DUI discussion

[Champ]

First:
Here is a fun little article
http://news.com.com/Police+Blotter+Defendant+wins+breathalyzer+source+code/2100-7348_3-6201632.html?tag=nefd.top

Second:
So people are arguing about this on another forum - it is being discussed about what we should do to lower drunk driving accidents.  Should we lower the limit?  Enforce it more strictly?

Some people are of the opinion, no harm no foul.  I think there needs to be some kind of limit somewhere.  I believe, however, most of the incidents are caused by people who are .15 or over?  So what does having a limit lower than .08 do if the people who drive less than that generally don't cause much harm.

There are others who think no tolerance.  If you want to drink at all, find other means to get home.

What do you guys think?

[J86]

This is one of those topics that I don't like to discuss here...

[SaltyDog]

Yeah driving under the influence of estrogen (and alcohol) should be illegal

[Raza]

I think they should lower speed limits.

[Eye of the Tiger]

If I'm not drunk, I can't drive.

[southdiver1]

I think that they should leave the limits alone and impose harsh harsh harsh punishments on offenders.

1st offence.. 30 days in jail
2nd offence... 90 days in jail, license revoked for 1 year and car destroyed (crushed)
3rd offence.. 1 year in jail and no driving forever.

[SaltyDog]

If I'm not drunk, I can't drive.

If I'm not drive, I can't drunk.

[etypeJohn]

I think that they should leave the limits alone and impose harsh harsh harsh punishments on offenders.

1st offence.. 30 days in jail
2nd offence... 90 days in jail, license revoked for 1 year and car destroyed (crushed)
3rd offence.. 1 year in jail and no driving forever.

Just about what I would advocate with the exception of the car being sold and the proceeds going to charity for the second and third offenses

[Rupert]

That's too harsh for a first offense. Lots of people, including myself, are safe to drive after enough alcohol to be above .08. If I get pulled over because my brake light went out (lets say it went out the last time I started the car), and the LEO is really on the hunt for people over .08, and I get breath tested and blow a .09, I'm screwed. The chances of that happening are pretty slim, but they're there. The chances of that happening twice are really slim, so punishment for the second offense should be fairly harsh.

In addition, people who get DUIs under similar to the above circumstances are not the threat to public safety. They don't generally drive drunk, and if they do, it's rare. The threat to public safety comes from the people who drive drunk a lot, and usually get caught driving drunk a few times. They're generally alcoholics, and often benefit from treatment, like AA. That should be part of second offense punishment, and an option for first offense.

Determination of DUI should be (and AFAIK, usually is) based on more than a breathalyzer. If I blow a .08 (two drinks is over), I'm not drunk. If my mother blows a .08, she is. I understand the lowest common denominator theory behind it, but it's hardly fair.

[NomisR]

Stricter enforcement isn't really needed nor would lower limit as it doesn't help anything.  But significantly stricter punishment should  be given if any accidents occures as a result of irresponsible acts.  If someone gets killed as a result of drunk driving, death sentence.. injuries..  lets say, someone loses a leg, the person causing the accident gets their legs chopped off too.. basically, something like Sharia law..

Severe punishments seems to work really well for Singapore.. look at how clean the damn place is...

[GoCougs]

Lower level, much stricter penatlities: as in many European countries, who have half the DUI-related death rate.

The issue is that DUI remains a slap on the wrist simply because many, many people DUI, and don't want to be popped for it (meaning, it's a cultural thing).

[Soup DeVille]

First:
Here is a fun little article
http://news.com.com/Police+Blotter+Defendant+wins+breathalyzer+source+code/2100-7348_3-6201632.html?tag=nefd.top

Second:
So people are arguing about this on another forum - it is being discussed about what we should do to lower drunk driving accidents.? Should we lower the limit?? Enforce it more strictly?

Some people are of the opinion, no harm no foul.? I think there needs to be some kind of limit somewhere.? I believe, however, most of the incidents are caused by people who are .15 or over?? So what does having a limit lower than .08 do if the people who drive less than that generally don't cause much harm.

There are others who think no tolerance.? If you want to drink at all, find other means to get home.

What do you guys think?

Reducing the limit does nothing to increase safety: the drunks who cause crashes because they are drunk are more likely to have a BAC in the .200 range.

I think the most effective thing to do is already being done, and that is making it socially unacceptable to be a drunk driver. Obviously, we need strict laws to go along with that as well, but arbitrarily making people into criminals is not going to be effective.

[Rupert]

Aye. It's not laws in Europe that give them low DUI numbers, it's the lack of acceptance for Ding UI.

[Soup DeVille]

Aye. It's not laws in Europe that give them low DUI numbers, it's the lack of acceptance for Ding UI.

Also lack of cars.

Go to Holland and you'll likely be mowed down by a drunken bicyclist.

[Rupert]

Ha! Indeed...

[S204STi]

I think that they should leave the limits alone and impose harsh harsh harsh punishments on offenders.

