Cite, please? I assume this is all part of the “big (insert your enemy here) conspiracy?”
I believe that anyone who drives with a BAC which violates the legal limit deserves what they get. And only assholes drink & drive.
Sure. Go to the top of the page and read any one of the articles that jeyen linked to.
Conspiracy is your word, not mine.
I prefer overzealous.
No argument from me. So long as it is reasonable.
But are you sure that sentance isn’t in conflict with this:
Nope, not at all. There is no legal definition of asshole, nor is there a legal standard which must be met.
I can believe that someone is an asshole whether or not they have violated any actual laws.
Ok, I checked out those links. Two were written or co-written by the same guy, and I would like to check some of the refs.
All in all, “overzealous” was not the word that came to mind.
More later, perhaps. Gotta go.
Laws against driving while impaired have been on the books for some time. Drunken driving nonetheless does continue to occur. There are always calls to “get tougher”. But how, exactly, should we get tougher? Apearently, someone decided that an easy way to get tougher would be to change the definition of “impaired” – lower the blood alcohol level that’s defined as “impaired”.
The question is, does it make sense to do this? Was the standard wrong? Were people who were way too drunk to be safe behind the wheel getting off because they didn’t show as impaired when tested? Or was the standard just fine? Is lowering it completely unnecessary? Is this being done just so public officials can say they are “doing something”, or so as to make it easier to get convictions?
Cops and prosucuters are always looking for ways to make it easier to get convictions. A cirtain amount of vigilance is needed, lest they make it so easy that people who didn’t actually do anything wrong wind up getting easily convicted of things.
I’m all for getting drunk drivers off the road, but I question if changing the definition of impaired makes any sense.
I think we do need to get tough – by hitting genuinely drunk drivers who’ve really endangered others with real penalties. How about we take the drunk driver’s license away for X number of years? When the term is up, he gets his license back IF and only if he can convince a tough judge that he’s now safe behind the wheel. And how about jail time for repeat offenders, and for those who injure or kill someone?
I’m sure I will be called Naive for this but here goes.
I have actually spoken to a couple local officers about this very topic, the response, quota?
It was explained this way which makes a hell of alot more sense:
Your a California Highway patrol officer and you come in at the end of your shift with ten tickets you wrote, your supervisor says “good boy, you must have been keeping your eyes open and our roads safe” The next day you come in with two tickets, the response… “what tree were you sleeping under”
A police officer is not required to tag X number of people a day, but we are breaking traffic laws all the time therefore an empty handed traffic cop appears incompetent or lazy to his peers.
But you’re OK with moderately impaired drivers?
Even after 1 beer, my judgement was messed up even though my reflexes were still ok. I would drive faster and more aggressively and take chances I wouldn’t take otherwise.(but that’s just me)
I cannot agree that DUI laws are ‘Draconian’. To me, they seem reasonable.(maybe thats because I don’t drink anymore) At most, they are an inconvenience. We know what the laws are and know how to comply.(don’t drink and drive!) If we would all follow these laws, the roads would be much safer, and then we could go after those damn cell-phone users.
All you gotta do is think ahead and take advantage of public transportation(cabs, subways, buses) or the designated driver thingy.
Bottoms up.
jeyen said:
to which I replied:
and then you replied:
Which again, seems to mean that the only time some one should be tagged for DUI is AFTER they’ve exhibited specific impairment - either caused a problem or were about to? So, you are apparently hoping that they’re caught immediately prior to driving erratically enough to hurt some one? Thanks, but no thanks. I’d rather have it announced (as it is) that driving after drinking can result in arrest, prosecution and revoking your driving priveleges. I’m not comforted by the drinkers’ self assessment of their driving abilities at that time. I believe that by virtue of them deciding to drive after drinking, they’ve already exhibited poor judgement.
I disagree–not with the idea that BAC does not reflect level of impairment, but with the implication that it is therefore not a useful standard for creating and enforcing DUI laws.
To analogize (probably poorly), the voting age in this country is 18. Now, 18 does not accurately reflect a citizen’s ability to process information about the candidates for office and make informed decisions. But that’s the baseline we as citizens have decided there is going to be.
Similarly, there has to be some basis on which to make DUI arrests, and BAC is at least as good as any other, based on the average propensity for impairment at certain BAC levels.
(And before we get into semantic quibbling over the word “we,” if your legislators have done something you disagree with regarding BAC levels and DUI laws, write them, campaign against them, or run against them yourself.)
Wow what a great day for this topic because both my parents are now in the hospital from a drunk driver last night. Some asshole coming home from a super bowl party hit my parents head on. You see these “drakonian laws” had taken this persons license for drunk driving already but that didn’t stop him. No he drives drunk without a lisence and without insurance. If you are driving under the influence then you should have a minimum of a ten year sentence. Maybe then people will think of calling a taxi.
