Quote:
Originally Posted by flameswin
I guess my point is, by your thinking, option (a) is more likely to happen, and that's where those of us that your snapping at coming from. We're NOT trying to sympathize, we're simply trying to come up with solutions that lead to less people being hurt or killed by drunk drivers, and that's what you should want too, right?
|
Exactly, I don't see how this is a bad idea.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4X4
A cost greater than EMS, fire and police showing up to a car wrapped around a light standard? Ok. Maybe not the perfect comparison, but the division between you and red, vs me, phan and flameswin is getting a little weird. It's starting to sound like you've got a problem for every solution. And the problem invariably lies in harsher punishment.
Taxi drivers are afraid to drive at night? Lets get them some plexiglass dividers. Bus drivers are hard to find? Up the pay. Taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for it? Charge a premium for these services. I know I'll pay.
|
Pretty much my reply to the previous 4-5 posts, If we are worried about justifying costs and budgets, then why are (you) ready to blow 10x's the amount to prosecute bizzare penalties rather then prevent the issue all together? I thought the "other sides" opinion was to deal with drunk drivers and not be concerned about the cost? Or are we concerned with them only to try and put them in jail and not to fix the problem?