If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   The NTSB issues a 'shelter in place' order for all FARKers   (cnn.com) divider line 231
    More: Strange, shelter in place, National Transportation Safety Board, United States, Transportation Safety Board, Mothers Against Drunk Driving  
•       •       •

15208 clicks; posted to Main » on 14 May 2013 at 4:21 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



231 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-14 04:37:00 PM
The article says that changing this might save 500 to 800 lives a year.

We have more than three hundred million people in this country. Almost anything you do could end up saving that many lives. Five hundred is barely even a statistic. If the average person got 15 more minutes of exercise a week it'd probably save that many or more.

But I guarantee that way more than five hundred people will have their lives ruined by blowing a 0.06 if these regulations pass despite the fact that they would be fine for driving at that level. This despite the fact that pretty much everything indicates that the accidents are generally caused by people that are way above even the 0.08 limit we have now.

Ridiculous.
 
2013-05-14 04:38:22 PM
Point Something Something has always been part of a system of subjective measures.  The posters say X drinks of this type in an hour or Y drinks of that type in an hour will result in .08 and impairment, yet it varies from person to person.  A glass of malbec with dinner pretty much puts my wife in a state where she shouldn't drive for example.

The rule for DUI should always be that the DUI itself is not the primary moving violation.  It should be an escalator to whatever you were pulled over for.  If you're driving impaired, you're likely going to be weaving lanes and the cops can always nail you for reckless driving, failure to maintain your lane, a rolling stop, failure to yield, whatever and pull you over.  Then get you with a DUI on top of that.

For example a BAC of 0.09 and 5 mph over the speed limit is pretty much driving like a normal person, no DUI citation should be issued.  That same BAC and rear ending someone or weaving between lanes, you should pick up the punishment for your infraction and an additional punishment for DUI on the grounds that you were driving poorly and we can make an educated guess that the booze in your system contributed to your farkup.  The whole idea of some number in your blood stream being a firm point for a fine is bullshiat.  I'd imagine there are people out there who are .09 are better drivers than some totally sober 16 year old and there are people who at .03 are complete shiatheads.  Tie the DUI to some other moving violation based on actual vehicle performance.
 
2013-05-14 04:38:49 PM

buzzcut73: So, even with the number fudging, deaths are way, way down from what they were when MADD got started. I'm not saying it needs to be legal again, but you've got to wonder what the agenda really is when they keep pushing the limits lower and lower.


Especially since what they are now considering impairment doesn't necessarily require you to be impaired.  Basically, they are considering you impaired considered to your own potential, and measure things like whether your eyes slowed down.  They don't seem to care what that means in absolute terms, and if you're still well within the normal range of abilities.
 
2013-05-14 04:38:54 PM
I put full faith in the alcoholic beverage lobby to keep my interests protected regarding this matter.
 
2013-05-14 04:39:04 PM
DUI laws are about the dollars and control. The lower the BAC level, the more dollars the courts, lawyers, and cops get. Also, DUI laws are responsible for egregious civil rights violations.

Cops: it's too hard to pull everyone over that might be .08 because they don't swerve enough.

Courts: ok, how about pulling everybody over without any reasonable articulable suspicion?

Cops: can we do that?

Courts: yes. think of the children.

Now, they want to lower the threshold even further, to increase not only convictions, but what constitutes an "alcohol" related traffic fatality--thus creating higher statistics for more checkpoints and further invasions into liberty. Which in turn equals bigger and more expensive police departments. Which in turn equals more officers to pay into the retirement scheme. Here in CA checkpoints ask many more questions than have you been drinking...

More strict laws does not equal safety
, quite the contrary.
 
2013-05-14 04:40:05 PM

IgG4: In MN where I live, there were 395 traffic fatalities in 2012. About half were alcohol related. So 180 deaths out of 5 million people living in the state. About 800 people died from accidental falls in 2012. These deaths are tragic yes, but there are so few of them that you really need to ask yourself how much trouble it is worth to try to reduce that number more. 1 in 7 people in MN have already been convicted of DUI and that number will certainly increase dramatically if you lower the limit to 0.05%, it it really worth criminalizing a huge percentage of your population to marginally decrease that statistic? I would The government says no yes.

