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
 
2013-05-14 02:31:59 PM
Not sure what this is supposed to accomplish.  What percentage of drunk driving deaths are caused by people at .08?
 
2013-05-14 02:33:08 PM
Throw the book at the people who exceed .08 instead.
 
2013-05-14 02:33:22 PM

timujin: Not sure what this is supposed to accomplish.  What percentage of drunk driving deaths are caused by people at .08?


Pretty much what I came in here to say. Are lives really going to be saved by arresting sober people?
 
2013-05-14 02:34:29 PM
Jerking off with Purel is going to result in felony DUI.
 
2013-05-14 02:37:16 PM

R.A.Danny: timujin: Not sure what this is supposed to accomplish.  What percentage of drunk driving deaths are caused by people at .08?

Pretty much what I came in here to say. Are lives really going to be saved by arresting sober people?


It's all about $afety
 
2013-05-14 02:46:18 PM
Pretty soon if any alcohol is detected in your system you will be charged with DUI.
 
2013-05-14 02:46:21 PM

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.
 
2013-05-14 02:48:21 PM
Done in the boobies. Seriou$ly, what will lowering the permi$$able BAC level accompli$h?
 
2013-05-14 02:49:59 PM
Here's to living in a city with many bars in walking distance!
 
2013-05-14 02:52:29 PM
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
 
2013-05-14 02:54:24 PM

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


I don't know about that.  Even in my submarining days (yes, sailors drink a lot, submariners drink even more), downing four drinks in an hour did not leave me in a state to drive.  Five would be messy.

timujin: Not sure what this is supposed to accomplish.  What percentage of drunk driving deaths are caused by people at .08?


This I would like to see borne out in detail, however.
 
2013-05-14 02:58:13 PM
I take umbrage at the headline, I may be sauced out of my gourd, but I'm never too drunk to hail a cab.
 
2013-05-14 03:04:00 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.


Or hurl *IN* a cab.
 
2013-05-14 03:05:30 PM
Alberta did this recently, lowering the legal limit from 0.08 to 0.05.

I have two friends who are police officers and they don't agree with it, stating that it's essentially useless. Why? Because people who cause fatal collisions aren't often in the 0.05 range, they're in the 0.20 range or above, or in other words, completely sh*tfaced.  Lowering the limit to 0.05 does nothing to prevent that.

My police friends would absolutely agree with tougher sentencing. I've heard their stories from court on drunk drivers beating charges and it is absolutely appalling.
 
2013-05-14 03:07:03 PM
Neoprohibitionists.  They are working, slowly, gradually, towards zero tolerance.  They know they can't ask for it all at once, because they will be laughed at.  So they exploit the mechanisms of the slippery slope to achieve their goals.
 
2013-05-14 03:12:27 PM

dittybopper: Neoderegulationists.  They are working, slowly, gradually, towards zero regulation.  They know they can't ask for it all at once, because they will be laughed at.  So they exploit the fallacy of the slippery slope to achieve their goals.


Can be said for both sides
 
2013-05-14 03:13:35 PM
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 say no.
 
2013-05-14 03:17:46 PM

Nezorf: dittybopper: Neoderegulationists.  They are working, slowly, gradually, towards zero regulation.  They know they can't ask for it all at once, because they will be laughed at.  So they exploit the fallacy of the slippery slope to achieve their goals.

Can be said for both sides


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

Read the link.  It's by a very respected constitutional law professor, and it actually describes how slippery slopes work in the real world.

Also, your argument would have greater weight if anyone was arguing for increasing the BAC to be considered drunk, but pretty much no one is that I'm aware of, and in any case it's gone from no standard, to 0.10, then to 0.08, and now they are advocating for 0.05.    That's enough data points for me to say "Hey, all the movement is downward", which puts the lie to your alleged corrections.
 
2013-05-14 03:22:12 PM

IgG4: 1 in 7 people in MN have already been convicted of DUI


Really?  Fully 14% of your population has been convicted of DUI?  That sounds rather high.

Even if you just count 14% of adults, or even 14% of licensed drivers, that's a huge percentage.

(runs and checks)

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.
 
2013-05-14 03:22:46 PM

dittybopper: Neoprohibitionists.  They are working, slowly, gradually, towards zero tolerance.  They know they can't ask for it all at once, because they will be laughed at.  So they exploit the mechanisms of the slippery slope to achieve their goals.


MADD does fall under this category, and they seem to have all the free time in the world to bother legislators.  God knows they don't have a social life.

And I say this as someone that is deeply committed to road safety and responsible drinking: dem b*tches be crazy.
 
2013-05-14 03:27:31 PM
Another day, another BS Government regulation.

This is right up there with the assinine ad campaign, "Buzzed driving is drink driving"
 
2013-05-14 03:38:18 PM
That would accomplish absolutely nothing....except ruin the lives of even more perfectly safe drivers who aren't even actually drunk. This nanny-state of ours needs to lighten up and have a beer or two.
 
2013-05-14 03:47:46 PM

factoryconnection: dittybopper: Neoprohibitionists.  They are working, slowly, gradually, towards zero tolerance.  They know they can't ask for it all at once, because they will be laughed at.  So they exploit the mechanisms of the slippery slope to achieve their goals.

MADD does fall under this category, and they seem to have all the free time in the world to bother legislators.  God knows they don't have a social life.

And I say this as someone that is deeply committed to road safety and responsible drinking: dem b*tches be crazy.


Even the founder of MADD thinks they've gone too far towards the neo-prohibitionist side, though she does support ignition interlocks for those convicted of drunk driving.

The interesting things about organizations, though, is that like organisms, they don't like to die.  MADD was founded with one goal:  To reduce drunk driving deaths.  By any rational measure, they've succeeded fantastically:

www.centurycouncil.org

They've cut the raw numbers of deaths due to drunk driving in *HALF*.

The problem is, what do you do when you've won?

Well, you advocate for that one extra step to reduce it even further.  The alternative is irrelevance or even death as an organization.  And organizations like that don't like to die.

Did you know that the  Woman's Christian Temperance Union is still around?  Yes, 80 years after the repeal of their signature legislation, they are still around.
 
2013-05-14 03:52:39 PM

Rev.K: My police friends would absolutely agree with tougher sentencing. I've heard their stories from court on drunk drivers beating charges and it is absolutely appalling.


If they were tougher on sentencing how would DUI lawyers make any moneys?
 
2013-05-14 04:06:30 PM

dittybopper: Well, you advocate for that one extra step to reduce it even further. The alternative is irrelevance or even death as an organization. And organizations like that don't like to die.


Good point, I can see how they'd not want to just shut down the organization, and 10K deaths/year still yields plenty of bereaved mothers that want to make sure it doesn't happen again.
 
2013-05-14 04:10:26 PM
I am vehemently anti drink and drive but looking at that graph the major and most dramatic improvements are curiously close to when airbags became standard issue, which of course would trickle down towards used automobiles.
 
2013-05-14 04:25:16 PM
But, I like to register above .05% because I believe in keeping my veins and arteries antiseptically clean at all times.
 
2013-05-14 04:26:04 PM
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?
 
2013-05-14 04:26:34 PM
Yay for arbitrary numbers that have no bearing on weather a person is drunk or not!
 
2013-05-14 04:27:50 PM

FarkedOver: Yay for arbitrary numbers that have no bearing on weather whether a person is drunk or not!


BAC well above .08%
 
2013-05-14 04:27:54 PM

dittybopper: The problem is, what do you do when you've won?


**DINGDINGDING**
 
2013-05-14 04:28:09 PM

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.
 
2013-05-14 04:28:49 PM
.05 essentially outlaws dinner and a glass of wine for female drivers 150 lbs. and below (aka the Farking sweetspot.)

The rest of us pigs, two glasses of wine, a relatively quick dinner, and a narc in the lot -- we're booked as well.

Oh and EVERY SINGLE PERSON leaving an NFL stadium would be in violation.
 
2013-05-14 04:29:11 PM
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?
 
2013-05-14 04:29:14 PM
I drive better when I'm drunk.  It helps me to relax behind the wheel.
 
2013-05-14 04:29:26 PM

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?


No, and the new studies do a ton of scientific obfuscation to hide that they have redefined "significant impairment" to levels that require computer aided monitoring to even detect.
 
2013-05-14 04:31:13 PM
So if I had a beer 8 hours before I drove thats a crime now?
 
2013-05-14 04:31:36 PM

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


Already started in Austin Tx.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/drinking-and-walking-is-the-new-crime-2. ht ml
 
2013-05-14 04:31:45 PM
Since studies have shown the dangers of drunk driving to be about the same as texting while driving, I now find it impossible to hate on drunk drivers the way the government PSAs say I'm supposed to.  One guy gets a ticket, maybe, and the other woman loses her license, goes to jail for the night, gets her name in the paper, and has to pay thousands of dollars in fines if she ever wants to be able to drive legally again.

Also, if we were serious about safety, we wouldn't ticket and arrest drunks who clearly choose to sleep it off in the back seat or passenger side rather than drive.  This bullshiat about "if you have the keys you could start the vehicle" is farking A ignorant.  I have a dick, so I guess I could be a child rapist too....
 
2013-05-14 04:32:16 PM
Unfortunately I am getting a kick out of these replies.  :(
 
2013-05-14 04:32:18 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* ...


And after all that  there will be your 'out of this universe' insurance rates.
 
2013-05-14 04:32:19 PM
t1.gstatic.com
 
2013-05-14 04:32:37 PM
0.05 BAC? Then I guess we better start executing people for texting, eating, yelling at their kids, or applying makeup while driving.

/have never driven after even one drink, but still
 
2013-05-14 04:33:12 PM

the_freelance: Oh and EVERY SINGLE PERSON leaving an NFL stadium would be in violation.


Any Onion articles about this yet?

"Green Bay, WI Ghost Town After 72,000 Packers Fans Arrested for DUI"
 
2013-05-14 04:33:37 PM
Bc dropped the limit to .05 and drastically increased penalties. If you are caught twice it's such a high penalty that you will be stuck with a huge financial burden for 5 or more years. Really reduced the amount of casual drunk driving. No one wants to risk losing 50-100% of a years income over a dui ticket.
 
2013-05-14 04:33:49 PM
dittybopper:
[www.centurycouncil.org image 500x375]

They've cut the raw numbers of deaths due to drunk driving in *HALF*.

