Drunk Driving: When a drunk person sits in the driver's seat? Or, key in the ignition? Or, car turned on? Or, car put in gear to move?

[k9bfriender]

@Riemann

You too seem to be framing this as though those questioning the law are concerned about “justice for drunk people”.

No, I’m framing it as though those questioning the law are not concerned about public safety, because that’s what they are saying.

It’s as though they take no responsibility for the actions that led them to be drunk and have no way to get home, and then blame the law for putting them in that position.

@Riemann

But it’s not a question of that - it’s about creating the correct incentives to minimize drunk driving for the protection of everyone.

Their posts are their cites, but we have a LEO and a prison employee both saying that they have personal experience with people who “sleep it off” in their cars but that then choose to drive before they are actually sober enough to do so. Sleeping for an hour or two after getting drunk enough to pass out in your car isn’t going to sober you up. How long do you think these people are going to sleep in their car before deciding that they are sober enough to drive home to where their warm bed is?

It would be interesting to see some actual statistics and data on it, rather than anecdotes, even if those anecdotes come from people who would be best positioned to be aware of those exact dangers. But if that’s a thing, where there are a significant number of accidents that occur after someone has “slept it off”, then it’s a pretty straightforward law to protect public safety.

@Crafter_Man

when the law makes the penalty for sleeping in your car about the same as a DUI, there’s no incentive to do the former.

It’s not really the about the law. If you actually care about public safety, you will take the chance of sleeping in your car, rather than the chance of killing someone due to being too drunk to safely operate your car. Maybe you just kill yourself, or maybe you just total your car. Maybe you even make it home safely. But it was the actions of the drunk driver, not that of the law or the police enforcing it, that caused that risk.

[Riemann]

@k9bfriender

It would be interesting to see some actual statistics and data on it

Indeed. As I said above, I’m open minded to the law being framed in whatever manner produces the best outcomes - where that means fewer drunk people ultimately behind the wheel of moving vehicles.

[Crafter_Man]

I don’t disagree. But you’re using a rational argument, and drunk people often think irrationally.

[k9bfriender]

@Riemann

It’s questioning whether the law is providing the best incentives to keep drunk drivers off the road for the benefit of everyone.

As you said, some research could be useful, but I see no reason to automatically think that the law doesn’t serve the interests of public safety. I’ve known drunks, I’ve known drunks that thought that they could determine when they were safe to drive. Out of those drunks, I don’t know a few of them anymore, as they are dead. I can easily see one of them stumbling out to their car after last call, and curling up in the seat for an hour or two before determining that they are good to drive, when they really won’t be sober until late morning at the earliest.

How about this, every bar has to have a key drop. If you are too drunk to drive, you can sleep in your car, and put the key in a time lock safe that you can’t get to it for at least 8 hours. As long as you are in the bar’s parking lot, and your key is in the time-lock, you can sleep all you want.

[Riemann]

@k9bfriender

It’s not really the about the law. If you actually care about public safety, you will take the chance of sleeping in your car, rather than the chance of killing someone due to being too drunk to safely operate your car.

The law should not be in conflict with someone choosing to do the right thing.

[k9bfriender]

@Crafter_Man

But you’re using a rational argument, and drunk people often think irrationally.

They should either think rationally before they get drunk, or they should get help with their alcoholism.

[k9bfriender]

@Riemann

The law should not be in conflict with someone choosing to do the right thing

I don’t think that it is. As said, the right thing is to arrange transportation before getting drunk.

I’ve been aware of this law in Ohio before I could drink, and I’m pretty sure before I could drive. I don’t see why ignorance of it should be any excuse. Since I’m aware of the law, I am incentivized not to put myself into that position.

But, I don’t have a drinking problem. I can see someone who does have one having more difficulty in being personally responsible for their actions.

Which is why I am usually in favor of diversion programs rather than punishment anyway. If someone puts themself into this position, they need help in making more responsible decisions in the future.

[Riemann]

@Snowboarder_Bo

“Screwed up”? It’s an accident that they got drunk?

Captain Hindsight is wrong: Captain Foresight is more like it.

What if there were exactly the same punishment for murdering someone as committing battery on them? Would you just focus on the fact that the assailant should have had the foresight to avoid any conflict, and should never have punched or kicked someone in the first place? And shrug off the fact that the law provides no disincentive to then commit a far worse act?

[Richard_Pearse]

@k9bfriender

I don’t think that it is. As said, the right thing is to arrange transportation before getting drunk.

Right. And what if the transportation falls through?

Plan: Have drinks after work, leave car in work carpark, friend picks you up on their way home.

What happens: You have drinks after work exceed the legal limit for driving. Friend calls, “sorry bro, I can’t pick you up because reasons”.

Options: Cab? Expensive. Hotel? Expensive. Drive home? Illegal and slight increase in risk of accident, small risk of being caught by police. Sleep in car? Illegal with no risk of accident, higher risk of getting caught by police (long time spent in the car doing the illegal activity.)

[Richard_Pearse]

@k9bfriender

They should either think rationally before they get drunk, or they should get help with their alcoholism.

There’s a huge excluded middle here of people who have no drinking problem at all but may find themselves in a situation where their plan is no longer viable.

[Richard_Pearse]

Driving home the next day after sleeping in the car is a safe option. The issue is whether this safe option should be illegal for everybody because some people don’t do it properly.

