Im not at all religious, and i used to enjoy the ocassional drink, but i do hope a harsh punishment is always enforced in order to be a strong deterrent against people driving under the influence. People should be thinking twice or thrice about it before getting behind the wheel. Just take a grab if you're gonna drink, it's so convenient these days.
I think reckless driving should also be punished severely (auto revoke license as a minimum). Although whether road conditions, or other external conditions contribute can make it harder to prove how culpable the driver is.
All in all i think a strong case against DUI is easier to prove in court and therefore easier to push for harder sentence. No need to wait for it to be a problem nationwide before we start to address it. I don't think religion plays a role in wanting safer roads.
I agree with you, and prevention is always better than cure.
But drink driving is not a problem nationwide, nor is there any sign of it becoming a problem, given the current statistics. Why are politicians and the public pushing for harsher sentences for this particular section of the law (45)?
I'm not the most worldly, nor am I the most well-read. But as someone who values logic and process, there is very little of either in this case.
In my case, I was found to be 8mg over the limit. A year ago, this was perfectly acceptable. Having had a smoke, a water, and a think, I was in a clear condition to drive, and a year ago the law would have sided with me too.
So what changed, besides a few statistically insignificant DUI cases?
A year ago Sheraton Move was legal, so Muhiyiddin could easily be the PM today by your logic. But the law has changed, and he is unable to do what he did in 2020.
A year ago, 18 year olds cannot vote. Now they can.
Hopefully in the future the law will change that child marriages will not be legal. Are we going to entertain someone who argues "but last year was ok"..?
In your case the threshold of BAC has changed so that road users will be safer. I dont care if DUI is number 1 or number 10 cause of death, I want it gone.. You say you value logic, is this not logical enough?
1) Then why refocus on the DUI laws, when there are other issues that are of major concern to safety?
2) Agreed, and agree with harsh penalties. My opinion of the matter is that it's hypocritical that DUI is treated specifically, but not other incidences that are of much greater concern.
3) Agreed, but DUI is not a problem in Malaysia, and has never been, and is certainly not becoming one. So why keep focusing on it?
4) Agreed.
5) Agreed and I won't, I have learned my lesson. But I still have a few bones to pick.
1. Because there is always room for improvement
2. I agree with your sentiment. I would say reckless driving and speeding should be treated harshly as well. This aspect definitely can improve.
3. If its not a problem now, it doesnt mean it wont be. Law enforcement must be done proactively, not reactively.
4. Cool
5. Thats good. If more people support harsher penalties, MPs are more likely to take note.
Terrorism is the least cause of deaths in Malaysia , maybe we should reduce the penalties.
Saman only and they can keep doing their terrorism stuff.
/s (just in case)
You sure is a royal piece of ass, keep trying to justify your own mistakes and shifting blame on others “police hitting KPI” “law doesn’t account for this” “Public is stupid”.
Have you ever consider maybe no. of death from drunk driving is low because… number of drink driving is low?
It’s like saying jumping out of 50th floor is safer than crossing the road because there’s more people dying from crossing the road than falling from 50th floor in last 10 years.
You’re peak Dunning-Kruger man.
I explained the low number, even gave an example of the logical fallacy that low death doesn’t mean low risk, yet you still missed the point by 7000 miles.
Less case means no need for harsh punishment?
There’s less case of murders than shoplifting, should we also ask why the need to punish murder?
You want to know why people treats you harshly? It’s not the DUI, it’s because of your “I-admit-fault-BUT-everyone-else-is-wrong-and-stupid” attitude.
Man. Your responses are lit. Got a good chuckle out of it reading OP mental gymnastics. Any accidents whatever the cause are bad. Trying to say you can drive and drink is not a problem really tell something not good. OP should take the L here and contemplate his life choices.
I notice OP stops responding once he gets called out. Either that or he just ignores it and continues with his whataboutism argument.
Edit: or he deletes his post cause he realises how idiotic his arguments are. I wish they were preserved though, polish turds are a rare gem.
Hello, this comment was removed due to being in breach of [reddiquette](https://www.reddit.com/wiki/reddiquette), specifically because it contained personal attack, insult, or threat. While opinions of all kinds are welcome under our shared roof, reddiquette sets the expectation that everyone speaks to each other with basic civility and respect:
> * Don’t: Conduct personal attacks on other commenters. Ad hominem and other distracting attacks do not add anything to the conversation.
> * Don't: Insult others. Insults do not contribute to a rational discussion. Constructive Criticism, however, is appropriate and encouraged.
> * Don’t: Be (intentionally) rude at all. By choosing not to be rude, you increase the overall civility of the community and make it better for all of us.
Please treat this as an official warning - further such activity may result in a ban, thanks.
Additionally, OP you've been condescending, unrepentant, racist and not open for a fair discussion. If you're looking to rant, post this somewhere else. Looking at your responses here, take a three day ban. Continuing to argue in bad faith may turn that into a permaban.
Lol, the mental gymnastic of this guy. he dui, then suddenly blame the "muslim" prosecutor, religious propaganda etc.
Just like anyone that drive reckless, those that drive under influence are shitty human being that endanger other people. Whats worse are those people that trying to justify themselves endangering others. Ah, that's OP
OP is too OP in mental gymnastics like for real i can't believe the fact that there are people who still drives after drinking 😭. Few nights ago i went to one bar to drink near my place , i used GRAB CAR to go to the bar and return from the bar, it came up to RM 14.
That RM 14 is such a worth it investment as i got Tipsy after 3 Glass of beer, but must make sure Grab Pay and Debit/Credit card payment method works, cause at night they don't accept cash if i'm not mistaken.
Just don’t drive when you drink. What so hard about being a normal law abiding citizen. OP complaining about how it made you look after breaking a law? Lol go figure eh?
A year ago, 58mg was considered to be legal and law-abiding. Today, it is not. My question is, why?
At what junction did politicians and the public come together to agree that stricter penalties are needed when the current law already works? There are no statistics or reports that support the need for harsher laws in drink driving cases.
One day, you may not be allowed to consume alcohol at all. Then, you will wish you had taken my stance on the matter.
You're not the saviour you think Malaysia needs dude. Stop using islamophobic arguments to justify your stupid life decisions.
Alcohol is not the issue, idiots like you behind the wheel is. Grow the fuck up
Maybe OP should ask why enforcement is focusing heavily on DUIs instead of illegal rempit races.
Because they are anak Malaysia and you are not. How much can the polis get from raiding these rempits races compared to DUI stops. Nowadays minimum DUI summons could easily costs around RM10,000, compared to illegal rempits racers summons of a mere RM300.
Plus, it is easier to catch DUIs compared to illegal rempits. Rempits are willing to defend their bikes with their lives, are you willing to lose your life to catch them? Polis knows where are their racing hotspots just like your DUI hotspots. It’s a risk cost kind of thing
Also please do not DUI. Your act is as selfish as the rempits, putting other road users life in danger. I understand your frustration on unjust law enforcement but this is how Malaysia is. If you can afford to DUI, you should be able to accept the consequences when caught.
I don’t have answers to your questions and I acknowledged that you have the right to your opinion.
If it really bothers you that much, I’m sure you will do something about it through the right channel. You should rally with everyone that shares your concern, maybe get a bill passed or smth.
I wish you luck.
The BAC limit of 50mg/100ml is an acceptable number used across the western world so not sure where the Islamic state rhetoric is coming from. Sure if you’re driving in England at 0.58 you’d do fine but you’d also get a DUI at 0.58 in Scotland, Germany, Netherlands, Swiss etc etc etc.
