NJSP Troopers to get daily MADD propaganda before starting their shifts

[TurboDan]

Living at the good old Jersey Shore, I can support the argument that lack of mass transit adds to more people driving drunk. I really believe a lot of people would not choose to drive if there were affordable alternatives. However, as bing said, it's not worth spending billions building mass transit systems just so a few drunk people can get home at night.

One thing I do think should happen is better regulation of taxi services. I've seen (and been a victim of) the terrible price gouging that goes on with taxis taking people home from bars. I once traveled less than one mile for a cost of $30 because cab rates in my town/county are unregulated. If we could stop this practice, a lot more people would choose not to drive. And obviously, the cost of a cab is less than the fines/hardships of a DUI conviction, however people DO often think stupidly in the moment, and I have zero doubt in my mind that this is a factor in why people choose to convince themselves that they're "OK to drive" when they're not.

As for me, I never drink and drive. The LAST thing I need to deal with, especially since I'm thinking of applying for positions in LE, is a conviction for that. So I don't even THINK about messing with those laws one bit.

[Rupert]

Nah, I'm talking about rate - as in DUI accidents per 1,000 drivers or per miles traveled, making the size of the population not a factor.

Per miles driven is the unit you want.

[Rupert]

Departments do alot to prevent drunk driving. During the discussion about checkpoints, I explained that they're good at prevention because it shows publically that a department is proactive in DUI enforcement. Heavy patrol of bar areas, something common in LE for various reasons, is also a useful prevention effort because visibly intoxicated people may hesitate to get into a vehicle while a LEO is around. Likewise, I've tried to warn off numerous intoxicated people from driving, pulling up and telling them that I can see they're drunk and that they should find another way home...sometimes it works, sometimes not.

Further prevention wuld have to do with an alteration of the courts, not the police. To make people think twice about DUI, the consequences have to be serious. At this point, they are not. In my county, there are people who have multiple DUI arrests but not a single conviction because they're always pled down by lazy prosecutors. Even when they are convicted, the judge gives a minimum punishment, nullifying any possible deterrent that a harsher punishment might bring along. And ignition interlocks are nearly unheard of in my county.

I think first time DUI offenders should be given what most of you will probably think is a light sentence. Everyone makes mistakes, and all. Second time offenders should get a mandatory ignition interlock with their fine, etc. (fine pays for the interlock). Third time offenders get their license revoked. After that, it's serious jail time. I also think the punishment should depend, to an extent, on the BAC and the degree to which the offender failed the SFSTs.

I think the interlock is an important step, because I think that many people who get a DUI and get their license taken away drive anyway (I had a college friend like this-- his first and so far only DUI). Since they're going to drive anyway, there might as well be a way to encourage them to not drive after drinking ("I can't drive because I have that interlock thing..."). My college friend would have had an interlock and his license if it had been cheap/free. It wasn't, so he drove on a suspended license, sometimes less than perfectly sober.

I think it's important to vary the punishment with the BAC level, because someone who is a 0.09 BAC may have just not realized they were too drunk, and they aren't much of a danger, anyway (relative to a higher BAC). Someone with a 0.20 BAC is almost certain to know that they're too drunk (and drunk-judgment doesn't count for a lapse in judgement), and they are definitely a danger.

[Tave]

I say first offense you get an interlock for the next 3 years. Next offense is a mandatory 3 year license suspension.

[TurboDan]

I also think the punishment should depend, to an extent, on the BAC and the degree to which the offender failed the SFSTs.

In New Jersey, the sentencing guidelines for DWI allow judges to impose lighter sentences and fines on drivers who blow between .08 and less than .10.

[Tave]

I'd like to amend my suggestion.

5-year interlock after 1st offense, 10-year after second, lifetime after third.

[TurboDan]

I'd like to amend my suggestion.

5-year interlock after 1st offense, 10-year after second, lifetime after third.

What happens when they drive someone else's car? 

[Tave]

What happens when they drive someone else's car? 

You can still get a ticket if you drive someone else's car, so you can still get bumped up to the next level, too.

