Are DUI Laws Excessive in your state ... ?

[crbr]

Personally I think there is no such thing as a to strict a DWI law. You drink and drive you should be locked up and locked up for a long time. I have 0 pitty for DWI scumbags. I have had a couple of friends killed by DWI drivers over the years and having towed away dozens of DWI accident vehicles over the years feel the law can't punish them enough. It wouldn't bother me if they made it illegal to drink anything before driving. I to like many others here have a CDL and if they ever cought me with the slightest wiff of alcohol on my breath wouldn't have a problem if they locked me up and revoked my license, I would deserve it.

100% agreed.

Those looking for anything less have (evidently) never lost a loved on to an alcohol impaired driver.

Cell phones are next. Dead is dead, no matter what the cause nor how one whines about leniency to enjoy a dinner over the life of so many factual deaths.

Thanks for the pics. They are worth thousands in words.

 

[scott_vt]

100% agreed.

Those looking for anything less have (evidently) never lost a loved on to an alcohol impaired driver.

Cell phones are next. Dead is dead, no matter what the cause nor how one whines about leniency to enjoy a dinner over the life of so many factual deaths.

Thanks for the pics. They are worth thousands in words.

Good Mornin crbr,
Im glad you brought up cell phones when discussing roadway accidents ! Im thinking statistically they contribute to more accidents than alcohol.

Im glad i dont own one ! Last time I looked, the fine was $75 for getting caught using one ! Not 20 years in prison !

 

[Runner]

My 2 cents:

I think the law should be reasonable. I also agree with Pat Bedard in this article:

Government's Heavy Hand: It Wants Your Wallet - Column/Patrick Bedard/C/D Staff/Columns/Features/Car and Driver - Car And Driver

He had another really good one out there specifically dealing with DUI laws, but I couldn't find it.

I know from personal experience that the government ratchets up laws in response to the insurance industry. My specific experience is with building codes and floodplain ordinances. You would not believe the hoops my city jumps through to try and impress the insurance companies with strict laws, the more draconian, the better.

No question people should not be driving around out there hammered, but nailing people on technicalities because it helps the insurance companies jack up their rates is bull.

 

[ray66v]

Cell phones, cigarettes, over the counter medications, and prescription drugs, looking for CD's or other things, fooling with the radio, or navigation system, reaching into the back seat for children while driving, and or being distracted by children, all cause accidents. Then they too should be banned, and violators jailed. Lets make everyone a criminal. Of course, we will have to let lots of real criminals go free, to make room for them all.

Or we could just say, If your found to be impaired, or even just a reckless or really bad driver, then every thing possible should be done to see your kept off the road. It's not a perfect system. But, as long as alcohol is available, there will be drunk drivers. No matter how harsh the penalties, it will never be perfect.

 

[jgrreed]

Oh?? I'm interested to know what would be a reasonable and effective deterrent??

You did not dispute the comment "Statistics tend to show that penalties are not a deterrent to crime. The DUI laws are no exception".

Fact is, by statistics, increased penalties by the law does not always change people's behavior. Mary Jane is a prime example.

I didn't dispute it because I didn't want to get into a discussion about statistical significance, but here goes.

Truly meaningful statistics don't 'tend to show', they either 'show' or they 'don't'. Please show me these statistics along with the authors methods for data collection, power analysis, and statistical calculations. If, once I see them, they look like reasonable studies with reasonable methodology, I'll give that statement to you. Until then, can we please stop talking about how deterrent laws are ruining lives???

I live in a world where we try to use statistics derived from solid evidence for every decision we make, but even then, sometimes common sense has to take over.

Really though, what is the deterrent then?? You're telling me that if an 'ordinary guy', like you or me, has 4 or 6 beers after work on friday and then makes the stupid call of driving himself home and gets caught, that the 6 months of lost income, personal embarassment, personal stress, and family stress, that a DUI will bring him won't make him think twice about doing that again??? Would the thought of showering with a He77's Angel named Bubba for a few months stop him?? Or maybe, just maybe it'd wake him up and make him realize the guilt and shame he'd feel if he killed someone else's little girl, little boy, wife, husband, mom, dad, etc.......

Why is this even a discussion??

-Jer.

 

[jinman]

I hold a CDL license, which in this state, you are considered DUI witha .04 BAC. I would never have a drink while driving commercially, but it is nice to have a beer or a glass of wine with your dinner when you go out to eat. Unfortunately that BAC applies even if your driving the family SUV ! . . .

. . . In conclusion I think the laws need to be adjusted just a bit. I would like to see just a bit of liencency when it comes to some one consumming two beers, rather than be taken away in the police cruiser and have their life turned upside down. This is just my opinion, and Im sure you guys have your own feelings on this subject, please feel free !

Good morning Scotty. I understand your angst with the unequal application of the law and your worry of being stopped and charged. I also think that the outcome of a concentrated effort on the part of CDL holders might be to lower the limits on everyone rather than raise the limits to bring about equality. If the law is to be equal, why not just make everyone have a .04 BAC limit? Why not make everyone have to meet the same rigid standards as the CDL holder?

Also, can you positively state that you have seen anyone given a citation for drinking one beer. I have serious doubts that has ever happened. According to my Texas School Bus Driver's Resource Manual, tests have shown that:

• If you weigh 100 lb, your BAC will be .03 after one drink
• If you weigh 200 lb, your BAC will be .03 after two drinks

Any additional drinking within that timeframe (1 hour) will put you over the .04 BAC limit. That is based on one 12 oz beer, one 5 oz glass of wine, or one oz of 100-proof liquor.

