h a l f b a k e r yOpen other side.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
I propose that one may take his/her driving test at varying levels of intoxication; passing said driving test at say twice the 'legal' limit (both parts - practical and written) allows that person to legally drive at twice the standard legal limit.
You can choose to take the test at any level you
wish, and if you pass you are legally allowed to drive at that level of intoxication. If you fail however - you will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law for driving over the limit (in your test). So its a risky business taking the test and this prevents drunken monkeys repeatedly taking the test until they eventually pass.
Slurred Speech Detector
Slurred_20Speech_20Detector
[theircompetitor, Nov 08 2005]
[link]
|
| |
Do we really need to explain why this is such a very bad idea? |
|
| |
My first instinct is to fish but upon consideration, if somebody is able to pass their driving test under the influence, why shouldn't they drive hammered? After all, we know that different people have different tolerance levels to alcohol and the only reason we frown on drink driving is that it makes drivers unsafe. If somebody can prove under test conditions that they can control their vehicle safely with a certain blood alcohol level, then why not? I suppose it erodes the concept of being as alert as possible when driving but if they're as alert as the next man as certified by test... |
|
| |
Good Idea for you, maybe; but, put it into the hands of voters and I sense trouble. |
|
| |
nice to see your coming with me on this one... i would like the explanation actually if you wouldn't mind. |
|
| |
Designated driver: Member of group who passed the test with the highest blood alcohol level. |
|
| |
A deeper examination of the issue reveals that legal definitions of immunity from prosecution, as is this Idea, fail a test of the public good. You find trouble evolves when you offer gratuitous relief to many, but benefit to none. |
|
| |
(covers one eye with both hands) |
|
| |
Why is this a bad idea? Well, you're involving a government body in putting drunk people on the roads, with no guarantee they will pass. If, and it's a fair likelihood, someone crashes, the government could be held liable for failing to stop them. |
|
| |