Pulled Over For DUI Going To Work

Salty said:
I might even agree with you, but there’s no way in hell I’d choose that hill to die on. There are far worse things to rail about.

I couldn’t care less about what happens to drunks when they choose to go out in public. I do see issues in the way that they spread the nets however.
Click to expand...

I care what happens to Americans.

Frankly I’d be much more harsh on a sober driver with a accident record crashing into something than some person who should have called a Uber, one was at least drunk, the other was stone cold sober, knows they can’t drive worth beans, and still made the choice to drive and piled into whatever.

Ultimately it doesn’t change the force of the impact. Overarching laws, regulations and taxes have destroyed more lives than traffic crashes ever will
 
Jackk said:
It’s the same thought process, if not for government being tuff on fill in the blank, it would be like a mad max movie, however again and again that’s proven to be false.

Our great nation crescendoed between 1930-1950, where we are heading now is not a good place, and it’s all done, as it always is, under the guise of safety and security.
Click to expand...
I agree with Salty, and maybe with you too on other topics. But since PoA is politics free and we're talking about DUIs, flying, and safety, I have to say this speeding > drunk driving or leniency for DUIs is just not the ticket to prove that point

And since we're on the topic of cars and how the nation was better 1930 to 1950, cars have become markedly safer since then. Maybe *some* things done under the guise of safety and security actually pay off..? Also note that "drinking and driving" has been illegal in some states going back to at least 1910.. https://www.brockhunterlaw.com/blog/2014/november/the-history-of-dui-laws-in-america/

https://www.statista.com/statistics...ehicle-related-injuries-in-the-us-since-1950/

Since we like facts, driving is safer now than it was then. Luckily, for the automotive purists 'old' cars have not been outlawed, so if someone's looking for that Duesenberg (I am), or 1950s muscle car, you can still go out and buy one

Cheers and happy Memorial Day

upload_2022-5-27_19-46-37.png
 
Tantalum said:
I agree with Salty, and maybe with you too on other topics. But since PoA is politics free and we're talking about DUIs, flying, and safety, I have to say this speeding > drunk driving or leniency for DUIs is just not the ticket to prove that point

And since we're on the topic of cars and how the nation was better 1930 to 1950, cars have become markedly safer since then. Maybe *some* things done under the guise of safety and security actually pay off..? Also note that "drinking and driving" has been illegal in some states going back to at least 1910.. https://www.brockhunterlaw.com/blog/2014/november/the-history-of-dui-laws-in-america/

https://www.statista.com/statistics...ehicle-related-injuries-in-the-us-since-1950/

Since we like facts, driving is safer now than it was then. Luckily, for the automotive purists 'old' cars have not been outlawed, so if someone's looking for that Duesenberg (I am), or 1950s muscle car, you can still go out and buy one

Cheers and happy Memorial Day

View attachment 107234
Click to expand...



Interesting. The national 55mph speed limit went away between 1980 and 1990, and fatalities declined during that period.
 
Half Fast said:
Interesting. The national 55mph speed limit went away between 1980 and 1990, and fatalities declined during that period.
Click to expand...

That's also when airbags became common/mandatory and seat belt use increased. Also, generally, cars were designed with better suspensions and tires that could handle higher speeds with greater safety.
 
Half Fast said:
Interesting. The national 55mph speed limit went away between 1980 and 1990, and fatalities declined during that period.
Click to expand...
IIRC that sounds like around the time shoulder belts became mandatory and other passive safety features started rolling out, like better bumpers. I may be wrong.

But be careful to make a distinction between “correlation” and “causation”, regardless.
 
Jeff Oslick said:
That's also when airbags became common/mandatory and seat belt use increased. Also, generally, cars were designed with better suspensions and tires that could handle higher speeds with greater safety.
Click to expand...

Llewtrah381 said:
IIRC that sounds like around the time shoulder belts became mandatory and other passive safety features started rolling out, like better bumpers. I may be wrong.

But be careful to make a distinction between “correlation” and “causation”, regardless.
Click to expand...


Exactly. I was thinking that as cars became safer the increase in speed wasn't much of a risk. IIRC, though, shoulder belts and impact bumpers were mandated in the 70s. Regardless, though, it takes time for newly mandated features to become widespread in the automotive fleet, as cars continue being used for quite a few years after manufacture.
 
I researched this topic years ago for a college class, from what I remember studies over shorter (1-year) periods after speed limits were raised as well as state cross-section data have shown either a neutral effect or slightly reduced accident rate with higher speed limits. This can be explained by the fact that many drivers ignore speed limits anyway and drive at a speed they feel is safe, while others who strictly follow the limit speed up and reduce the speed differential which is a bigger source of highway accidents than speeding itself.
 
