What a joke. This man should never ever have a license again and should spend some time behind bars. Sell his cars and give the victims the money. Why aren't habitual DUI offenders given harsher sentences?

http://www.9news.com/news/top-article.aspx?storyid=80506

LAKEWOOD – Police say a man who hit a 44-year-old mother and her 2-year-old while they were on a bicycle is facing his seventh DUI charge.

I agree with you, but I will go farther. There should be no possibility of becoming a "habitual" drunk driver. One strike and you have proven that your judgement is unfit to allow you the privlige of driving a car. Forever. Period, end of story.

Just as a frame of reference, my family was in a car that was hit by a drunk driver, and we were very fortunate that my mother survived. The driver had two prior convictions, and had another pending.

There should be no possibility of becoming a "habitual" drunk driver. One strike and you have proven that your judgement is unfit to allow you the privlige of driving a car. Forever. Period, end of story.

That would thin out the traffic for sure.

That's rather draconian, considering that the blood level is typically set low enough so one beer or one glass of wine qualifies as "drunk."

I'm no apologist, but when people (often cyclists) are killed and maimed by people who choose not to pay attention while driving, and that merits no punishment other than a fine, it's not hard to understand how someone with 7 DUIs can still drive.

That's rather draconian, considering that the blood level is typically set low enough so one beer or one glass of wine qualifies as "drunk."

I'm no apologist, but when people (often cyclists) are killed and maimed by people who choose not to pay attention while driving, and that merits no punishment other than a fine, it's not hard to understand how someone with 7 DUIs can still drive.
Then you know not to drink one beer and drive, don't you? (Though I think you exaggerate.) Why is driving a RIGHT in this country. This comment is just like that newspaper article in a post earlier concerning bikes on the Blue Ridge. He really believed that if he couldn't stop and then hit something, it was the fault of whatever/whomever he hit. Absurd. – TF

a local cyclist was killed by a drunk driver with six prior convictions....he finally got a prison sentence this time...

http://www1.pressdemocrat.com/article/20070429/NEWS/704290419

If you want to see the penalties reckless drivers who kill people in the bay area receive see my posts in Northern California.

http://forums.roadbikereview.com/forumdisplay.php?f=62

Yes, it is horribly sad what we go through in this country as far as driving is concerned. Over 40,000 people die each year in auto accidents, and I think the majority is due to aggresive driving. We argue more about the war in Iraq than on making driving laws harsher. The reason why most people do not want to make driving laws harsher, is because they might be convicted of them and not be able to drive. How many people actually stop at stop signs and at red lights before turning right on red? My wife and daughter were almost run down by a driver while they were in a crosswalk and my wife was pushing the stroller. My wife has also received dirty looks by people for walking out in front of them into a crosswalk.

A previous client of mine, who I no longer represent, was found guilty of his 4th DUI and he spent a week in jail for it. In his second DUI, he ran over his girflriend's leg and broke it. He has also been charged with Driving on a Suspended or a Revoked license 4 times, with his latest charge coming up for trial in December.

Another client of mine, a plaintiff in an auto accident, was hit by a drunk driver that was way over the limit. It was his 4th offense. They found an empty bottle of vodka and a half empty bottle of vodka on the floor boards of the truck. He was doing 70 in a 40 as he barreled through the red light and hit my client's car, which was the second car going through the intersection on the green light. My client was in a coma for 3 days, in the ICU for a week, and didn't get back to work for years. She also had a newborn at the time of the accident. Luckily, this guy at least had some insurance. Anyway, I attended the criminal hearing along with my client and her husband. This guy got 10 months, with 6 months of work release, which resulted in him spending 4 months in jail for what he did. As far as I am concerned, if that were my wife that got hit I would have been irate. The newspaper should report this stuff a lot more. Then, maybe judges would be on the hot seat a little more.

I am willing to bet that judges at one point or another in their lives used to drink and drive. Heck, most of the people I know have done so at one time or another. So, it is hard for people to think about losing their license if they were to have been caught when they did drink and drive.

At the end of the day, there is something seriously wrong with this country's justice system. For criminals to have long rap sheets is utterly ridiculous. If they are doing that many bad things, they should be in jail for a very long time.

A lady today was telling me a story about how her daughter and her daughter's boyfriend were robbed in their condo. Five guys broke into the place and they shot the boyfriend 3 times. He lived, but he will probably be paralyzed from the waist down. This happened a month ago and the state is seeking 15 years in prison for these guys. Honestly, I don't think it is fair to the guy that got shot. Imagine being paralyzed for life. Plus, these guys had plenty of priors on their record. The kicker is that this happened 2 blocks away from the police station and not too far from where I live and what I would consider to be a safe area. Even if they get 15 years, they will only serve about 10 of it because of good behaviour.

I can go on and on about our justice system being way too lenient. We don't want to crack down because the jails are already full. However, maybe if we built more jails and started enforcing stiffer sentences, then the jails would be less full because less people would be willing to commit a crime.

At the end of the day, blame your legislature. Legislatures can pass MANDATORY minimum sentences. In Maryland, a person cannot be given probation before judgment on a second DUI within 5 years. Who really cares. That should read that a person must serve 6 months in jail mandatory for a second DUI within 5 years and 3 months in jail mandatory for a second DUI within 15 years. Get a third DUI and you spend a year in jail mandatory. Do you think something like that would ever get passed?

the focus on threats in the US is all about "terror"

DUI's, traffic accidents, cancer, poverty, a lack of free health care, obesity and gun control - issues which are far more relevant to public health - are not on the agenda

What a joke. This man should never ever have a license again and should spend some time behind bars. Sell his cars and give the victims the money. Why aren't habitual DUI offenders given harsher sentences?

http://www.9news.com/news/top-article.aspx?storyid=80506

He should be jailed...
And you should have posted this in the lounge. :D

So therefore, you should be *punished*

That's rather draconian, considering that the blood level is typically set low enough so one beer or one glass of wine qualifies as "drunk."

