PDA

View Full Version : OT - Anti drink driving



bollie7
12-13-2010, 04:58 PM
OT. But with Xmas fast approaching a timely reminder about drink driving.
I just received this in an e-mail. Very sobering.
bollie7

Great Aussie Anti Drink Driving Campaign!

This needs to passed around to every human being who has the keys to a vehicle and the capability of driving while under the influence with impaired judgement and the possibility of causing a life changing incident to happen to everyone he or she comes in contact with while in this condition.
This is perhaps one of the most intense commercials that I've ever seen and damn well made. It is a compilation from various Anti Drink driving warning campaigns over the last 20 years, from the state of Victoria, Australia.
I hope that by passing this along to others, that it will make a difference and if just one life is saved, it will all be worth the effort to simply hit "send" and maybe save a life today or tomorrow or in the future.. I think that Australia should be complemented on having the guts to "tell it like it is" and get this campaign out to all of it's licensed drivers and to air it on TV...it is very moving and very life like so it has a very strong impact this holiday season. Please pass it along to all of your friends and maybe you can be responsible for saving some lives. Wouldn't that be a great Christmas Present.
Check this ad from Australia

Please click on DUI (http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=Z2mf8DtWWd8)

Fasttrack
12-13-2010, 05:14 PM
Thank you, Bollie7. I've sent the link out over the student list serve here at the university. I was extremely upset to learn that, in our state, the penalty for speeding in a work zone or littering was greater than the penalty for a first offense DUI. What the hell?

squirrel
12-13-2010, 05:41 PM
Thank you, Bollie7. I've sent the link out over the student list serve here at the university. I was extremely upset to learn that, in our state, the penalty for speeding in a work zone or littering was greater than the penalty for a first offense DUI. What the hell?

You also must realize their insurance will be over $3000 a year until the points drop,

In Indiana
First Drunk Driving Conviction

* Class C Misdemeanor
* Jail From 30 Days Minimum to 60 Days
* Jail Up to 1 Year (BAC .15 or Above)
* Fine Up to $500
* Fine Up to $5,000 (BAC .15 or Above)
* License Suspension Up to 2 Years
* Court Fees At Least $300
* Probation Up to 2 Years

Evan
12-13-2010, 05:44 PM
We have very strict laws here now. Anything over one drink (BAC .05) will most likely get you busted and that means your car is confiscated for a week as well as very significant fines in the thousands and possible jail time. We also have very strict laws regarding excessive speed. Very recently a couple of guys were road racing near Vancouver. One of the vehicles was a $350,000 Ferrari that the owner was driving for the first time. They were driving more than double the speed limit and were caught. The cars were permanently confiscated and sold at auction. The Ferrari dealer bought back the Ferrari. One third of the value of the Ferrari was kept by the Province, one third went to the co-owner who wasn't driving and the remaining third went back to the driver less fines. He also lost his license. In effect his fine for speeding amounts to around one third the value of the car. How he settles with the co-owner is his problem.

bollie7
12-13-2010, 05:47 PM
Here in NSW Australia the penalties are quite severe, particularly for novice drivers.
The system here when you first get your licence you are on "Red" provisional or P plates. You are on red "P's" for 12 months and restricted to no faster then 90 kph (55mph) After 12 months you progress to Green "P's" (provided you haven't been naughty) for another 2 years and limited to 100kph (approx 62mph)
All "P" platers have a 0% blood alcohol, and if they are caught with any alcohol in their system, its automatic licence suspension for a minimum 3 months for the 1st offence. No if or buts.
Full licence holders are allowed .05% blood alcohol. Above that the penalties range from $1100 fine and/or licence suspension to $3300 fine and possible 18months gaol for the first offence.
I have two boys, both on P's and them and their mates all seem to be pretty responsible when it comes to drinking and driving. They will organise a "deso" (designated driver, who's turn it is to not drink that night and drive everyone home)
The problem is the morning after. Have a real issue getting it into their skulls that if they get on a bender and don't stop drinking until 3 or 4 am then they will probably still have a fair bit in their system at 9am the next morning.
We had a bloke riding a push bike who was hit and killed near here last week. 6.30 am, hit by a driver who was DUI and texting on his mobile phone. Pretty sad.
bollie7

Evan
12-13-2010, 05:52 PM
We have a similar New driver system here. Caught driving with any alcohol and you can apply to drive again a year later.

squirrel
12-13-2010, 07:23 PM
Ohio gives convicted drunk drivers a license plate that is yellow with red letters!!!!

bobw53
12-13-2010, 09:18 PM
My girlfriends boss got smashed last weekend, not drunk, but head on with a drunk driver, second offense, no insurance, no license, and a list of driving offenses(and others) that would make your head spin, including a hit and run a few months ago. Texting of course and was able to run away from the accident.

The old lady's boss is home with a bunch of broken bones, but her husband was recently put into an induced coma. Crushed leg, crushed lung and some other stuff, massive blood transfusions, helicopters and all the fun stuff.

I'm on 2 sides of the fence here. People are going to drink and people are going to try and get home. I don't see very many programs that help people get home. The money is all thrown into enforcement, and billboards about how screwed you are if you do it.

You've got tons of people sitting collecting money for doing nothing, put their asses to work driving people home, and the big one, back to get their car in the morning. Taxi cabs, especially in the sticks, can cost MASSIVE money.

On the other side, the stiffer penalties have lowered the amount of people getting nailed, people are scared of doing it. So now they want to lower the limits and increase the road blocks to get their #'s back up. The casual drinker is pretty darn leary now.

The people that are driving now blown out of their shorts, just don't care, 3rd, 4th, 12th or as happened in this state recently 22nd DUI, they just don't care. There is a point where they need to land their ass in jail, and then when they get out, they just won't care.

I doubt there are many adults that have never driven drunk, I know the "surveys" say only about 13% or so have, I don't believe that.

I got nailed about 15 years ago, it sucked. I was in court like 5 times. Due to the courts being totally screwed up I ended up losing my license for 4 months instead of 3. The money part was tough, $95 to get my car back, $600 for a lawyer, $25 to get out of jail, $240 court fee, $540 probation fee, $550 for drunk driving classes, $335 to get my license back, plus all the other crap fees in there. Almost 15% of my take home that year.

I did 17(14?) weeks of drunk school, which was actually kind of fun. 1 year of probation, which wasn't bad, my PO was cool, she had 600 F-ups to keep track of, I just had to call her once a month and not get arrested. 1 night in jail, 5 days of work missed for court, 4 months of bumming rides to my 2 jobs(at the time).

It screwed my life up, not so bad that I couldn't keep being a productive member of society, but not so light that I'd do it again.

Its a double edged sword, the penalty needs to be stiff enough to discourage the first time offender, but not so stiff it completely ruins their life. 2nd time offense needs to be stiff enough to seriously discourage the 2nd time offender, but not so stiff that it ruins the life of a guy that had a DUI 15 years ago, timed his beers and left 5 minutes early and blew just at the limit and got nailed for 49 in a 45, just as the speed limit dropped to 45.

I'm not sure where I stand on it, penalties and what not. I'd be for much higher penalties if money was put into getting people home safe, not just nailing them.

Edit: When I got my DUI, I deserved it, and I have no tolerance for people that just don't care, but its so hard for the law to differentiate. When it hits #2 in a few years or #7 period, I don't think there is a question.

Evan
12-13-2010, 09:30 PM
I'm on 2 sides of the fence here. People are going to drink and people are going to try and get home.

There aren't two sides to this question/problem. I think that driving over a very low limit should be grounds for permanent revocation of your driving license on the first offense. There is no defense for driving impaired.

goose
12-13-2010, 09:56 PM
People drive impaired all the time. On phone, texting, drinking coffee, women bent over rummaging thru the passenger side looking in their hand bag (always see that one...) women driving straight ahead with their head turned 180 degrees to the back seat chiding their child/children, men Black-berrying, (if that is a word)


Saw a guy definitely driving drunk, drinking out of a paper bag, delayed response when the light turned green, driving herky-jerky about 10 miles below the speed limit, then taking another swig. He was actually doing pretty good, better than alot of so called sober drivers I've seen.
The hard core law-and-order stuff doesn't work, at least doesn't really make us any safer, but I guess it impresses the plebians.