 
2013-05-14 04:42:35 PM
Safety, my ass. This sets up perfect conditions for a cash grab by the states, plain and simple.

Is this, by chance, backed by DUI attorneys?

/ follow the money.
 
2013-05-14 04:42:42 PM

Rapmaster2000: I drive better when I'm drunk.  It helps me to relax behind the wheel.


You passengers, on the other hand... :P
 
2013-05-14 04:43:09 PM

BunkoSquad: Here's to living in a city with many bars in walking distance!


Indeed. I think a good chunk of the US problem with drunk driving has to do with our retarded approach to urban planning -- zoning all social destinations (to include the pubs) so far from private residences, there's really no choice but to drive in a lot of places. (Since, of course, we don't seem to know how to do public transportation, either.)
 
2013-05-14 04:43:28 PM
I'm cool with this as long as you allow executions for people who use cell phones and drive.
Period.
You do not need to talk on a phone and drive at the same time.
You do not need to text on a phone and drive at the same time.
You do need to pay farkin attention to the farkin road.
 
2013-05-14 04:44:01 PM
I mean they're even cutting out the likelihood that I'll meet my friends for monthly happy hour.  Right now, I know I can have 3-4 drinks no problem and be under .08.  .05 Makes the math trickier.  If I'm having over 4 it's cab/train time.  I'd think bar and restaurant associations would be against this crap.  This might garner slightly more money for state governments but you could see a backlash at bars and restaurants.
 
2013-05-14 04:44:20 PM
I'd like to see the limit at .1, but I can live with .08. I also want some seriously Draconian penalties for repeat offenders, based off pervious and current BAC.

You blew a .08 a dozen years ago, and a .081 last night? You're suffering from a rather flat learning curve, but you're probably not a real threat to society.

You blew .18 a year ago, and last night you were at .22? You're a danger to yourself (which I don't really care about) and everyone else on the road (which I do). I think a fair penalty for someone like that is about $35,000 in fines and 5 years in prison.

I don't care about social drinkers, but I want the dangerous drunks off the road.
 
2013-05-14 04:44:52 PM

dittybopper: Wow, it's true:   One in seven current Minnesota drivers (570,191) has a DWI on record, and one in 17 has two or more DWIs. In the state, 1,265 Minnesotans have 10 or more DWIs.


The more DUIs they hand out, the less the social stigma.

20 years ago:
"I can't drive because I got a DUI."

"You should be ashamed of yourself."

Now:
"I can't drive because I got a DUI."

"Aw, that sucks, man.  How'd they catch you?"
 
2013-05-14 04:44:56 PM
done in one through five.


/U$A
 
2013-05-14 04:45:24 PM
Thinly disguised money grab.  More convictions = More Money

Fark saving lives.
 
2013-05-14 04:45:54 PM

brap: I take umbrage at the headline, I may be sauced out of my gourd, but I'm never too drunk to hail a cab.


Thing is, where a pretty large number of people live, there ARE no cabs.  There are no buses.  No trains.  No anything, except private automobiles, because that's pretty much how this country developed.  In Europe, where limits are often stricter, things are (a) closer together and (b) served by much better public transport.
 
2013-05-14 04:46:13 PM
We could save ~26k lives every year by mandating helmets while walking.  It's a tragedy of epic proportions that we have not done so.
 
2013-05-14 04:46:33 PM
A few more Mad Men pics lol:

t0.gstatic.com

t1.gstatic.com
 
2013-05-14 04:47:15 PM
America: where we have to ruin your life to prevent you from ruining your life.
 
2013-05-14 04:47:30 PM

sammyk: PowerSlacker: Throw the book at the people who exceed .08 instead.

Even that is a little low. It used to be .10. A lot of people, myself included, felt that was just a money grab.


It used to be .15 in lots of states because that's the point at which lots of people have obvious problems with physical coordination,  e.g. their gait is unsteady and their speech is slurred.  People who are involved in DUI collisions or who are stopped because an officer observes improper driving (e.g. weaving, speeding, or driving erratically) still by-and-large have BACs north of .15.  DUI roadblocks exist because it's very difficult to catch people who are in the .08-.10 range through observation of improper driving.