And if they're caught driving around in someone else's car, drunk, when they have an interlock on their own, they get an automatic license suspension in addition to the higher interlock level.

[GoCougs]

maybe you should visit Boston and ride on the T at 2:00am or better yet board a Boston College "drunk bus" at that time...

Maybe you should visit Japan and stay atop the world's largest train station.

[bing_oh]

In New Jersey, the sentencing guidelines for DWI allow judges to impose lighter sentences and fines on drivers who blow between .08 and less than .10.

Ohio law differentiates between a DUI and a "super" DUI with a BAC of greater than .17 with heavier penalties.

[bing_oh]

You can still get a ticket if you drive someone else's car, so you can still get bumped up to the next level, too.

And if they're caught driving around in someone else's car, drunk, when they have an interlock on their own, they get an automatic license suspension in addition to the higher interlock level.

While I have no problem with interlock devices for DUI offenders, it doesn't solve the problem. There are alot of people out there with no drivers license who still regularly drive...repeat DUI offenders among them. Suspending someones license isn't going to necessarily stop them from driving, especially someone like a repeat DUI offender. Let's not forget, these people don't care about putting other people at risk by drinking and driving multiple times or fear any legal consequences even after being caught...do you really think that they will care about driving without a license?

[Tave]

Well if they have the interlock, they can't drive their car w/ a suspended license anyway.

[GoCougs]

Interlocks are worthless as is most any method of prevention; it implies the drunk has decided to yet again DUI.The key is to reorient the decision process to DUI; and that comes only with consequences - like months in the clink.

[NomisR]

Maybe you should visit Japan and stay atop the world's largest train station.

Why the hell would most people go to Nagoya?  I guess see that Castle but that's about it.  But I've seen plenty of drunk people sleeping at the station in Shinjuku because the trains have stopped running or some of those drunk people take the cab.. both are plenty and reasonabily accessible compared to majority of US cities.  You'll probably have a lower instance of DUI per million miles driven in NYC than in smaller cities or less dense cities because of less public transportation available and the fact that it doesn't make sense to drive into the city to drink to begin with and due to parking. 

It's really apples to oranges comparason.

[MaxPower]

Well if they have the interlock, they can't drive their car w/ a suspended license anyway.

I don't follow - unless the interlock has some sort of transponder that can link into the motor vehicles database and disable a vehicle that is owned by someone with a suspended license (which seems like low hanging fruit for a takings claim).

I thought ignition interlocks were simply BAC machines in the car, which are great in theory but not so good in reality.

[Tave]

I don't follow - unless the interlock has some sort of transponder that can link into the motor vehicles database and disable a vehicle that is owned by someone with a suspended license (which seems like low hanging fruit for a takings claim).

I thought ignition interlocks were simply BAC machines in the car, which are great in theory but not so good in reality.

My bad, I meant to say, "drive their car drunk with a suspended license"

[GoCougs]

Why the hell would most people go to Nagoya?  I guess see that Castle but that's about it.  But I've seen plenty of drunk people sleeping at the station in Shinjuku because the trains have stopped running or some of those drunk people take the cab.. both are plenty and reasonabily accessible compared to majority of US cities.  You'll probably have a lower instance of DUI per million miles driven in NYC than in smaller cities or less dense cities because of less public transportation available and the fact that it doesn't make sense to drive into the city to drink to begin with and due to parking. 

It's really apples to oranges comparason.

DOOD - because that's where I'm at this very second - atop the world's largest train station - meaning, I'm reinforcing the fact with context that PT is for commuters and long distance travelers, and would otherwise have little effect on DUI rates.

Drunks don't DUI because they have to drive.

[NomisR]

DOOD - because that's where I'm at this very second - atop the world's largest train station - meaning, I'm reinforcing the fact with context that PT is for commuters and long distance travelers, and would otherwise have little effect on DUI rates.

Drunks don't DUI because they have to drive.

Drunks DUI because they have to get home after they're drunk.. and if they have alternate methods of transportation, they will take them.  That's what I'm getting at.  Look at the % of the population 18-65 that can't drive in Japan compared to the US..