Gary

x39
12-13-2010, 09:58 PM
There seems to be a hardcore of drinkers who are incorrigible. For them, the very strict penalties are appropriate and may serve as some detterent. For the casual drinker, I think very strong prevention programs that make it easier to not drive after drinking may be in order. For example, in areas where there are alot of bars, the police or volunteers could run free Breathalyzer checkpoints. If a person were in doubt as to their fitness, they could take the test. If they blow over the limit, an area could be provided for them to sober up for a while, they could call for a ride and have a safe place to wait, or there could be waiting cabs lined up as at an air terminal. Such a program would remove any excuse for driving impaired. I don't think most people who drive impaired do so with criminal intent, they're just hoping to get home.

Mcostello
12-13-2010, 10:28 PM
Personally know a guy who had 5 DUI convictions. Cops let him alone until someone had to write up some tickets to fill a quota or something, then he was busted. Could drive coupla months them, bam. Alcohol killed him off before he hurt anyone.

Liger Zero
12-13-2010, 10:43 PM
True story.

I was without a car for awhile due to economic factors.


In this region if you do not drive you are considered sub-human and not worth the time and effort of employing. See everyone without a car... either you are a coke-head, a heroin-stork or a drunkard. There is no allowance for "can't afford a car on minimum wage." You take the bus, God save you because you'll be unemployable.

Anyway. What opened my eyes to this was an incident at a job interview.

Went well up to the point where the owner asked me what kind of car I owned. This is a standard filter question around here: You don't own a car you don't work.

I told him I was without a car for the moment but I could bike, bus, walk or even roller-skate to work because we're talking a distance of less than five miles.

It got very very quiet and he said he needed to see my papers from the program.

I asked him "what do you mean?"

Got quiet again and he said unless I was in some kind of program for my problem he wasn't going to hire me. Show him that I was getting help and he would hire me as a janitor on a provisional basis.

Now it's quiet again and I ask him "what problem? The only problem I have is I can't afford a car on minimum wage."

His reply to THAT was "stop spending your money on drugs and you'll be able to afford a car."

...

In his mind, the ONLY logical explanation for not owning a car was addiction.

It doesn't occur to some people that scraping $500 for a car and $500 for insurance is impossible when you are only making minimum wage 30 hours a week and trying to pay rent and an electric bill as well.


Ah well, ****'em. Company went out of business, I got to pick through the remains at auction not that long ago. :)

x39
12-13-2010, 11:08 PM
Liger Zero, during the recession of the early eighties, I had the exact opposite problem. I lost my job, my apartment, and was sleeping in my van doing odd jobs for cash. Went for a job interview, took a general knowledge test (some really obscure questions), gave them a friend of mine's phone number and hung out at his place for a few days waiting for a call. They call, and the women who interviewed me told me that in spite of the fact I'd tested higher than any applicant they'd ever interviewed, they weren't going to hire me because I was too "rough looking". For a job in a metal working shop! Most people have no idea how hard it is to work your way back up after getting laid that low, due in no small part to asumptions made by people such as the guy who interviewed you.

jkilroy
12-13-2010, 11:11 PM
I love the Ohio method, but they don't do that unless you have had TWO dui's within 10 years. I believe the measure barely passed, there congress was worried people would suffer a stigma! I hope so.

Fasttrack
12-13-2010, 11:25 PM
There aren't two sides to this question/problem. I think that driving over a very low limit should be grounds for permanent revocation of your driving license on the first offense. There is no defense for driving impaired.


Absolutely.




People are going to drink and people are going to try and get home. I don't see very many programs that help people get home. The money is all thrown into enforcement, and billboards about how screwed you are if you do it.

***

Its a double edged sword, the penalty needs to be stiff enough to discourage the first time offender, but not so stiff it completely ruins their life.

I disagree. First, the assumption that people are going to drink is ridiculous. That is a personal choice. If you aren't responsible enough to plan ahead (i.e. get a designated driver) then you deserve to have your life ruined. Drinking and driving puts all the other motorists' lives at an increased risk.

Consider it this way:
There is a chance that driving impaired will result in the death or severe incapacitation of an innocent motorist (i.e. there is a chance that you will ruin their lives). There is also a chance that you will get caught by the cops and have your life ruined. Fair is fair. End of story.

gary350
12-13-2010, 11:30 PM
The only thing a drunk thinks about is gettig drunk. They just don't care.

There are too many people on the road the law needs to be changes people should not expect to get a driver license just because they are 16 or older they need to earn the right to drive.

I know a drunk that has not had a driver license in 15 years, no auto insurance either and he still drives. If he gets stopped then put in jail he drives again when he gets out he does not care about the law. Friends and relatives loan him a car. To buy a car a person needs to be checked just like buying a gun. If you have a criminal record your not allowed to buy a car. It should be illegal to loan a drunk a car.

Insurance companys say there are 2 times more auto accidents caused by cell phones than drunk drives.

The number 1 reason we have drunks on the road is because people are allowed to drink in public!!! Then they drive home.

saltmine
12-13-2010, 11:42 PM
DUI is a reprehensible act, for anybody. To be caught drunk behind the wheel more than once is stupidity.

After having worked in law enforcement for fifteen years and saw first-hand the kind of grief and misery a drunk in a car can cause, I have absolutely no sympathy for anybody who drinks and drives. It's my opinion. Fortunately, it goes a long way toward keeping me off of jury duty in drunk driving cases.(the most common jury trials in my area)

In Arizona, the average drunk driving arrest usually costs the suspect the loss of his license for a minimum of a year, and cost is usually between $5000 to $10,000 in fines, court appearances and impound & towing charges.

When I lived in California, I knew several people who had as many as 28 DUI convictions on their record. Almost all of them were still driving. How, I'll never know. I did have one acquaintance who was going for his 24th drunk driving arrest on New Year's Eve, but he never made it. He passed out on his motorcycle, on the freeway, doing 95mph and drifted across the center divider, striking an 18 wheeler's radiator, dead center. The medical examiner said his BAC (Blood Alcohol Content) was four times the legal limit, and added that most people with that much alcohol in their blood are usually comatose. I'm sure he wasn't feeling any pain when he met that truck. I was there. My tow truck had the call to clean up the wreckage...it wasn't pretty. A brand new Harley Davidson Chopper, reduced to a mangled bale of scarp metal three feet long. I found the gas tank about thirty feet from the point of impact, and one aluminum saddlebag a quarter of a mile down the road. The sad part was; the guy had only made one payment on the bike....

I don't drive if I've been drinking, and if I plan to do some drinking, I either stay at home, or know somebody to give me a ride home. Since I live close to Las Vegas and Laughlin, I usually just book a room in a hotel that has a casino, and walk to my room when I'm ready for bed. That way my car don't get impounded, and I don't hurt anybody.....or go to jail.

Oh, and by the way, Mcostello, All of the years I've been in and around law enforcement, I have never heard of anybody ever having to fill a "QUOTA" for anything. Filling a quota is a remnant from the olden days when cops walked a beat, and they all looked like the "Keystone Kops". The last thing most cops want is to have to make an arrest for DUI, and then have to appear in court on their day off.

Evan
12-13-2010, 11:53 PM
I was first on the scene one night at 2:00 am after dropping off my wife at the bus station. On my way home the was a mustang upside down in the middle of the otherwise empty four lane highway. I saw people on the ground and a couple standing. I stopped a hundred feet down the hill in the centre of the highway and put on my flashers, headlight on high beam.

I have military trauma response training and various other first aid courses. I triaged the people on the ground. One almost dead, no hope. The car was leaking gas but there were no sparks or apparent sources of ignition. Another person on the uphill side of the vehicle, punctured lung, collarbones and ribs broken, arm broken, leg broken. But, he was lying on the lung that was punctured so I didn't need to move him because it would not fill up the other lung before the paramedics arrived. If the car flamed then I would have no choice but it would possibly kill him. Three more were walking wounded with broken arms and a broken ankle plus less severe injuries.

Once I determined this I went back to the truck and got a towel. I took the towel and covered the side of the head of the dying boy since the entire side of his head had been ripped off. He couldn't have been saved if he had been thrown on an operating table. I also used it to slightly cushion his head even though he was nearly dead. I didn't want the other responders to have to look at the mess and I wanted his parents to think that in his last breath somebody did something for him to make him a bit comfortable. He died a minute later.

The police showed up a few minutes after that and one of the two was a female officer who was on her first month on the job. This was the third fatal she had attended in just 3 weeks. I was glad I had covered the boy's head.

They were all very drunk and had gone off the road at over 100 miles per hour. Flipped several times and then bounced back on the road upside down as everyone was thrown out of the vehicle.

