Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Now the feds declare that a blood-alcohol level of 0.08 percent and above is criminal and must be severely punished. The National Restaurant Association is exactly right that this is absurdly low. The overwhelming majority of accidents related to drunk driving involve repeat offenders with blood-alcohol levels twice that high. If a standard of 0.1 doesn't deter them, then a lower one won't either.
But there's a more fundamental point. What precisely is being criminalized? Not bad driving. Not destruction of property. Not the taking of human life or reckless endangerment. The crime is having the wrong substance in your blood. Yet it is possible, in fact, to have this substance in your blood, even while driving, and not commit anything like what has been traditionally called a crime.
Far more people are hurt by tired driving, should we outlaw that?
BTW, the statistics I was referring to were old statistics before the DUI laws were nationalized.
Bold: You wouldn't have stats for that would you? That is a pretty big claim in the context of where this thread is at the moment.
Red: The substance in the blood is being criminalized because it is a known fact that when people are intoxicated they will cause negative things to happen behind the wheels (when compared to drivers who are perfectly fine). You want to deal with the issue before it becomes a child killing, property destroying problem. Preventive actions are always better than reactionary actions, because when you have to go on to the reactionary actions, something bad has already happened, and even if it hasn't effected you personally, there are others out there besides me and you who can be effected.
Bold: You wouldn't have stats for that would you? That is a pretty big claim in the context of where this thread is at the moment.
Red: The substance in the blood is being criminalized because it is a known fact that when people are intoxicated they will cause negative things to happen behind the wheels (when compared to drivers who are perfectly fine). You want to deal with the issue before it becomes a child killing, property destroying problem. Preventive actions are always better than reactionary actions, because when you have to go on to the reactionary actions, something bad has already happened, and even if it hasn't effected you personally, there are others out there besides me and you who can be effected.
According to a study by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, 41 percent of drivers admit that they’ve fallen asleep behind the wheel. That’s two in five people. What make these statistics even scarier is that these numbers are higher than expected, and that 16 to 24 year olds are “nearly twice as likely to be involved in a drowsy driving crash as drivers age 40-59.”
Driving tired is like driving drunk. “Just like alcohol or drugs, sleepiness slows reaction time and impairs judgment, according to AAA Foundation president and CEO Peter Kissinger,” Edmunds elaborates. “And drowsy driving can be just as dangerous as driving under the influence.”
My friend contested a red light camera ticket he got here in Denver. Turns out the cameras here actually record video when triggered. Not only did they have a picture of him in the car and the car in the intersection on red (what they sent him in the mail), the officer presented a complete video of him running the red light in court. He was very quickly found guilty.
I contested a red lite camera ticket and they had all the same evidence you stated above and I beat it and got my money back. There are companies that specialize in fighting those tickets. I paid them to fight mine. It cost me $150 but it saved me $350 and it didn't go on my record. They reviewed the ticket, send me a very complete packet back, I reviewed it, signed it, and mailed it in. Never even had to appear. Judge read the packet and dismissed the ticket, and sent my money back.
I contested a red lite camera ticket and they had all the same evidence you stated above and I beat it and got my money back. There are companies that specialize in fighting those tickets. I paid them to fight mine. It cost me $150 but it saved me $350 and it didn't go on my record. They reviewed the ticket, send me a very complete packet back, I reviewed it, signed it, and mailed it in. Never even had to appear. Judge read the packet and dismissed the ticket, and sent my money back.
Do those companies work in every state, or are the laws loose enough in your state to work around it?
Do those companies work in every state, or are the laws loose enough in your state to work around it?
The place I used advertises on billboards and on line around the state..
Here is a detailed story I wrote here in CD when it happened a couple of years ago, but first there is an update.
I just this morning heard that the City of LA, who probably has more camera's than anywhere, and reaps many millions a year on them, just had a vote to renew their camera contract because it is close to experation. The City Counsel voted it down and all LA cameras will be removed. They cause way too many accidents, get too many complaints, and just aren't worth the trouble. I expect other cities to follow. One nearby city has never had camers, and recently voted to never allow them in theit city... Many cities are going away from them...
Here's my story from about two years ago when I got mine...
Since I contested the ticket, I was required to pay the fine and wait for the court date. The fine was $432.00. Had I lost the case, they keep the money, plus I would have had to pay another $100.00 to attend Traffic School..! I paid the fine, and at the same time, requested an extension on the appearance date, allowing me time to get everything ready for court.
I contacted one of the companies who specialize in fighting tickets. They told me up front that they are not a law firm, but they are experienced in such matters. They have an 80% success record. They had two ways to proceed. I could pay, I think it was $25 dollars, and they would give me all the information as to how to proceed with the contest.
OR... I could pay them $150.00, and they would do all of the paper work required, which is extensive. With great trepidation, I sent in a check for $150.00 and waited to hear from them. I had a fear I was being scammed, but took a chance to see what would happen.
I received a letter from the company, telling me to FAX them copies of the paperwork I received from the Courthouse. That paperwork consisted of many pages, complete with pictures of me approaching the intersection, entering the intersection, and even a clear picture of my hansome face..!! There was a series of photos, along with a time stamp of when each photo was taken. It showed That I entered when the light had been red for 0.34 seconds, well under a full second. OK, you're correct. Red is red, but they were really splitting hairs at just over 1/4 of a second.
