GPS Tracking Device Beats Radar Gun in Court 702
MojoKid writes "According to a release issued by Rocky Mountain Tracking, an 18-year old man, Shaun Malone, was able to
successfully contest a speeding ticket in court using the data from a GPS device installed in his car. This wasn't just any old make-a-left-turn-100-feet-ahead-onto-Maple-Street GPS; this was a vehicle-tracking GPS device — the kind used by trucking fleets — or in this case, overprotective parents. The device was installed in Malone's car by his parents, and the press release makes no mention if the teenager knew that the device was installed in his vehicle at the time."
mixed feelings about this (Score:5, Insightful)
Good thing: enabling people to install these devices voluntarily to defend themselves against false claims of speeding or reckless driving.
Bad thing: having the government mandate their installation, and at some later time mandating that the data be uploaded to a central processing facility.
So... what was wrong with the gun? (Score:5, Insightful)
The article says that he was doing 62 MPH according to the radar gun. The GPS says 45. If the GPS was right, why was the gun wrong? Bad calibration? Operator error? Dyslexia?
How many other people were caught "speeding" by the same gun,and are they planning to notify any of them that they have reason to believe the gun was wrong?
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
The most important point of the article (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So... what was wrong with the gun? (Score:5, Insightful)
Except for a little something we call the Fifth Amendment: it wasn't the cops' GPS data, was it?
Re:The most important point of the article (Score:5, Insightful)
My guess is the expert's original statement was based on the assumption that the device was a run-of-the-mill GPS navigation system, which probably aren't accurate when it comes to speed and position.
Although if that hypothesis is correct it does leave one wondering why they made that assumption and didn't bother checking; it certainly reads like he then took a closer look at the device, when the finding was contested, and realized that it was a much more high end device.
Re:Dot-point summary: (Score:3, Insightful)
I suspect the scenario between your step 1 and step 2 went something like this:
Re:So... what was wrong with the gun? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:You can never trust the client ... (Score:3, Insightful)
The GPS isn't logging the speed, or if it is it's as secondary, calculated data. I would assume (else I can't imagine this ever got him off) that they used the location data over time points. If you're here at point x at time a, and point y at time b, you were going (y-x)/(b-a) miles per hour.
By Neruos (Score:2, Insightful)
any type of non-video speed camera is not 100% accurate in a speed case and even those are not 100%.
A cop using any type of speed gun (laser, pop, etc) can almost 100% of the time, tell if a driver is speeding IF THE DRIVER is the only one in the LINE OF SIGHT. The issue with these guns is that they are CONE based and many things INCLUDING OTHER AUTOS will throw off they signal.
Most video speed cameras use a laser LINE OF SIGHT trigger, that produces a picture from a elapsed time. The picture is almost 100% accurate but not 100% accurate.
To this date, no hard factual science has proven that speed cameras have saved lives or reduces accidents.
Re:Damn you, technology! (Score:5, Insightful)
>Now there's a neat project idea: create a GPS spoofing device.
That is a standard piece of GPS test equipment. A test GPS signal source and an antenna cone to place over the GPS device. Any time and location can be spoofed.
Speed = Distance/Time (Score:1, Insightful)
The camera *and* the GPS are right. It depends over which distance, and over which time the vehicle was measured.
First 100 metres. Av speed 100km/h. ...see police. Hard on brakes.
Next 100 metres. Av. speed 50km/h.
Av speed over 200 metres, 75km/h. Speed while clocked, 100km/h.
Re:Heh, heh, heh. (Score:5, Insightful)
Being a responsible parent means those things. My children do not have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" (except my daughter). There is nothing I can't and won't search of theirs. There is no nook and cranny that I don't feel comfortable going into and looking at. I search for the parents of their friends. I go to their friend's houses alone so that I can meet the parents. They KNOW this and UNDERSTAND it because I've never talked to them like anything less than humans. (And yes, they both know why I would LoJack them if I could and BOTH agree that I should if I'm allowed to and haven't a problem with it.) "Daddy's job is to ensure your safety while allowing you the freedom to make mistakes and I always make it a point to balance the two as best as I can." Oppress? Are you high??? You just must not have children... When you learn love, that that you have for a child, you will understand. Maybe.