Not true, unless of course you have one huge a$$ drink. This is what your attorney may tell you, but it is not true. In most states, the legal limit is .08g%. Obviously everyone's body metabolizes alcohol at a different rate, but the "average" is .015g% per hour. Of course you are looking at amount of alcohol, type and amount of food in stomach, etc. This roughly translates to one 12 ounce bottle of beer or one "average" size glass of wine. The one drink and you are legally drunk rule may apply if you are under 21 years of age and the legal limit is .02g% (maybe). But for an adult, not true.

Back when our state's legal limit was .10g% I participated in a live drinking class to help train police. I drank 8 (12 ounce) beers in about an hour and a half and ran a .12g% then my body started to metabolize my alcohol and it started dropping down.

But let's just say that, for some reason, it was true that one drink will get you "drunk" according to the law... why drink that one drink? Better to be safe than sorry, than having to try to pay for an attorney to get you out of jail.

a lack of free health care

This is the second time I've seen this sentence used here in the last two weeks. There ain't no such thing as "free" healthcare.

Back on topic, my brother finally had his license taken away for good several years ago - after the FIFTH DUI. I thought the laws were much stricter now.

semantic pedant much?

what do you call a health care system that provides health care at no cost to those who can not afford the service?

Why aren't habitual DUI offenders given harsher sentences?



Because most judges and most prosecutors don't believe the "crime" is that serious. It's the same reason that drivers that kill cyclists are not prosecuted so diligently.

On some level, many in our society have not bought into this concept that driving drunk is really that serious.....you know, you've heard the "We;ve all done it.", arguments. Couple this with the myth that one drink and you can get a DUI and you see how this works.

My take is that one DUI is serious and should be held accountable but not rediculous.......however, once you get the second, the penalties should go up dramaticially.

But this won't change until there is a real high profile incident that gets peoples attention.

How many here have driven drunk more thn once?
Hoe many here have come close to hving a serious incident while driving drunk?

I'll bet it's more than we would be comfortable with. That is the problem.

We as a culture have not taken drunk driving seriously....until we do, this typw of article will continue.

Len

My take is that one DUI is serious and should be held accountable but not rediculous.......however, once you get the second, the penalties should go up dramaticially.


Some people get popped once, then never again.

But if they get hit a second time, not having a license won't stop them. The only thing that will stop them is prison time. I think over 50% of the arrests for drunk driving are repeat offenders.

Hardcore drunk drivers drive with a high blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.15 or above, do so repeatedly, as demonstrated by having more than one drunk driving arrest, and are highly resistant to changing their behavior despite previous sanctions, treatment, or education efforts. Hardcore drunk drivers are responsible for 59% of alcohol-related traffic fatalities and are 385 times more likely to be involved in a crash than a non-drinking driver. Drivers with BAC levels in excess of .15 are only one percent of all drivers on weekend nights; however, they are involved in nearly 50 percent of all fatal crashes during these times.

http://www.centurycouncil.org/press/2006/pr2006-12-19.html

From the same link, about what it would take to stop them:


Ralph Blackman, President and CEO of The Century Council said, "Our recent survey is interesting and innovative in that we went straight to the drunk driving offenders to find out what they think and what would make them stop. We learned that if drunk drivers received more severe sanctions the first time they were arrested, they would be less likely to drive drunk again. The Century Council has been working to rid our nation's roads of drunk drivers, particularly hardcore drunk drivers, for over fifteen years. We believe this survey will assist law enforcement, judges, and policymakers in their efforts to stop drunk driving."

Seventy-six percent of respondents said, prior to their last DUI arrest, 1 year of mandatory jail time "definitely would have made me stop drinking and driving," and 75% responded that a mandatory fine of $10,000 would do the same. The potential of longer jail time and stiffer fines increased the likelihood that DUI offenders would not drive drunk again. Additionally, 70% of respondents said that ignition interlocks would be an effective deterrent. While compliance with ignition interlocks is often low, the threat of a heavy fine and mandatory jail time could increase the installation and use of ignition interlocks, thus making it an even more effective tool in the fight against hardcore drunk drivers. A majority of respondents said that court ordered assessments, mandatory treatment, and court ordered community service regardless of the duration were tactics that were not perceived to be a deterrent.

A majority of respondents (54%) said they would be "very likely" to change their behavior to avoid being arrested and convicted of subsequent drunk driving offenses if more severe sanctions had been applied after their first DUI conviction.

Keep in mind that ASKING people how they would behave if something happened to them is NOT the same as knowing how they would behave if the thing DID happen to them. But it is clear from the survey that those busted see the current punishments as not severe enough to stop their actions.

what do you call a health care system that provides health care at no cost to those who can not afford the service?

Socialized medicine. The point is that someone, somewhere, has to pay for it (read as taxpayers). There is no such thing as a free lunch.

again - playing semantics won't work - call it what you may - the lack of health care provision for a large portion of those in the US is a far more serious problem than the war on 'terror'

Some people get popped once, then never again.

