daixloxbmw

The image URL in the news article linked in the original post says "lambocrash".

Walt White Coupe

Obviously you don't know anything about car insurance. How about reading your policy.

falconhulk

You love to take the devils advocate approach to everything right?


Everyone knows the result of driving impaired. If you choose to do it, its absolutely intentional. You did not slip and fall into the drivers seat of a car. Your logic only makes sense if you love to argue. So it makes sense.

coupeguyz51

One less oxygen thief on the loose.

defaria

No, only when I believe the devil's advocate approach is actually the right one. Otherwise I say nothing.

No it is not. And generally the law disagrees with you. That's why we have the category of involuntary manslaughter for when intent cannot be proven.

No you didn't slip and fall into the driver's seat. But that's pretty much irrelevant and you know it.

BS. Your argument only makes sense because you act on emotions instead of thinking.

fsvoboda

Not at all a hard hit, as you can tell because the front end isn't pushed back. Sure, the hood seems to be peeled off, but the C7 went under the SUV and came to a stop over a longer distance and much less violently than if it had hit something solid.

fsvoboda

On a cost-benefit basis it would make a lot more sense to have automated braking on vehicles, I think. It would prevent way more collisions than any breath interlock.

LT1 Z51

Unfortunately with our current legal system these things are not cut and dry.

In most states you can get a "lessor" drunk driving offense with as little as a .02 in your system. This basically is one drink, or even less if you are a person on a smaller side. So it's rather easy for a person to get one. However, people who find this out the HARD way usually never do so again.

On the flip side, multi-offense drunk drivers are cut a lot of breaks. So that while in my state TECHNICALLY a 3rd time offense is a felony no one ACTUALLY gets charged with a 3rd time offense, most of those are plead down to a second or go to a thing called "sobriety court" where there are unique punishments dolled out.

The solution would be to make the system cut and dry, and spell out that any drink is one too many (not this advertised .08 bull crap), and then make it a 6 month license suspension for the first offense, and revocation for the second.

Once I found out about the .02 limit and the lessor offense, I've never gotten into a car with even one drink. You just can't, it's not worth it.

fourmat

20 mph faster and he would be headless

DWillys

Not that it would have reduced his IQ at all.

Walt White Coupe

The Corvette’s driver was arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence.

davepl

Sorry, you're wrong. The DUI murderer makes his decision to kill when he (a) decides, while sober, to drink knowing he will drive, and reaffirms that decision later when drunk by actually doing it.

A DUI collision is not an accident, it's a crime. It's an act of ultimate self-indulgence inflicted upon innocents. I do wish death upon them before they kill a little kid or soccer mom, if that's what it takes to stop them. It's not much a punishment as preventative. If caught after the fact, I do not advocate the death penalty. Maybe for a second offense...

I have never driven drunk. Not once. Not a little. Ever. There's no excuse. No one ever needs to. Period.

LT1 Z51

It's not that cut and dry. Just because you have a drink doesn't mean your impaired. You are making the assumption all drivers once they consume any alcohol are totally impaired and know this and are willfully going out on the road.

Like most things there is a gray area. Not drinking is obviously very clear. Going to a party and having a drink, I'd say is within the margin of error and still an accident. A second drink? Well that is less likely an accident, and more likely intent. After a third drink, you're right they shouldn't get in a car.

Then problem though isn't the driving, its the culture of drinking, and the idea that we can have "only one" and still go on the road. If the limit was actually .02 or .03 no one would drink and then drive. Even if they are not impaired until .08 or .10, because legally it would not be allowed. Alcoholics and drunks are a different story, they have a medical issue and will drive regardless, but I'm talking about "social" or casual drinkers.

Regardless, the worst you could argue for even with your logic of murder is second degree, and more likely it would be manslaughter as in while you were grossly negligent and doing something with could contribute to death, you didn't premeditate the murder of that specific person. First degree murder doesn't just mean pre-meditation of the act, it means pre-meditation of the subject as well.

I understand people who have lost a loved one to a drunk driver feel strongly, but look at it from other points of view. Do you think people who recklessly drive or excessively speed should face the same punishment? How about people who are distracted texting or browsing the web? Those latter two I can argue are actually more dangerous and even more negligent than drinking and driving. The issue is, for those the "object" which causes them is not socially acceptable to blame. Alcohol is an easy scapegoat right now. I think this will be changing (if you look at alcohol consumption of Millennials it is staggeringly high).

AZ99FRC

[QUOTE=As for Drunk drivers...they don't learn. If that drunk driver died, then that would be one less person to worry about taking out other people in the future. Drunk driving should be a lifetime driving ban.[/QUOTE]

This is complete and total bullshit. This country is full of one time DUI's who learned their lesson and never have done it again. It's also full of former problem drinkers who have quit for long periods of time and learned to live happily without alcohol (35 yrs in my case) Not everyone is alike or deserves to be painted with the same brush.

Sure are a lot of self righteous stereotypers on this thread...

tcinla

... Just waiting for the parts to be listed.

Too soon ?

davepl

Probably true. Likely the reason I've never had an issue is that I treat it as an all or nothing thing. If I'm going to drink at all, even one, I've already made alternate plans for driving. That prevents me from ever having to make a bad decision three drinks in.

And I figure if I can do it, anyone can, particularly since we're talking about people's lives here.

Fortunately, we in WA State have zero tolerance for under-21 here which sets a good precedent. Contrast that with Canada where I grew up the drinking age was 18 or 19 and the limit was .08, so you could be of high school age and legally drinking and driving!

911Hunter

The SUV was trying to do an Evel Knievel stunt by jumping in reverse while using the Corvette as a ramp.

911Hunter

I remember that I saw an accident were a low hood dodge neon hit the side of a big SUV and sent her on her roof, just because of the cars low hood design.

boxster99t

Not sure where that notion comes from.

I suppose your mileage my vary, and never having experienced it personally or professionally, I cannot give any anecdotal evidence, however being a lawyer, I would tell you the insurance company would have a very hard time declining a collision insurance claim based on an alleged dwi/dui.

Even if ultimately convicted of dwi/dui that isn't necessarily willful or intentional misconduct that voids coverage.

Careless as in negligent, yes but that won't void your collision coverage or more importantly the liability coverage to pay for the other guy's property damage and/or personal injury claim.

thirtythird

Relax, all right? My old man is a television repairman, he's got this ultimate set of tools. I can fix it.