As far as people who are stopped in the ".15 and up" category, those people subdivide into two broad classes:
1) First-time offenders in their late teens through mid 20s--essentially "Young, dumb, invincible, think bad things only happen to someone else."
2) Hardcore, repeat offenders who are probably alcoholics.

You can't do very much about either of these categories, because you can't fix stupid (in the first case) except through experience, and an alcoholic won't get sober until and unless he or she wants to.   However, the relevant authorities need to be seen as Doing Something so the easy answer is to keep ratcheting the DUI limit downwards to the point where it screws social drinkers.

Yes, .05 is a common limit in Europe--however, that is also a place where there are viable alternatives for getting home from the bar other than driving your own car or taking an impossibly expensive taxi.
 
2013-05-14 04:48:15 PM
I have a friend who went into a crazy downward spiral and had three DWIs in a span of ~20 months. The first one was comparatively minor, the second one resulted a minor car accident, and for the third he blew a 0.40, nearly caused multiple accidents by veering into oncoming traffic, and tried to run from the cop WHILE cuffed, resulting in a chin-first fall and a shattered jaw. The local news article listed the charges as:

one count each of:
driving while intoxicated
aggravated DWI
driving with a blood alcohol content of 0.08 percent or greater
drinking while driving (emphasis mine)
third-degree escape

and two counts of:
failure to keep right


Ultimately, he only had to spend a month in rehab and pay a shiatload of fines to get his license back. IMO, he should have permanently lost his driving privilege after the second DWI, let alone the third. A 0.05 limit is not going to make the roads safer, it's just going to generate a lot more revenue in fines. Start throwing the book at real drunk drivers (like my friend) and maybe the roads will be safer.
 
2013-05-14 04:52:08 PM
So this made it out of TFD after all?

Can't wait for the main page DUI trolls.
 
2013-05-14 04:52:32 PM

Nezorf: The main issue is the lack of risk.
The chances of getting pulled over for intoxication are minimal at best.
People take their chances all of the time. Drive around your city at bar close and observe.
How many swerving folks do you see?
How many police do you see?
How many cars are out on the road at 2am (or whatever close is in your town)?
I would say it is safe to assume that 50% of all the solo drivers of those cars has drank at least one beer.
Drunk driving sucks but people do it all the time. Go sit at a bar and watch how many folks come in, drink plenty of drinks in a short period of time, grab their keys and head out.

I'm not suggesting that everyone should be pulled over, but getting pulled over is a chance game.
If they want to save lives, leave the %age issue alone, leave the penalties where they are but beef up how many police are out on the highways and side roads.
Make it more of a risk. Make the chance of getting caught higher. That is where you will see change.
Patrol the main highways but also watch the "safe" roads.
Side note: I am absolutely against checkpoints or blockades, you must have a specific reason to pull someone over.
Speed up the duration of a drunk arrest, the faster they can go through them the more folks can be observed and checked.
They swerve, pull them over, check L&R and request a breathalyzer if there is probable cause.
Even if you pull a person over and they are near the limit (.07 or so) hopefully you will make the potential of getting arrested a reality.

Its the same issue with speeding. The more you do it without getting arrested or getting spooked, you are more likely to do it often.


To put some facts up before this thread might blow up


Arkansas DUI
$475 fine and time served

No. I am not kidding.

The law in AR may say different but this is what you get in Baxter Co.
 
2013-05-14 04:54:43 PM
Maybe we should invest in driverless tech instead of wasting time and money on this?  It would be cheaper, and better for everyone in the long run.
 
2013-05-14 04:55:08 PM
FTA: eliminate drunk driving, which accounts for about a third of all road deaths.

I think it's high time we crack down on the sober drivers. They're causing twice as many fatalities.
 
2013-05-14 04:55:13 PM

Thisbymaster: Maybe we should invest in driverless tech instead of wasting time and money on this?  It would be cheaper, and better for everyone in the long run.


