Friends don't let friends drive............drowsy!

[Albinonewt]

Article (http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/09/30/drowsy.drivers.ap/index.html)


Can you imagine being pulled over by an officer?

"Son, do you know why I pulled you over?"
"Because I was driving erractically?"
"Yes, son, are you sleepy?"
"Good God no officer, I would never do something as irresponsible as driving drowsy, I'm drunk!"
"Well then, I'm sorry for the inconvenience, carry on."

[xadamx]

damned yankees--always making up stupid laws

[hitech]

Driving while fatigued causes the same problems as driving while intoxicated. In the study I saw those that were fatigued did no better than those that were intoxicated. Since it is just as dangerous, why shouldn’t it be just as illegal as driving while intoxicated?

[Albinonewt]

Because it's purely subjective. Being drunk can be tested simply by doing a breathelizer test. Being drowsy, how does on test that? There is not an objective way to determine who is illegally tired and who is just low key. This makes it practically unenforceable. And, frankly, it's a dumb thing to regulate. It's probably just as dangereous to drive with a headache, what are we going to do next, subject everyone that get's pulled over to a CAT scan so we can determine if they had a headache?

[Jack_Dubious]

Originally posted by xadamx
damned yankees--always making up stupid laws

Dumb Virginia Laws (http://www.dumblaws.com/states/states.php?State=Virginia)

:D:p

JDub

[hitech]

Originally posted by Albinonewt
Because it's purely subjective. It's probably just as dangerous to drive with a headache...

It is not actually subjective, just hard to test for. However, since it's hard to test for it should be legal? I doubt it's anywhere near as dangerous to drive with a headache. However, if it were it should also be illegal.

Personally, I think the tests to determine if you are competent to drive should not be based on blood alcohol level, etc. They should be based on those abilities necessary to drive (such as reaction time). However, that still wouldn't work for driving while asleep. You tend to wake up when pulled over. ;)

You aren't likely to see many (if any) tickets issued for driving while fatigued. Instead, you will see increased jail time for causing an accident while doing so.

[Albinonewt]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by hitech
It is not actually subjective, just hard to test for. However, since it's hard to test for it should be legal? I doubt it's anywhere near as dangerous to drive with a headache. However, if it were it should also be illegal.

Then should it be illegal to drive while angry, depressed, frustrated, anxious, after breaking up with a boyfriend, homesick, with a rash, a sprained ankle, a severe itch? The world is a dangereous place. Not everything can be regulated. Sometimes you just have to roll the dice.

And how would a police officer in his squad car definitivly test whether a person was tired?


Personally, I think the tests to determine if you are competent to drive should not be based on blood alcohol level, etc. They should be based on those abilities necessary to drive (such as reaction time). However, that still wouldn't work for driving while asleep. You tend to wake up when pulled over. ;)

So you want a cop to pull people over and subject them to a series of lab tests?

You aren't likely to see many (if any) tickets issued for driving while fatigued. Instead, you will see increased jail time for causing an accident while doing so.

Which is why it's a stupid law. It's illegal to kill someone with your car, but it's MORE illegal to do it while sleepy?

It puts an undue stree on society. There's no good reason to drive while drunk. There's usually plenty of opportunity to either avoid driving or avoid drinking. It should be illegal because any responsible person can avoid it and it can be definitivly and objectivly tested for.

Being sleepy however is not the same. Sometimes you have to go somewhere when you're tired, and there's nothing you can do about it. If I have to get a designated driver everytime I'm drowsy I might as well hand in my keys.

It's dumb.

[hitech]

Originally posted by Albinonewt
So you want a cop to pull people over and subject them to a series of lab tests?


They do now for drunk driving.


Originally posted by Albinonewt
Which is why it's a stupid law. It's illegal to kill someone with your car, but it's MORE illegal to do it while sleepy?

It's not illegal to kill someone with your car if you did nothing wrong. It is illegal to kill someone with your car if you are doing something wrong. It is "more" illegal to kill someone with your car if you are doing something that you know (or should know) is dangerous. They have added driving while to tired to operate a car to the list of dangerous actions. Since it is...


Originally posted by Albinonewt
There's usually plenty of opportunity to either avoid driving or avoid drinking...Being sleepy, however, is not the same. Sometimes you have to go somewhere when you're tired, and there's nothing you can do about it.

This is the attitude the law seeks to change. First, it's not illegal to drive if you are sleepy. It is illegal to drive if you are fatigued enough to impair your ability to operate a car to the point that it becomes dangerous. If you are that tired, you need to pull over for 15-20 minutes. You can kill someone if you fall asleep while driving.

BTW, I have "fallen asleep" while driving more than just about anyone I know. I can drive very well when I'm barely awake (years of practice). I pull over now. My own attitude has changed. Causing a car accident and injuring and possibly killing someone just isn't worth 15 minutes of my life.

[Albinonewt]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by hitech
They do now for drunk driving.

No they don't. The breathelizer is a very simple to use device that can be emploed on the side of the road and takes only moments. I know of no comparable Droziness test. If there is, I will stand corrected, but I've never heard of one.

It's not illegal to kill someone with your car if you did nothing wrong. It is illegal to kill someone with your car if you are doing something wrong. It is "more" illegal to kill someone with your car if you are doing something that you know (or should know) is dangerous. They have added driving while to tired to operate a car to the list of dangerous actions. Since it is...

So the benefit to society is that the one death in 1997 is acoided and the cost is tired people aren't allowed on the road anymore? What do people that end up working long hours do now? Live at work? It's a ridiculous burden to society for practically zero gain.


This is the attitude the law seeks to change. First, it's not illegal to drive if you are sleepy. It is illegal to drive if you are fatigued enough to impair your ability to operate a car to the point that it becomes dangerous. If you are that tired, you need to pull over for 15-20 minutes. You can kill someone if you fall asleep while driving.

