Drinking & Driving

A mellow place for Bobcats to discuss topics free of political posturing

Moderators: rtb, kmax, SonomaCat

User avatar
mquast53000
2nd Team All-BobcatNation
Posts: 1233
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 4:45 pm
Location: Billings

Drinking & Driving

Post by mquast53000 » Mon Apr 11, 2005 11:31 am

No more drinking and driving in Mont.
Governor to sign law outlawing a cold one behind the wheelThe Associated Press
Updated: 4:50 p.m. ET April 8, 2005HELENA, Mont. - Some Montana motorists, the joke goes, measure distances driven by how many beers they can down along the way. But the long-cherished right to have a cold one behind the wheel is about to end.

advertisement

State lawmakers passed an open-container ban Friday that makes Montana one of the last states to outlaw drinking while driving.

The Montana House approved the bill 76-21 and sent it to Gov. Brian Schweitzer, who has said he will sign it. It takes effect Oct. 1.

Getting used to prohibition
The delay is designed to let Montanans get used to the prohibition, which until now had been found only in cities and towns, not out on the open highway.

Only Mississippi now lacks a state law against open containers, though many cities and counties there also prohibit open containers locally.

While Montana had stood to lose $5 million a year in federal highway funds if it failed to pass the law, the debate focused on balancing safety and personal freedom.

Montana has the highest rate of alcohol-related deaths, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Cultural change
“This is one of those laws that will start the cultural change that we need on the highways of Montana. We hope that just the existence of the law will make a difference,” said Lt. Col. Mike Tooley, deputy chief of the Montana Highway Patrol.

University of Montana sociologist Jim Burfeind said the state’s holdout status was understandable, given the long, lonely drives often required when only 927,000 people live in a state the size of New York, Pennsylvania and Ohio combined.

“We think we’re a very different place than other places and that we don’t have to run by the rules that other people have to in more congested areas,” Burfeind said.

To muster enough support for the bill, supporters accepted what some consider weak penalties for violations. A driver caught with an open container faces a $100 fine, and the offense does not show up on a person’s driving record.


FTG

User avatar
BelgradeBobcat
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 8131
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 9:52 pm
Location: Belgrade, Montana

Post by BelgradeBobcat » Mon Apr 11, 2005 11:42 am

Oh my gosh-our freedoms are being taken away. I think I'll lock myself in a "compound" and make my own license plates!

What's everybody think about driving and yaking on a cell phone?



Cat Grad
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 7463
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 11:05 am

Post by Cat Grad » Mon Apr 11, 2005 11:57 am

...well, when I was in college, there was a yahoo that got a ticket for speeding down Black ? on his bicycle and another for riding his horse impaired between Four Corners and the college...but seriously, things and times change. I guess there were more than a few times I was way too drunk to walk home, so I almost made it back and more than once actually passed out in the deputies control. He or she would drive me home and leave a note as to where my car was so I could get it the next day. Just like George, when I was young and irresponsible, I was young and irresponsible :oops: Very grateful I never hurt anyone or myself. Wonder what kind of penalties we'll have for the goofballs up over the hill that try to smoke perfectly good ropes...



User avatar
Cat-theotherwhitemeat
BobcatNation Hall of Famer
Posts: 3156
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 5:45 pm
Location: Billings
Contact:

Post by Cat-theotherwhitemeat » Mon Apr 11, 2005 1:37 pm

It's probably a good thing that this law passed.

Begrade, I'm 100% against any law prohibiting cell phone use in the car.


My avatar does not now, nor has in the past, depict a person of mentally challenged state. If you have a problem with it, please call the U.S. department of Bite my A$$. MTBuff/Administrator.

WYCAT
Member # Retired
Posts: 2810
Joined: Sat Sep 18, 2004 5:19 pm
Location: Wyoming
Contact:

Post by WYCAT » Mon Apr 11, 2005 2:53 pm

Cat-theotherwhitemeat wrote:It's probably a good thing that this law passed.

Begrade, I'm 100% against any law prohibiting cell phone use in the car.
I don't think banning cell phone use is practical in the world we live in but requiring a hands-free feature is probably not a bad idea.