But if they get hit a second time, not having a license won't stop them. The only thing that will stop them is prison time. I think over 50% of the arrests for drunk driving are repeat offenders.

Hardcore drunk drivers drive with a high blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.15 or above, do so repeatedly, as demonstrated by having more than one drunk driving arrest, and are highly resistant to changing their behavior despite previous sanctions, treatment, or education efforts. Hardcore drunk drivers are responsible for 59% of alcohol-related traffic fatalities and are 385 times more likely to be involved in a crash than a non-drinking driver. Drivers with BAC levels in excess of .15 are only one percent of all drivers on weekend nights; however, they are involved in nearly 50 percent of all fatal crashes during these times.
http://www.centurycouncil.org/press/2006/pr2006-12-19.html

From the same link, about what it would take to stop them:


Ralph Blackman, President and CEO of The Century Council said, "Our recent survey is interesting and innovative in that we went straight to the drunk driving offenders to find out what they think and what would make them stop. We learned that if drunk drivers received more severe sanctions the first time they were arrested, they would be less likely to drive drunk again. The Century Council has been working to rid our nation's roads of drunk drivers, particularly hardcore drunk drivers, for over fifteen years. We believe this survey will assist law enforcement, judges, and policymakers in their efforts to stop drunk driving."

Seventy-six percent of respondents said, prior to their last DUI arrest, 1 year of mandatory jail time "definitely would have made me stop drinking and driving," and 75% responded that a mandatory fine of $10,000 would do the same. The potential of longer jail time and stiffer fines increased the likelihood that DUI offenders would not drive drunk again. Additionally, 70% of respondents said that ignition interlocks would be an effective deterrent. While compliance with ignition interlocks is often low, the threat of a heavy fine and mandatory jail time could increase the installation and use of ignition interlocks, thus making it an even more effective tool in the fight against hardcore drunk drivers. A majority of respondents said that court ordered assessments, mandatory treatment, and court ordered community service regardless of the duration were tactics that were not perceived to be a deterrent.

A majority of respondents (54%) said they would be "very likely" to change their behavior to avoid being arrested and convicted of subsequent drunk driving offenses if more severe sanctions had been applied after their first DUI conviction.

Keep in mind that ASKING people how they would behave if something happened to them is NOT the same as knowing how they would behave if the thing DID happen to them. But it is clear from the survey that those busted see the current punishments as not severe enough to stop their actions.

I agree, prison time & fines beginning with 2nd.

One thing that should be used more is the ignition interlock........It's a PIA that most people including first offenders would hate. Imagine explaining to the women on your first date why you need an ignition interlock?

Len

One thing that should be used more is the ignition interlock........It's a PIA that most people including first offenders would hate.

Actually, a study in California showed that first offenders with high BAC are not deterred by the interlocks. That is the high risk group, hardest to affect.

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/about/profile/rd/210_ignition_interlock_report.pdf

The results of the study show that interlock works for some offenders in some
contexts, but not for all offenders in all situations. More specifically, ignition interlock devices work best when they are installed, although there is also some evidence that judicial orders to install an interlock are effective for repeat DUI offenders, even when not all offenders comply and install a device. California’s administrative program, where repeat DUI offenders install an interlock device in order to obtain restricted driving privileges, is also associated with reductions in subsequent DUI incidents. One group for whom ignition interlock orders do not appear effective is first DUI offenders with high blood alcohol levels.

There is not enough information for me to judge the quality of this report in detail, not on the statistical side at least. I have not read it, just skimmed the methods section, but still it is something to consider.

Socialized medicine. The point is that someone, somewhere, has to pay for it (read as taxpayers). There is no such thing as a free lunch.

If the definition of "socialized" medicine is that someone else pays for it then we already have it. If through your employer then it is subsidized by the employer. And what is insurance anyway but having someone else pay your bills? For all those throwing around the term "socialized" do you go it alone and pay your medical bills 100% out of pocket or do you count on someone else to pick up the tap?

I won't even get into the fact that all services you recieve from the government are "socialized" like police, fire, sanitation, infrustructure etc. :rolleyes:

I'll refer you to the California DMV chart: http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/pgs72duichart.htm

They consider “One drink” to be a 1 1/2-ounce shot of 80-proof liquor (even if mixed with non-alcoholic drinks), a 5-ounce glass of 12% wine, or a 12-ounce glass of 5% beer.

The key piece of info is that you can get a DUI while <u>under</u> the legal limit.

I don't advocate drunk driving. I don't excuse it. I've never had a DUI, and I can't imagine I ever will. I'm simply saying that it is really easy to find yourself over the limit after one drink, and there aren't many people who would consider that "drunk." A pint of microbrew should do it. I find it hard to treat people like that the same as hardcore drinkers who knowingly get behind the wheel stinking drunk.

I'll refer you to the California DMV chart: http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/pgs72duichart.htm

They consider “One drink” to be a 1 1/2-ounce shot of 80-proof liquor (even if mixed with non-alcoholic drinks), a 5-ounce glass of 12% wine, or a 12-ounce glass of 5% beer.

The key piece of info is that you can get a DUI while under the legal limit.

I don't advocate drunk driving. I don't excuse it. I've never had a DUI, and I can't imagine I ever will. I'm simply saying that it is really easy to find yourself over the limit after one drink, and there aren't many people who would consider that "drunk." A pint of microbrew should do it. I find it hard to treat people like that the same as hardcore drinkers who knowingly get behind the wheel stinking drunk.