The problem is, what do you do when you've won?

Well, you advocate for that one extra step to reduce it even further.  The alternative is irrelevance or even death as an organization.  And organizations like that don't like to die.

Did you know that the  Woman's Christian Temperance Union is still around?  Yes, 80 years after the repeal of their signature legislation, they are still around.


What gets me is that when you consider drunk driving related accidents have gone down by half in raw numbers, as a factor of fatalities per road mile driven per year, it's down way more than 50%. It's also way down as a factor of total highway deaths, even though NHTSA considers any crash alcohol related if there is -any- detectable amount in the blood. Sober guy T-bones a cab hauling a drunk home from the bar? Alcohol involved fatality.

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.
 
2013-05-14 04:34:17 PM
In Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, there is a 0% rule.  And daily random checkpoints around the city.  Yes, it helped reduce drunk driving, but a lot of collateral damage as well.  People have gone to jail and lost both their car and licenses for cleaning their mouth with Listerine.
 
2013-05-14 04:35:09 PM
Money grab.
 
2013-05-14 04:36:02 PM

dittybopper: factoryconnection: dittybopper: Neoprohibitionists.  They are working, slowly, gradually, towards zero tolerance.  They know they can't ask for it all at once, because they will be laughed at.  So they exploit the mechanisms of the slippery slope to achieve their goals.

MADD does fall under this category, and they seem to have all the free time in the world to bother legislators.  God knows they don't have a social life.

And I say this as someone that is deeply committed to road safety and responsible drinking: dem b*tches be crazy.

Even the founder of MADD thinks they've gone too far towards the neo-prohibitionist side, though she does support ignition interlocks for those convicted of drunk driving.

The interesting things about organizations, though, is that like organisms, they don't like to die.  MADD was founded with one goal:  To reduce drunk driving deaths.  By any rational measure, they've succeeded fantastically:

[www.centurycouncil.org image 500x375]

They've cut the raw numbers of deaths due to drunk driving in *HALF*.

The problem is, what do you do when you've won?

Well, you advocate for that one extra step to reduce it even further.  The alternative is irrelevance or even death as an organization.  And organizations like that don't like to die.

Did you know that the  Woman's Christian Temperance Union is still around?  Yes, 80 years after the repeal of their signature legislation, they are still around.


Now index those figures against population or miles driven per year, and the stats will look even better.  At some point, legislation won't make a meaningful difference.
 
2013-05-14 04:36:22 PM
Politicians excepted.
 
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
 
2013-05-14 05:13:12 PM

R.A.Danny: 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.


I told you, stop buying my mom wine!
 
2013-05-14 05:14:42 PM
I thought you said "Making your mom whine"
 
2013-05-14 05:15:02 PM
Looks like magazine limit stupidity is being applied to blood alcohol, except blood alcohol actually has an effect on driving.

Looks like the government is coming after Fark's vices and all I can say is:
 
2013-05-14 05:15:45 PM

R.A.Danny: 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.


I've known women who can't keep their knickers up at 0.00 after telling them that their Mountain Dew is a fancy Margarita.
 
2013-05-14 05:19:30 PM

jonny_q: R.A.Danny: 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.

I've known women who can't keep their knickers up at 0.00 after telling them that their Mountain Dew is a fancy Margarita.


Stop giving my mom Mountain Dew!
 
2013-05-14 05:19:35 PM
I say make blood alcohol just one part of the test.  Improve the test for "impairment" and the results of that test should potentially supersede the bac.  One drink and a vicodin and you could be impaired.  Three beers and you might be fine to drive.  Colorado making efforts to determine chemical levels of impairment for THC and I think they really need to re-look at other tests of impairment.  Get stopped, play a "video game" in the back of a cop car.
 
2013-05-14 05:20:25 PM
At 1am your lack of sleep is a greater hazard than 0.08 BAC. So, everyone needs to get a disco nap in the early evening just to be safe.

/Failure to get a disco nap will result in fine or prison
//All for you, "Citizen"
 
2013-05-14 05:23:54 PM

kahnzo: I say make blood alcohol just one part of the test.  Improve the test for "impairment" and the results of that test should potentially supersede the bac.  One drink and a vicodin and you could be impaired.  Three beers and you might be fine to drive.  Colorado making efforts to determine chemical levels of impairment for THC and I think they really need to re-look at other tests of impairment.  Get stopped, play a "video game" in the back of a cop car.


Around here (DC/VA/MD) it seems like the real push should be a crackdown on "driving while being a moron."  I see some people do some incredibly stoooopid shiat, alcohol or no.
 
2013-05-14 05:24:38 PM
I like the new billboards popping up around here. Picture of a guy who registered .08 on a breathalyzer, captioned "YOU JUST BLEW $10,000"

it's insanely expensive to get one these days. Fines, missed work, DUI school, increased insurance costs, interlock device, license suspension & reinstatement fees, etc. Be a cheap bastard you drunks! Call a cab!

/Note to self included
 
2013-05-14 05:26:54 PM
upload.wikimedia.org

Virtually all countries inEurope has stricter standards for who can belong on the road.

We don't want to enact more sensible anti-drunk drivinglegislation and suffer the tyranny ofEurope do we?

No, real Americans drive inebriated and let G-D sort out the fatalities!
 
2013-05-14 05:29:50 PM

doofusgumby: I like the new billboards popping up around here. Picture of a guy who registered .08 on a breathalyzer, captioned "YOU JUST BLEW $10,000"

it's insanely expensive to get one these days. Fines, missed work, DUI school, increased insurance costs, interlock device, license suspension & reinstatement fees, etc. Be a cheap bastard you drunks! Call a cab!

/Note to self included


Which is why self-driving cars won't make a bit of difference. Hell, they'll slap  you with a DUI for sleeping in a parked car now, what makes you think they won't if you're in a self-driving car that's on the road?
 
2013-05-14 05:30:04 PM
Nezorf:  ...


I contend that after a few days or weeks in a submarine where you aren't drinking your resistance to alcohol is much lower than an acomplished alcoholic's daily training diet and perhaps 3 or 4 drinks might be a substantial buzz to you.  Our alcoholic has spent lots of time and money honing his system to consume much more than that amount.  I feel there should be some kind of reaction and skills test that would also weed out the senile or dangerously stupid drivers and not a pure % test.
 
2013-05-14 05:30:32 PM

TheTurtle: kahnzo: I say make blood alcohol just one part of the test.  Improve the test for "impairment" and the results of that test should potentially supersede the bac.  One drink and a vicodin and you could be impaired.  Three beers and you might be fine to drive.  Colorado making efforts to determine chemical levels of impairment for THC and I think they really need to re-look at other tests of impairment.  Get stopped, play a "video game" in the back of a cop car.

Around here (DC/VA/MD) it seems like the real push should be a crackdown on "driving while being a moron."  I see some people do some incredibly stoooopid shiat, alcohol or no.


Yesterday, I was sitting in a left turn lane, at a red light, waiting to turn across two lanes of traffic. 4:30 in the afternoon, stone-cold sober, just watching the road.

There was a break in the oncoming traffic, probably about 10 seconds of space. Before I'd even given it a bit of rational thought, I'd made my turn and was going down the road. It took me a little while to even realize I'd just made a left on red. If a cop had been anywhere around me, it would have been the most well-deserved ticket in history.

Sometimes, "moron" happens.
 
2013-05-14 05:30:58 PM

super_grass: [upload.wikimedia.org image 680x520]

Virtually all countries inEurope has stricter standards for who can belong on the road.

We don't want to enact more sensible anti-drunk drivinglegislation and suffer the tyranny ofEurope do we?

No, real Americans drive inebriated and let G-D sort out the fatalities!



Give America the same public transit options, drop the drinking age to match Europe, and get rid of the puritanical attitudes and I'm right there with ya.
 
2013-05-14 05:31:50 PM
Drunk driving deaths has steadily declined over the years.  They need more money.

http://www.centurycouncil.org/drunk-driving/drunk-driving-fatalities -n ational-statistics
 
2013-05-14 05:34:29 PM

timujin: Not sure what this is supposed to accomplish.  What percentage of drunk driving deaths are caused by people at .08?


The real problem is that 0.08 is notoriously hard to gauge without an actual test. The level SHOULD be 0.02 - that way it's real simple: if you had a drink, you don't drive. One or the other. No more "I only had 2 beers, officer".

Trying to decide whether you're over 0.08 or not is ridiculous, especially after you've had a few and your perception is already altered.
 
2013-05-14 05:35:52 PM

dittybopper: factoryconnection: dittybopper: Neoprohibitionists.  They are working, slowly, gradually, towards zero tolerance.  They know they can't ask for it all at once, because they will be laughed at.  So they exploit the mechanisms of the slippery slope to achieve their goals.

MADD does fall under this category, and they seem to have all the free time in the world to bother legislators.  God knows they don't have a social life.

And I say this as someone that is deeply committed to road safety and responsible drinking: dem b*tches be crazy.

Even the founder of MADD thinks they've gone too far towards the neo-prohibitionist side, though she does support ignition interlocks for those convicted of drunk driving.

The interesting things about organizations, though, is that like organisms, they don't like to die.  MADD was founded with one goal:  To reduce drunk driving deaths.  By any rational measure, they've succeeded fantastically:

[www.centurycouncil.org image 500x375]

They've cut the raw numbers of deaths due to drunk driving in *HALF*.

The problem is, what do you do when you've won?

Well, you advocate for that one extra step to reduce it even further.  The alternative is irrelevance or even death as an organization.  And organizations like that don't like to die.

Did you know that the  Woman's Christian Temperance Union is still around?  Yes, 80 years after the repeal of their signature legislation, they are still around.




Air bags
Traction control
Disc brakes
Crumple zone

Thank you technology gods.
 
2013-05-14 05:38:31 PM

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


Not the point. It should be the same level as commercial drivers. You drunken louts cause much more death and mayhem than domestic terrorism. If DHS crawls up my ass before I board a plane, the least you can do is drive sober. Besides, it is cheaper than a war on terror.
 
2013-05-14 05:42:19 PM

StoPPeRmobile: Air bags
Traction control
Disc brakes
Crumple zone

Thank you technology gods.