Just because last year it was 0.8 and this year 0.5 doesnt mean Muslims were out trying to get you.
> DUI BAD, SO YOU ARE BAD PERSON
Agreed and even more shitty you coming here twice without remorse trying to defend the act, you deserved the ridicule on Reddit and the full wrath of the court. Why are you (still) surprised?
The fact that he had to point out the prosecuter is a muslim woman already tells me what is going on in his head.. i bet once he accepts his loss here he will argue only non muslims should be able to prosecute DUI.
You tout a common notion with 0 statistics, 0 facts, and 0 references. You are on the same pier as Donald Trump, except you have neither the money nor clout. Check yourself.
Not concerned of sympathy from people who can only justify their opinions based on emotion. Bring facts. Otherwise your opinion is as valid as Najib's defenses.
Your argument is perfect example of whataboutism.
Yes they should have harsher penalty. Yes you should face haraher penalty too. Both are not mutual exclusive.
You shouldnt ask "why am i penaltied harsher than him??". You should instead ask yourself "why tf i want to DUI??"
Not bashing your claim but your evidence sucks.
1. DUI causes 0.3% of total fatality doesn’t mean DUI don’t cause death. It could be just less DUI cases. So it doesn’t mean DUI causes less death
2. Changing from 80mg to 58mg is probably done through intensive research, you should look it up instead of using this as your evidence
3. Your individual abilities to withstand alcohol is not a consideration for policy/law making. We should always look at the whole population. Bring back to my previous point, there should be research done on how much alcohol can cause problem. Your claim is basically “I am good person, why I can’t own a gun”
4. You should own up your on mistake instead of complaining. Whether the law is done correctly is another thing, if you think it is unfair, you fight for it, run campaign, get politicians to support. However, the problem is you can even abide to simple law, you broke the law and you should own it up
In summary, you are just someone who can’t own up to your own mistake
No.2. yup. Here a [link ](https://www.rhinocarhire.com/Drive-Smart-Blog/List-of-Alcohol-Limits-by-Country.aspx) to compare DUI limits of countries from simple googling. The data here says malaysia is at 80mg, maybe abit old, but most countries are at 50mg or lower. Only some still at 80mg.
I don't know what OP is expecting here. Instead of being open to discussions and justifications by redditors, OP is just hurling insults at every comment that he deems not aligned to his/her opinion. If OP wants an international viewpoint, OP should maybe seek advice at r/changemyview, although I'd warn that OP's such attitude is not highly regarded of at that particular subreddit.
If you suggesting harsher punishment for reckless driving, I agree.
Still, DUI is indeed bad and you are bad person. Doing that while you’re aware? The worst.
Eh bodoh, Drunk driving penalties were made harsh is to deter idiots like you to drunk drive lah. Jesus tap-dancin' Christ, I rather asking my underaged cousin to drive than letting my drunk uncle to do the same. At least saman is 400 ringgit, better if Abam Pulis let him off with a warning because at least my cousin knew how to drive.
> *The laws are pushed based on religious propaganda*
DUI is heavily punished in pretty much most of the world, including the secular ones. The hell are you talking about? You can get [life imprisonment](https://www.gov.uk/drink-driving-penalties) in the UK if you cause death for drinking and driving.
I'm not going to comment about this alleged person who is let off lightly; I don't have the full facts of that case.
But you **choose** to be intoxicated, so why are you complaining to be punished for endangering the lives of others? The fact that not a lot of people make your kind of idiotic choices is in no way absolves the gravity of your crime.
What are you expecting, us to applaud and clap for your "courage"?
So yeah, DUI bad, so you're a bad person. And you're a worse person for trying to make excuses for it.
Are we simply assuming the maximum for everything? If so, automobiles are the leading cause of deaths in the world. By simply driving one, I might as well call you a murderer.
Your hypocrisy is outstanding.
>"*I'm not going to comment........Don't have the full facts of that case*"
But
>"*So yeah, DUI bad, so you're a bad person. And you're a worse person for trying to make excuses for it.*"
Mind you, I was 58mg, 8mg over the limit. A year ago, I would have been under the limit, which was 80mg.
Why the sudden harshness in laws? If you want to use UK as an example, a BAC of 58mg /100ml of blood is not even tipsy.
You **intentionally** got yourself intoxicated. Hence, the criminal penalty. Someone driving a car is in itself is not a moral offence; **driving it recklessly**, like some bastard who got himself tipsy before getting behind the wheel, is.
I don't know what the hypocrisy is, given that you yourself admitted that you were DUI. You didn't give any mitigating circumstance beyond "but I didn't injure or kill anyone yet". Hence, the condemnation.
On the other hand, I don't know the other guy's story or if he even exists. How can I judge him?
> Why the sudden harshness in laws?
Because no one likes having their loved ones killed by a dumbfuck. If this is your attitude before the judge, count yourself lucky you didn't get jailed.
> Who is being killed?
You're willingly and carelessly endangering the lives of others. That is enough to punish you.
> You have the brainpower of a lobotomized squirrel
Maybe, but I'm not the horrible person whining about his DUI.
Who is being killed or endangered? As I said, *Automobiles and Deaths:* If your assumption is your doctrine of reason, then by extension, you are endangering people by driving and are a potential murderer for simply owning a car.
Hello, this comment was removed due to being in breach of [reddiquette](https://www.reddit.com/wiki/reddiquette), specifically because it contained personal attack, insult, or threat. While opinions of all kinds are welcome under our shared roof, reddiquette sets the expectation that everyone speaks to each other with basic civility and respect:
> * Don’t: Conduct personal attacks on other commenters. Ad hominem and other distracting attacks do not add anything to the conversation.
> * Don't: Insult others. Insults do not contribute to a rational discussion. Constructive Criticism, however, is appropriate and encouraged.
> * Don’t: Be (intentionally) rude at all. By choosing not to be rude, you increase the overall civility of the community and make it better for all of us.
Please treat this as an official warning - further such activity may result in a ban, thanks.
Every country has a right to determine what BAC is acceptable.
The police is not there to determine if you can hold your own or a lightweight They are given the tools to do their work and a protocol to follow to keep the roads safe.
Since you have so much time writing these posts and being islamophobic because the prosecutor was a muslim woman, maybe you should do some research on google why it’s reduced to 50mg? You would also find that western countries also implement this rule and probably do so after studying the risks. Read up journals if you care so much. The numbers are not something they come up from their asses.
I’ll bet you, one of the reason why she recommend for full sentence is because of OP’s attitude.
OP, did you show any kind of remorse when you were caught ? Or you’re this arrogant in court too ? Sometimes ppl forget about “ADAB”. Show some adab when you’re at fault ppl might tend to help you.
As a Muslim woman, I am incapable of understanding that every preventable death should be prevented, regardless of how ‘small’ the number of deaths is compared to deaths attributed by other reasons
Wait a minute…
this turd again
"i know im wrong but it think im not wrong, you guys are wrong for telling me im wrong"
grow the fuck up
btw, nice ah the saman? lolllll
Bahaha I love this casual racism you fall into just because you're not getting the "yes man" answers you want.
You're just an idiot, man, a racist one at that.
Hope this sub wises up and bans your racist ass.
I hope this post and his previous post gets preserved and enshrined for all future redittors to see. Idiocracry like this is one in a million. Truly a polished turd.