Yes...they call it a DWAI...(ability impaired) and the limits are even lower than the DWI...it's often used as a plea bargain for first time DWI offenders.

We set the bar pretty low when all over the so called news celebrities get a tap on the wrist for DUI's. It to me reinforces the whole thought of DUI's as being not that big a deal. I am sorrry IMHO if there is any injury involved your license is gone at minimum.

We set the bar pretty low when all over the so called news celebrities get a tap on the wrist for DUI's. It to me reinforces the whole thought of DUI's as being not that big a deal. I am sorrry IMHO if there is any injury involved your license is gone at minimum.

Yeah didn't Lindsay Lohan get 2 within a month or so? And drugs on top of that. No jail time as far as I heard.

Yeah didn't Lindsay Lohan get 2 within a month or so? And drugs on top of that. No jail time as far as I heard.

Shipping yourself off to rehab after a DUI is standard procedure for celebrities these days. It is "the cure," at least in a PR sense.

Lohan was sentenced to serve one day in jail and 10 days community service for both her DUI arrests. She is also on probation for a maximum of 3 years. I'm not sure if she has served it or not, but the way it works in California, any time you spend at the jail counts as a day. Literally, one second in jail is counted as a whole day. So just by reporting to the jail, she would most likely be checked in, then immediately be released. Total time, maybe an hour. Personally, I would like to see a law that says that minimum jail time anyone will serve is at least an overnight stay. There has to be some loss of freedom.

It cracks me up that celebrities get bonus points for going into treatment. Have you seen the 5 star resorts they disappear to? HMMM jail or treatment? I think I'll take treatment but make sure they have a massage therapist on duty 24 hours a day, and a personal chef, and a pool oceanside, and ....

but I know one way to stop them from driving

cut off their arms and legs

start with say a finger after the first offense (if no one is hurt) as a warning

This is the second time I've seen this sentence used here in the last two weeks. There ain't no such thing as "free" healthcare.

Back on topic, my brother finally had his license taken away for good several years ago - after the FIFTH DUI. I thought the laws were much stricter now.

but you got the answer wrong!!!
http://www.oregon.gov/DHS/healthplan/app_benefits/ohp4u.shtml

medicaid...and the ED are typically all free for those who can't pay. last time I checked, they are a form of "health care"...

your brother sounds like a real champ...why do so many fail to realize the consequences of their thoughtless actions...?

That would be seen as cruel and unusual punishment. Won't happen. Me, I believe in an eye for an eye. If you run somebody over, they or their relatives get to run you over in pretty much the same situation.

The DUI stuff does get attention in the news. Take this article for example. We had a judge let a lady off with barely any punishment on her 7th DUI. Within a week, she plowed through a bus stop while drunk and she killed a little girl and hurt several others. The Judge was almost crucified, which should have been the result when he let her off to begin with.

I have had all of one client charged with a DUI that was borderline (i.e., BAC = 0.8). All the others have been .15 and higher, with some in the .30. What business does anybody have driving with a .30 BAC?

I am one of the few people that do not drink very much. I have never been buzzed and have never had more than one drink in an evening. Mostly, it has been wine with dinner when I started dating my wife, but that all stopped after she got pregnant. So, I'm one of these guys that cannot stand watching people drive drunk. My friends loved me when we went out because I was always the designated driver and nobody had to worry about who wasn't going to drink.

I'll refer you to the California DMV chart: http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/pgs72duichart.htm

They consider “One drink” to be a 1 1/2-ounce shot of 80-proof liquor (even if mixed with non-alcoholic drinks), a 5-ounce glass of 12% wine, or a 12-ounce glass of 5% beer.

The key piece of info is that you can get a DUI while <u>under</u> the legal limit.

I don't advocate drunk driving. I don't excuse it. I've never had a DUI, and I can't imagine I ever will. I'm simply saying that it is really easy to find yourself over the limit after one drink, and there aren't many people who would consider that "drunk." A pint of microbrew should do it. I find it hard to treat people like that the same as hardcore drinkers who knowingly get behind the wheel stinking drunk.

Yes, at least here, you can be charged with DWI if under the limit. You just have to prove the level of impairment did not match the breath test. Usually when that happens you are looking at something else in the system and that is when DRE is called in (me actually). On paper, yes the above looks good. In reality, I've never seen anyone drunk after one normal size drink.

And as far as the comparison to the hardcore drinkers in relation to the near or at the limit drinkers, I have to disagree. It's the drivers with lower BAC readings (.07g% to .12g%) that are quite possibly the most dangerous. Those are the ones more apt to take increased risks like speed, or pass a car when there is not enough room simply because they don't "think" they are drunk. They are also a lot harder for the average motorist to spot on the road. Whereas your .20g% and above (not in all cases, of course) are usually the ones driving 25 mph while trying to pay attention to the road and swerving all over. Those are the ones that everyone can spot, so warning signs go up and people not only stay away from them, but they call the po po on them. Not to say the way over the top ones aren't dangerous and get our attention. I recently "intercepted" one going 25 mph and swerving all over who was a .30g%. He was called in by a concerned motorist. Trafffic was lined up behind him because nobody wanted to pass him, but the cars in the opposite lane had no idea.

We have a campaign here called "Buzzed Driving is Drunk Driving." I'm sure it is in other states because it's a fed program, but it is true. Designated drivers are the way to go, but I don't need to tell y'all that.

