DUI discussion

[Tave]

As long as you were exaggerating for effect, I have nothing really to add.

Perhaps we could make it illegal to sell alcohol to people with 3 or more DUIs?

How would that even work? A DUI offense isn't like leprosy or freckles. You can't look at someone and tell if they've had one. We could stamp licenses, but one you reach a certain age that doesn't work either.

[Soup DeVille]

How would that even work? A DUI offense isn't like leprosy or freckles. You can't look at someone and tell if they've had one. We could stamp licenses, but one you reach a certain age that doesn't work either.

Exactly: just like the big red letters on a license that say "under 21" in some states, you put a similar message on those cards as well. These people could still legally drink, but they would be reliant on someone to buy for them, so you would take them out of the bars and put them into a house, where they would have a better chance of being able to sleep it off or get a ride from a friend.

And yes, once you reach a certain age that won't work, but I believe I'm sure you can statistically make a case that it will for a great majoirty of people.

No system is perfect, and that one wouldn't be either. If you do come up with a perfect solution though, let me know.

[bing_oh]

I think you guys are confusing the terms "only targetting" and "concentrating on."

Ok, a couple of questions for you, then.

1. As a police officer, how do I realistically "concentrate on" enforcing DUI for repeat offenders? Do we compile lists of repeat offenders in the area and assign officers to each one? Sergeant at beginning of shift: "Officer Bing_Oh, here's your list of repeat DUI offenders and their locations. Follow them around and find a reason to pull them over to check for intoxication." If we were doing that, I'd only look at vehicles with yellow and red "DUI plates" that are given to multiple offenders in Ohio...and missing about 99% of the actual DUI's on the road.

2. What is a "repeat offender" in your opinion? Someone who has been convicted of several DUI's? These people aren't as numerous as you think. Ohio complies a "DUI hotlist" each month that lists the repeat offenders that are stopped, statewide, for DUI and the circumstances of the stop. The hotlist tends to be 4-5 pages long. Pretty short list for as populous of a state as Ohio is. And, I'd say that most people who I arrest for DUI are, really, multiple offenders. How often do you think these people drive drunk before actually being stopped and arrested? I'm betting that they get away with DUI alot more than they get caught. Unfortunately, there's a high probability that they can get away with DUI on any given night, given the driver to police officer ratio on the road.

I'm not confusing "only targeting" and "concentrating on." I'm just realistic about what it means for police officers to "concentrate on" a problem so specifically. In all honesty, there aren't many of us out there in relation to the total population and most of us are already quite busy responding to calls for service. A concentrated effort into any form of enforcement realistically means that we're specifically directing our efforts at the cost of more generalized enforcement. We can only do so many things at once.

[Soup DeVille]

Ok, a couple of questions for you, then.

1. As a police officer, how do I realistically "concentrate on" enforcing DUI for repeat offenders? Do we compile lists of repeat offenders in the area and assign officers to each one? Sergeant at beginning of shift: "Officer Bing_Oh, here's your list of repeat DUI offenders and their locations. Follow them around and find a reason to pull them over to check for intoxication." If we were doing that, I'd only look at vehicles with yellow and red "DUI plates" that are given to multiple offenders in Ohio...and missing about 99% of the actual DUI's on the road.

2. What is a "repeat offender" in your opinion? Someone who has been convicted of several DUI's? These people aren't as numerous as you think. Ohio complies a "DUI hotlist" each month that lists the repeat offenders that are stopped, statewide, for DUI and the circumstances of the stop. The hotlist tends to be 4-5 pages long. Pretty short list for as populous of a state as Ohio is. And, I'd say that most people who I arrest for DUI are, really, multiple offenders. How often do you think these people drive drunk before actually being stopped and arrested? I'm betting that they get away with DUI alot more than they get caught. Unfortunately, there's a high probability that they can get away with DUI on any given night, given the driver to police officer ratio on the road.