I know the boy's parents but I have never told them I was there. When the police showed up I simply told the officer I didn't see it happen and had no evidence to give. I explained the medical situation and then left. He never asked my name.

I can still see that scene just as clearly as the night it happened 25 years ago. My hands were covered in blood.

Liger Zero
12-14-2010, 12:10 AM
Oh, and by the way, Mcostello, All of the years I've been in and around law enforcement, I have never heard of anybody ever having to fill a "QUOTA" for anything. Filling a quota is a remnant from the olden days when cops walked a beat, and they all looked like the "Keystone Kops". The last thing most cops want is to have to make an arrest for DUI, and then have to appear in court on their day off.


It's more common in small towns and communities. The logic being the department is self-funded this way. We call them Revenue Cops. They don't bother with actual.. ya know.. crimes like B&E and drug trafficking.

You can spot the type without much effort: these are the little towns and villages of 1,000-7,000 people with four cop cars, one stationed at the corner of each major road leading into town where the speed limit drops from 50mph to 25mph.

State and County level doesn't do this. I always insist on dealing with State or County level when I have a problem requiring an officer.

Liger Zero
12-14-2010, 12:13 AM
Most people have no idea how hard it is to work your way back up after getting laid that low, due in no small part to assumptions made by people such as the guy who interviewed you.

No they do not. Until you've hit bottom at high speed due to your own stupidity or due to situations beyond your control you have NO concept. Practical Machinist is FULL of people like that, one reason I don't post there anymore. :rolleyes:

One of the reasons I'm running the show now rather than working for "someone else." Certain traditions, implied policies and passed-on-behaviors need to be changed in order for the economy to recover in this region... and I believe in leading by example. :)

wierdscience
12-14-2010, 12:16 AM
I love the Ohio method, but they don't do that unless you have had TWO dui's within 10 years. I believe the measure barely passed, there congress was worried people would suffer a stigma! I hope so.

People? Nah,Politicians who get caught DUI feeling the "stigma",that's what they were worried about;)


In the last 20 years my family has had 5 wrecks,4 of them were being hit by multiple felony DUI drivers.The last one hit my Father,put his truck in the ditch on it's side.No one got hurt,but it was the guys second DUI related accident in two weeks,totaled his car and his victim's car each time,but he still was still driving.I think he finally went to jail,but I'm not sure.I have no clue how these guys get away with it.

sansbury
12-14-2010, 12:21 AM
At .05BAC you are probably getting into levels of impairment well below that caused by a bee in the car, kids fighting in the backseat, or grandma having a senior moment.

DUI is big business for the law-enforcement industry. Outside the cities it's probably the #1 or #2 crime the local PD deals with. Naturally they are often in favor of legislation that ensures a steady stream of "clients." Just like Mark Twain said about not letting education get in the way of schooling, more and stricter laws do not make us a more lawful society.

Whatever might be the origin or the merit of the twelve tables, they obtained among the Romans that blind and partial reverence which the lawyers of every country delight to bestow on their municipal institutions.... But although these venerable monuments were considered as the rule of right and the fountain of justice, they were overwhelmed by the weight and variety of new laws, which, at the end of five centuries, became a grievance more intolerable than the vices of the city. Three thousand brass plates, the acts of the senate of the people, were deposited in the Capitol: and some of the acts, as the Julian law against extortion, surpassed the number of a hundred chapters....

From Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/gibbon-chap44.html)

Evan
12-14-2010, 01:06 AM
At .05BAC you are probably getting into levels of impairment well below that caused by a bee in the car, kids fighting in the backseat, or grandma having a senior moment.


You can pull over and deal with those problems. You can only deal with drinking by not driving. There is no acceptable alternative. There are no excuses and there are no rationalizations that make sense. The answer is real simple. Don't drink and drive. Not at all. None.

It makes no difference what other distractions may exist and how they may affect your driving. The fact that other problems can also cause accidents in no way validates drinking and driving. Those are spurious arguments and have absolutely no bearing on the question.

Liger Zero
12-14-2010, 01:36 AM
If you are driving under the influence of alcohol you are wrong.

This seems to be fairly simple to me.

Considering that alcohol relaxes your inhibitions and impairs your judgment... yeah you need to be slapped HARD for DUI/DWI.

Every DWI accident I've seen or heard about has the driver doing things that no sane, properly-thinking person would do. 75 miles an hour in whiteout conditions was my favorite one. I'll see if I can find the article, it'd be buried in the print archives at the Library. Other examples include: Driving down the wrong side of the interstate at full speed, weaving in and out of traffic at speed, ignoring redlights because you need to get home RIGHT NOW to sleep it off...

Wayne County New York is #2 in NYS for catching and punishing offenders. Even so, I've lost six friends to various DUI/DWI related accidents since 1996. Two of them, they were drunk. The rest, they were victims of someone's "right" to drink.

.RC.
12-14-2010, 02:45 AM
There needs to be a small limit as you do not have to drink alcohol to get a reading....

Mouthwash or even having a slice of granny's cake will put alcohol in your blood.. Enough to register...

Liger Zero
12-14-2010, 03:10 AM
There needs to be a small limit as you do not have to drink alcohol to get a reading....

Mouthwash or even having a slice of granny's cake will put alcohol in your blood.. Enough to register...

Which is why you need a sobriety test (coordination and police interview on scene) as well as the breathalyzer test. This will rule out false positives.

If the combination of tests proves that you are in fact impaired... stand the fu(k by because you are about to be punished.

mike4
12-14-2010, 03:51 AM
You can pull over and deal with those problems. You can only deal with drinking by not driving. There is no acceptable alternative. There are no excuses and there are no rationalizations that make sense. The answer is real simple. Don't drink and drive. Not at all. None.

It makes no difference what other distractions may exist and how they may affect your driving. The fact that other problems can also cause accidents in no way validates drinking and driving. Those are spurious arguments and have absolutely no bearing on the question.

I just dont think that I will bother to have a drink socially after reading the comments posted here as it seems that having a drink is going the way of smoking ,some wowser has found another target and wont stop until they have made the world a safer place .

I would rather face a drunk than a crackhead anyday.

I do totally agree with having some secure place to leave your vehicle ,getting a ride home ,and then getting you vehicle after you sober up.

That would be a far more worthwile thing to spend taxpayers money on .


The people behind the current campaigns dont seem to ask normal drivers what they think as the answers wouldnt fit into the agenda.

I have a suggestion for the anti drinkers:-

Why not just stop all alcohol production for human consumption and close down another industry as well as all hotels .bars,taverns restaurants etc which serve alcohol .

I can just see the reaction to that now .

gmatov
12-14-2010, 04:01 AM
I won't call everybody who has posted prudes, but many of you spout off as though you are.
Personally, I haven't had a beer outside my house in over 18 years, because I did get a DUI, back then. Just said they would never get another crack at me.

Back then, it cost about 1500 without a lawyer who could not help you anyway. Today it is 10 to 15 thou, and you will be judged guilty.

Now, who was the guy up above that said there is no such thing as a "quota"? DUI is one of the biggest moneymakers for Counties that there is. Most of the costs are County costs.

Our recent Thanksgivng weekend death toll, in PA, USA, was, I think, 18. 7 were were "possibly" attributable to alcohol. Of course, if you went through a green light and got T-boned, if you had a glass of wine, YOU would be the one who was "possibly DUI", though you might have been .002. That is less than one beer or one glass of wine or one shot of liquor, dependent on your physique.

Being T-boned by a perfectly sober person does not make for great news, in the papers. "Drunk Crashes at Intersection" sound so much better, and sells more papers.You and your wife and 3 toddlers die because a teetotaler is texting isn't nearly as tittilating. Although they DO want to make that a bigger No-no than DUI. Even more money to be made off all them assholes. Even if their parents have to pay all those fines and costs.

And the same prudes will put parents in jail if they smack the kid in the mouth when they get them home after paying a few thou to get them off the hook.

Liger Zero,

"Every DWI accident I've seen or heard about has the driver doing things that no sane, properly-thinking person would do. 75 miles an hour in whiteout conditions was my favorite one. I'll see if I can find the article, it'd be buried in the print archives at the Library. Other examples include: Driving down the wrong side of the interstate at full speed, weaving in and out of traffic at speed, ignoring redlights because you need to get home RIGHT NOW to sleep it off...

Wayne County New York is #2 in NYS for catching and punishing offenders. Even so, I've lost six friends to various DUI/DWI related accidents since 1996. Two of them, they were drunk. The rest, they were victims of someone's "right" to drink."