Let's go after the cell phone talking & driving next. They are just as dangerous; there is at least one study that draws parallels to driving while on a cell phone with driving when impaired by alcohol. I drive 20 miles through the center of my town twice each day and the problem with the cell phones is obvious.

There should be no possibility of becoming a "habitual" drunk driver. One strike and you have proven that your judgement is unfit to allow you the privlige of driving a car. Forever. Period, end of story.


Once they are drunk, wtf, they are impaired, drunks have little or no judgement adequate to be driving, to walk around in public even. Proof of the err in the offender's "judgement" comes not with "one strike;" it comes before he/she's drunk, before one drink. The err is when one decides to drive their motor vehicle to a place where they know they will be drinking. Bar hopping. Stopping off for a drink after work.

Development of personal responsibility is repressed by cultural and commercial influences to a morbid degree, instituting a state of delusion in the unchecked minds of too many developing young.

I drive 20 miles through the center of my town twice each day and the problem with the cell phones is obvious.

yup...the people most likely to hit me while I'm on my bike are yakking away on cellies as they pull out of a parking lot right into my way.

One strike and you have proven that your judgement is unfit to allow you the privlige of driving a car. I'm with you on that. I appals me that in Tennessee, the government declares the right to drive to work trumps all, so even a freshly convicted drunk driver has a right to drive to work and back. He just can't drive recreationally.

Somehow my fellow voters see this as preferable to either implementing some kind of reasonable public transit or telling the drunkard that he's lost his right to drive and has to move to within walking distance of his job.

I'm with you on that. I appals me that in Tennessee, the government declares the right to drive to work trumps all, so even a freshly convicted drunk driver has a right to drive to work and back. He just can't drive recreationally.

Somehow my fellow voters see this as preferable to either implementing some kind of reasonable public transit or telling the drunkard that he's lost his right to drive and has to move to within walking distance of his job.

What about a provision, that a problem-drinker could be peruaded to, or could come to the sober conclusion to abstain, and to help them abstain, the state could provide a legal notation on their driver's license that prohibits them from buying alcohol? Might help? Yes? No?

Q) Buddy could you buy me a six-pack?
A) Lemme see your driver's license first. WTF?! Don't you know it's illegal in this state to buy alcohol for someone prohibited from buying alcohol for themselves?

Lets just require them on ALL vehicles?

nK

I agree, prison time & fines beginning with 2nd.

One thing that should be used more is the ignition interlock........It's a PIA that most people including first offenders would hate. Imagine explaining to the women on your first date why you need an ignition interlock?

Len

yup...the people most likely to hit me while I'm on my bike are yakking away on cellies as they pull out of a parking lot right into my way.

Girl who hit me a few weeks ago was on her cell phone when she "didn't see me" coming in the opposite lane. A broken shoulder, surgery, and many days out of work later, I'm on the mend. Good times. I'm thinking she ought to have her license taken away. Or actually, we need to just ban talking on the cell phone in the car while driving, period. In NC they have banned it for someone under 18. What sense does that make? You are still impaired on a cell phone while driving if you're over 18. It's an almost unenforceable law anyway.. Just ban it for all I say.

Or actually, we need to just ban talking on the cell phone in the car while driving, period. In NC they have banned it for someone under 18. What sense does that make? You are still impaired on a cell phone while driving if you're over 18. It's an almost unenforceable law anyway.. Just ban it for all I say.

What about handsfree? What about bluetooth enabled cars? Both or more akin to driving with a passenger with the benefit of not being tempted to look at them while talking? Radios? iPods? Passengers?

DC has had a ban on cellys for years now and I see people talking on their phones in traffic while sitting right next to a cop.... who is also talking on his phone. If they started pulling people over there'd be a revolt over the traffic caused by it.

IMO, what would be more effective would be a campaign to increase handsfree usage and a standard bluetooth interface requirement in all new cars.

What about handsfree? What about bluetooth enabled cars? Both or more akin to driving with a passenger with the benefit of not being tempted to look at them while talking? Radios? iPods? Passengers?

DC has had a ban on cellys for years now and I see people talking on their phones in traffic while sitting right next to a cop.... who is also talking on his phone. If they started pulling people over there'd be a revolt over the traffic caused by it.

IMO, what would be more effective would be a campaign to increase handsfree usage and a standard bluetooth interface requirement in all new cars.

The company I work for has a no cell phones while driving policy, we're supposed to pull over and call back. Of course. for about 25 years previous to this dreadful threat to humanity (the cell phone) we had two way radios which required one to reach with one hand and pick up the mike and then talk, possibly to the boss, to get whatever instructions were being passed along. I don't recall any wrecks caused by it or any big fuss made over it. Hands free is probably the way to go, this friggin genie ain't goin' back in the bottle. :)

And as far as the comparison to the hardcore drinkers in relation to the near or at the limit drinkers, I have to disagree. It's the drivers with lower BAC readings (.07g% to .12g%) that are quite possibly the most dangerous. Those are the ones more apt to take increased risks like speed, or pass a car when there is not enough room simply because they don't "think" they are drunk. They are also a lot harder for the average motorist to spot on the road. Whereas your .20g% and above (not in all cases, of course) are usually the ones driving 25 mph while trying to pay attention to the road and swerving all over. Those are the ones that everyone can spot, so warning signs go up and people not only stay away from them, but they call the po po on them. Not to say the way over the top ones aren't dangerous and get our attention. I recently "intercepted" one going 25 mph and swerving all over who was a .30g%. He was called in by a concerned motorist. Trafffic was lined up behind him because nobody wanted to pass him, but the cars in the opposite lane had no idea.

