A free taxi tonight...

Teyla Emmagan · 01-01-2014 01:39AM

What's the idea? To get you home safely, or to get you out spending money in the first place?

Risteard · 01-01-2014 01:46AM

Leitrim operate a similar scheme I believe. Of course, everyone thats out fits into one cab so it's more cost effective.

MadsL · 01-01-2014 01:49AM

Teyla Emmagan wrote: »

What's the idea? To get you home safely, or to get you out spending money in the first place?

Given the level of how seriously New Mexico takes DUI probably to get you out.

First offence:

Up to 90 days in jail or up to one year of probation*
Up to a $500.00 fine
Mandatory Jail Time

If convicted of Aggravated DWI, Not less than 48 hours in jail
Any violation of conditions of probation, or failure to complete classes, programs or treatment, requires a jail sentence of not less than 48 hours.
*All DWI first offenders in Albuquerque Metro Court are now sentenced to SUPERVISED Probation
Mandatory Penalties

Obtain an Interlock License for one year ($63.00)
Have an Interlock Device installed on all vehicles driven by the offender for one year ($960.00 a year or more)
Not less than 24 hours Community Service
Alcohol Screening ($100.00-$200.00)
DWI School (Up up $150.00)
Victim's Impact Panel
Mandatory Fines & Fees

Mandatory Crime Lab Fee: $65.00
Mandatory Community Fee: $75.00
Mandatory Corrections Fee: $10.00-$20.00
Mandatory Court Automation Fee: $10.00
Mandatory Traffic Safety Fee: $3.00
Mandatory Judicial Education Fee: $3.00
Mandatory Jury/Witness Fee: $5.00
Mandatory Brain Injury Fee: $5.00
Mandatory Court Facilities Fee: $10-$24.00

Second offence
Possible Penalties

Up to one year in jail or up to 5 years probation*
Up to a $1000.00 fine

Mandatory Jail Time
96 Consecutive hours (4 days) of Jail Time
If convicted of Aggravated DWI, an additional 96 consecutive hours of jail time

Teyla Emmagan · 01-01-2014 02:02AM

MadsL wrote: »

Given the level of how seriously New Mexico takes DUI probably to get you out.

I could understand how this could work as part of a business initiative for pubs/restaurants (particularly if you could show how you've spent X amount of money there so far and therefore qualify for a free ride home, in fact that could be really attractive for consumers), but just to stop people DUIing?! That's nuts, if drink driving rules have finally sunk in places like Ireland, where it was ingrained nearly into the culture in the past, then this just seems like a daft waste of public resources. And not one we can afford here anyway,

NuckingFacker · 01-01-2014 11:18AM

MadsL wrote: »

Bernalillo, I actually live just across the border with Sandoval County.

Doesn't have the same ring to it as Amarillo. I know Bernalillo was named after the famous pioneer Sam Glover and his family got caught in a snowstorm - they huddled together for warmth (they had expected warmer weather and were ill prepared) - things deteriorated - hypothermia and death were a real possibility.

They cast their eyes around for a source of warmth and old Sams gaze fell on the one thing they could use as fuel for heat - their inflatable pool lounger. His eldest son Grover was disgusted as he had planned on selling his prized posession in Florida for use in the new and exciting world of heated swimming pools.

Happily, the family survived and went on to found a Business empire selling high end cat grooming products. The place-name stuck, in memory of the sacrifice Grover Glover had made to ensure his families survival. It's a fascinating historical footnote. The 1980s were rough and ready times.

Santa Cruz · 01-01-2014 11:29AM

RobbingBandit wrote: »

Drunks plus taxis equals vomit, besides it is a New Years day tradition to have to stumble home off your head at 6 or 7 in the morning not remembering the night before.

Only if you are a boring fart that needs to be tanked up before they have the guts to say hello to a women

tritium · 01-01-2014 11:56AM

I thought the free taxi thing was a regular thing on new mexico. I remember being over there about 10 years ago and getting a 'safe ride' home. Something to do with NM once having the second highest DUI rate in the US (drive through liquor stores didn't help)

Fantastic idea btw

Shelflife · 01-01-2014 12:21PM

The local pubs were complaining of sales being down and customers afraid to drive in and home.

