A proposed new law would punish, with a fine, those convinced of being a passenger of a drunk driver. Good idea?
Click to vote
26%12 Votes
Very Bad
30%14 Votes
Bad
26%12 Votes
Not Sure
13%6 Votes
Good
4%2 Votes
Very Good
26%12 Votes
Very Bad
30%14 Votes
Bad
26%12 Votes
Not Sure
13%6 Votes
Good
4%2 Votes
Very Good
Male
Female
24%8 Votes
Very Bad
33%11 Votes
Bad
30%10 Votes
Not Sure
12%4 Votes
Good
0%0 Votes
Very Good
Results by Country
Results by Voter Type
Community votes are collected from you and other visitors to Ask500People. Independent votes are collected from visitors to hundreds of other websites around the world.
Sign Up or Login
Sorry, this data is only available to users with an account.
Isn't it interesting that conservatives like this kind of thing, while bleating about how people are responsible for themselves? Yet they have no problem making others responsible, if it confers control through police action.
Im with the DR. on this one. I dont know who proposed the law or who is backing it. But speaking for myself I dont think this is something a lot of conservatives would be crazy about.
So, you have no choice but to ride with drunk drivers? There are no other options you have? Everytime you get into a vehicle as passenger, the driver is always drunk? There's no getting around it?
That the Right loves self-responsibility--until they can use wrongfully making someone responsible for another's actions to reinforce their police state.
So are you supposed to stop and run a blood alcohol and drug test on the driver of every car you enter? Because it is very possible that someone who is over the legal limit may not look, act, or really BE drunk, or under the influence. And if you don't, are you supposed to go to jail for not turning them in?
You could, oh, I don't know, ASK them how much they've had to drink. (all the reasons I can think of that would make you not want to do that would make me wonder why you would be letting this person drive you anywhwere, drunk or no)
You certainly aren't forced to get into any vehicle unless A) you are under arrest, or B) you are the victim of a criminal act (namely kidnapping).
So, you get into cars driven by people you don't trust? I'm surprised (pleasantly, I must say first) that you haven't had something horribly tragic happen to you yet.
Note that I'm not interested in really defending this proposed law, just in debating the responsablility angle. If you aren't responsable for your actions, who is? If this law is passed, and you don't pay any attention to which car you get into, it's on your own head as to whether or not you end up paying this fine.
That is only too dumb. A hitch-hiker could have no idea if he's getting in the car of a drunk driver. To say he is in any way at fault would just be so wrong.
Only an ass would think up such a law. Post their web site so I can help publicize their asininity,
[3 points]160 days ago by ChipmonkReplyEdited 160 days ago by Chipmonk
For me, this point is clouded by the fact that I have little sympathy for hitch-hikers. Other than they shouldn't be run over by vehicles, just about anything that happens to them is their own fault.
Anyone who gets into a car with a perfect stranger is a moron to start with.
This was not the case in 1966. Usually nice people picked you up. Around 1972 the crazies came out of hiding and I haven't hitchhiked since. I quit after getting picked up by two different crazies in the same week from the same corner. Both times I got out out the car at the first red light. Thankfully they did not have driver controlled "kiddie protection" in those days to prevent passengers from opening the doors. Now that "kiddie protection" is so common these days, you are 100% right -- only a moron or a masochist would hitchhike nowadays.
I don't see a point in such a law. The only thing a person does by entering in a car with a drunk driver (a fgact the person might not be aware of btw...) is endangering his own life, not that of others.
If I let someone smoke in my house so that I also get some negative effects of the smoke should I get a fine too?
Too true. A person can be legally drunk and not show any impairment, or even smell of alcohol. One drink is sufficient in most states these days, depending on body mass.
United States
Ah, the days of the Hitler Youth return!
Isn't it interesting that conservatives like this kind of thing, while bleating about how people are responsible for themselves? Yet they have no problem making others responsible, if it confers control through police action.
Who said conservatives like this kind of thing?