*gasp* I pick their video games out too! I limit them to certain movies. My daughter and my son each have about 10 cubic feet of space that is off limits. I bought, when they were way too young to understand even, a couple of fire proof safes. They have the only keys (as far as I know - I know I don't nor does their mother have the spare) for this case. This is where they can put anything that fits into that space and have it be as secret as they want it to be. Anything bigger should not be a secret when you're a child. My son leaves his wide open and stores his more expensive model cars in it. My daughter locks her safe because that is where her diary is and she doesn't want her brother to read it. Hell, I'm DIVORCED from this wife and we still have one of the most open families on the planet I suspect. I treat them like humans and I talk to them like that.
Finally I am not writing this for me. I wrote this for YOU. I want to get some sleep sometime soon as I have things to do in the morning. If you view a parent protecting their child in a reasonable (and hopefully open) manner as oppression than you fail. Your mother turning the handles in on the stove so that you're toddler self didn't grab them and get scalded and die is not oppression, it is love. Now go call your mother and tell her how much you love her, appreciate her, and then respond here if you'd like.
Re:Heh, heh, heh. (Score:2, Insightful)
there is a huge gaping hole in this kind of arguement. it softens them up to future government opression, since mum and dad lojacked me whats wrong with the government doing it, right?
living in your kids back pockets is a sure fire way to have them rebeling against you by the time they are 13. and yes, lojacking the frigging car is going too far.
That can't be right ;-) (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Heh, heh, heh. (Score:4, Insightful)
My kid read this and is happy he's *my* kid and not yours. You probably score pretty good on the 'protect my kids' scale, but you don't respect them.
Re:Heh, heh, heh. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Heh, heh, heh. (Score:5, Insightful)
There is an old saying that my dad used, and I use it still today. "Give your kids enough rope to run with but not enough to hang themselves."
You have to give your kids the ability to do what they want, so they can learn for themselves, but at the same time you need to protect them from MAJOR issues until they are old enough to think for themselves. If you hover too closely, yes, there will be resentment, but if you don't hover at all, you have no way of knowing when to intervene.
"Living in their back pocket" would be doing things such as being a chaperone, calling them every 15 minutes, following them around, etc... Lojack or GPS, etc, is not being too close. It allows a parent to give their children extra freedom while still giving the parent insight to verify if the child is doing what they say they are and wether they are capable of handling additional trust or not.
Parents who let their children run around blindly are either fools, or their Give-a-shit-o-meter is broken. The way many children of this generation, and my own (I'm 35 in case you're wondering), have turned out, I'm a firm believer that the government should require licensing to procreate. No license, means no government assistance should you be stupid enough to have a 5 kids on a $8/hr job.
Wow... is it just me or did I end up on a soapbox?
I hate it when that happens.
Re:Overprotective? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm a fairly responsible, straitlaced person, and always have been.
But I made some really poor choices while driving as a teenager. Fortunately, I just had a lot of near misses and a couple fender benders.
But I drove like an idiot.
I have four boys. The oldest are 6, so I got time still, but you bet they'll have GPS installed on any vehicle they drive that I control. And/or video cameras.
It's not being overprotective, it's realizing that 40k people die a year in the US in auto accidents, and young men have their hand in a sizable fraction of those.
Re:Heh, heh, heh. (Score:5, Insightful)
Kids aren't full grown adults and they shouldn't be treated as such. If you raise them properly they'll be able to understand the differences between home and government and act accordingly. Also, sometimes lojacking the car is going too far, sometimes it's not. Things like that should be taken on a case by case basis.
Re:Heh, heh, heh. (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, other people without children always called it cruelty, but other parents would come up and ask where to get the leashes.
However, I think the GP is going too far here. If you don't give your child any freedoms (to fail, do something stupid) they'll never learn anything about life, responsibility, and the consequences of failure. Unleashing a child that hasn't learned anything on the world does a disservice to the child and makes for one more idiotic kid-with-adult-powers the system has to coddle and watch out for.