I personally think that is a load of crap. Saying that lower BAC is quite possibly the more dangerous flies in the face of pretty much every study. The higher the BAC, the more likelihood of accidents and fatalities and we should treat offenders that way. Someone with a .08 being more dangerous than the same person with a .16 is not supported by studies.

I also suspect that those who drive with higher BAC are much more likely to be habitual offenders.

I personally think that is a load of crap. Saying that lower BAC is quite possibly the more dangerous flies in the face of pretty much every study. The higher the BAC, the more likelihood of accidents and fatalities and we should treat offenders that way. Someone with a .08 being more dangerous than the same person with a .16 is not supported by studies.

I also suspect that those who drive with higher BAC are much more likely to be habitual offenders.


That's why I have never liked "studies." I've done "studies" and know that numbers and stats can go virtually any way the person wants it to. I refer to real world experience of arresting drunks and working fatality crashes with drunks for the last 12 years of my life. Most of the BAC I've seen from fatals are anywhere between .08g% and .17g% from drunks. Most of the higher BACs I've seen have been single vehicle fatalities. Sorry, I don't read so called "studies" because I find most of them flawed in some way or another.

The company I work for has a no cell phones while driving policy, we're supposed to pull over and call back. Of course. for about 25 years previous to this dreadful threat to humanity (the cell phone) we had two way radios which required one to reach with one hand and pick up the mike and then talk, possibly to the boss, to get whatever instructions were being passed along. I don't recall any wrecks caused by it or any big fuss made over it. Hands free is probably the way to go, this friggin genie ain't goin' back in the bottle. :)

With a radio though, you're not holding that up to your ear, and blocking part of your vision whilst you're driving and all, not to mention you don't have text messaging on a radio. Hands free, I can get on board with, no doubt about it, I have a hands free myself, and use it sometimes in the car, but most of the time, I just don't talk on the phone in my car, mostly because I don't like talking on the phone.

We also have a no talking on the cellphone in the car while on company business, but that's ignored. I just practice no talking while driving while on the phone. I've seen the arguments made before, like KenB said, about other distractions while driving, and of course, they exist, and best practice for folks is to pay attention as much as possible while driving, but we know folks don't do that for the most part, and it's always dangerous. I do believe that there are stats out there showing that talking on a cell phone is more distracting that other things that could go on in the car.

Hands free is probably the way to go, this friggin genie ain't goin' back in the bottle. :)


Exactly. Handsfree is less of a distraction than carrying on a conversation with a passenger in the car with you.

That's why I have never liked "studies." I've done "studies" and know that numbers and stats can go virtually any way the person wants it to. I refer to real world experience of arresting drunks and working fatality crashes with drunks for the last 12 years of my life. Most of the BAC I've seen from fatals are anywhere between .08g% and .17g% from drunks. Most of the higher BACs I've seen have been single vehicle fatalities. Sorry, I don't read so called "studies" because I find most of them flawed in some way or another.

But anecdotes are less flawed? You're giving a range between .08 and .17, which is huge. Do you believe that someone with a .08 is more dangerous than someone with a .17? If you don't read so-called studies, how do you know they're flawed? Does flawed mean incorrect and not useful? Do the higher BACs have a higher mortality rate even though you think they're more often single vehicle? There are so many more questions I have about your study.

Setting policy based on anecdotes and perception rather than good data is what really worries me. There is no doubt that drunk driving laws have helped reduce accidents, injuries, and fatalities, but I worry that we are on a path towards treating all violations as equally bad without regard to whether that makes sense based on real-world data.

There is no doubt that drunk driving laws have helped reduce accidents, injuries, and fatalities, but I worry that we are on a path towards treating all violations as equally bad without regard to whether that makes sense based on real-world data.


No doubt. I wonder though, what the correlation is between those numbers and much improved crash technology in cars and infrastructure. Seat belt laws, airbags and impact dampening barriers/etc have to be making a big dent, too.

Then again, the safer the car, the more likely the driver will drive like an asshat, no? Perhaps an 8" spike in the center of the steering wheel and no seat belts at all would have the largest positive impact on vehicular deaths and injuries?

But anecdotes are less flawed? You're giving a range between .08 and .17, which is huge. Do you believe that someone with a .08 is more dangerous than someone with a .17? If you don't read so-called studies, how do you know they're flawed? Does flawed mean incorrect and not useful? Do the higher BACs have a higher mortality rate even though you think they're more often single vehicle? There are so many more questions I have about your study.

Setting policy based on anecdotes and perception rather than good data is what really worries me. There is no doubt that drunk driving laws have helped reduce accidents, injuries, and fatalities, but I worry that we are on a path towards treating all violations as equally bad without regard to whether that makes sense based on real-world data.


WTH? Anecdote? What anecdote did I put out there? Do I believe .08g% is more dangerous than .17g%? I think they are all dangerous. I've read studies and I laugh because they are usually made by people wearing those polyester jackets with the patches on the elbows. No real world experience and nobody fighting with a drunk in the ditch because they don't want to go to jail for 3rd or 4th offense., And what questions do you have about my study? Please, ask. Having been in law enforcement for 17 years I think I have seen a little. Having been a Trooper for the last 12 years, yes I have arrested drunks instead of sitting on the sidelines saying, "Y'all need to do this because of this study that I read." So unless you have any factual basing for anything, please contact MADD and try to provide all of the help you can to pass legislation.

