Are DUI Laws Excessive in your state ... ?

[riptides]

My states DUI laws are fine.

Some of my states lawyers are better than fine, some are worse.

I am sure others, in other states will agree.

Case in point. lawn mower operators, and tractor operators, busted for DUI. Go figure,

 

[DieselPower]

Yes I'll bite.

Did your state have DUI laws on the books at the time of these incidents? If yes, then your evidence appears to prove they don't stop drunk driving.

Just like the death penalty does not stop murder.

Yes they do and their not strict enough. No matter what the penalty you will never stop all DWI/DUI drivers but the harsher the penalty the less there will be breaking the law.

 

[jgrreed]

These data also call into question driving regulations that prohibit hand-held cell phones and permit hands-free cell phones, because no significant differences were found in the impairments to driving caused by these two modes of cellular communication.

I've heard that before too. I don't understand how using a bluetooth device is any different than talking to a passenger?? Is it the time spent dialing?? Or worse yet, texting??

Having not seen the research myself, my only comment is that unless the study was specifically designed to test whether or not BT devices are any different than handhelds, it can't be taken as gospel. These 'side findings' in any study can often be very misleading.

-Jer.

 

[JohnDeere4300]

Having a law on the books and enforcing it are two different matters. Too many people are never arrested because they have friends or influence.

The mayor of a small nearby town was stopped by the police for reckless driving and was found to be drunk and the police drove him home and never mentioned it. Months later, he was drunk again at 2 in the morning, driving a city vehicle, and attempted to drive across the Causeway, the worlds longest bridge and also a toll bridge. He crashed through the toll gate, tearing it down, without paying and was stopped 4 miles out on the bridge driving with no lights on a bridge with no lights. The traffic stop was videotaped on the police recorder and the police just drove him home and issued no tickets. When this hit the news the mayor calmed things down by agreeing to pay for the damaged toll gate. Yes, he is still mayor although the policeman who was following orders from his superior was fired.

Though I believe that DWI should get the stiffest of all traffic penalties and that 2nd and 3rd offenses should be even more severe, we must make the penalties equal to the crime. We can not put an armed robber who shoots and injures someone in the commission of his crime in jail for 10 years and put someone in jail for a simple DWI for 20 years.

We are talking about DWI laws Excessive in your state...?

Not Mayors, cops, And robbers.

( I.M.H.O,) You may want to start a Thread about robbers,

I have a stronger sentence than 20 years about people that rob and
kill.

 

[EddieWalker]

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

When I was arrested for Drunk Driving, it changed my way of thinking and forced me to change my way of life. Anybody who says the harshness of the crime doesn't deter people from repeating it is wrong. While I know some who kept on drinking and driving, I know others who just like me changed.

A few examples of my behavior before the DWI. I was arrested a few months before that for disorderly conduct in San Francisco. They put me in the drunk tank for the night and let me go the next morning. No record of it, nothing but an miserable nights sleep. A year before that I was arrested for fighting in a bar. I started it, as I had other fights, and it turned into a brawl. When drunk, that was fun for me. Again, I spent the night in the drunk tank and went home the next day without anything on my record. A few years before that, I was arrested for fighting while in the Marine Corps over in Indonesia. The police kept me at the station for awhile, but then decided against it and droped me off in front of the US Embassy. No charges or anything was ever brought up against me. A year before that, in Cameroon, I stole an Embassy car and took it off roading with another Marine. He was an exemplary Marine and this was totally out of character for him. Not sure what happened, but he and I got drunk and he went for the ride with me while we tore up Yaounde. I even managed to blow up the transmission. It wasn't a good day when I woke up, but like all the other times, I talked my way out of it and nothing happened.

Every time I got away with being stupid, I just kept doing it. Getting charged and going in front of the judge, pleading guilty and paying my fine really was a wake up call for me. Until you've been through the process, you have no idea what it's like. TV isn't close. It's all mental and incredibly embarrassing. Feeling ashamed for what I'd done forced me to rethink my life and change the direction that I was going.

If you think that I would have done this without getting arrested, I would argue that my history proves otherwise. I tend to do things to the extreme, and being stupid was something that I took allot of pride in. Why? I have no idea anymore. It's just how I was.

One beer is not worth going through that again. It's not a big deal and there isn't anything in the world worth what it may cause. It doesn't matter what you can handle, or what the legal limit is. If it's so important to have that beer or whatever, then it will wait until you get home.

Sorry for the soapbox.

Eddie

 

[Scooby074]

I don't understand how using a bluetooth device is any different than talking to a passenger?? Is it the time spent dialing?? Or worse yet, texting??

-Jer.

Its more the point of being ingrosed in a conversation in person or by cell that causes the problems not the devices themselves. Cells are worse though, because one of the participants in the conversation is unaware of the situition the driver is in. (ie: they keep talking when the driver is trying to concentrate on driving)

From the study found here :

http://www.hss.caltech.edu/courses/2004-05/winter/psy20/StrayerJohnston.pdf.
"The principal findings are that (a) when participants were engaged
in cell-phone conversations, they missed twice as many simulated traf-
fic signals as when they were not talking on the cell phone and took
longer to react to those signals that they did detect; (b) these deficits
were equivalent for handheld and hands-free cell-phone users; and (c)
tracking error increased when participants used the cell phone to per-
form an active, attention-demanding word-generation task but not
when they performed a shadowing task."