People with no concept of personal responsibility are at fault for some of the worst tragedies the planet has seen.
Re:Heh, heh, heh. (Score:5, Insightful)
Funny, I figured out the ex-military bit before you mentioned it.
House != barracks... if you want your kids to succeed in life and not just house them until they're 18 or something like that you'll have to allow them a lot of independence, otherwise they'll always be looking to you for their everyday decisions and one day you won't be there.
It's like bicycling with training wheels, at some point they have to come off, best if your parent is still around so they can catch you when you fall (or console you if they didn't catch you) :)
Good luck there, it sounds like you are in a pretty difficult situation and you're doing the best you can.
Jacques.
Re:Heh, heh, heh. (Score:3, Insightful)
Parents making a choice to protect their children is oppression???
Your arguments are filled with fallacies. While you have a right to take certain measures to protect your children this doesn't mean saying that you are protecting your children makes the measures right.
How old are you? (Really, I want a real answer.)
Trying to imply someone's opinion is invalid based on emotion.
I am 32 and don't have children btw.
Choices are for me to make when it comes to protecting my child, not for you nor for the government,
well that certainly isn't true. There are certain things that most people agree noone should be allowed to do to even their own children. Please tell me you don't think you can do whatever you want with your children.
In one thread you (not just you but a generic you) scream for holding the parent's accountable and in another when they take reasonable steps to monitor their children it is oppression?
Very nicely done. The generic you who could be many people with complete opposite opinions yet will be assumed to be the person you are arguing against must be wrong. Not only is 'he' always contradicting himself but you are also neatly assuming the validity of your own argument. How could anyone fail to agree with you.
I don't doubt you love your children. Do you respect them? perhaps. Ask them how they feel when they are teenagers and you still give them no expectation of privacy. The ends do not justify the means.
Ask yourself this. How did your parents treat you? Did you grow up being constantly monitored? Would you have liked it? Not that kids have to like everything their parents do but it needs to be asked.
Please think twice before presenting your arguments. It really is easy to justify just about anything on the basis of safety, on the basis of 'love', on the basis of 'they are mine'.
You argue very much from emotion. Emotion is valid and certainly plays a role. However it makes for poor logic. You can use to to explain why you think a thing should be a certain way. It cannot prove or disprove anything.
Re:Heh, heh, heh. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Heh, heh, heh. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Heh, heh, heh. (Score:5, Insightful)
I've only read like a third of this drivel.... and drivel it is. My parents never had the means of protecting me like that. They had to trust that I would call if I stayed out longer (and I was basically allowed to stay out whenever I wanted and however long I wanted, because I was trusted to know myself when it was a good time to return home).
You know, I think I'm still alive and doing quite well for myself. Looking at the latest generation, though, who is always reachable and traceable by the likes of you, I'm not quite as sure about that.
One thing was funny, though... you let them make their own mistakes? What mistakes would that be? Choosing ketchup instead of sauce cafe de paris for their meat? Or perhaps wearing a brown belt with black shoes? The way you sound it's certainly not going to be stumbling over unsuitable websites or getting drunk at bloody fifteen. Not that I ever did that, because I somehow never saw the need to... well, contrary to some kids who weren't allowed to swear at home, and had to be home right after school.
Oh and contrary to them, I didn't have to hide my smoking habit. Because I didn't smoke. Even though my parents made it perfectly clear that they would not forbid it since they were such bad examples themselves.
I had a lot of freedoms as a kid and I am of the firm belief that I didn't fuck up even close as often as the average kid does. I've tried smoking exactly two times in my lifes (more to actually know what the hell I was talking about) and it was limited to just inhaling once per try. I tried space cookies, as smoking was out of the question, and found the experience to be less than stellar (although that was at age 20 something). I've had a bout of kleptomania around age 13 which I got under control on my freaking own without my parents having to watch my ass every damn second.
