Yeah... what the title said:
Quote
Troopers who patrol New Jersey?s roads will have an unusual start to their days this holiday season: daily shift briefings will include personal stories from MADD representatives.
Colonel Rick Fuentes, the State Police Superintendent, hopes the presentations by Mothers Against Drunk Driving helps troopers make the connection between their vigilance and the power it has to protect a family from intense suffering and pain.
http://www.cliffviewpilot.com/public-safety/774-nj-state-police-boss-gives-troopers-unusual-task
:rolleyes:
Maybe DAMM can give them a debriefing in the evening...
Next, they'll be hearing from the Women's Christian Temperance Union. MADD is just a modern version of the WCTU, neo-prohibitionist and much more interested in fund-raising than promoting policies and activities that would improve the drunk-driving crash-, injury- and fatality rates.
I pity the cops who have to so throuh those briefings. All the officers that I deal with don't seem to need to be reminded to be vigilent, especially by some interest group.
Quote from: MaxPower on December 04, 2009, 07:37:01 PM
I pity the cops who have to so throuh those briefings. All the officers that I deal with don't seem to need to be reminded to be vigilent, especially by some interest group.
This was met by a big, collective rolleyes on the NJ LE forum where I found it posted originally.
Quote from: TurboDan on December 05, 2009, 03:28:25 PM
This was met by a big, collective rolleyes on the NJ LE forum where I found it posted originally.
Why would the NJSP require their officers to attend a briefing by MADD? Did MADD pay them or something?
Quote from: dazzleman on December 05, 2009, 03:29:19 PM
Why would the NJSP require their officers to attend a briefing by MADD? Did MADD pay them or something?
I'm sure they greased the politician who's responsible for appointing the State Police Superintendent. Of course, it doesn't help that our state AG is an anti-cop weenie liberal who's probably a card-carrying MADD member. I'm surprised she doesn't deputize MADD soccer moms to make DWI arrests.
MADD likes to engage official agencies because it gives them the imprimatur of an official spokesman and therefore an expert in the field. Never mind that much of their focus has switched from drunk driving to fund-raising. They have been sanctioned by several states for failure to comply with rules for non-profit organizations. The founder, Candy Lightner, no longer has any dealings with them.
Several years ago (2002?), MADD joined with the Tulsa Police Department and the Tulsa Public Schools to present ?evidence? of the impact of drunk driving, except that the vehicle displayed was crashed by a driver who fell asleep and ran off the road. They bolted on some Oklahoma plates, threw several empty beer cans inside and told all the kids it was a bunch of kids who got liquored up and hit a family. Lying bastards.
Quote from: TurboDan on December 05, 2009, 03:33:22 PM
I'm sure they greased the politician who's responsible for appointing the State Police Superintendent. Of course, it doesn't help that our state AG is an anti-cop weenie liberal who's probably a card-carrying MADD member. I'm surprised she doesn't deputize MADD soccer moms to make DWI arrests.
Was she re-elected in November?
Quote from: dazzleman on December 05, 2009, 03:42:16 PM
Was she re-elected in November?
The AG is appointed by the governor in NJ. Since the current governor (Corzine) was just kicked out of office, there will be a new AG when Chris Christie becomes governor in January.
In Connecticut, the AG is elected. We've had the same pompous, self-worshipping publicity hound windbag for about 20 years :rolleyes:
Quote from: dazzleman on December 06, 2009, 05:42:58 PM
In Connecticut, the AG is elected. We've had the same pompous, self-worshipping publicity hound windbag for about 20 years :rolleyes:
While I'd love our AG to be less than a hack political appointee, I shudder to think who the populace of New Jersey would actually elect to that office.
I know what you mean.
In Maine, I believe, the AG is elected by one of the representative bodies. Works out pretty well because its not a straight political appointee or popular vote, but it is always someone from the party in charge.
I can't wait to find out how many more fund-raier err "drunk driving safety" checkpoints there will be...
Quote from: r0tor on December 07, 2009, 01:56:31 PMI can't wait to find out how many more fund-raier err "drunk driving safety" checkpoints there will be...
You can argue the question of profiting from traffic enforcement all day, but I don't see how you can argue that any kind of DUI enforcement effort is focused on anything but safety. DUI checkpoints, controversial as they may be, are effective in catching drunk drivers.
If it was focused on safety only, a drunk driver would be pulled off the road and either left to sleep off his drunkeness or let a sober passenger drive the car home. Instead, even borderline "drunk" people who exhibit no actual driving impairment and instead are trapped in a net like a tuna are made to pay through their ass. Case in point would be my friend who got busted 2 blocks from his house and tested .01 over the legal limit or the douchebag that followed me out of the bar, pulled me over for a bullshit "speeding incident", accused me of having dilated eyes and smelling heavily of alcohol (i had 2 beers in 5 hours), and then made me walk a line and stand on one leg touching my nose on the side of a steep ass hill.
"Safety" my ass...
DUI checkpoints are a completely unamerican, unconstitutional, public service fundraiser...
Welp, here we go...
Quote from: r0tor on December 07, 2009, 04:27:06 PMIf it was focused on safety only, a drunk driver would be pulled off the road and either left to sleep off his drunkeness or let a sober passenger drive the car home. Instead, even borderline "drunk" people who exhibit no actual driving impairment and instead are trapped in a net like a tuna are made to pay through their ass. Case in point would be my friend who got busted 2 blocks from his house and tested .01 over the legal limit or the douchebag that followed me out of the bar, pulled me over for a bullshit "speeding incident", accused me of having dilated eyes and smelling heavily of alcohol (i had 2 beers in 5 hours), and then made me walk a line and stand on one leg touching my nose on the side of a steep ass hill.
"Safety" my ass...
DUI checkpoints are a completely unamerican, unconstitutional, public service fundraiser...
Ah, so you would encourage LE to just have a sober driver take a drunk home or let him sleep it off on the side of the road...a person who already made a conscience decision to drive while impaired and put others at risk. Basically, you think it would be a good idea to let someone who clearly put others' lives at risk to get off with no consequences. What an excellent idea!
As for the legal limits set by law, I can tell you that I'm a drinker myself. I've also been part of certification classes for Standardize Field Sobriety Tests (SFST's), which means that I've been brought up to as close to the legal limit as possible and then students practice administering field tests on me. I can say with 100% certainty that I would absolutely, positively never drive at a .08 BAC. It's well beyond buzzed. It's drunk. So, you can argue the per se limits as much as you like, but I have alot of personal experience and you'll never convince me that it's too low.
As for your experience with the "douchbag" who pulled you over coming out of the bar, I can tell you that, if I have any indications of intoxication or an admission of drinking on a traffic stop, you're doing the SFST's for me. If I don't give them and let you go, and you drive away and kill a family because you're plastered, I'm going to lose everything I have in the civil suit and possibly get criminally prosecuted for misfeasance/malfeasance/nonfeasance. I think not, thank you very much. And, I won't apologize for the inconvenience of the 5 frickin' minutes it took you to do the tests...it's a small price to pay to make sure you're not impaired. As for pulling you over coming out of a bar, well, you don't go the middle of the desert to fish...you go where the fish are.
Quote from: bing_oh on December 07, 2009, 08:49:51 PM
Ah, so you would encourage LE to just have a sober driver take a drunk home or let him sleep it off on the side of the road...a person who already made a conscience decision to drive while impaired and put others at risk. Basically, you think it would be a good idea to let someone who clearly put others' lives at risk to get off with no consequences. What an excellent idea!
Just how many people are repeat DUI offenders? Thats right... millions because pulling someone over and busting them doesn't fix anything! If a person truely feels regret for driving drunk, they will correct the behavior with or without a ticket. If they feel no regret for driving "drunk" then their behavior will not change. Its no different then a speeding ticket and the millions of repeat speeding offenders. Furthermore, many studies have shown that idiots using cellphones are much worse drivers then someone at .08 BAC - the limit is based more on politics and revenue then anything else.
How is it even remotely legal for you to perform a sobriety test on someone with no visible impairment? So what, in court you just lie about how bad his breathe smelled or that his pupils dialated the size of quarters to give you the right to ask him to step out of his car? Whats next, following someone out of a drug store and then pulling him over and searching the car for drugs?
"it's a small price to pay to make sure you're not impaired"? Are you kidding me? Its not enough to drive safely coming out of a bar, but I have to prove to you I am legal to drive?