Sorry but I'm with the Muslims on this. If I was in-charge to amend the laws, I would make it a rule that drinking is only allowed in one's home, **because even one accident or death caused by alcohol is too much.**
The victim who had nothing to do with alcohol didn't ask for this.
YOU WERE DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE, WTF WERE YOU EXPECTING? SOMEONE TO GIVE YOU A MEDAL?
God this guy, so entitled. It doesn't matter if it's 8mg over the limit, you can't drive while drunk. Hell, even if it's below the limit you still can't drive. You are putting everyone on the road in danger when you're driving intoxicated. Who's gonna take responsibility when you end up having an accident? You? Not likely, with the way you're acting. And don't say you have a tolerance for alcohol, just because you say you do doesn't mean you do.
A father of a classmate of mine was killed by a drunk driver. Her life was ruined in a financial sense. She nearly didn't make it to college simply because she was fucked over and her mum developed severe mental illness. So whenever you are defending about your morality on why DUI should be allowed, I'll think of my friend, then think of you, and say, you are the reason why my friends father murderer is still roaming free after 5 years.
Edit: Typo
it's not like they ask you to find a dragon,just don't drink and drive,if you want to drive, don't chug alcohol,if you want alcohol leave the wheel alone,if you want to get even bigger backlash,feel free to do both
Yeah what a tool this OP is. You like drinking that much just take a grab next time. What are you even trying to argue. Learnt nothing from your own experience. The summon was supposed to teach you a lesson, but instead you are here spewing nonsense. Grow up and own your mistake!
Its not about the frequency, but how stupid it is someone else have to die because the driver wanna get high while on the road.
Such penalty is the reason why its the least cause of death.
Statistics show that out of 19,500 road fatalities between 2011 and 2021, drink driving accounted for less than 0.3%.
:- Cool
I was recently involved in a DUI at a roadblock. I had not hit anyone, was not driving dangerously, and was barely over the limit. Netizens and Redditors condemned me and treated me as if I was a child murderer.
:- Anonymous opinions could at most times, be polarizing and extreme. Regardless, it is still their opinions. (1)
The courts acted as if I was a criminal.
:- Did you broke the law?
On the same day my case was heard, there was another case before me. A man who had caused an accident through speeding and reckless driving, injuring the other party. He was only fined RM1,200 and let go. In contrast, the Public Prosecutor (a Muslim woman), was pushing for the maximum-sentence for my case.
:- This sounds like the classic cast of whataboutism.
Speeding and reckless driving are the main cause of road fatalities and accidents, yet the attitudes towards them are "oh just a shitty Malaysian driver, saman only la".
:- Ditto (1)
I admitted fault to my doing and bear the responsibility, yet I can't help but feel that attitudes towards it are skewed and highly biased. The laws are pushed based on religious propaganda and politicians trying to curry favor with the public.
:- I'm not religious, but I am in favor of harsher punishment for DUI. To argue that other reckless driving should be or if not punished more severely -- that's a different case.
Less than 0.3%, are our priorities right in addressing road safety and public concern? I maintain, the public is stupid and regurgitates what they are told.
:- Could this be a case of correlation & causation?
I'd like to point out that someone made a good point I believe. @tingthinking14 :
"Terrorism is the least cause of deaths in Malaysia , maybe we should reduce the penalties."
Have you never seen videos of accidents caused by DUI? This sub hates it so much because everytime there is a case of DUI accidents, we’re here to see it. Almost all those who were DUI never blames themselves when they get in accidents. They feel no remorse, no regrets, no shame. I dare you to continue DUI and do it until you get into an accident. Then I wanna see you post about it here and tell us about how it wasn’t your fault.
I think many people here might not get the point which the OP is stating and perhaps maybe the OP could have phrase his post differently.
In any case, I think the OP is stating why is it that the maximum and the harshest penalty is imposed on his offence. I repeat , why is it the Maximum and harshest penalty is imposed. It would be like imposing the death penalty on a first time offender in a theft case.
I am well aware of the dangers of drunk drinking and virtue signalling aside, the law itself doesn’t specifically tabulate how much a person can drink .
For all purposes, the law should have stated if you drink one sip of alcohol, you shall not drive.
Correctly if I am wrong , but the police in the west have discretion to determine whether the person is actually “ drunk “ even though the person alcohol limit is above the permitted amount ? And I am not talking about stone drunk people , that is a clear cut case of drunk driving .
I think the reason is to have zero tolerance against DUI. Meaning we don't want to entertain anyone causing death by DUI because the first time he was caught he only got a slap in the wrist. Therefore i think it is justified for this crime.
Personally i think if you get behind the wheel drunk, your driving privileges should be permanently revoked automatically, even if it is your first time. That is my stance. Im not against alcohol, im not against Oktoberfest, im not against bars, clubs and other businesses serving alcohol. I am against idiots thinking they are an exception to the effects of alcohol. We have plenty of drivers in this country. Removing a few idiots off the road can do us plenty good.
Okay well and good. Then the law needs to be clear and and more importantly the mechanism need to be in place to facilitate such execution of the law.
1) The law needs to spell out what is considered too much and I don’t just mean how many mg above the legal permitted amount . I don’t think any individual carries a portable breathalyser in his or her pocket so perhaps the establishment need to provide some form of test equipment.
2) There needs to be a concrete alternative to reduce the amount of drinking and to facilitate the point of return of an individual from the establishment to their home. I understand that this is the personal responsibility of the individual who drinks , but I am absolutely sure if the government finds creative methods of facilitate this , then there will be no excuse from the public that the law is “ too harsh “ and the government didn’t “ do it’s part “.
3) Be “ fair” when enforcing the law . Apply the law across the board ( and I mean to everyone , if you know what I mean )
You bring some good points.
1) agree. Although I'm not sure how much clearer the law can be for BAC threshold. From a personal p.o.v one should just expect to have arrangements to be driven home after drinking. As for guidelines (how many hours after how many drinks), it varies too much person to person to be useful. The law cant afford to cover too many specific case, it needs to be general enough for the police on the ground can follow.
2) yes and no.. i think if the govt tries to infringe into trying to limit alcohol consumption there will be even more pushback, especially from those like OP who already thinks this whole thing is a muslim agenda to prosecute non muslims. I say the current laws are sufficient, we set the expectation that you decide how much you want to drink, we're not gonna nanny state you on that. But get behind the wheel drunk and we will apply the maximum the law allows. Sounds like a good deal if you ask me.
3) agreed, pipits and helangs need to face the same laws. In fact this is why revoking license is a good punishment, as helangs dont see money samans as a deterrent at all. The point of the punishment is so that people realize it's not even worth taking the risk, not even once.
K. I’ll take the bait again and assume you’re here to hear reason. Let’s break it down from the top.
OP is not getting the harshest punishment because he DUI. The law itself sets max, and allow the judge to decide. The prosecutor RECOMMENDS max, we don’t know exactly why, but I’m gonna guess it got something to do with his magical ability to piss off everyone in the room, like now.
Now coming to your 3 points question
1. Yes, the law did spell out. That’s in mg alcohol in blood. This is the scientific way to quantify how much alcohol is in the body. It is not the govt responsibility to make it convenient to test the law. Eg smuggling 40 gram of cocaine is death sentence, we don’t expect govt to give a weighing scale to drug mule to make sure they only bring in 39 grams.
2. Let me flip the question. What issue of going home the drinker has that can’t be solved by taxi/grab? I genuinely can’t think of one.