I'm not confusing "only targeting" and "concentrating on." I'm just realistic about what it means for police officers to "concentrate on" a problem so specifically. In all honesty, there aren't many of us out there in relation to the total population and most of us are already quite busy responding to calls for service. A concentrated effort into any form of enforcement realistically means that we're specifically directing our efforts at the cost of more generalized enforcement. We can only do so many things at once.

I was thinking of concentrating on the sentencing and punishment phase, not the actual identification or apprehension of these folks. Also, my argument wasn't precisely against what is actually being done, but some of the things that are being said about statistics and causation in this thread.

Although I think it would be a wonderful idea if we made a law that forced all DUI offenders who still had a valid license to only drive candy pink metalflake cars.

[Tave]

I was thinking of concentrating on the sentencing and punishment phase, not the actual identification or apprehension of these folks. Also, my argument wasn't precisely against what is actually being done, but some of the things that are being said about statistics and causation in this thread.

Did I miss something? Where did you mention either of those?

[Tave]

No system is perfect, and that one wouldn't be either. If you do come up with a perfect solution though, let me know.

Why is the impetus on me? I never claimed to have a perfect solution

[omicron]

I just get so drunk that I can't remember how I got home, or how much I spent.

I find that works well.

[bing_oh]

I was thinking of concentrating on the sentencing and punishment phase, not the actual identification or apprehension of these folks. Also, my argument wasn't precisely against what is actually being done, but some of the things that are being said about statistics and causation in this thread.

Oh, from that aspect, I totally agree that repeat offenders should be trerated more harshly in the court system and that every effort should be made to dissuade them from drinking and driving...or driving at all, for that matter. There are a great many things that I and other LEO's don't agree with in the court system. Sentencing tends to be one of the big ones. I always get a smile on my face when I see judges thinking outside the box in sentencing for offenders (like the judge who sentences people to walk around in public wearing a sign proclaiming their offense). The thing is, many people naturally associate law enforcement and the court system, never realizing that once a person is charged that the officer becomes nothing more than another witness for the prosecution. We don't have any say in things beyond passing along our opinions to the prosecutor, who may or may not take them into consideration.

I do have a problem with someone stating that we should concentrate on repeat offenders on the identification and apprehension side of things. I think that shows a distinct naievete about the problem we face and the limitations we work under in law enforcement.

Although I think it would be a wonderful idea if we made a law that forced all DUI offenders who still had a valid license to only drive candy pink metalflake cars.

Placing identifying markings on the vehicles of repeat OVI offenders is an interesting idea, but I'm not sure about the actual effect it would have. In Ohio, for example, we have a relatively new provision in the law that allows a judge to force a repeat offender to have yellow and red "OVI plates" on their vehicle. It sounds like a great idea, but the execution is somewhat lacking. Originally, the law stated that a judge could order them after the first offense. An appeal changed the law to a second offense. Still not bad, right? Well, in reality, many second offenses are third or more offenses, since it's very common for a first or even second offense DUI to be pled down to reckless operation. The law states they have to have two or more convictions for OVI to be ordered to display the OVI plates.

Since the law went into effect, I personally have yet to arrest a person under orders to display OVI plates for a DUI. That might indicate that the program is working and the plates dissuade these repeat offenders from drinking and driving. It may also indicate that the program isn't widespread enough to make a difference or that repeat offenders are driving vehicles without OVI plates when they drink and drive, in violation of the court orders.

[Tave]

Have you pulled someone over with such a plate yet? If so, were you suspicious they were driving impaired?

[bing_oh]

Have you pulled someone over with such a plate yet? If so, were you suspicious they were driving impaired?

I think I've pulled over one such person in the time that the law's been in place (which has to be about two years now). It's still relatively rare to see these plates on vehicles, especially in my county where we have a pussycat judge. Quite frankly, I wasn't any more suspicious about that driver being intoxicated that I am any other person I pull over. I look for clues of impairment on everybody...call me naturally suspicious :P.

[Soup DeVille]

Did I miss something? Where did you mention either of those?

I was trying to clarify what I previously said.

Is there a need for you to be so obtuse?