Additionally, the manual goes on to point out:

• A BAC of .04 to .06 brings about overconfidence in driving
• A BAC of .03 to .035 causes braking, starting, and stopping times to be reduced by 25% to 30%
• A BAC of .03 shows some impairment of visual skills

Considering those numbers, I think there is plenty of argument for making alcohol related penalties even more stringent.

Finally, what about the guy who is found sleeping in his car in the parking lot of a bar? If he is over the limit, I believe he is also charged with DWI or something similar. Is that fair?

In Texas in 1997, 30.4% of all traffic dealths were alcohol related. Someone was injured every 18 minutes and three persons killed in every 24 hour period. Those numbers are horrible. I think you will find more people who are willing to take excessive measures to reduce those numbers than would be willing to increase the BAC limits for CDL holders. My expectation is that limits will tighten for the non-CDL holders rather than the opposite.

 

[jgrreed]

Or we could just say, If your found to be impaired, or even just a reckless or really bad driver, then every thing possible should be done to see your kept off the road. It's not a perfect system. But, as long as alcohol is available, there will be drunk drivers. No matter how harsh the penalties, it will never be perfect.

And it's available EVERYWHERE!! To almost EVERYONE!!! At least there's some check (MD's and Pharmacists) for prescription drugs (although sometimes weak checks). The others are important factors too, but in today's society where any kind of criticism of another individual is considered racist, sexist, or otherwise, good luck proving that someone is simply a bad driver. Have any of you seen the discover channel show called "Canada's Worst Driver"?? Check on YouTube, it's hilarious, awful, and scary all at the same time!!

The cel phone issue seems to be pretty undeniable. I've seen some good simulator work (on Discovery Channel, I'm not claiming to be an expert...) where they test people's response times on and off a cel phone, and it's pretty obvious. I don't know how my wife hasn't had a major incident yet. When that Blackberry makes it's way to her ear it like she enters a parallel dimension that is just slightly off of reality, and whatever is going on in reality is suddenly less important!!! That's a big bone of contention for us...... My solution is my Bluetooth Headset.

FYI re: BT Headsets - BUY A JAWBONE!!!! The noise cancelling technology is amazing and makes it actually usable in wind, or with other background noise.

-Jer.

 

[skipro3]

13,000 people killed in the USA in 2007 due to alcohol related accidents. How many people died in the military? of AID's? or any other highly documented instance?

Sorry, I think if you are ever caught drinking and driving with anything above .00 you ought to loose the privilage of driving. My opinion, so there you go.

 

[Scooby074]

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

 

[scott_vt]

Good morning Scotty. I understand your angst with the unequal application of the law and your worry of being stopped and charged. I also think that the outcome of a concentrated effort on the part of CDL holders might be to lower the limits on everyone rather than raise the limits to bring about equality. If the law is to be equal, why not just make everyone have a .04 BAC limit? Why not make everyone have to meet the same rigid standards as the CDL holder?

Also, can you positively state that you have seen anyone given a citation for drinking one beer. I have serious doubts that has ever happened. According to my Texas School Bus Driver's Resource Manual, tests have shown that:

• If you weigh 100 lb, your BAC will be .03 after one drink
• If you weigh 200 lb, your BAC will be .03 after two drinks

Any additional drinking within that timeframe (1 hour) will put you over the .04 BAC limit. That is based on one 12 oz beer, one 5 oz glass of wine, or one oz of 100-proof liquor.

Additionally, the manual goes on to point out:

• A BAC of .04 to .06 brings about overconfidence in driving
• A BAC of .03 to .035 causes braking, starting, and stopping times to be reduced by 25% to 30%
• A BAC of .03 shows some impairment of visual skills

Considering those numbers, I think there is plenty of argument for making alcohol related penalties even more stringent.

Finally, what about the guy who is found sleeping in his car in the parking lot of a bar? If he is over the limit, I believe he is also charged with DWI or something similar. Is that fair?

In Texas in 1997, 30.4% of all traffic dealths were alcohol related. Someone was injured every 18 minutes and three persons killed in every 24 hour period. Those numbers are horrible. I think you will find more people who are willing to take excessive measures to reduce those numbers than would be willing to increase the BAC limits for CDL holders. My expectation is that limits will tighten for the non-CDL holders rather than the opposite.

Good Mornin Jim,
I think your feelings on making the playing field more even are probablly more of a realistic scenario of what will happen in the future ! Thanks for the facts and figures on the BAC statistics, Im sure they are an interest to anyone following this thread !

The cel phone issue seems to be pretty undeniable. I've seen some good simulator work (on Discovery Channel, I'm not claiming to be an expert...) where they test people's response times on and off a cel phone, and it's pretty obvious. I don't know how my wife hasn't had a major incident yet. When that Blackberry makes it's way to her ear it like she enters a parallel dimension that is just slightly off of reality, and whatever is going on in reality is suddenly less important!!! That's a big bone of contention for us...... My solution is my Bluetooth Headset.

FYI re: BT Headsets - BUY A JAWBONE!!!! The noise cancelling technology is amazing and makes it actually usable in wind, or with other background noise.

-Jer.

Good Mornin Jer,
It always amazes me driving down the highway, looking to my left some lady is multitasking, talking on her cellphone and applying lipstick at the same time ! Now that same lady is distracted from her multitasking operation in the front seat to see what little Johnny is doing in the back seat ! She swerves, and we have a pileup on the interstate ! Innocent people are killed ! I can only hope that those people that look for stiffer penalties for alcohol related accidents, look at this hypothetical incident as impairment, is just as dangerous as any other ! Hopefully this lady will get more than a slap on the wrist, but something less than a 20 year sentence, so little Johnny has a mother to raise him !