Drinking while driving

[Green RT]

I started this as a comment in the "texting while driving" thread. But I decided not to hijack that thread.

 

Remember in the early 80s when our society cast a spotlight on drinking and driving? Ongoing commercials, billboards, magazine ads, posters in school - all served to fundamentally change our thinking and as a result, our behavior.

 

True, but if you recall, it took a long time to take effect... in fact, they are STILL promoting this in ads and billboards...

 

Maybe if we get the parents behind it and drill it into their heads enough, it will make a difference...

 

If only more responsible parents like Harry were willing to step up to the plate...

 

and yes, I have had all text messages disabled to my phone for 3 years now...

 

"fundamentally change our behavior"?

 

Did I miss something? I have been out of the US for a couple of years now, but last time I checked, drinking and driving was still a major problem and still not taken seriously.

 

We give people a slap on the wrist and put them back on the road. To my mind taking DUI seriously would involve:

 

Lower the threshhold from its current 0.08 to "detectable", then...

 

1st offense - major fine ($10s of thousands), loss of license for a year or more

 

2nd offense - serious jail time, permanent loss of license

 

3rd offense - I begin to believe in capital punsishment

 

More important though would be to change the culture. We still think it is okay to have a few drinks, guess whether we are fit to drive, and get behind the wheel (or handlebars). Until we get people to understand that the only sober driver is the designated driver who abstains completely for the evening, the problem is going to continue.

[Twisties]

I have been out of the US for a couple of years now, but last time I checked, drinking and driving was still a major problem and still not taken seriously

 

But it has gone from prevalent and socially acceptable to relatively non-prevalent (I don't have the stats handy, but like a ten fold per capita reduction) and most definitely not socially acceptable. Designated drivers and calling a cab have become socially acceptable in it's place. A remarkable turn around.

 

Lower the threshhold from its current 0.08 to "detectable"

 

Why? Before you answer I'll point out that statistically that threshold is associated with higher collision rates and lower levels are not. It isn't feasible either. Not technically in terms of reliable rejection of false positives (these go up as you near the detection limit of any analytical method), nor in terms of incidental and natural contact with alcohol [edit] and interfering substances[/edit].

 

I do agree that offenses and especially repeat offenses should be treated with due seriousness. Mostly I think they are, but some exceptions have certainly made news from time to time.

 

I also think we need to make technology to determine alcohol levels readily available to drinkers so they can self regulate. We need to get real breathalyzers that work (the current ones being true junk and not really capable of doing what they should). We need to ensure testing at the time of the stop. Not even a few minutes later. BAC can vary rapidly.

 

 

[Green RT]

When I said detectable, I meant --reliably-- detectable. Basically I agree with you. Maybe personal breathalyzers should be available in every home and bar, so that people could decide for themselves whether they should be driving. The way it is now, people, some people anyway, try to guess how many drinks is too many.

[Twisties]

When I said detectable, I meant --reliably-- detectable. Basically I agree with you. Maybe personal breathalyzers should be available in every home and bar, so that people could decide for themselves whether they should be driving. The way it is now, people, some people anyway, try to guess how many drinks is too many.

 

I suspect there are a class of inveterate drinker drivers that are hopeless, but I think for the average person that wants to comply with the law and be safe it is all too easy to make a mistake.

[rob1100r]

The DUI laws probably won't change any time soon, unless a lawyer comes through with a better way to profit from it's current revision.

[Francois_Dumas]

 

I suspect there are a class of inveterate drinker drivers that are hopeless, but I think for the average person that wants to comply with the law and be safe it is all too easy to make a mistake.

 

I would think those sort of persons would just not drink at all... simple.

[Green RT]

I would think those sort of persons would just not drink at all... simple.

 

That was my original point. If people are driving, they should just not drink at all. My impression is that that is the standard in Europe. True or false? It is not the plan in the US where it is perfectly acceptable to have a few drinks and then drive. With the definition of what is a "few" and what is "too many", very fuzzy.

[Lineareagle]

Timely, In todays Toronto Star.

 

Judge decides whether repeat drunk driver should be designated a dangerous offender.

 

Dangerous Offender

 

Hell yes. I think there definitely needs to be a two strike your out. The problem, how do you keep them from getting behind the wheel?

