Drunk Driving Laws...

[lonecoyote]

I'm certainly no expert, but I think that a lot of DWI legislation is political, like it has been mentioned, a "warm hug to voters" . I think the problem with all driving stupidity is that driving is not a peripheral activity. It is the first thing you should be thinking about when you're behind the wheel, not talking on the phone, eating a taco, looking for a CD, putting on makeup, or reading a newspaper (no kidding, I've seen it) ,or worse taking out your aggression. If you can take your driving seriously, which most people dont, even after you've had a few beers then I have no problem with you being on the road with me. What does everyone think of ignition interlock devices? One has to suck, then blow into a tube, not only for the car to start, but at certain intervals while the car is functioning. The sucking part I've heard, is because some jerk in San Antonio was found with his car wrecked into a tree, drunk and passed out with the the air compressor he'd used to blow into the device hissing in the back seat.

 

[dearnis.com]

We use the interlock as a diversion program. It allows an offender to keep a driver's license and operate an equipped vehicle subject to a lot of restrictions; I have no problem with them, especially in cases where someone made a bad choice and the result of loss of license is loss of job.
You are right on about most people seeing driving as peripheral; it is a shame. (And I have also seen them reading the paper...sadly never when I'm working....)

 

[Phoenix44]

But, I do feel that many activists often forget that we live an america, and that we have the right to drink.

Agreed. But we don't have the right to drink and drive.

I recently took a defensive driving course for the insurance discount. As I understand it, ANY level of alcohol will interfere with your judgement, reflexes, or perception to some degree. I guess the question is how relevant it is to driving skill.

But is it worth it, really? Not to me. Even if I believe I am not impaired (and this could just be a reflection of my impaired judgement) I could get into an accident because of ANOTHER driver's error...but my blood alcohol level will STILL cost me my professional license and probably some jail time.

 

[Cruentus]

I recently took a defensive driving course for the insurance discount. As I understand it, ANY level of alcohol will interfere with your judgement, reflexes, or perception to some degree. I guess the question is how relevant it is to driving skill.

Yes, but so could any variable. If I am a little sleepy, or playing with the radio, or scoping out a chick in another car, or reading a road sign, or eating a breath mint, or whatever. Pick any action, and I'll bet we could do tests to find out that the action effects your driving to some degree.

So, we should take down all road signs and car radios, because they could be a distraction.

I think you get the idea. The tests show that on average, the impairment of the driver does not start to rise incrementally until 0.15 BAC. This is why I think 0.12 is/was perfectly fair.

btw...I am careful; if I have had more then 2 drinks, I let a friend or my fiance'e drive, even if I am perfectly O.K.. However, that doesn't justify excessively low BAC requirements, and it doesn't justify manditory laws that prevent people from being productive members of society. All these things accomplish are a further stripping of our rights, and a filling of our jails with more victemless criminals.

 

[Phoenix44]

However, that doesn't justify excessively low BAC requirements, and it doesn't justify manditory laws that prevent people from being productive members of society. All these things accomplish are a further stripping of our rights, and a filling of our jails with more victemless criminals.

Yes, but we don't get pulled over and breath tested for driving on a couple of beers. We get pulled over because we did something funny while driving on a couple of beers: speeding, running a stop sign, driving erractically. It can be argued that these are victimless crimes...unless we hit somebody while doing it. Then there's a victim. Is that what it takes?

 

[dearnis.com]

Paul;
.15???? what tests would those be? Reaction time is out the window long before that!!!

 

[Tgace]

I thought weve already been around this block?? I have nothing more to add than Ive already posted to this thread.

 

[TigerWoman]

I was young and stupid once, probably still some of the latter, and drank and drove. But I was stupid in that I didn't know how precious life is... your own and as well as others. When young and indomitable, it's like it will never happen to me, I am in control. Only takes a second of not being in control, and wham, someones's daughter or son or carload of kids or grandparents or mom's & dads are GONE. Just for being stupid. You are operating a car, a machine in sometimes bad rainy conditions, icy conditions with crazed maniacal drivers these days who insist on getting ahead of you, swerving in front, braking at the last minute etc. etc etc. Get a designated driver or stay home, much more intelligent and people don't have to weep for your mistake. Always wanted to join MADD and I don't want to lose someone to feel compelled to. Better yet stop drinking and abusing your "temple" for it surely will catch up with you. my 2c Sorry, being a little feisty on this one. TW

 

[SMP]

What we need to do is teach/demonstrate responsible drinking.

 

[Cruentus]

Paul;
.15???? what tests would those be? Reaction time is out the window long before that!!!

Personal tests I have done with a honda civic, a high school track, and a case of Coors. :rofl:

Seriously...I'll have to dig up the stat. The limit was 0.12 at one time, though, as I am sure that you know.