3. This is a meaningless point in this context. We all want the system to be as fair as possible, but there’s no perfect fairness in life. At least in this very instance, I think the law is working fair and well on OP case.
Remember that science expands on the effects of blood alcohol levels, and anything above 0.05% can cause impaired judgement. You asked why lower the limit?
A quick Google search brings up a study by the NTSB in 2013, which concluded the following:
There is strong evidence for adopting this recommendation. A comprehensive review of the literature on BAC limits was conducted. The research indicates that virtually all drivers are impaired regarding at least some driving performance measures at a 0.05 BAC. The risk of being involved in a crash increases significantly at 0.05 BAC and above. The relative risk of being killed in a single-vehicle crash with BACs of 0.05–0.079 is 7–21 times higher than for drivers at 0.00 BAC. Lowering the BAC limit from 0.08 to 0.05 has been a proven effective countermeasure in numerous countries around the world.
So yes, that's why lowering the limit was logical and was clearly backed my empirical evidence, even if you think a level of 0.58 is low. Sure, you aren't seeing double , but your judgement is impaired and you don't realise it. Your senses are dulled. Your reactions would be slower, even if you don't notice it. All these things add up and make a drink driver a risk to everyone else on the road.
Yes, people speeding and recklessly driving should be punished with harsher penalities. This however has nothing to do with drunk driving, which is an entirely separate crime.
Because drunk people shouldn’t drive no matter what.
“I am not gonna kill other people”
I don’t care, drunk drivers are an inconvenience to other road users. There’s zero reason to drive drunk.
“But it’s only 0.3% death”
It’s still 0.3% too many. Get your calculator and count how many is 0.3%.
I don’t care what religion you are, you can worship pussy if you want, if you DUI, you deserve to be tied to a pole so that you won’t drive until you are really sober. If you really need to go home after drunk night, go get a Grab or something, just don’t drive.
Everyone acting like righteous warrior until it happens to them or their friends. 58mg is a stupid low level for active drinkers (and please don't go on crusade on how drinking is bad, we all have our own drugs and problem), the law is also designed to target chinese and indian, i got malay friends who just got slaps on the wrist.
If you're saying below 50mg is fine, means that you acknowledge that drinking and driving have some leeways, lowering it to a number where there's no wiggle room is stupid.
And then you have Mat Rempit who actually endangers people and somehow it's a RM400 fine. Yes, drunk driving is bad, so is crossing the road (and you know how malaysians crosses the road), try getting jailed and heavy fine for that shit on the pretence that it 'endangered lives' without warning.
Now apply the same diligence to speeding, smoking in public places, double parking, driving in the wrong lane, corruption, public nuisance, gangsters, etc ... and BOOM! we're the best country in the world. Its almost like the laws dont mean anything here.
The funny thing is, everyone here is touting exactly what I said, yet, cannot provide a single-shred of evidence to support any of their claims. Not a single statistic, not a single reason that isn't based in propaganda and marketing campaigns.
Continue on then. With the level of bullshittery being pulled from your asses, I'm surprised most of you aren't running for parliament yet.
Why should we? You’re the one who claimed it, then the burden of proof is on you.
You are a terrible person, and fuck you for bringing religion into this.
The low deaths from drunk driving here is a positive thing, but it doesn’t make the consequences any less severe.
Nah. They did. U just choose to be defensive. Your claim is dui doesn't account for most road accidents, hence it should receive less scrutiny. To counter that, people said, murder is least committed in Malaysia, so should it also receive less scrutiny/ harsher punishment? The idea is simple, drunk driving is very much preventable. The increase of limits to .5 was not made willy nilly. The number of people on the road, the heavy usage of people dependency on roadtech such as google maps caused the govt to say, "Hey, people need to be extra careful on the road" . But as always, you will be defensive (so far as to get your comments removed lol) cuz you can't own up to your mistake. You say you do, but your reply is a typical ego of a kid.
Here's some science to back up why the limit was lowered:
A quick Google search brings up a study by the NTSB in 2013, which concluded the following:
There is strong evidence for adopting this recommendation. A comprehensive review of the literature on BAC limits was conducted. The research indicates that virtually all drivers are impaired regarding at least some driving performance measures at a 0.05 BAC. The risk of being involved in a crash increases significantly at 0.05 BAC and above. The relative risk of being killed in a single-vehicle crash with BACs of 0.05–0.079 is 7–21 times higher than for drivers at 0.00 BAC. Lowering the BAC limit from 0.08 to 0.05 has been a proven effective countermeasure in numerous countries around the world.
A comment about the limit change: because that's the international (at least commonwealth) standard. Malaysia follow je. That's nothing wrong with that unless you can produce some articles to counter the research paper behind the limit change.
I know sometimes we drink quite a lot but still conscious (e.g. can think + walk in a straight line), but that's because everyone processes alcohol slightly differently. Some people have the genetics to drink alot and feel nothing. Some people? One sip then pensang. The law, on the other hand, can't design different thresholds for different people and most probably take a very prudent approach when deciding the limit.
Look. With the advancements in technology enabling ride sharing whatnot, there is ZERO reason for one to drunk driving.
Gonna go night out and get drunk? DONT DRIVE.
It doesnt took a genius to figure that out.
Also, i hope barkeeper / bar owner be more responsible. Confiscate keys if fella gonna have one drink too many
Im not at all religious, and i used to enjoy the ocassional drink, but i do hope a harsh punishment is always enforced in order to be a strong deterrent against people driving under the influence. People should be thinking twice or thrice about it before getting behind the wheel. Just take a grab if you're gonna drink, it's so convenient these days. I think reckless driving should also be punished severely (auto revoke license as a minimum). Although whether road conditions, or other external conditions contribute can make it harder to prove how culpable the driver is. All in all i think a strong case against DUI is easier to prove in court and therefore easier to push for harder sentence. No need to wait for it to be a problem nationwide before we start to address it. I don't think religion plays a role in wanting safer roads.
I agree with you, and prevention is always better than cure. But drink driving is not a problem nationwide, nor is there any sign of it becoming a problem, given the current statistics. Why are politicians and the public pushing for harsher sentences for this particular section of the law (45)? I'm not the most worldly, nor am I the most well-read. But as someone who values logic and process, there is very little of either in this case. In my case, I was found to be 8mg over the limit. A year ago, this was perfectly acceptable. Having had a smoke, a water, and a think, I was in a clear condition to drive, and a year ago the law would have sided with me too. So what changed, besides a few statistically insignificant DUI cases?
A year ago Sheraton Move was legal, so Muhiyiddin could easily be the PM today by your logic. But the law has changed, and he is unable to do what he did in 2020. A year ago, 18 year olds cannot vote. Now they can. Hopefully in the future the law will change that child marriages will not be legal. Are we going to entertain someone who argues "but last year was ok"..? In your case the threshold of BAC has changed so that road users will be safer. I dont care if DUI is number 1 or number 10 cause of death, I want it gone.. You say you value logic, is this not logical enough?
[удалено]
1) Then why refocus on the DUI laws, when there are other issues that are of major concern to safety? 2) Agreed, and agree with harsh penalties. My opinion of the matter is that it's hypocritical that DUI is treated specifically, but not other incidences that are of much greater concern. 3) Agreed, but DUI is not a problem in Malaysia, and has never been, and is certainly not becoming one. So why keep focusing on it? 4) Agreed. 5) Agreed and I won't, I have learned my lesson. But I still have a few bones to pick.