Im with the DR. on this one. I dont know who proposed the law or who is backing it. But speaking for myself I dont think this is something a lot of conservatives would be crazy about.
So, you have no choice but to ride with drunk drivers? There are no other options you have? Everytime you get into a vehicle as passenger, the driver is always drunk? There's no getting around it?
Of course you have a choice. Don't get in.
So people ARE in fact "responsable for themselves"? I see, and I agree.
So what exactly are you complaining about in your first post here?
That the Right loves self-responsibility--until they can use wrongfully making someone responsible for another's actions to reinforce their police state.
And a real world example would be...
So, you have no responsability in knowing who is driving the vehicle you are entering? You'll just hop into any car you see?
So are you supposed to stop and run a blood alcohol and drug test on the driver of every car you enter? Because it is very possible that someone who is over the legal limit may not look, act, or really BE drunk, or under the influence. And if you don't, are you supposed to go to jail for not turning them in?
You could, oh, I don't know, ASK them how much they've had to drink. (all the reasons I can think of that would make you not want to do that would make me wonder why you would be letting this person drive you anywhwere, drunk or no)
You certainly aren't forced to get into any vehicle unless A) you are under arrest, or B) you are the victim of a criminal act (namely kidnapping).
And of course, they wouldn't lie.
But the real issue here is, why should you be criminally liable for the actions of another? It's not like you PAID the driver to drink and drive.
So, you get into cars driven by people you don't trust? I'm surprised (pleasantly, I must say first) that you haven't had something horribly tragic happen to you yet.
Note that I'm not interested in really defending this proposed law, just in debating the responsablility angle. If you aren't responsable for your actions, who is? If this law is passed, and you don't pay any attention to which car you get into, it's on your own head as to whether or not you end up paying this fine.
You are being deliberately stupid, and you know it.
I've been thinking the same about you.
Not even Sweden, which is very tough on driving with even very low blood/alcohol levels, has such a law.
That is only too dumb. A hitch-hiker could have no idea if he's getting in the car of a drunk driver. To say he is in any way at fault would just be so wrong.
Only an ass would think up such a law. Post their web site so I can help publicize their asininity,
This comment was deleted.
[-4 points] 160 days ago by deleted user ReplyWhat does that have to do with drunkenness?
This comment was deleted.
[-2 points] 159 days ago by deleted user ReplySo a hitch-hiker has no choice but to climb into any car that stops for him?
The so called "minutemen" would've had a lot more success with catching illegals if this were so, I think.
What are you talking about choice for? Chipmonk said a hitch-hiker could have no IDEA the driver is drunk.
For me, this point is clouded by the fact that I have little sympathy for hitch-hikers. Other than they shouldn't be run over by vehicles, just about anything that happens to them is their own fault.
Anyone who gets into a car with a perfect stranger is a moron to start with.
This was not the case in 1966. Usually nice people picked you up. Around 1972 the crazies came out of hiding and I haven't hitchhiked since. I quit after getting picked up by two different crazies in the same week from the same corner. Both times I got out out the car at the first red light. Thankfully they did not have driver controlled "kiddie protection" in those days to prevent passengers from opening the doors. Now that "kiddie protection" is so common these days, you are 100% right -- only a moron or a masochist would hitchhike nowadays.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5jNWIKR4wlXa8IpqgQKzDdcTXlvbg
http://www.mps.gov.cn/
That's ridiculous. Why don't we just have more severe punishments for the idiot drunk drivers.
This comment was deleted by enigmamz .
[0 points] 160 days ago byI don't see a point in such a law. The only thing a person does by entering in a car with a drunk driver (a fgact the person might not be aware of btw...) is endangering his own life, not that of others.
If I let someone smoke in my house so that I also get some negative effects of the smoke should I get a fine too?
Too true. A person can be legally drunk and not show any impairment, or even smell of alcohol. One drink is sufficient in most states these days, depending on body mass.
So where are you getting that this is a conservative initiative?
Exactly.