Plus: Better trauma centers, better paramedic responses, Good Samaritan laws...seat belt laws, child seat laws...

Drunk driving deaths have declined in part for the same reason gun homicides have gone down: Fewer people die from injuries that would have killed them even 40 years ago.
 
2013-05-14 05:44:25 PM
 
2013-05-14 05:44:32 PM

buzzcut73: doofusgumby: I like the new billboards popping up around here. Picture of a guy who registered .08 on a breathalyzer, captioned "YOU JUST BLEW $10,000"

it's insanely expensive to get one these days. Fines, missed work, DUI school, increased insurance costs, interlock device, license suspension & reinstatement fees, etc. Be a cheap bastard you drunks! Call a cab!

/Note to self included

Which is why self-driving cars won't make a bit of difference. Hell, they'll slap  you with a DUI for sleeping in a parked car now, what makes you think they won't if you're in a self-driving car that's on the road?


Not just for sleeping in it. For being anywhere near it with keys. Even at home. Know 2 people who got DUI s AT HOME. And didn't drink until after they got there.
 
2013-05-14 05:47:26 PM

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


Even if you're not within a mile of a motorized vehicle.  Because Fark you that'$ why.
 
2013-05-14 05:48:59 PM

antidisestablishmentarianism: Oh hey, Drunk Driving deaths only make up 6% of all drunk driving deaths when the BAC is between .05 and .07.


Was the alcohol a factor in the crashes?
 
2013-05-14 05:49:34 PM

super_grass: [upload.wikimedia.org image 680x520]

Virtually all countries inEurope has stricter standards for who can belong on the road.

We don't want to enact more sensible anti-drunk drivinglegislation and suffer the tyranny ofEurope do we?

No, real Americans drive inebriated and let G-D sort out the fatalities!


Because when I hear "safe, responsible driving", I think Russia. That 0.0 sure has gotten all the drunks off the road.

Oh, wait.
 
2013-05-14 05:51:11 PM

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

Even if you're not within a mile of a motorized vehicle.  Because Fark you that'$ why.


Yup. See above.

Cop: hey you, the hood is warm, you got the keys?

You: yerp!

Cop: CA-CHING!

You: FML
 
2013-05-14 05:53:45 PM

DrewCurtisJr: antidisestablishmentarianism: Oh hey, Drunk Driving deaths only make up 6% of all drunk driving deaths when the BAC is between .05 and .07.

Was the alcohol a factor in the crashes?


Yep. Sober people made up the largest amount of fatal crashes so we need to really focus on driving sober.
 
2013-05-14 05:59:20 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!


nice.

i4.ytimg.com
 
2013-05-14 06:00:55 PM

ZeroPly: if you had a drink, you don't drive.


Why not?  A single beer has as much effect on my ability to drive as a single water does.
 
2013-05-14 06:01:59 PM
So how long until the NTSB requires that all cars in the US come with ignition interlock devices, whether or not the owner has ever been convicted (or even accused) of a DUI? MADD has called for that; and it's for the children, after all.
 
2013-05-14 06:02:12 PM

antidisestablishmentarianism: Yep. Sober people made up the largest amount of fatal crashes so we need to really focus on driving sober.


It is too bad they don't have a rate/per
 
2013-05-14 06:02:59 PM
I drink and drive everything in sight.
 
2013-05-14 06:04:22 PM

BafflerMeal: super_grass: [upload.wikimedia.org image 680x520]

Virtually all countries inEurope has stricter standards for who can belong on the road.

We don't want to enact more sensible anti-drunk drivinglegislation and suffer the tyranny ofEurope do we?

No, real Americans drive inebriated and let G-D sort out the fatalities!


Give America the same public transit options, drop the drinking age to match Europe, and get rid of the puritanical attitudes and I'm right there with ya.


THIS X100
 
2013-05-14 06:04:51 PM
Can't wait for self driving cars.
 
2013-05-14 06:07:48 PM
DUI in and of itself should not be illegal. Well, let me clarify that. Driving recklessly while drunk should be severely punished. If you're driving recklessly, get pulled over, and you've been drinking? The book should be thrown at you. Your punishment should be far greater than the current DUI punishments.

But punishment for just blowing over the limit, e.g. at a DUI checkpoint, or when officers hide just outside of bar parking lots to pull people over? Fark that. That's the part of it that's revenue generation, and that's the part of it that's an easy excuse for cops to perform warrantless searches.
 
2013-05-14 06:08:24 PM

dericwater: Can't wait for self driving cars.


Won't change anything. You'll still  be "in control of the vehicle" by having turned it on, thus still DUI. $afety and all you know.
Seriously, do you think they'll make an exception for self driving vehicles?
 
2013-05-14 06:09:28 PM

dericwater: Can't wait for self driving cars.


I can't wait for self driving cars with software patches that require a $300 fee or your vehicle stops working
 
2013-05-14 06:12:43 PM
This isn't about safety, it's about how much money the state makes off of your DUI conviction. 0.08 was based off 1 drink/hour... there is no basis for the change.
 
2013-05-14 06:14:00 PM

Mr. Coffee Nerves: Jerking off with Purel is going to result in felony DUI.


I used some Purel after doing the naughty one time.  It was the worst mistake I have ever made.  Incarceration would have been less painful.
 
2013-05-14 06:16:53 PM
If we lowered all speed limits to 35mph, think of all the lives that would be saved.
 
2013-05-14 06:17:40 PM

Smeggy Smurf: dericwater: Can't wait for self driving cars.

I can't wait for self driving cars with software patches that require a $300 fee or your vehicle stops working


Meet the 2020 Microsoft Durango - now with Metro dashboard!
 
2013-05-14 06:24:12 PM

TheTurtle: 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.


The ONLY place you can get a cab without calling ahead in my city is the airport.
 
2013-05-14 06:24:55 PM
The 0.05 standard will, not might, not can, WILL result in false positives. There are people now who can blow 0.01 to 0.02 just from natural body chemistry, and the error in the sensors on those breathalyzers. This means more people would be detained for doing what is essentially not morally or ethically wrong, i.e. 1 drink at happy hour before going home.

We don't want that.

Don't change the standard if you cannot ensure that cops won't simply abuse it to create criminals out of anyone, thus justifying more law enforcement, thus getting themselves promoted and their departments expanded.

super_grass: Virtually all countries in Europe has stricter standards for who can belong on the road.


Ah yes, the Europe argument. Let's all be like Europe! They've always been our betters obviously... Except for that facism and all those world wars...

Yes, it sucks when innocents get killed by drunks. But look at what percentage of those drunks are repeat offenders who were likely well over 0.08 before you decide the standard needs to change.

Most of the reduction in auto fatalities has nothing to do with our crusade against drunk driving, and everything to do with safety features in the cars themselves.
 
2013-05-14 06:25:14 PM

buzzcut73: dericwater: Can't wait for self driving cars.

Won't change anything. You'll still  be "in control of the vehicle" by having turned it on, thus still DUI. $afety and all you know.
Seriously, do you think they'll make an exception for self driving vehicles?


It should be no different than if I hire a cab. And I certainly won't buy into a self-driving car system that doesn't self insure itself.
 
2013-05-14 06:34:41 PM

ZeroPly: timujin:

Trying to decide whether you're over 0.08 or not is ridiculous, especially after you've had a few and your perception is already altered.


Well I might be happier and more cautious if that's what you mean by altered.
 
2013-05-14 06:37:42 PM

doofusgumby: Know 2 people who got DUI s AT HOME. And didn't drink until after they got there.


I just don't believe this.  No DA would file - there's no way to beat the reasonable doubt if this went to trial, and no DA wants to lower his or her conviction rate.
 
2013-05-14 06:38:10 PM

Haven't you people figured this out yet? This is a scam by Google to amp up demand for their future self-driving cars. Between the red-light cameras, the left-turn cameras, the speed cameras, and the soon-to-be limit of 0.0 BAC, driving yourself is going to become increasing difficult. You'll be begging to buy a GoogleCar™.



i40.tinypic.com
 
2013-05-14 06:38:23 PM
Tougher drug laws totally eliminated all drugs too!

This is about pleasing the fascist neo-prohibitionist Jesus crowd and the politicians and police departments that want to profit off of their sentiments.
 
2013-05-14 06:40:47 PM

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

I don't know about that.  Even in my submarining days (yes, sailors drink a lot, submariners drink even more), downing four drinks in an hour did not leave me in a state to drive.  Five would be messy.

timujin: Not sure what this is supposed to accomplish.  What percentage of drunk driving deaths are caused by people at .08?

This I would like to see borne out in detail, however.


As a 160# male, 4 drinks in an hour would prevent me from driving, period.  (Tradeoff: it would let me sing and dance like an angel and make me a master of wit and conversation.)

The 0.08 limit allows you to have two drinks with dinner.  0.05 means one, or usually none if you aren't a man weighing more than I do.

The government brought in 0.05 here and it's killed the restaurant industry.
 
2013-05-14 06:43:51 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 say no.


I don't think decreasing the deaths is the real goal.  Look, someone has to fill the prisons and crime (as defined a few decades ago) is generally at an all time low.  If the police don't have criminals to arrest and process, what will they do?  It will cost law enforcement jobs up and down the industry, from cops to court clerks to prison guards and lawyers.  If we can just increase the inventory of criminals by criminalizing successive levels of previously legal activity, we can ensure both a steady workload for our criminal justice workforce and reduce the unemployed population by incarcerating them.  This is shovel-ready job creation at its finest.
 
2013-05-14 06:45:46 PM

Mr. Coffee Nerves: Jerking off with Purel is going to result in felony DUI.


And lets face it.  Who doesn't do that at least a couple of times per week?
 
2013-05-14 06:53:27 PM

Fecacacophany: 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 say no.

I don't think decreasing the deaths is the real goal.  Look, someone has to fill the prisons and crime (as defined a few decades ago) is generally at an all time low.  If the police don't have criminals to arrest and process, what will they do?  It will cost law enforcement jobs up and down the industry, from cops to court clerks to prison guards and lawyers.  If we can just increase the inventory of criminals by criminalizing successive levels of previously legal activity, we can ensure both a steady workload for our criminal justice workforce and reduce the unemployed population by incarcerating them.  This is shovel-ready job creation at its finest.


There's more than a hint of truthiness in this statement, yes.
 
