Volvo asks gov't if it could drive drunk

"Car maker Volvo has asked the Swedish government to waive the country's
strict drunken driving laws to allow its test drivers to booze on the job,
news reports said Wednesday."

http://tinyurl.com/ccarv

Interesting...

BE wrote:
> "Car maker Volvo has asked the Swedish government to waive the country's
> strict drunken driving laws to allow its test drivers to booze on the job,
> news reports said Wednesday."
>
> http://tinyurl.com/ccarv
>
> Interesting...

Not a big deal since as the complete article says: The testing would
be done on a special track near Goteborg, on Sweden's west coast, where
Volvo's parent company, Ford Motor Co., has a safety development
facility.

As a side note I do like the Swedish approach to drunk driving.

On 20 Jul 2005 13:59:22 -0700, "John S." > wrote:

>
>
>BE wrote:
>> "Car maker Volvo has asked the Swedish government to waive the country's
>> strict drunken driving laws to allow its test drivers to booze on the job,
>> news reports said Wednesday."
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/ccarv
>>
>> Interesting...
>
>Not a big deal since as the complete article says: The testing would
>be done on a special track near Goteborg, on Sweden's west coast, where
>Volvo's parent company, Ford Motor Co., has a safety development
>facility.
>
>As a side note I do like the Swedish approach to drunk driving.

I don't - not if they're applying their traffic laws to private property which
a test track would be. Do they try to enforce speed limits at their auto
racing tracks?

Dave Head

Dave Head wrote:
> On 20 Jul 2005 13:59:22 -0700, "John S." > wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >BE wrote:
> >> "Car maker Volvo has asked the Swedish government to waive the country's
> >> strict drunken driving laws to allow its test drivers to booze on the job,
> >> news reports said Wednesday."
> >>
> >> http://tinyurl.com/ccarv
> >>
> >> Interesting...
> >
> >Not a big deal since as the complete article says: The testing would
> >be done on a special track near Goteborg, on Sweden's west coast, where
> >Volvo's parent company, Ford Motor Co., has a safety development
> >facility.
> >
> >As a side note I do like the Swedish approach to drunk driving.
>
> I don't - not if they're applying their traffic laws to private property which
> a test track would be. Do they try to enforce speed limits at their auto
> racing tracks?

The Swedes as well as several other countries take safe driving
seriously...much more so than we in the U.S. do. Their rules regarding
drunk driving are probably very simple and comprehensive and go
something like this: Nobody may operate a vehicle in Sweden if their
blood shows any level of alcohol. I think that Volvo and the
Government are also sending a very good message by requiring Volvo to
ask for an exception. It provides public reinforcement of how
seriously the Swedes take driving safety.

On 22 Jul 2005 10:49:01 -0700, "John S." > wrote:

>
>
>Dave Head wrote:
>> On 20 Jul 2005 13:59:22 -0700, "John S." > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >BE wrote:
>> >> "Car maker Volvo has asked the Swedish government to waive the country's
>> >> strict drunken driving laws to allow its test drivers to booze on the job,
>> >> news reports said Wednesday."
>> >>
>> >> http://tinyurl.com/ccarv
>> >>
>> >> Interesting...
>> >
>> >Not a big deal since as the complete article says: The testing would
>> >be done on a special track near Goteborg, on Sweden's west coast, where
>> >Volvo's parent company, Ford Motor Co., has a safety development
>> >facility.
>> >
>> >As a side note I do like the Swedish approach to drunk driving.
>>
>> I don't - not if they're applying their traffic laws to private property which
>> a test track would be. Do they try to enforce speed limits at their auto
>> racing tracks?
>
>The Swedes as well as several other countries take safe driving
>seriously...much more so than we in the U.S. do. Their rules regarding
>drunk driving are probably very simple and comprehensive and go
>something like this: Nobody may operate a vehicle in Sweden if their
>blood shows any level of alcohol. I think that Volvo and the
>Government are also sending a very good message by requiring Volvo to
>ask for an exception. It provides public reinforcement of how
>seriously the Swedes take driving safety.

New Jersey has some driving laws that they (attempt to) enforce on private
property, too. Its one of the reasons they're known as this nation's ultimate
nanny state.

I think the government should stick to making its traffic laws for government
property - that is, the highways, and let people take the risks they wish to
take on their own land.

I wonder if Volvo also, in addition to busting up the drunk driving laws, also
violate the reckless driving laws (some skidding, perhaps), speed laws (high
speed runs to test handling, stability, aerodynamics), and possibly have
accidents that they don't report to anyone (rollovers when the engineer's math
doesn't quite jibe with the vehicle's actual capabilities, or the test driver's
actual capabilities.)

Could be tough to sanction all sorts of adrenalin-producing activities, like
BMX, moto-cross, motorcycle-riding in general (exceptionally dangerous even if
you don't attempt to do anything exciting), etc. Wonder if the Swedes are
allowed to climb their mountains, or have to ask permission?

Dave Head

Dave Head wrote:

> New Jersey has some driving laws that they (attempt to) enforce on private
> property, too. Its one of the reasons they're known as this nation's ultimate
> nanny state.