Since when the hell are you guilty of something until proven innocent in this damn country??? If I am driving with absolutely no signs of being impaired yet you pull me over and try your damndest to convict me of DUI and potential fuck up my life - I am suppose to feel good about it??? With this understanding, if I ever have the opportunity to screw over Officer Douchebag that tried to nab me for DUI or Officer Jackass who is trying to convict me of going through a redlight eventhough he was 5 cars behind me and couldn't even see my ass clearly, I will with no regrets.
If the police station needs more money, make like a Firefighter and stand on a damn street corner for the day and beg for handouts.
Furthermore, DUI checkpoints are absolutely unconstitutional and prohibited in 11 states and basically only exist in the rest of the country because of a judge who admitted the checkpoints are unconstitutional but its OK to infringe on your legal rights if it makes you safer. The only reason that blindingly horrible ruling has not been retested is its political suicide for any Justice because of groups like MADD...
Quote from: bing_oh on December 07, 2009, 03:36:20 PM
You can argue the question of profiting from traffic enforcement all day, but I don't see how you can argue that any kind of DUI enforcement effort is focused on anything but safety. DUI checkpoints, controversial as they may be, are effective in catching drunk drivers.
You could catch a lot of drug dealers if you went door-to-door and searched people's homes.
I told my daughter that if she gets pulled over, politely...very politely...refuse any request to search the car. If she is asked to get out, remove the keys and lock the door. If the officer wants to search a locked car, he can get a warrant....and she needs to call me.
Quote from: r0tor on December 08, 2009, 06:02:11 AMJust how many people are repeat DUI offenders? Thats right... millions because pulling someone over and busting them doesn't fix anything! If a person truely feels regret for driving drunk, they will correct the behavior with or without a ticket. If they feel no regret for driving "drunk" then their behavior will not change. Its no different then a speeding ticket and the millions of repeat speeding offenders.
So, because people decide to repeat offend, we should just go ahead and give up and let them offend? Even if the offense puts the public at risk? Interesting idea.
QuoteFurthermore, many studies have shown that idiots using cellphones are much worse drivers then someone at .08 BAC - the limit is based more on politics and revenue then anything else.
So, convince your local lawmakers to pass laws the prohibit the use of cell phones while driving. Because there isn't a law against one doesn;t mean that you arbitrarily eliminate a law against another. And, as I've already said, I've got personal experience with knowing exactly what a .08 BAC feels like. You will never convince me it's ok to drive at that level.
QuoteHow is it even remotely legal for you to perform a sobriety test on someone with no visible impairment? So what, in court you just lie about how bad his breathe smelled or that his pupils dialated the size of quarters to give you the right to ask him to step out of his car? Whats next, following someone out of a drug store and then pulling him over and searching the car for drugs?
It's called an investigative detention and I
ask if he will step out of the car to perform SFST's. A driver has every right to refuse those tests...it's a rare month where I don't have a couple people do so and I really don't care if they do. I'll have to decide if I have probable cause to make an arrest from there. I'll be more than happy to put my 10 years of experience, observations, and training on the stand in front of a judge or jury against someone's word that they weren't intoxicated...no lying about it on the stand, thank you very much.
Quote"it's a small price to pay to make sure you're not impaired"? Are you kidding me? Its not enough to drive safely coming out of a bar, but I have to prove to you I am legal to drive? Since when the hell are you guilty of something until proven innocent in this damn country??? If I am driving with absolutely no signs of being impaired yet you pull me over and try your damndest to convict me of DUI and potential fuck up my life - I am suppose to feel good about it??? With this understanding, if I ever have the opportunity to screw over Officer Douchebag that tried to nab me for DUI or Officer Jackass who is trying to convict me of going through a redlight eventhough he was 5 cars behind me and couldn't even see my ass clearly, I will with no regrets.
I don't stop people because they come out of a bar. I stop people for violations of the law. If I see indications of intoxication or they admit to drinking, you're damn right I'm gonna
request SFST's. And, again, go right ahead and refuse if you like. I'll make my decision from there. As for "guilty until proven innocent," police officers don't decide guilt or innocence, the court does. We work on the legal standards or reasonable suspicion and probable cause. If you're going to argue the law, you should have a firm grasp of the concepts that govern us.
Quote from: JWC on December 08, 2009, 10:49:45 AMYou could catch a lot of drug dealers if you went door-to-door and searched people's homes.
I told my daughter that if she gets pulled over, politely...very politely...refuse any request to search the car. If she is asked to get out, remove the keys and lock the door. If the officer wants to search a locked car, he can get a warrant....and she needs to call me.
This isn't about searching house-to-house for drug dealers, it's about checkpoints and DUI enforcement. The courts have ruled that checkpoints are a minimal intrusion, very different from searching your house, and are
illegal if the intrusion is not minimal. That's why time limits on stops and contacts are strictly enforced at DUI checkpoints and there is a required "escape path" if someone doesn't want to go through the checkpoint.
As for a search of a vehice, you have every right to refuse a consentual search. But, understand that different rules apply to vehicle searches and there are established exceptions because of their mobile nature. An officer doesn't necessarily need a warrant to search a vehicle.
QuoteSo, because people decide to repeat offend, we should just go ahead and give up and let them offend? Even if the offense puts the public at risk? Interesting idea
So as my example goes, a person with a .09BAC is driving fine, obeying all laws, is paying attention, and driving better then some of the morons who are sober. Your making the world a "safer" place by busting him huh? Great strategy on promoting safety... And actually, before DUI became a political and financial topic, cops did let drivers sleep off their drunkness or give someone a warning.
Quote from: bing_oh on December 08, 2009, 12:43:51 PM
I don't stop people because they come out of a bar. I stop people for violations of the law. If I see indications of intoxication or they admit to drinking, you're damn right I'm gonna request SFST's. And, again, go right ahead and refuse if you like. I'll make my decision from there. As for "guilty until proven innocent," police officers don't decide guilt or innocence, the court does. We work on the legal standards or reasonable suspicion and probable cause. If you're going to argue the law, you should have a firm grasp of the concepts that govern us.
Holy shit... so if you pull me over and I say yes I had 1 beer you are going to make me perform a sobriety test no matter if I act/drive intoxicated or not. If I refuse you are going to place me under arrest. WTF...
I am going to call the cops on the next cop I see because he is carrying a gun and I'm going to make the assumption that he murdered someone with it.
This thread has fueled so much anti-cop rage inside me that I never had before...
Quote from: r0tor on December 08, 2009, 01:30:06 PM
This thread has fueled so much anti-cop rage inside me that I never had before...
See if you can get a one-day ban out of it!
The problem with DUI is not enforcement or detection but with consequences. MADD should devote its resources for lobbying to actually make DUI a serious crime.
Quote from: r0tor on December 08, 2009, 01:29:18 PMSo as my example goes, a person with a .09BAC is driving fine, obeying all laws, is paying attention, and driving better then some of the morons who are sober. Your making the world a "safer" place by busting him huh? Great strategy on promoting safety...
Do you know what it feels like to have a .08 BAC? Not "I think" or "somewhere around there," but a .08 BAC? As I've said, I do, and it's not a safe condition to drive in. So, talk about "driving fine" and "paying attention," it's not gonna fly with me. He's a risk and I'm making the roads safer by removing him from them.
QuoteHoly shit... so if you pull me over and I say yes I had 1 beer you are going to make me perform a sobriety test no matter if I act/drive intoxicated or not. If I refuse you are going to place me under arrest. WTF...
I am going to call the cops on the next cop I see because he is carrying a gun and I'm going to make the assumption that he murdered someone with it.
Why would I ask if you've been drinking unless I had some indication of it while speaking to you? And, if I did have some indication, don't you think it'd maybe be that you'd had more that one beer? And, do you think that maybe a DUI driver might lie about the number of drinks he/she has consumed? Hmmm...
Did I say that I'd arrest you if you refused? No. You made an assumption. I said I'd decide if I had probable cause to make an arrest at that point.
Quote from: r0tor on December 08, 2009, 01:29:18 PM
So as my example goes, a person with a .09BAC is driving fine, obeying all laws, is paying attention, and driving better then some of the morons who are sober. Your making the world a "safer" place by busting him huh? Great strategy on promoting safety...