And then you could drink in the car!
 
2013-05-14 04:55:20 PM
Repost from a redlit thread:

TuteTibiImperes: If the science backs it up I wouldn't be completely opposed, provided we bring some sanity into DUI sentences.
A tiered system could work - 1st offense and BAC between .05 and .08 results in a small fine, and no publically accessible record of the stop (since a DUI arrest means a firing in many jobs today, and your insurance company will rape you) A $100 ticket plus the cost of a cab ride home and the to fees to get your car out of impound the next day would be fair.
First offense and BAC .08 - .15: same as above, but a larger fine.
Second (and subsequent) offenses or BAC above .15 - loss of license for at least 30 days (longer for multiple offenders) plus public record of the arrest, very large fines, mandatory.classes, and possible jail time for habitual offenders.


Me: Makes sense, which is exactly why they won't do it.  Having a beer with dinner is going to be as black and white as having 1 gram of weed in your house, or catching two minors having sex in their dad's car.  You'll do more jail time and suffer more long term consequences than the thugs who shot up the parade in NOLA last weekend.
 
2013-05-14 04:55:27 PM
 
2013-05-14 04:55:39 PM
Some people perform better drunk.
yafh.com
 
2013-05-14 04:56:58 PM
I guess I'm ok with this.  Always best to keep it safe, for the simple reason that you always need to watch out for whatever, behind the wheel.

/As long as they don't prohibit reading and posting on FARK while under the influence of any mood-altering substance.

//Undetermined Farking Influenced Action?

///lame.  hangs head in shame
 
2013-05-14 04:57:10 PM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: Me: Makes sense, which is exactly why they won't do it. Having a beer with dinner is going to be as black and white as having 1 gram of weed in your house, or catching two minors having sex in their dad's car. You'll do more jail time and suffer more long term consequences than the thugs who shot up the parade in NOLA last weekend.


It makes good sense.  The main issue: MADD.  They are now a neo-prohibitionist organization.  They've totally lost focus of what they had set out to do.
 
2013-05-14 04:57:46 PM

gunsmack: FTA: eliminate drunk driving, which accounts for about a third of all road deaths.

I think it's high time we crack down on the sober drivers. They're causing twice as many fatalities.


Math!
 
2013-05-14 04:58:02 PM

Private_Citizen: Money grab.


It's really not a money grab.  It's the problem that there is almost no one to oppose MADD as an organization, because a politician can't come out looking to be in favor of drunk driving.  All it takes is one photo of someone's snow flake killed by a drunk driver to make a strong point, and arguments for rationality get thrown out the window.

It's the same reason that the California correctional officers' union (CCPOA) is one of the most influential special interest groups in the state, and has secured and steadfastly held onto some of the highest salaries and benefits awarded to state employees.  It's because there is no one to oppose its growth and influence.  In some ways, this example is a money grab, but the root cause for its success is the lack of any influential opposition.

dittybopper: The interesting things about organizations, though, is that like organisms, they don't like to die.


This.
 
2013-05-14 04:58:08 PM

Trocadero: namegoeshere: I am having a bad focusing day, so pardon me if I missed it somewhere, but has anyone given us a number of fatal accidents where the driver was over .05 but under .08?

The NTSB "estimates" between 800-1000 total fatalities. For whatever that's worth.


And you have to wonder out of that 800-1000 fatalities they estimate, how many of those accidents were caused by the alcohol content vs other factors (driving badly, etc.).  Any time an advocate says this many lives are saved, I am really skeptical.
 
2013-05-14 04:58:16 PM
Don't drive after drinking. Why is that so hard?

/I only had a couple!
//I have a high tolerance so I can drive after drinking!
///I make up excuses to justify my inability to control my alcohol consumption and blame the evil government for taking my right to drink and drive!
 
2013-05-14 05:01:19 PM

Walker: Pretty soon if any alcohol is detected in your system you will be charged with DUI.


I think that is the ultimate goal.  I do all my drinking at home and play the designated driver on social outings.  Just not worth the risk anymore.
 
