Drunk Driving on LI (Wantagh, Bayville: renting, limo, weddings)

[hotkarl]

Memorial Day weekend the cops had the road closed off for a bit down by the bars/clubs in Island Park, I don't how many of you are familiar with that strip, but it includes Montego Bay, Paddy Mcgee's, Coyote Grill, Bridgeview, etc...
It is a zoo down there throughout the summer, like living an episode of Cops from Mardi Gras. Drunken goofballs just wandering aimlessly through the streets going from place to place.

Anyway, it was good to see the cops with the roadblock checking for drunktards trying to drive home plastered. The cops do this frequently down there.

[Peter B]

That's all well & good. The cops are visible which is what the taxpayers want to see. Problem is, for each drunk driver they arrest. At least 5, if not more get through their "checkpoints" unscathed.

Originally Posted by hotkarl

Memorial Day weekend the cops had the road closed off for a bit down by the bars/clubs in Island Park, I don't how many of you are familiar with that strip, but it includes Montego Bay, Paddy Mcgee's, Coyote Grill, Bridgeview, etc...
It is a zoo down there throughout the summer, like living an episode of Cops from Mardi Gras. Drunken goofballs just wandering aimlessly through the streets going from place to place.

Anyway, it was good to see the cops with the roadblock checking for drunktards trying to drive home plastered. The cops do this frequently down there.

[Crookhaven]

Originally Posted by I_Love_LI_but

I like it! The only problem I can see is that typically dirtbags who are substance abusers don't register or own cars in their own name because they don't want to pay the high insurance that comes with their driving record. They get a wimpy relative or significant other who doesn't care who gets killed out there on the road to do it and enable them. Although the DWI demarcation could be put on the car USED when the DWI offender is caught for the 2nd DWI, regardless of who it is registered under.

Anyone who enables drunk drivers by letting them use their cars are also just as guilty of endangering the public.

Its not that hard.

If they are caught driving another vehicle....they go to jail for max term of 2nd DWI.

The do it with the breathalyzers.

We gotta have true zero tolerace,

Crooks

[WIHS2006]

We also need to do away with this crap of only checking one out of every five drivers. In Europe, Canada, Australia, Asia, etc they check each and every driver at a checkpoint. I once talked to an Australian cop who was shocked that we only check one out of every five drivers at a checkpoint.

Checkpoints of various sorts seem to be much more common outside the US.

[Interlude]

Originally Posted by djdairyp

Amazed at the relatively lower level of total fatalities in NY comparatively

Mass transit is a wonderful thing. NY's largest population center doesn't even need to drive.

[Interlude]

Originally Posted by Crookhaven

If they are caught driving another vehicle....they go to jail for max term of 2nd DWI.

Our prisons are already overflowing. Where do you want to put these people?

We gotta have true zero tolerace,
Crooks

Zero tolerance = alcoholics will still drive drunk, but will now get into high-speed car chases to avoid being pulled over, will leave the scene of an accident that they cause, or might avoid seeking medical treatment when injured. If you take away their license, they'll just drive without one.

The "one size fits all" and "hang 'em from the highest tree" mentality that dominates current anti-DWI strategies does not fairly accommodate the diversity of circumstances involved with DWI convictions. A high risk, accident-prone, repeat offender may view a DWI conviction as one of life's little inconveniences and a chance to live off the county for 30 days. Conversely, a well-educated, successful employee and family man might lose his job, future employment opportunities, and reputation for a one-time technical violation of a BAC standard based on politics and platitudes.

The standard retort to any of the aforementioned concerns is "don't drink and drive and you won't suffer these consequences." This is comparable to saying "if you don't want to get speeding tickets, don't drive over the speed limit."

Any law or regulation aimed at human activity must have an element of reasonableness. It must recognize that there are always competing motivations that dictate human behavior.

Most people drive to reach a destination. The purpose of that destination may be work, family responsibilities, maintenance tasks, socializing, or recreation.

In our society (as in most societies), the vast majority of the adult population consumes beverages containing alcohol. If this is at the destination end of their trip, they will inevitably be returning with some amount of alcohol in their systems. In modest amounts, this rarely causes a problem or safety risk to others. Most people recognize this and act accordingly, in a responsible manner.