[Joel]

What Tim said: despite some statistical improvement, there are still WAY too many deaths, which is indicative of WAY too many incidents, period. After all the energy and funding put into public awareness, I can only conclude that offenders now must be antisocial or ridiculously arrogant -- no one can reasonably say they didn't know better. Penalties must be harsher, particularly if injuries or death are involved. No penalty could be too harsh for a repeat offense involving a death.

[tallman]

BTW, I'm doing research on alcohol and tobacco right now w/numbers spinning.

The figure I put in a death/minute is more like250/week.

Sorry, didn't mean to be that far off, but still a very significant number 12-14,000 annually.

That does not include the injuries and property loss.

[Matts_12GS]

What Tim said: despite some statistical improvement, there are still WAY too many deaths, which is indicative of WAY too many incidents, period. After all the energy and funding put into public awareness, I can only conclude that offenders now must be antisocial or ridiculously arrogant -- no one can reasonably say they didn't know better. Penalties must be harsher, particularly if injuries or death are involved. No penalty could be too harsh for a repeat offense involving a death.

 

I think the problem is that it's only for one offense... OUI in this instance.

 

Make a mandatory for everything; texting, drinking/other substance abuse, eating, smoking cigarrettes, excessive speed, faulty maintenance, wearing headphones, etc... and then, maybe just then you could make a dent.

 

Otherwise, it's all about denial... People don't think it can happen to them...

[Francois_Dumas]

Will, it is not as clear as that in Europe, because Europe is (now) some 25 different countries. A few of them are very active with advertising campaigns making people to NOT drink AT ALL (and have a designated driver for groups visiting bars or parties).

 

But in other countries it is very acceptable to have a few drinks at lunch or dinner and then happily get in the car, EVEN though they have the same restrictive laws about it. Same with the use of phones... in France EVERYBODY seems to be on the phone all the time, compared to Holland or Germany.

 

From what I read on these forms and elsewhere, the situation seems to be worse in the US, maybe because it is bigger and there is less of a chance to get caught than in our congested little Europe. But the situation is still far from perfect here too.

[Green RT]

Francois, I probably should have guessed that it varied by country.

 

In Mexico, where I am now, drinking and driving is very common. The situation is much worse that the US. And it is not helped by the extremely lax, to say the least, enforcement of all traffic laws.

 

But you can split with impunity everywhere.

[vizhip]

I do agree that offenses and especially repeat offenses should be treated with due seriousness. Mostly I think they are, but some exceptions have certainly made news from time to time.

 

One of my best friends ex-girl friend drinks and drives a lot... has gotten caught 4 times now... and so far has spent a grand total of 1 month in jail... ON WEEKENDS ONLY... She has also been required to take 13 classes (which she has taken 7) and done a few hours of community service and lost her license for one year...

 

When I complain about her getting off so light, his comment was, it wasn't light... that lawyer cost me a ton of money... and her fine wasn't too light either, but it was cheaper than the lawyer...

 

Bottom line... if you can afford a good lawyer, you may lose your license for a year and spend a bunch of money, but you still can walk away from it... specially if you were just pulled over rather than involved in an accident...

 

Oh... and if they catch you driving on a suspended license, the same attorney can get you a reduced fee, probably a couple weekends in jail so you don't lose your job, and possibly an extra class or two...

 

and yes... this happened as well...

 

Since he broke up with her, she is going to have to find another boyfriend that will pay the legal fees or watch herself a bit closer...

 

and in case you were wondering... she lives in Jacksonville, FL...

 

Regards -

-Bob

[Mark P]

Will, it is not as clear as that in Europe, because Europe is (now) some 25 different countries. A few of them are very active with advertising campaigns making people to NOT drink AT ALL (and have a designated driver for groups visiting bars or parties).

 

But in other countries it is very acceptable to have a few drinks at lunch or dinner and then happily get in the car, EVEN though they have the same restrictive laws about it. Same with the use of phones... in France EVERYBODY seems to be on the phone all the time, compared to Holland or Germany.

 

From what I read on these forms and elsewhere, the situation seems to be worse in the US, maybe because it is bigger and there is less of a chance to get caught than in our congested little Europe. But the situation is still far from perfect here too.

 

As Francois says it varies across Europe quite a bit, in Sweden for example the law allows no alcohol in the system when driving. In most other countries a low limit is the case, but public attitudes vary.