2013-05-14 07:00:37 PM
What the fark. Neo-prohibitionist nanny state bullshiat. Next it will be .02.

But it's not unexpected. They banned smoking in bars even though you have to willingly walk in the place to inhale the poison you supposedly need protection from. If we acquiesced to that, how can we argue against lowering the risk of causing an accident killing someone who had absolutely no choice in the matter if they don't want to lock themselves in their homes.

Support the restaurants this time.
 
2013-05-14 07:10:01 PM

super_grass: Virtually all countries inEurope has stricter standards for who can belong on the road.

We don't want to enact more sensible anti-drunk drivinglegislation and suffer the tyranny ofEurope do we?

No, real Americans drive inebriated and let G-D sort out the fatalities!


Reason #634,998 that Europe sucks.

/Seriously, those limits are farked up. Even if you are a otherwise a europhile this is at least reason #1.
 
2013-05-14 07:11:35 PM
I'm probably the most notorious anti-drunk driving person on Fark, and I think lowering the standard to .05 is farking ridiculous. In terms of overall impact, it's negligible--not even 1% of the lives lost annually would be saved. More like 1/10th of one percent.

Buried deep within the article are two of many more sensible solutions:


The board also recommended on Tuesday that states vastly expand laws allowing police to swiftly confiscate licenses from drivers who exceed the blood alcohol limits.

And it is pushing for laws requiring all first-time offenders to have ignition locking devices that prevent cars from starting until breath samples are analyzed.
 There is no reason why first offenses--at .08--cannot result in an immediate loss of driving privileges (they're not rights, they are privileges) and, upon reinstatement of the driving privileges, a one-year term of having an ignition interlock device. In addition, DO THE fark AWAY WITH THIS DEFERRED PROSECUTION shiat!! At this point, it's not a mistake to drive drunk, it's a conscious choice. For AT LEAST thirty years, it's been drilled into childrens and adults' heads that driving while under the influence of any mind-altering substance is not only a bad thing to do, but an illegal thing to do. Why, then, do we treat it as a "boys/girls will be boys/girls" kind of "awww shucks" thing when it costs lives and multiple millions of dollars in medical costs and damages to property each year? Treat it like the crime that it is with the laws currently in place to do just that--and stop giving people 13 farking chances (like that one guy who finally went to prison on his thirteenth DUI). First chance, lose driving privileges, get an ignition interlock. Second chance, go to PMITA prison. No need to lower the BAC to .05; just farking enforce the law at .08 and stop treating people who make a conscious choice to break the law at .08 as poor innocent snowflake victims who didn't choose to take the lives of others into their hands when yes, that's exactly what the fark they did--chose to break the goddamned law. And they should bear the full responsibility for that choice.
 
2013-05-14 07:16:33 PM

doofusgumby: Not just for sleeping in it. For being anywhere near it with keys. Even at home. Know 2 people who got DUI s AT HOME. And didn't drink until after they got there.


That sounds unlikely.
 
2013-05-14 07:16:34 PM
super_grass: Virtually all countries inEurope has stricter standards for who can belong on the road.
We don't want to enact more sensible anti-drunk drivinglegislation and suffer the tyranny ofEurope do we?
No, real Americans drive inebriated and let G-D sort out the fatalities!


Then lets make driving tougher, and weed out the old people and those who just can't drive, and increase the speed limits.

/In the United States drive is a right until you prove you can't handle it. Then don't use European standards for our drinking laws.
 
2013-05-14 07:20:01 PM

scottydoesntknow: R.A.Danny: timujin: Not sure what this is supposed to accomplish.  What percentage of drunk driving deaths are caused by people at .08?

Pretty much what I came in here to say. Are lives really going to be saved by arresting sober people?

It's all about $afety


Why would MADD care about anything but safety?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mothers_Against_Drunk_Driving#Activitie s_ and_criticism

Seriously though, fark them.
 
2013-05-14 07:21:59 PM
I doubt the real problem is with people who are just below the limit, if you're actually talking about safety and preventing fatal crashes. I would think it's the people who are way the hell past the limit that are actually dangerous.
 
2013-05-14 07:22:32 PM

jjorsett: Haven't you people figured this out yet? This is a scam by Google to amp up demand for their future self-driving cars. Between the red-light cameras, the left-turn cameras, the speed cameras, and the soon-to-be limit of 0.0 BAC, driving yourself is going to become increasing difficult. You'll be begging to buy a GoogleCar™.


Ask the Amish. It's already illegal to be drunk in a self-piloting vehicle.
 
2013-05-14 07:22:55 PM

dericwater: Fecacacophany: 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 say no.

I don't think decreasing the deaths is the real goal.  Look, someone has to fill the prisons and crime (as defined a few decades ago) is generally at an all time low.  If the police don't have criminals to arrest and process, what will they do?  It will cost law enforcement jobs up and down the industry, from cops to court clerks to prison guards and lawyers.  If we can just increase the inventory of criminals by criminalizing successive levels of previously legal activity, we can ensure both a steady workload for our criminal justice workforce and reduce the unemployed population by incarcerating them.  This is shovel-ready job creation at its finest.

There's more than a hint of truthiness in this statement, yes.


Sad when cynicism rings true.  War on Drugs you say?
 
2013-05-14 07:25:38 PM

number8: So how long until the NTSB requires that all cars in the US come with ignition interlock devices, whether or not the owner has ever been convicted (or even accused) of a DUI? MADD has called for that; and it's for the children, after all.


People on Fark have called for that...
 
2013-05-14 07:28:20 PM

WhoGAS: Drunk driving deaths has steadily declined over the years.  They need more money.

http://www.centurycouncil.org/drunk-driving/drunk-driving-fatalities -n ational-statistics


It's odd that the Century Council is claiming responsibility for the decrease, given that it looks to be about the same decrease as the 10 years before the council was founded.

http://www.project.org/info.php?recordID=157

"The percentage ofmotor vehicle deaths attributed to drunk driving had steadily decreased from 60% in 1982 to 40% in 1997.From that point on, the percentage has remained approximately 40%."

Unless I'm reading that wrong, which is possible.
 
2013-05-14 07:33:25 PM
Actual billboard in California

quadcitiesdaily.com.s140587.gridserver.com
 
2013-05-14 07:35:54 PM

R.A.Danny: timujin: Not sure what this is supposed to accomplish.  What percentage of drunk driving deaths are caused by people at .08?

Pretty much what I came in here to say. Are lives really going to be saved by arresting sober people?


This is analogous to the problem Fort Myers, Florida had/has with speeders. The speed limit in town is 30 or 35, depending on where you are. Many people ignore the posted speeds and drive at whatever feels comfortable for them. But there are also those people (including yours truly) who do actually obey the posted limits. So, the brilliant answer arrived at by local officials is to lower the speed limit even further. The effect of this will be to slow down the people (schmucks like myself) who are already obeying the law, and the people who are ignoring it will simply continue to ignore it. Without stepped-up enforcement, the lowered limits will have no net effect other than to drive up the fines for those people who are stopped for speeding.

For the drinking-and-driving thing, it will be the same result. If you lower the threshold, it's not going to stop people from drinking-and-driving over the limit. The people who do it don't care what the law is, and they don't care why it's important not to drink and drive. The only way to curb the problem is to step up enforcement and penalties. And for God's sake, if someone gets a second DUI, just revoke his/her license and be done with it.
 
2013-05-14 07:37:25 PM
The reason I've taken a hard stance on DUI's is because I had a scare when I was 22.

Went out drinking, had too many guinnesses and woke up, at my place, with no memory of getting home.

I went out to see if I was parked funny, parked normally. Then checked for damage. None. Checked my phone, I didn't call anybody.

So either someone I know took me home or I did something incredibly stupid. I was lucky I didn't kill anyone.

If I did get a DUI I would of owned up to it. It should be .05

/scared straight
//calls a taxi now
/// taxi magic is an awesome app
//// but the fark app is better
 
2013-05-14 07:43:37 PM

soupafi: The reason I've taken a hard stance on DUI's is because I had a scare when I was 22.

Went out drinking, had too many guinnesses and woke up, at my place, with no memory of getting home.

I went out to see if I was parked funny, parked normally. Then checked for damage. None. Checked my phone, I didn't call anybody.

So either someone I know took me home or I did something incredibly stupid. I was lucky I didn't kill anyone.

If I did get a DUI I would of owned up to it. It should be .05

/scared straight
//calls a taxi now
/// taxi magic is an awesome app
//// but the fark app is better


I love wtching the retards in these threads.
 
2013-05-14 07:52:12 PM

Dictatorial_Flair: I doubt the real problem is with people who are just below the limit, if you're actually talking about safety and preventing fatal crashes. I would think it's the people who are way the hell past the limit that are actually dangerous.


They know that. They want to make it so low that people won't drink at all when they have to drive. This will prevent the "just had a few beers" people from having a few too many and getting behind the wheel.
 
2013-05-14 07:52:42 PM
A common benchmark in the United States for determining when a driver is legally drunk is not doing enough to prevent alcohol-related crashes that kill about 10,000 people each year and should be made more restrictive, transportation safety investigators say.

So, how do they know that the .06 people are crashing and killing people, as opposed to just, people crashing and killing people like all the .00 people do?

Lowering the rate to 0.05 would save about 500 to 800 lives annually, the safety board said.

Ah, ok, so they admit it's the people at .08 and above doing the killing. And probably at .15 or .25 and above mostly.
 
2013-05-14 07:55:30 PM

Dr.Fey: doofusgumby: Know 2 people who got DUI s AT HOME. And didn't drink until after they got there.

I just don't believe this.  No DA would file - there's no way to beat the reasonable doubt if this went to trial, and no DA wants to lower his or her conviction rate.


Case 1: female, gets home sober. Has three drinks. Goes out to the car to get something out of the trunk. Cop pulls up and says there was a report about a suspected drunk driver in the neighborhood. Makes her blow after running her licence and finding she had a prior. She can't afford a $3,000 lawyer, pleads no contest. Dumb I know, but that's the breaks.

Case 2: Male, was sober and parked on the side of a main street. High speed chase goes by, CHP sideswipes his car, CHP continues chase. He calls CHP to find out what he should do, they make him wait a couple hours before saying go home, an officer will come by when available. He goes home, waits. Couple hours go by, he has a couple beers. CHP shows up, arrest for DUI with enhancement for damaging a cruiser. He gets a lawyer and fights, loses.