I gotta call bull**** on you for that. MOST DUI accidents are minor. You don't stop quick enough, bump into the car ahead of you, cop is called, he thinks you are DUI, you get tested, you come out .001, the cop says you were STILL "impaired". Courts will judge that, and most likely you will be found guilty.

That is a minimum of 5 grand to the County.

Some of you think that you must blow XX on the breathalzer to be drunk, or DUI. Not at all so . If the cop THINKS you are impaired, you are all but guilty. There IS no bottom limit, only the .08 upper limit past which you are dead as a door nail. You ain't gonna get out of that, unless you have enough to pay off a politician with more than the total cost of the DUI./

"The fact that other problems can also cause accidents in no way validates drinking and driving. Those are spurious arguments and have absolutely no bearing on the question."

Oh, bull****, Evan. You sound like a shrewish old woman. You think that people live forever, and we have 300+million in the US, and 40 some thousand die on roads in cars. Some are actual accidents. Some are possibly suicides. Some are from drug impairment. Some are from alcohol impairment. Some are from "Distracted Driving", I think is the term for texting or talking on the cell phone.

Most likely, every place in Europe has lower alcohol related auto accidents than the US. Most every country in Europe is smaller than most of our States, and Urban, and can walk to the pub and home, or take a cab, for a couple dollars (Euros)

I don't care, either way. Every law that is made is ti extract funds from the arrestees. Once upon a time you got locked up and rotted in jail, for a given time. NOW, you get sentenced to a year, you will pay , in PA, 25 bucks per day for your "room and board". You are on DUI monitoring, ankle bracelet, same 25 per day, plus telephone service for the duration.

BUT, not to be political, Waltons will save 36.7 billion bucks on "Death Taxes" when the tax bill passes. A few of you guys who are running out of UC benefits will get a few hundred bucks more too. So you are in the same league as the Waltons. You get a tax break, we go down the ****hole to the billionaires who own more of the National Debt than the Chinese, Germans, Japanese, Russians, do.

The US owns over 3 TRILLION of the National Debt, in the form of Tnotes due the SS trust Fund. They are just as callable as the Chinese notes.

Maybe that is not so. China may just tell us to pay or they will bomb us, and If we have to pay our own notes to SS, Reps will do as they have done for 75 years, try to repeal SS. "We can't AFFORD it. ALL them LEECHES!"

Were taxes where they were 10+ years ago, possibly states and local jurisdictions would not be ginning up the revenue machine. Feds aren't able to help. make up your own rules. Jack the public. They have no choice.

Cheers,

george

tumutbound
12-14-2010, 04:07 AM
Wow george after reading your rant, I have to ask 'are you drunk' or do you always feel like that?

It's drink or drive, one or the other. The choice is yours.

gmatov
12-14-2010, 04:13 AM
RC,

There is NO lower limit, all the cop has to say is that you were driving "erratically", ergo, you were under the influence, and if you were not taken to an Hospital for a blood test, which I do not believe are pertinent, I think if they want a high level, they will be given it, you will still be found guilty of DUI on the Officer's testimony.

I used to be friends with a bunch of city cops, 40 years ago. Drank with them. Normal people. Cops today are not the same kind of people. They see too much of that SWAT stuff on TV and think they are all Rambos. Holier than thou, like some posting here.
]
George

mike4
12-14-2010, 04:30 AM
George , I totally agree as there are similarities in all countries, there seems to currently a lot of agendas around at the moment which are trying to modify our behaviour to a more "appropriate " level ,appropriate to who? is what I ask .
There is always some person somewhere who seems to get off with telling us how to speak , how to act , how to interact in a "more socially responsible manner ". One very important thing that they have forgotten is that we are all different and that is something that I am proud of.

I have a strong dislike to a lot of the so called social reforms either current or past which are forced upon us by some deluded group who in reality are only forcing their behaviour/morals which arent always correct on to the rest of us and if we object then all manner of punishments are metered out until we comply .

mike os
12-14-2010, 05:12 AM
Drinking & driving is a choice, no one makes you do it. Driving impaired or under the influence is a choice, no one makes you do it.

All are against the law, you break that law you face the consequences, if you disagree with it, get it changed if you can... just like those who want it enforced did. If you cant do the time, dont do the crime.

There are already too many distractions that amount to imparement that are perfectly legal (as mentioned) without compounding the problem unnessisarily, and only a fool makes a situation worse by his own actions.


A good few years ago I did a driving course & part of it was DUI... having seen the difference in myself (on a track/circuit) after 1 & 2 pints I have never ever had anything to drink before driving, including wine/beer with a meal, & wont drink heavily the night before if I have to drive the next day. And on both 1 &2 pints I was still well below the max allowable blood alcohol level.

A.K. Boomer
12-14-2010, 06:15 AM
This is a heavy duty subject and should not be taken lightly at all, Drunk drivers are dangerous - its a fact, and they should be taken off the road, but im sorry - I won't jump on the bandwagon of tossing everybody into the same category - why? because their not - I said drunk drivers are dangerous - not people who drink, Whether people like to hear it or not there is a limit and there are differences in the way people handle it, try putting rules and regs on that one and good luck with that,
but the fact remains that there are people ten times more responsible than that of the average self righteous hypocrite (hypocrite I say because a fatal accident is a fatal accident - and that's the cold hard truth so hang the fuque up and drive your GD car, and while your at it stay the fuque home if you have the flue and don't fiddle with the fuqing buttons on your radio too long and on and on and on) that could live out dozens of their lifetimes without incident just due to the fact that they know when to say when, yet the law throws the book at them to the same degree for one beer (and a burnt out tail light) that they would do for a guy who's had a case and is totally inebriated ---
That is totally screwed and in fact if you want to get real the penalties need to be almost nothing for the very low limits to immediately losing their license for the upper limits,
I wonder what the stats are of all the lives ruined by Maad of first time offenders who where just over a limit that really does not effect their driving skills.
Maybe that needs to make the news once in awhile --- Good ole Joe Blow who was a pillar of the community - had one beer with his co-workers and was on his way home, gets popped for a burnt out license plate bulb, loses job, gets stressed, kills wife and children and then opens fire on a chucky cheese then pops a cap in his head --- not a very pretty site huh, Nice reward for a responsible drinker.

Im just sayin, Classic knee jerk over-reaction, Yes go after the drunks, but I said drunks --- if you don't agree then you really might want to read the fine print about just what the hells really in your cough medicine, oh yeah - stay away from over-ripe fruit too:rolleyes: Get real people,,, and if you really believe the low limit is fair then I really hope you don't have a radio in your car, remember - radio's like alcohol can be avoided, there's no excuse:rolleyes:

Whether some of you guys like to hear it or not there are people way more responsible than most of you who have had their lives totally destroyed due to the "manhunt" -- that's a sad fact on the proverbial flip side of the coin.

Liger Zero
12-14-2010, 06:41 AM
I do not advocate shutting down the alcohol industry. At all.

But I will say it again: If you choose to drink and drive... you are wrong. It's not a question that has shades of answers and degrees of excuse-ablity!

914Wilhelm
12-14-2010, 06:46 AM
And to think we haven't even touched on all the other folks buzzing around in their vehicles buzzed on all the other substances legal or not from pot to pills!

tumutbound
12-14-2010, 07:03 AM
Throwing the book at someone whose just had one beer is not very likely. At least not here.

Even if the roadside breathalyser reads over the legal limit, an subsequent breath test taken 20 minutes later will give a more accurate reading that will most probably be under the legal limit - if the driver has actually had only one beer.

I have no problem with throwing the book at someone who exceeds the legal limit for whatever reason. It's up to the driver to be responsible and to not drink or if they want to drink to not drive. The same applies for drug testing of drivers.

mike os
12-14-2010, 07:06 AM
I do not advocate shutting down the alcohol industry. At all.

But I will say it again: If you choose to drink and drive... you are wrong. It's not a question that has shades of answers and degrees of excuse-ablity!

absolutely... & I am deffo not anti drink.... i love the stuff:D

Having seen the results with my own eyes of the effect of one pint on my driving (and about 20 others on the same course.... & not for offences LOL, military) I cannot say what effect 1-2 drinks would have on any individual, but I can say it WILL affect their judgement, and almost inevitably negatively.

If 1 drink is enough to gain a conviction then you either unleash your common sense or your beligerence & take your chances.