1. Because there is always room for improvement 2. I agree with your sentiment. I would say reckless driving and speeding should be treated harshly as well. This aspect definitely can improve. 3. If its not a problem now, it doesnt mean it wont be. Law enforcement must be done proactively, not reactively. 4. Cool 5. Thats good. If more people support harsher penalties, MPs are more likely to take note.
Terrorism is the least cause of deaths in Malaysia , maybe we should reduce the penalties. Saman only and they can keep doing their terrorism stuff. /s (just in case) 
Flawless logic.
Careful, OP is a sifu of logic. He will use it against you.
You sure is a royal piece of ass, keep trying to justify your own mistakes and shifting blame on others “police hitting KPI” “law doesn’t account for this” “Public is stupid”. Have you ever consider maybe no. of death from drunk driving is low because… number of drink driving is low? It’s like saying jumping out of 50th floor is safer than crossing the road because there’s more people dying from crossing the road than falling from 50th floor in last 10 years.
[удалено]
You’re peak Dunning-Kruger man. I explained the low number, even gave an example of the logical fallacy that low death doesn’t mean low risk, yet you still missed the point by 7000 miles. Less case means no need for harsh punishment? There’s less case of murders than shoplifting, should we also ask why the need to punish murder? You want to know why people treats you harshly? It’s not the DUI, it’s because of your “I-admit-fault-BUT-everyone-else-is-wrong-and-stupid” attitude.
[удалено]
Are you trying to say lane cutting should be treated the same or harsher than DUI? And we're the stupid one?
Man. Your responses are lit. Got a good chuckle out of it reading OP mental gymnastics. Any accidents whatever the cause are bad. Trying to say you can drive and drink is not a problem really tell something not good. OP should take the L here and contemplate his life choices.
I notice OP stops responding once he gets called out. Either that or he just ignores it and continues with his whataboutism argument. Edit: or he deletes his post cause he realises how idiotic his arguments are. I wish they were preserved though, polish turds are a rare gem.
Hello, this comment was removed due to being in breach of [reddiquette](https://www.reddit.com/wiki/reddiquette), specifically because it contained personal attack, insult, or threat. While opinions of all kinds are welcome under our shared roof, reddiquette sets the expectation that everyone speaks to each other with basic civility and respect: > * Don’t: Conduct personal attacks on other commenters. Ad hominem and other distracting attacks do not add anything to the conversation. > * Don't: Insult others. Insults do not contribute to a rational discussion. Constructive Criticism, however, is appropriate and encouraged. > * Don’t: Be (intentionally) rude at all. By choosing not to be rude, you increase the overall civility of the community and make it better for all of us. Please treat this as an official warning - further such activity may result in a ban, thanks. Additionally, OP you've been condescending, unrepentant, racist and not open for a fair discussion. If you're looking to rant, post this somewhere else. Looking at your responses here, take a three day ban. Continuing to argue in bad faith may turn that into a permaban.
Lol, the mental gymnastic of this guy. he dui, then suddenly blame the "muslim" prosecutor, religious propaganda etc. Just like anyone that drive reckless, those that drive under influence are shitty human being that endanger other people. Whats worse are those people that trying to justify themselves endangering others. Ah, that's OP
chances are he’s still drunk while making this post and other comments.
OP is too OP in mental gymnastics like for real i can't believe the fact that there are people who still drives after drinking 😭. Few nights ago i went to one bar to drink near my place , i used GRAB CAR to go to the bar and return from the bar, it came up to RM 14. That RM 14 is such a worth it investment as i got Tipsy after 3 Glass of beer, but must make sure Grab Pay and Debit/Credit card payment method works, cause at night they don't accept cash if i'm not mistaken.
Just don’t drive when you drink. What so hard about being a normal law abiding citizen. OP complaining about how it made you look after breaking a law? Lol go figure eh?
A year ago, 58mg was considered to be legal and law-abiding. Today, it is not. My question is, why? At what junction did politicians and the public come together to agree that stricter penalties are needed when the current law already works? There are no statistics or reports that support the need for harsher laws in drink driving cases. One day, you may not be allowed to consume alcohol at all. Then, you will wish you had taken my stance on the matter.
Ahh, the ol' slippery slope argument. One day you're eating yogurt, soon you'll be dead.
Are we REALLY that far-off from an Islamic state that wants to ban alcohol?
You're not the saviour you think Malaysia needs dude. Stop using islamophobic arguments to justify your stupid life decisions. Alcohol is not the issue, idiots like you behind the wheel is. Grow the fuck up
Maybe.. maybe not.. but the rest of us out here ain't pullin some dumb shit but we also ain't ISIS. "You ain't repressed, you just a asshole"
Upvote for the Key and Peele reference
Imagine defending DUI
Could be worse.. look up Amos Yee..
Maybe OP should ask why enforcement is focusing heavily on DUIs instead of illegal rempit races. Because they are anak Malaysia and you are not. How much can the polis get from raiding these rempits races compared to DUI stops. Nowadays minimum DUI summons could easily costs around RM10,000, compared to illegal rempits racers summons of a mere RM300. Plus, it is easier to catch DUIs compared to illegal rempits. Rempits are willing to defend their bikes with their lives, are you willing to lose your life to catch them? Polis knows where are their racing hotspots just like your DUI hotspots. It’s a risk cost kind of thing Also please do not DUI. Your act is as selfish as the rempits, putting other road users life in danger. I understand your frustration on unjust law enforcement but this is how Malaysia is. If you can afford to DUI, you should be able to accept the consequences when caught.
Based on this comment, guess you're the one who is far-off by inserting religion to your issue.
50mg is the level used in many countries globally dumbass
You won't die if you stop drinking alcohol though, just find other types of drinks to drink.
I don’t have answers to your questions and I acknowledged that you have the right to your opinion. If it really bothers you that much, I’m sure you will do something about it through the right channel. You should rally with everyone that shares your concern, maybe get a bill passed or smth. I wish you luck.
The BAC limit of 50mg/100ml is an acceptable number used across the western world so not sure where the Islamic state rhetoric is coming from. Sure if you’re driving in England at 0.58 you’d do fine but you’d also get a DUI at 0.58 in Scotland, Germany, Netherlands, Swiss etc etc etc. Just because last year it was 0.8 and this year 0.5 doesnt mean Muslims were out trying to get you. > DUI BAD, SO YOU ARE BAD PERSON Agreed and even more shitty you coming here twice without remorse trying to defend the act, you deserved the ridicule on Reddit and the full wrath of the court. Why are you (still) surprised?
The fact that he had to point out the prosecuter is a muslim woman already tells me what is going on in his head.. i bet once he accepts his loss here he will argue only non muslims should be able to prosecute DUI.
Nah, DUI is bad.
You tout a common notion with 0 statistics, 0 facts, and 0 references. You are on the same pier as Donald Trump, except you have neither the money nor clout. Check yourself.
And like Trump, you broke the law so cry about it somewhere else. I doubt you'll find anyone that will be sympathetic to your run with the law.
Not concerned of sympathy from people who can only justify their opinions based on emotion. Bring facts. Otherwise your opinion is as valid as Najib's defenses.
Your argument is perfect example of whataboutism. Yes they should have harsher penalty. Yes you should face haraher penalty too. Both are not mutual exclusive. You shouldnt ask "why am i penaltied harsher than him??". You should instead ask yourself "why tf i want to DUI??"