Lol!!!!! Impact bumpers are not going to influence fatality statistics.
 
Kritchlow said:
Lol!!!!! Impact bumpers are not going to influence fatality statistics.
Click to expand...
I’m not an expert but impact bumpers were part of an overall focus on safety improvements, such as how frames crumple, which way the engine goes during a crash, etc.

Bumpers were definitely not redesigned to make them less expensive to fix!
 
We lowered the speed limit to 55 for fuel economy, not safety. We raised it because that reason had passed a bit because of improved fuel economy and more oil production.

Doing 70 - or 80 - on a highway designed for those speeds is safe. Doing so on one designed for 25 isn’t.

It’s too simplistic to say higher speeds kill. Between improvements in roads and cars, the outcomes have changed dramatically. Even for encountering a drunk on the road. But a drunk on the road greatly increases the risk of a head-on or a t-bone in an intersection. Those are more survivable now but still way higher risk than a fender-bender at 80.
 
Llewtrah381 said:
I’m not an expert but impact bumpers were part of an overall focus on safety improvements, such as how frames crumple, which way the engine goes during a crash, etc.

Bumpers were definitely not redesigned to make them less expensive to fix!
Click to expand...
Actually, the whole "5 mph bumper" thing (that's what we used to call them) was indeed instigated to cut down on the insurance claims for minor contact. It was a failure from the start.
 
Tantalum said:
I agree with Salty, and maybe with you too on other topics. But since PoA is politics free and we're talking about DUIs, flying, and safety, I have to say this speeding > drunk driving or leniency for DUIs is just not the ticket to prove that point

And since we're on the topic of cars and how the nation was better 1930 to 1950, cars have become markedly safer since then. Maybe *some* things done under the guise of safety and security actually pay off..? Also note that "drinking and driving" has been illegal in some states going back to at least 1910.. https://www.brockhunterlaw.com/blog/2014/november/the-history-of-dui-laws-in-america/

https://www.statista.com/statistics...ehicle-related-injuries-in-the-us-since-1950/

Since we like facts, driving is safer now than it was then. Luckily, for the automotive purists 'old' cars have not been outlawed, so if someone's looking for that Duesenberg (I am), or 1950s muscle car, you can still go out and buy one

Cheers and happy Memorial Day

View attachment 107234
Click to expand...
Automobile death rates should ideally be indexed to miles driven, not population.
 
Kenny Phillips said:
Automobile death rates should ideally be indexed to miles driven, not population.
Click to expand...


If we go by miles traveled, I suspect being a pedestrian is the most dangerous of all.

Or maybe sitting still. A mere 1 death per zero miles would be an infinite death rate, no?

Seems like deaths per mile isn’t very meaningful.
 
We’re kinda getting into the figures lie, liars figure region... no?
 
Driving is safer in Germany than the US, despite over 60% of highway kilometers having zero speed limit. They also have a lower BAC (.05 - most Germans stick with a single beer or glass of wine if they are driving, if that).

For the OP - I'm not going to lecture you. I don't know you specific situation and also know the unreliability of breath tests. The reality is you are stuck with HIMS unless you can beat the DUI charge.

Half Fast said:
Exactly. I was thinking that as cars became safer the increase in speed wasn't much of a risk. IIRC, though, shoulder belts and impact bumpers were mandated in the 70s. Regardless, though, it takes time for newly mandated features to become widespread in the automotive fleet, as cars continue being used for quite a few years after manufacture.
Click to expand...

Mandatory seat belt laws really took hold in the 80s. That massively increased car safety. The 1997 side impact standards and mandatory airbags did the rest.
 
N1120A said:
Driving is safer in Germany than the US, despite over 60% of highway kilometers having zero speed limit. They also have a lower BAC (.05 - most Germans stick with a single beer or glass of wine if they are driving, if that).

For the OP - I'm not going to lecture you. I don't know you specific situation and also know the unreliability of breath tests. The reality is you are stuck with HIMS unless you can beat the DUI charge.



Mandatory seat belt laws really took hold in the 80s. That massively increased car safety. The 1997 side impact standards and mandatory airbags did the rest.
Click to expand...


Don’t ignore improvements in healthcare
 
N1120A said:
Driving is safer in Germany than the US, despite over 60% of highway kilometers having zero speed limit. They also have a lower BAC (.05 - most Germans stick with a single beer or glass of wine if they are driving, if that).