Everyone is aware of the penalties associated with being convicted for DUI, if you get caught it is probably going to totally FUBAR your entire life, quite probably your family and maybe even take someones life. I have absolutely no time or sympathy for anyone in this situation.... your choice, you live with it.

Now is it really worth it? or why not just arrange fro a driver or taxi? ( & where I live a cab would cost about $40-60 before midnite, double that after).

Evan
12-14-2010, 07:20 AM
I just dont think that I will bother to have a drink socially after reading the comments posted here as it seems that having a drink is going the way of smoking ,some wowser has found another target and wont stop until they have made the world a safer place .


This has nothing to do with anti drinking.

Evan
12-14-2010, 07:32 AM
"The fact that other problems can also cause accidents in no way validates drinking and driving. Those are spurious arguments and have absolutely no bearing on the question."

Oh, bull****, Evan. You sound like a shrewish old woman. You think that people live forever, and we have 300+million in the US, and 40 some thousand die on roads in cars. Some are actual accidents. Some are possibly suicides. Some are from drug impairment. Some are from alcohol impairment. Some are from "Distracted Driving", I think is the term for texting or talking on the cell phone.


One third of automotive FATALITIES are alcohol related. Unfortunately it is often not the drinking driver that died.

Other causes of accidents are other problems. If they should be dealt with than that is a separate issue. It has nothing to do with driving under the influence of alcohol. In fact, all the other possible causes only serve to prove that even minor impairment isn't tolerable.

Abner
12-14-2010, 07:32 AM
I lost a childhood friend when we were teenagers. She and her friend were drunk, didn't make the corner hit a power pole at speed.

That was the most painful funeral I ever attended. Her name was Kathy Grogan, Portland Oregon. She was young, beautiful and fun loving.

Her mother is one of the most loving people I have ever had the good fortune of meeting. I doubt there is a day that goes by she doesn't think of her.

A.K. Boomer
12-14-2010, 08:43 AM
I do not advocate shutting down the alcohol industry. At all.

But I will say it again: If you choose to drink and drive... you are wrong. It's not a question that has shades of answers and degrees of excuse-ablity!


Of course its wrong, same as speeding and speeding is a good example --- as the speed goes up so do the fines and even possible imprisonment, Why? because as the speed goes up so does the danger...
but do we do that for drinking and driving - no, as long as its over .08 then throw the book at them, that's not only illogical - its wrong,,, The more you drink the more lethal you are behind the wheel - Yet we actually let the huge offenders off light for what they do and persecute the people who just tip the scales,

All im saying is you want to get real? then start using the breath or blood test like you would a radar gun and increase the punishment accordingly (it has a .00 scale you know) - same way you would want to pop some dude for going 65mph in a school zone VS giving some guy a $15.00 speeding ticket for going 4mph over the speed limit --- was he wrong? of course he was - but he don't deserve to have the same punishment as the other bloke.

Its really hard to take law enforcement seriously when they lack simple basic logic and reasoning skills,,, Mankinds classic kneejerk overreaction, little do they realize it actually undermines the type of penalties that should be given to the worst offenders and therefore makes our roads more dangerous.

DUI enforcement has some catching up to do and is still in the basic kneejerk reaction hillbilly stage...

Evan
12-14-2010, 09:10 AM
All im saying is you want to get real? then start using the breath or blood test like you would a radar gun and increase the punishment accordingly (it has a .00 scale you know)

Sorry, that doesn't work. Everybody reacts differently to certain amount of alcohol. Some people are seriously impaired after only two drinks. "Experienced" drinkers may need much more. There is no logic to "adjusting" the punishment based on a reading that doesn't indicate a "degree" of impairment. Impairment while driving is dangerous regardless of the level and when that impairment is both voluntary and entirely avoidable in ADVANCE of driving then it is inexcusable.

mike os
12-14-2010, 09:18 AM
NO you hurt them for anything over the limit first time.... like $10-20k, 2 year ban & destroy/confiscate vehicle, as a basis for first offence asuming no one is injured.

Break the ban or re-offend & get several years behind bars... no excuses acceptable.

Speeding sometimes happens because of a lapse in concentration, missed sign etc ie accidental, DUI is a choice you make every time.... you cannot accidently have a few:p

vpt
12-14-2010, 09:32 AM
Lets make everything illegal with huge fines so everyone just sits home and does nothing. Go to work, pay bills and taxes, go home and sleep. That is what the government wants you to do.

Can't have anyone out doing anything because they may kill themselves or others. "Oh, your sick? better not drive because you are impaired!"

Like mentioned cell phones, radio, kids, women, etc. are all a distraction and impairs driving. Make everything that distracts or impairs a driver illegal and you won't see any cars anymore.

While we are at it lets make metal lathes illegal because some people died operating them.

Take your guns away because 'guns' kill people as well.

Cigarettes? They kill people, make them illegal!

Planes kill people, no more planes!

Electricity kills as well, better shut that **** off too.

rotate
12-14-2010, 09:51 AM
Don't mean to hijack this thread, but here's another very effective PSA on driving.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-8PBx7isoM

A.K. Boomer
12-14-2010, 09:52 AM
Sorry, that doesn't work. Everybody reacts differently to certain amount of alcohol. Some people are seriously impaired after only two drinks. "Experienced" drinkers may need much more. There is no logic to "adjusting" the punishment based on a reading that doesn't indicate a "degree" of impairment. Impairment while driving is dangerous regardless of the level and when that impairment is both voluntary and entirely avoidable in ADVANCE of driving then it is inexcusable.


Evan, its far closer a solution to the one we have right now -- by what youv just stated there's people out there that can be way below the legal limit and yet be totally dangerous, but that's Ok by both standards right?
Maybe all sobriety tests should include the physical coordination test along with it and ALL evidence should be brought to light for final punishment (along with the amount consumed),
But giving some guy who's had two beers the same punishment of someone who just drank a case and is falling down drunk is not only the wrong answer - it costs lives in the long haul as even stiffer penalties belong to the latter to KEEP HIM/HER OFF THE ROAD.

You can't take the social out of the human and for many you cannot take the drinking out of the social, but you can instill a sense of reasonable responsibility of less is better and for those that don't abide to that then throw the stinking book at em....

Speeding is dangerous regardless of the level - but like drinking the risk increases with "more"

We seem to get that in regards to the punishment for speeders --- and with speeders like drinkers all people and cars are not the same --- but that's tough you have to draw the line somewhere.

SmoggyTurnip
12-14-2010, 10:24 AM
Some people are seriously impaired after only two drinks.

Some people aren't.

Following this logic no one should be allowed to drive. Some drivers are better than others and every driver on the road presents a risk to other drivers (even when sober). Since zero risk is all you are willing to accept then everyone must stay home.

mike os
12-14-2010, 10:47 AM
Lets make everything illegal with huge fines so everyone just sits home and does nothing. Go to work, pay bills and taxes, go home and sleep. That is what the government wants you to do.

Can't have anyone out doing anything because they may kill themselves or others. "Oh, your sick? better not drive because you are impaired!"

Like mentioned cell phones, radio, kids, women, etc. are all a distraction and impairs driving. Make everything that distracts or impairs a driver illegal and you won't see any cars anymore.

While we are at it lets make metal lathes illegal because some people died operating them.

Take your guns away because 'guns' kill people as well.

Cigarettes? They kill people, make them illegal!

Planes kill people, no more planes!

Electricity kills as well, better shut that **** off too.


At the risk of gettig myself grief from mods

GROW UP.:mad:

mike os
12-14-2010, 10:50 AM
Some people aren't.

Following this logic no one should be allowed to drive. Some drivers are better than others and every driver on the road presents a risk to other drivers (even when sober). Since zero risk is all you are willing to accept then everyone must stay home.


This is not about eliminating risk or removing all possible potential distractions, alcohol is known to affect driving in 100% of people afaik.

Taking deliberate action to make you less able to deal with the issues is totally different to being less able in the first place.

vpt
12-14-2010, 11:17 AM
At the risk of gettig myself grief from mods

GROW UP.:mad:





Don't get mad, have a drink, it will calm you down. :p

mike os
12-14-2010, 11:32 AM
just irritated, when you try to have an adult conversation.......;)

mochinist
12-14-2010, 11:44 AM
Evan, its far closer a solution to the one we have right now -- by what youv just stated there's people out there that can be way below the legal limit and yet be totally dangerous, but that's Ok by both standards right?
Maybe all sobriety tests should include the physical coordination test along with it and ALL evidence should be brought to light for final punishment (along with the amount consumed),
But giving some guy who's had two beers the same punishment of someone who just drank a case and is falling down drunk is not only the wrong answer - it costs lives in the long haul as even stiffer penalties belong to the latter to KEEP HIM/HER OFF THE ROAD.

