You seem to be assuming that all DUIs are alcoholics, or are problem drinkers. I don’t know the statistics, but I’d imagine that in many cases it’s not true. Drinking is not the problem we are trying to solve, it’s drinking and driving. Or, even more accurately, it’s unsafe driving.
IMO, DUI limits are set often at fairly low and arbitrary rates, because people want to punish those who drink, not for any true safety reasons. As Sua says:
The only reason the hypothetical .05% BAC in that example is illegal is because we as a society feel the need to punish the sinful.
That is not it AT ALL. I love to drink. I drink 3-4 times a week, get roaring drunk at weekends (on occasion). That’s not the point. Not al all. I would NEVER even consider driving after having any drink, and the same goes for any of my friends too.
It is not about sinning, it is not about the moral issue. It is about the practical issue of stopping people from operating machines that can kill (them and others) when they are in a state which can be shown to impair their responses and reactions.
And it is about changing attitudes to drink. People need to find a level of respect for alcohol, and they need to understand how it is affecting them. They need to realise the dangers they face to themselves and others when they sit behind the steering wheel.
If you want to drink, you DON’T take your car, you get a cab. If a group of people go out regularly, you designate a driver (different every night) or you book a CAB. It’s not rocket science. My friends managed to have the ‘designated driver’ routine down since we were 17.
It’s time people took some responsibility for their actions and stopped trying to hide behind the idea that others are somehow repressing their rights.
Well, I guess that’s just a difference of opinion, and I won’t fight over it, but I’ll just say for me personally, I’ll happily go out to dinner, have a glass or two of wine, and drive home afterwards. Millions of people do this. To me, the “one drink, don’t drive” concept seems incredably puritanical.
I know I’ve been much more “impaired” driving while tired than I ever have after having alcohol. Why though is it legal for me to drive on the verge of passing out due to tiredness, should I be affraid of being arrested after a small amount of alcohol (although I do admit that having never had my BAC checked, I don’t really know how much I would have to drink in order to cross the legal line here in VT)?
I can’t see any reason for this discrepancy other than to punish people who drink.
“You seem to be assuming that all DUIs are alcoholics, or are problem drinkers.”
I can see why you think that, based upon my posts. But that’s not quite my view on this.
Except for very young drivers, if someone is picked up for DUI, it’s my opinion it’s much more likely than not the driver wasn’t caught in an exceptional situation.
Rather, the driver is much more likely to have been driving drunk 10, 20 or 100 times before being caught. And if caught twice within a short period, driving while having too much to drink will be pretty much the norm. They’re doing it every week or every day.
Any driving while drinking is a danger, but the biggest end of the stick is the frequent, habitual person. I want the laws to reflect this, give the “exception” case an opportunity to prove it, but direct the habitual into rehab or jail, with much more significant, effective remedies than we have now.
My view is that once you’re caught DUI, and you face stop drinking entirely for a month or the other, and you won’t or can’t stop the drinking, then you probably are the habitual offender.
Eonwe, you are being irresponsible when you drive and drive, regardless of how you justify it to yourself.
No alcohol (then driving) is not being puritanical, it is being responsible, but if millions of people do it (drink & drive), then it must be just fine. :rolleyes:
Look, it is not a law against drinking. It is not punishing drinking. You can drink until your hearts content. No problems there.
It is a law punishing those who operate vehicles on a public road in an impaired state. Those who could easily think they are fine, but are really not.
And it is strongly recommended you do not drive while sleep-impaired either, as it is considered as bad. I know this.
Your argument is basically saying that because one thing (drunk driving) is considered as bad as another (driving with sleep deprevation), the first should thus be made perfectly legal too.
I strongly disagree.
That is exactly why I think the punishments should be graduated. Most people wouldn’t support very harsh laws against people who blow a .05 or a .08. But many would gladly support harsh laws against those who blow a .15 or higher. And, lets face it, who really is posing the most threat to other drivers?
The laws that try to punish people for simply drinking really get to me. That is why I hate the open container laws. My husband’s driving is not impared if I sit in the passenger seat and drink. You aren’t hurting anyone if you sleep off your hangover in your car. Why should these things be treated as criminal?
I agree In Conceivable, and it is not a law in the UK.
