, as long as your BAC is below the legal limit - there's zero reason that would change. Whether the driver had two beers at Chili's or sucked two down on the way home make zero difference - either his BAC is legal or it's not.

It's true that wearing a red hat in the above situation wouldn't be against the law but could be used to detain you for questioning. However, wearing a crimson hat isn't something that risks the safety of anyone else, so it's not illegal to wear a crimson hat.

The problem with that argument being that drinking while driving, even where legal, can still be used as probable cause to stop a driver and perform a field sobriety test. So, even if that is the reason offered, it fails the sniff test...

Yeah, I got it. Having an open container of alcohol in a moving vehicle does increase the chances of the driver being intoxicated, so it's probable cause or reasonable suspicion to pull someone over - that's also why it's currently illegal to have an open container in the car, and imo it should remain that way. :biggrin2:

 

[disneybama]

...Yeah, I got it. Having an open container of alcohol in a moving vehicle does increase the chances of the driver being intoxicated, so it's probable cause or reasonable suspicion to pull someone over - that's also why it's currently illegal to have an open container in the car, and imo it should remain that way. :biggrin2:

Touche' :biggrin:

 

[cbi1972]

Yeah, I got it. Having an open container of alcohol in a moving vehicle does increase the chances of the driver being intoxicated, so it's probable cause or reasonable suspicion to pull someone over - that's also why it's currently illegal to have an open container in the car, and imo it should remain that way. :biggrin2:

Unfortunately for your argument, your "increased chances" are correlative, just like the red hat scenario. That doesn't make the prohibited activity inherently dangerous.

 

[RJ YellowHammer]

Unfortunately for your argument, your "increased chances" are correlative, just like the red hat scenario. That doesn't make the prohibited activity inherently dangerous.

Of course a person's decrease in motor skills correlate to the amount of alcohol someone has consumed, but that doesn't hurt my argument. I'm not saying that having one beer renders you incapable of driving a car; I don't think it does, but it doesn't take long to drink 3 which can impair your motor function. You could have 3 shots of JD in 30 seconds. I'm saying that having a drink while driving makes you much more likely to engage in an activity that's dangerous to yourself and, more importantly, to those around you, which is having too much to drink.
Posted via Mobile Device