If anyone here watches Mythbusters on Discovery, they'll recall the CHP
showing up to breathalize the staff who were going to drive as close to
drunk as legally possible without breaking the law to show how
dangerous cell phones were.

In addition, my friend Michelle in NY State could explain better than I
could how she got a DUI in her own driveway for sleeping in the back of
her car after having a fight with her roommates. (Basically, cop
noticed someone in a car at 3 am, woke her up, noticed she was wasted,
breathalized her, ticketed her, and she lost her license after facing a
judge with a lawyer without ever even turning the car on or leaving her
property.)

Dave

Do you think having one glass of wine is enough to impair your driving?
And do you think that any driver that has had three beers, is a worse
driver that every other driver on the road?

I think drunk driving laws (in Sweden and the US) as currently
implemented are extremely arbitrary.

It is not just drivers that have had three beers that have poor
reflexes. And it is not just drivers that have had three beers that
make bad decisions. However, drivers that have had three beers that can
be pulled out of a car at a random road block and thrown in jail, even
if they were driving in a safe manner.

I am not advocating drunk driving. However, I do think the
anti-drinking lobby has pushed the rules further than reasonable if the
goal is traffic safety.

No politician that wants to get re-elected is going to come out for
relaxing drinking while driving rules no matter what the facts.

Ed

Ed White wrote:
> Do you think having one glass of wine is enough to impair your driving?
The level of impairment depends on a whole lot of factors such as the
sex of the person, their age, size and bodily reaction to alcohol. The
swedes are rightly taking the safe approach and not allowing anyone to
drive with any alcohol in their blood.

> And do you think that any driver that has had three beers, is a worse
> driver that every other driver on the road?

I don't know about him being worse, but I do know that his reaction
time and judgement are impaired to some level.
Why would you want to drive with that much alcohol in your blood
anyway.

>
> I think drunk driving laws (in Sweden and the US) as currently
> implemented are extremely arbitrary.

Yup, as are most laws...they are a judgement call about the best
decision given the circumstances. If we had to have the agreement of
everyone to implement a law nothing would get done. There has to be
some arbitrariness - someone or group has to make a decision that may
not be popular but will benefit all.

>
> It is not just drivers that have had three beers that have poor
> reflexes. And it is not just drivers that have had three beers that
> make bad decisions. However, drivers that have had three beers that can
> be pulled out of a car at a random road block and thrown in jail, even
> if they were driving in a safe manner.

Well, yes drunk drivers are not the only ones that have poor reflexes
or cause accidents. But if we can reduce the number of accidents
caused by self-imposed impairment then I think we are better off as a
group don't you think? At less risk anyway.
>
> I am not advocating drunk driving. However, I do think the
> anti-drinking lobby has pushed the rules further than reasonable if the
> goal is traffic safety.

Spinnning your comment around, how are we safer by allowing drivers on
the road with alcohol in their blood given that we know alcohol impairs
us all differently.

>
> No politician that wants to get re-elected is going to come out for
> relaxing drinking while driving rules no matter what the facts.

Doesn't seem to be a problem in Sweden or several other scandinavian
countries.

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 08:58:25 -0700, Ed White wrote:

> Do you think having one glass of wine is enough to impair your driving?

Unless you are an alcoholic it does, even though the impairment may be
small. And if you are an alcoholic your driving is already impaired when
you are sober.

> And do you think that any driver that has had three beers, is a worse
> driver that every other driver on the road?

No, a driver, who has had 5 beers is definitely worse.

> It is not just drivers that have had three beers that have poor reflexes.

Their reflexes are significantly worse than if they were sober, which is
the only thing that counts. You are required by law to minimize the risk
for others on the road and driving drunk is the exact opposite of this,
which is why it is illegal.

> And it is not just drivers that have had three beers that make bad
> decisions.

No, the drunks just make much more bad decisions.

> However, drivers that have had three beers that can be pulled out of a
> car at a random road block and thrown in jail, even if they were driving
> in a safe manner.

There is no such thing as driving 'in a safe manner' when drunk. Your
reflexes are slowed, your ego is boosted (which is why most drunks think
they are driving in a safe manner) and your situational awareness goes
down the drain.

> I am not advocating drunk driving. However, I do think the anti-drinking
> lobby has pushed the rules further than reasonable if the goal is
> traffic safety.

..08% is a very generous number in my opinion. Most European countries are
down to .05% and alcohol related deaths went down with it. If you don't
want to be jailed, don't drink and drive, it's that simple.

> No politician that wants to get re-elected is going to come out for
> relaxing drinking while driving rules no matter what the facts.

The facts say that stricter rules would save more lives than all speed
enforcements together. Unfortunately the alcohol lobby is going to stop
that from happening, which is why drunk assholes continue killing people
and thinking 'it can't happen to me'.

Chris

BE wrote:
> "Car maker Volvo has asked the Swedish government to waive the country's
> strict drunken driving laws to allow its test drivers to booze on the job,
> news reports said Wednesday."

Are the tests going to take place on public roads? (CHP runs test of
this type on its private track in West Sacramento.)