User avatar
El_Gato
Member # Retired
Posts: 2926
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 5:07 pm
Location: Kalispell

Post by El_Gato » Tue Apr 12, 2005 5:29 pm

I don't get it; as far as I know, it is perfectly legit for me to consume alcohol someplace legal AND THEN drive my car as long as I'm not over the Federally mandated blood/alcohol level of .08% (not sure if that's the correct way to put it, but you know what I mean).

But if I'm consuming that same alcohol in my car, and I'm BELOW THE LEGAL LEVEL, can someone PLEASE tell me why that's now illegal? Let's face it, since we're all good Bobcats and enjoyed our time at MSU, I'm guessing most, if not all, of us have gotten behind the wheel WELL over the legal limit. Ask yourself this, however: How many times did you climb in your car sober, and then end up drunk by the time you get back out of the car? I'd say NEVER in my case.

I don't drink much at all anymore compared to my MSU days (of course, back then I drank enough for any 10 people), but I do know that an oil can of Foster's Lager is the perfect fit for my 45 minute weekend drives to the lake and I guarantee you it doesn't come close to putting me over the limit. But now, once again, our "leaders" have decided that I'm a criminal for doing something I've done safely for 13 years now...

chip chip chip chip....

(that's the sound of our individual freedoms being chipped away one seemingly meaningless law after another....)
Last edited by El_Gato on Tue Apr 12, 2005 5:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.


Grizzlies: 2-5 when it matters most

User avatar
SonomaCat
Moderator
Posts: 23960
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 7:56 pm
Location: Sonoma County, CA
Contact:

Post by SonomaCat » Tue Apr 12, 2005 5:58 pm

El_Gato wrote:I don't get it; as far as I know, it is perfectly legit for me to consume alcohol someplace legal AND THEN drive my car as long as I'm not over the Federally mandated blood/alcohol level of .08% (not sure if that's the correct way to put it, but you know what I mean).

But if I'm consuming that same alcohol in my car, and I'm BELOW THE LEGAL LEVEL, can someone PLEASE tell me why that's now illegal? Let's face it, since we're all good Bobcats and enjoyed our time at MSU, I'm guessing most, if not all, of us have gotten behind the wheel WELL over the legal limit. Ask yourself this, however: How many times did you climb in your car sober, and then end up drunk by the time you get back out of the car? I'd say NEVER in my case.

I don't drink much at all anymore compared to my MSU days (of course, back then I drank enough for any 10 people), but I do know that an oil can of Foster's Lager is the perfect fit for my 45 minute weekend drives to the lake and I guarantee you it doesn't come close to putting me over the limit. But now, once again, our "leaders" have decided that I'm a criminal for doing something I've done safely for 13 years now...

chip chip chip chip....

(that's the sound of our individual freedoms being chipped away one seemingly meaningless law after another....)
Not shockingly, I have to disagree, but not for the usual fun reasons. I unfortunately have way too much personal knowledge on this topic, and I have no doubt that zero tolerance is the best approach. You can technically get a DUI for having any alcohol in your system (impairment can be a judgment call of the cop), but the 0.08 limit is the absolute bright line test from which there is no valid defense.

If you've never gotten drunk during the course of drinking and driving, you are certainly the exception. It only takes two beers to get there, and I would say most people I have ever been with who were drinking and driving beat that easily during a trip of any length. In retrospect, that's scary.

This one is a no-brainer to me, and long overdue (at least as it relates to the driver -- passengers are a bit more of a debatable issue to me). ANY amount of alcohol impairs your ability to drive, increasing with each sip. We shouldn't tempt fate by ever having even one beer before driving, much less while driving.

Just don't risk it -- trust me, DUI's really, really suck, but they are infinitely better than killing someone due to impaired reflexes. Have a country time lemonade on the drive -- it will be you alert and won't dim the senses one bit. Then, when you are done driving for the day, drink like a fish.

This is a simple safety issue, not a curtailment of rights that any of us need to have.



User avatar
Cat-theotherwhitemeat
BobcatNation Hall of Famer
Posts: 3156
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 5:45 pm
Location: Billings
Contact:

Post by Cat-theotherwhitemeat » Tue Apr 12, 2005 6:04 pm

El, I agree with you whole-heartedly. However, Montana would have lost federal money and that was probably the main reason behind the push. In my own case, I'll still drink a beer (if I'm sober) behind the wheel on a hot summer day. Until recenlty I always thought that it was against the law anyway.