Holy shit... so if you pull me over and I say yes I had 1 beer you are going to make me perform a sobriety test no matter if I act/drive intoxicated or not. If I refuse you are going to place me under arrest. WTF...
I am going to call the cops on the next cop I see because he is carrying a gun and I'm going to make the assumption that he murdered someone with it.
Is this a serious post?
Quote from: GoCougs on December 08, 2009, 01:45:24 PMIs this a serious post?
He's actually arguing that DUI isn't a safety issue but a moneymaking issue. What do you think?
Quote from: GoCougs on December 08, 2009, 01:45:24 PM
Is this a serious post?
yes it is because of Officer Douchebag that followed my sober ass out of a bar, lied about a speeding infraction, lied out his ass that I appeared "drunk", then made me perform an bunch of balancing acts on the side of a damn hill, and finished by saying "it was all for my own safety".
Now I hear Officer Douchebag was justified in doing all that because we are all trying to be "safe"? So yes, I believe carrying a gun is about as much reasonable suspicion of killing someone as pulling out of a bar in a reasonable suspician I'm drunk.
Quote from: r0tor on December 08, 2009, 01:50:02 PMyes it is because of Officer Douchebag that followed my sober ass out of a bar, lied about a speeding infraction, lied out his ass that I appeared "drunk", then made me perform an bunch of balancing acts on the side of a damn hill, and finished by saying "it was all for my own safety".
Now I hear Officer Douchebag was justified in doing all that because we are all trying to be "safe"? So yes, I believe carrying a gun is about as much reasonable suspicion of killing someone as pulling out of a bar in a reasonable suspician I'm drunk.
Did you get arrested?
Quote from: bing_oh on December 08, 2009, 01:44:56 PM
Do you know what it feels like to have a .08 BAC? Not "I think" or "somewhere around there," but a .08 BAC? As I've said, I do, and it's not a safe condition to drive in. So, talk about "driving fine" and "paying attention," it's not gonna fly with me. He's a risk and I'm making the roads safer by removing him from them.
I have seen people act ridiculously drunk at BAC levels far below .08. I've seen people remain incredibly sober acting and appearing right up until the point they passed out. BAC levels were established to back up a case in court after a person who was visibly intoxicated was pulled over. Now it seems, its common strategy to bypass the actual condition of the driver and go straight to what will convict him or not.
Quote from: bing_oh on December 08, 2009, 01:55:03 PM
Did you get arrested?
No, but i did get so nervous that I almost lost my balance and then would have... and that also shows how much of BS my "speeding" was as I didn't even get a warning out of it
Quote from: bing_oh on December 08, 2009, 01:48:30 PM
He's actually arguing that DUI isn't a safety issue but a moneymaking issue. What do you think?
I reject the money-making impetus for traffic enforcement in its entirety.
Quote from: GoCougs on December 08, 2009, 01:56:58 PM
I reject the money-making impetus for traffic enforcement in its entirety.
My recent infraction was due to a grant the department received to improve "traffic safety" on a stretch of road and as I'm told by an officer on the force had a quota attached to it
Quote from: r0tor on December 08, 2009, 01:55:40 PMI have seen people act ridiculously drunk at BAC levels far below .08. I've seen people remain incredibly sober acting and appearing right up until the point they passed out. BAC levels were established to back up a case in court after a person who was visibly intoxicated was pulled over. Now it seems, its common strategy to bypass the actual condition of the driver and go straight to what will convict him or not.
BAC levels were passed into law based on medical evaluations and to remove most of the individual bias from DUI enforcement, to the benefit of the driver. Otherwise, DUI enforcement would be totally up to the opinion and whim of the individual officer. And, there's still a section of law (at least in Ohio) that permits me to charge for DUI even if someone is under the .08 per se limit if I can prove impairment.
Quote from: r0tor on December 08, 2009, 01:50:02 PM
yes it is because of Officer Douchebag that followed my sober ass out of a bar, lied about a speeding infraction, lied out his ass that I appeared "drunk", then made me perform an bunch of balancing acts on the side of a damn hill, and finished by saying "it was all for my own safety".
Now I hear Officer Douchebag was justified in doing all that because we are all trying to be "safe"? So yes, I believe carrying a gun is about as much reasonable suspicion of killing someone as pulling out of a bar in a reasonable suspician I'm drunk.
You left what is 99.56% likely a major DUI haven and got nabbed for speeding. Seems pretty cut-n-dry what the not-unreasonable next steps would be.
Quote from: r0tor on December 08, 2009, 01:56:19 PMNo, but i did get so nervous that I almost lost my balance and then would have... and that also shows how much of BS my "speeding" was as I didn't even get a warning out of it
Well, that kinda blows your theory about DUI and moneymaking out of the water, doesn't it? I mean, if the officer lied from the very beginning and about everything related to the stop, why not lie about you failing the tests and arrest you? After all, if it's all about the cash, then he totally failed because he didn't make a single thin dime off of you and your traffic stop.
Or, maybe you're just pissed off because you think you got stopped unjustly and put through SFST's and you've got a chip on your shoulder about it. And, maybe you don't like to hear the actual logical reasons why you were stopped and put through SFST's because it doesn't support that chip.
Quote from: r0tor on December 08, 2009, 01:58:43 PM
My recent infraction was due to a grant the department received to improve "traffic safety" on a stretch of road and as I'm told by an officer on the force had a quota attached to it
Where is money "made" if the grant was to "enforce" safety? Sounds like a wash to me.
Quote from: GoCougs on December 08, 2009, 02:00:16 PMYou left what is 99.56% likely a major DUI haven and got nabbed for speeding. Seems pretty cut-n-dry what the not-unreasonable next steps would be.
You make a valid point that the vast majority of DUI arrests are made out of unrelated minor traffic stops. And, these aren't necessarily "leaner" DUI's. Some of them are people with extremely high BAC's and extreme impairment levels.
Quote from: bing_oh on December 08, 2009, 12:43:51 PM
I've got personal experience with knowing exactly what a .08 BAC feels like. You will never convince me it's ok to drive at that level.
Everyone who drinks knows what a .08 BAC feels like. It affects people differently. Some people are OK to drive at .08, others are not.
One thing is for sure: the majority of fatal alcohol-related accidents occur WELL over .08
.08 BAC is for pussies. I can drive with 8.0 BAC better than I can sober.
Quote from: bing_oh on December 08, 2009, 01:59:43 PM
BAC levels were passed into law based on medical evaluations and to remove most of the individual bias from DUI enforcement, to the benefit of the driver.
And they've been systematically eviscerated due to political pressure.
Quote from: Tave on December 08, 2009, 03:04:52 PMEveryone who drinks knows what a .08 BAC feels like. It affects people differently. Some people are OK to drive at .08, others are not.
One thing is for sure: the majority of fatal alcohol-related accidents occur WELL over .08
But they don't know what it feels like to be
at .08...in other words, people don't know it when they're at .08 because they don't have any way to measure BAC when they're drinking. I can associate a level of intoxication with a BAC because I've been monitored while drinking, something that your average drinker cannot do.
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.
Quote from: Tave on December 08, 2009, 03:09:33 PMAnd they've been systematically eviscerated due to political pressure.
Oh, comeon. Do you know why the SFST's didn't change when the BAC level was dropped from .10 to .08? Because the indicators of impairment are already there at .08.
Quote from: bing_oh on December 08, 2009, 03:12:58 PM
But they don't know what it feels like to be at .08...in other words, people don't know it when they're at .08 because they don't have any way to measure BAC when they're drinking. I can associate a level of intoxication with a BAC because I've been monitored while drinking, something that your average drinker cannot do.
Uh sorry, no. I can't even count the number of times I've seen BAC measuring devices handed out around bars and college campuses (often by MADD and the city police).
Quote from: bing_oh on December 08, 2009, 03:16:16 PM
Oh, comeon. Do you know why the SFST's didn't change when the BAC level was dropped from .10 to .08? Because the indicators of impairment are already there at .08.
The more important point is that the level never needed to change to .08, because the people at .10 weren't the ones causing the problem.
Quote from: bing_oh on December 08, 2009, 03:12:58 PM
I do not agree that BAC effects people all that differently.
Agree with whatever you want--it's an established medical fact that the effects of alcohol differ from person to person, according to a huge variety of factors.
Quote from: Tave on December 08, 2009, 03:30:17 PMUh sorry, no. I can't even count the number of times I've seen BAC measuring devices handed out around bars and college campuses (often by MADD and the city police).
