Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    07 Jan '12 04:12
    BBC Radio Ulster: "Everyday Ethics" 4th December 2011.

    Intro: "DRINK DRIVING LAWS - SHOULD THERE BE A CHANGE IN THE LAW? Dr. Sean Gabb, Director, Libertarian Alliance, claims that police should only intervene if a person's driving is erratic and discusses this with advertising agency boss David Lyle, who's helped write most of the anti-drink drive campaigns across Ireland."

    Dr Gabb: "Well people often like to portray me as someone who believes that road deaths are a good thing. I don't. I don't believe that people should be allowed to commit crimes while they are driving. I don't like dangerous driving. If someone is driving dangerously the police should have the right to stop them. And to find out what's going on."

    "The problem with these drink-drive campaigns is that they are absolutely indiscriminate. The overwhelming majority of people stopped are not driving erratically. The overwhelming majority of people tested are not over the limit. This is simply random stop-and-search. And it soaks up enormous police resources. There are fewer police available to catch burglars or muggers at Christmas time. It's a breech of our common law rights. And it's the wrong approach."

    "If someone gets into a car while incapable of handling it, and harms someone else's life, he should be punished for an assault. And if he kills someone through dangerous driving he should be charged with murder and punished for murder. I am not saying that we should take a soft approach to people who commit crimes while behind the wheel. I'm just looking at a different and more effective way of doing it."

    Any thoughts on this libertarian stance?

    mp3 of the complete discussion: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=F3XF7L46

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_Gabb
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Alliance
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drink_driver
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b017vcpr
  2. 07 Jan '12 05:36
    Originally posted by FMF
    BBC Radio Ulster: "Everyday Ethics" 4th December 2011.

    [i]Intro: "DRINK DRIVING LAWS - SHOULD THERE BE A CHANGE IN THE LAW? Dr. Sean Gabb, Director, Libertarian Alliance, claims that police should only intervene if a person's driving is erratic and discusses this with advertising agency boss David Lyle, who's helped write most of the anti-drink drive campaign ...[text shortened]... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drink_driver
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b017vcpr
    If someone gets into a car while incapable of handling it, and harms someone else's life, he should be punished for an assault. And if he kills someone through dangerous driving he should be charged with murder and punished for murder. I am not saying that we should take a soft approach to people who commit crimes while behind the wheel. I'm just looking at a different and more effective way of doing it.


    I have an idea: Add the assault/murder charges approach to the existing approach for a while, prosecute and publicize injury/death/convictions rates, then if those steps are effective, consider removing the approach of "random stop and search." Then see the effect of that. Also keep track of recidivism of those convicted.

    But also, take a look at civil liability for costs of accidents caused by a drunk driver. Keep track of frequency of drivers leaving the scene of an accident. Etc.
  3. 07 Jan '12 07:55 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by FMF
    BBC Radio Ulster: "Everyday Ethics" 4th December 2011.

    Intro: "DRINK DRIVING LAWS - SHOULD THERE BE A CHANGE IN THE LAW? Dr. Sean Gabb, Director, Libertarian Alliance, claims that police should only intervene if a person's driving is erratic and discusses this with advertising agency boss David Lyle, who's helped write most of the anti-drink drive campaign en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drink_driver
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b017vcpr
    That's actually the dumbest thing I ever heard. Intent should definitely play a role in the crime you're charged with and the punishment you receive. There are a number of crimes that fit one person killing another, from varying degrees of murder to various types of manslaughter (including vehicular manslaughter).

    What I read from that isn't that he's against drinking and driving laws, he just doesn't like random stops. I would be curious to know where he got his stats from that the "vast majority" of people tested for DUI/DWI end up not being over the legal limit.
  4. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    07 Jan '12 08:12
    Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
    What I read from that isn't that he's against drinking and driving laws, he just doesn't like random stops. I would be curious to know where he got his stats from that the "vast majority" of people tested for DUI/DWI end up not being over the legal limit.
    I only typed out the opening statement he made. In fact he believes that consuming alcohol and then driving should not be illegal, but that actual acts of dangerous driving - whether they be caused by alcohol or not - should be the illegal thing. There's the audio at that link. And elsewhere you can read about his call for the repeal of all drink-drive laws, not just the parts about random stops.
  5. 07 Jan '12 10:05 / 1 edit
    It is well known that alcohol impairs driving ability for anyone, even if it's not immediately apparent as reckless driving. So this stance is really quite ridiculous and drink driving should be banned as it is.

    I'm not sure if this is a "libertarian" stance even if this guy is a self-identified libertarian. From what I understand, most libertarians would be in favour of banning behaviour that deliberately puts others at grave risk of injury or death.
  6. 07 Jan '12 12:15
    Originally posted by FMF
    BBC Radio Ulster: "Everyday Ethics" 4th December 2011.