All I'm saying is that there are 2 sides. What happens on the books and in papers. And what happens out there in real life, when normal people are asleep. If you can, see if your police department or sheriff's office offers a ride along program. Try it and see. Get involved locally instead of here on the message boards if you really want to make a difference.

WTH? Anecdote? What anecdote did I put out there? Do I believe .08g% is more dangerous than .17g%? I think they are all dangerous. I've read studies and I laugh because they are usually made by people wearing those polyester jackets with the patches on the elbows. No real world experience and nobody fighting with a drunk in the ditch because they don't want to go to jail for 3rd or 4th offense., And what questions do you have about my study? Please, ask. Having been in law enforcement for 17 years I think I have seen a little. Having been a Trooper for the last 12 years, yes I have arrested drunks instead of sitting on the sidelines saying, "Y'all need to do this because of this study that I read." So unless you have any factual basing for anything, please contact MADD and try to provide all of the help you can to pass legislation.

All I'm saying is that there are 2 sides. What happens on the books and in papers. And what happens out there in real life, when normal people are asleep. If you can, see if your police department or sheriff's office offers a ride along program. Try it and see. Get involved locally instead of here on the message boards if you really want to make a difference.

you don't see the more dangerous high BAC driving, because they have already hit something.

Driving fast or agressivly with a .20g% BAC = impact with something pretty quickly.

I do agree that 1 drink is not going to get most people to blow a .08%....that is publicity meant to make people more careful..........but to Muldoons question (THat was ignored earlier), if you think one drink will get you to blow that .08% & you know you have to drive, why have the drink?

As to the .08% being given easier penalties than the .17%, I don't buy it........I'm still dead if eaither one hits me because he is impaired.

As to the ride along Muldoon sugessted....I would recommend you do it if possible. I had a neighbor when I lived in NC who was a State cop.......I did a few Friday & Saturday night 11 to 7 shifts with him & it changed the way I thought about both Drunk driving and cops......it was very hard, but very good for me. Be the first one on the scene of a drunk driving induced accident involving dead teenagers and be with the officer when he does notifications of next of kin and your "Leniency" about driving impaired might change.

Point is........if you blow above a .08%......you should have the book thrown at you...IMO. Maybe it will stop you from doing it again.

len


Len

WTH? Anecdote? What anecdote did I put out there? Do I believe .08g% is more dangerous than .17g%? I think they are all dangerous. I've read studies and I laugh because they are usually made by people wearing those polyester jackets with the patches on the elbows. No real world experience and nobody fighting with a drunk in the ditch because they don't want to go to jail for 3rd or 4th offense., And what questions do you have about my study? Please, ask. Having been in law enforcement for 17 years I think I have seen a little. Having been a Trooper for the last 12 years, yes I have arrested drunks instead of sitting on the sidelines saying, "Y'all need to do this because of this study that I read." So unless you have any factual basing for anything, please contact MADD and try to provide all of the help you can to pass legislation.

All I'm saying is that there are 2 sides. What happens on the books and in papers. And what happens out there in real life, when normal people are asleep. If you can, see if your police department or sheriff's office offers a ride along program. Try it and see. Get involved locally instead of here on the message boards if you really want to make a difference.

I really don't think we disagree that much. I agree that driving under the influence is a problem and laws limiting BAC help reduce the risk. Maybe I just misinterpreted what you posted.

My only problem was your statement that someone who has a lower BAC is more dangerous than someone with a higher BAC, although you did throw in the "possibly" caveat. The NHTSA says that "the median BAC value for alcohol-involved drivers was .16, meaning half of all alcohol-involved drivers had BACs higher than twice the legal limit in most States (all States as of July 2004)."
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/nhtsa/whatis/bb/2007/images/2007BIB.pdf

Your follow-up statements about lower BAC drivers being the majority makes sense if there are more people on the road with a .10 or lower than .15 or higher, for instance. However, I still think that the rate of accidents per drunk driver is higher for the more impaired than the less impaired. Your first post clearly seemed to say the opposite. Unfortunately, the NHTSA statistics in the PDF don't differentiate between BACs above .08, so we can't see for sure unless someone can find more detailed statistics.

I am concerned that rhetoric about drinking at all and how dangerous it is when we don't do enough to punish and prevent habitual offenders. It's my opinion that habitual offenders also probably have higher median BACs. The story that started this thread is a perfect example of the type of person that I think is treated too kindly. I think claiming that lower BAC levels are just as dangerous takes away emphasis from punishing those like in the above news story rather than increasing the emphasis for all alcohol-related infractions.

Last, yes, you provided anecdotes. I'm sure the NHTSA gathers their data from law enforcement entities all over the country, including yours. One trooper's recounting of what he has seen is not really enough to determine nationwide statistics. Certainly you have experience on the subject that I don't have, but that doesn't mean we can extrapolate your work experiences to your whole organization, your state, or the nation.

I really don't think we disagree that much. I agree that driving under the influence is a problem and laws limiting BAC help reduce the risk. Maybe I just misinterpreted what you posted.

My only problem was your statement that someone who has a lower BAC is more dangerous than someone with a higher BAC, although you did throw in the "possibly" caveat. The NHTSA says that "the median BAC value for alcohol-involved drivers was .16, meaning half of all alcohol-involved drivers had BACs higher than twice the legal limit in most States (all States as of July 2004)."
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/nhtsa/whatis/bb/2007/images/2007BIB.pdf

Your follow-up statements about lower BAC drivers being the majority makes sense if there are more people on the road with a .10 or lower than .15 or higher, for instance. However, I still think that the rate of accidents per drunk driver is higher for the more impaired than the less impaired. Your first post clearly seemed to say the opposite. Unfortunately, the NHTSA statistics in the PDF don't differentiate between BACs above .08, so we can't see for sure unless someone can find more detailed statistics.