Never heard of such a practice or seen it, even after 10 years in LE with some of it being in university policing. I'm still not sure the practical purpose...knowing the average bar crowd, I'd think that most patrons would be more interested in seeing how high their BAC can go rather than what they feel like in a controlled environment at as close to .08 BAC as possible. People partying at a bar aren't usually open to a learning experiecne in safe driving...
QuoteThe more important point is that the level never needed to change to .08, because the people at .10 weren't the ones causing the problem.
They aren't? If I may ask, how do you know this?
Quote from: bing_oh on December 08, 2009, 03:39:32 PM
Never heard of such a practice or seen it, even after 10 years in LE with some of it being in university policing. I'm still not sure the practical purpose...knowing the average bar crowd, I'd think that most patrons would be more interested in seeing how high their BAC can go rather than what they feel like in a controlled environment at as close to .08 BAC as possible. People partying at a bar aren't usually open to a learning experiecne in safe driving...
Regardless, they know what it feels like.
QuoteThey aren't? If I may ask, how do you know this?
Like I said, the majority of drunk-driving fatalities are high BACs.
There are actually several studies from around the world that advocate a lowering of the BAC level to under .08, with indications that there is a measurable effect on alcohol-related crashes. There are also associated laboratory studies that show that people are "significantly impaired" at a BAC of .05, with measurable effects on psychomotor skills, visual acuity, vigilance, drowsiness, and information processing.
http://www.icadts.org/T2004/pdfs/O54.pdf
Quote from: bing_oh on December 08, 2009, 03:51:19 PM
There are also associated laboratory studies that show that people are "significantly impaired" at a BAC of .05, with measurable effects on psychomotor skills, visual acuity, vigilance, drowsiness, and information processing.
I'm sure that I show "significant impairment" when I only got 6 hours of sleep the night before. I'm sure I show "significant impairment" after a fight with my girlfriend. That doesn't mean it should be illegal for me to drive to work, and it doesn't mean I'm going to cause an accident.
Hell, I'm sure driver A has worse motor skills than driver B even when both drivers are stone-cold sober.
Quote from: Tave on December 08, 2009, 03:48:54 PMLike I said, the majority of drunk-driving fatalities are high BACs.
Does that make a difference to the estimated 3767 people who died in 2008 in alcohol-related crashes involving people with a BAC of under a .15?
http://www.centurycouncil.org/learn-the-facts/drunk-driving-research
Alcohol has a measurable detriemntal effect on the skills necessary to operate a motor vehicle safely. How you can argue that fact is beyond me.
Quote from: Tave on December 08, 2009, 03:57:54 PMI'm sure that I show "significant impairment" when I only got 6 hours of sleep the night before. I'm sure I show "significant impairment" after a fight with my girlfriend. That doesn't mean it should be illegal for me to drive to work, and it doesn't mean I'm going to cause an accident.
What more do you want, exactly? I'm quoting multiple studies and accepted laboratory experiments that proves that alcohol measurably impairs driving skills.
Quote from: bing_oh on December 08, 2009, 04:00:02 PM
Does that make a difference to the estimated 3767 people who died in 2008 in alcohol-related crashes involving people with a BAC of under a .15?
http://www.centurycouncil.org/learn-the-facts/drunk-driving-research
Raw numbers mean relatively little.
Neither does the victim card. As if my friends and family have never been hurt by drunk driving.
QuoteAlcohol has a measurable detriemntal effect on the skills necessary to operate a motor vehicle safely. How you can argue that fact is beyond me.
:wtf:
All I'm saying is that the .08 is artificially low owing to political furor. I'm not arguing that alcohol consumption and driving is dangerous. I'm arguing AT WHAT POINT IS THE DANGER.
Per the website you posted, 70% of the fatalities in question involve a driver with a BAC over .15 :huh:
Quote from: bing_oh on December 08, 2009, 12:48:11 PM
This isn't about searching house-to-house for drug dealers, it's about checkpoints and DUI enforcement. The courts have ruled that checkpoints are a minimal intrusion, very different from searching your house, and are illegal if the intrusion is not minimal. That's why time limits on stops and contacts are strictly enforced at DUI checkpoints and there is a required "escape path" if someone doesn't want to go through the checkpoint.
As for a search of a vehice, you have every right to refuse a consentual search. But, understand that different rules apply to vehicle searches and there are established exceptions because of their mobile nature. An officer doesn't necessarily need a warrant to search a vehicle.
My understanding is that a search is legal, IF possible contraband is in plain sight. Otherwise, you have to consent to the search.
Quote from: bing_oh on December 08, 2009, 02:03:03 PM
Well, that kinda blows your theory about DUI and moneymaking out of the water, doesn't it? I mean, if the officer lied from the very beginning and about everything related to the stop, why not lie about you failing the tests and arrest you? After all, if it's all about the cash, then he totally failed because he didn't make a single thin dime off of you and your traffic stop.
Or, maybe you're just pissed off because you think you got stopped unjustly and put through SFST's and you've got a chip on your shoulder about it. And, maybe you don't like to hear the actual logical reasons why you were stopped and put through SFST's because it doesn't support that chip.
No it does not disprove anything. The officer followed me out of the bar. He pulled me over for speeding and never had any evidence to prove I was speeding to actually issue me a ticket. He lied about me looking intoxicated. When I passed all 3 of the tests he gave me, he became visibly upset that he wasted his time on me and told me to get lost it a terribly pissy attitude. I have a witness to the whole fiasco.
What that night did accomplish was that was the last time I ever and I mean EVER volunteered to be a designated driver. It does not pay to put your own neck on the line to keep your friends who like to get wasted safe apparently. Ironically myself and my best friend were the only two out of my group of friends who I actually trust to drive because the others are completely incompetent and now neither of us will drive anyone - I was almost nabbed and he was nabbed last year 2 blocks from his house driving a person home who was suppose to be a designated driver.
Since that single event, I have also never trusted my fate in the hands of a police officer no matter how proud I am to be a law abiding citizen as all it takes is 1 cop in a bad mood to crap all over your life.
my other experience was at a DUI checkpoint. i was at a late night movie. Got stopped at the checkpoint. The officer started questioning me and repeatedly did not believe I came from a movie theatre and got within a few inches of my face trying to smell my breathe. Had the nerve to ask me what the hell i was chewing gum for! He then proceeded to rather pissily check my license, registration, insurance, plates, inspection, headlights, tailights, turnsignals, and mother frikkin tire tread depth
Quote from: Tave on December 08, 2009, 03:04:52 PM
Everyone who drinks knows what a .08 BAC feels like. It affects people differently. Some people are OK to drive at .08, others are not.
Tave, is this a typo? Because no, I would say most people have no idea vis a vis the number vs. their condition. They haven't ever had a breathalizer.
Quote from: r0tor on December 08, 2009, 04:29:01 PM
my other experience was at a DUI checkpoint. i was at a late night movie. Got stopped at the checkpoint. The officer started questioning me and repeatedly did not believe I came from a movie theatre and got within a few inches of my face trying to smell my breathe. Had the nerve to ask me what the hell i was chewing gum for! He then proceeded to rather pissily check my license, registration, insurance, plates, inspection, headlights, tailights, turnsignals, and mother frikkin tire tread depth
Next time don't roll the window down all the way...and when asked...politely decline to roll it down any further.
My uncle was pulled over for speeding on I-580, by CHP. He only rolled the window down three or four inches. The LEO kept asking him to roll the window down further and my uncle kept saying he didn't see the need, he could hear him fine. The patrolman had to hand the ticket book through the small opening. When my uncle handed back over, he purposely dropped the pen out the window. It was quite a sight. At one point the officer kept asking him to get out and Jim kept asking if there was a problem requiring him to step onto the freeway where his life would be endangered by traffic.
It was frickin' hilarious. We had sense enough not to laugh in front of the officer though.
The most pissed I've ever seen an CHP was when my friend Bill received his speeding ticket. Bill owned a roofing business and still roofed with the guys when he was 70 years old. The patrolman handed him the ticket and said something...that's going to cost you 120 dollars. Bill laughed and said back, "Not me, the price of roofing just went up."
Quote from: Tave on December 08, 2009, 04:10:26 PMRaw numbers mean relatively little.
Neither does the victim card. As if my friends and family have never been hurt by drunk driving.
:wtf:
All I'm saying is that the .08 is artificially low owing to political furor. I'm not arguing that alcohol consumption and driving is dangerous. I'm arguing AT WHAT POINT IS THE DANGER.
Per the website you posted, 70% of the fatalities in question involve a driver with a BAC over .15 :huh:
Ok, since you don't like numbers, then should I just stick with my professional opinion and experience on the subject? I've got both sides of that equation covered, Tave...which one do you want me to express for ya?
Quote from: dsred on December 08, 2009, 04:41:29 PM
Tave, is this a typo? Because no, I would say most people have no idea vis a vis the number vs. their condition. They haven't ever had a breathalizer.
Do most people know? Probably not. Most of my friends have played with one.
Is Bing the sole authority on what it feels like? No he's not.
Quote from: JWC on December 08, 2009, 04:22:43 PMMy understanding is that a search is legal, IF possible contraband is in plain sight. Otherwise, you have to consent to the search.
Plain sight, plain smell, K9 hit, and inventory are all acceptable reasons to search a motor vehicle without consent. The court is much more liberal in giving LE leeway in searching a motor vehicle because of its mobile nature.
Quote from: bing_oh on December 08, 2009, 05:20:32 PM
Ok, since you don't like numbers, then should I just stick with my professional opinion and experience on the subject? I've got both sides of that equation covered, Tave...which one do you want me to express for ya?
I said "raw numbers."
I.e. "There were X deaths this year."
Quote from: Tave on December 08, 2009, 05:20:49 PMDo most people know? Probably not. Most of my friends have played with one.
Is Bing the sole authority on what it feels like? No he's not.
Never claimed I was the
sole authority. I can say with certainty that I have a very unique level of experience, given that I'm a trained and experienced LEO with extensive knowledge and understanding of DUI's and DUI enforcement, plus I'm a drinker who has achieved a .08 BAC in a controlled and tested environment. You'd be had pressed to find anyone on this board, besides maybe the other resident LEO's, with that level of experience and knowledge on the subject.
Quote from: Tave on December 08, 2009, 05:23:26 PMI said "raw numbers."
I.e. "There were X deaths this year."
I've given you pretty much everything there is out there, Tave. I've given you facts, scientific evidence, and professional experience. If you're unable to bring that all together, then it's really not my problem and there's little point in banging my head against the wall trying to prove anything to you on the subject. There's a difference between holding a personal opinion and hardheaded denial of the facts.
Quote from: bing_oh on December 08, 2009, 05:30:53 PM
I've given you pretty much everything there is out there, Tave. I've given you facts, scientific evidence, and professional experience. If you're unable to bring that all together, then it's really not my problem and there's little point in banging my head against the wall trying to prove anything to you on the subject. There's a difference between holding a personal opinion and hardheaded denial of the facts.
No, you've repeatedly ignored the most important fact relevant to my assertion.
70% of drunk driving fatalities involve a driver with a BAC over .15
Ergo, the drivers at .08 are not the problem.
Quote from: JWC on December 08, 2009, 04:52:22 PMNext time don't roll the window down all the way...and when asked...politely decline to roll it down any further.
My uncle was pulled over for speeding on I-580, by CHP. He only rolled the window down three or four inches. The LEO kept asking him to roll the window down further and my uncle kept saying he didn't see the need, he could hear him fine. The patrolman had to hand the ticket book through the small opening. When my uncle handed back over, he purposely dropped the pen out the window. It was quite a sight. At one point the officer kept asking him to get out and Jim kept asking if there was a problem requiring him to step onto the freeway where his life would be endangered by traffic.
That's an old tactic for drunks, and one that could easily get you in alot more trouble than just a traffic ticket. If you do something that impedes my ability to perform my duties, then you could get arrested for Obstructing Official Business.
Quote from: Tave on December 08, 2009, 05:33:34 PMNo, you've repeatedly ignored the most important fact relevant to my assertion.
70% of drunk driving fatalities involve a driver with a BAC over .15
Ergo, the drivers at .08 are not the problem.
And 30% are under a .15 BAC. That's still a problem. Or do those 30% of deaths not matter?
Quote from: bing_oh on December 08, 2009, 05:27:51 PM
Never claimed I was the sole authority.
You claimed that you knew what it felt like to be at .08 and drinkers don't.
In fact I know what it feels like, and I know other people who know what it feels like too.
Quote from: Tave on December 08, 2009, 05:35:13 PMYou claimed that you knew what it felt like to be at .08 and drinkers don't.
In fact I know what it feels like, and I know other people who know what it feels like too.
The vast majority of drinkers don't.
Quote from: Tave on December 08, 2009, 05:20:49 PMDo most people know? Probably not. Most of my friends have played with one.
In your own words, you agreed with me! And, depending on how controlled the setting you "played with one" was, the degree of your and your friends' knowledge on the subject is rather suspect.
Quote from: bing_oh on December 08, 2009, 05:35:01 PM
And 30% are under a .15 BAC. That's still a problem. Or do those 30% of deaths not matter?
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?
It seems obvious to me that people with BACs over .15 are causing the problem, but fine, let's accept your premise: why stop at .08? Why not just arrest anyone that has any alcohol in their bloodstream? After all, drivers with .01 BACs might be involved in 1% of fatal accidents...
Quote from: bing_oh on December 08, 2009, 05:33:48 PM
If you do something that impedes my ability to perform my duties, then you could get arrested for Obstructing Official Business.
i love the attitude... i only hope one day your on the wrong end to see what it feels like. but of course like most cops, you'll just flash the badge and let it all slide under the table :rolleyes:
Quote from: r0tor on December 08, 2009, 05:41:35 PMi love the attitude... i only hope one day your on the wrong end to see what it feels like. but of course like most cops, you'll just flash the badge and let it all slide under the table :rolleyes:
In 10 years, I've never once flashed my badge during a stop.
NEVER. I don't abuse my position, and I'm, quite franky, insulted by your implication that I do or would.
Have a nice evening, Rotor. I'm done with your pissy little attitude.
have a good night
Quote from: Tave on December 08, 2009, 05:41:17 PMI 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?
And we both know that statistics that detailed aren't going to be readily available. And, if they were, it would be a mountain of data that you'd have to dig through and sort.
QuoteIt seems obvious to me that people with BACs over .15 are causing the problem, but fine, let's accept your premise: why stop at .08? Why not just arrest anyone that has any alcohol in their bloodstream? After all, drivers with .01 BACs might be involved in 1% of fatal accidents...
That's not my decision to make. That's the decision of our elected representatives. There's obviously data that supports an even lower per se level (as I quoted eariler), but you have to obviously measure the benefit of a further lowering of the BAC vs. the freedoms of the individual. Personally, I think that the .08 is an excellent compromise between safety and freedom.
Quote from: bing_oh on December 08, 2009, 05:51:33 PM
There's obviously data that supports an even lower per se level (as I quoted eariler), but you have to obviously measure the benefit of a further lowering of the BAC vs. the freedoms of the individual. Personally, I think that the .08 is an excellent compromise between safety and freedom.
And that's exactly what people said when the limit was higher. It used to be .15 in some places and people thought that was an excellent compromise. Then it was .10 and people thought that was an excellent compromise. Now it's .08 and people think this is an excellent compromise.
What changed? The science didn't, at least not
that much. Drunk drivers with high BACs still cause the most accidents. People are still impaired at the same rate.
The political atmosphere surrounding drunk driving changed, hence my statement, "[BAC has] been systematically eviscerated due to political pressure."
So as the political juggernaut of MADD and similar groups continue to roll forward, and the topic becomes even more of a pariah and honest discussion is stifled, where does it stop?
Quote from: bing_oh on December 07, 2009, 03:36:20 PM
You can argue the question of profiting from traffic enforcement all day, but I don't see how you can argue that any kind of DUI enforcement effort is focused on anything but safety. DUI checkpoints, controversial as they may be, are effective in catching drunk drivers.
Around here, they'll usually bust MAYBE one drunk driver and something like 50 others for burnt out headlights, expired reg., all that stuff. Not that you should be driving around with burnt out lights and expired reg., but it seems like these checkpoints seem to catch everything BUT drunk people. When I worked for the paper we got all of the stats on this stuff and it seemed like it was rare that anyone was actually caught drunk in these things. Nonmoving violations, of course, go to the local municipality in New Jersey, so they make out pretty well on fines from checkpoints. Departments in this area only do checkpoints if they're given a state/fed grant, so it's pretty much just OT for off-duty guys paid from the grant money.
