FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB Philosophical Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 05:55 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 03-15-2002, 01:31 PM   #31
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Denver, Colorado, USA
Posts: 4,834
Post

Quote:
Originally posted by A. Milos:
<strong>1)Each person requires a differnent amount of alcohol in order to lose control, or have his judgment impaired.
2)Drinking over the limit does not mean that you are driving recklessly. You may or may not drive recklessly.
3)Reckless driving must be proven. It does not come automatic with driving over the limit.</strong>
Blood alcohol level is a very good proxy for how much your judgment has been impaired. It is easy to test. It is easy for the person at risk of facing charges to know what they can do and still be within the law. Being impaired by alcohol makes it likely that you will fail to drive carefully (recklessness means taking actions knowing that you will likely make a mistake). Requiring proof of recklessness is expensive to all involved to litigate, and misses cases where we known that it was very likely that someone was driving recklessly, but there were not witnesses.
ohwilleke is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:44 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.