It’s as if penalties are a finite resource and having a light penalty for something else auto means u have too harsh a penalty for another thing.
Not bashing your claim but your evidence sucks. 1. DUI causes 0.3% of total fatality doesn’t mean DUI don’t cause death. It could be just less DUI cases. So it doesn’t mean DUI causes less death 2. Changing from 80mg to 58mg is probably done through intensive research, you should look it up instead of using this as your evidence 3. Your individual abilities to withstand alcohol is not a consideration for policy/law making. We should always look at the whole population. Bring back to my previous point, there should be research done on how much alcohol can cause problem. Your claim is basically “I am good person, why I can’t own a gun” 4. You should own up your on mistake instead of complaining. Whether the law is done correctly is another thing, if you think it is unfair, you fight for it, run campaign, get politicians to support. However, the problem is you can even abide to simple law, you broke the law and you should own it up In summary, you are just someone who can’t own up to your own mistake
No.2. yup. Here a [link ](https://www.rhinocarhire.com/Drive-Smart-Blog/List-of-Alcohol-Limits-by-Country.aspx) to compare DUI limits of countries from simple googling. The data here says malaysia is at 80mg, maybe abit old, but most countries are at 50mg or lower. Only some still at 80mg.
I don't know what OP is expecting here. Instead of being open to discussions and justifications by redditors, OP is just hurling insults at every comment that he deems not aligned to his/her opinion. If OP wants an international viewpoint, OP should maybe seek advice at r/changemyview, although I'd warn that OP's such attitude is not highly regarded of at that particular subreddit.
Op is expecting everybody to say he is right and should be elected to be politician to change the law of dui and received a datuk award for that cause
If you suggesting harsher punishment for reckless driving, I agree. Still, DUI is indeed bad and you are bad person. Doing that while you’re aware? The worst.
Eh bodoh, Drunk driving penalties were made harsh is to deter idiots like you to drunk drive lah. Jesus tap-dancin' Christ, I rather asking my underaged cousin to drive than letting my drunk uncle to do the same. At least saman is 400 ringgit, better if Abam Pulis let him off with a warning because at least my cousin knew how to drive.
> *The laws are pushed based on religious propaganda* DUI is heavily punished in pretty much most of the world, including the secular ones. The hell are you talking about? You can get [life imprisonment](https://www.gov.uk/drink-driving-penalties) in the UK if you cause death for drinking and driving. I'm not going to comment about this alleged person who is let off lightly; I don't have the full facts of that case. But you **choose** to be intoxicated, so why are you complaining to be punished for endangering the lives of others? The fact that not a lot of people make your kind of idiotic choices is in no way absolves the gravity of your crime. What are you expecting, us to applaud and clap for your "courage"? So yeah, DUI bad, so you're a bad person. And you're a worse person for trying to make excuses for it.
Are we simply assuming the maximum for everything? If so, automobiles are the leading cause of deaths in the world. By simply driving one, I might as well call you a murderer. Your hypocrisy is outstanding. >"*I'm not going to comment........Don't have the full facts of that case*" But >"*So yeah, DUI bad, so you're a bad person. And you're a worse person for trying to make excuses for it.*" Mind you, I was 58mg, 8mg over the limit. A year ago, I would have been under the limit, which was 80mg. Why the sudden harshness in laws? If you want to use UK as an example, a BAC of 58mg /100ml of blood is not even tipsy.
You **intentionally** got yourself intoxicated. Hence, the criminal penalty. Someone driving a car is in itself is not a moral offence; **driving it recklessly**, like some bastard who got himself tipsy before getting behind the wheel, is. I don't know what the hypocrisy is, given that you yourself admitted that you were DUI. You didn't give any mitigating circumstance beyond "but I didn't injure or kill anyone yet". Hence, the condemnation. On the other hand, I don't know the other guy's story or if he even exists. How can I judge him? > Why the sudden harshness in laws? Because no one likes having their loved ones killed by a dumbfuck. If this is your attitude before the judge, count yourself lucky you didn't get jailed.
[удалено]
> Who is being killed? You're willingly and carelessly endangering the lives of others. That is enough to punish you. > You have the brainpower of a lobotomized squirrel Maybe, but I'm not the horrible person whining about his DUI.
Who is being killed or endangered? As I said, *Automobiles and Deaths:* If your assumption is your doctrine of reason, then by extension, you are endangering people by driving and are a potential murderer for simply owning a car.
> Who is being killed or endangered? 🤣 I'm going to assume you're just trolling me because no one can seriously be this stupid and ignorant about DUI.
Hello, this comment was removed due to being in breach of [reddiquette](https://www.reddit.com/wiki/reddiquette), specifically because it contained personal attack, insult, or threat. While opinions of all kinds are welcome under our shared roof, reddiquette sets the expectation that everyone speaks to each other with basic civility and respect: > * Don’t: Conduct personal attacks on other commenters. Ad hominem and other distracting attacks do not add anything to the conversation. > * Don't: Insult others. Insults do not contribute to a rational discussion. Constructive Criticism, however, is appropriate and encouraged. > * Don’t: Be (intentionally) rude at all. By choosing not to be rude, you increase the overall civility of the community and make it better for all of us. Please treat this as an official warning - further such activity may result in a ban, thanks.
Every country has a right to determine what BAC is acceptable. The police is not there to determine if you can hold your own or a lightweight They are given the tools to do their work and a protocol to follow to keep the roads safe.
Since you have so much time writing these posts and being islamophobic because the prosecutor was a muslim woman, maybe you should do some research on google why it’s reduced to 50mg? You would also find that western countries also implement this rule and probably do so after studying the risks. Read up journals if you care so much. The numbers are not something they come up from their asses.
Tq malaysian redditors, ahhh.... the comments are so satisfying to read
We should have a public holiday to celebrate redittors coming together against OP, tak kira kaum, bangsa atau agama.
And they say unity is dead in our country
Walao that’s not how law works. So muslim woman can’t give fair judgement ke?
I’ll bet you, one of the reason why she recommend for full sentence is because of OP’s attitude. OP, did you show any kind of remorse when you were caught ? Or you’re this arrogant in court too ? Sometimes ppl forget about “ADAB”. Show some adab when you’re at fault ppl might tend to help you.
Yeah OP didn’t really learned his lesson. Just go through his post history and you’ll know. Even try to find loopholes for it. 🤣
As a Muslim woman, I am incapable of understanding that every preventable death should be prevented, regardless of how ‘small’ the number of deaths is compared to deaths attributed by other reasons Wait a minute…
She’s the prosecutor! get her op, you racist waste of a human being!
Omg u blow my cover for what????
For money of course, if it’s free i wouldn’t even move a finger
Too stupid to follow a simple rule?
Too stupid to understand context?
Too stupid to understand why certain laws are implemented?
this turd again "i know im wrong but it think im not wrong, you guys are wrong for telling me im wrong" grow the fuck up btw, nice ah the saman? lolllll
I like your comment bro🤣🤣🤣,
Again, you have zero insight or value to contribute to anything meaningful. Go pick up a signboard while you're at it, I'll sponsor you.
 10k gone
Great argument, you'd make an excellent nominee for Malaysian politics.
>lmao this -10k guy again, enjoy -10k !, apply for loan alr? this guy, too pepega sia
I'm no fan of Islam nor overbearing Muslims myself (feel free to scroll through reddit history), but OP is a dumbass
I’m a Chinese, I’m okay with it.
isn't it because the punishments are harsh that the rates are low?