So would you allow your kids to make the mistake of shoplifting not once but several times? Would you let them learn to deal with it on their own? Sorry if I don't think so.
From my experience, parents like you produce social garbage that usually gets the fuck outa there as soon as they turn legal. I'm not saying your kids will do that... sometimes they become completely dependant and shy personalities, who can't function in this world without someone holding their hand. And I'm still not saying your kids will turn out like this, but I say chances are high. And if I get modded Troll for this, I'll actually be proud of it, because, frankly, people like you give me a very bad feeling in my stomach area.
Seeking freedom and wanting to be your own boss is like a basic instinct for a lot of humans. Trying to completely repress that, because the person in question doesn't have enough experience, often leads to rebellion and doing stupid shit out of principle. And besides, let me ask you a philosophical question: If my grandfather told you that you can't go out after 5pm because he thinks you're too young to make your own decisions, what would you say? You're an adult, right? But what the hell does that mean? It means you turned 18 already. Big freaking deal. Most of us manage to do that.
The ability to weight the pros and cons of your action is what makes you mature and that ability doesn't turn on at 18. It has to be learned, and from my experience, kids in the kind of environment you create often haven't learned that when they're given all the responsibilities and freedoms of an adult.
In my personal opinion, kids should be confronted with responsibility as soon as they're able to handle it. It is our duty as parents to decide when that day comes. Some of us, though, don't want to get to know their kids that well or just don't have the time, so they just trace their every move to make sure they don't do anything wrong... and then they go and think that this way their kids are going to turn out to be well rounded and mature adults.
Re:Heh, heh, heh. (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that kids will find ways around stuff that their parents restrict, no matter how clever you are with tech they'll be more clever than that. Kids today (and probably at any point in the past) can and will run rings around their parents, using their peers and technology to help them with that. Tracking their whereabouts is not going to help you one bit with this. (after all, all it tells you is where their cellphones were...)
That sets you up for a bit of a problem in the long term because they'll already have a habit of going around your back by the time it will really matter.
Better to get your kids to trust you, and for you to trust them. That way if something comes up that they don't know how to deal with they'll come to you first, instead of going to the 'peer' group (I use the world loosely) and hiding it from you because you're going to restrict it.
Forbidden fruits and all that...
The problems won't really start until they're in their teens, for your daughter somewhere around age 13, for your boy 14 or 15. That's when it matters that there is a huge bond of trust between you and them, basically you need to be able to let them go at that age and *know* they'll make the right decisions, even if you're not there.
It'll make you sleep better too :)
Right now you can control your kids but that time will be over sooner than you can possibly imagine, but the kind of relationship that you make with them now will persist long past that point and trust once gained is hard to lose.
Just for a small example from my own life:
I wasn't allowed to have a moped, but I was crazy about engines and anything associated with it, so a friend of mine who lived about 5 miles from my house housed my moped in his garage box... nobody, and I mean really nobody, including my control freak of a steph father, had any idea of what was going on. So much for all that control... (and believe me, you look like an angel in comparision, your intentions are clearly good).
So, when I had a kid myself I decided that control was not going to cut it, assuming that history would repeat itself. Give your kid repect and trust, get the same in return. Control your kids and sooner or later they'll slip the leash and you won't be the wiser until it's much too late.
Re:So... what was wrong with the gun? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Heh, heh, heh. (Score:5, Insightful)
If the child always has access to a "panic button" that lets a white knight come fix the problems, he or she won't learn how to cope and deal with problems without outside aid. I'd rather have a child stuck in a rough spot for a while and come out of it himself than have to rescue him every time he got into a situation he couldn't see an obvious solution to. I remember the first time I got in a really lousy position - drove a car off the road - but I managed to get the car fixed and back on the road with no lasting damage in an hour or so. I was so proud that evening that I had managed to rescue myself, and that's a feeling that every kid should have. A knowledge that they can take care of themselves if need be.
About your power tool example. Were it my child, I'd explain what the tool was for, how to use it properly, make sure the kid understood the consequences of misuse, and watch them the first few times they used it to make sure they followed the appropriate safety practices. After that, I'd trust the child to know how to use the tool and why the safety gear was important.