You can't take the social out of the human and for many you cannot take the drinking out of the social, but you can instill a sense of reasonable responsibility of less is better and for those that don't abide to that then throw the stinking book at em....

Speeding is dangerous regardless of the level - but like drinking the risk increases with "more"

We seem to get that in regards to the punishment for speeders --- and with speeders like drinkers all people and cars are not the same --- but that's tough you have to draw the line somewhere.Im not sure where we stand now, But Arizona did have some of the toughest DUI laws in the nation as of a couple years back. Part of the new tougher laws was pretty much what you are describing.


If you are convicted of DUI in Arizona you will go to jail. It is mandatory. The amount of jail depends on your alcohol concentration, your prior criminal history (particularly DUI history), as well as the circumstances of your case. For a first offense, if your reading is below .15, then the minimum amount of jail is 24 hours. If your reading is between .15 and .20, then the minimum is 30 days in jail. If your reading is above .20, then the minimum jail time is 45 days. Keep in mind that the State has to prove that your actual alcohol concentration was above those minimum amounts in order for you to be subject to the enhanced jail sentence.
As you can well imagine, if it's not your first offense, then the penalties grow exponentially. The jail time is mandatorily enhanced if you have, and the State proves that you have, a DUI prior within 84 months of the current charge. For example, a second offense DUI, with a reading of less than .15, has a 30 day minimum jail sentence in Arizona. A second offense with a reading of between .15 and .20 is 120 days in jail. A second offense with a reading of over .20 is 180 days in jail.
In addition to the jail time, there are mandatory fines in Arizona which also depend on alcohol concentration and prior DUI history. Alcohol classes will be ordered. You will be required to install an ignition interlock device in your vehicle.
http://phoenix.about.com/od/crime/a/azdui_3.htm

mochinist
12-14-2010, 12:10 PM
I almost got in a wreck the other day that totally would have been my fault, I was driving down Apache road by the student dorms at Arizona State University and there was this lil hottie wearing practically nothing, walking on the sidewalk. I was checking her out pretty good and luckily looked back at the road just in time to see traffic was stopped at a red light. Damn she was hot. I almost got a DUIHCE(driving under the influence of hot chicks everywhere):p

mike os
12-14-2010, 12:26 PM
man, nearly had a few of those myself;)

Evan
12-14-2010, 12:29 PM
Some people aren't.

Following this logic no one should be allowed to drive. Some drivers are better than others and every driver on the road presents a risk to other drivers (even when sober). Since zero risk is all you are willing to accept then everyone must stay home.


Sorry, your logic does not compute. Nobody should be allowed to drive AFTER WILLFULLY IMPAIRING THEIR CAPABILITY TO DRIVE. Driving is difficult enough as is evidenced by the number of accidents that don't involve alcohol or distractions. There is NO EXCUSE for driving after intentionally reducing your ability to drive to the best of your capability.

This is a no brainer. I cannot believe that there is anybody that would think otherwise.

A.K. Boomer
12-14-2010, 01:20 PM
I almost got in a wreck the other day that totally would have been my fault, I was driving down Apache road by the student dorms at Arizona State University and there was this lil hottie wearing practically nothing, walking on the sidewalk. I was checking her out pretty good and luckily looked back at the road just in time to see traffic was stopped at a red light. Damn she was hot. I almost got a DUIHCE(driving under the influence of hot chicks everywhere):p


Yes,, very dangerous and something that's extremely hard to control...

Thanks for the arizona post - much more to the line of thinking that im talking about and I was unaware that they did such a thing...

A.K. Boomer
12-14-2010, 01:30 PM
This is not about eliminating risk or removing all possible potential distractions, alcohol is known to affect driving in 100% of people afaik.





Yes true it effects everybody, but not always in a negative way -- you must have missed the studies about people with mild to severe anxiety/compulsive neuroses (and there's not only quite a few but the "crowd" is growing)
they have actually been proven to do better with most driving situations due to a small amount "chilling" them out...

Evan
12-14-2010, 02:15 PM
they have actually been proven to do better with most driving situations due to a small amount "chilling" them out...


Citation please. That effect actually does happen with weed but I have never seen any study that shows any improvement from alcohol.

SmoggyTurnip
12-14-2010, 03:19 PM
There is NO EXCUSE for driving after intentionally reducing your ability to drive to the best of your capability.

This is a no brainer. I cannot believe that there is anybody that would think otherwise.

There are many ways to reduce your ability to drive that we have no problem accepting, for example as the day comes to an end and we become sleepy our ability to drive is decreased as our reaction times get slower after some point. At some point it becomes impossible to drive. So how many minutes should we be awake before we are not allowed to drive? Surely you don't want to draw a line at 5 minutes after we wake. There must be some reasonable amont of time that you would accept a person to be awake before you would consider him irresponsible to drive. There is an argument for some tollerance. I think .08 is OK, maybe .05 i dont know - but there must be some acceptable level. This is a no brainer to me.

Liger Zero
12-14-2010, 03:43 PM
I lost a childhood friend when we were teenagers. She and her friend were drunk, didn't make the corner hit a power pole at speed.

That was the most painful funeral I ever attended. Her name was Kathy Grogan, Portland Oregon. She was young, beautiful and fun loving.

Her mother is one of the most loving people I have ever had the good fortune of meeting. I doubt there is a day that goes by she doesn't think of her.

Those of you who are calling for mercy on drunk drivers, read the above post again.

You sanction willful alcohol-induced impaired driving of ANY kind you are sanctioning willful murder.

Remember that.

You willingly play dice with the lives of OTHER PEOPLE.

Why the heck would you DO such a thing? Are you such a douche-bag that no one else matters but you?

Note this is not aimed at any specific poster, it's a general statement. I encourage EVERYONE here to ponder what I am saying.

This is one of a tiny number of topics that I will take a firm stance on, and not back down.

SIX people. Friends, schoolmates, coworkers. No one showed THEM mercy.

squirrel
12-14-2010, 04:06 PM
Sorry, that doesn't work. Everybody reacts differently to certain amount of alcohol. Some people are seriously impaired after only two drinks. "Experienced" drinkers may need much more. There is no logic to "adjusting" the punishment based on a reading that doesn't indicate a "degree" of impairment. Impairment while driving is dangerous regardless of the level and when that impairment is both voluntary and entirely avoidable in ADVANCE of driving then it is inexcusable.

Here is a little more from Indiana law and the " legal limit"

A person can also be charged with DUI/OWI in Indiana even if their BAC level is below the legal limit. If by the arresting officer's observation of the driver's behavior before the stop or by showing signs of impairment while stopped by failing any portion of the field sobriety test (if taken). slurred speech or other various signs of impairment that would lead the officer to establishing probable cause and therefore arresting the driver.


Those of us with class A CDL's have tighter restrictions than regular drivers, if they can smell you are done.

mike os
12-14-2010, 05:29 PM
There are many ways to reduce your ability to drive that we have no problem accepting, for example as the day comes to an end and we become sleepy our ability to drive is decreased as our reaction times get slower after some point. At some point it becomes impossible to drive. So how many minutes should we be awake before we are not allowed to drive? Surely you don't want to draw a line at 5 minutes after we wake. There must be some reasonable amont of time that you would accept a person to be awake before you would consider him irresponsible to drive. There is an argument for some tollerance. I think .08 is OK, maybe .05 i dont know - but there must be some acceptable level. This is a no brainer to me.

places vary it seems, over here we have a limit, over which you will be charged, never heard of anyone being done for DUI when under the limit. That equates to about 2 pints for joe average.... but as i have said seeing how much 2 pints can affect Joe...

Having stuff like tiredness creep up on you happens all by itself, and over here professional drivers have to use a tacho at all times ( iirc the penalty for not using or fiddling is far harsher that the alternatives) and will be charged if over their alloted hours or not enough rest.

DUI is deliberately setting out to impare yourself, not something largely out of your control happening.

mike4
12-14-2010, 05:31 PM
NO you hurt them for anything over the limit first time.... like $10-20k, 2 year ban & destroy/confiscate vehicle, as a basis for first offence asuming no one is injured.

Break the ban or re-offend & get several years behind bars... no excuses acceptable.