[Soup DeVille]

Why is the impetus on me? I never claimed to have a perfect solution

No, but you do seem more than keen to point out potential problems with any proposed ones.

[Tave]

Is there a need for you to be so obtuse?

Where did you mention statistics or causality?

[Soup DeVille]

Where did you mention statistics or causality?

I made a simple statement, and then I clarified the point I was trying to make.
All in all, I've said very little in this thread.

If you feel a need to call someone out because they didn't as clearly delineate their intentions as you would like them to, you may find the rest of the argument up your ass.

[Tave]

I made a simple statement, and then I clarified the point I was trying to make.
All in all, I've said very little in this thread.

If you feel a need to call someone out because they didn't as clearly delineate their intentions as you would like them to, you may find the rest of the argument up your ass.

I wasn't "calling you out." I was confused by your response to Bing Oh.


In fact, I thought I was accomidating you by clarifying my question and being less "obtuse." I guess next time I won't bother


I've been nothing but civil in this thread, and you progressively get more hostile. What gives?

[Tave]

Dude, I'm truely sorry if I've offended you, and I apologize if I've read like a jackass. Believe me, it wasn't my intent.

[Soup DeVille]

Okay then I'll tone it down.

Mr. Young said something about concentrating on a certain set of individuals: you restated his words as if he was saying something else entirely and then called that mistatement a logical fallacy.  We went over that, you clarified what you meant, I said basically, "Oh, okay then."

Then when I try to clarify myself to Bing Oh, you act like you have no idea what I'm talking about, and you don't drop it either. I have no intention on getting into an argument about semantics, mostly because I really have very little to add to the discussion and only wanted to make a minor point to try to keep the discussion on track without being browbeaten about where I said what.

[J86]

Ha, nothing like heat, humidity and salt water to get people drunker faster.? With the way most people operate boats these days (just yesterday, I saw a jet-skiier going full speed through about 75 boats on a cell phone) you gotta be shit faced out of your mind to actually get a BUI.?

Though I've never actually see it being done, from what I've heard, it's rare that someone will get pulled over (hailed) by the NJSP Marine Police or any of the local towns with police boats for BUI - rather, they'll go to popular anchorages and get people pulling out at a slow speed who they witnessed drinking a lot.? But, as I said, I've never actually seen it happen.? In addition, i suppose if the CG pulls you over for a safety inspection, and you're hammered, you're heading to the NJSP Marine station in cuffs.

Yeah, they're realllllll easy 'round here with enforcing that...it's nice that the local harbormasters understand....hell Ive had a beer with one of em!

[Raghavan]

I've been nothing but civil in this thread, and you progressively get more hostile. What gives?

He misses his S2000.

[Soup DeVille]

Okay, reading what i wrote yesterday: wow, I have no idea why I was being such a prick.

[James Young]

bing oh writes:

I'm not going to say that we don't have our share of "regular customers" when it comes to DUI (I have a guy who's at different stages of his judicial proceedings for three separate OVI's...all mine...within less than three months). But, don't assume that they are the causes of all, or even most, DUI crashes. They aren't.

And according to your statistics as reported by NHTSA (as well as by independent academic studies), most ?alcohol-involved? fatal crashes do involve drivers with a past history of alcohol abuse.? Hence, my desire to concentrate scarce resources on the narrower problem because the chances of having a positive effect are greater.

Don?t forget that we are not talking just about the enforcement side of the equation but the system as a whole.? We know who the problem children are and we know that punishment ? meted out by the judicial system ? is ineffective against the alcoholics.? Therefore, we need not waste time punishing them but employing methods to prevent them from driving, hence the interlocks.?

Perhaps we need better methods of remotely detecting impairment ? real impairment as opposed to the substitute BAC, which itself is substituted for by breath-alcohol-content.?

In the meantime, we need to follow the science rather than the prohibition shills.

Perhaps, but to base enforcement totally on statistical data is a dangerous game. Anyone who's taken a statistics class knows that any statistical data can be manipulated. Did you know that, statistically, I can PROVE that ice cream causes murder? It's true. I can show you, statistically, that ice cream sales and murder rates rise at almost the exact same rate.