2013-05-14 05:01:28 PM

namegoeshere: dittybopper: graph

I'm going to have to throw airbags, seat belt laws, kids-in-the-back campaigns, and safer cars into the equation. Anyone got a graph that accounts for those safety improvements?


Somewhat off-topic, but remember back in the 1970s, when Nixon enacted the national 55mph speed limit "to save fuel?" But then, without much really solid evidence to back it up, when the fuel crisis eased, they made the "temporary" reduction in speed permanent because "speed kills."

A major publicly-funded study quite a few years ago found actually that speed, on its own, doesn't kill, it's having people at a mix of speeds on a common uncontrolled-access roadway.  FHWA and NTSB didn't like the report because it disagreed with 'speed kills,' so it basically got shiatcanned for years and is fairly hard to find now.

Well, over the years, highway deaths dropped some, so the 'speed kills' crowd claimed victory, but then the realists came back and said, "man, I'm sick of wasting my time dawdling across West Texas at 55mph, let's get rid of this."

What led to the drop in highway deaths?  Better CARS.  Airbags.  Tougher passenger compartments.  Better crumple-zones.  Mandatory use of three-point belts.  Mandatory restraint laws for children.   And to some extent, better enforcement of EXISTING alcohol-impairment laws.  All this when states commonly had limits of .10, .12 or even .15.

OK now, why are deaths increasing again?  Because there are more humans in more cars out there, and at least in part, because the population is aging.  Old people get killed at a phenomenal rate, right up there with teenagers and new licensees, because their reactions are shot, they often don't like driving with a seatbelt, and they often drive slower than the flow of traffic, creating exactly the mixed-speeds hazard that that long-ago traffic study warned against.

Informally, when I note a local death in an alcohol-involved collision, I see if they post the BAC.  Not once have I seen one in the last three or four years that wasn't at least .12, and in one case, .31.  In other words, the problem with people driving fuuuuuuuuuuukduuuuuuuuuup is still there and probably always will be.  There is no "problem" with people between .06 and .08, or for some, maybe even .10, except the "problem" is perceived to be that the government isn't taking enough of their money and writing enough tickets to justify all the new cop equipment they wanna buy.

There's an entire DUI-industrial complex of lawyers, judges, "substance abuse" counselors and probation officers built on the MONEY gotten from the whole system.  It's never about "justice" except in truly egregious and fatal cases.  Never.  They want your money, and this is another way for them to take it.

See also, "this is why driverless cars will never, EVER be legal in the United States, because it'd remove the main way police and governments fark with your typical citizen."
 
2013-05-14 05:02:57 PM
www.dui-usa.drinkdriving.org

Time to invest in companies that make Ignition Interlocks.
 
2013-05-14 05:03:48 PM
Ah, where to start?

There are way too many people out drunk on the road after 2 a.m.; I know, because I used to be one of the non-drunk ones out after 2 a.m. thinking "WTF are all these nutjobs doing out here driving around at two in the morning?" so there's that.

Of course, how many fatalities are caused by .08 drivers? Probably not many; but then again, how many fatalities are caused by imbeciles with perfectly legal but highly impairing doses of Vicodin in their bloodstream that this law never even comes close to addressing? On the flip side, how many non-fatal but still costly fender-benders are caused by .08 drivers? Probably more than your insurance company would like to cover.

The question nobody ever bothers to ask is ARE drunk drivers dangerous? And if they are, which ones? Young inexperienced binge drinkers? Experienced drivers who've had a few too many one night? Experienced drunks in bad weather? In other words, does being drunk mean you'll be a bad driver, or are good drivers and good drunks less at risk?
 
2013-05-14 05:03:56 PM

Tom_Slick: [www.dui-usa.drinkdriving.org image 185x174]

Time to invest in companies that make Ignition Interlocks.


Strange.  I looked at that, and thought, "Siri, why am I talking into my cigarette lighter?"
 