In NYC, Nassau and Suffolk counties, if you are caught DWI your car is seized -or rather, the vehicle you are driving is seized (a fairly large difference). There was locally a brief flurry of news about it when it started, mostly dealing with people having lost vehicles under it. (‘Sure, I was drunk and unlicensed, but it is just so very wrong for the county to confiscate my mothers car, she needs it’)
While in some ways a controversial policy, as it allows for the confiscation of the vehicle before guilt is established in court, anyone opposed to the idea comes across as being pro drunk driver.
I was unable (having spent only 5 minutes) to find any information on this policy as applied here, but I found the following website which describes a similar though less draconian policy in Portland Oregon. THe site covers a wide range of DWI sanctions, including some stats on effectiveness.
Damn…Sorry to hear about your parents WiredGuy, hope their ok. I agree, if someone is stupid enough to drink AT ALL, then drive a car, they need serious incentive to not drive a car after drinking. That means exteme punishment. If they have a drinking problem, then it brings them one step closer to hitting bottom, so that maybe they will seek help before they kill someone.
One Cell, when I worked security at night clubs, every falling down obnoxious drunk that staggered out of the bar said they were feeling fine, and could drive ok when we stopped them. The fact that the cop took you to jail tells me that you probably had no business being behind the wheel that night, and sounds to me like you deserve what you got.
Madd has done a great job of getting cops to enforce the laws, as the good ol boy mentality often let people get away from it before. I remeber working at the club one night, talking to a Sherrifs Deputy out front. This guy staggers out of the club, walks into a post, then proceeds to get in his car and drive. I looked at the Deputy, and he say, you don’t understand. The jails full. If he can make it out of here without hitting MY car, he can go.
Okay, maybe I phrased it wrong.
I just meant that rather than ruling by fear (draconian DUI laws) they should try to prevent drunk driving by making people realize the dangers, etc. I think it’d be more effective to get everyone thinking drunk driving is the bad thing, not the getting caught for it.
And I know it sucks that so many people are irresponsible when it comes to alcohol… But that’s a totally different topic.
First off, WiredGuy really sorry to hear about your parents. Some people are just fucking assholes.
So you FELT fine. That means **YOU’RE ** allowed to drink and drive. Its just those damned other guys giving drunk drivers a bad reputation!
What if you had hit and killed someone?! What would you call that?
God! You make it sound as if prison is supposed to be BAD! Besides, I bet that dealers and bail jumping bank robbers kill less people per year than drunk drivers. Do you think your bougeosie middle class (presumably) life makes you better than those “skid row characters?” How dare the government make you associate with those scum!
I forgot! smacks self on forehead The right to drink and drive is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights! In fact Tom Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence “all men are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of helpless children in their Sports Utility Vehicles after downing a Molson or 5.” Of course its a fucking privledge.
People know drunk driving is bad, however, they dont think it applys to them. They think that its just the other guy who cant handle his booze, but they are perfectly ok to drive on a 12 pack or two. By making a clear cut standard based on BAC, you are saying, “I dont care if you think you are ok to drive after downing a case of beer, you get caught, you are going to jail, wether you think you are ok to drive or not.” Thats the way it has to be.
Reply to Qwertyasdfg:
Tom Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence “all women are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of multiplying like jackrabbits without having a license to bring a child into this world”. Why are those mothers let their dear, but loose kids in the street. Anything can happen to those kids that have irresponsible mothers – Drunk Drivers or otherwise. Maybe those MADD mothers shouldn’t have had those kids at the first place. Or if they did, they should have first learned how to keep them off the street, before crying foul about “Drunk Drivers”.
Really. It makes me want to establish an organization called DDAM – Drunk Drivers Against Mothers !!
Call me a bourgeois, if you wish. But after I got my DUI, do you think I stayed here to suffer the concequences of a revoked driver’s license? Puh… No way. My wife and I immediately packed our bags, left the United States and lived in France for several years, where we could go to any bar or restaurant, have our wine, without worrying about a “quota seeking cop” hiding and waiting for patrons outside a drinking establishment. Too bad. Both the local and federal tax authorities in the U.S. lost my generous bourgeois tax contributions during those years.
As the OP said: “The draconian DUI laws in the US do not really help”. It appears that in your zeal to push down your self-righteous stance down the throat of others, you missed the essence of the OP’s message and my response to it.
Gee, that sounds absolutely horrible, One Cell! :rolleyes: Have you ever considered that that might be the point? That having been in such an unpleasant situation, you might think twice before doing what got you sent there? Guess not.
