And then, the road owner might be held responsible, at least, to some extent, for accidents on his road. Also, there are minors who ride as passengers in cars, so one cannot reasonably say that they just made a choice.

She was going to help some guy cheat on his wife?
And what kind of person is that?

I think the drunk driving mania is a thinly disguised way to reinstate prohibition on religious grounds

The demonstrable results of drunks says otherwise. It does not mean that there aren't other ways to be irresponsible.

"I maintain that driving when tired, distracted by passengers, eating or drinking while driving, driving while sick, driving while emotionally upset, etc. could fall under the definition of “threats” and be subject to criminal prosecutions also. "
I've always thought we single out drunk driving over other dangerous behaviors. I don't think anyone compared the risks and linked the penalties to them, e.g. going 15mph over in a populated area, running a red light, driving with 0.10% BAC, driving with a history of petit mal seizures. I think we go overboard on the seriousness of drunk driving.

Many more traffic fatalities are the result of poor driving habits and lack of attention, but we don’t lock those drivers up. But we do with dui. Slippery slope.

There is an obvious difference between a normal driver who may have an accident and a drunk.

I know you think so. We do disagree on that. I would have to say that I consider all other drivers a threat to my safety

The dui is a threat. That is a crime. Being unintendedly hit or threatened isn't victimless either.

Murder by car is not victimless, I agree. But the crime is killing someone NOT dui.

Drunks killing people on the highway are not "victimless". When their criminal behavior is detected they are properly stopped. The police can stop other sources of driving to endanger, too, when it is observed. Some forms are amenable to objective tests to prove a state of fog so the behavior does not have to become even more dangerously extreme before it can be established. Threats are not "victimless crimes". They are dealt with in law, not subjective "slippery slopes", in order to avoid the libertarian anarchist arbitrary use of force to stop them.

"Peaceful coexistence is impossible if a man has to live under the constant threat of force to be unleashed against him by any of his neighbors at any moment" -- Ayn Rand.
"When you deal with the threat of force, nothing can answer it but armed force" -- Ayn Rand.

We differ on our response to this. I maintain that driving when tired, distracted by passengers, eating or drinking while driving, driving while sick, driving while emotionally upset, etc. could fall under the definition of “threats” and be subject to criminal prosecutions also.

My point remains that unless and until there is harm done, it shouldn’t be a criminal matter. It’s gotten so bad with dui that you can’t visit Canada for at least 5 years after a single dui on your record- whether you are going to drive or not.

A single dui will cost at least $10k, years of probation , jail time , and other restrictions. It’s really an attempt at reinstating prohibition. The originator of MADD even quit the organization because it was no longer just about dui.

Very slippery slope attaching criminality to victimless crimes

No one is advocating prohibition. Driving under the influence is a threat. It is and should be a crime.

My point is that drinking does not Necessarily result in any harm to another person, so it should not be a criminal offense. If there is actual harm, it’s a criminal offense I agree.

I would offer that if the roads were private, being caught driving intoxicated could result in forfeiture of driving privileges on that road network But no criminal charges unless actual harm. Occurred.

How about that scenario as a solution to this issue?

You know very well what it means to be physically hit by a car. A criminal threat requires specific action by a specific person, not "walking out the door".

Exceeding a 35 mph speed limit by going 36 is a speeding misdemeanor, not driving to endanger. Objectivity in law requires stating what the limits are so everyone knows what they are. When there is an optional range some point must be selected within it so that it is not subjective law. Codifying the rules in objective law is not a "slippery slope" of "walking out the door".

My problem is that the definition of threat is very subjective. Is 36 mph in an arbitrarily defined 35 mph zone a “threat”. Is 0.08 blood alcohol a threat but 0.079 is not? 0.08 gets u a dui and $10,000 costs, but 0.079 doesn’t. In either case no one was hurt and no property damage was done.

Your life is endangered when you walk out the front door of your house, so does that mean we can force all people to stay away from all other people. It’s a slippery slope

It is and is increasingly illegal. Drivers are required to watch where they are going and focus on what they are doing. A vehicle recklessly used is a deadly weapon.

Stopping a threat isn't "preemptive". Evidence of the threat already exists. Holding a gun to someone's head is coercion. Endangering your life is an active, ongoing threat you have a right to stop.

If roads were privately owned, I suspect that the penalty for non harmful but dangerous driving would be expulsion from admission to the road system more or less as it happens now. But no other penalty or jail time. No road owner would want excessively dangerous situations on their roads if they can be prevented. All driving is dangerous to a degree unless you have no roads, so some risks would need to be allowed.

No, she was intimidated. (Or mayber her boss was. I dunno). She did not me to stick my nose in it.
So me dino, who had met her just three or four days earlier, figured that was her problem.
About two weeks later, she hoped I'd watch her trailer, horse and dog (yes, she had a mobile home and a horse fenced in by wire) while
she drove down to Mobile to help some guy cheat on his wife for a weekend.
She was a looker, but for some reason I lost interest in her at that point.
Can't realty put me finger on the elusive why.
Hmm, Hmmmm, Hhmmmmm.
Ooo! All that thinking just then made m widdle dino brain hurt.
Maybe me dino will never figure that 'un out.
And, ya know, there really are some decent people who shouldn't be called a certain name just for living in trailer homes.

And she didn't report him? (answer to allosaur)

I should think that texting driving is reckless driving.

No, someone should not drive drunk and get away with it. He has made himself a threat. Still, standards of evidence have to apply, and maybe the penalty should not be as harsh if there is no actual harm done.

Why don't they just put everyone under arrest who has just walked past a bar or past someone who was drinking, if a specially-trained dog can smell it?--And to make it easier to punish offenders, why not just declare that, ipso facto, proof of guilt? Why even bother to have a trial in the first place?

I understand that you dont want to wait until physical harm occurs to stop it. I just think that pre-emptive actions are a slilppery slope and I am against them.