U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-27-2019, 09:32 PM
 
Location: Jewel Lake (Sagle) Idaho
27,948 posts, read 17,881,528 times
Reputation: 15927

Advertisements

.12-.14 would be reasonable. .08 is idiotic and is more focused on making money than safety.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-27-2019, 10:00 PM
 
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada
701 posts, read 517,416 times
Reputation: 2099
It should be based on impairment only, not bac. If someone is swerving, they get pulled over and are visibly impaired, they should get a dui whether they are .03 or .08. Alcohol affects me very strongly, and I would not feel safe driving even after one beer. If someone can drive perfectly fine at .08, that is okay too. The key is alcohol affects everyone differently, so there should not be a BAC standard. Dui's ruin lives too, so I feel that someone should only get one if they are a danger to others.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-27-2019, 10:06 PM
 
Location: SGV
25,518 posts, read 9,915,100 times
Reputation: 9881
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toyman at Jewel Lake View Post
.12-.14 would be reasonable. .08 is idiotic and is more focused on making money than safety.
No way.

The government isn't interested in generating revenue. It's here to keep all us kiddies safe.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-27-2019, 10:10 PM
 
Location: San Diego
35,921 posts, read 32,603,264 times
Reputation: 20279
I know someone that had a beer, one beer, at a bar. He left and on the way home three drunks were fighting and ended up out in the road in front of him. He had no time to stop and hit and killed two of them. He was charged like he shot them with a gun premeditated. Their BAC was about four times the legal limit yet he was charged with their deaths. That is way over the top in my book. You can get the same amount of alcohol from cough medicine.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-27-2019, 10:15 PM
 
Location: alexandria, VA
10,040 posts, read 4,497,197 times
Reputation: 5593
.10.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-27-2019, 11:10 PM
 
11,173 posts, read 2,910,816 times
Reputation: 7523
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenPineTree View Post
I don't believe in DUIs if the person is driving fine. If the person is driving impaired, and it shows they have a high BAC, then I support revoking their license. No prison, but no license for 5 years either.
Yes, I agree with this too, its very easy to see when someone is 'impaired' while driving.


I dont think its practical to have a set percentage number at which EVERYONE is treated exactly the same...thats ridiculous, everyone is going to be different.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-27-2019, 11:11 PM
 
570 posts, read 202,628 times
Reputation: 562
It’s .05 in most of Europe. How ironic that Utah is in sync with Europe.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 02:39 PM
 
33,006 posts, read 16,891,177 times
Reputation: 17853
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenPineTree View Post
I don't believe in DUIs if the person is driving fine.
The problem being, a lot of impaired people can make it home just fine right until the day when they kill or maim someone. Most drives home from the bar don't require fast reactions or quick decision-making - it looks and feels as if they're driving fine.

I have no problem stipulating that if you want to maneuver a ton of metal at 60 MPH around other people, you should not start out by partially incapacitating yourself. Yes, impairment varies from person to person.

It's a numbers game. And if people only roll the dice with their own lives, I'm inclined to let Darwin weed them out. But not when there are other people around.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 03:21 PM
 
7,180 posts, read 2,604,873 times
Reputation: 3911
Quote:
Originally Posted by No_Recess View Post
Since it's not even a crime....
This.

Driving under the influence in and of itself does no harm to anyone. Same as driving while texting, fiddling through your wallet/purse, eating a sandwich, yelling at your kids, etc. What is the crime is the force initiated upon others when whatever distraction (or innate lack of intellect/skill) either clouds or removes your driving ability to the point you cause a wreck. And the causing of wrecks already has standard penalties, some of which are substantial.

Not sure why one form of impairment is seen as so ghastly, when all forms of impairment do no harm, they simply increase the likelihood of harm being caused. People being sleepy is essentially the same thing as intoxicated, and there is no clarion call to "lock them up" or anything. None of the forms of impaired driving are vastly different from others, and I'd wager that simply being stupid is the #1 cause of wrecks in this country. After all, alcohol related traffic fatalities are only a quarter of all traffic fatalities. Some combo of impairment + dumbassery is the other 75%. What arethe draconian suggestions being offered for those remaining 3/4 traffic fatality idiots who caused a wreck from something other than alcohol?

Now, if you want to add a penalty onto an existing "you caused a wreck" law specifically for that one form of impairment, fine, go ahead. At that point, the driver will have actually committed a crime and can then be prosecuted accordingly. But the whole notion of fining/jailing people because of what they might do...yeah, bald faced tyranny right there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 03:25 PM
 
30,536 posts, read 15,792,727 times
Reputation: 20440
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtl1 View Post
Should be .10 and must show signs of impairment for it to be DUI. since I don't believe the 14th applies to non-citizens, should be .02 for them without need signs of impairment.
Agreed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top