I guess they don’t have public transportation near where you live. Absolutely no buses or taxis or anything like that in the Greater Los Angeles area? :rolleyes:
Yeah! Who says the girl who took the road test in front of me, who drove up on top of the curb (twice!) while trying to parallel park, shouldn’t be allowed to drive? Who says the 90-year-old with cataracts in both eyes shouldn’t be allowed to drive? Who says the guy who wrapped his car around a telephone pole because his BAC was 0.18 shouldn’t be allowed to drive?
Why should you be allowed to handle a 1 ton automobile capable of going 100+ mph unless you can use it responsibly?
Because, as we all know, unsupervised children of negligent mothers who allow their kids to play in the street unsupervised are the only ones who are ever killed by drunk drivers. DDs never kill or injure people travelling in other cars or walking on the sidewalk or crosswalk who have never done anything to deserve being run over. :rolleyes:
Oh, and, of course, those unsupervised kids deserved to get hit, right?
God, what a dick! And, One Cell, you do realize you just admitted to being a drunk driver, don’t you?
“Bourgeois” wouldn’t be my first choice.
No, that would require taking responsiblity for your actions.
You uprooted your entire life just because you couldn’t drive a car for two years? 
I guess getting to work wasn’t such a big concern for you after all.
I don’t think the laws are too harsh. Maybe if we penalize drunk drivers badly enough before they hit something, they’ll think twice about doing it again. It doesn’t have to be much - maybe a night in jail and a multi-year suspension of their license is enough - but it shouldn’t be just a slap on the wrist.
It’s not hard to prevent DUI. If you’re going to drink - even a little - you should find a way back home that doesn’t involve you driving. Whether calling a cab or getting a sober friend to drive you home, there are many options open to you. If you absolutely MUST drive, have a Coke or something instead of a beer.
You may think that one or two drinks don’t make a difference, but those extra tenths of seconds of reaction time might be the difference between stopping in time and hitting something.
For those who do kill someone while driving drunk (and I mean VERY drunk, not just borderline), I don’t think “depraved indifferance to human life” (Murder 2?) is too big of a stretch for a prosecutor to make. You knew you were putting others at risk, but you just didn’t care. Maybe the thought of 20 years in jail will make you stop and think if you’re REALLY okay to drive.
Here is MY “humble opinion”. And note I have sat on the grand Jury, and am priviledged to call a Superior Court Judge a “friend”.
1st Offence- Not draconian- all penalties are up to the Judges discretion. He could make them harsh, or mild- depending on the circumstances. I would think that a reasonable judge would not have been quite so harsh on one-cell, if there had not have been “minimum sentencing”. Harsh enough for one cell to remember, certainly, tho. Folks who had “plead out” to reckless driving for a prior, or had bad driving records could have serious punishments.
2nd offence. Very Draconian. No drivers lic for 20 years (10 if you can prove you’ve been "sober’ with AA & stuff). Vehicle is confiscated in most cases. Huge fines, jail. There is no possible excuse for the second offence.
3rd- Prison. You are a homicide waiting to happen.
As long as we lost the drunk that goes with them, sounds like a fair trade to me. Maybe thats the solution, we could ship all the drunks off to other countrys.
Response to bdgr:
As long as we lost the drunk that goes with them, sounds like a fair trade to me. Maybe thats the solution, we could ship all the drunks off to other countrys.
Yeah. America… Love it or leave it.
How about Planet Earth. Love it or leave it?..
Response to Danielinthewolvesden:
Excuse me. If I was living in Ayatollah’s land, I’d know very well what they do to Solmon Rushdi. Thus I would think twice before making a blasphemous remark (let alone trying alcohol). But this is America (love it or leave it?). As a “drunk driver” that has never had a traffic ticket in 40 years of driving, nor having been involved in any accident, I’d say I have a right to have some red wine with my dinner in a restaurant without being terrorized. If you want to force me to take a taxi to go to a restaurant, I’d say go take a hike.
Hell, they have already taken my right to smoke anywhere. And I am supposed to be tolerant to put up with those yukee children of MADD mothers? Get your kids out of my sight. I want a restaurant that has “kids” versus “no kids” section, the “ugly, fat and boring” section, as opposed to “only non-smoking” section.
You know, some of you people have become so self-righteous and intolerant that you’d like to see anyone who is not like you leave the country. As you know, this is a single party country (The Capitalist Party, click here). It is well known that a single party country (like Nazi Germany) eventually turns into fascism and a police state. So, go ahead. Keep on saying “Love it or leave it”, rather than “stay and try to change some of the draconian laws”.