My avatar does not now, nor has in the past, depict a person of mentally challenged state. If you have a problem with it, please call the U.S. department of Bite my A$$. MTBuff/Administrator.

User avatar
Bleedinbluengold
BobcatNation Hall of Famer
Posts: 3427
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2004 10:24 am
Location: Belly of the Beast

Post by Bleedinbluengold » Tue Apr 12, 2005 6:09 pm

El_Gato wrote: chip chip chip chip....

(that's the sound of our individual freedoms being chipped away one seemingly meaningless law after another....)
I hate to break it to ya, but as soon as the Gubmint went beyond the Bill 'O Rights, your freedoms were being limited...you may thank the 14th Amendment in this case...

I would hazard to guess that there might be some beneficial use to the new law, which might be analogous to the seat belt law previously passed.

In your case, why would such a law be any factor?...it's easy enough to discreetly continue sipping refreshment without anyone seeing you do it...and it's probably easier to get away with it if you are passenger.



User avatar
mquast53000
2nd Team All-BobcatNation
Posts: 1233
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 4:45 pm
Location: Billings

Post by mquast53000 » Wed Apr 13, 2005 8:30 am

Bay Area Cat I have to agree with you 100%. Do you really need a beer while driving? I think most people can wait. I believe if this law saves one person’s life then it is worth it. This really is a no brainier of a law. In today’s world you don’t need a beer while you drive. You have to remember that this law is for the protection of the people not in the car.

I do have to say though that I think the seat belt law is ridicules. It is like the motorcycle helmet law… you can’t protect everyone! I can see a cop harassing people simply by saying that they didn’t think the person they pulled over was wearing their seat belt. Soon they are going to tell people that they can’t smoke in public places! Oh, wait they already have…


FTG

User avatar
BelgradeBobcat
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 8131
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 9:52 pm
Location: Belgrade, Montana

Post by BelgradeBobcat » Wed Apr 13, 2005 8:58 am

As I've heard it explained before-your constitutional right to swing your arm stops where it hits my face.

Your right to drink while driving ends where you run over someone else.

Driving is dangerous business-almost 40,000 people are killed in this country every year in motor vehicle accidents-getting in a car is proabably the most dangerous thing you'll do today. Add alchohol to the equation...

Which brings us to seat belt laws. The arguments against them make lots of sense. The problem is-seat belt laws work.



WYCAT
Member # Retired
Posts: 2810
Joined: Sat Sep 18, 2004 5:19 pm
Location: Wyoming
Contact:

Post by WYCAT » Wed Apr 13, 2005 9:07 am

Bay Area Cat wrote:This one is a no-brainer to me, and long overdue (at least as it relates to the driver -- passengers are a bit more of a debatable issue to me). ANY amount of alcohol impairs your ability to drive, increasing with each sip. We shouldn't tempt fate by ever having even one beer before driving, much less while driving.
Come on BAC. Can you honestly say that a beer on a drive anywhere really imposes a threat? There is absolutely no way you can convince me I or anyone else is more dangerous after or during a drink than before. No one is argueing that either driving after drinking a lot or while drinking a lot is wrong and should be illegal but having an open container in a vehicle is not even in the same category. I think what this boils down to is someone else is making decisions that in individual should be making for him/herself. Gato is right - chip, chip, chip.............



User avatar
mquast53000
2nd Team All-BobcatNation
Posts: 1233
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 4:45 pm
Location: Billings

Post by mquast53000 » Wed Apr 13, 2005 9:08 am

BelgradeBobcat wrote:Which brings us to seat belt laws. The arguments against them make lots of sense. The problem is-seat belt laws work.
Of course you can make a law that will always save a life, but the law would negate a person's own beliefs or choices. You could make it a law that says a person cannot be obese (how many lives would that save?). I think that congress (both state and federal) is trying to impede in our lives a little too much when they are telling us "this is for your own good".