In a perfect world, the limit would be at a level NEAR where MOST people show impairment (0.12). If someone is driving like a tard, they fail sobriety tests (which you'll have on camera for court), and as an officer you don't feel that they are O.K. to drive, then you can ticket them for it, inpound their car for the night, and let them call at the station for a ride home.

Just IMHO. Whether I am right or wrong, one thing that has got to happened in our state is Due process needs to be given back to the courts, instead of the manditory punishments that are enforced by the Secretary of State.

 

[Cruentus]

What we need to do is teach/demonstrate responsible drinking.

I agree...and we can start with running tests with a honda civic, a high school track, and a case of coors... :rofl:
Man...that joke just doesn't get old... :boing2:

 

[dearnis.com]

My last post on this thread....
Reduction in legal limit from .10 to .08 leads to a 6-8% reduction in fatal crashes.

 

[Flatlander]

Would you run live blade drills after your drill partner has had three beers? I wouldn't. I don't see a live blade drill as potentially more dangerous than operating a vehicle. If you can't put 100% of awareness into the activity, the risk of accident increases. It's simply an issue of public safety.

Having children has significanly changed my ideas on this topic. I certainly did not used to be this square.

 

[dearnis.com]

I lied...this will be my last post. A Delaware State Trooper was killed early Saturday morning when a drunk driver headed north in the S/B lanes of a divided highway struck him head on. The drunk had no lights, you see, because he was fleeing a previous crash. The trooper was looking for the fleeing vehicle.
He is survived by his wife and two young children.
I could add some more details, but won't as the information has not been publicly released.
Lets just leave it with the question of why again we need to roll back BAC limits?.

My task force arrested 19 DUIs earlier friday night/saturday morning; clearly we didn't do enough.

 

[PeachMonkey]

Chad,

I'm very sorry to hear about the death of that State Trooper. This was both a crime and a tragedy.

Do you think pushing the BAC limit from 0.08 to a lower value would have stopped him?

 

[Flatlander]

Chad,

I'm very sorry to hear about the death of that State Trooper. This was both a crime and a tragedy.

Do you think pushing the BAC limit from 0.08 to a lower value would have stopped him?

Might have stopped him last time. That may have been enough.

 

[PeachMonkey]

Might have stopped him last time. That may have been enough.

At the risk of seeming insensitive, I know there is a point at which I am no longer willing to give the police additional power to probe my activities in order to concievably prevent something that may happen in the future.

Where that point lies along the whole drunk-driving debate, I'm simply not sure. I have a gut feeling that people who are angry and hurt over their losses, combined with the media, have blown the issue out of proportion, but I have no actual data to back that up.

 

[CanuckMA]

Ontario allows for random checks. The officers cannot charge you with anything that is not in plain view, and don't use lights to look in the vehicule at night. I, for one, don't mind the 30 second it takes to say hello to the officer if it will take one of those idiots off the road.

 

[OULobo]

Ontario allows for random checks. The officers cannot charge you with anything that is not in plain view, and don't use lights to look in the vehicule at night. I, for one, don't mind the 30 second it takes to say hello to the officer if it will take one of those idiots off the road.

Do you mean road block type checks? I noticed these on a trip to Winsor, but they were really easy to avoid.

 

[Cruentus]

Sorry, but there is no corrolation between bringing down the limit from 0.1 to 0.08 and stopping a drunk driver from killing someone. If someone decides to drive drunk and they kill a bunch of people, in the majority of the cases their BAC is above 0.12. That person will drive above 0.12 regardless of what the limit is, whether it be 0.08 or even 0 tolerance. And...the person who will drive above 0.12 and endanger everyones lives should have there license taken away for a while.

The problem is when you bring down the limit to 0.08 as we have, or even lower to like a 0.05 or even lower like some of you have voted for in this poll, you are doing absolutely nothing to effect the real criminals who are going to drive above 0.12 regardless of the law. Your only punishing the guy who isn't drunk or the real problem, but who happends to be over your idea of a fair limit.

The problem is further complicated with the manditory punishments that many states have implimented. The 0.08 guy is lumped into the same category as the 0.2 guy, with no discresion or due process. THis is actually what bothers me the most. In this "free" country that we call "America" we are supposed to have the right to due process through the court system. With manditory sentencing, that right has been taken away. I would actually rather see a 0 tolerance law implimented if it ment manditory sentencing would be reversed so we could have our rights to due process again. It's not like I want to go around and "drive drunk"... I just want my rights and liberties back. And, whether you drink or not, you should want your rights and liberties to be maintained as well...that is, if you are to call yourself "American."

Unfortunatily, we use emotional ad hoc and anecdotal arguements instead of logic, and our civil liberties go away. "My son (or brother, or friend or co-worker, or whoever) was killed by a drunk driver, so we need to crack down on these laws. Lower BAC's and manditory sentences for everyone....sounds great!" Sorry, but this is not only illogical, but passing such nonsense is contrary to this "free" country we are supposed to be living in.

Have fun with that one...
:supcool: