NJSP Troopers to get daily MADD propaganda before starting their shifts

[bing_oh]

Yeah, you could definitely fit it into existing laws.  The point was that drunk driving .08 and above is illegal because we wanted it to be illegal, and anything can become illegal if we so desire.  Funny you bring up commercial drivers though - I did some commercial enforcement work this summer and learned a lot.  Different jurisdictions vary greatly in punishments; a log book violation is a $50 civil in MA and a $500 criminal offense in ME!

Somewhat on subject, bing, what's the highest suspect BAC you've ever had?

Thank God I don't do much commercial vehicle stuff. It can be very complicated...there's actually specific training for commercial enforcement. We usually let the PUCO guys at the highway patrol handle it if we have an issue with the commercial vehicle.

I've had them in the .3's...career alcoholics can get extremely high BAC's. There are guys on my PD who have had them above .40...an impressive BAC, especially given that these are people operating vehicles. Most of us would be unconscience long before that, and probably in the ER at that level.

[bing_oh]

Perhaps some of your folks might consider investing in one of these bad boys, pretty cheap too:

http://www.amazon.com/Alc-Nose-AT126-Digital-Alcohol/dp/B00101LWXW/ref=sr_1_26?ie=UTF8&s=hpc&qid=1260325155&sr=1-26

http://www.buy.com/retail/product.asp?sku=210663719&listingid=37031678

The handheld ones aren't always very accurate, especially the cheap ones like that. Even the expensive ones we use have to be checked for calibration on a regular basis if they're going to be used for any kind of evidence. They're decent for a ballpark, but I wouldn't bet on their accuracy.

[J86]

The handheld ones aren't always very accurate, especially the cheap ones like that. Even the expensive ones we use have to be checked for calibration on a regular basis if they're going to be used for any kind of evidence. They're decent for a ballpark, but I wouldn't bet on their accuracy.

They sure are fun as hell to see who can get the highest score, however!

[TurboDan]

They sure are fun as hell to see who can get the highest score, however!

Ha, my thinking exactly. I ordered one in contemplation of New Years Eve.   

[Rupert]

I do not agree that BAC effects people all that differently. Perhaps some people tolerate alcohol better than others...any look at a career alcoholic shows that an alcohol tolerance can be built up...but they all show the same decrease in motor skills, divided attention skills, and reaction time, which is the problem with alcohol and driving. That's what the SFST's measure and the indicators are directly connected to the .08 BAC level.

I've had them in the .3's...career alcoholics can get extremely high BAC's. There are guys on my PD who have had them above .40...an impressive BAC, especially given that these are people operating vehicles. Most of us would be unconscience long before that, and probably in the ER at that level.

Just sayin'...

[Rupert]

I don't know, more information is required.


Of those 30%, how many involve drivers over .10?

Of those under .10, how many accidents were caused by the driver's impairment?

Of those under .10 and were caused by the impairment, how does that compare to accident statistics generally?

Exactly.

On one hand, you have to base decisions on the information you have, in which case, 0.08 BAC is more or less reasonable. On the other, it's better to have better information, i.e. the above questions' answers. When that information is pretty simple to get (even if it is a pain in the ass), it should be got.

[James Young]

And 30% are under a .15 BAC. That's still a problem. Or do those 30% of deaths not matter?

Wrong question.  This is an issue of Pareto Optimality.  Do you want to consume 90% of your resources to address 10% of a problem?

[James Young]

Realistically, I suppose laws already on the books could be used to punish tired drivers.

Why the obsession with punishing the driver?  Is not the goal of traffic safety policy to improve certain measures of traffic safety, saying nothing about punishment?

[TurboDan]

Why the obsession with punishing the driver?  Is not the goal of traffic safety policy to improve certain measures of traffic safety, saying nothing about punishment?

So there should be no accountability for driving impaired? That's just... silly.

[James Young]

So there should be no accountability for driving impaired? That's just... silly.

I strongly urge and expect drivers to exhibit real responsibility for their actions.  I just as strongly condemn the self-anointed experts who demand punishment as a substitute for prevention.  What bing_oh has failed to mention (he may not know it but I suspect his knowledge is pretty complete on this topic), is that the overwhelming majority of drivers involved in alcohol-related crashes (Tave's 70%) are repeat offenders.  In short, we know who they are and any LEO on these fora, give us perhaps a dozen names of likely culprits.  

Perhaps I am assuming too much, but I would hope the focus on impaired driving is preventing it rather than punishing it after the fact.  We have evidence that, in the case of drunk driving, punishment has no effect on those people who are mostly likely to me involved in a fatal crash.  While the record is mixed among several states, New Mexico ? a state with an extremely high incidence of alcoholism -- has had good success in preventing the drunk from driving rather than preventing the driver from drinking.  I suppose that those whose lives revolve around punishment are loathe to relinquish their source of power, irrespective of the cost/benefit to society as a whole.  

[TurboDan]

How does one prevent someone from getting behind the wheel drunk? How does the state you mentioned - New Mexico - do it? Are we talking about ignition interlocks or something like that?

[James Young]

Dan:  Yes, NM uses ignition interlocks of several differnt types.  Each one must be purchased and installed by a convicted defendant.

[GoCougs]

"Prevention?" Nah, doesn't work. The human animal only understand consequences.

DUI ain't near the problem in Japan, German, Norway, et al., as in the US. Why? 'Cause we all know it is a major crime in those countries.

Plus, to those arguing about BAC levels, be wary what you wish for: subjective law is the bane of a civilized society.

[bing_oh]

Exactly.

On one hand, you have to base decisions on the information you have, in which case, 0.08 BAC is more or less reasonable. On the other, it's better to have better information, i.e. the above questions' answers. When that information is pretty simple to get (even if it is a pain in the ass), it should be got.

Those ultra-high BAC's are the very rare excpetion rather than the rule. The people I've seen with BAC's that high have gotten to that point of tolerance through literally a lifetime of alcoholic drinking. I won't say that it's not possible to build a certain tolerance to alcohol, but it's not a common occurance. And, even those people with such a tolerance still display clear signs of impairment, so the tolerance doesn't necessarily mean that they can operate a motor vehicle any better under the influence.

[bing_oh]

Wrong question.  This is an issue of Pareto Optimality.  Do you want to consume 90% of your resources to address 10% of a problem?

But you're not. There's no difference in enforcement between locating the .08 driver and the .30 driver. You see an indication of impairment and take action. To assume a lack of resources is to say that we're so overwhelmed with DUI's of the .08 variety that we're missing those of with higher BAC's. Instead, the reality is that we're expending resources to deal with the entire problem covering the whole spectrum.

[bing_oh]

I strongly urge and expect drivers to exhibit real responsibility for their actions.  I just as strongly condemn the self-anointed experts who demand punishment as a substitute for prevention.  What bing_oh has failed to mention (he may not know it but I suspect his knowledge is pretty complete on this topic), is that the overwhelming majority of drivers involved in alcohol-related crashes (Tave's 70%) are repeat offenders.  In short, we know who they are and any LEO on these fora, give us perhaps a dozen names of likely culprits.  

Perhaps I am assuming too much, but I would hope the focus on impaired driving is preventing it rather than punishing it after the fact.  We have evidence that, in the case of drunk driving, punishment has no effect on those people who are mostly likely to me involved in a fatal crash.  While the record is mixed among several states, New Mexico ? a state with an extremely high incidence of alcoholism -- has had good success in preventing the drunk from driving rather than preventing the driver from drinking.  I suppose that those whose lives revolve around punishment are loathe to relinquish their source of power, irrespective of the cost/benefit to society as a whole.

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.

[r0tor]

Grants require a record of contact, not a ticket. I think you once said you live in NJ. Either you misunderstood the officer or he was wrong himself. There is absolutely NO grant in the state of New Jersey that requires a ticket on a stop. There are some that require a record of contact, so a written warning would suffice.

The officer told me warnings were not even allowed during this carnival o tickets (i'm in PA)

[NomisR]

"Prevention?" Nah, doesn't work. The human animal only understand consequences.

DUI ain't near the problem in Japan, German, Norway, et al., as in the US. Why? 'Cause we all know it is a major crime in those countries.

Plus, to those arguing about BAC levels, be wary what you wish for: subjective law is the bane of a civilized society.

How about, because not as many people drive in those countries as in the US and there's more alternative transportations available in those countries than in the US.

[r0tor]

subjective law is the bane of a civilized society.

I completely diagree.  Its setting black and white rules that results in ridiculous stories in the news like a child being kicked out of school for posession of weapons when all the child had was the butter knife her mother put in her lunch bag.  The constitution is deliberately written to avoid situations like that, however the recent trend is you need to adress everything like its a black/white issue in order to be "fair".... or at leas that what my last 2 management classes have told me

and i was just almost arrested an hour ago as a judge stood by the black/white decision because they never received my money from my traffic ticket.  If it wasn't for the clerk to realize that the damn officer gave me the wrong mailing address, i wouldnt have a damn license right now

[NomisR]

I completely diagree.  Its setting black and white rules that results in ridiculous stories in the news like a child being kicked out of school for posession of weapons when all the child had was the butter knife her mother put in her lunch bag.  The constitution is deliberately written to avoid situations like that, however the recent trend is you need to adress everything like its a black/white issue in order to be "fair".... or at leas that what my last 2 management classes have told me

and i was just almost arrested an hour ago as a judge stood by the black/white decision because they never received my money from my traffic ticket.  If it wasn't for the clerk to realize that the damn officer gave me the wrong mailing address, i wouldnt have a damn license right now

Well, you should've been more proactive in verifying the mailing address.  The state can never be wrong. 