    [i]Intro: "DRINK DRIVING LAWS - SHOULD THERE BE A CHANGE IN THE LAW? Dr. Sean Gabb, Director, Libertarian Alliance, claims that police should only intervene if a person's driving is erratic and discusses this with advertising agency boss David Lyle, who's helped write most of the anti-drink drive campaign ...[text shortened]... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drink_driver
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b017vcpr
    How about if you randomly stop someone and they are an illegal? They obviously have not been through proper training and may not even be able to read the signs on the road.

    So should people be randomly stopped to see if they are illegal as well?
  7. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    07 Jan '12 12:20
    Originally posted by whodey
    How about if you randomly stop someone and they are an illegal? They obviously have not been through proper training and may not even be able to read the signs on the road.

    So should people be randomly stopped to see if they are illegal as well?
    That'd make an interesting thread, whodey - if you'd like to start one, perhaps? Any thoughts on the 'libertarian' take [cited in the OP] on Drink Driving laws?
  8. 07 Jan '12 12:31 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by FMF
    That'd make an interesting thread, whodey - if you'd like to start one, perhaps? Any thoughts on the 'libertarian' take [cited in the OP] on Drink Driving laws?
    My only point here is that they ONLY seem to be targeting those that drink rather than targeting "unsafe" drivers.

    It seems to me then to be a type of discrimination of sorts. In fact, what of those who smoke weed? Do they test for that?
  9. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    07 Jan '12 12:56 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by whodey
    My only point here is that they ONLY seem to be targeting those that drink rather than targeting "unsafe" drivers.
    Police target drink-drivers and they also target "unsafe" drivers in places like the U.K. and Australia. Perhaps it is different in the U.S. What makes you think it is an either/or choice?
  10. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    07 Jan '12 13:00
    Originally posted by whodey
    It seems to me then to be a type of discrimination of sorts. In fact, what of those who smoke weed? Do they test for that?
    Driving under the influence of drugs other than alcohol would perhaps be indicated by a blood test.

    But let's get this straight: trying to enforce drink-driving laws discriminates against people who break drink-driving laws? Is that what you are saying?
  11. 07 Jan '12 13:10
    Originally posted by FMF
    Driving under the influence of drugs other than alcohol would perhaps be indicated by a blood test.

    But let's get this straight: trying to enforce drink-driving laws discriminates against people who break drink-driving laws? Is that what you are saying?
    You know what I'm saying. I'm saying that there are a myriad of things that can make one an "unsafe" driver, like the ones I have mentioned. However, people being stopped ONLY targets those who consume alchohol.

    Why?
  12. 07 Jan '12 13:12
    I think the idea behind blood alcohol laws is that there is a presumption that if you have a blood alcohol level over a certain level that you are driving unsafely. While some people may be able to drive relatively safely at that level and others would drive unsafely at a lower level it gives an objective test for unsafe driving (instead of the the cop thought the driver was swerving and the driver says he was avoiding a little pot hole and was in complete control of the car).
    Drunk driving laws save lives. If you are foolish enough to believe drinking and driving is an actual freedom that needs to be protected, I'd simply prefer you lived in a different society.
  13. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    07 Jan '12 13:16 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by whodey
    You know what I'm saying. I'm saying that there are a myriad of things that can make one an "unsafe" driver, like the ones I have mentioned. However, people being stopped ONLY targets those who consume alchohol.

    Why?
    Because consuming alcohol above a certain limit - and then driving - is against the law because it kills thousands of people. Other kinds of unsafe driving kills people to and so unsafe driving is illegal and tagetted too. Speed limits are an effort to tackle unsafe driving. Laws about vehicle road-worthiness are an effort to tackle unsafe driving.

    Why should the fact that "there are a myriad of things that can make one an unsafe driver" preclude combatting drink-driving? How would you propose to combat drink-driving?
  14. 07 Jan '12 13:25 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by FMF
    Because consuming alcohol above a certain limit - and then driving - is against the law because it kills thousands of people. Other kinds of unsafe driving kills people to and so unsafe driving is illegal and tagetted too. Speed limits are an effort to tackle unsafe driving. Laws about vehicle road-worthiness are an effort to tackle unsafe driving.

    Why should safe driver" preclude combatting drink-driving? How would you propose to combat drink-driving?
    The reason drinking and driving is targeted is because of the high incidents of deaths associated with it. However, I've read elsewhere that illegals cause close to 15% of fatalities as well. Perhaps it is not a percentage high enough to warrant random stops that insist on ID checks.

    After all, you don't want President Obama suing them do you? We simply can't pick on those illegals.
  15. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    07 Jan '12 13:38 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by whodey
    The reason drinking and driving is targeted is because of the high incidents of deaths associated with it. However, I've read elsewhere that illegals cause close to 15% of fatalities as well. Perhaps it is not a percentage high enough to warrant random stops that insist on ID checks.

    After all, you don't want President Obama suing them do you? We simply can't pick on those illegals.
    So. A thread about drink-driving and libertarianism in the U.K. has been steered round to being about - at least for you - "President Obama". What a surprise.