I suggested that the six of them band together and pay €60 each week to a taxi driver (no taxis in our samll town) to just bring customers into the town and home, the taxi would charge a nominal fee €2 or €3 each journey to each passanger. The taxi wouldnt bring passangers anywhere else except into the town and home.

This way the public had a way of getting home after a few pints and the pubs had the customers and the taxi driver had a guaranteed income.

Pubs couldnt agree on where the set down point would be and whinged that the cost was too high.

Cant please them.

UCDVet · 01-01-2014 12:23PM

How about the people going out for a 'good time', getting drunk and acting stupid provide for their own ride home? (or they stay home)

If you want to give out free taxi rides - how about we give them to the people who are going to work on New Year's Eve buy can't take public transportation because we treat the day like a half-holiday? Those people are just trying to get to work, to pay their taxes, and keep a roof over their head. But screw them!

Let's buy a bunch of drunk partiers who, because we SUSPECT THEY ARE LIKELY CRIMINALS, a free taxi ride, so they'll be less tempted to break the law and drive while intoxicated! (or, if you think they'd just stay home, let's use tax funds to subsidize the success of the bar & restaurant owners who will get more business - because hey, they clearly could use more)

The whole thing seems really wrong to me. Why should tax payers be forced to subsidize your night of binge drinking while someone else who is struggling to make ends meet, who won't be drinking, is stuck spending 90 minutes on a bicycle to get to work.

tritium · 01-01-2014 12:41PM

UCDVet wrote: »

How about the people going out for a 'good time', getting drunk and acting stupid provide for their own ride home? (or they stay home)

If you want to give out free taxi rides - how about we give them to the people who are going to work on New Year's Eve buy can't take public transportation because we treat the day like a half-holiday? Those people are just trying to get to work, to pay their taxes, and keep a roof over their head. But screw them!

Let's buy a bunch of drunk partiers who, because we SUSPECT THEY ARE LIKELY CRIMINALS, a free taxi ride, so they'll be less tempted to break the law and drive while intoxicated! (or, if you think they'd just stay home, let's use tax funds to subsidize the success of the bar & restaurant owners who will get more business - because hey, they clearly could use more)

The whole thing seems really wrong to me. Why should tax payers be forced to subsidize your night of binge drinking while someone else who is struggling to make ends meet, who won't be drinking, is stuck spending 90 minutes on a bicycle to get to work.

You're missing the point - try telling the family of someone killed by a drunk driver that It would have been a waste of money.

Typically saferide programmes go hand in hand with pretty severe enforcement of DUI laws. In some parts of the states the police will Find any excuse to stop and check a car.

Very different issue to day to day public transport

UCDVet · 01-01-2014 01:10PM

tritium wrote: »

You're missing the point - try telling the family of someone killed by a drunk driver that It would have been a waste of money.

Typically saferide programmes go hand in hand with pretty severe enforcement of DUI laws. In some parts of the states the police will Find any excuse to stop and check a car.

Very different issue to day to day public transport

No, I get it. We're trying to proactively stop crime by removing the motivation for committing the crime. And in doing so, rewarding the potential criminals with free stuff.

Where do you draw the line?

What's the difference between the guy who will drive home drunk on New Year's Eve unless you provide him with a free taxi verse the guy who will drive home drunk on Saturday night unless you provide him with a free taxi? Okay, maybe that's too far - but what about Halloween? Or Christmas? Which holidays are special enough that we give a free pass to people who would otherwise break the law?

In fact, free taxi's establishes a horrible precedent in my opinion. We're saying, 'Not driving drunk is TOO HARD for people to figure out. And paying for a taxi is TOO HARD for people to do. We need to have free taxi's available to stop drunk drivers (but only on New Year's....)' - how do you then turn around and condemn a man for drunk driving when you don't provide a free taxi? You've already established that an individual is incapable of doing it!