1st offence.. 30 days in jail
2nd offence... 90 days in jail, license revoked for 1 year and car destroyed (crushed)
3rd offence.. 1 year in jail and no driving forever.

I agree 100000%  The limits are fine, as it can be demostrated that even below those limits many people are impaired to a significant extent.  But if DAs and judges aren't thowing the book at these people then things will never change.

[bing_oh]

Those of you who think that DUI crashes are most likely to involve higher BAC's and that you could easily drive with no problem at lower BAC's are kidding yourselves. In reality, most of the DUI crashes I see are under "super DUI" standards in Ohio (.17 BAC). The high tests actually tend to be experienced drunks with better balance and coordination.

As for the idea that .08 is too low of a standard and doesn't really impair skills, I again must disagree. Along with being trained in OVI enforcement, I've participated numerous times in ADAP classes (that's the training for OVI detection in Ohio) as a drinker. Yes, the class actually uses intoxicated people to train officers in detecting the signs of impairment. Our level of intoxication is strictly monitored while in the class, and the point is to get use between .08 and .10. I would personally NEVER consider driving at the level of intoxication. I'm absolutely, 100% drunk at that BAC (and I'm not exactly a lightweight drinker). Fine motor control is horrible, my balance is clearly effected, and I have the "drunk goggles" going.

As for how to make a real dent in DUI's, the answer is harsh penalties...specifically in regards to driving privileges. Many Eurpoean countries have the right idea. Here, it takes multiple DUI's to get anything more than a slap on the wrist. Most judges will give driving privileges to DUI offenders, nullifying the driving suspensions imposed by the state BMV's. In Europe, they won't hesitate to yank your license and never give it back for multiple DUI offenses.

[Rupert]

I do say, if you're that drunk at .08, you're not not a lightweight.

[bing_oh]

I do say, if you're that drunk at .08, you're not not a lightweight.

My question to you is, how do YOU know when you're, personally, at a .08? Most of the civilian population either makes a wild-ass guess at to when they're over the legal limit (which would be totally inaccurate...it's impossible to judge that when you have no baseline in the first place) or try to use one of those calculation charts that takes body weight and compairs it to number of drinks to figure when you'll be over .08 (again, inaccurate...those charts don't take into account, for example, absoption time into the bloodstream from the stomach and intestines when you're drinking after a large meal as compaired to an empty stomach, the time it takes to consume those drinks and the natural elimination of alcohol by the liver, or differences in functionality of the body which may effect the speed at which alcohol is eliminated).

I can say with total accuracy what it's like to be at .08 for me. I was blowing into a calibrated and certified BAC machine at regular intervals while I was drinking. And, just for the record, I'm not easy to get drunk. Last time I was a "designated drinker," my BAC wasn't going high enough so they went from mixed drinks to shots to double shots (all whiskey...and ALOT of it!).

[Rupert]

I don't know when exactly I reach .08. It's an educated guess, but I'm not gonna be so wildly off that my argument doesn't hold water.

At any rate, I think there should be more than just BAC to prove a DUI. Plenty of good tests can be done to check for too much impairment, and those can even detect other things. To an extent, and AFAIK, that's more or less the case, when an LEO only bothers to ask how much someone's been drinking if they've been driving poorly or are showing other signs of overintoxication, and then brings out the breathalyzer. But such is not always the case, and that's the problem. Pull people over who need it.

[bing_oh]

I don't know when exactly I reach .08. It's an educated guess, but I'm not gonna be so wildly off that my argument doesn't hold water.

At any rate, I think there should be more than just BAC to prove a DUI. Plenty of good tests can be done to check for too much impairment, and those can even detect other things. To an extent, and AFAIK, that's more or less the case, when an LEO only bothers to ask how much someone's been drinking if they've been driving poorly or are showing other signs of overintoxication, and then brings out the breathalyzer. But such is not always the case, and that's the problem. Pull people over who need it.

I'm just curious what the "educated" part of your educated guess was. Like I said, it's awfully difficult to measure something without a baseline.

As for the "plenty of good tests," I always offer Standardized Field Sobriety Tests before making an arrest for DUI. Naturally, I take those test results into account when deciding whether or not someone is under the influence. Of course, sometimes, people refuse those tests and I have to make that decision without them. I don't just go from "how much have you had to drink this evening" straight to a breath test with no additional observations, though. Even if a person refuses to take SFST's, pretty much all LEO's are trained and experienced in noticing signs of intoxication. Those indicators don't just come from the SFST's or the results that spit out of a machine.

Presonally, I don't really consider DUI to be a seriously debatable issue. Anyone who says that it's OK to impair your judgement, motor skills, and reflexes and then drive a ton of steel at significant speeds, needs to consider their priorities on the roadway.

[JWC]

I'll admit, I got away with driving under the influence for a long time.  Social pressures are probably most effective.   When I worked for one company in California, by union contract, we got  bailed out of jail by the company unless it was a violent crime or the offense resulted in death.  DUI wasn't considered a problem.  One of my co-workers got bailed out of jail at 3am because he was so under the influence, he thought the railroad tracks were a side street.  The suspension on his Corvette didn't handle it too well.