I've always argued that the grant money/manpower used for checkpoints should simply be put into extra patrols. Bing, maybe you can comment on this, but it would seem to me that having a marked or unmarked unit actually patrolling could detect impaired drivers to a better extent than taking a random sampling on one lane of one roadway.
Quote from: JWC on December 08, 2009, 10:49:45 AM
I told my daughter that if she gets pulled over, politely...very politely...refuse any request to search the car. If she is asked to get out, remove the keys and lock the door. If the officer wants to search a locked car, he can get a warrant....and she needs to call me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_v._Ohio
Bing's right.
Quote from: bing_oh on December 08, 2009, 12:48:11 PM
That's why time limits on stops and contacts are strictly enforced at DUI checkpoints and there is a required "escape path" if someone doesn't want to go through the checkpoint.
I had one officer once tell me they usually catch more drunk drivers on nearby streets than at the checkpoint itself because everyone who's impaired tries to avoid the checkpoints and gets lost on some of the other local streets. :lol:
Quote from: r0tor on December 08, 2009, 01:30:06 PM
This thread has fueled so much anti-cop rage inside me that I never had before...
Shouldn't your problem be with the courts that have allowed checkpoints in the first place? And FWIW, even if you're .09 but "driving just fine" and you get into an accident (even if YOU didn't cause it!) you're going to be sued up the azz and you'll be fined and arrested anyway. Why take the chance in the first place?
Quote from: r0tor on December 08, 2009, 01:58:43 PM
My recent infraction was due to a grant the department received to improve "traffic safety" on a stretch of road and as I'm told by an officer on the force had a quota attached to it
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.
Quote from: Tave on December 08, 2009, 03:57:54 PM
I'm sure that I show "significant impairment" when I only got 6 hours of sleep the night before. I'm sure I show "significant impairment" after a fight with my girlfriend. That doesn't mean it should be illegal for me to drive to work, and it doesn't mean I'm going to cause an accident.
?We do not realize how large a part of our law is open to reconsideration upon a slight change in the habit of the public mind.?
Oliver Wendell Holmes, The Path of the Law (1897).
If some interested group wanted to make an issue out of it, I'm sure tired driving could become just as illegal as drunk driving.
Quote from: TurboDan on December 08, 2009, 06:06:50 PMAround here, they'll usually bust MAYBE one drunk driver and something like 50 others for burnt out headlights, expired reg., all that stuff. Not that you should be driving around with burnt out lights and expired reg., but it seems like these checkpoints seem to catch everything BUT drunk people. When I worked for the paper we got all of the stats on this stuff and it seemed like it was rare that anyone was actually caught drunk in these things. Nonmoving violations, of course, go to the local municipality in New Jersey, so they make out pretty well on fines from checkpoints. Departments in this area only do checkpoints if they're given a state/fed grant, so it's pretty much just OT for off-duty guys paid from the grant money.
I've always argued that the grant money/manpower used for checkpoints should simply be put into extra patrols. Bing, maybe you can comment on this, but it would seem to me that having a marked or unmarked unit actually patrolling could detect impaired drivers to a better extent than taking a random sampling on one lane of one roadway.
Quote from: TurboDan on December 08, 2009, 06:15:06 PMI had one officer once tell me they usually catch more drunk drivers on nearby streets than at the checkpoint itself because everyone who's impaired tries to avoid the checkpoints and gets lost on some of the other local streets. :lol:
It's true that, usually, the saturation patrol officers (those assigned to streets surrounding the checkpoint who stop for various violations looking for drunks avoiding the checkpoint) are usually the ones with the most DUI arrests. Realistically, they're actually part of the checkpoint...their arrests are usually compiled into the general stats for the checkpoint. The checkpoints themselves get relatively few DUI's. They are, however, a very visible way to make a public statement about proactive DUI enforcement. And, in the end, most of us in LE would rather deter a drunk from driving rather than catch one after the get behind the wheel.
As for the most effective use of grant money, DUI checkpoints are rather effective. As I said, it's rarely the checkpoint that gets the drunks but the officers working the surrounding streets, but the checkpoint does have something to do with catching those drunks who are intentionally avoiding the cehckpoint. We also use grant money for general DUI/traffic patrol, frequently around the big holidays. Which is
more effective? That's really tough to say. I think that both do the job and do it well, though the logistics of the checkpoint make them much more difficult to do...which also makes them very popular with the media, meaning that we're succeeding more in the deterrence area.
Quote from: MaxPower on December 08, 2009, 06:28:17 PM“We do not realize how large a part of our law is open to reconsideration upon a slight change in the habit of the public mind.”
Oliver Wendell Holmes, The Path of the Law (1897).
If some interested group wanted to make an issue out of it, I'm sure tired driving could become just as illegal as drunk driving.
For certain groups, it is. Commerical drivers have very strict limits on how long they're allowed to drive between mandatory rest breaks. Realistically, I suppose laws already on the books could be used to punish tired drivers. I'd suspect the Willful and Wanton Disregard of Safety (aka, Reckless Op) could be applied to a tired driver if he/she showed clear signs that being tired was impairing their ability to safely operate a motor vehicle.
Quote from: TurboDan on December 08, 2009, 06:20:21 PMGrants 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.
All grants would require a proof of contact, since any funding to a government agency is subject to an audit. A PD has to be able to show where the grant money was spent or risk having to pay the money back or even face a criminal investigation if there's an indication that the money was misapproprated.
Quote from: bing_oh on December 08, 2009, 06:35:51 PM
For certain groups, it is. Commerical drivers have very strict limits on how long they're allowed to drive between mandatory rest breaks. Realistically, I suppose laws already on the books could be used to punish tired drivers. I'd suspect the Willful and Wanton Disregard of Safety (aka, Reckless Op) could be applied to a tired driver if he/she showed clear signs that being tired was impairing their ability to safely operate a motor vehicle.
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! :confused:
Somewhat on subject, bing, what's the highest suspect BAC you've ever had?
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
Quote from: MaxPower on December 08, 2009, 07:05:57 PMYeah, 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! :confused:
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.
Quote from: TurboDan on December 08, 2009, 07:20:26 PMPerhaps 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.
Quote from: bing_oh on December 08, 2009, 07:29:07 PM
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!
Quote from: J86 on December 08, 2009, 07:32:45 PM
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. :ohyeah:
Quote from: bing_oh on December 08, 2009, 03:12:58 PM
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.
Quote from: bing_oh on December 08, 2009, 07:26:41 PM
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'... ;)
Quote from: Tave on December 08, 2009, 05:41:17 PM
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.
Quote from: bing_oh on December 08, 2009, 05:35:01 PM
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?
Quote from: bing_oh on December 08, 2009, 06:35:51 PM
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?
Quote from: James Young on December 08, 2009, 09:29:16 PM
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.
Quote from: TurboDan on December 08, 2009, 09:57:34 PM
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.
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?
Dan: Yes, NM uses ignition interlocks of several differnt types. Each one must be purchased and installed by a convicted defendant.
"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.
Quote from: Psilos on December 08, 2009, 09:07:04 PMExactly.
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.
Quote from: James Young on December 08, 2009, 09:22:36 PMWrong 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.
Quote from: James Young on December 08, 2009, 10:19:05 PMI 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.
Quote from: TurboDan on December 08, 2009, 06:20:21 PM
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)
Quote from: GoCougs on December 09, 2009, 02:37:31 AM
"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.
Quote from: GoCougs on December 09, 2009, 02:37:31 AM
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
Quote from: r0tor on December 09, 2009, 11:23:37 AM
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. :rolleyes:
Quote from: NomisR on December 09, 2009, 11:13:06 AM
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.
You missed half of that sentence.
Quote from: r0tor on December 09, 2009, 11:23:37 AM
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.
Quote from: GoCougs on December 09, 2009, 01:54:46 PM
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?
Quote from: NomisR on December 09, 2009, 02:13:45 PM
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.
Quote from: GoCougs on December 09, 2009, 02:32:24 PM
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
QuoteSecond, 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.
Quote from: Tave on December 09, 2009, 02:47:55 PMBut 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.
Quote from: Tave on December 09, 2009, 02:47:55 PM
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.