It doesn?t prove any such thing; it merely shows a coincidental correlation, not causation.? The similar example that I use is that 100% of serial killers began life consuming mother?s milk; therefore, mother?s milk causes serial murder.?

Edited to add:  We must pursue a fact-based policy rather than one of faith.  Statistics are just a tool to help us identify and isolate the problem and to measure the effect of those polices, changing the policies if the effect is not as designed.

Using numbers to try to foreshadow and react to human behavior is usually a losing game, because humans tend to be highly unpredictable and illogical creatures.

Statistics are a tool and must be used with care, just as with any other tool.? For example, fire can save you from freezing or burn down your house.? In this case, the stats simply point us in the right direction.

[SVT666]

If I have more then one drink, I take a taxi or go with a DD.? Better safe then sorry I always say.? I say we should drop the limit to 0.02 and impose really harsh penalties.

[Tave]

If I have more then one drink, I take a taxi or go with a DD.? Better safe then sorry I always say.? I say we should drop the limit to 0.02 and impose really harsh penalties.

Then you may as well just bring back prohibition. A BAC of .02 is less than one beer in some situations. People wouldn't even be able to order a glass of wine at dinner, or have a beer at a friend's house while watching a football game.

Hell, some poor shmuck would probably get a DUI for taking a strong dose of DayQuil.

[SVT666]

Well then make it 0.05.  I don't give a shit.  People shouldn't be driving after drinking...period.  There have been times when I've been a little drunk and I would have denied it and claimed I could easily drive if I was asked.  That's why I made that rule for myself.  Drunk driving kills so many innocent people every day that it makes me sick.  The driver rarely dies because of their physical state.

[Eye of the Tiger]

  The driver rarely dies because of their physical state.

If that was true, then perhaps we would all be much safer if sober driving was outlawed. 

[Tave]

Well then make it 0.05.? I don't give a shit.? People shouldn't be driving after drinking...period.? There have been times when I've been a little drunk and I would have denied it and claimed I could easily drive if I was asked.? That's why I made that rule for myself.? Drunk driving kills so many innocent people every day that it makes me sick.? The driver rarely dies because of their physical state.

As James pointed out, the vast majority of those accidents involve a driver with a BAC higher than .15


I think it's impractical and unreasonable to set such an artificially low limit. Why target the people who aren't causing the problem?


I like Dazzle's analogy: setting a 55 mph speed limit on an interstate just because people travelling 120 mph are dangerous. In your system it would be more like a 30 mph limit.

[the nameless one]

I think it's impractical and unreasonable to set such an artificially low limit. Why target the people who aren't causing the problem?

Because impairment is measureable at the lower levels.

[Soup DeVille]

Because impairment is measureable at the lower levels.

But is that impairment enough to make it a statistically viable assumption that people with say a BAC of 0.06-0.08 are too impaired to safely drive?

[the nameless one]

But is that impairment enough to make it a statistically viable assumption that people with say a BAC of 0.06-0.08 are too impaired to safely drive?

We're talking .08, not .06, so why even bring that lower level up. The only folks who have to contend with .06 are commercial drivers who are driving big rigs, buses etc. Obviously society has an interest in those people being completely booze free so they have a lower BAC threshhold. The other class of driver that is affected by lower than .08 BAC laws are late teen drivers, once again for obvious reasons: they are inexperienced drivers and are underaged to legally consume alcohol anyway.

Yes, according to MADD at least, impairment at .08 is perceptible:

"Regardless of how much alcohol it takes to get to this level, at .08 BAC any driver is a dangerous threat on the road. .08 BAC is the level at which the fatal crash risk significantly increases and virtually everyone is seriously impaired, affecting all of the basic critical driving skills including: braking, steering, lane changing, judgment and response time (NHTSA).   "

     http://www.madd.org/stats/4789

[omicron]

Our legal maximum BAC is 0.05 for normal drivers and 0 for commercial drivers. I don't see a problem with it.