So, now I'll turn your emotionally loaded question around to you. How do YOU explain to the family of someone killed by a drunk driver WHO WAS KILLED ON ANY OTHER DAY that it wasn't worth the money?

Exactly.

So we end up in a place where free taxis need to be provided because we're all afraid that lazy drunks are going to kill us if we don't. That's not a society I want to live in, and I don't see any reason to start down that path.

tritium · 01-01-2014 01:25PM

UCDVet wrote: »

No, I get it. We're trying to proactively stop crime by removing the motivation for committing the crime. And in doing so, rewarding the potential criminals with free stuff.

Where do you draw the line?

What's the difference between the guy who will drive home drunk on New Year's Eve unless you provide him with a free taxi verse the guy who will drive home drunk on Saturday night unless you provide him with a free taxi? Okay, maybe that's too far - but what about Halloween? Or Christmas? Which holidays are special enough that we give a free pass to people who would otherwise break the law?

In fact, free taxi's establishes a horrible precedent in my opinion. We're saying, 'Not driving drunk is TOO HARD for people to figure out. And paying for a taxi is TOO HARD for people to do. We need to have free taxi's available to stop drunk drivers (but only on New Year's....)' - how do you then turn around and condemn a man for drunk driving when you don't provide a free taxi? You've already established that an individual is incapable of doing it!

So, now I'll turn your emotionally loaded question around to you. How do YOU explain to the family of someone killed by a drunk driver WHO WAS KILLED ON ANY OTHER DAY that it wasn't worth the money?

Exactly.

So we end up in a place where free taxis need to be provided because we're all afraid that lazy drunks are going to kill us if we don't. That's not a society I want to live in, and I don't see any reason to start down that path.

You're not really turning my argument back on me- just to be clear I'd support a saferide programme 365 days a year.

Its not about facilitating drinkers or absolving them from responsibility. Its about society deciding that the consequences of some actions are so severe that they justify proactive intervention. Its not to make life easy for drinkers its to protect those who will bear the consequence for their actions. once its backed with severe penalties for those who choose to flout the DUI laws I'd support it100%

Can I assume you also think methadone clinics are a waste of time and resources?

Artful_Badger · 01-01-2014 01:34PM

tritium wrote: »

You're not really turning my argument back on me- just to be clear I'd support a saferide programme 365 days a year.

Its not about facilitating drinkers or absolving them from responsibility. Its about society deciding that the consequences of some actions are so severe that they justify proactive intervention. Its not to make life easy for drinkers its to protect those who will bear the consequence for their actions. once its backed with severe penalties for those who choose to flout the DUI laws I'd support it100%

Can I assume you also think methadone clinics are a waste of time and resources?

Surely in that case the abuse of alcohol itself is the issue and what should be whats dealt with rather than facilitating it with a view to avoiding one specific issue that arises from it ? Methadone clinics are there to help people with actual problems not preventing them harming others by giving them free drugs.

lau1247 · 01-01-2014 01:41PM

tritium wrote: »

You're missing the point - try telling the family of someone killed by a drunk driver that It would have been a waste of money.

Typically saferide programmes go hand in hand with pretty severe enforcement of DUI laws. In some parts of the states the police will Find any excuse to stop and check a car.

Very different issue to day to day public transport

Just spend the resources to stop people drinking all together, no need for free taxi, hardly any burden on tax payer to subsidise a specific group of people and everyone is happy except drinkers of course.. **** it, just raise the price of drinks.

Lets not forget, if a drinker decides to go out for a drink, ultimately it is their own responsibility to arrange a way to get home safely. If they decide to drink and drive and causes accident or death, hand out harsh punishment, so harsh that it will make people think before doing it again.

tritium · 01-01-2014 01:50PM

lau1247 wrote: »

Just spend the resources to stop people drinking all together, no need for free taxi, hardly any burden on tax payer to subsidise a specific group of people and everyone is happy except drinkers of course.. **** it, just raise the price of drinks.