I am concerned that rhetoric about drinking at all and how dangerous it is when we don't do enough to punish and prevent habitual offenders. It's my opinion that habitual offenders also probably have higher median BACs. The story that started this thread is a perfect example of the type of person that I think is treated too kindly. I think claiming that lower BAC levels are just as dangerous takes away emphasis from punishing those like in the above news story rather than increasing the emphasis for all alcohol-related infractions.

Last, yes, you provided anecdotes. I'm sure the NHTSA gathers their data from law enforcement entities all over the country, including yours. One trooper's recounting of what he has seen is not really enough to determine nationwide statistics. Certainly you have experience on the subject that I don't have, but that doesn't mean we can extrapolate your work experiences to your whole organization, your state, or the nation.

I agree with you on a couple of things and I'm sure I didn't explain myself too well the first post. Was merely trying to say that a driver with a high BAC (like .25g% or above) will present a lot of clues to their impairment. Plus, they are more likely to travel at very slow speeds because they are trying to focus on more than one thing. When driving you have to focus on multiple tasks all at the same time. However, with impairment, you can't divide your attention so people will generally fixate on one thing, like staying on the road. This, coupled with a reduction of vision (for the most part), results in slower speed.

I also think that there is a level of intoxication where one believes that they are not only not impaired, but that they are better than before their drinks. Reflexes are diminished with every drink (or whatever type of impairment), but because they have not reached that level of impairment where they are fall down drunk, they think they are fine to drive. This is where the danger comes in because, like their high BAC counterparts, they have problems focusing on one task. A lot of times they focus more on speed than anything else. High speed, coupled with bad decision making skills, diminished vision, poor reflexes, etc., etc., often results with serious injuries and fatalities. In fact, I think NHTSA is now running a campaign about the dangers of "Buzzed Driving."

The link you provided does give the facts you stated, however, I have questions about their stats. It mentions only BAC's (alcohol only). Are these tests breath tests only, or is it blood tests only? As a Drug Recognition Expert (DRE - which your link discussed) I have to question that. Especially since there are more instances of poly drug use nowadays than before (using more than one drug at a time i.e. - alcohol and herion, or marijuana, etc.). In my opinion to get a true picture of impairment, start with blood and urine tests. Some states will only administer a breath test if the results are .08g% or higher. And that includes fatalities where the driver is not injured.

Either way, I've enjoyed this. Thanks for keeping it interesting. I'm working tonight so I know what I'll be doing. Be safe!

Just out of curiosity, have those of you who are so hard line on this issue never in your lives driven home after a couple too many beers or maybe one toke over the line? Not condoning this kind of behavior but...........................never ever?

Just out of curiosity, have those of you who are so hard line on this issue never in your lives driven home after a couple too many beers or maybe one toke over the line? Not condoning this kind of behavior but...........................never ever?
I think a lot of us have, and I bet a few of us even got caught once and took note and didn't do it again. A family member recently did and it gave them some serious pause. When they get their license back next week, I can promise you they won't be drinking and driving anymore.

Some of those in our society can't seem to get the hint, and if harsher penalties on the first one or two convictions would help, I am all for it.

I agree with you on a couple of things and I'm sure I didn't explain myself too well the first post. Was merely trying to say that a driver with a high BAC (like .25g% or above) will present a lot of clues to their impairment. Plus, they are more likely to travel at very slow speeds because they are trying to focus on more than one thing. When driving you have to focus on multiple tasks all at the same time. However, with impairment, you can't divide your attention so people will generally fixate on one thing, like staying on the road. This, coupled with a reduction of vision (for the most part), results in slower speed.

I also think that there is a level of intoxication where one believes that they are not only not impaired, but that they are better than before their drinks. Reflexes are diminished with every drink (or whatever type of impairment), but because they have not reached that level of impairment where they are fall down drunk, they think they are fine to drive. This is where the danger comes in because, like their high BAC counterparts, they have problems focusing on one task. A lot of times they focus more on speed than anything else. High speed, coupled with bad decision making skills, diminished vision, poor reflexes, etc., etc., often results with serious injuries and fatalities. In fact, I think NHTSA is now running a campaign about the dangers of "Buzzed Driving."

The link you provided does give the facts you stated, however, I have questions about their stats. It mentions only BAC's (alcohol only). Are these tests breath tests only, or is it blood tests only? As a Drug Recognition Expert (DRE - which your link discussed) I have to question that. Especially since there are more instances of poly drug use nowadays than before (using more than one drug at a time i.e. - alcohol and herion, or marijuana, etc.). In my opinion to get a true picture of impairment, start with blood and urine tests. Some states will only administer a breath test if the results are .08g% or higher. And that includes fatalities where the driver is not injured.

Either way, I've enjoyed this. Thanks for keeping it interesting. I'm working tonight so I know what I'll be doing. Be safe!

I am assuming (which means I don't really know the answer) that the report used statistics gathered from the jurisdictions responsible for enforcement. I expect that the statistics are determined using whatever methods those local law enforcement entities have used and included in their arrest and/or accident reports. It seems unlikely that the NHTSA did much more than compile numbers that were provided by individual jurisdictions.