So yes, it does happen.
 
2013-05-14 07:57:08 PM

soupafi: The reason I've taken a hard stance on DUI's is because I had a scare when I was 22.

Went out drinking, had too many guinnesses and woke up, at my place, with no memory of getting home.

I went out to see if I was parked funny, parked normally. Then checked for damage. None. Checked my phone, I didn't call anybody.

So either someone I know took me home or I did something incredibly stupid. I was lucky I didn't kill anyone.

If I did get a DUI I would of owned up to it. It should be .05

/scared straight
//calls a taxi now
/// taxi magic is an awesome app
//// but the fark app is better


Oddly enough, the .08 limit didn't stop you from doing something stupid.
 
2013-05-14 08:03:17 PM

RsquaredW: soupafi: The reason I've taken a hard stance on DUI's is because I had a scare when I was 22.

Went out drinking, had too many guinnesses and woke up, at my place, with no memory of getting home.

I went out to see if I was parked funny, parked normally. Then checked for damage. None. Checked my phone, I didn't call anybody.

So either someone I know took me home or I did something incredibly stupid. I was lucky I didn't kill anyone.

If I did get a DUI I would of owned up to it. It should be .05

/scared straight
//calls a taxi now
/// taxi magic is an awesome app
//// but the fark app is better

Oddly enough, the .08 limit didn't stop you from doing something stupid.


My question is, how did he get that drunk off that weak ass-Guinness? I bet he was roofied and had a sore butt in the morning.
 
2013-05-14 08:04:42 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.


The original recommendation was .15 you know, the one based on actual science.
 
2013-05-14 08:17:59 PM

scottydoesntknow: R.A.Danny: timujin: Not sure what this is supposed to accomplish.  What percentage of drunk driving deaths are caused by people at .08?

Pretty much what I came in here to say. Are lives really going to be saved by arresting sober people?

It's all about $afety


Yup its about $aft€¥
 
2013-05-14 08:22:40 PM

soupafi: The reason I've taken a hard stance on DUI's is because I had a scare when I was 22.

Went out drinking, had too many guinnesses and woke up, at my place, with no memory of getting home.

I went out to see if I was parked funny, parked normally. Then checked for damage. None. Checked my phone, I didn't call anybody.

So either someone I know took me home or I did something incredibly stupid. I was lucky I didn't kill anyone.

If I did get a DUI I would of owned up to it. It should be .05

/scared straight
//calls a taxi now
/// taxi magic is an awesome app
//// but the fark app is better


If this story is true, you were WELL over .08. So how exactly would lowering the limit have stopped you from being stupid?

Also, if you had stopped drinking at .06, you'd remember your uneventful drive home.
 
2013-05-14 08:25:43 PM
Meh, I'm good.  I generally drink at home and the cars are parked 100 yards from the house (big property).  Hardly alone, gotta invite all the friends over.  What are they gonna get me on, drunk while rural?

Sounds like city people problems.
 
2013-05-14 08:47:01 PM
I remember when the BAC was 1.1. At that time, I was pulled over by a cycle cop in AZ at 2 am.
He did not have a direct readout breathaLIEzer but claimed I was too drunk to drive based on 'visual' evidence. My BAC turned out to be .01, the only reason I was pulled over was we had been 'cruising' Central Ave that night and the cops liked to fark with people out having fun...
But I have seen obviously drunk cops driven off site after accidents to prevent them from being charged. I know some police unions allow cops to drink alcohol while on duty, and any law that does not apply to everyone equally, it doesn't apply to anyone...
 
2013-05-14 08:50:54 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


You left out the fact that on 3rd (and any subsequent) DUI in Minnesota (within 10 years,) the offender FORFEITS their vehicle to the government. Permanently.
 
2013-05-14 08:51:13 PM
If 1/4 people driving have had at least one drink then 25% of all accidents would be scored as 'alcohol as a contributing cause.' This includes fatalities.
 
2013-05-14 08:51:25 PM

doofusgumby: Dr.Fey: doofusgumby: Know 2 people who got DUI s AT HOME. And didn't drink until after they got there.

I just don't believe this.  No DA would file - there's no way to beat the reasonable doubt if this went to trial, and no DA wants to lower his or her conviction rate.

Case 1: female, gets home sober. Has three drinks. Goes out to the car to get something out of the trunk. Cop pulls up and says there was a report about a suspected drunk driver in the neighborhood. Makes her blow after running her licence and finding she had a prior. She can't afford a $3,000 lawyer, pleads no contest. Dumb I know, but that's the breaks.

Case 2: Male, was sober and parked on the side of a main street. High speed chase goes by, CHP sideswipes his car, CHP continues chase. He calls CHP to find out what he should do, they make him wait a couple hours before saying go home, an officer will come by when available. He goes home, waits. Couple hours go by, he has a couple beers. CHP shows up, arrest for DUI with enhancement for damaging a cruiser. He gets a lawyer and fights, loses.

So yes, it does happen.


I'm going to call bullshiat on the second one solely because if it's not bullshiat I've lost all faith in America, society, and mankind. So bullshiat.
 
2013-05-14 08:57:22 PM

Sliding Carp: 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)


Based on DUI Fatalities as a % of all traffic accident fatalities, Wisconsin ranked 42nd worst in 2011.
Here's the map from MADD using NHTSA data, where the state ranked 1 has the lowest % of alcohol related deaths and 51 (including DC) has the highest percentage.

Some stats for Wisconsin in 2011:
3 time offenders: 33,166
5 time offenders: 5,042
DUI Fatalities: 196
% of total traffic deaths DUI related 34
% of change in DUI fatalities from previous to current year: -3.4
State subsidy of drunk driving fatalities: $980 million

We're also the only state where first offense DUI is not a crime unless you cause an accident or have a minor in the vehicle.  I believe the counter resets after 5 years, unless you hit at least 2 or 3, and then it becomes a 10 year counter, I think. (been a while since I looked at the details)

  Being from here, I am personally in favor of lowering the DUI threshold. The simple fact is, that at .08, and even less, most people are impaired.  The real message people should get, is if you're going to drink don't drive.  1 beer or wine with a meal isn't going to get anyone over the limit, but any more than that and you should use a taxi or a designated driver.

  I know people like to rag on DUI laws for some reason, but the emphasis on drunk driving has reduced fatalities significantly in the last 20 years.  From 1991 to 2011, overall fatalities dropped ~33%, and when stated as fatalities per 100,000 people, they are down 48 %.
 
2013-05-14 08:58:51 PM
.08 is really low. And I'm higher than .05 with a mild hangover.
 
2013-05-14 09:03:22 PM

timujin: Not sure what this is supposed to accomplish.  What percentage of drunk driving deaths are caused by people at .08?


In a triple Vehicular Assault case where I live, driver had a 0.079 BAC a little more than two hours the crash.  It can happen.
 
2013-05-14 09:03:29 PM

WorldKnowledge: Actual billboard in California

[quadcitiesdaily.com.s140587.gridserver.com image 550x259]


I've seen this in the Mission in San Francisco--at least they are honest about it. DUI's bother me so much because whether you blow .08 or a .5 in the hospital, same conviction, and Jesus Christ, as far as jobs, you are about on par with murderers if they run a background check.
 
2013-05-14 09:03:55 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: doofusgumby: Dr.Fey: doofusgumby: Know 2 people who got DUI s AT HOME. And didn't drink until after they got there.

I just don't believe this.  No DA would file - there's no way to beat the reasonable doubt if this went to trial, and no DA wants to lower his or her conviction rate.

Case 1: female, gets home sober. Has three drinks. Goes out to the car to get something out of the trunk. Cop pulls up and says there was a report about a suspected drunk driver in the neighborhood. Makes her blow after running her licence and finding she had a prior. She can't afford a $3,000 lawyer, pleads no contest. Dumb I know, but that's the breaks.

Case 2: Male, was sober and parked on the side of a main street. High speed chase goes by, CHP sideswipes his car, CHP continues chase. He calls CHP to find out what he should do, they make him wait a couple hours before saying go home, an officer will come by when available. He goes home, waits. Couple hours go by, he has a couple beers. CHP shows up, arrest for DUI with enhancement for damaging a cruiser. He gets a lawyer and fights, loses.

So yes, it does happen.

I'm going to call bullshiat on the second one solely because if it's not bullshiat I've lost all faith in America, society, and mankind. So bullshiat.


Sorry to burst your faith bubble.

Moral of the story: don't go near your car with keys when you've had a drink, and don't have a drink until after the cops interview you after they damn near total your car.
 
2013-05-14 09:04:19 PM

Rising_Zan_Samurai_Gunman: The simple fact is, that at .08, and even less, most people are impaired.


Does this correlate into a higher rate of accidents? If you are going to make something illegal, and a serious crime you should have a very good reason, and evidence. Not just "If .08 is good .05 is better".
 
2013-05-14 09:10:58 PM

Cranialsodomy: In a triple Vehicular Assault case where I live, driver had a 0.079 BAC a little more than two hours the crash.  It can happen.


Do they know alcohol was a factor and not one of the many other factors that can contribute to crashes when everyone is 0.0?
 
2013-05-14 09:11:44 PM
I wonder if they have statistics of the number of deaths from DUI compared to farking stupid people?
 
2013-05-14 09:25:07 PM

Mr. Coffee Nerves: Jerking off with Purel is going to result in felony DUI.


I swear I had something for this.  Something about a sock made of sandpaper.
 
2013-05-14 09:27:49 PM
This is an amazing idea, if we make it illegal no one will ever do it, we won't even have to patrol anymore because everyone will know it's illegal. Safe at last!!!!! Now I can finally drive around without fear of being crashed into by a DUI driver... said no one ever.

I also wonder what the revenue increase is expected to be from that? My favorite part is where they lay the perfect trap for you. They take away your DL, and fine you $5,000, then demand that you use the flawed public tranist system to get to your job....you know that one you didn't use before when you got the DUI because it doesn't actually go to the places you need/want to go or is so slow that it takes 3 hours to get from point A to point B.

/what would the revenue loss be if they increased it to .15?
 
