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.
Once is too many. There is absolutely NO excuse for drinking and driving. I'm 46 years old and I have never once gotten behind the wheel when I have had anything to drink. And I mean anything...even one beer or glass of wine. I also firmly believe that "I was too drunk to know better" is not an excuse.
If the keys are my responsibility, it's my responsibility to not be impaired, even slightly.
Does anyone ever wonder why we are so hopped up over alcohol, but do virtually nothing about other forms of impairment behind the wheel? Is it all just because we have these little machines that can estimate BAC?
Exactly. The fact of the matter is most accidents are still caused by people that are completely sober.
I fell asleep at the wheel once and when I woke up I was careening through a field dragging 100ft of barbed wire, a cow and half a bunny behind me.
When I tell people about it they think its a funny story.
When I tell the WHOLE story and they find out I was fall down stupid drunk and I fell asleep at the wheel suddenly everyones outraged.
Whats the difference?
This is the kind of flowchart mentality that makes a civilized state an uncifilized one. Here are some statements/ Stop me when I make one that is untrue.
1. Every driver, by default, has exectly the same competence, judgement and reaction time.
2. Every driver, with a blood alcohol level of 0.79, has absolutely no impariment at all.
3. Every driver, with a blood alcholo lever of 0.81, is too impaired to safe drive a car.
4. It can then be concluded that every licensed driver, regardless of any other considerations, is perfectly safe to be driving when his level is 0.79, and every driver is a menace that must be banned from driving forever, if his level is 0.81.
5. A driver could develop a technololgy in which he is equipped with a drip, that introduces alcohol to his syster in such a way that it is always exactly 0.79, so he can enjoy the high without going over the DUI line. This driver is perfectly safe and is not a danger to anybody.
You haven't stopped me yet, so I guess you agree with this. Welcome to the black and white world of Reefer Madness.
Once is too many, IMHO. You know that if someone only has 'one' conviction then it doesn't mean that's the only time they've done it. Just that's the only time they've been caught.
I agree. So many people drink and drive these days they don't see DUI's as a crime. To me that's like saying "how many innocent people can you kill before you're a murderer."
If the punishment was stricter maybe less people would take it so causally.
Once is too many. There is absolutely NO excuse for drinking and driving. I'm 46 years old and I have never once gotten behind the wheel when I have had anything to drink. And I mean anything...even one beer or glass of wine. I also firmly believe that "I was too drunk to know better" is not an excuse.
If the keys are my responsibility, it's my responsibility to not be impaired, even slightly.
Totally agree. Once should warrant jail time. But I've expressed my opinion on this forum before that I hold drunk drivers as no better than the sewage flowing under our streets. Yup - I hate you drunk drivers with a burning passion!
2 -- loss license for 6 months. Prison for rest if caught cheating.
3 -- loss license for 10 years. Prison for rest if caught cheating.
And if #3 accounts for the death of an innocent family? That why #2 has to come down on them like a ton of bricks, life time loss of driving privileges.
And the facts justify this!
Quote:
In 2006, there were 13,470 fatalities in crashes involving an alcohol-impaired driver (BAC of .08 or higher) – 32 percent of total traffic fatalities for the year.
.
.
In 2006, more than 8,200 (55%) of the drivers involved in fatal crashes who had been drinking had a BAC of .15 or greater.
Perhaps the harshness of conviction #1 should be tied to the BAC;
.08 to .12, expensive and a 1 year revocation;
.13 to .18 very expensive and a 5 year revocation, vehicle confiscated, regardless of owner;
.19 and up, your done, prison, life time revocation, vehicle confiscated, forbidden to ever own a vehicle again.
Quote:
Drivers with a BAC level of .08 or higher involved in fatal crashes were eight times more likely to have a prior conviction for driving while impaired (DWI) than were drivers with no alcohol (8% and 1%, respectively).I
It is only because they haven't come up with an accurate test for potheads, cracksmokers dopefiends etc. Right now police can look at body language and eyes for signs of these things but nothing concrete. I wish they would come up with a good test for those things, they are as bad as a drunk behind the wheel
Then they'll need a test for lack of sleep as well. The numbers for drowsy driving are bad. If police routinely checked for sleep status, those numbers would look a lot worse. Then there are prescription and OTC drugs, having had a death in the immediate family (even a pet), being fired or divorced...all these things and many more result in actual impairments of driving skills that are comparable or worse than those typically seen in drivers at a .08 BAC. And don't even start on cellphones. Yet alcohol is the only thing we focus on (and we actually only do that between the hours of 10:00 pm and 3:00 am). We do it because of a machine that doesn't actually tell you anything about degree of impairment. We've in fact used this machine to create a whole industry out of DUI. Fines and court costs are simply taxes that jurisdictions don't have to impose. Thousands of jobs depend on judges compelling people to attend alcohol awareness and cessation programs that are of limited value or effect. Millions of dollars worth of profits flow to tow truck operators, to impound lots, to DUI lawyers, and to interlock device manufacturers. A whole sector of the economy now depends on police regularly rounding up another X number of DUI's every month. So they do. And they will continue to by whatever means it takes. It isn't really about protecting and serving anymore. It's about the money...
While I like many of the ideas expressed in this thread in theory, how much of this is practical? Can you imagine how many people would go to jail on a 1st or second offense DUI if we put that into practice? Especially for a 1st. Can we financially afford to put them in jail, especially if it's for life? And even murderers can get out after 25 years. As for revocation of a license, there are tons of people driving without a licence and/or insurance. How do you insure they don't drive? If you take away their car or make it illegal for them to own a car, they can just borrow someone elses. And in some areas, there is no public transportation. How will they get to work for the rest of their lives? Doesn't that open a bigger can of worms there?
Don't get me wrong. I do think we need still penalties and I'd love to throw them all in jail, but is it practical?
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.