A zero tolerance approach to drinking and driving will not work. Moreover, it will expose motorists to a rash of officially sanctioned abuses that will exceed any of those we currently endure.

[jt in dale]

Originally Posted by Interlude

Our prisons are already overflowing. Where do you want to put these people?Zero tolerance = alcoholics will still drive drunk, but will now get into high-speed car chases to avoid being pulled over, will leave the scene of an accident that they cause, or might avoid seeking medical treatment when injured. If you take away their license, they'll just drive without one.

The "one size fits all" and "hang 'em from the highest tree" mentality that dominates current anti-DWI strategies does not fairly accommodate the diversity of circumstances involved with DWI convictions. A high risk, accident-prone, repeat offender may view a DWI conviction as one of life's little inconveniences and a chance to live off the county for 30 days. Conversely, a well-educated, successful employee and family man might lose his job, future employment opportunities, and reputation for a one-time technical violation of a BAC standard based on politics and platitudes.

The standard retort to any of the aforementioned concerns is "don't drink and drive and you won't suffer these consequences." This is comparable to saying "if you don't want to get speeding tickets, don't drive over the speed limit."

Any law or regulation aimed at human activity must have an element of reasonableness. It must recognize that there are always competing motivations that dictate human behavior.

Most people drive to reach a destination. The purpose of that destination may be work, family responsibilities, maintenance tasks, socializing, or recreation.

In our society (as in most societies), the vast majority of the adult population consumes beverages containing alcohol. If this is at the destination end of their trip, they will inevitably be returning with some amount of alcohol in their systems. In modest amounts, this rarely causes a problem or safety risk to others. Most people recognize this and act accordingly, in a responsible manner.

A zero tolerance approach to drinking and driving will not work. Moreover, it will expose motorists to a rash of officially sanctioned abuses that will exceed any of those we currently endure.

I agree with just about everything you said except for the zero tolerance for those under 21. If they are younger than 21, they should not have one drop of alcohol and get behind the wheel. I do not think they should be branded for life though, and therefore if their original BAC was less than .08 and they keep their record clean when they turn 21 their record could be expunged.

I do agree with you though that these nut jobs asking for the death penalty for those who have been DWI are insane and I'm glad they are not in charge. DWI is serious, but at the end of the day each case is unique and cannot be handled with a one-size fits all attitude.

[I_Love_LI_but]

Originally Posted by WIHS2006

We also need to do away with this crap of only checking one out of every five drivers. In Europe, Canada, Australia, Asia, etc they check each and every driver at a checkpoint. I once talked to an Australian cop who was shocked that we only check one out of every five drivers at a checkpoint.

Checkpoints of various sorts seem to be much more common outside the US.

When they're looking to give tickets (like off SS Parkway Exit 19N) they check each and every car, asking for license, registration, insurance card, etc.

[I_Love_LI_but]

Originally Posted by Interlude

Our prisons are already overflowing. Where do you want to put these people?Zero tolerance = alcoholics will still drive drunk, but will now get into high-speed car chases to avoid being pulled over, will leave the scene of an accident that they cause, or might avoid seeking medical treatment when injured. If you take away their license, they'll just drive without one.

And how do they drive without one? You can't register a car without one.

The people putting them behind the wheel should be more accountable. If it weren't for those people, the typical horror story of the "person whose license was suspended 52 times runs over entire family crossing street" would be almost non-existent. Think about it, if you cannot register a car yourself because of your driving record, then how are you getting behind the wheel? Because some moron handed you their keys with a smile and said, "Go for it!"

Those morons should be held more accountable, but they tend to get off scot free.

For example, there were some places where cars were being taken away if people were caught buying drugs. Well, wouldn't you know that the druggies were generally using someone else's car and that person would have a fit and say, "It's MY car! You have no right to take it away!"

I say they do. We all agree that drunk and drugged out drivers are DANGEROUS to themselves and others.

I think the people who put them behind the wheel are infinitely more dangerous and should be held accountable in some way, because without morons like this who hand over the keys to unfit drivers how would the driver be out driving?

They are the true cause of the tragedies because without them the drunk/druggie would be walking instead of driving!

[LongIslandCitizen]

Originally Posted by Interlude

Zero tolerance = alcoholics will still drive drunk.

And Drunks will still go to jail. Hang em high