2013-05-14 09:33:44 PM

noblewolf: I wonder if they have statistics of the number of deaths from DUI compared to farking stupid people?


Farking stupid people leads to southern states.
 
2013-05-14 09:34:35 PM

DrewCurtisJr: Rising_Zan_Samurai_Gunman: The simple fact is, that at .08, and even less, most people are impaired.

Does this correlate into a higher rate of accidents? If you are going to make something illegal, and a serious crime you should have a very good reason, and evidence. Not just "If .08 is good .05 is better".


Any level of impairment and you shouldn't be driving, it shouldn't be any more complicated than that. If the cops pull you over because you were swerving or otherwise a danger on the roads, should you really get off because your BAC was 0.06 instead of 0.08?  If it was effecting your ability to drive, then its a problem.

  The level ideally should be 0.00, but that would result in too many false positives. Besides there being times your body doesn't get your BAC back down to 0 for hours, certain medical conditions could increase your BAC - for example, if you have an intestinal yeast infection, it will convert sugar into alcohol and increase your BAC, so that and other conditions could also cause false positives.

  The point of lowering the number isn't to generate more criminal cases, although that may be the immediate effect.  The point is to eliminate the culture of drinking and driving.

 Seriously, how hard is it to not drink if you're going to drive, and to not drive if you've had too many drinks?
 
2013-05-14 09:40:17 PM

chachi88: Arkansas DUI
$475 fine and time served


Oregon DUI as an Oklahoman: About $6000 for one night in jail plus court plus the resulting fines and incidental costs, 90 day driving ban that only covered driving in Oregon, 15 months court supervision and sobriety, 6 of it in outpatient rehab and AA, and ultimately expunged.  Did not count on my Oklahoma driving record because of a lack of parity with the DUI laws between states, so no points on my license and my insurance didn't go up.  Judge told me, "For doing what is clearly the dumbest thing in your life, you managed to do it in the smartest possible way, because you know and I know if you had an Oregon license or you were at home, things would have been much worse."

/First time, last time.
//Wouldn't recommend it.
///Should have trusted my gut, not my "friends."
////Sad thing is, that's the best thing that happened to me in Oregon in the last 10 years.
 
2013-05-14 09:53:39 PM

Rising_Zan_Samurai_Gunman: Any level of impairment and you shouldn't be driving, it shouldn't be any more complicated than that.


Yes it should be more complicated. Show me this level of  "impairment" increases your chances of causing an accident.

Rising_Zan_Samurai_Gunman:
Seriously, how hard is it to not drink if you're going to drive, and to not drive if you've had too many drinks?

How many is "too many"? It should be the amount that can be shown to increase your chances of causing an accident.
 
2013-05-14 10:06:21 PM

Gonz: TheTurtle: kahnzo: I say make blood alcohol just one part of the test.  Improve the test for "impairment" and the results of that test should potentially supersede the bac.  One drink and a vicodin and you could be impaired.  Three beers and you might be fine to drive.  Colorado making efforts to determine chemical levels of impairment for THC and I think they really need to re-look at other tests of impairment.  Get stopped, play a "video game" in the back of a cop car.

Around here (DC/VA/MD) it seems like the real push should be a crackdown on "driving while being a moron."  I see some people do some incredibly stoooopid shiat, alcohol or no.

Yesterday, I was sitting in a left turn lane, at a red light, waiting to turn across two lanes of traffic. 4:30 in the afternoon, stone-cold sober, just watching the road.

There was a break in the oncoming traffic, probably about 10 seconds of space. Before I'd even given it a bit of rational thought, I'd made my turn and was going down the road. It took me a little while to even realize I'd just made a left on red. If a cop had been anywhere around me, it would have been the most well-deserved ticket in history.

Sometimes, "moron" happens.


I read "left on red," and immediately thought, "right foot, blue! right hand, yellow!  Twister® ties you up in a knot!"
 
2013-05-14 10:17:53 PM
Tougher drunk-driving threshold proposed to reduce traffic deaths increase revenue
FTFY
 
2013-05-14 10:18:42 PM
I drink at home, all this is going to do is cost party types money and reduce bar business.
 
2013-05-14 10:24:14 PM

Alonjar: Tougher drunk-driving threshold proposed to reduce traffic deaths increase revenue
FTFY


That was kind of my thought. They must not be filling enough seats in the mandatory MADD victim impact panels required for DUI offenders, in which you get to write MADD a check and listen to them call you a piece of shiat for a Saturday. Mind you, this is separate from the DWI class (offered by a private contractor on behalf of the state) where you spend a couple of weekday nights or a full Saturday being taught how to avoid being caught in the future.

Not that I advocate driving drunk, but it has become big business, and any drop in conviction rates demands action (more convicts).

If they were serious about reducing fatalities, they'd be attacking from the high BAC and multiple offense levels...you know, where the deaths are, but that costs, rather than raises money for the state.
 
2013-05-14 10:50:11 PM
I absolutely do not advocate drunk driving, and I absolutely do not equate anecdotal evidence to hard facts.  That being said, of the two accidents I've been involved in where my car was "totalled", both times, the driver at fault was busy using a cellphone (presumably texting) while driving.  Seems like that should be the behavior worth focusing on, versus lowering BAC even more.  Again, if you've been drinking, don't drive, period.  But if you're going to move forward with national legislation in regards to driving and safety, I know which behavior I'd prefer to focus on.  I'm tired of dealing with the hassle and expense of a totalled car, and I'm sure many, many people have lost their lives due to others who are too busy playing with their cellphone to pay attention to traffic.

Seriously people, stop texting and driving.  STOP IT.  STOP.  DON'T DO IT.
 
2013-05-14 11:13:38 PM

kim jong-un: 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.

The original recommendation was .15 you know, the one based on actual science.


When you run out of criminals, just make more (or tougher) laws.

Used to be .15, then they felt they weren't generating enough criminals, pushed for .08 (we pinky-swear that that's as far as we'll take it). Now that it's .08 everywhere, they're pushing for .05 (we pinky-swear that that's as far as we'll take it).

Mark my words, if we allow .05, it'll be .02 soon.

At .08, you can barely tell the difference between legal and illegal by observing their driving, which is why we need checkpoints and computers to figure it out.
 
2013-05-14 11:17:18 PM

Rising_Zan_Samurai_Gunman: The level ideally should be 0.00,


No, it shouldn't. If ample scientific study and current law says that I can have a glass of wine with my meal - actually two for my body weight, and I am quite able to drive safely, than why shouldn't I?
 
2013-05-14 11:26:23 PM

Gonz: Sometimes, "moron" happens.


"Moron" is what gets people killed more than anything, hence moron moments outnumbering drunk driving related crashes 2:1.  At least you can usually spot someone whose gone full-retard at the bar and give 'em a wide berth.  Little tricker when someone decides to jump a red out of the blue.
 
2013-05-14 11:43:29 PM

Rising_Zan_Samurai_Gunman: The level ideally should be 0.00


If that happens, I can't wait to watch the cops hide out front of churches on communion sundays.
 
2013-05-14 11:53:14 PM

number8: DUI in and of itself should not be illegal. Well, let me clarify that. Driving recklessly while drunk should be severely punished. If you're driving recklessly, get pulled over, and you've been drinking? The book should be thrown at you. Your punishment should be far greater than the current DUI punishments.

But punishment for just blowing over the limit, e.g. at a DUI checkpoint, or when officers hide just outside of bar parking lots to pull people over? Fark that. That's the part of it that's revenue generation, and that's the part of it that's an easy excuse for cops to perform warrantless searches.


No...you're getting closer, though. You need a better definition of "driving recklessly" because that's already what happens. You get caught speeding, are pulled over and blow a .10, you get the book thrown at you now. But were you, in fact, driving recklessly because you were doing 5 mph over the limit?

What needs to happen is something like this: Traffic infraction = ticket. Traffic infraction and drunk = ticket and surrender your keys while the cop gets you a taxi ride home. No more of this "DUI because you were speeding or swerving" but we can't let them drive on home, either. No--you get a ticket, but you also can't drive home.

Now, if you get into an accident AND you were drunk? THEN we bring the pain. No "vehicular homicide" nonsense; knowingly get drunk and get into a car and kill someone, then it's going to be murder. Trash someone else's car or property because you were wasted, they can sue you for every dime and you will have no recourse, no more apologizing and saying you'll start going to AA or checking into rehab first thing in the morning. And if you get hurt or killed--too bad for you. You pay the whole bill out of your own pocket or estate.

If the goal is to keep drunks off the road for everyone else's safety, then this lets cops do just that--if you're speeding or weaving or whatever, they can stop you, cite you, and get you a ride home; but no more lurking in the bushes to fatten up the city coffers. And those dolts who think they are able to down a six-pack of Jack Daniels and then drive home--okay, fine. Their first bad accident will also be their last, because no more multiple DUIs for them. They'll either be dead or in jail like the felons they are.
 
2013-05-14 11:58:34 PM
If a .06 driver hits a jaywalking pedestrian, there's an alcohol related death involving a driver with a BAC over .05.
 
2013-05-15 12:00:11 AM

Gyrfalcon: number8: DUI in and of itself should not be illegal. Well, let me clarify that. Driving recklessly while drunk should be severely punished. If you're driving recklessly, get pulled over, and you've been drinking? The book should be thrown at you. Your punishment should be far greater than the current DUI punishments.

But punishment for just blowing over the limit, e.g. at a DUI checkpoint, or when officers hide just outside of bar parking lots to pull people over? Fark that. That's the part of it that's revenue generation, and that's the part of it that's an easy excuse for cops to perform warrantless searches.

No...you're getting closer, though. You need a better definition of "driving recklessly" because that's already what happens. You get caught speeding, are pulled over and blow a .10, you get the book thrown at you now. But were you, in fact, driving recklessly because you were doing 5 mph over the limit?

What needs to happen is something like this: Traffic infraction = ticket. Traffic infraction and drunk = ticket and surrender your keys while the cop gets you a taxi ride home. No more of this "DUI because you were speeding or swerving" but we can't let them drive on home, either. No--you get a ticket, but you also can't drive home.