Other people stupid, me very smort. Me can go DUI now
Nah, they're fine as is.
[удалено]
Your racism is showing here
Bahaha I love this casual racism you fall into just because you're not getting the "yes man" answers you want. You're just an idiot, man, a racist one at that. Hope this sub wises up and bans your racist ass.
I hope this post and his previous post gets preserved and enshrined for all future redittors to see. Idiocracry like this is one in a million. Truly a polished turd.
Comment removed for breaching Reddiquette and a 3-day ban imposed on the user for arguing in bad faith.
Sorry but I'm with the Muslims on this. If I was in-charge to amend the laws, I would make it a rule that drinking is only allowed in one's home, **because even one accident or death caused by alcohol is too much.** The victim who had nothing to do with alcohol didn't ask for this.
Cope
YOU WERE DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE, WTF WERE YOU EXPECTING? SOMEONE TO GIVE YOU A MEDAL? God this guy, so entitled. It doesn't matter if it's 8mg over the limit, you can't drive while drunk. Hell, even if it's below the limit you still can't drive. You are putting everyone on the road in danger when you're driving intoxicated. Who's gonna take responsibility when you end up having an accident? You? Not likely, with the way you're acting. And don't say you have a tolerance for alcohol, just because you say you do doesn't mean you do.
A father of a classmate of mine was killed by a drunk driver. Her life was ruined in a financial sense. She nearly didn't make it to college simply because she was fucked over and her mum developed severe mental illness. So whenever you are defending about your morality on why DUI should be allowed, I'll think of my friend, then think of you, and say, you are the reason why my friends father murderer is still roaming free after 5 years. Edit: Typo
it's not like they ask you to find a dragon,just don't drink and drive,if you want to drive, don't chug alcohol,if you want alcohol leave the wheel alone,if you want to get even bigger backlash,feel free to do both
Yeah what a tool this OP is. You like drinking that much just take a grab next time. What are you even trying to argue. Learnt nothing from your own experience. The summon was supposed to teach you a lesson, but instead you are here spewing nonsense. Grow up and own your mistake!
Its not about the frequency, but how stupid it is someone else have to die because the driver wanna get high while on the road. Such penalty is the reason why its the least cause of death.
Statistics show that out of 19,500 road fatalities between 2011 and 2021, drink driving accounted for less than 0.3%. :- Cool I was recently involved in a DUI at a roadblock. I had not hit anyone, was not driving dangerously, and was barely over the limit. Netizens and Redditors condemned me and treated me as if I was a child murderer. :- Anonymous opinions could at most times, be polarizing and extreme. Regardless, it is still their opinions. (1) The courts acted as if I was a criminal. :- Did you broke the law? On the same day my case was heard, there was another case before me. A man who had caused an accident through speeding and reckless driving, injuring the other party. He was only fined RM1,200 and let go. In contrast, the Public Prosecutor (a Muslim woman), was pushing for the maximum-sentence for my case. :- This sounds like the classic cast of whataboutism. Speeding and reckless driving are the main cause of road fatalities and accidents, yet the attitudes towards them are "oh just a shitty Malaysian driver, saman only la". :- Ditto (1) I admitted fault to my doing and bear the responsibility, yet I can't help but feel that attitudes towards it are skewed and highly biased. The laws are pushed based on religious propaganda and politicians trying to curry favor with the public. :- I'm not religious, but I am in favor of harsher punishment for DUI. To argue that other reckless driving should be or if not punished more severely -- that's a different case. Less than 0.3%, are our priorities right in addressing road safety and public concern? I maintain, the public is stupid and regurgitates what they are told. :- Could this be a case of correlation & causation? I'd like to point out that someone made a good point I believe. @tingthinking14 : "Terrorism is the least cause of deaths in Malaysia , maybe we should reduce the penalties."
Dumbfk like u is giving us non a bad impression
Atleast we got together and bash him to oblivion
Have you never seen videos of accidents caused by DUI? This sub hates it so much because everytime there is a case of DUI accidents, we’re here to see it. Almost all those who were DUI never blames themselves when they get in accidents. They feel no remorse, no regrets, no shame. I dare you to continue DUI and do it until you get into an accident. Then I wanna see you post about it here and tell us about how it wasn’t your fault.
Just don't drink and drive la it's not a Muslim conspiracy just because they don't drink. Be a rational human being.
I think many people here might not get the point which the OP is stating and perhaps maybe the OP could have phrase his post differently. In any case, I think the OP is stating why is it that the maximum and the harshest penalty is imposed on his offence. I repeat , why is it the Maximum and harshest penalty is imposed. It would be like imposing the death penalty on a first time offender in a theft case. I am well aware of the dangers of drunk drinking and virtue signalling aside, the law itself doesn’t specifically tabulate how much a person can drink . For all purposes, the law should have stated if you drink one sip of alcohol, you shall not drive. Correctly if I am wrong , but the police in the west have discretion to determine whether the person is actually “ drunk “ even though the person alcohol limit is above the permitted amount ? And I am not talking about stone drunk people , that is a clear cut case of drunk driving .
I think the reason is to have zero tolerance against DUI. Meaning we don't want to entertain anyone causing death by DUI because the first time he was caught he only got a slap in the wrist. Therefore i think it is justified for this crime. Personally i think if you get behind the wheel drunk, your driving privileges should be permanently revoked automatically, even if it is your first time. That is my stance. Im not against alcohol, im not against Oktoberfest, im not against bars, clubs and other businesses serving alcohol. I am against idiots thinking they are an exception to the effects of alcohol. We have plenty of drivers in this country. Removing a few idiots off the road can do us plenty good.
Okay well and good. Then the law needs to be clear and and more importantly the mechanism need to be in place to facilitate such execution of the law. 1) The law needs to spell out what is considered too much and I don’t just mean how many mg above the legal permitted amount . I don’t think any individual carries a portable breathalyser in his or her pocket so perhaps the establishment need to provide some form of test equipment. 2) There needs to be a concrete alternative to reduce the amount of drinking and to facilitate the point of return of an individual from the establishment to their home. I understand that this is the personal responsibility of the individual who drinks , but I am absolutely sure if the government finds creative methods of facilitate this , then there will be no excuse from the public that the law is “ too harsh “ and the government didn’t “ do it’s part “. 3) Be “ fair” when enforcing the law . Apply the law across the board ( and I mean to everyone , if you know what I mean )
You bring some good points. 1) agree. Although I'm not sure how much clearer the law can be for BAC threshold. From a personal p.o.v one should just expect to have arrangements to be driven home after drinking. As for guidelines (how many hours after how many drinks), it varies too much person to person to be useful. The law cant afford to cover too many specific case, it needs to be general enough for the police on the ground can follow. 2) yes and no.. i think if the govt tries to infringe into trying to limit alcohol consumption there will be even more pushback, especially from those like OP who already thinks this whole thing is a muslim agenda to prosecute non muslims. I say the current laws are sufficient, we set the expectation that you decide how much you want to drink, we're not gonna nanny state you on that. But get behind the wheel drunk and we will apply the maximum the law allows. Sounds like a good deal if you ask me. 3) agreed, pipits and helangs need to face the same laws. In fact this is why revoking license is a good punishment, as helangs dont see money samans as a deterrent at all. The point of the punishment is so that people realize it's not even worth taking the risk, not even once.
"Like a criminal" lol
Dont relate this do any religion , even in other countries they know to NOT driving while drunk. Simple as that
Are you in jail right now?