I looked into some of these studies earlier in the year. Nova Scotia just made a law requiring hands free calling. Truth is, either hands free or handset is the same distraction as a conversation. The only advantage to BT is that you dont have the added distraction of finding the phone, the actual conversation is just as distracting. I imagine texting would be that much worse as it requires you to look at the actual phone.





Eddie, Im glad that the DUI changed your life. You sounded like you were on the road to nowhere, fast. I think the point of the AG is that people make mistakes, as you and I myself know. Your second offense is when you should have been brought before the judge. Who knows, you might have learned your lesson then. I agree that sentencing is a deterrent.

When i was young and stupid, i had a DUI myself. I was arrested and brought to the station, but not charged because I blew a 0.09 and due to the old machine it was within the margin of error. It scared the snit out of me. When your sitting there in the chair with the officers and that robotic little box thats going to decide your fate, the seriousness of the situation goes through your head. If i was charged, i would have lost my job.Rent. food. all that stuff. Thats why i advocate leniency or even an alternative sentence ;like community service when a person is SLIGHTLY over, as i myself was. It was a second chance, and I learned my lesson from it.

I also have friends that have had multiple convictions and have served time because of it. Have they learned, NO. I think thats the issue too. YOU have to want to change. All the laws in the world cant make you do something that you dont want to do.

 

[JohnDeere4300]

I am the opposite end of the spectrum. I prefer the law in Iran. if caught driving drunk it is summary execution on the spot.

Some of you will say that is too harsh, but once citizens know the law is enforced there are zero drunk drivers, instead there are a lot of people staggering along the roadways.

(I,M,H,O,) What i think they should do to a drunk that has no respect
for any human life. If they would do this i think that a lot of people
would think twice about drinking and driving.
If a person should kill another person while (D.W.I.).

(THEY SHOULD ARREST THAT PERSON TAKE HIM TO THE FRONT OF
THE COURT HOUSE AND HANG THAT PERSON ON THE SPOT.

 

[jgrreed]

Its more the point of being ingrosed in a conversation in person or by cell that causes the problems not the devices themselves. Cells are worse though, because one of the participants in the conversation is unaware of the situition the driver is in. (ie: they keep talking when the driver is trying to concentrate on driving)

From the study found here :

http://www.hss.caltech.edu/courses/2004-05/winter/psy20/StrayerJohnston.pdf.
"The principal findings are that (a) when participants were engaged
in cell-phone conversations, they missed twice as many simulated traf-
fic signals as when they were not talking on the cell phone and took
longer to react to those signals that they did detect; (b) these deficits
were equivalent for handheld and hands-free cell-phone users; and (c)
tracking error increased when participants used the cell phone to per-
form an active, attention-demanding word-generation task but not
when they performed a shadowing task."

I looked into some of these studies earlier in the year. Nova Scotia just made a law requiring hands free calling. Truth is, either hands free or handset is the same distraction as a conversation. The only advantage to BT is that you dont have the added distraction of finding the phone, the actual conversation is just as distracting. I imagine texting would be that much worse as it requires you to look at the actual phone.

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.

 

[jgrreed]

Sorry for the soapbox.

You're a big man for sharing that Ed, truly. It takes guts to do that.

-Jer.

 

[ray66v]

My comment was directed at the statement that the pics were proof that the laws don't work. I'd say there'd be a lot more pics to see if there weren't the laws we already have.
-Jer.

I actually did not say that, here' what I said:
"Did your state have DUI laws on the books at the time of these incidents? If yes, then your evidence appears to prove they don't stop drunk driving."

Notice the statement is: "appears to prove". Meaning the vehicles were, for what ever reason, damaged. And if that damage, as was implied by the poster, was due to drunk driving, it certainly would support the hypothesis that people were driving drunk, even though it was apparently illegal. I never said, that it was solid evidence. You read it that way, which was incorrect.

I also never said: "The laws don't work", You misread read my statement again. I said: "they don't stop drunk driving". Meaning the laws do not stop people from driving drunk, this is also a reasonable conclusion because these people were represented as having done such. Your arguing that the laws work by suggesting they have stopped a particular unknown, and assumed, number of drunk drivers, a completely different point, which may be true, but is not substantiated by these photos.

The laws were not written to simply reduce drunk driving, the current blood alcohol levels are so low, their goal is clear, to stop it entirely. So far, they have failed.

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?

Obviously, their hoping the laws will compel the drunk to make plans while they are coherent. This is also somewhat unrealistic since career drinkers rarely are, and often have nothing left to lose. If you have ever tried to reason with a drunk, you should realize they generally don't care very much about anything. Let alone think rationally.

Again my contention is that no law can, or will, STOP drunk driving. Only a human can stop them. A law does not stop them from drinking, and it is not there to take the keys away from them, or give them a ride home.

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

 

[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.