For the OP - I'm not going to lecture you. I don't know you specific situation and also know the unreliability of breath tests. The reality is you are stuck with HIMS unless you can beat the DUI charge.



Mandatory seat belt laws really took hold in the 80s. That massively increased car safety. The 1997 side impact standards and mandatory airbags did the rest.
Click to expand...

The legal outcome will be ignored if it’s in the airman’s favor, based on the FAAs charts he should be able to be issued in office and not go HIMS if it’s his one and only, now will the FAA follow their own guidance, depends on the day.

Recently the FAA medical people went after a guy who blew a 0.00.
 
Sifossifoco said:
That can't be true... How and why would they do that?
Click to expand...

It is true.


The FAA medical branch isn’t a large connoisseur of facts, or actual medical issues.
He blew, but didn’t want to do the roadside Olympics which is subjective and everyone fails, a smart legal move, but it angers the FAA medical people, because… reasons


End of the day this case will end up with him as the complainant and the PD as the defendant, as the driver was the clear victim and was sober as one can be, the FAA will still make his life hell, and he will still have to check the box on the medical application for the rest of time.
 
Last edited:
That video scares the hell out of me. And I always thought that being teetotal I was safe...
 
Sifossifoco said:
That video scares the hell out of me. And I always thought that being teetotal I was safe...
Click to expand...

You should read up on administrative law.
Per the FAA he is probably going to go into HIMS as a “alcohol dependent”, if he’s lucky it will just be “abuse”


The FAA is like a bipolar abusive partner that we are in a permanent relationship with, as pilots
 
Morgan3820 said:
So, driving drunk is ‘OK’ with you? Have you ever lost a family member to a drunk driver? I’m guessing not. Have you ever been a first responder to a drunk driving accident involving fatalities? Where are you get to tell somebody that they no longer have a child, sibling, parent. I’m guessing not. Personally I’m hoping the guy goes to jail, loses his license for five years, and never, ever flies a plane again.
Got to love you bleeding hearts.
Click to expand...

what is a bleeding heart?
 
Sifossifoco said:
That video scares the hell out of me. And I always thought that being teetotal I was safe...
Click to expand...
That’s what all these law and order pricks don’t understand. The rules as they are written can walk all over innocent people. God help you if you ever try to discuss it on here because the statists on POA tell you how dumb you are. I honestly hope a couple of these “I never drink and drive” dorks get FAA medical squarely up their butt one day.
 
sliceofstrife said:
what is a bleeding heart?
Click to expand...

bleeding heart
a person considered to be dangerously soft-hearted, typically someone too liberal or left-wing in their political beliefs. informal

Farlex Partner Idioms Dictionary © Farlex 2017

bleeding heart
An excessively sympathetic or tender-hearted individual. The adjective bleeding has been used figuratively for full of anguish from pity or compassion since the late 1500s. Edmund Spenser so used it in The Faerie Queene: “These bleeding words she gan to say.” The cliché is much newer, dating from the first half of the twentieth century. I. T. Ross had it in Murder out of School (1960), “A lot of bleeding-hearts got the idea they knew about everything.”

The idiom has been around awhile. I am certain that it doesn't apply to anyone here.
 
Last edited:
Jackk said:
It is true.


The FAA medical branch isn’t a large connoisseur of facts, or actual medical issues.
He blew, but didn’t want to do the roadside Olympics which is subjective and everyone fails, a smart legal move, but it angers the FAA medical people, because… reasons


End of the day this case will end up with him as the complainant and the PD as the defendant, as the driver was the clear victim and was sober as one can be, the FAA will still make his life hell, and he will still have to check the box on the medical application for the rest of time.
Click to expand...


Wow... that’s at least two then. I know a guy in HIMS who blood tested a 0.00. He found out those results in REHAB.
 
Tools said:
Wow... that’s at least two then. I know a guy in HIMS who blood tested a 0.00. He found out those results in REHAB.
Click to expand...

“But if it saves just one life”
 
Last edited:
Half Fast said:
Well, it sorta depends on who’s life we’re talking about.....
:devil:
Click to expand...

Reminds me of hearing Dr. Jerome Goddard speaking about West Nile Virus many years ago. He said West Nile really wasn't that bad as it only kills about 1 in every 150 people that get it. "That's not bad ... unless you're the one!" :eek:
 
Daleandee said:
Reminds me of hearing Dr. Jerome Goddard speaking about West Nile Virus many years ago. He said West Nile really wasn't that bad as it only kills about 1 in every 150 people that get it. "That's not bad ... unless you're the one!" :eek:
Click to expand...

or the flu, which kills about 1 in every 1000.

(source: CDC)
 
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.
Back
Top