I arrived home many nights wondering..."how did I just do that?"

I don't agree with the confiscation of personal property...for any reason...by the government.  Make jail mandatory..period.  Even if it is only for 24hrs.

Make bartenders/bars/restaurants, etc., have a disignated driver sign a form that they are responsible for getting people in their party home safely.  Limit the disignated driver to one drink...then free sodas or tea. If the disignated driver gets caught sipping someone else's drink...everyone get cut off and asked to leave.  If there is no disignated driver or no one signs the paper...everyone in the party/group is limited to only two drinks.  No exceptions.

[Rupert]

What about those of us who bike to the bar? Or walk?

[JWC]

What about those of us who bike to the bar? Or walk?

North Carolina just passed a DUI law for cyclists last October.  Reason being is that most cyclists deaths turned out to be intoxicated men, riding drunk at night (after bars closed) with no lights.

Face it.  If you really wanted to get picky you can't stop highway deaths and drinking. We had two or three deaths in my area last year of drunks walking home from bars and getting hit by cars.  They were walking right down the center of the highway.  Or in one case, he was asleep in the roadway.

[Rupert]

I'm just curious what the "educated" part of your educated guess was. Like I said, it's awfully difficult to measure something without a baseline.

As for the "plenty of good tests," I always offer Standardized Field Sobriety Tests before making an arrest for DUI. Naturally, I take those test results into account when deciding whether or not someone is under the influence. Of course, sometimes, people refuse those tests and I have to make that decision without them. I don't just go from "how much have you had to drink this evening" straight to a breath test with no additional observations, though. Even if a person refuses to take SFST's, pretty much all LEO's are trained and experienced in noticing signs of intoxication. Those indicators don't just come from the SFST's or the results that spit out of a machine.

Presonally, I don't really consider DUI to be a seriously debatable issue. Anyone who says that it's OK to impair your judgement, motor skills, and reflexes and then drive a ton of steel at significant speeds, needs to consider their priorities on the roadway.

Those charts can't be that far off. Meh...

I'm glad that you base your determination of DUI on standard tests. Out of curiosity (mostly), what would you do if someone passed the tests well enough, but had a BAC of, say, .15?

I might argue that one person who's had a few drinks, but is a very good driver when sober, can still be a better driver than another who's a crappy driver and totally sober. I know I have friends I'd rather ride with when they're drunk that other friends at any time.

[Rupert]

North Carolina just passed a DUI law for cyclists last October.  Reason being is that most cyclists deaths turned out to be intoxicated men, riding drunk at night (after bars closed) with no lights.

Face it.  If you really wanted to get picky you can't stop highway deaths and drinking. We had two or three deaths in my area last year of drunks walking home from bars and getting hit by cars.  They were walking right down the center of the highway.  Or in one case, he was asleep in the roadway.

That man's a genius! Buy him a drink!

Oh, uh... Hmmm...

I'd say that a DUI law for cyclists is pretty fucking dumb. There's one of those where I live, and have lived before, and it never stopped me on any of the many many occasions I rode inebriated. Of course, neither did the cops. It strikes me that the reason they died has more to do with having no lights and bad judgment/no drunk riding skill than it does with being drunk. At the point where you're not hurting other people, it just a matter of personal responsibility and choice, not a matter for law.

[JWC]

That man's a genius! Buy him a drink!

Oh, uh... Hmmm...

I'd say that a DUI law for cyclists is pretty fucking dumb. There's one of those where I live, and have lived before, and it never stopped me on any of the many many occasions I rode inebriated. Of course, neither did the cops. It strikes me that the reason they died has more to do with having no lights and bad judgment/no drunk riding skill than it does with being drunk. At the point where you're not hurting other people, it just a matter of personal responsibility and choice, not a matter for law.

I don't' disagree with any of your statement.  Our government on the other hand does.  If you will not be responsible for yourself, the government will.  That is why there are municipalities all over the US that are passing helmet laws for adults.  Even though bike helmets are designed only to protect you in a 6-7 feet fall, not protect you from a two and a half ton piece of steel traveling 35mph.

But, let's not go there, I hate bike helmet laws.  Almost all I've read are stupid...even the one's regarding children.

[S204STi]

Here's an idea:  if you aren't allowed to buy a gun legally if you have a gun related offense (which may not be true, again this is just a thought) then why not make it illegal to buy alcohol if you are convicted of an alcohol related offense?

[S204STi]

As for the source code article in the OP, I would say that releasing the source code would be wise and would remove the burden of proof (artificial though it is) from the state when convicting based on evidence from one.

[Rupert]

Here's an idea:  if you aren't allowed to buy a gun legally if you have a gun related offense (which may not be true, again this is just a thought) then why not make it illegal to buy alcohol if you are convicted of an alcohol related offense?

Because that's dumb.