7/12/2008 4:41:33 PM

hahaha

7/12/2008 4:43:33 PM

7/12/2008 4:45:09 PM

you might spill your beer?

7/12/2008 4:49:33 PM

Or kill a 17 year old girl that is driving down Glenwood minding her own business.
http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/3195616/

7/12/2008 4:50:46 PM

Quote :

"Raleigh, N.C. — A teenager has been charged with felony death by motor vehicle and provisional DWI in a wreck on Glenwood Avenue that killed another teenager early Saturday. Lillian Broox Manis, 17, of Chapel Hill, died in the two-vehicle wreck that occurred shortly before 5 a.m. at Glenwood and Lynn Drive, police said. Justin Caleb Crouse, 19, of 4612 Limerick Drive in Raleigh, faces charges of provisional driving-while-impaired, felony death by vehicle and a red-light violation. Manis was riding in a 1991 Honda passenger car driven by Philip Iavorov Jurov, 17, of Durham, going north on Glenwood towards Pinecrest Drive. Jurov had a green light at the Lynn Road intersection, according to the wreck report. Crouse was driving a 2008 Ford passenger car south on Lynn Road and preparing to make a left turn onto Glenwood. He lost control of the car, and it ran off the right side of the road, deflating its right-side tires. The Ford traveled 147 feet and entered Glenwood, striking the passenger side of the Honda head-on at 50 mph, according to the wreck report. The Honda ran off the left side of the road and overturned, coming to rest against an embankment approximately 25 feet from the road. The Ford came to a stop about 131 feet off the left side of Glenwood. Jurov and Manis were trapped inside the Honda. Both were transported to WakeMed. Manis was pronounced dead at the hospital, and Jurov sustained serious injuries. Crouse was also taken to WakeMed to be treated for non-life-threatening injuries. The wreck caused $12,000 worth of damage to the Ford and $15,000, to the Honda. The wreck reports says that police suspect Crouse was impaired by alcohol. Tests results were pending late Saturday morning. Manis would have turned 18 in a little over a month. "

7/12/2008 4:51:43 PM

for the record, I do not condone drunk or buzzed driving.

7/12/2008 4:52:44 PM

Why don't all cars have those little BAC testers that you have to blow into in order to start the car?

Sure a bunch of people would just get someone sober to blow it, but I bet it'd stop a lot of drunk driving still.

7/12/2008 4:52:57 PM

thats shitty

7/12/2008 4:53:12 PM

with a mugshot like that you'd expect a bac of like .42398503947

7/12/2008 4:53:21 PM

Quote :

"Why don't all cars have those little BAC testers that you have to blow into in order to start the car?"

i wouldn't have a problem with that

7/12/2008 4:54:07 PM

His tests have not come back yet. I have a feeling he was pretty blitzed.

Either that or could not drive worth a fuck sober.

7/12/2008 4:54:12 PM

prolly passed out behind the wheel

7/12/2008 4:54:58 PM

Yeah I mean if he was blacked out I sort of feel bad for him.

I think all cars should have the touch BAC testers embedded under the steering wheel. So many lives would be saved.

7/12/2008 4:56:45 PM

Quote :

"Why don't all cars have those little BAC testers that you have to blow into in order to start the car?"

It's a great idea in concept, but they are very expensive. In an automotive market where you try to put out the best product at the lowest cost, it just doesn't make sense to the bottom line.

7/12/2008 4:58:09 PM

Airbags are expensive as fuck too but somehow they have become standard.

7/12/2008 4:59:12 PM

well you can't always control when you get in an accident.

you CAN control if you choose to drink and drive or not

airbags make cars safer, BAC Ignition Systems keep stupid people from making stupid decisions.

BIG difference

[Edited on July 12, 2008 at 5:01 PM. Reason : s]

7/12/2008 5:00:03 PM

^^ not any more

the unit price on airbags has fallen more than 10 fold since their inception

[Edited on July 12, 2008 at 5:00 PM. Reason : 

7/12/2008 5:00:25 PM

invasion of freedom!

7/12/2008 5:00:42 PM

Quote :

"you CAN control if you choose to drink and drive or not"

hahah that is the fallacy in your argument.

You are drunk and therefore not making the best decisions. I am not making excuses for habitual drunk drivers, all I am saying is that history has shown us that we cannot expect human beings not to drive drunk.

Even our President has been arrested for DWI, he can authorize the use of nuclear bombs, and also made this same mistake. Since we have this technology we should use it to our advantage.

7/12/2008 5:03:10 PM

ok commie

7/12/2008 5:04:34 PM

why should the millions of safe, non-drunk driving Americans be forced to pay an extra $2k for their vehicles because of the idiots that don't know when to say when?

7/12/2008 5:05:22 PM

If it was implemented widespread it would not cost 2k per vehicle.