Lets not forget, if a drinker decides to go out for a drink, ultimately it is their own responsibility to arrange a way to get home safely. If they decide to drink and drive and causes accident or death, hand out harsh punishment, so harsh that it will make people think before doing it again.

On your first point; they tried it, called it prohibition- it didn't work too well

On your second point; Wouldn't it be preferable to prevent the accident or death?

tritium · 01-01-2014 01:56PM

Artful_Badger wrote: »

Surely in that case the abuse of alcohol itself is the issue and what should be whats dealt with rather than facilitating it with a view to avoiding one specific issue that arises from it ? Methadone clinics are there to help people with actual problems not preventing them harming others by giving them free drugs.

Methadone clinics are just one example of proactive intervention to prevent an issue. If you want a simpler and more readily applicable one think of funding additional youth services in disadvantaged areas. Its not done for pure goodwill, its because the payoff justifies the cost. I'm all for hard justice, but ignoring the most efficient solution because it looks like giving someone a freebie is just dumb.

Btw abuse of alcohol is part of the issue. That's why you enforce other aspects of law that address this like age restrictions, traffic laws, enforced rehab etc.

UCDVet · 01-01-2014 02:05PM

tritium wrote: »

You're not really turning my argument back on me- just to be clear I'd support a saferide programme 365 days a year.

Its not about facilitating drinkers or absolving them from responsibility. Its about society deciding that the consequences of some actions are so severe that they justify proactive intervention. Its not to make life easy for drinkers its to protect those who will bear the consequence for their actions. once its backed with severe penalties for those who choose to flout the DUI laws I'd support it100%

Can I assume you also think methadone clinics are a waste of time and resources?

In your original response to me, you said that this was a different issue than day-to-day transportation.

...very different issue to day to day public transport

But now you are saying you'd support it 365 days per year. That would make it a day to day form of public transportation. And it would mean my fictional employee who couldn't take DublinBus into work on New Year's Eve could take a taxi into work at 6am. So, I feel like we're now talking about something quite a bit different than what we started with.

Anyway, I don't see perpetually free taxis as a feasible solution....the cost would be staggering and, certainly in Dublin, nobody would ever spend hard-earned money on DublinBus when they could get a free taxi! I pay 100+ per month for the bus and I'd gladly accept your free taxi instead. If I need to do a shot of whiskey each morning so they'll take me, I'll happily oblige.

Personally, I see methadone clinics quite differently than a free taxi on New Year's Eve. The goal of a methadone clinic is to help people with severe physical and psychological addiction to drugs. To me, it's akin to health care.

The goal of a free taxi on New Year's Eve is so that regular people who want to have a grand time, drink a lot, and act irresponsibly can do so without having to demonstrate the self-control required to not drink and drive. If individuals want to donate to a such a program, or if bars/restaurants want to ffer free-ride home deals; more power to them. I just don't believe taxpayers should be footing the bill for someone else's recreation.

The equivalent would be a program that gave free TVs to crack addicts because, sometimes, people would get real high on crack and then steal a TV. So if we just give them all a free TV - hopefully - they won't get high and steal TVs. But it's cool for them to get high. And, it doesn't matter if they happen to be rich and have two nice TVs at home, we'll pay for a new TV they can use just for that one night while they are high.

tritium · 01-01-2014 03:01PM

UCDVet wrote: »

In your original response to me, you said that this was a different issue than day-to-day transportation.

But now you are saying you'd support it 365 days per year. That would make it a day to day form of public transportation. And it would mean my fictional employee who couldn't take DublinBus into work on New Year's Eve could take a taxi into work at 6am. So, I feel like we're now talking about something quite a bit different than what we started with.

Anyway, I don't see perpetually free taxis as a feasible solution....the cost would be staggering and, certainly in Dublin, nobody would ever spend hard-earned money on DublinBus when they could get a free taxi! I pay 100+ per month for the bus and I'd gladly accept your free taxi instead. If I need to do a shot of whiskey each morning so they'll take me, I'll happily oblige.