I waited several months and heard nothing from the company I enlisted to fight the ticket. I finally called them, and was informed they were working on my case, and I would receive my case file, by mail, very soon.
Sure enough, about a week later, I received a packet from them, delivered by overnight mail by FEDEX. The company had done an amazing amount of research. The packet was 3/8" thick. They had even gone on google Earth, and had numerous photos of the intersection from all three directions (It was a T intersection, so only three..!)
Their instructions were, read over all of the information provided in the packet, and if I agreed with everything, sign the appropriate place and mail it to the Courthouse. They explained something I wasn't aware of. You are not required to appear in court, as long as you submit the documents. Rather than trust the mail to something this important, I drove the packet over to the Courthouse and handed it to a clerk in person. When I gave her the packet, she assigned me a court date. Just as if I were to appear in person, the judge would read my submitted information on the assigned date, and I would be notified by mail as to the decision.
I waited the required six weeks, and a week or so after the court date, I received a letter stating my case had been adjudicated and the ticket was being dismissed...!!! I received a check for $432.00 a few days later.
Something I learned is that most of the cameras in my area are illegal. I won't say why, because I wouldn't want the City to fix their problem, but driving through other cities, most of them are legal, but the ticket can still be beat..
A side note, a few weeks ago, there was an article in the local paper about the red light cameras, and the Sheriff who is in charge of reviewing all camera tickets was explaining how successful the program has been. He stated that no one had ever had a camera ticket dismissed, and contrary to public opinion, there had never been an accident caused by the cameras..!
Of course I had to let them know the officer seemed to have made a mistake, and might like to review his statements. First of all, I know of one case that was dismissed, mine, and I included a copy of an article from the same paper a couple of months earlier telling about a rear end collission resulting from the camera, and the driver had to be airlifted to a trama center, so his story about them not causing accidents was an out and out lie...
I'll take a look and get the company name who did mine, perhaps they can shed some light on how other states work..
Let me ask you, in the first two incidents, did he have an accident or hurt anyone? If so, then he shouldn't have been let out to do it again.
The first two - no, no accidents. The third time what finally stopped him driving the wrong way down I-25 was that he drove off the side of the highway and an entire wheel was ripped off the car.
It shocks me that you think a person driving drunk as a skunk (he blew over a 0.3) the wrong way down an interstate highway should be legal.
Your no harm no foul position seems extreme to me. I'll take it to another level. Let's say I grab my handgun and head on down to the local elementary school and start firing the gun towards the kids, but not directly at them (oh, let's say I'm aiming 5 feet above their heads). As long as my bullets don't hit anybody, is that acceptable behavior that shouldn't land me in any trouble?
Except that the camera is not merely providing the evidence, it is also issuing the citation and that is what is being confronted, the camera's ability to accuse. Everything else you mentioned is evidence, and not making the actual accusation. So there is nothing to confront. But in the case of photo-radar, or red light cameras, they are not just providing evidence, they are also making the accusation by issuing the citation.
Here in Orlando, an officer, an actual live person reviews that tape and decides rather or not to issue a citation. The citation is not generated by the camera; the camera just makes whoever is watching the tapes aware that you are speeding or running red lights.
Here in Orlando, an officer, an actual live person reviews that tape and decides rather or not to issue a citation. The citation is not generated by the camera; the camera just makes whoever is watching the tapes aware that you are speeding or running red lights.
winner winner chicken dinner
Using their line of thinking, you could argue that any speeding ticket is invalid since it's not an officer issuing the ticket, but really the radar gun.
The first two - no, no accidents. The third time what finally stopped him driving the wrong way down I-25 was that he drove off the side of the highway and an entire wheel was ripped off the car.
It shocks me that you think a person driving drunk as a skunk (he blew over a 0.3) the wrong way down an interstate highway should be legal.
Your no harm no foul position seems extreme to me. I'll take it to another level. Let's say I grab my handgun and head on down to the local elementary school and start firing the gun towards the kids, but not directly at them (oh, let's say I'm aiming 5 feet above their heads). As long as my bullets don't hit anybody, is that acceptable behavior that shouldn't land me in any trouble?
You know, when you're right, you're right....
so you have a right to get into a car as drunk/high/impaired and jeopardize everyone else safety just because you got away with it last week?
should we tell families that lost love ones due to drunk driving that "we don't know what happened, he drove home drunk the other day, he made it home ok...so why he crashed today is just weird"...
getting drunk slows you down, it lowers your judgement, it hinders your movement and that is fine, you can drink to your hearts content...fine...but you don't have a right to endanger everyone else by getting drunk and getting on the road....my focus should be the road...not why the hell is that asshol* driving down the wrong lane...
but according to some here, your have a right to endanger people and their family because you just couldn't get drunk at home...
and this is coming from someone who wants marijuana, among other things legalize...you can tear yourself up but you can't endanger everyone else in the process
Here in Orlando, an officer, an actual live person reviews that tape and decides rather or not to issue a citation. The citation is not generated by the camera; the camera just makes whoever is watching the tapes aware that you are speeding or running red lights.
Good. At least the citation is being issued by a law enforcement officer and that officer can be confronted in court in accordance with the Sixth Amendment.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