At some point you have to let the child figure out why the rules and safety regulations are there by himself. Hopefully the the child can learn from the explanation of the consequences, but I certainly couldn't - I had to figure out why something said "don't touch" by touching it. My mother is an avid believer in the "Burned hand teaches best" method of parenting.
As such, I've lost some of the nerves in my left hand from a thermite burn. However, you'd better bet I'm careful with pretty much anything explosive now. And, in the grand scheme of things, the small bit of nerve damage was worth a deeply ingrained caution for all things explosive and hot.
Re:Heh, heh, heh. (Score:4, Insightful)
Was this done to you when you were a child? Probably not, but you seemed to grow up ok? I have no problem with not letting them have a computer in their own rooms with internet access, but following their every move - it really just proved that you don't trust them, and you don't trust yourself to teach them any sense.
Re:Heh, heh, heh. (Score:5, Insightful)
When I was five or so, I too would go to crowded places with my parents. I too would wander, but I wasn't kept on a lead.
One day, finally fed up of having to remain ever vigilant of my wandering, my parents decided on a simple course of action. They waited for me to begin wandering, then hid around a corner, just out of view of me, but at a point where they could still keep an eye on me (presumably using one of those convex security mirrors, I never did ask). They also let staff members where we were what they were about to do...
After five minutes of happy wandering I noticed I hadn't been yanked back from whatever I was busy with. After 7 minutes I begain to look visibly worried. At 8, realising I was very much alone I began to cry. By 10 minutes I was in full frantic bawling-my-eyes-out and screaming for attention mode. After 15 minutes they stepped out from around the corner to collect me and give me a bloody good bollocking for wandering off.
Apparently I never wandered again.
My parents: wise beyond their years, and utter, utter bastards :)
Re:Heh, heh, heh. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Heh, heh, heh. (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd have my kids LoJacked if it could be safely removed (with minimal scar) at the age of 18, were legal, and could be proved to be safe. No questions asked and no they don't get a choice. [...] I've never talked to them like anything less than humans.
Stop right there. You might not let them know you think they're less than humans, but you made it loud and clear to us in the first few lines of your comment.
Re:Heh, heh, heh. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Heh, heh, heh. (Score:3, Insightful)
"House != barracks... "
Training, supervision, and gradual increase of unmanaged activities allows people to grow and become highly competent and empowered. The military/barracks model, done right, is actually a great way to produce effective people who can function independently meeting challenges far beyond those in (most) civilian life.
The only way to internalize self-discipline (self-mastery, the key to personal effectiveness) is challenge under imposed discipline.
Re:Heh, heh, heh. (Score:3, Insightful)
If the child always has access to a "panic button" that lets a white knight come fix the problems, he or she won't learn how to cope and deal with problems without outside aid. I'd rather have a child stuck in a rough spot for a while and come out of it himself than have to rescue him every time he got into a situation he couldn't see an obvious solution to. I remember the first time I got in a really lousy position - drove a car off the road - but I managed to get the car fixed and back on the road with no lasting damage in an hour or so. I was so proud that evening that I had managed to rescue myself, and that's a feeling that every kid should have. A knowledge that they can take care of themselves if need be.
This isn't some sort of 'panic button' it is a cell phone. I highly doubt that giving your child a method to call for help is somehow keeping them from dealing with problems. When I was a kid, they didn't have cell phones, I got a loud whistle for if I got lost in the woods or in trouble. Knowing that I could call for help certainly didn't give me any sense of immunity from trouble.
And cope with what exactly? What situation do you think a 10 year old could get into, requiring a cell phone to call for help, that they should deal with themselves? If there is ANY situation that warrants using a cell phone to call for help I do NOT want my 10 year old to try and deal with it themselves. The only thing they should be dealing with is understanding if the situation is beyond their ability to control.
I've been through survival training and I know I can last for a week dropped off somewhere with just what I have in my pockets, but I'll be damned if I don't still keep some sort of equivalent to the whistle that I used to carry as a kid.