Personally, I see methadone clinics quite differently than a free taxi on New Year's Eve. The goal of a methadone clinic is to help people with severe physical and psychological addiction to drugs. To me, it's akin to health care.

The goal of a free taxi on New Year's Eve is so that regular people who want to have a grand time, drink a lot, and act irresponsibly can do so without having to demonstrate the self-control required to not drink and drive. If individuals want to donate to a such a program, or if bars/restaurants want to ffer free-ride home deals; more power to them. I just don't believe taxpayers should be footing the bill for someone else's recreation.

The equivalent would be a program that gave free TVs to crack addicts because, sometimes, people would get real high on crack and then steal a TV. So if we just give them all a free TV - hopefully - they won't get high and steal TVs. But it's cool for them to get high. And, it doesn't matter if they happen to be rich and have two nice TVs at home, we'll pay for a new TV they can use just for that one night while they are high.

Once again you ignore pretty much everything I've posted that doesn't suit. Quick summary:

1) the benefit is in removing a hazard for THE REST of the public
2) society already funds many proactive interventions - pumping money into youth programmes to keep them away from crime is exactly like giving TVs to crack addIcts so they don't steal them, it just looks a bit better socially

Who are these famous taxpayers who will be funding this in your world anyway? Possibly the same people who will be out drinking? Newsflash- there's lots of things I don't like the taxes I pay being used to fund, the point of a government is to do so anyway for the benefit of society. If one mother still has a son tomorrow that sits just fine with me as public expenditure. Guess what, as a car driver it sits far nicer with me than the taxes I paytofund your heavily subsidised bus ticket

TireeTerror · 01-01-2014 03:07PM

You're all going a bit mental in here. If you don't like how your tax contributions are being spent, do not pay tax. You do not have to be a part of society, do not think you do just because you have been taught to obey your entire life. Think on your own feet and do your own thing.

01-01-2014 03:08PM

MadsL wrote: »

How much does a multi-vehicle pileup with 2-3 deaths or serious injuries cost?

Responsible drinking, designating a driver, not drinking, walking home.

All free.

skydish79 · 01-01-2014 03:09PM

MadsL wrote: »

Here's a great idea, my county is paying for a free taxis tonight, between 10pm and 3am to take you from any bar/restaurant home (not to another bar)

Should Irish councils consider similar schemes?

Pubs should be paying for this, they are serving people whom they know are getting into their cars and driving drunk home

TireeTerror · 01-01-2014 03:16PM

skydish79 wrote: »

Pubs should be paying for this, they are serving people whom they know are getting into their cars and driving drunk home

Is it not illegal to serve someone who is drunk? Send in some undercover inspectors and shut them all down.

lau1247 · 01-01-2014 03:24PM

tritium wrote: »

On your first point; they tried it, called it prohibition- it didn't work too well

On your second point; Wouldn't it be preferable to prevent the accident or death?

First point, stop people drinking by raising price is not outright prohibition. They can still drink, it will just be expensive.

As for second point, isn't harsh punishment a form of prevention???

tritium · 01-01-2014 04:03PM

skydish79 wrote: »

Pubs should be paying for this, they are serving people whom they know are getting into their cars and driving drunk home

No argument there, I approve of the principle rather than having a hang up about who pays tbh

If this were ever given the green light here then the pubs would in all likelihood be the ones who pay. That said the euro on a bottle of wine last budgets mean most pubs or restaurants are more than covering the potential cost on a given night just in extra excise

tritium · 01-01-2014 04:04PM

lau1247 wrote: »

First point, stop people drinking by raising price is not outright prohibition. They can still drink, it will just be expensive.

As for second point, isn't harsh punishment a form of prevention???

No, punish them all you like someone has still been maimed or killed

lau1247 · 03-01-2014 02:19AM

tritium wrote: »

No, punish them all you like someone has still been maimed or killed

I genuinely have no idea what you are talking about in the last post

stpaddy99 · 03-01-2014 03:29AM

would the council pay meter prices?

A free taxi tonight...

Comments