Are DUI Laws Excessive in your state ... ?

[Scooby074]

Hi Jason,

Did they make mention of the difference between a live conversation with a passenger vs. a cel phone conversation?? Good point about the fact that a passenger knows what's going on in the vehicle, whereas someone on the other end of a cel doesn't.

-Jer.

Yes they did make the distinction. Basically the passenger will stop talking when he has to.

Quote :
It is also interesting to consider the potential differences between
cell-phone conversations and in-person conversations with other occu-
pants of the vehicle. Although there need not be differences between
these two modes of communication, there is evidence that in-person
conversations are modulated by driving difficulty, so that as the de-
mands of driving increase, participation by all participants in a conver-
sation decreases (Parks, 1991). By contrast, at least one of the
participants in a cellular-phone conversation is unaware of the current
driving conditions (and may even be unaware that the cell-phone user
is driving)

 

[toy]

My second cousin and his young wife had just finished college, had a 3month old daughter, and was with friends at a cook out when they decided to go out to get some ice cream for their party, they left their daughter with the friends. While on the way to the store while going through an intersection a drunk ran the red light hit my cousin and his wife at a high rate of speed, both my cousin and his young wife was killed instantly leaving behind their young daughter an orphan, a good thing that they didn't have their baby with them or it would have probably been killed also. This drunk had had other dui convictions in the past, but this time he left two devastated families. If the laws that we have on the books are being given to the fullest and they are having to serve the max for these repeat offences, then maybe the penalty needs to be increased, or a penalty imposed on them that would inconvenience them to the point that they would change. There is an area that I have to go through occasionally that there is no reason for a speed limit below 55, but yet they have speed limits that are constantly changing. The speed limit will be 45 mph for maybe 1/4 mile and then it will drop to 35mph, and another 1/4 mile and it might raise or go lower but any way they watch that area like a hawk and any minor breaking of the law will get you a ticket and people know it, and they know a ticket will hit them around $200 so people obey that law to the letter. If the law hits them where it hurts then their behavior can be modified. Talking about slightly being over the limit but not showing any signs of being impaired to treat that person the same way that you would a person that has demonstrated a total disregard for the law is wrong even though the law has the right to impose those penalties, and a person should be aware of that when they choose to drink and drive.

 

[jgrreed]

How do you make the argument that increased penalties will stop drunk driving when life without parole, and the death penalty has not stopped murder. What are you going to threaten to do to them, execute their family?

At least twice now I've asked what your alternative to current and/or stiffer penalties is. I'd like to hear what your thoughts are on what should be done with people caught driving drunk. Maybe there's something I haven't thought of.

As long as alcohol is available you will have drunk drivers.

You're right.

Obviously there are a few people, not necessarily you rayV66, on here that think it's OK, and that the laws shouldn't ruin your lives if you get caught over the limit, etc, etc. If you're wanting leniency when you get caught in the future, you're obviously planning on doing something wrong at some time. If this is the case, why don't you change your own plans?? That way, if you do get pulled over, you've done nothing wrong, and you're laughin'. If you're gonna get drunk, get a ride, get a cab, get drunk at home, get drunk at a buddies where you can crash, get a hotel room, walk, etc..... I'd say ride your bike, but I've heard a rumor of a guy that got a .08 ON HIS BIKE!! I've used all of these strategies in my time, and still do to this day.....just less often now.

I'm going to stop talking about this now, it's an argument that cannot be settled.

Everyone just please be smart about things, and be safe.

-Jer.

 

[ray66v]

At least twice now I've asked what your alternative to current and/or stiffer penalties is. I'd like to hear what your thoughts are on what should be done with people caught driving drunk. Maybe there's something I haven't thought of.-Jer.

The point I went to an extreme to make here is, there is nothing more you can do as far as penalties, when the death penalty did not do the job. Sure they may get tired of being arrested, and having their vehicle impounded and or seized, and spending time in jail, if their habitual. However a person who has not been through all that, will not necessarily be deterred by it.

if you get caught over the limit,Jer.

This is the part I have trouble with, being over the limit should not be the threshold, being impaired should be. The limit is too arbitrary, (especially .04, or what comes next .0001). They don't use limits with drugs, and they have not problem nailing someone who is impaired while driving after using them. This is what the sobriety tests are for. They prove that you have reached the point that you should not drive because the substance has affected your judgment.

 

[Scooby074]

This is the part I have trouble with, being over the limit should not be the threshold, being impaired should be. The limit is too arbitrary, (especially .04, or what comes next .0001). They don't use limits with drugs, and they have not problem nailing someone who is impaired while driving after using them. This is what the sobriety tests are for. They prove that you have reached the point that you should not drive because the substance has affected your judgment.

I agree. When i was stopped, on the form there was several checks.