Quote from: bing_oh on December 09, 2009, 03:39:43 PM
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.
QuoteIf 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.
Quote from: GoCougs on December 09, 2009, 03:43:54 PM
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.
Quote from: GoCougs on December 09, 2009, 03:43:54 PM
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...
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.
Quote from: GoCougs on December 09, 2009, 01:54:46 PM
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.
Quote from: bing_oh on December 09, 2009, 03:15:37 AM
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.
I say first offense you get an interlock for the next 3 years. Next offense is a mandatory 3 year license suspension.
Quote from: Psilos on December 09, 2009, 07:51:00 PM
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.
I'd like to amend my suggestion.
5-year interlock after 1st offense, 10-year after second, lifetime after third.
Quote from: Tave on December 09, 2009, 09:24:47 PM
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? :huh:
Quote from: TurboDan on December 09, 2009, 09:27:13 PM
What happens when they drive someone else's car? :huh:
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.
Quote from: r0tor on December 09, 2009, 04:13:27 PM
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.
Quote from: TurboDan on December 09, 2009, 09:17:32 PMIn 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.
Quote from: Tave on December 09, 2009, 09:31:54 PMYou 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?
Well if they have the interlock, they can't drive their car w/ a suspended license anyway.
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.
Quote from: GoCougs on December 10, 2009, 02:47:43 AM
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.
Quote from: Tave on December 10, 2009, 01:27:54 PM
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.
Quote from: MaxPower on December 10, 2009, 01:41:11 PM
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"
Quote from: NomisR on December 10, 2009, 01:40:14 PM
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.
Quote from: GoCougs on December 10, 2009, 02:22:07 PM
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..
Quote from: bing_oh on December 10, 2009, 06:28:55 AM
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.
Quote from: Psilos on December 10, 2009, 09:06:10 PM
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...
Quote from: NomisR on December 10, 2009, 02:48:56 PM
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.
Quote from: GoCougs on December 11, 2009, 02:10:49 AM
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.
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 :lol:
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. ;)
Quote from: mzziaz on December 11, 2009, 04:29:24 AM
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
QuoteFines 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.
QuoteTo 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.
Quote from: Tave on December 11, 2009, 05:03:21 AM
A typical DUI (first offense) in the States costs over $10,000.
Oh really? I wasn't aware of that.
That's including fines, attorney costs, court fees, (maybe the increase in insurance rates) etc...
Quote from: Tave on December 11, 2009, 05:25:58 AM
That's including fines, attorney costs, court fees, (maybe the increase in insurance rates) etc...
OK. But how large is the actual fine?
Quote from: mzziaz on December 11, 2009, 05:28:33 AM
OK. But how large is the actual fine?
I'm not exactly sure. 2-5 grand maybe?
Quote from: mzziaz on December 11, 2009, 05:28:33 AM
OK. But how large is the actual fine?
Very dependent on where you're located, geographically.
Quote from: Tave on December 11, 2009, 05:03:21 AMA typical DUI (first offense) in the States costs over $10,000.
Quote from: Tave on December 11, 2009, 05:31:30 AMI'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!
I don't know how much lawyers charge for DWI cases, but $10K seems wayyyy over the top. New Jersey's fines are about $500 for first time, but then they add a bunch of surcharges on that jacks it up to about $2-3K. In New Jersey, however, nobody walks away from a first-time offense without a license suspension. BAC .08-.10 is a 3-month suspension and above .10 is 7-month suspension. That is mandatory as it's written in the statute and there's no way anyone walks away without a suspension of some sort.
While I know a lot of people in LE may disagree with me, I don't like how some of these laws have been applied in New Jersey. We've had a number of lame DWI arrests, including people on lawn mowers who were on the sidewalk rather than their own grass, kayakers/canoers and the infamous offense of "sleeping one off" in your car and getting hooked up for DWI. I know a girl personally who was sleeping in her car after a party and got arrested. Engine was off, but she was sleeping in the driver's seat. In New Jersey, if you are in the back seat and toss the keys so they're not within reach, you'll beat the rap, but if you're in the driver's seat and have ready access, you're going to jail.
Also, we've talked about this before but... there IS a law in New Jersey that says one CAN be charged with DWI if you are drunk while sitting in a tube being pulled by a motor vehicle (a boat). According to the NJSP Marine Division Sgt. I asked about this, he knows of nobody who's ever been arrested for it, but it's on the books. In all honesty, I think I kind of alerted him to the law when I asked the question. There was probably some drunk azzwipe this summer who mouthed off to an officer while in his tube and got hauled in for it. :lol:
Quote from: bing_oh on December 11, 2009, 10:38:45 AM
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.
Arizona: $1,460 in fines for the first offense, plus interlock charge, plus lawyer, plus increase in insurance (plus minimum 1-10 days in jail plus 3 month-year license suspension), plus cost of probation, plus lost wages, plus anything else I'm not thinking of.
http://dui.drivinglaws.org/arizona.php (http://dui.drivinglaws.org/arizona.php)
Arizona first DUI (extreme): $3,400 fine
QuoteI'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!
:huh: OK
Most of the people I know who've had a DUI said it cost them a couple grand to the court alone, plus all the extra stuff.
Quote from: GoCougs on December 11, 2009, 02:11:44 AM
Nah - drunks don't only drink in bars; they do most of their drinking at home.
Drunks stay home? You mean in Nagoya, there's no business culture of going to dinner and drink, and then going to bars to drink.. and then going to karoekes to drink more till late at night? I guess it's different from the rest of Japan then..
Quote from: Tave on December 11, 2009, 11:42:41 AMArizona: $1,460 in fines for the first offense, plus interlock charge, plus lawyer, plus increase in insurance (plus minimum 1-10 days in jail plus 3 month-year license suspension), plus cost of probation, plus anything else I'm not thinking of.
http://dui.drivinglaws.org/arizona.php (http://dui.drivinglaws.org/arizona.php)
The interlock isn't a given, nor are the lawyer costs considering you're quoting the full cost in Arizona. And, I can say with certainty that Arizona appears to have a rather high fine rate for DUI's.
Quote:huh: OK
Most of the people I know who've had a DUI said it cost them a couple grand to the court alone, plus all the extra stuff.
Well, I can say that it's definitely not that way in my area. I get the dispositions from all the DUI's I arrest, which include the full cost to the court, and I can't recall even seeing one over a few hundred dollars.
Quote from: TurboDan on December 11, 2009, 11:26:57 AMWhile I know a lot of people in LE may disagree with me, I don't like how some of these laws have been applied in New Jersey. We've had a number of lame DWI arrests, including people on lawn mowers who were on the sidewalk rather than their own grass, kayakers/canoers and the infamous offense of "sleeping one off" in your car and getting hooked up for DWI. I know a girl personally who was sleeping in her car after a party and got arrested. Engine was off, but she was sleeping in the driver's seat. In New Jersey, if you are in the back seat and toss the keys so they're not within reach, you'll beat the rap, but if you're in the driver's seat and have ready access, you're going to jail.
Ohio DUI law was rewritten awhile back to include non-motorized vehicles. While it sounds ludecrous to include bicycles and rollerblades in DUI laws, it really does make sense after you see a drunk peddling down the middle of a busy roadway doing his best to cause as many crashes as he can. I've also seen people on lawnmowers and motorized wheelchairs who were intoxicated and causing a serious hazard on the road.
As for the people "sleeping it off" in their cars, we have a separate statute for that in Ohio...physical control. The penalties aren't as strict as they are for DUI. Again, the law is there for a legitimate reason...drunks who "sleep it off" in their vehicles usually do so for a couple hours at the most, not long enough to actually be legal to drive. So, physical control is more of a preventative law to discourage people from taking a catnap in their cars after a long night of drinking and then driving away thinking that they're good to go.
Quote from: bing_oh on December 11, 2009, 12:03:38 PM
Ohio DUI law was rewritten awhile back to include non-motorized vehicles. While it sounds ludecrous to include bicycles and rollerblades in DUI laws, it really does make sense after you see a drunk peddling down the middle of a busy roadway doing his best to cause as many crashes as he can. I've also seen people on lawnmowers and motorized wheelchairs who were intoxicated and causing a serious hazard on the road.