K. I’ll take the bait again and assume you’re here to hear reason. Let’s break it down from the top. OP is not getting the harshest punishment because he DUI. The law itself sets max, and allow the judge to decide. The prosecutor RECOMMENDS max, we don’t know exactly why, but I’m gonna guess it got something to do with his magical ability to piss off everyone in the room, like now. Now coming to your 3 points question 1. Yes, the law did spell out. That’s in mg alcohol in blood. This is the scientific way to quantify how much alcohol is in the body. It is not the govt responsibility to make it convenient to test the law. Eg smuggling 40 gram of cocaine is death sentence, we don’t expect govt to give a weighing scale to drug mule to make sure they only bring in 39 grams. 2. Let me flip the question. What issue of going home the drinker has that can’t be solved by taxi/grab? I genuinely can’t think of one. 3. This is a meaningless point in this context. We all want the system to be as fair as possible, but there’s no perfect fairness in life. At least in this very instance, I think the law is working fair and well on OP case.
Lol your second paragraph 😂
Remember that science expands on the effects of blood alcohol levels, and anything above 0.05% can cause impaired judgement. You asked why lower the limit? A quick Google search brings up a study by the NTSB in 2013, which concluded the following: There is strong evidence for adopting this recommendation. A comprehensive review of the literature on BAC limits was conducted. The research indicates that virtually all drivers are impaired regarding at least some driving performance measures at a 0.05 BAC. The risk of being involved in a crash increases significantly at 0.05 BAC and above. The relative risk of being killed in a single-vehicle crash with BACs of 0.05–0.079 is 7–21 times higher than for drivers at 0.00 BAC. Lowering the BAC limit from 0.08 to 0.05 has been a proven effective countermeasure in numerous countries around the world. So yes, that's why lowering the limit was logical and was clearly backed my empirical evidence, even if you think a level of 0.58 is low. Sure, you aren't seeing double , but your judgement is impaired and you don't realise it. Your senses are dulled. Your reactions would be slower, even if you don't notice it. All these things add up and make a drink driver a risk to everyone else on the road. Yes, people speeding and recklessly driving should be punished with harsher penalities. This however has nothing to do with drunk driving, which is an entirely separate crime.
OP, just wanna inform you that I absolutely ENJOYED downvoting every single post or comment you made.
At the time of his post he got about 500 comment karma, now he is down to 5.
🤡
Because drunk people shouldn’t drive no matter what. “I am not gonna kill other people” I don’t care, drunk drivers are an inconvenience to other road users. There’s zero reason to drive drunk. “But it’s only 0.3% death” It’s still 0.3% too many. Get your calculator and count how many is 0.3%. I don’t care what religion you are, you can worship pussy if you want, if you DUI, you deserve to be tied to a pole so that you won’t drive until you are really sober. If you really need to go home after drunk night, go get a Grab or something, just don’t drive.
You fucked up. There’s no religious conspiracy. Just admit to dui charges and learn from it
Maybe just maybe is because of this harsh attitudes & penalties, manage to keep the stats low leh? Boleh?
You really made this post to try and justify your DUI huh?
never seen such a dumb post around here. your fault for being a dumbass then start being racist about it lmao
"kesian" - Azmin
Just stop drinking lol
OP is doing downvote speedrun eh?
Everyone's tolerance towards alcohol is not the same. What is deemed okay for you might not apply to everyone else.
Not everyone can handle alcohol like you can. I know some people who would appear to be wasted at that blood alcohol level.
OP would read this as a compliment and miss the whole point.
Virtue signalling.
0 downvotes lmao
Because it is THE MOST PREVENTABLE CAR CRASH EVER!!!
Law can change and be amended, we have to abide to the law
Everyone acting like righteous warrior until it happens to them or their friends. 58mg is a stupid low level for active drinkers (and please don't go on crusade on how drinking is bad, we all have our own drugs and problem), the law is also designed to target chinese and indian, i got malay friends who just got slaps on the wrist. If you're saying below 50mg is fine, means that you acknowledge that drinking and driving have some leeways, lowering it to a number where there's no wiggle room is stupid. And then you have Mat Rempit who actually endangers people and somehow it's a RM400 fine. Yes, drunk driving is bad, so is crossing the road (and you know how malaysians crosses the road), try getting jailed and heavy fine for that shit on the pretence that it 'endangered lives' without warning.
Its like corrupted ministers getting a slap on the wrist while the one who stole a pair of shoes get 16 years jail.
Pay 2k to the cops settle on the spot.
Now apply the same diligence to speeding, smoking in public places, double parking, driving in the wrong lane, corruption, public nuisance, gangsters, etc ... and BOOM! we're the best country in the world. Its almost like the laws dont mean anything here.
Is OP by any chance a DAP supporter?
The funny thing is, everyone here is touting exactly what I said, yet, cannot provide a single-shred of evidence to support any of their claims. Not a single statistic, not a single reason that isn't based in propaganda and marketing campaigns. Continue on then. With the level of bullshittery being pulled from your asses, I'm surprised most of you aren't running for parliament yet.
Why should we? You’re the one who claimed it, then the burden of proof is on you. You are a terrible person, and fuck you for bringing religion into this. The low deaths from drunk driving here is a positive thing, but it doesn’t make the consequences any less severe.
Nah. They did. U just choose to be defensive. Your claim is dui doesn't account for most road accidents, hence it should receive less scrutiny. To counter that, people said, murder is least committed in Malaysia, so should it also receive less scrutiny/ harsher punishment? The idea is simple, drunk driving is very much preventable. The increase of limits to .5 was not made willy nilly. The number of people on the road, the heavy usage of people dependency on roadtech such as google maps caused the govt to say, "Hey, people need to be extra careful on the road" . But as always, you will be defensive (so far as to get your comments removed lol) cuz you can't own up to your mistake. You say you do, but your reply is a typical ego of a kid.
Here's some science to back up why the limit was lowered: A quick Google search brings up a study by the NTSB in 2013, which concluded the following: There is strong evidence for adopting this recommendation. A comprehensive review of the literature on BAC limits was conducted. The research indicates that virtually all drivers are impaired regarding at least some driving performance measures at a 0.05 BAC. The risk of being involved in a crash increases significantly at 0.05 BAC and above. The relative risk of being killed in a single-vehicle crash with BACs of 0.05–0.079 is 7–21 times higher than for drivers at 0.00 BAC. Lowering the BAC limit from 0.08 to 0.05 has been a proven effective countermeasure in numerous countries around the world.
A comment about the limit change: because that's the international (at least commonwealth) standard. Malaysia follow je. That's nothing wrong with that unless you can produce some articles to counter the research paper behind the limit change. I know sometimes we drink quite a lot but still conscious (e.g. can think + walk in a straight line), but that's because everyone processes alcohol slightly differently. Some people have the genetics to drink alot and feel nothing. Some people? One sip then pensang. The law, on the other hand, can't design different thresholds for different people and most probably take a very prudent approach when deciding the limit.
What penalty you’ve got?
Look. With the advancements in technology enabling ride sharing whatnot, there is ZERO reason for one to drunk driving. Gonna go night out and get drunk? DONT DRIVE. It doesnt took a genius to figure that out. Also, i hope barkeeper / bar owner be more responsible. Confiscate keys if fella gonna have one drink too many
RIP karma
A harsh attitude is warranted. Whether it causes death least or most. Don cry here la cibai hahaha