Slurred speech > NO
Smelled of alcohol > Yes
Trouble walking or standing > NO

So was I impaired? Technically i was over the limit, and shouldn't have been behind the wheel, but was I a risk? Thats the question. I have issues with the whole breath test concept. While i agree its about the only non-arbitrary way of measuring somebody's alcohol consumption; the magic number of .08 is the issue. I know people who can have 1 beer, be way under the "limit" and be more impaired than I am after 6. Field sobriety checks may be the answer, but they're open to interpretation. I dont know what the perfect combination of testing to determine if somebody is a hazard will be.

 

[WBWI]

Wisconsin AG wants to make a first DUI NOT a crime. He also wants to give judges the option of probation for a second offense instead of mandatory jail time.

He does make some sense to me. He wants to beef up the punishments for subsequent offenses and legalize roadside checks etc.

First drunken driving offense shouldn't be crime, Van Hollen says - JSOnline

My $.02 is that WI laws are too lenient. There isn't a week that goes by that the news doesn't carry a story about a DD accident where the driver was on on his 5th, 6th...9th drunk driving offense. I don't know what the solution is but the lax enforcement of laws seem to promote multiple offenses.

Did I drive drunk in my youth? Yes. Stopped twice but never arrested. Now as a husband and a father of 2, I do not drink more than 2 beers and drive afterwards. I pray that WI cleans up its act before my family is affected by some drunk driver.

 

[IH3444]

Agreed with jgreed, but he beat me to it. It takes a really big man to share a story of that order, in such detail. Thanks Eddie.

On the cell phone side I was almost run into twice in the same week, and when I looked over both times the people were talking on cell phones.

 

[slowzuki]

My father and I were hit head on by a drunk driver a couple of years ago. My dad would have died likely if the EMS hadn't already been within a few hundred feet responding to a fire. The driver had a previous conviction for DUI and only lost his license for a year for this one. He did go to jail for 4 months because he punched out a police officer who tried to help him out of his mangled truck.

So no. I don't think the DUI laws are too strict.

 

[IH3444]

Mostly all of us have seen the Christmas time movie, "A Christmas Story" with Ralphie, who wants a red ryder BB rifle.Well here's what happen to the director, and his son of that movie.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Christmas_Story

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Clark

Clark and his son, Ariel Hanrath-Clark, 22, were killed in a head-on automobile collision on the Pacific Coast Highway in Pacific Palisades, Los Angeles on the morning of April 4, 2007.[9] The crash occurred when an SUV crossed the median and struck Clark's Infiniti I30, causing the closure of the highway for eight hours.[5] Police determined that the SUV's driver, Hector Velazquez-Nava, had a blood alcohol level of three times the legal limit and was driving without a license.[10] He initially pleaded not guilty to two counts of gross vehicular manslaughter,[11] but changed his plea to no contest in August. On October 12, 2007, Velasquez-Nava was sentenced to six years in prison under the terms of a plea agreement.[12] In addition, he may face deportation to his native Mexico, as he entered and was living in the United States illegally.[13] A biographical documentary, ClarkWorld on Clark's life, works and tragic death was produced and directed by Deren Abram. Abram and Clark worked together for over a decade.

 

[jgrreed]

The point I went to an extreme to make here is, there is nothing more you can do as far as penalties, when the death penalty did not do the job. Sure they may get tired of being arrested, and having their vehicle impounded and or seized, and spending time in jail, if their habitual. However a person who has not been through all that, will not necessarily be deterred by it.

If it's long enough in jail, let's say a year, or five, that's five years they CAN'T drive. I hear you, there'll always be those that will keep doing it until they off themselves by driving off a bridge while wasted, hopefully not taking anyone else with them.

This is the part I have trouble with, being over the limit should not be the threshold, being impaired should be. The limit is too arbitrary, (especially .04, or what comes next .0001). They don't use limits with drugs, and they have not problem nailing someone who is impaired while driving after using them. This is what the sobriety tests are for. They prove that you have reached the point that you should not drive because the substance has affected your judgment.

OK, I agree there. I learned in undergrad that your performance is actually improved after your first drink or two!! This quickly deteriorates though.....

"Impaired" is not quantifiable. Walking a line, touching your nose, etc are not tests that will readily hold up in court. I know the officers opinion and testimony contributes to that, but that introduces sources of bias, which any reasonable court shouldn't allow. H***, even the undeniable evidence of a BAC test often don't hold up.

In Canada, RARELY is an impaired given for being stoned. Is that different in the USA?? It's not right, but it's the case. There is no easy, readily available measure of Cocaine, Marijuana, etc that is quantifiable. They are yes/no tests, and the yes could mean they had it 1 hour ago, or 1 month ago. That's different for each drug.

In an ideal world, your ideas would fly, but until then, let's just all keep our heads about us and live within the strict DUI laws and stay alive and don't be 'that guy' that only had 3 or 4 wobblies and orphaned a family.

-Jer.