As for the people "sleeping it off" in their cars, we have a separate statute for that in Ohio...physical control. The penalties aren't as strict as they are for DUI. Again, the law is there for a legitimate reason...drunks who "sleep it off" in their vehicles usually do so for a couple hours at the most, not long enough to actually be legal to drive. So, physical control is more of a preventative law to discourage people from taking a catnap in their cars after a long night of drinking and then driving away thinking that they're good to go.
But wouldn't a a few hours between the last drink typically make the person more in control compared to immediately after the drink as the body processes some of the alcohol already?
Quote from: bing_oh on December 11, 2009, 10:38:45 AM
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!
Never looked into it, but the Ontario County Sheriff's Department (NY) ran billboards last year claiming a DUI would cost you $10 grand. Never read the fine print...
Quote from: J86 on December 11, 2009, 01:16:02 PM
Never looked into it, but the Ontario County Sheriff's Department (NY) ran billboards last year claiming a DUI would cost you $10 grand. Never read the fine print...
Scare tactics aimed at idiots, unless their fines are really high. I deal with it weekly - $500 fine plus 20% surcharge. DUI defense is so common I'm sure its a fixed fee, and I'm guessing that it's around $5k to take it all the way through trial. But, for most first offenses, what the hell is a lawyer really going to do for you? Unless you're a criminal already you're probably going to get the mandatory minimum on your own. It's a waste of money. Cops don't screw up that often.
Quote from: MaxPower on December 11, 2009, 01:20:11 PM
Scare tactics aimed at idiots, unless their fines are really high. I deal with it weekly - $500 fine plus 20% surcharge. DUI defense is so common I'm sure its a fixed fee, and I'm guessing that it's around $5k to take it all the way through trial. But, for most first offenses, what the hell is a lawyer really going to do for you? Unless you're a criminal already you're probably going to get the mandatory minimum on your own. It's a waste of money. Cops don't screw up that often.
Ever think of calling a cab? :lol:
Quote from: NACar on December 11, 2009, 01:22:09 PM
Ever think of calling a cab? :lol:
nah, its more fun my way :partyon:
Quote from: MaxPower on December 11, 2009, 01:30:15 PM
nah, its more fun my way :partyon:
[propaganda]
If you drink, guard rails will jump out in front of your car and do this:
(http://passaicnews.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/drunk-driver.jpg)
[/propaganda]
Is that an Aveo?
Quote from: MaxPower on December 11, 2009, 01:20:11 PM
Scare tactics aimed at idiots, unless their fines are really high. I deal with it weekly - $500 fine plus 20% surcharge. DUI defense is so common I'm sure its a fixed fee, and I'm guessing that it's around $5k to take it all the way through trial. But, for most first offenses, what the hell is a lawyer really going to do for you? Unless you're a criminal already you're probably going to get the mandatory minimum on your own. It's a waste of money. Cops don't screw up that often.
I'm sure you're right, just figured they had some way to ratchet the cost up if they wanted to...
Quote from: NACar on December 11, 2009, 01:34:05 PM
[propaganda]
If you drink, guard rails will jump out in front of your car and do this:
(http://passaicnews.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/drunk-driver.jpg)
[/propaganda]
How do we know that was not a driver who fell asleep and ran off the road?
Quote from: James Young on December 11, 2009, 07:22:27 PM
How do we know that was not a driver who fell asleep and ran off the road?
Because the guard rail jumped out in front of them. It could have happened to anybody.
Quote from: bing_oh on December 11, 2009, 12:03:38 PM
Ohio DUI law was rewritten awhile back to include non-motorized vehicles. While it sounds ludecrous to include bicycles and rollerblades in DUI laws, it really does make sense after you see a drunk peddling down the middle of a busy roadway doing his best to cause as many crashes as he can. I've also seen people on lawnmowers and motorized wheelchairs who were intoxicated and causing a serious hazard on the road.
As for the people "sleeping it off" in their cars, we have a separate statute for that in Ohio...physical control. The penalties aren't as strict as they are for DUI. Again, the law is there for a legitimate reason...drunks who "sleep it off" in their vehicles usually do so for a couple hours at the most, not long enough to actually be legal to drive. So, physical control is more of a preventative law to discourage people from taking a catnap in their cars after a long night of drinking and then driving away thinking that they're good to go.
Makes sense. I do agree on the bicycles. As long as you're not acting completely stupid, I doubt many LEOs in this area would waste their time with it. But if you're peddling down a main road and weaving in and out of lanes of traffic with cars zipping by, all bets are off. As for the lawnmowers, I'm not sure WHY one would be driving their lawnmower in a public street, but if they're causing a danger it seems reasonable to lock them up. Now... I'll never give you the "guy being pulled in a tube" one, though. :lol:
I definitely understand the "sleeping it off" one as well. It's legit, and there's no way to tell who honestly would stay in their vehicle all night and who would take off in a few hours. Still, it must really suck to get hooked for DWI when you weren't actually driving a vehicle. :devil: But from what I understand, if someone is in this position, laying in the back and tossing the keys somewhere outside the vehicle is the best bet.
Effectively, ALL of these problems could simply be solved by calling a cab.... but whatever.
as my friend who got caught at a .09BAC... the fine was ~$300 and the ADR program was ~$1500 plus add in some lawyer fees and lost work
Quote from: NomisR on December 11, 2009, 12:07:29 PMBut wouldn't a a few hours between the last drink typically make the person more in control compared to immediately after the drink as the body processes some of the alcohol already?
That depends on how long afterwards. For a period afterwards, youd BAC actually increases as the alcohol is absorbed through the stomach and small intestines and enters the bloodstream. Eventually, your BAC will start to drop, but it drops at a pretty consistant rate of .015 BAC per hour for someone with a normal liver function. That's not a very quick drop in BAC and it could take some time to get below the legal limit, especially if the person is drunk enough to want to "sleep it off" in their vehicle before driving.
Quote from: TurboDan on December 11, 2009, 11:26:57 AM
While I know a lot of people in LE may disagree with me, I don't like how some of these laws have been applied in New Jersey. We've had a number of lame DWI arrests, including people on lawn mowers who were on the sidewalk rather than their own grass, kayakers/canoers and the infamous offense of "sleeping one off" in your car and getting hooked up for DWI. I know a girl personally who was sleeping in her car after a party and got arrested. Engine was off, but she was sleeping in the driver's seat. In New Jersey, if you are in the back seat and toss the keys so they're not within reach, you'll beat the rap, but if you're in the driver's seat and have ready access, you're going to jail.
That does raise an interesting question as to the legal definition of 'driver'. There was a unique case here earlier in the year:
SOUTH Australian judge has grappled with legal precedents of what makes a person a driver in deciding that a passenger, found guilty by a magistrate of driving offences after an unusual car accident, should be acquitted.
Adelaide man Lee Harvey went to the Supreme Court this month to appeal against being found guilty of drink driving, driving while disqualified, driving an uninsured motor vehicle and driving an unregistered vehicle.
The court heard Mr Harvey was the front-seat passenger of a car, driven by a friend, that had stopped at a petrol station in Morphett Vale, in Adelaide's south, in May last year.
While the friend was paying for fuel, Mr Harvey, while still wearing his seat belt, leaned over to close the driver's door and tried to turn the radio on.
But he turned the key too far and the car, a Fiesta, which was in gear, jerked forward and started moving slowly, causing Mr Harvey to panic and take the wheel to try to steer away from the service station shop.
The car hit the metal frame of the console operator's window. Judge Richard White was asked to decide whether Mr Harvey was actually driving.
He said in his recently delivered judgment that while the word "drive" and related words were commonly used, "the courts have not been able to develop a single test with which to determine whether a person was driving a vehicle".
He canvassed cases that included steering a vehicle while being towed; a passenger with hands on the steering wheel and who could reach the clutch and brake; a person guiding a motorbike down a hill without its motor running while sitting side-saddle; and someone pushing a motorbike and getting on and off while trying a jump start.
Justice White said while Mr Harvey had exercised some control on the vehicle, he remained seat-belted in the passenger seat and could not operate the clutch, footbrake or accelerator: "In these circumstances it does not seem apt, using the ordinary meaning of the word 'drive', to describe the appellant as the driver of the Fiesta."
Justice White directed that Mr Harvey be acquitted of the charges
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/legal-affairs/driver-in-passenger-seat-acquitted/story-e6frg97x-1225781382352 (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/legal-affairs/driver-in-passenger-seat-acquitted/story-e6frg97x-1225781382352)