And in some cases I disagree with that because I tend to err on the side of personal responsibility rather than society having to follow you around and make sure you don’t screw up.
But it’s at least a bit more justifiable – the bartender can usually see, right now, that the guy is falling down drunk and shouldn’t drink any more. And I said usually because I used to work with a guy who’d be about 23 sheets to the wind, but could, on command, act and speak as though he were completely sober, for a short time anyway. It was actually amazing how he could do that - he could easily fool a bartender if he wanted to.
And really those laws are either lax or loosely-enforced because I’ve been in a lot of restaurants and bars and watched a lot of people who are absolutely bombed out of their gourd and can still get more booze. More often I see that being used when the customer is obnoxiously rude to the bartender as a way to get back at the customer.
Taking someone’s car away for lending it to someone who then drove drunk… There’s just no way to guarantee that the lender knew the guy was going to go get drunk.
Those two concepts aren’t mutually exclusive. Lots of people drink once a week or more, and don’t have drinking problems. I’m personally not going to assume that someone who has a few beers on Saturday night is an alcoholic who drives drunk.
No one’s defending drunk drivers. Some of us are saying you shouldn’t punish the vehicle owner if someone borrows it and drives drunk without the owner’s knowledge.
We are having a birthday party for my 28 year old daughter tomorrow night! We’re going to a favorite restaurant of her and her husband, and the restaurant has 14 of my all-time favorite beers! I’m going to have one or two of them, then drive to her house for cake. Is see no problem with that. Drinking and driving is just fine as long as there is sufficient time to metabolize the alcohol. I see no problem with my plan.
Afterthought: Clearly, I have to go back 7 more times so that I can have all 14 of them on tap. I’ve only had them in the bottle before!
$150,000 liability insurance is $42 per month. Why would I carry collision and comprehensive on a vehicle worth less than $1,000? My assets are not much more than $150,000 and are covered by separate insurance.
I was a restaurant manager in my past experiences. Different states have different laws. Very few times is a bartender ever sued, rather the establishment is sued due to deeper pockets. Cutting people off is a practice I endorsed, in spite of cutting someone off usually causes rude behavior. One guy I let go on a regular basis walked over from his business, had a 3 or 4 martini lunch, would fall asleep in the bar for a couple of hours then go back to work. Another satisfied customer! He owned an insurance agency.
If you cause an accident and the person is injured severely it could cost you a lot more then $150k. Let’s say the person is awarded $500k. If your insurance is $200k it means your $359k short. Which means they can/will go after assets.
Have a 2 million dollar umbrella policy myself, 300k liability on cars, not really sure how the umbrella policy works in a car accident scenario, but with cabins and boats and whatever $238 a year is ok by me.
Nope - $2 Million umbrella policy. I have a nice home and 3 income properties. Plus savings.
When I got my umbrella policy I had to increase my liability insurance on vehicles to $500k. Each company and state will have different rules. If anyone in our family causes an accident I need to be covered or risk loosing everything. I’ve seen it done. I worked with a guy who carried minimal insurance. Son was driving on I-93 a few years ago and tire blew out and he wrecked his car. Unfortunately his best friend riding with him was killed. Family sued for over $1million. Car insurance was only $100k. He lost his boat, his house and most of his 401k.
If you don’t have anything to loose then get the policy you want. People without assets are considered judgement proof. They have nothing to loose so there’s nothing to sue them for.
@MikeInNH sure we have a sailboat, canoe, windsurfer, little motorboat with a 7hp motor, paddleboat, speedboat is not available to nieces, cousins etc. as we all have stints through the summer, what could go wrong? anything or anything, little motor boat hits a scuba diver, or canoe tips and I get sued, it is nice to provide the family place bought in 47, but gdawg, you gotta protect yourself. Cousin stayover in a week, no body over 50 water skiing and do not want to even take my cousin or his wife tubing out of fears of liability. Hope he is not too pissed when we take our friends out, but he is a narcissistic lawsuit happy kind of guy.
Jt, my suggestion is for people who fail field sobriety tests, not for those who have a beer with dinner and drive home sober.
If such a law were written, I have no doubt that there would be further clarification on the details as well as distinction between the driver having borrowed a friend’s car or his parent’s car. But I honestly don’t believe anybody loans ones car to his/her buddy not knowing they’ll be drinking and driving. Anybody you know well enough to loan your car to is somebody whose habits you’re familiar with. If not, such a law would make you much more aware of who you loan your car to.
The goal is to remove the availability of a car to people with DUI convictions… before they kill someone innocent. That is the only way to get them off the streets. Nothing we’re currently doing is working. The solution may not be perfect, but IMHO it’d be far, far better than anything we’re doing currently.
I take the issue very, very seriously. It seems the only way the enablers will is if we put their car at risk.
Mountainbike, my post was addressed to those who said don’t drink and drive, period. You never said that, and I agree with you that drunken driving is a serious issue. I have called 911 to report a vehicle moving erratically on the highway, and I will do it again if presented with the opportunity.
I chose to write my post because over reactions like taking a cab if you have one drink lead to people taking the subject of drinking and driving lightly. Not everyone makes those extremes statements, but I read I it more than once above and I wanted to bring the issue up.
But, some of the worst drunks . . you never see.
All it takes is money.
This town once had the label of ‘drunk town USA’ for our small town pre capita number of bars and street drunks.
Not so much any more.
Once upon a time I had to get a paper signed by a local Congress woman . . went to her house and rang the bell . . when she answered the door ! she was wasted, plastered , AND had a drink in her hand !
on a Wednesday.
The people with the money have the houses to drink INside of. These are not the people who go to the bars.
The people with the money have people to drive them AND the people to stay quiet.
I spent thirty years playing weekends in these bars , I know who I’ve seen there.
The richest people in this town made their money on the booze popularity. . .
people blame the dry reservation yet they refuse to notice the hidden drunks that are the business owners, and such.
Sadly, Ken, you’re right. Ted Kennedy proved that beyond a doubt.
But we can’t fix all the problems. Making a significant dent in drunken driving would be a big leap toward safer roads… and fewer dead innocents.