Now, if you get into an accident AND you were drunk? THEN we bring the pain. No "vehicular homicide" nonsense; knowingly get drunk and get into a car and kill someone, then it's going to be murder. Trash someone else's car or property because you were wasted, they can sue you for every dime and you will have no recourse, no more apologizing and saying you'll start going to AA or checking into rehab first thing in the morning. And if you get hurt or killed--too bad for you. You pay the whole bill out of your own pocket or estate.

If the goal is to keep drunks off the road for everyone else's safety, then this lets cops do just that--if you're speeding or weaving or whatever, they can stop you, cite you, and get you a ride home; but no more lurking in the bushes to fatten up the city coffers. And those dolts who think they are able to down a six-pack of Jack Daniels and then drive home--okay, fine. Their first bad accident will also be their last, because no more multiple DUIs for them. They'll either be dead or in jail like the felons they are.


But there is no revenue in that, the system needs its revenue.
 
2013-05-15 12:05:51 AM

Rev.K: My police friends would absolutely agree with tougher sentencing. I've heard their stories from court on drunk drivers beating charges and it is absolutely appalling.


here in Louisiana and especially south Louisiana you can be busted again and again and damn little happens. it's not at all unusual to read that joe smith, convicted of DUI 4 times killed mary bailly in a car accident. and of those 4 convictions the only time spent in jail was overnight when he was booked.

oh and he was driving on a revoked license with no insurance. and wasn't hurt in the accident.

it's disgusting. it's not ok, boys with be boys, victimless crime. until we get serious with the sentencing you can drop the limit to 0.01 and it won't make any difference to the hard core drinker who is causing most of the mayhem.
 
2013-05-15 12:14:52 AM

Joe Peanut: In Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, there is a 0% rule.  And daily random checkpoints around the city.  Yes, it helped reduce drunk driving, but a lot of collateral damage as well.  People have gone to jail and lost both their car and licenses for cleaning their mouth with Listerine.


And in Brazil, police are allowed to shoot at you for fleeing from them. Can we find something that's a little more comparable to the US?
 
2013-05-15 12:18:47 AM

Gyrfalcon: number8: DUI in and of itself should not be illegal. Well, let me clarify that. Driving recklessly while drunk should be severely punished. If you're driving recklessly, get pulled over, and you've been drinking? The book should be thrown at you. Your punishment should be far greater than the current DUI punishments.

But punishment for just blowing over the limit, e.g. at a DUI checkpoint, or when officers hide just outside of bar parking lots to pull people over? Fark that. That's the part of it that's revenue generation, and that's the part of it that's an easy excuse for cops to perform warrantless searches.

No...you're getting closer, though. You need a better definition of "driving recklessly" because that's already what happens. You get caught speeding, are pulled over and blow a .10, you get the book thrown at you now. But were you, in fact, driving recklessly because you were doing 5 mph over the limit?

What needs to happen is something like this: Traffic infraction = ticket. Traffic infraction and drunk = ticket and surrender your keys while the cop gets you a taxi ride home. No more of this "DUI because you were speeding or swerving" but we can't let them drive on home, either. No--you get a ticket, but you also can't drive home.

Now, if you get into an accident AND you were drunk? THEN we bring the pain. No "vehicular homicide" nonsense; knowingly get drunk and get into a car and kill someone, then it's going to be murder. Trash someone else's car or property because you were wasted, they can sue you for every dime and you will have no recourse, no more apologizing and saying you'll start going to AA or checking into rehab first thing in the morning. And if you get hurt or killed--too bad for you. You pay the whole bill out of your own pocket or estate.

If the goal is to keep drunks off the road for everyone else's safety, then this lets cops do just that--if you're speeding or weaving or whatever, they can stop you, cite you, and get you a ride home ...


Interesting POV, also anyone in Alabama should know that .04 is the real legal limit not .08. If you're involved in a wreck our something and you're .04 you can be charged. I was told this by a Judge in a money hungry little town of course all I did was make a left turn into a convenience store parking lot with my blinker on but there was a cop there that knew me and didn't like me. The judge reduced the sentence of this supposed DUI to reckless driving but hey I couldn't afford a lawyer and 400 bucks was cheap compared to a DUI.
 
2013-05-15 12:27:26 AM

Nezorf: 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.


I wonder where they are going to get this extra money to beef up police numbers.  Oh, I know, they could...

*siren*
 
2013-05-15 12:53:06 AM

Rising_Zan_Samurai_Gunman: Seriously, how hard is it to not drink if you're going to drive, and to not drive if you've had too many drinks?


The question is not how hard, but how unfun.
-- Gatsby
 
2013-05-15 01:45:40 AM

super_grass: [upload.wikimedia.org image 680x520]

Virtually all countries inEurope has stricter standards for who can belong on the road.

We don't want to enact more sensible anti-drunk drivinglegislation and suffer the tyranny ofEurope do we?

No, real Americans drive inebriated and let G-D sort out the fatalities!


Maybe most of those countries are taking into consideration the fact that they allow people to drink at a much younger age.  Such as 16 to drink and 18 to buy alcohol.  Age for getting a driving license is 17/18.  Would you really want to give a typical 18 yr old a drivers license and the ability to legally be above .0 whatever?
 
2013-05-15 03:15:48 AM
There was a story on my local news (WBIR out of Knoxville) about a proposed law to lower the limit in this state from 0.08 to 0.05.  They said that the U.S., Canada and Iraq are the only countries where the limit is 0.08.  In much of Europe and Australia, it's 0.05.  And that in Australia, after the limit was lowered from 0.08 to 0.05, all provinces reported an 18% drop of deaths from alcohol related crashes.
 
2013-05-15 03:41:53 AM

Authentic Chop Suey: Here in CA checkpoints ask many more questions than have you been drinking...


What else do they ask?
 
2013-05-15 03:53:36 AM

Ranger Rover: Authentic Chop Suey: Here in CA checkpoints ask many more questions than have you been drinking...

What else do they ask?


Way back when I was there with my uncle we got stopped at a roadblock they asked if he had been drinking and he said one with dinner with was true. I was so sure we were all going to jail because we had smoking out prior to that. Happy ending though we didn't go to jail and got to his place safely and then smoked out some more. That was some of the best parts about being in LA.
 
2013-05-15 04:40:37 AM

tinfoil-hat maggie: Ranger Rover: Authentic Chop Suey: Here in CA checkpoints ask many more questions than have you been drinking...

What else do they ask?

Way back when I was there with my uncle we got stopped at a roadblock they asked if he had been drinking and he said one with dinner with was true. I was so sure we were all going to jail because we had smoking out prior to that. Happy ending though we didn't go to jail and got to his place safely and then smoked out some more. That was some of the best parts about being in LA.


Because of the lax smoking laws? Interesting. I don't think we're too bad here in Missouri but we're definitely not California (and a walloping thank for God that, in that my opinion....)

I was curious about what other questions may be asked at these checkpoints. Asking if you've been drinking seems like a reasonable question, since that's the purpose of the checkpoint itself. Not that I support checkpoints in the first place; I firmly believe they violate the 4th Amendment and if I recall correctly, I think the Supreme Court itself, in one of its least defensible opinions, said as much and then proceeded to justify their continued existence with the old amorphous "public safety/legitimate state interest" bullsh--.

It seemed like Authentic Chop Suey may have been intimating some deeper privacy invasions in these questions. Situations like this create a real tough spot for people - invoking the 4th Amendment, asking if you're being detained and can leave, or not answering questions is likely to be abused by a cop and turned sketchily into PC or something like it. Which is a damn shame, because what do these rights even mean in that case? In Missouri, a refusal to blow leads to a presumption of guilt. So basically, exercising a right that the state agrees you have is punished swiftly and tangibly and shifts the rebuttable presumption of guilt, making that presumption effectively unrebuttable (yep, making that a word....irrebuttable?) for anyone who can't afford a good attorney.

Have you had experiences with more privacy-invading questions? I'm trying to think of what these could be while still remaining relevant to the purpose of the checkpoint....maybe asking about where you've been or where you're headed?
 
2013-05-15 04:52:05 AM

Ranger Rover: Have you had experiences with more privacy-invading questions? I'm trying to think of what these could be while still remaining relevant to the purpose of the checkpoint....maybe asking about where you've been or where you're headed?


Actually, that was the officers first question where were we and where are we going? And the first time I was stopped as a teen I was asked a similar question. maybe that's wrong but they do it all the time.
 
2013-05-15 05:16:33 AM

Ranger Rover: tinfoil-hat maggie: Ranger Rover: Authentic Chop Suey: Here in CA checkpoints ask many more questions than have you been drinking...

What else do they ask?

Way back when I was there with my uncle we got stopped at a roadblock they asked if he had been drinking and he said one with dinner with was true. I was so sure we were all going to jail because we had smoking out prior to that. Happy ending though we didn't go to jail and got to his place safely and then smoked out some more. That was some of the best parts about being in LA.

Because of the lax smoking laws? Interesting. I don't think we're too bad here in Missouri but we're definitely not California (and a walloping thank for God that, in that my opinion....)

I was curious about what other questions may be asked at these checkpoints. Asking if you've been drinking seems like a reasonable question, since that's the purpose of the checkpoint itself. Not that I support checkpoints in the first place; I firmly believe they violate the 4th Amendment and if I recall correctly, I think the Supreme Court itself, in one of its least defensible opinions, said as much and then proceeded to justify their continued existence with the old amorphous "public safety/legitimate state interest" bullsh--.

It seemed like Authentic Chop Suey may have been intimating some deeper privacy invasions in these questions. Situations like this create a real tough spot for people - invoking the 4th Amendment, asking if you're being detained and can leave, or not answering questions is likely to be abused by a cop and turned sketchily into PC or something like it. Which is a damn shame, because what do these rights even mean in that case? In Missouri, a refusal to blow leads to a presumption of guilt. So basically, exercising a right that the state agrees you have is punished swiftly and tangibly and shifts the rebuttable presumption of guilt, making that presumption effectively unrebuttable (yep, making that a word....irrebuttable?) fo ...


Well, that was back in the 90's when I was in LA, but my uncle did have some Hawaiian shiat that blow me away. Away way yea cops overreach all the tome and well most people can.t afford a lawyer to fix it, Try talking to a judge yourself it makes you wanna ase some corts should be hel in contempt.
 
2013-05-15 05:21:24 AM

tinfoil-hat maggie: Ranger Rover: tinfoil-hat maggie: Ranger Rover: Authentic Chop Suey: Here in CA checkpoints ask many more questions than have you been drinking...