[Rupert]

While I have no problem with interlock devices for DUI offenders, it doesn't solve the problem. There are alot of people out there with no drivers license who still regularly drive...repeat DUI offenders among them. Suspending someones license isn't going to necessarily stop them from driving, especially someone like a repeat DUI offender. Let's not forget, these people don't care about putting other people at risk by drinking and driving multiple times or fear any legal consequences even after being caught...do you really think that they will care about driving without a license?

Maybe they won't care about driving without a license, and will get around any interlock they've got, but, then, what else can you really do? Throw them in jail, eventually. But you can't give a first time offender with a 0.09 BAC jail time in good conscience, IMO.

[GoCougs]

Maybe they won't care about driving without a license, and will get around any interlock they've got, but, then, what else can you really do? Throw them in jail, eventually. But you can't give a first time offender with a 0.09 BAC jail time in good conscience, IMO.

And there you go as to the single reason why DUI is such a mammoth problem in the US...

[GoCougs]

Drunks DUI because they have to get home after they're drunk.. and if they have alternate methods of transportation, they will take them.  That's what I'm getting at.  Look at the % of the population 18-65 that can't drive in Japan compared to the US..

Nah - drunks don't only drink in bars; they do most of their drinking at home.

[Tave]

And there you go as to the single reason why DUI is such a mammoth problem in the US...

You think a first time offender with a BAC of .09 would be thrown in jail in Germany and Japan? From what I understand, it's just a license suspension.

[mzziaz]

Cougs is right.

DUI is pretty rare in Norway and neighbor countries mainly because consequences are severe (there has also been put a lot of work into campaigns to to change the attitude toward these things. I think almost every class in junior HS has had a visit from a former drunk driver who killed his GF/friend or whatever in an accident.)

The law is as follows:
Driving with a BAC over .02 is illegal (fine)
Driving with a BAC over .05 will give jail time or probation depending on circumstances. (+fine)
Driving with a BAC over .15 will most definatly give jail time. (+fine)

Fines for DUI are very high, they can go as high as one month's gross personal income.

If you get pulled over in Norway for a random DUI check, you will be asked to take a breathalizer (spelling?) test. If you refuse, you will be arrested. Then a blood sample will be collected from you for analysis, consentual or not.

No pansy ass freedom liberties to cry for, I'm afraid  

To top it off, if you destroy any property or people while DUI'ing, the insurance companies will fuck you over.

In short, avoid DUI in Norway.  

[Tave]

DUI is pretty rare in Norway and neighbor countries mainly because consequences are severe (there has also been put a lot of work into campaigns to to change the attitude toward these things. I think almost every class in junior HS has had a visit from a former drunk driver who killed his GF/friend or whatever in an accident.)

Yeah, we have those same speeches in our high schools

Fines for DUI are very high, they can go as high as one month's gross personal income.

A typical DUI (first offense) in the States costs over $10,000.

To top it off, if you destroy any property or people while DUI'ing, the insurance companies will fuck you over.

That's no different from here either.

[mzziaz]

A typical DUI (first offense) in the States costs over $10,000.

Oh really? I wasn't aware of that.

[Tave]

That's including fines, attorney costs, court fees, (maybe the increase in insurance rates) etc...

[mzziaz]

That's including fines, attorney costs, court fees, (maybe the increase in insurance rates) etc...

OK. But how large is the actual fine?

[Tave]

OK. But how large is the actual fine?

I'm not exactly sure. 2-5 grand maybe?

[J86]

OK. But how large is the actual fine?

Very dependent on where you're located, geographically.

[bing_oh]

A typical DUI (first offense) in the States costs over $10,000.

I'm not exactly sure. 2-5 grand maybe?

Ahahahahahaaaa! 2-5 grand for a first offense DUI in fines only? Bullshit! A first offense DUI in my county (assuming that it isn't pled down) might run you $200-400 total...the high end being if you severely piss off the judge.

I'd like to see where a first offense DUI will cost anybody $10,000. It wouldn't cost that for a FELONY DUI in my area!