FTG

WYCAT
Member # Retired
Posts: 2810
Joined: Sat Sep 18, 2004 5:19 pm
Location: Wyoming
Contact:

Post by WYCAT » Wed Apr 13, 2005 9:12 am

mquast53000 wrote:
BelgradeBobcat wrote:Which brings us to seat belt laws. The arguments against them make lots of sense. The problem is-seat belt laws work.
Of course you can make a law that will always save a life, but the law would negate a person's own beliefs or choices. You could make it a law that says a person cannot be obese (how many lives would that save?). I think that congress (both state and federal) is trying to impede in our lives a little too much when they are telling us "this is for your own good".
Exactly right. What is next, setting levels on the amount of fat or calories consumed in a day? How about a fine or imprisonment if you get a sunburn and don't use sunscreen? We all know the danger of overexposure to sun and there are a bunch of products available to protect us. How about setting minimum exercise requirements for individuals. Everyone must put in at least 1 hour/day of exercise as outlined by your state government. We all know the value of staying in shape.



User avatar
BelgradeBobcat
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 8131
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 9:52 pm
Location: Belgrade, Montana

Post by BelgradeBobcat » Wed Apr 13, 2005 9:23 am

mquast53000 wrote: You could make it a law that says a person cannot be obese (how many lives would that save?).
You probably couldn't make a law prohibiting obseity, but you good make a law prohibiting the obese from wearing spandex! :lol:

Like I said, the arguments against seatbelt use are very good-but many, many lives have been saved because of them. These days cars sqawk and beep at you if you don't buckle up so maybe the laws are becoming less necessary. But it's not just the driver they're protecting-how about passengers-especially kids. Before seatbelt laws my parents never buckled up and they didn't think to require me as kid to do so either. Did my parents have a right to endanger my life in such a way? Personally I think it's quite a stretch to say that buckling up is seriously impeding my freedom.



WYCAT
Member # Retired
Posts: 2810
Joined: Sat Sep 18, 2004 5:19 pm
Location: Wyoming
Contact:

Post by WYCAT » Wed Apr 13, 2005 9:29 am

A parent not buckling up a child is totally different than a grown adult choosing to not buckle himself and only himself. Who stands to be hurt by me not buckling up if I am driving myself and only myself?

By the way, just for the record - I can't remember the last time I drove without buckling up. It is just part of driving for me so I am not saying I don't think it is a good idea but rather I don't need the government telling me I have to do it. Big difference.



User avatar
BelgradeBobcat
Golden Bobcat
Posts: 8131
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 9:52 pm
Location: Belgrade, Montana

Post by BelgradeBobcat » Wed Apr 13, 2005 9:30 am

WYCAT wrote:
Bay Area Cat wrote:This one is a no-brainer to me, and long overdue (at least as it relates to the driver -- passengers are a bit more of a debatable issue to me). ANY amount of alcohol impairs your ability to drive, increasing with each sip. We shouldn't tempt fate by ever having even one beer before driving, much less while driving.
Come on BAC. Can you honestly say that a beer on a drive anywhere really imposes a threat? There is absolutely no way you can convince me I or anyone else is more dangerous after or during a drink than before. No one is argueing that either driving after drinking a lot or while drinking a lot is wrong and should be illegal but having an open container in a vehicle is not even in the same category. I think what this boils down to is someone else is making decisions that in individual should be making for him/herself. Gato is right - chip, chip, chip.............
Well WYCAT you know yourself better than any of us-but I've known a lot of guys who think they can handle their liquor better than they really can. I had a friend who was convinced he was a much more careful and safer driver when he was drunk! Maybe the law is for weaker people such as myself who treat beer like lays potato chips-"you can't have just one"! Do you really want to be sharing the road with someone who's been sipping on a six pack for the last 100 miles?



User avatar
SonomaCat
Moderator
Posts: 23960
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 7:56 pm
Location: Sonoma County, CA
Contact:

Post by SonomaCat » Wed Apr 13, 2005 9:39 am

WYCAT wrote:
Bay Area Cat wrote:This one is a no-brainer to me, and long overdue (at least as it relates to the driver -- passengers are a bit more of a debatable issue to me). ANY amount of alcohol impairs your ability to drive, increasing with each sip. We shouldn't tempt fate by ever having even one beer before driving, much less while driving.
Come on BAC. Can you honestly say that a beer on a drive anywhere really imposes a threat? There is absolutely no way you can convince me I or anyone else is more dangerous after or during a drink than before. No one is argueing that either driving after drinking a lot or while drinking a lot is wrong and should be illegal but having an open container in a vehicle is not even in the same category. I think what this boils down to is someone else is making decisions that in individual should be making for him/herself. Gato is right - chip, chip, chip.............
Yes, one beer impairs one's ability to drive. Perhaps not severely, but it does absolutely impair you. Does it make everyone a vicious threat to society? Not necessarily, but it makes them less safe drivers, without question.