You can learn to swim in the 3' deep section, there is no need to boot someone into the deepend.
Re:Heh, heh, heh. (Score:4, Insightful)
"I'll take advice when/if I see the source actually ... making sense."
Translation:
"I'll take advice when/if I see the source actually ... confirming my biases."
Re:mixed feelings about this (Score:3, Insightful)
It is your right as a free person to risk your own life yes, but you have no right whatsoever to risk the lives of anyone else without their express permission to do so.
Because in doing so you take away their rights and freedom to decide for themselves and thus you are no better than any other tyrant.
Bullshit.
People have a choice of not using cars, there are bikes, or planes, or horses, or feet. They know the risks they take when they go on the road.
Let's replace traffic related deaths with something else to illustrate the absurdity shall we?
hundreds of thousands die from pollution related causes every year. Let's bring the whole damn economy to a grinding halt because we want our precious "security".
"People who trade freedom for security deserve neither freedom nor security"
Re:Heh, heh, heh. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Heh, heh, heh. (Score:2, Insightful)
To those people: There is NO right or wrong way to raise your children. Child raising doesn't boil down into some algorithm that you can predict the outcome based on the variables. Your own childhood doesn't make you an expert on child raising. Your own experiences are 1/4 billionth of a possibility. I notice that the most vocal objectors don't even have kids. What a joke, that is like telling someone how they should write code, without ever touching a computer(My Slashdot analogy). I had all kinds of opinions about child raising, and as soon as I had my child, those got thrown out the window. To the ones with children, I guarantee you child react differently than mine. What you consider good parenting, I consider laziness. Be glad you have the right to do things your own way. and consider maybe my child has different needs than yours.
Whew I feel better now
Re:for a group who makes so much fun of psychology (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure takes the fun out of being a teen tho....thank God my folks didn't have this when I was young. I had a blast....but, didn't get into trouble, made my grades....worked etc. But, I ran around...partied...didn't get DWI's (hell, I got pulled over once half tanked, but, was close to home and the cop let me drive home warning I'd go to jail if he saw me out again that night, man, you'd not see THAT happen again these days).
There are only 'consequences' of actions if you do something wrong or get caught. Kids have to make mistakes and take chances in order to grow. If you parents are so over protective, how are you going to learn....and being young is the time to be a little reckless and have fun. You get to be 'resposible' and adult acting soon enough...
Re:Heh, heh, heh. (Score:3, Insightful)
Would you take advice on raising your kids from random people on the street just because one of them tells you he's a good parent?
Re:Heh, heh, heh. (Score:4, Insightful)
We didn't have cell phones. When I was young, in the summers (and note, both my parents worked) after I was old enough..12-13 I guess, I was home alone during the summers, and I'd often take off on my bike or skateboard and roam the neighborhood, or maybe a couple mile+ radius and run around with friends, we'd sometimes grab some wood from houses being built around us...and build skateboard ramps on a dead end street...build forts in the woods, go running around with our pellet guns, go swim in the neighborhood pool, ride down the the shopping centers, etc. When young, my only rule was to call mom at the office or if she was home, to call home ever 2-3 hours to check in and let her know where I was. Amazing none of my friends or I died, eh?
I just find it hard to believe that the world has become such a more dangerous place out there. I find it hard to believe there are that many more sex perv. out there than then, I think this is a side effect of 24 hour news channels needing SOMETHING to grab attention and headlines.
Hell, I think one of the reasons so many kids are so fucking obese is that they don't go outside and play and have physical activity. I grew up when video games were coming out, and I can assure you that we all found Pong, Odessy, Atari and the Fairchild system just as enthralling as the video games of today are to kids now, but, we didn't spend 24/7 playing them. We interacted with each other in the neighborhood. We didn't have all our activities 'planned'. Yet we still have fun and were healthy. Sure, we got into mischief. But that is part of being a kid isn't it?
I gotta say...even with all the neat toys, computers, internet and gadgets that kids have available to them today, I don't think I'd trade my childhood time for one during today.