In response to your question though

1) To save the lives of innoncent victims
2) To keep irresponsible & inexperienced teenagers from driving/riding drunk
3) Lower insurance costs
4) Lower costs to the courts
5) Lower costs of imprisoning habitual offenders
6) Lower costs to the jails for processing offenders
7) Lower the odds that someone you know or a family member will get killed by a drunk driver or while driving drunk

I could go on for an hour. If you think what we are doing currently is an effective solution to the problem of drunk driving you are out of your mind.

7/12/2008 5:23:52 PM

well then I guess we should ban guns too, since there are some idiots that choose to shoot people

7/12/2008 5:29:52 PM

Not everyone owns a gun, the ones that do don't take them to the bar.


Cars on the other hand....

Sorry guns =/= cars.

7/12/2008 5:31:25 PM

While we are at it, we should make all cars so they can't go faster than 55 MPH, since most motor vehicle deaths happen at speeds higher than 55MPH. FUCK THOSE PESKY SPEEDERS

7/12/2008 5:31:25 PM

we should all live in bubble-wrapped rooms and not be allowed to go outside because we may hurt ourselves

7/12/2008 5:31:28 PM

Quote :

"1991 Honda passenger car "

Quote :

"$15,000,(damage) to the Honda."

7/12/2008 5:31:57 PM

we definitely need to take radios out of cars too, because their distracting ways also cause a lot of accidents

7/12/2008 5:32:16 PM

Guns are Constitutionally protected, BAC sensor cars are not.

I'd be in favor of car companies putting them in as an option, but I wouldn't want to see it forced on the public by government mandate.

7/12/2008 5:33:06 PM

$15,000 worth of damage to a 1991 Honda? perhaps I need to consider buying one. Although, I may die if I get in an accident with it.

7/12/2008 5:33:32 PM

just bc it's old doesn't mean it's super cheap to fix.. although that's a hell of a lot of damage regardless

obviously it's well beyond totaled

7/12/2008 5:34:19 PM

7/12/2008 5:34:38 PM

Quote :

"I'd be in favor of car companies putting them in as an option"

the only problem with that is, who in the hell would choose that option? you would basically be admitting "yeah, i drive drunk sometimes so this will help me not be an idiot"

[Edited on July 12, 2008 at 5:35 PM. Reason : f]

7/12/2008 5:35:25 PM

I bet you'd start to see them proliferating on family cars with teens in the household. I also think the fact that you'd probably get a substantial insurance break would also make them appealing.

7/12/2008 5:36:41 PM

wait...is that a white guy with cornrows?

7/12/2008 5:37:10 PM

^^ good point

7/12/2008 5:37:42 PM

^^^yeah that'd be a good idea.. insurance + some weird ass tax break maybe?. it'd be cool to have for teenage drivers to help with their insurance

[Edited on July 12, 2008 at 5:38 PM. Reason : ^^^]

7/12/2008 5:38:10 PM

ahh yes, i'll take the alloy wheels, the weatherization package, and the i frequently drink and drive package.

7/12/2008 5:39:26 PM

I just think that mandating every citizen to have them in their cars is not the answer, especially when the majority of American citizens do not drive drunk. The answer lies in WAY more strict penalties for DUI, even on the first offense. And if we still need the "babysitter" mentality, why not mandate that all bars have to take the keys of their patrons, and can only give them back after they pass a BAC test?

7/12/2008 5:40:17 PM

Quote :

"I just think that mandating every citizen to have them in their cars is not the answer, especially when the majority of American citizens do not drive drunk. The answer lies in WAY more strict penalties for DUI, even on the first offense."

If you're going to have DUI laws at all then yes, that's the way to go. Personally I'd rather just hammer the shit out of people for causing traffic wrecks drunk or not. The vast majority of the time it's not an "accident" it's incompetence or negligence.

7/12/2008 5:46:43 PM

bottom line is, there is no excuse for a person with 2 or 3 DUIs still having a license.

7/12/2008 5:48:03 PM

I do what I want

7/12/2008 5:49:07 PM

There's not excuse for them not being in jail, other than the whole mandatory minimum sentencing for nonviolent drug "offenders."

7/12/2008 5:49:34 PM

I'm going to a party tonight and I can gaurantee I'll be driving drunk on the way there and on the way back



Don't grab my keys when the party's over

I drive better drunk than you do sober

[Edited on July 12, 2008 at 5:50 PM. Reason : x]

7/12/2008 5:50:33 PM

i'm the best drunk driver ever

I CHALLENGE YOU TO A DUEL

7/12/2008 5:51:21 PM

I'll probably be driving above the legal limit tonight, but that's not really a very good indicator of whether or not I'm drunk.

7/12/2008 5:52:12 PM

Quote :

"i'm the best drunk driver ever I CHALLENGE YOU TO A DUEL"

7/12/2008 5:52:47 PM

x

[Edited on July 12, 2008 at 5:54 PM. Reason : x]

7/12/2008 5:53:55 PM

set em up

7/12/2008 5:54:30 PM