2013-05-14 05:05:59 PM
Large breasted women always get checks where there's a cop car traffic jam. It drives them to drink.

i2.cdn.turner.com
 
2013-05-14 05:07:11 PM
My judgment, based on my personal observations, is that they don't need to lower the limit from 0.08.  They need to take steps to prevent people from racking up 2, 3, 4, 5 or even more DUIs and still get out of jail 30 days later and get arrested the very same freaking night doing it again.  I also think they need to push aggravated DUI when you're way over the limit, like .12, and if you have multiple aggravated DUIs, it's a long prison term.

And the people who rack up 4 or 5 DUIs are almost guaranteed to be the ones blowing .15 or higher.  So drunk you can't even stand up.

Nailing people for a DUI when they've had two beers will not go well with the rank and file.  The goal should be to take dangerous people off the road, and I believe those are the people who habitually get plastered and drive, no matter how many times they get arrested.
 
2013-05-14 05:07:17 PM

Trocadero: namegoeshere: I am having a bad focusing day, so pardon me if I missed it somewhere, but has anyone given us a number of fatal accidents where the driver was over .05 but under .08?

The NTSB "estimates" between 800-1000 total fatalities. For whatever that's worth.


How does that compare statistically with people who have no detectable alcohol at all?
i.e. if, say 1 percent of drivers are at .05-.08, is that 800-1000 the same 1 percent of total fatalities, or more? Or less?

It seems to me we have a good control for some drunk driving questions - Wisconsin.  It is known for extreme judicial leniency towards drunk driving -- how do their accident and fatality rates compare with other states? (I really don't know)
 
2013-05-14 05:07:18 PM

dittybopper: Actually, slippery slopes are a logical fallacy, but as I like to point out to people, we live on Earth, not the planet Vulcan.


I don't think slippery slopes are a logical fallacy. They can be part of a fallacious argument, but I don't remember what the term for that is. Pointing out a slippery slope can be a very legitimate part of an argument, but it can also be used very wrongly. Anyway, now I'm going to spend the next 54 minutes looking up things until I remember the word I'm looking for.
 
2013-05-14 05:09:02 PM

js34603: Don't drive after drinking. Why is that so hard?

/I only had a couple!
//I have a high tolerance so I can drive after drinking!
///I make up excuses to justify my inability to control my alcohol consumption and blame the evil government for taking my right to drink and drive!


Because a .05 BAC is possible for some individuals after a single drink.

If you'd like to make the argument that alcohol should not be available in restaurants or bars, I'll listen. I'll disagree, but I'll listen. But there is no appreciable difference between setting the DUI threshhold at .05 or .02.
 
2013-05-14 05:10:42 PM

Kibbler: .15 or higher. So drunk you can't even stand up.


Way to spread misinformation.

You're not helping.
 
2013-05-14 05:11:25 PM

antidisestablishmentarianism: Done in the boobies. Seriou$ly, what will lowering the permi$$able BAC level accompli$h?


Yup. Dishonesty, greed, and a complete lack of common sense. Reckless driving is already illegal, there don't need to be a bunch of extra laws for it. If you can't figure out someone is drunk by watching how they drive then it doesn't matter how much they've had, they are driving fine.

Let me guess, "My mom/kid/spouse/friend was killed by a drunk driver! If you look at a bottle of Maker's Mark you shouldn't drive for two days!"

Your mom/kid/spouse/friend deliberately drove into oncoming traffic because they wanted to escape from YOU.
 
2013-05-14 05:11:29 PM

Nezorf: The main issue is the lack of risk.
The chances of getting pulled over for intoxication are minimal at best.
People take their chances all of the time. Drive around your city at bar close and observe.
How many swerving folks do you see?
How many police do you see?
How many cars are out on the road at 2am (or whatever close is in your town)?
I would say it is safe to assume that 50% of all the solo drivers of those cars has drank at least one beer.
Drunk driving sucks but people do it all the time. Go sit at a bar and watch how many folks come in, drink plenty of drinks in a short period of time, grab their keys and head out.