Speeding sometimes happens because of a lapse in concentration, missed sign etc ie accidental, DUI is a choice you make every time.... you cannot accidently have a few:p

I am not in favour of destroying a persons life because they made a mistake

Evan
12-14-2010, 05:58 PM
There is an argument for some tollerance. I think .08 is OK, maybe .05 i dont know - but there must be some acceptable level. This is a no brainer to me.


I am fine with a limit of .05 since there are other reasons for a person to have low levels of alcohol in their blood besides drinking. That limit is more than generous enough to prevent falsely convicting somebody that happens to have yeast overgrowth of the intestine and naturally produces a small amount of alcohol internally.


A person can also be charged with DUI/OWI in Indiana even if their BAC level is below the legal limit. If by the arresting officer's observation of the driver's behavior before the stop or by showing signs of impairment while stopped by failing any portion of the field sobriety test (if taken). slurred speech or other various signs of impairment that would lead the officer to establishing probable cause and therefore arresting the driver.


We have two separate possible charges here that cover the situation. One is driving with a blood alcohol level over the legal limit. That charge doesn't address the issue of impairment since it is the amount of alcohol in your blood that is the issue, not how much impairment it produces.

The other charge is Driving while impaired. That charge isn't based on the amount of alcohol in your blood. It is a value judgement by an experienced professional (the cop) as to whether your ability to drive is impaired or not. It doesn't matter why you are impaired, that isn't the issue, only your ability to drive safely is in question.

Evan
12-14-2010, 06:05 PM
I am not in favour of destroying a persons life because they made a mistake


Driving under the influence of alcohol isn't a mistake. It is an intentional act. I have zero tolerance for intentional acts that may end somebody else's life.

Abner
12-14-2010, 06:36 PM
Making a mistake destroying someone life?

I was at a kegger in highschool. An upperclassmen whom I barely knew was too drunk to stand up. He almost gave me his keys. His was bleeding from fighting with people who tried to take them away.

Later that night he drove his car with two girls inside into the side of a moving train. It drug his car over 150 yards before stopping. They used bags to pick up the body parts of those three kids.

The parents who let there son be cool and have a kegger lost their farm in the resulting lawsuit. The parents divorced afterward.

I remember that night well enough to never forget.

I have driven when I shouldn't have in my reckless days of youth. I don't anymore, haven't for over 30 years.

Like the TAC program - Its all fun until it isn't.

I hope you never find out.

mike4
12-14-2010, 07:14 PM
People can post all the grisly examples they can find ,but that does not bring back those who have died or undo the injuries to those who lived .
But i do not believe in making a person and their family ,friends pay for the rest of the time that they are alive .
I can forgive and forget ,move on and be productive .

The present obsession with perpetual punishment that our society is creating more problems than it solves.

Why not just shoot all DUI drivers who kill another person then all would be over.
To make someone continually suffer because of a stupid act ,to me is just as wrong as driving when impaired or distracted.
Those who say you have never experienced the trauma of a serious accident should take note of thefact that I have over thirty years of driving on all types of roads and have come across and have been involved in some pretty messy accidents ,however i resolved to move on and make the best of whats left ,rather than punish someone forever .

A.K. Boomer
12-14-2010, 08:16 PM
Driving under the influence of alcohol isn't a mistake. It is an intentional act. I have zero tolerance for intentional acts that may end somebody else's life.


That's fine Ev, I just hope you hold the same conviction for those that talk on the cellie, text drive, put on makeup, eat a cheeseburger while steering with their knee's (guilty) forget to take their sunglasses off after dark, play their radio, have a slight obsession with their heater controls, again - this ain't no mistake either - they are all intentional acts - and by the way one of them even surpasses the drunks on the highway -- but remember im not talking about drunks - im talking about someone who's had a beer,
Its fine and dandy to have a witch hunt -- it needs to happen - just make sure your tying the right person to the stake...

Funny thing about some of the latest stats about cell phone/texting use being the most dangerous thing on the highway is the fact that unlike alcohol it's virtually undetectable ------ anotherwords - after the crash the cellie's laying on the floor stuffed under the seat and *most of the people that were using it wont admit to it,,, So what does this mean you ask?

It means that as devastating that the stats are that they are just the tip of the iceberg,,,
You see - unlike the person with booze on their breath who immediately gets popped - the person who was texting gets to pick up their phone and put it in their pocket... but its ok --- stop the witch hunt because they haven't been drinking.

Nothing disgusts me more than seeing some idiot or some bimbo talking on their cell while driving - You want me to drag up some devastation video's?
Is that what it take's because as much as its in it's infancy I can find some real doozie's -- but be prepared - these people aren't "actors" :rolleyes:

Im in no way shape or form an advocate for drunk driving - and in fact someone mentioned 2 pints,,, 2 pints for me right now is way way overboard - it might not have used to be but it is now unless I plan on waiting awhile - even 1 pint comes with a caution flag of how much I had to eat and how I feel - 1 beer (12oz.) I can handle just fine unless iv got a totally empty stomach...

Anybody who cannot except that kind of a judgment call had better not so much as touch their fuqueing radio dials... What gripes my ass is the holier than thou crowd who jump on the "bad label" bandwagon yet do things that put other people at far more risk... Now that's unacceptable... Your going to get on my case??? you better be a saint.

Liger Zero
12-14-2010, 08:23 PM
To make someone continually suffer because of a stupid act ,to me is just as wrong as driving when impaired or distracted.


Murders are punished in this way. Long prison terms with no parole. Execution in some cases.

You drink you drive you kill someone, you should be removed from society.

The penalty for "getting caught" should be severe enough to make anyone think twice. "Gee if I get caught even if I don't hurt anyone... I could lose EVERYTHING I have and never recover from it."

mike4
12-14-2010, 08:56 PM
Judging from the content of the posts on this subject it is a very emotive issue , I think that we all have aired our opinions .

Its time to move on and stop trying to justify the punishments .we all seem to agree on one thing if you choose to drink then drive think of the consequences ,.

We are living in a society where we all seem to needa scapegoat for our own shortcomings , I'll probably be burnt at the stake for this but lets just drop the pissing contest .

Life goes on lets get back to machining or what ever it is we all do .

Michael

Evan
12-14-2010, 09:22 PM
This isn't about justifying punishments at all. It is about preventing people from choosing to drive when impaired. Ask any driver who has driven impaired if they knew it was wrong to do so before they did. I doubt you can find even one person that would say no.

The object is to prevent impaired driving, not to punish it. If somebody decides to drive anyway then permanently removing their license to drive will then present them with the choice of driving without a license. If they decide to do that then they may be incarcerated.

We have laws that are meant to protect society at large from people that behave in a manner dangerous to others. As an analogy that I have heard before, your right to swing your arms ends at the tip of my nose. You have no right to drive while impaired. There is a very good reason for that. Drivers impaired by alcohol kill many thousands of people every year and injure far more.

Liger Zero
12-14-2010, 09:32 PM
Life goes on lets get back to machining or what ever it is we all do .

Michael

Shop is closed for the evening, I run 6am to 4pm. Rest of the time I log on to message boards and offer my opinion... wanted or not. :D

bobw53
12-14-2010, 09:49 PM
The object is to prevent impaired driving, not to punish it.

All I've seen from you is the punishment side, so..... how do you prevent it?

Let me guess, punishment.

The problem is the people that have many DUI's and the ones that tend to kill people are the ones that just don't care. Punishment doesn't bother or deter them. Or its stupid ass teenagers.

I know here where I am, the ones that maim and kill that are DUI and are pretty much scum. It only takes a few seconds on the court website to find what kind of person they are. 99% chance they have multiple DUI's. Most likely drug charges, 90% chance of there being domestic violence charges, 95% chance of assault and battery, 99% chance of unpaid child support. If its a chick, I'll lay down an 80% chance there is a fraud/embazzlement/stolen identity charge on there.

At this point you've got 90% of the drunks off the road. The sane people just don't do it anymore. Its the people that just don't care that are still doing it, and some idiot teenagers. The penalties now are stiff and the people that keep doing it are not going to be deterred by penalties. Usually they should have already been in jail for other things, a lot of times when they do cause a serious accident, they already have warrants out for them.

Its turned into a witch hunt, Texas is looking at OUI's .05% and over. People are getting smarter (more scared) and aren't driving, the revenue stream is drying up, they need to make more money, so they figure lets make a law that lets us arrest more people.

It has nothing to do with crime, it has nothing to do with safety (red light cameras), its a witch hunt. Who's the immoral bad person we can point to now... They already got the smokers.