What else do they ask?

Way back when I was there with my uncle we got stopped at a roadblock they asked if he had been drinking and he said one with dinner with was true. I was so sure we were all going to jail because we had smoking out prior to that. Happy ending though we didn't go to jail and got to his place safely and then smoked out some more. That was some of the best parts about being in LA.

Because of the lax smoking laws? Interesting. I don't think we're too bad here in Missouri but we're definitely not California (and a walloping thank for God that, in that my opinion....)

I was curious about what other questions may be asked at these checkpoints. Asking if you've been drinking seems like a reasonable question, since that's the purpose of the checkpoint itself. Not that I support checkpoints in the first place; I firmly believe they violate the 4th Amendment and if I recall correctly, I think the Supreme Court itself, in one of its least defensible opinions, said as much and then proceeded to justify their continued existence with the old amorphous "public safety/legitimate state interest" bullsh--.

It seemed like Authentic Chop Suey may have been intimating some deeper privacy invasions in these questions. Situations like this create a real tough spot for people - invoking the 4th Amendment, asking if you're being detained and can leave, or not answering questions is likely to be abused by a cop and turned sketchily into PC or something like it. Which is a damn shame, because what do these rights even mean in that case? In Missouri, a refusal to blow leads to a presumption of guilt. So basically, exercising a right that the state agrees you have is punished swiftly and tangibly and shifts the rebuttable presumption of guilt, making that presumption effectively unrebuttable (yep, making that a word....irr ...


I see I'm too drunk to be posting, although that is sorta par for the course for me.
 
2013-05-15 05:31:01 AM
Huh? Even with the supposed revolution in psychotherapy, Caucasian suicide rates have jumped 40% since 1999. But...our health priority is arresting people who had 1 or 2 beers and/or cough syrup?
 
2013-05-15 07:01:06 AM

Gyrfalcon: StoPPeRmobile: Air bags
Traction control
Disc brakes
Crumple zone

Thank you technology gods.

Plus: Better trauma centers, better paramedic responses, Good Samaritan laws...seat belt laws, child seat laws...

Drunk driving deaths have declined in part for the same reason gun homicides have gone down: Fewer people die from injuries that would have killed them even 40 years ago.


That's actually not true:  Violent crime of all kinds has gone down in the same proportion as homicide:


static.cdn-seekingalpha.com

marcisischo.com

If the reason that homicide was down by half was due to better medical care, then you would expect that the violent crime rate would have been steady.  Clearly, the drop in homicide from the early 1990's to today is mirrored by the drop in aggravated assaults, robberies, etc., which strongly suggests it's not advanced medical care (which is irrelevant to the rates of rape, robbery, agg. assault, etc.).

In fact, non-fatal firearms crimes have also dropped:

www.pewsocialtrends.org

So I just don't buy the whole "Homicide rate has dropped in half because doctors are better at treating bullet wounds".

It's undoubtedly true that medical science today is better than it was in 1991, and I'm sure that there is some minor improvement due to that, but it's swamped by the drop in overall violent crime which is the largest factor in why homicides have dropped.
 
2013-05-15 07:11:30 AM

MrHappyRotter: Seriously people, stop texting and driving.  STOP IT.  STOP.  DON'T DO IT.


This.

If you need to send a message, Morse and drive instead.  Why, just yesterday, I chatted with Alexey HC2AO down in Ecuador while I was driving home from work, using Morse code on 28.017 MHz.
 
2013-05-15 08:47:39 AM

dittybopper: Gyrfalcon: StoPPeRmobile: Air bags
Traction control
Disc brakes
Crumple zone

Thank you technology gods.

Plus: Better trauma centers, better paramedic responses, Good Samaritan laws...seat belt laws, child seat laws...

Drunk driving deaths have declined in part for the same reason gun homicides have gone down: Fewer people die from injuries that would have killed them even 40 years ago.

That's actually not true:  Violent crime of all kinds has gone down in the same proportion as homicide:


[static.cdn-seekingalpha.com image 456x340]

[marcisischo.com image 640x464]

If the reason that homicide was down by half was due to better medical care, then you would expect that the violent crime rate would have been steady.  Clearly, the drop in homicide from the early 1990's to today is mirrored by the drop in aggravated assaults, robberies, etc., which strongly suggests it's not advanced medical care (which is irrelevant to the rates of rape, robbery, agg. assault, etc.).

In fact, non-fatal firearms crimes have also dropped:

[www.pewsocialtrends.org image 411x400]

So I just don't buy the whole "Homicide rate has dropped in half because doctors are better at treating bullet wounds".

It's undoubtedly true that medical science today is better than it was in 1991, and I'm sure that there is some minor improvement due to that, but it's swamped by the drop in overall violent crime which is the largest factor in why homicides have dropped.


It's because we switched to unleaded gas. Really.
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/01/lead-crime-link-gasol in e
 
2013-05-15 09:33:05 AM

Private_Citizen: Money grab.


And that's all it is. Farking bullshiat.
 
2013-05-15 09:52:00 AM

12349876: TheTurtle: 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.

The ONLY place you can get a cab without calling ahead in my city is the airport.


I grew up in the middle of nowhere and am familiar with the concept of not being in a metropolitan area.  That's why when I'm in the boonies and drinking my face of I call ahead.  It's not rocket science, and thankfully I have lived to pass this *hic* wisdom on.
 
2013-05-15 10:32:36 AM

IgG4: It's because we switched to unleaded gas. Really.
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/01/lead-crime-link-gasol in e


Or it's because of Roe v. Wade.  Or it's because of increased liberalization of CCW among the states.  Or it's because the baby boomers and their echoes were the main reason, and they are aging out of crime.  Or it could be stricter penalties for crime enacted in the 1980's and 1990's have borne fruit, keeping people who would have been free to commit more crimes behind bars.

Or it could be all of the above.

Actually, I think it's that we're just working back to our equilibrium, our "normal" after changes in society due to the 1960's.
 
2013-05-15 10:36:55 AM

BoniMaroni: Would you really want to give a typical 18 yr old a drivers license and the ability to legally be above .0 whatever?


Am I the only one who thinks  the drinking age should be 16 and the driving age 21?
 
2013-05-15 11:44:04 AM

TimonC346: And I'm higher than .05 with a mild hangover.


Isn't that the truth.  I thought my pocket breathalyzer was broken one morning.
 
2013-05-15 02:40:53 PM
It is called revenue enhancement period.  The safety of human beings?  What a laugh.  Have a late night? You will blow 0.05 the next morning.  Get a dorky looking car.  Drive like your grandmother, and never park anywhere near the bar you are going to.  Avoid main thoroughfares if possible.

These strictures are killing restaurants, and pubs.

I once got pulled over in Walla Walla Washington.  It was the 4th of July, just getting dark.  I had been driving all day.  "Have you been drinking?"  No, sir.  "I smell something."  Yes?  "Get out of the car, please."

The cop asked me to do those stupid dog tricks on the roadside.  I just said breathalize me. "I haven't had a drop of alcohol in several days.  My wife and I are on a road trip, looking for a place to eat and sleep."  I blew 0.00.

The cop actually apologized and told me that his nose had never failed him before.  Then he told how to get to the local Appleby's, adding, "That's where I take my wife on special occaisions."
 
2013-05-15 03:49:31 PM

DrewCurtisJr: Cranialsodomy: In a triple Vehicular Assault case where I live, driver had a 0.079 BAC a little more than two hours the crash.  It can happen.

Do they know alcohol was a factor and not one of the many other factors that can contribute to crashes when everyone is 0.0?


Dunno.  If he had been sober would he have been driving too fast and allowing his ex girlfriend to hang out the passenger window while his seatbelt-less passengers egg them on?  Hard to know.
 
2013-05-15 05:04:21 PM

Farxist Marxist: Rising_Zan_Samurai_Gunman: The level ideally should be 0.00,

No, it shouldn't. If ample scientific study and current law says that I can have a glass of wine with my meal - actually two for my body weight, and I am quite able to drive safely, than why shouldn't I?


Because I can have six. Or is it five? But four were Budweisers and one was a La Fin Du Monde with 9% alcohol. So is that five or six? How does a shot affect it?

It's easier having a black and white rule: if you drink, you don't drive. Period. Have a limit of 0.02% to catch the Listerine cases. The very fact that statewide campaigns exist against "buzzed driving" show that this isn't some simplistic case of having a glass of wine with dinner.
 
2013-05-15 05:41:09 PM

ZeroPly: Farxist Marxist: Rising_Zan_Samurai_Gunman: The level ideally should be 0.00,

No, it shouldn't. If ample scientific study and current law says that I can have a glass of wine with my meal - actually two for my body weight, and I am quite able to drive safely, than why shouldn't I?

Because I can have six. Or is it five? But four were Budweisers and one was a La Fin Du Monde with 9% alcohol. So is that five or six? How does a shot affect it?

It's easier having a black and white rule: if you drink, you don't drive. Period. Have a limit of 0.02% to catch the Listerine cases. The very fact that statewide campaigns exist against "buzzed driving" show that this isn't some simplistic case of having a glass of wine with dinner.


That's a silly rebuttal. My point was that in a free, progressive society I have the ability to make choices and live with the consequences. The ability to have a glass or two of wine with a meal and drive safely home is a choice I should be able to make as a mature adult. My point was exactly a simplistic case of having a glass of wine with dinner, something I believe I should be able to do.  If you, on the other hand, pound back five or six beers because you can, and then drive, you're doing so in the knowledge that you're breaking the law, and you shouldn't be permitted to drive.  Ditto with those driving buzzed: they clearly didn't just have a glass of wine with dinner. Notwithstanding all this, if someone drinks a lot of alcohol, and drives knowing full-well they are over .08, what would dropping the limit back to .05 or even 0 accomplish?

 
The ability to make rational choices is what comes with being a mature, intelligent, well-informed adult. Restrictive laws shouldn't be passed because "it's easier that way". You're advocating control over an entire population, the majority of which don't require the government to supervise their personal lives. Similarly, it would be easier to wipe out the second amendment with a stroke of a pen, or ban junk foods because they're unhealthy, but that is unlikely to be allowed to happen.
 
Displayed 231 of 231 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report