[GoCougs]

How about, because not as many people drive in those countries as in the US and there's more alternative transportations available in those countries than in the US.

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.

[Tave]

You missed half of that sentence.

[GoCougs]

I completely diagree.  Its setting black and white rules that results in ridiculous stories in the news like a child being kicked out of school for posession of weapons when all the child had was the butter knife her mother put in her lunch bag.  The constitution is deliberately written to avoid situations like that, however the recent trend is you need to adress everything like its a black/white issue in order to be "fair".... or at leas that what my last 2 management classes have told me

and i was just almost arrested an hour ago as a judge stood by the black/white decision because they never received my money from my traffic ticket.  If it wasn't for the clerk to realize that the damn officer gave me the wrong mailing address, i wouldnt have a damn license right now

Subjective law is indeed the bane of moral law as it puts the absolute power with the state, leaving the individual little if any room to fight; meaning it's tough to play the game when the rules are changing. Objective law ensures both sides are playing with the same rules. THAT is what the US Constitution is about.

Your court problems I'm not sure how they play. My method is to minimize contact with LE; it's not supposed to be a pleasant experience. If I choose to buck the law then I better be ready to throw myself into a system in which I have virtually no control.

[NomisR]

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.

How about the fact that there's more alternative transportation compared to the US? 

[GoCougs]

How about the fact that there's more alternative transportation compared to the US?  

Little if any factor for three main reasons.

First, car ownership tracks with the public transportation development; the most obvious example being Japan (most developed train system + second largest car market).

Second, public transportation for the most part is for commuter use or for extended travel; meaning, trains don't run all hours of the night and there's still a heckuva lot of walking, or they aren't stopping in every single neighborhood.

Third, IMO you're vastly underestimating the problem of DUI. Known any drunks, those the comprise the majority of DUI? Drunks don't drive drunk because of the lack of public transportation. The drive drunk because they have to, they drive drunk because they want to.

[Tave]

Little if any factor for three main reasons.

First, car ownership tracks with the public transportation development; the most obvious example being Japan (most developed train system + second largest car market).

Irrelevant

Second, public transportation for the most part is for commuter use or for extended travel; meaning, trains don't run all hours of the night and there's still a heckuva lot of walking, or they aren't stopping in every single neighborhood.

Third, IMO you're vastly underestimating the problem of DUI. Known any drunks, those the comprise the majority of DUI? Drunks don't drive drunk because of the lack of public transportation. The drive drunk because they have to, they drive drunk because they want to.

And if there's readily accessible public transport, they might want to take that more than they drive.

But we're dogding around another important point--urbanization and city planning.

Enforcement is also a factor.

[bing_oh]

But we're dogding around another important point--urbanization and city planning.

Enforcement is also a factor.

Woah...urbanization and city planning? Comeon, you're not actually implying that we should establish widespread public transportation just to encourage people not to drive drunk, are you? What ever happened to a little forethought and personal responsibility when you're going out drinking? Get a cab or find a responsible designated driver...don't expect the government to give you a ride home because you decided to go get shitfaced without thinking first.

Besides, Americans are a very car-centric society. People will not give up their cars just because you give them public transportation. And, you assume that someone who would to choose to drive drunk would also choose to take public transportation to make everybody else safer. I think you're underestimating the selfishness and irresponsibility of some people. If they were that responsible, then most of them would already be making alternative plans for transportation home and the public transportation argument is moot.

[GoCougs]

Irrelevant

And if there's readily accessible public transport, they might want to take that more than they drive.

But we're dogding around another important point--urbanization and city planning.

Enforcement is also a factor.

Completely relevant - drunks won't take public transportation in lieu of a car sitting in the driveway.

Urbanization and city planning should not be predicated on getting drunks off the roads.

[Tave]

Woah...urbanization and city planning? Comeon, you're not actually implying that we should establish widespread public transportation just to encourage people not to drive drunk, are you? What ever happened to a little forethought and personal responsibility when you're going out drinking? Get a cab or find a responsible designated driver...don't expect the government to give you a ride home because you decided to go get shitfaced without thinking first.

Huh? No, I just said that those are two reasons why we have more drunk driving.

If they were that responsible, then most of them would already be making alternative plans for transportation home and the public transportation argument is moot.

Nothing to do with responsibility and everything to do with convenience. If Japan was more spread out and suburbanized, I bet they'd have more instances of drunk driving than they do now.

Urbanization and city planning should not be predicated on getting drunks off the roads.

I never said it should be. I said it's one reason why the US has problems w/ drunk drivers and Japan/Germany don't. It's an additional factor other than enforcement.

[r0tor]

Completely relevant - drunks won't take public transportation in lieu of a car sitting in the driveway.

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...