I'm not suggesting that everyone should be pulled over, but getting pulled over is a chance game.
If they want to save lives, leave the %age issue alone, leave the penalties where they are but beef up how many police are out on the highways and side roads.
Make it more of a risk. Make the chance of getting caught higher. That is where you will see change.
Patrol the main highways but also watch the "safe" roads.
Side note: I am absolutely against checkpoints or blockades, you must have a specific reason to pull someone over.
Speed up the duration of a drunk arrest, the faster they can go through them the more folks can be observed and checked.
They swerve, pull them over, check L&R and request a breathalyzer if there is probable cause.
Even if you pull a person over and they are near the limit (.07 or so) hopefully you will make the potential of getting arrested a reality.

Its the same issue with speeding. The more you do it without getting arrested or getting spooked, you are more likely to do it often.


To put some facts up before this thread might blow up

1st Minnesota DWI
First Drunk Driving Conviction (Fourth Degree DWI - Misdemeanor)
Jail - Up to 90 Days
Fine - $1,000
License Suspension - Up to 90 Days
License Suspension - 180 Days (If Alcohol Concentration .20 or Above*)
License Suspension - 180 Days (If Passenger Under 16 in Vehicle*)
License Suspension - 1 Year (DWI Test Refusal)
Limited License - Must Wait 15 Days (If There are no *Aggravating Circumstances)
Ignition Interlock Possible
Fee - $250 License Reinstatement
Fee - $430 License Reinstatement Surcharge
Fee - $24 Driver License Application Fee

2nd Minnesota DWI
Second Drunk Driving Conviction (Within 10 Years of Previous) - Third Degree DWI - Gross Misdemeanor
Jail - Up to 1 Year
Fine - $3,000
License Suspension - 180 Days
License Suspension - 360 Days (If Alcohol Concentration .20 or Above)
License Suspension - 360 Days (If Passenger under Age of 16 in Vehicle)
Limited License (Work or School) - Must Wait 90 Days
Ignition Interlock Possible
Fee - $250 License Reinstatement
Fee - $430 License Reinstatement Surcharge
Fee - $24 Driver License Application Fee
Administrative License Plate Impoundment (All Vehicles - 1 Year)
Issued Specially Coded Plate

3rd Minnesota DWI
Third Drunk Driving Conviction (Within 10 Years of Previous) - Second Degree DWI - Gross Misdemeanor
Jail - Up to 1 Year
Fine - $3,000
License Suspension - Cancelled Indefinitely Pending, Treatment / Rehabilitation / Abstinence for 1 Year
Ignition Interlock Possible
Administrative License Plate Impoundment (All Vehicles - 1 Year)
Issued Specially Coded Plates

4th Minnesota DWI
Fourth Drunk Driving Conviction (Within 10 Years of Previous)
First Degree DWI - Felony
Jail - Up to 7 Years
Fine - $14,000


I heard of someone in Minnesota who had 20+ DUI's and he didn't care if he killed someone

Also, doesn't most of the world has the DUI limit at .05?

And are the punishments more harsh in other countries?

/Canada won'tet you in if you had a DUI
//drive drunk and kill someone? You should face 2nd degree murder
///supports .05
 
2013-05-14 05:12:09 PM

libranoelrose: Kibbler: .15 or higher. So drunk you can't even stand up.

Way to spread misinformation.

You're not helping.


I know a couple of women that can't keep their knickers up at .08.
 
2013-05-14 05:12:56 PM

Director_Mr: And you have to wonder out of that 800-1000 fatalities they estimate, how many of those accidents were caused by the alcohol content vs other factors (driving badly, etc.). Any time an advocate says this many lives are saved, I am really skeptical.


I really just wanted to quote this to emphasize it. It's true or nearly every behavioral statistic.

Speeding is illegal. Driving deaths have occurred when drivers crash at 56MPH in a 55MPH zone. Arguing that the drivers going 56MPH sounds ridiculous to most people. Same thing here. Sure, it may be a factor in a list of other factors, but it probably doesn't make the crucial difference.

I have caused an accident before driving perfectly sober with no distractions except whatever was on my mind at the time. I made a mistake. I didn't look as closely as I thought I had. Take that exact same mistake, but add a 0.08 BAC and suddenly I would be a drunk driver even though that didn't have anything to do with whatever mental distraction I had at the time.

tl;dr: statistics suck
 
Displayed 50 of 231 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report