I think the larger scope of this law is to try to curb the culture of drinking and driving that exists in the state. Yes, perhaps in a perfect world, we would trust everyone to monitor their blood alcohol content on their own and be absolutely aware of the extent to which their driving skills were impaired at all times, and then choosing to not drive when they were impaired. Unfortunately, people have neither the ability (as alcohol impairs judgment even quicker than motor skills) nor necessarily the ethics (witnessed by the number of hands that would have to go up when asking how many people in Montana have driven while drunk, whether they got caught or not) to live without laws like this.

So yes, if not one person ever drank more than one beer while driving, then the danger isn't great -- but it's still greater than it is without drinking that one beer. However, if there a single compelling TO have a beer while driving? Outside of exercising the freedom to do so? It makes us more dangerous, and almost always leads to another beer. I've been in lots of pickups in lots of Montana towns that had twelve packs sitting on the seat, and I think most of the rest of us have. Just having one beer is pretty rare.
Last edited by SonomaCat on Wed Apr 13, 2005 9:41 am, edited 1 time in total.



grizbeer
BobcatNation Letterman
Posts: 330
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2004 11:00 am
Location: Missoula

Post by grizbeer » Wed Apr 13, 2005 9:43 am

BelgradeBobcat wrote:
WYCAT wrote:
Bay Area Cat wrote:This one is a no-brainer to me, and long overdue (at least as it relates to the driver -- passengers are a bit more of a debatable issue to me). ANY amount of alcohol impairs your ability to drive, increasing with each sip. We shouldn't tempt fate by ever having even one beer before driving, much less while driving.
Come on BAC. Can you honestly say that a beer on a drive anywhere really imposes a threat? There is absolutely no way you can convince me I or anyone else is more dangerous after or during a drink than before. No one is argueing that either driving after drinking a lot or while drinking a lot is wrong and should be illegal but having an open container in a vehicle is not even in the same category. I think what this boils down to is someone else is making decisions that in individual should be making for him/herself. Gato is right - chip, chip, chip.............
Well WYCAT you know yourself better than any of us-but I've known a lot of guys who think they can handle their liquor better than they really can. I had a friend who was convinced he was a much more careful and safer driver when he was drunk! Maybe the law is for weaker people such as myself who treat beer like lays potato chips-"you can't have just one"! Do you really want to be sharing the road with someone who's been sipping on a six pack for the last 100 miles?
A six pack in 100 miles? Figure an average speed of 75 miles per hour, that is a beer every 13 minutes. No, I don't want that guy driving next to me, but think about this - will this law prevent someone from drinking those 6 beers in 80 minutes while driving? I would guess if they were willing to possibly kill someone, or at least lose their lisense and spend the night in jail a $100 fine (or even a $500 or $1000 fine) for drinking in the car won't stop them.

Interesting that motor homes and campers are exempt. It was already illegal to drive while impaired, so I guess I don't know how this law makes us safer, except that it is just another step necessary to get to a 0% BAC law.



User avatar
mquast53000
2nd Team All-BobcatNation
Posts: 1233
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 4:45 pm
Location: Billings

Post by mquast53000 » Wed Apr 13, 2005 9:46 am

BelgradeBobcat wrote: Personally I think it's quite a stretch to say that buckling up is seriously impeding my freedom.
You’re right this single law is not a huge deal. Yet a person always comes back to the old saying "Give a person an inch and then they will take a mile". A grown person should be able to drink Old Milwaukee while smoking a pack of Camels and enjoying a #3 from McDonalds. That is a person’s choice, and if that same person chooses to buckle up, good for them! People do not need the government telling them what is good for them (I think we all know what is good for us and not good for us). I just hate to think that “Big Brother” is always watching out for me. Hell, I already have a wife telling me what to do; I don’t need my elected officials doing the same…


FTG

Post Reply