It just seems so confining with parents so scared and over bearing.
You listen to the parents and the news of today, and you'd think that if you raised a kid today like I and my generation were raised, that the parents would be arrested for child neglect or child abuse. What the hell happened?
I was just thinking on this the other day while driving through a neighborhood during the summer. On days like this, you'd see us kids out all over the place on our bike, etc. The streets are largely empty out there now. Our parents had to drag us in usually to get us out of the heat and make us cool off.
I was also observing the other day, that there were nothing but lawn services out cutting yards. Do teens not go out to mow lawns anymore for extra $$? Where do they get their spending money when they are too young to work fast food or the like?
I guess it is a miracle that we all grew up and made it to adulthood all these generations prior to the last couple.
Re:for a group who makes so much fun of psychology (Score:3, Insightful)
That is truly great advice, but can be misused in the hands of idiot parents who substitute "Kids have to make mistakes" with "Kids should have no rules or discipline." Part of being a (good) parent is setting rules and limits, then justly punishing when their children do (and they always will) break the rules. What makes it difficult is that no two children are the same, so there isn't a one-size-fits-all crime/punishment rulebook to follow.
Great parents respect their kids, but they also "instill" respect in their kids for themselves and other adults. Bottom line, having/raising kids is a HUGE responsibility, and it should be treated as such...a HUGE responsibility.
Re:for a group who makes so much fun of psychology (Score:5, Insightful)
I got pulled over once half tanked, but, was close to home and the cop let me drive home warning I'd go to jail if he saw me out again that night, man, you'd not see THAT happen again these days
And well you shouldn't! You endangered everybody you encountered on the road that night. In my opinion, the cop was irresponsible to let you go. If getting pulled over for DWI vas a virtual guarantee of a visit to jail (assuming that you actually fail the test, of course) then maybe fewer people would be so casual about operating complicated and deadly machinery while under the influence of mind-numbing drugs.
Re:for a group who makes so much fun of psychology (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:for a group who makes so much fun of psychology (Score:5, Insightful)
You claim that many people can drive just fine at .08 BAC, do you have any cites or evidence for this? I ask simply because I don't believe it. I know that there are many people who think that they can drive just fine at .08 BAC (or some other level), but this is mainly because moderate amounts of alcohol tend to mess with your perception in such a way that you feel like you're doing the same as before, when in fact your reactions and judgement are significantly degraded. People who believe that they experience no impairment after "just a couple of beers" are, from what I've seen, just plain wrong about it.
Your rant against the police is very strange to me. You're taking charge of a large, dangerous machine, one which is dangerous not only to yourself but to anyone who comes near you. You owe it to yourself and to society to be in good mental condition when you do this.
I don't drink and drive, period. If I'm driving somewhere within the next couple of hours I do not drink. If I want to have a beer with dinner, I make sure that I can stay in the area for a while afterwards, or I go someplace within walking distance, or I have somebody else drive. I tried driving with "just one beer" a couple of times. I felt fine, with no effect on my driving. Thinking about it afterwards I realized that my reactions were significantly slower, and my judgement was much worse. So I never did it again.
I consider the legal limit to be quite a bit higher than it should be. I'm a pilot, and the FAA has very strict limits on alcohol. The BAC limit is .04, which is basically any detectable alcohol in the blood. In addition to this limit, they have a strict limit (hard to enforce, of course) that you may not drink any alcohol in the eight hours before you take the controls of an aircraft. This is vastly more strict than any automobile laws I'm aware of. But guess what, I've never heard any pilot complain about the rules.
The trick to avoiding police action is quite simple: if you drink, do not drive. They won't be able to convict you of anything if there isn't any alcohol in your blood. And you shouldn't have any alcohol in your blood while operating a car, no matter what the law allows.
I agree that the law should be based on a much broader definition of impairment, rather than being so specific to alcohol. But I think the standard of impairment should be much lower than it is as well.
Re:for a group who makes so much fun of psychology (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:for a group who makes so much fun of psychology (Score:3, Insightful)