It says (and I haven't read the law, simply the article) the penalties will be enforced if it is believed that sleepiness contributed or caused the accident. Aside from someone being asleep when driving, how exactly do we determine obhectivly how sleepy a person was? There isn't a method that I know of that can determine such a thing. We can determine if a person was drunk by checking their BAH levels, but what exists to check for sleepiness?

BTW, I have "fallen asleep" while driving more than just about anyone I know. I can drive very well when I'm barely awake (years of practice). I pull over now. My own attitude has changed. Causing a car accident and injuring and possibly killing someone just isn't worth 15 minutes of my life.

We have a law for that kind of behavior already, recklessness. Adding a law like this is just stupid, serves no benefit, and helps nobody. How do you tell cops they have to enforce sleepiness on the roads now?

[Python14]

It's a waste of resources to try and regulate, or control something that has no definitive cause. It'd be like making it illegal to laugh while driving, or sneeze, or yawn, or blow your nose, or anything vaguely distracting.

Seriously, it's a waste of lawmakers time and tax payers money to make a law so useless as this.

[Albinonewt]

Thank you Python :)

[hitech]

Originally posted by Albinonewt
No they don't. The breathalyzer is a very simple to use device that can be employed on the side of the road and takes only moments. I know of no comparable Droziness test.

It is still a "lab" test. And at least in CA you cannot be convicted by that test alone. You still need a real lab test. A test for reaction times (the example I listed) is just as easy to perform and the equipment is cheaper. I agreed that testing for fatigue is not practical.


Originally posted by Albinonewt
So the benefit to society is that the one death in 1997 is acoided and the cost is tired people aren't allowed on the road anymore? What do people that end up working long hours do now? Live at work? It's a ridiculous burden to society for practically zero gain.

The benefit is in changing peoples attitudes. Just like the seat belt laws did. Just like the child car seat laws did. What do you do if you work late? Drive home. If you find that you cannot stay awake then you need to pull over for a short time. Most people will "recover" enough to drive safely again in 15 minutes. What is wrong with stopping for 15 minutes if you are to tired to drive safely?


Originally posted by Albinonewt
Aside from someone being asleep when driving, how exactly do we determine objectively how sleepy a person was?

I don't know. However, many, many, many laws do not have a subjective test. many, many, many times it is up to a jury to decide.



Originally posted by Albinonewt
We have a law for that kind of behavior already, recklessness. Adding a law like this is just stupid, serves no benefit, and helps nobody...[/B]

It helps define a situation that is reckless. It allows juries to consider it. And hopefully and more importantly it helps educate the public. If it works there will be fewer accidents and deaths.

[hitech]

Originally posted by Python14
It's a waste of resources to try and regulate, or control something that has no definitive cause.


I assume you mean no definitive test. It has a definitive cause(s). It won't be the first law that has no definitive test. Do you know what the speeding law in California is? It is illegal to drive faster than is safe for the current conditions. That's it. No mention of speed limits, etc.



Originally posted by Python14
Seriously, it's a waste of lawmakers time and tax payers money to make a law so useless as this.

I doubt those who prosecute the offenders would agree. However, it's greatest benefit is in sparking discussions on the dangers of driving while too tired to safely operate a car. :D

[Albinonewt]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by hitech
It is still a "lab" test. And at least in CA you cannot be convicted by that test alone. You still need a real lab test. A test for reaction times (the example I listed) is just as easy to perform and the equipment is cheaper. I agreed that testing for fatigue is not practical.

But that was my point, that there is not a practical fatigue test that can be done roadside, and there is for BAC.


The benefit is in changing peoples attitudes. Just like the seat belt laws did. Just like the child car seat laws did. What do you do if you work late? Drive home. If you find that you cannot stay awake then you need to pull over for a short time. Most people will "recover" enough to drive safely again in 15 minutes. What is wrong with stopping for 15 minutes if you are to tired to drive safely?

I have nothing wrong with people being responsible, I have something against legislating these "attitude" changes. It is insane, unproductive, and not useful to create legislation everytime a new trend emerges. What do we do when legislators decided it is illegal to drive a car while angry?



I don't know. However, many, many, many laws do not have a subjective test. many, many, many times it is up to a jury to decide.

And I'd probably be against any example of said laws.


It helps define a situation that is reckless. It allows juries to consider it. And hopefully and more importantly it helps educate the public. If it works there will be fewer accidents and deaths.

It doesn't help define a reckless situation, it creates an entirly new situation. If they wanted to expand the definition of what a reckless situation is they could have, but they didn't.

[Albinonewt]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by hitech
I assume you mean no definitive test. It has a definitive cause(s). It won't be the first law that has no definitive test. Do you know what the speeding law in California is? It is illegal to drive faster than is safe for the current conditions. That's it. No mention of speed limits, etc.

Then it isn't the first bad law.

And California doesn't count, nothing there makes sense.


I doubt those who prosecute the offenders would agree. However, it's greatest benefit is in sparking discussions on the dangers of driving while too tired to safely operate a car. :D

But those who prosecute the offenders already have the tools they need to put people that fall asleep and cause accidents behind bars. There are several examples in that article of such cases.

[hitech]

Originally posted by Albinonewt
And California doesn't count, nothing there makes sense.


Now you sound like my wife! ;) She saws California is another country! ;)

[Albinonewt]

Originally posted by hitech
Now you sound like my wife! ;) She saws California is another country! ;)

Your wife sounds like a smart lady. California isn't another country........














.....But it should be.

[-=Squid=-]

I read that in the newspaper this morning...pretty silly if you ask me...