Penalties for murder get stiffer and stiffer, penalties for raping children get stiffer and stiffer, penalties for running drugs get stiffer and stiffer. All these things still happen. Its because the people that commit these crimes just don't care.

A.K. Boomer
12-14-2010, 09:59 PM
This isn't about justifying punishments at all. It is about preventing people from choosing to drive when impaired. Ask any driver who has driven impaired if they knew it was wrong to do so before they did. I doubt you can find even one person that would say no.

The object is to prevent impaired driving, not to punish it. If somebody decides to drive anyway then permanently removing their license to drive will then present them with the choice of driving without a license. If they decide to do that then they may be incarcerated.

We have laws that are meant to protect society at large from people that behave in a manner dangerous to others. As an analogy that I have heard before, your right to swing your arms ends at the tip of my nose. You have no right to drive while impaired. There is a very good reason for that. Drivers impaired by alcohol kill many thousands of people every year and injure far more.


That's well put Evan and im basically in agreement with you - but like speeding 4 over in a school zone as compared to 40, You cannot make the fines identical - if you do someone is either getting severely "hosed" or someone else is getting off way to easy.
Both speeding and alcohol consumption are different forms of driving while impaired.
The faster you go the more dangerous - the more you drink the more risk to others.

x39
12-14-2010, 10:30 PM
As an analogy that I have heard before, your right to swing your arms ends at the tip of my nose.
By that analogy, no blood no foul.

Evan
12-14-2010, 10:33 PM
By your interpretation then we should allow all who wish to drive impaired and only punish those that cause injury to others.

The correct interpretation is that my nose is in reach of your arm if we are on both on the road.

squirrel
12-14-2010, 11:13 PM
Penalties for murder get stiffer and stiffer,

That's news to me, why did Bernie Madhoff receive a 150 year sentence and someone that commits murder will get a 30 year sentence and be out in 15 years for good behavior. It really shows how much the legal system values human life.........

x39
12-14-2010, 11:14 PM
So my right to swing my arm ends beyond the tip of your nose?

Evan
12-15-2010, 02:32 AM
Sorry, arguing about an analogy isn't what this is about. If you think it is then are you also arguing that it is ok to drink and drive?

mike os
12-15-2010, 02:48 AM
penalties may get stiffer, but the term served gets lower & lower, and the conditions better & better.

If the current sentence is no deterrent what does that tell you? the current sentence is not enough or that we should just give up & let them do what the hell they like? Life used to mean life, now it is more like 15 years... 12 months, out in 6..... or maybe you can sweet talk your way out of it altogether.

DUI is never (ok rarely) a mistake, it is a deliberate act, and I can think of more than a few "single acts" that have & should end soneones life (literally or figuratively).

in the UK if you are found to be uning a mobile when involved in an accident you are in deep crap, all they need to do is check the phone records, and yes IMO it is no different.

A.K. Boomer
12-15-2010, 06:19 AM
The reality of the situation is this, humanoids are social creatures and like it or not drinking is a big part of the humanoid social structure - its here to stay and you will never ever completely remove it from the highways --- ever.

But what you can do is reason with the masses, and by the particular laws that you instill you can change the entire mindset of the people into thinking less (or none) is better, instead of the attitude of "oh well -- im already over the limit and totally screwed if I get caught so I might as well enjoy myself"

Do you think that statement is a falsehood???

I used to live in pubs in my twenties and there is no way I can tell you how many times iv heard a similar remark like that and it wasn't just from dudes but babes to boot --------- that's the reality of the situation --- and that's the situation you get when you create a punishment that's just as severe for the person that's just over the edge as compared to the guy who's 4 or 5 times over the limit falling down drunk...

Where the hells the incentive to be good (or better)
Seeing a person that has one or two drinks and then says - "no thanks - that's enough for me - I have to drive home but I'll take a quick ice water".... is amazing to witness esp. if they've had more of a reckless past.

Im not saying they should be handed some flowers and a box of chocolates but they certainly do not deserve the same punishment as the person that basically states that they don't give a fuque and has 10 times the amount...

You cannot repress social structures - it will come back and bite you in the ass every time ---- The current DUI laws cost lives - You will never wrap people up that tight to where they will simply go out to nightclubs and never drink and there's to many lone wolves to think that a DD is the answer for everyone - Now im not talking about a slap on the hand --- but you simply don't destroy somebody's life if their making an effort to do the better choice,
If you do then what you will inevitably end up with is a person who's going to be sitting there again - yet this time they will have the attitude of what does it matter -- I don't give a fuque.

The cold hard truth is for many drinking and driving is inevitable --- same as speeding,
If the punishment of going 5 mph was just as severe as going 50 over Yes I would make a great attempt to stay under but know for a fact it would be futile and I would eventually get popped --- then after my life got destroyed for going 5mph over the limit I think I would go through a major state of rebellion in the form of very high speeds - why not, same punishment and its most likely going to happen again anyways? I would think the mindset would be something like "you want speed --- I'll give you speed"

That's the typical knee jerk humanoid reaction to not being treated fairly, its not right --- but it's a fact.

Black_Moons
12-15-2010, 06:41 AM
Where I live they started an intresting program.. 'Operation rednose' they call it, or something like that. The idea on the flyer was "If you are drunk, We will drive you home, In your vehical, For FREE"

Can't beat that now can you? Free, Get home, No broken laws, Get your car home (Big excuse with some people, It might get stolen! I need it to get to work in the morning, Blah blah)

Sometimes, You gotta work the posative insted of the negative. I bet a couple paid drivers cost less and will stop more drunks from driving then roadblocks.

An intresting compairson: Drunk drivers kill more people then terrorists. Should'nt we be harder on drunk drivers then we are on terrorists?
the USA has laws that they can 'detain' someone 'indefinately' (IE: Put your ass in jail forever more) if they think you are a 'threat', Without evidence.
Id say someone who has driven drunk has proven themselfs a threat. Moreso then someone who rants online anyway.

mike os
12-15-2010, 06:50 AM
if you are over the limit you are saying you dont give a ****....0.01mg or 50mg

dr pepper
12-15-2010, 07:23 AM
Here in the uk if you kill someone while boozed up you get done for manslaughter, and so you should.
Anyone over the limit has an instant driving ban and has to pass a restest.
Sounds like we are a little more strict, might be because we have more boozers.

Your Old Dog
12-15-2010, 08:37 AM
Thanks for the post. You're right, very very well done spot.

These campaigns have done a lot of good over the years. Some of the younger board members may not know but there was a time when people actually used to brag about how drunk they were when they left the party and still got home. I remember lines like " I don't know how I did it but I did get home alright" were common place. Now-a-days you are no longer a hero if you drive while you're blasted.

vpt
12-15-2010, 08:46 AM
Just have a breathalizer built into every car produced. Close to the limit the car is limited to 25mph. Over the limit it won't start.

gnm109
12-15-2010, 10:30 AM
As part of my law biz, I used to do a lot of drunk driving defense. About 15 years ago, they changed the law in California so that convicted drunk drivers will lose their licenses automatically for 40 days. There's really no defense unless there are extenuating circumstances but generally, the courts will convict. The fourth offense is an automatic felony with a mandatory 18 months in state prison. The fines are horrendous and it made it unprofitable for attorneys.

Nonetheless, even though they keep piling the penalties on, people still drink and drive. It's really hard to understand but I doubt that it will change any time soon.

Mcgyver
12-15-2010, 10:55 AM
Nonetheless, even though they keep piling the penalties on, people still drink and drive. It's really hard to understand but I doubt that it will change any time soon.

similar I think to smoking - more has been accomplished through PR and education than laws and taxes (sort of like a sanction). As YOD points out the change in attitude PR & ed brought has probably had a far great affect than all the spot checks and sanctions which I often think are more about looking good and politics given how few they take off the road.....not that we shouldn't have them, but the real reduction in drinking and driving stems from attitudes being changed.

mike os
12-15-2010, 12:17 PM
One or the other does not work , you need both, stick & carrot

Evan
12-15-2010, 12:20 PM
Now-a-days you are no longer a hero if you drive while you're blasted.


As it should be. The accident I told about earlier isn't the only one that I have seen in person. Another was many years ago when we (family, with my father driving) happened on an upside down convertible in the middle of the road late at night. For some unfathomable reason the six teenagers that were in the car were still in it. Well, only about half of each one. The rest was a dark smear on the road for the several hundred feet that the car had skidded upside down. They had been drinking heavily we later found out. Not everybody made it home back then, or now.