[Riemann]

@Richard_Pearse

The issue is whether this safe option should be illegal for everybody because some people don’t do it properly.

Indeed. What if someone is a responsible drinker who has only had two drinks that should in principle leave them under the legal limit, but when they get up to leave nevertheless feels a bit unsure about driving. The legal incentive is clear - forget your doubts and drive home. I you sleep on the back seat, even though there is no doubt you would be sober in the morning, that greatly increases your chances of bring arrested for DUI.

[kayaker]

@Loach

I was surprised to see that about 20 states allow for DUI on a bicycle. In my state it has to be a motor vehicle. There has to be a motor for it to be a DUI.

In rural western Pennsylvania I get to read an occasional ha-ha news story about an Amish driver having his buggy pulled over for a DUI.

[Saint_Cad]

My issue with DUI including a person with the keys in their pocket sitting in their car is because ISTM they are being arrested for what they COULD do and not what they are doing. Of course we all know drunk driving enforcement is allowed to be unreasonable by the courts because DUI is the Great Evil ™. Examples include avoiding a checkpoint being probable cause although it is claimed it is legal to avoid checkpoints, destruction of evidence (the breathalyzer air), random detainment with no probable cause (again checkpoints).

I’m just waiting for someone drinking at home to be arrested for DUI since their keys are in the house with them and their car is in the garage because, you know, they could drive it drunk.

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@Saint_Cad

I’m just waiting for someone drinking at home to be arrested for DUI since their keys are in the house with them and their car is in the garage because, you know, they could drive it drunk.

“Battery’s dead.”
“But you know how to charge it.”

[Moriarty]

@Saint_Cad

I’m just waiting for someone drinking at home to be arrested for DUI since their keys are in the house with them and their car is in the garage…

I’ve seen it happen.

@Saint_Cad

…because, you know, they could drive it drunk.

Oh, no, that wasn’t the reason. Instead, they had left the scene of an accident. When cops tracked them to their house, they were smashed.

[k9bfriender]

@Richard_Pearse

There’s a huge excluded middle here of people who have no drinking problem at all but may find themselves in a situation where their plan is no longer viable.

Not really a middle, more like fringe cases, but sure, some small number of people may be victims of poor planning rather than no planning, but that’s still not the fault of the other people on the road that they put at risk.

@Richard_Pearse

Driving home the next day after sleeping in the car is a safe option. The issue is whether this safe option should be illegal for everybody because some people don’t do it properly.

If you’ve had 12 drinks (which isn’t all that much for a bar excursion), then you should wait 12 hours before driving. If you are driving home the next day, then you are still drunk, unless by “next day” you mean late afternoon the next day.

The problem is that the vast majority of people who “sleep it off” in their car don’t do it properly. Sorry that that may catch a small percent who were doing their best to be responsible, but they just couldn’t get their plans straight, but there is a balance between convenience for drinkers and public safety, and I prefer to err on the side of public safety.

@Saint_Cad

My issue with DUI including a person with the keys in their pocket sitting in their car is because ISTM they are being arrested for what they COULD do and not what they are doing.

Are you against open container laws, since it is arresting them for what they could do, rather than what they are doing?

@Saint_Cad

Of course we all know drunk driving enforcement is allowed to be unreasonable by the courts because DUI is the Great Evil

It’s not the “Great Evil” but it is an unnecessary activity that results in the death and injury of tens of thousands every year.

I don’t see what is so unreasonable about trying to reduce that number.

@Saint_Cad

Examples include avoiding a checkpoint being probable cause although it is claimed it is legal to avoid checkpoints, destruction of evidence (the breathalyzer air), random detainment with no probable cause (again checkpoints).

Checkpoints are not detainment, and you are completely able to avoid one without probable cause. They even put them in the news ahead of time, so you know where they will be. Now, if you evade one, where you pull up, see cops, and then pull a u-turn, then I can see why it would look like you have something to hide from the police.

@Saint_Cad

I’m just waiting for someone drinking at home to be arrested for DUI since their keys are in the house with them and their car is in the garage because, you know, they could drive it drunk.

I don’t think that that is going to happen, do you really think it will, or was that just an emotional plea using ridiculous hyperbole?

[Crafter_Man]

@Saint_Cad

My issue with DUI including a person with the keys in their pocket sitting in their car is because ISTM they are being arrested for what they COULD do and not what they are doing.

You’re describing what I call a Might Crime™, which is a person being arrested & convicted because they might hurt someone, or infringe on their rights.

I think some Might Crimes are warranted. Waving a gun around, for example. Or drinking and driving.

The problem with Physical Control laws is that they are Might Might Crimes: you might do something, after which you might hurt someone.

Why stop there? We need laws against Might Might Might Crimes. Because we can’t be too safe.

[k9bfriender]

@Crafter_Man

You’re describing what I call a Might Crime™, which is a person being arrested & convicted because they might hurt someone, or infringe on their rights.

So, do you think that people should only be arrested for a DUI if they have an accident and hurt someone? It’s only a “might” that they will. In fact, many people drive completely wasted, and still make it home safely.

[Crafter_Man]

@k9bfriender

do you think that people should only be arrested for a DUI if they have an accident and hurt someone?

No. I believe it’s a Might Crime that’s warranted. Reread my post.