Apparently North Carolina, or maybe a local government, is considering a law that would designate you as DUI if you had even one drink and drove with a child in the car.

There are so many things wrong w/ that law that it makes my ass bleed just thinking about it. How do they even intend to enforce that? One beer on me is a LOT less alcohol than my tiny wife. Plus, is there ANY evidence that drivers having 1 beer are likely to crash their car? Or that the child would be hurt? I doubt it.

I'm all for MUCH stricter DUI laws, but you're right, this would be impractical to enforce. I can imagine that the number of cars with children in them that get pulled over go up disproportionately.

It's zero tolerance.

--PunkDavid (everybody's retarded but me)

Link? I searched and couldn't find anything, and you don't even seem very sure of the facts yourself. I have a feeling this is just a rumor but you're welcome to show otherwise. Regardless, it's hard to have an opinion on the matter unless you read the context and how it would be implemented.

I approve of much stricter DUI laws. DUI is stupid.

If they want to go that strict they better start cracking down on people taking NyQuil.

Impairment really does start with the first drink. Even if you don't notice it, your reaction time will be slower, and yes, you do put your kid at more risk. That said, there are things that are more dangerous to children. If you're gonna go that far, why not make it illegal to smoke around your children. I'm sure second hand smoke is far more dangerous to children than drinking and driving (w/BAC < legal limit).

It was mentioned on the news. I can't find the story on their site. If it comes up again, I'll try to get more solid info.

Well, we need to have a "culture of life" in this country. Save the children.

I imagine that if compared side by side, a child's chances of being killed in a car driven by a driver with 1 drink in them is exactly the same as that child's chances of being killed in a car driven by a driver with 0 drinks in them.

True, I just ran this study in my head, but I'd put money on it.

I'd bet there'd be at least a miniscule difference.

A little off topic, but studies also show that talking on a cell phone impairs your driving ability just as much as drinking.

They can have my beer when they pry some guy's cell phone from his cold dead hands!

This isn't going to win me any friends, and its not something I've done in quite some time, but in my heavier partying days I was a drunk driver w/out equal. I think the biggest difference for me personally was I don't have a self destructive personality like many heavy drinkers do and anytime I got behind the wheel, I was clear headed enough to go, hmmm, o.k. I've had a good bit to drink and I'm getting ready to drive, time to be a big boy and pay attention to what I'm doing. The people who cause the biggest problems are assholes who decided to live out their Earnheardt fantasies after they have plowed through a case of beer.

So the difference was you were a "careful" drunkard behind the wheel as opposed to a reckless drunkard behind the wheel? You were both still drunk. I don't get that justification in the least.

Wasn't trying to justify my actions, only draw a distinction.

I think guys (and girls) who think what you just said is possible are part of the problem ... getting behind the wheel when they shouldn't b/c they think "I can just be more careful than I would normally." After a few beers, you literally cannot be as careful as a sober driver.

Well, of course you can't. That's simple physiology. On the other hand, you can possibly be as careful if not more careful than a sober dipshit, and I think that was the point of Ampson's original post.

It's still a bad idea.

--PunkDavid

It doesn't matter how "careful" you're trying to be if you're drunk, you're still driving impaired and can't possible be as careful as you could be sober.

Is that inconsistent with what I said?

--PunkDavid

I think they are just trying to draw a bit of distinction between different types of drunk drivers. There are those that know they shouldn't be drinking and driving, and that they are dangerous, but they decide to drive anyway, but drive as carefully as they can.

Then there are the other drunk drivers who don't think twice about driving drunk, drive 100 miles an hour while drunk, turn off their lights and do donuts in the middle of the highway to impress their friends. I have been in that situation (not the driver) before and it sucks.

Nobody is saying that either way is correct, or any better then the other, it is just drawing a distinction. I would say one type of drunk driver is definetly more dangerous then the other.