Our passangers can be as drunk as they wish, and continue drinking all the way to the party / club / pub as they will.
As long as the driver is not also partaking in the drinking.
Ah, aahala, I do see what you’re saying, but I guess I don’t think that it would accomplish much. And it kind of seems like you’re not actually treating the problem.
Plus, I imagine that there are many people who do drive with an illegal amount of alcohol in their systems who do not do it regularly. We’re not just talking partiers and folks who head out to the bars multiple nights a week. We’re also talking about the couple who goes out to dinner a few times a year, and that sort of thing.
Forcing these people to not drink (and enforcing that law… how would you do that anyway?), just doesn’t seem to properly address the problem.
Nobody is forcing anyone not to drink. You are missing the point.
They can drink all day long, as much as they want. That is not an issue.
But, if they go out and both are drinking, then they get a cab home. It really is that simple. Pick up a phone, call a cab. Leave the car at home. Simple.
Imagine a scale of driving “readiness,” where 1 is completely impared and 10 is completely alert and aware and fully focused on the task at hand.
The only thing that I’m trying to say is that many people fall all over this scale at different times for various reasons. Sometimes they’re tired, sometimes they’re singing along to the radio, sometimes they’re eating, or maybe they’re just careless drivers in general. Maybe they’ve got screaming kids in the back seat, or maybe they’re horribly distracted because they just got fired, their wife left 'em and their kids just got arrested for prostitution.
What is it about alcohol that makes us as a society feel it’s ok to punish even small amounts of alcohol while driving, while we let other things slide?
I feel that if we want to draw a line on that 1 - 10 scale, that the line should be consistant, and we shouldn’t punish people differently for the reason they’re impaired.
Turn it around, Aro. Do you agree or disagree that driving with sleep deprivation should be criminalized as well, with the same penalties as DUI? Particularly when one considers that driving while suffering from sleep deprivation is just as voluntary as DUI.
This is the fundamental problem from a legal theory POV. Law should be consistent. If driving when one’s reaction time and judgment are impaired is a social evil to be prevented through criminalization, it should not matter the cause of that impairment. The law should simply be that one is not permitted to drive when one’s reaction time and judgment are impaired, regardless of why one is impaired.
The law, as it stands, punishes drinking, contrary to your contention. It does not concern itself with impairment.
Now of course, passing a law prohibiting driving while sleep deprived is a political impossibility. But I’m a romantic about the law (yes, we do exist). If political impossibility does not allow passage of a law that treats the impact on society equally, the law should not be passed.
** Eonwe**, I understand what you are saying, I feel it is a slippery slope.
I have seen people who think they can ‘work out’ exactly where they are on the slope (your 1-10 scale) by the number of drinks / amount of water drunk / time since passed etc…
It leaves people heading out to the car confident they are fine to drink when they are not. It also has people guessing they can “have one more…” etc… when they can’t.
I’m sure that’s all fine for them until they wrap their car around some tree, or some child.
Sua
I agree that sleep deprivation is considered as bad. It already is regulated for truck-drivers and other professional drivers. I don’t think it can be made illegal, because, as you said, it is nigh on impossible to check for and test. But it should be targeted (and is) in campaigns to educate people as to the problems and possible consequences. Alcohol is targeted more not because of what it is, but because it is simply easy to determine your competency to drive with respect to it. It is fully measurable. Same as using a mobile phone when driving. The law in the UK is obviously different than the US in this respect.
Driving should also be self-policed on the part of the average person who is going to be driving. This they can easily and readily, and should do so with responsibility. If you are tired, then stop / rest. If you are drinking, don’t take the car.
Driving is dangerous enough, so why allow people to take other peoples lives in their hands through irresponsible behaviour?
Off home now, so any replies will be Monday…so you know.
Actually, I didn’t say that, and I disagree that is nigh on impossible to check for and test. In fact, I think it would be rather easy to test - just hale the driver out of the car and test his/her reaction time and judgment, without regard to what may be causing any impairment in either.
I’m pretty sure I acknowledged that it wasn’t a perfect method for that very reason later in the same post, didn’t I?
Anyway, one would hope that a sober person who might be handy would, most of the time, have the brains not to take the test for them. I can only see it being terribly problematic if the driver had young children who might just do it because mommy or daddy asked them to, and they don’t know any better to question it.