 

One of the problems that you seem to have in the US is the weak penalties for those who are caught. Here in the UK there is automatic suspension of licence for 12 months for any drink driving infringement, plus a fine and subsequent occurences will carry longer susensions and bigger fines. There are consequential penalties too in that car insurance costs will be considerably increased for people who have been caught drinking and driving.

 

It's not perfect by any means and there are still problems - at the moment the government is on a campaign to tackl driving while under the influence of drugs - this is on TV at the moment - see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMOm6cERZWw

[Hermes]

The figure I put in a death/minute is more like250/week

 

 

Still and all, very unacceptable.

 

Just think, if those were soldier deaths say in the Afghan or Iraqi war, support for that kind of carnage would plummet. So why do we differentiate, especially since the former is easily avoided?

 

[Nice n Easy Rider]

The figure I put in a death/minute is more like250/week

 

 

Still and all, very unacceptable.

 

Just think, if those were soldier deaths say in the Afghan or Iraqi war, support for that kind of carnage would plummet. So why do we differentiate, especially since the former is easily avoided?

 

IMHO, as long as the majority of the people consider driving a RIGHT, not a PRIVILEGE, there will continue to be resistance against any new laws that provide added restrictions or increased penalties. Unfortunate for those that understand and suffer the consequences of poor and/or illegal driving.

[Mike]

I don't claim to be an expert on the issue, but I've seen the results of drunk driving up close--One of my nephews died at the age of 19. He was fully at fault--he got drunk, decided to go for a ride, and piled a bunch of friends in his car. He failed to negotiate a turn and died when his car rammed into a tree. Fortunately, while the other kids were hurt (except the one who put on his seat belt), none was killed or suffered injuries from which they were not able to recover. While I still mourn his loss, at least the "at fault" person, my nephew, was the only one who died. Often, it's the other way around.

 

I think that a cultural shift has occurred, but that we are probably far from the point we should be. Things like this take at least a couple of generations to change.

[Dave McReynolds]

One of the problems that you seem to have in the US is the weak penalties for those who are caught. Here in the UK there is automatic suspension of licence for 12 months for any drink driving infringement, plus a fine and subsequent occurences will carry longer susensions and bigger fines. There are consequential penalties too in that car insurance costs will be considerably increased for people who have been caught drinking and driving.

 

In California, the cost of your first DUI will be about $10,000, including lawyer's fee, court costs, rehab class costs, increased insurance costs, and fines. In addition, you will be arrested on the spot and taken to jail. In addition, your license will be suspended for six months. In addition, you will spend many hours of time over the next year doing community service and attending classes. So I don't think the penalties are trivial.

 

Over the weekend, an off duty Sheriff's deputy DUI crashed her car through the front of a Starbucks here in Sacramento, injuring an old lady who couldn't get out of the way. At least a half dozen other high profile people who should know better have been arrested over the last year in Sacramento for DUI, including one who has been convicted of homicide for killing people in another car. Granted, there are habitual DUI's, as there are habitual violators in all walks of life, but this is a crime that permeates society.

 

How many red lights do you think would be run, or how many people would speed, if similar penalties applied to those violations? No, there is something fundamentally different about DUI's.

[motoguy128]

Timely, In todays Toronto Star.

 

Judge decides whether repeat drunk driver should be designated a dangerous offender.

 

Dangerous Offender

 

Hell yes. I think there definitely needs to be a two strike your out. The problem, how do you keep them from getting behind the wheel?

 

This is the biggest problem I have. I think those with suspended licenses that continue to drive need harsher penalties. For starters, if a driver is convicted of a DUI, while his license is supended = major jail time.

 

If he is involved in a fatality, step up the crime to something like 2nd degree murder (not sure if the legal definition fits, but you get the point) or if involved in an accident, attempted murder. With DUI, we need to treat vehciles like a weapon. Its' the equivalent to running through a crowd with a loaded semi automatic weapon, pointed forward, with your finger on the trigger, with the safety off...while drunk. Is it really an accident if you shoot someone? No because it's completely irresponsible behavior.

 

The problem is, that the difference between driving drunk and actually killing someone is a matter of luck. So why do we deal with this so softly?

[Mister Tee]

It's my opinion that the traffic fatality rate is so high in the U.S. (and other developed countries) because of overpopulation and overcrowded roadways. I grew up in a time and place where drinking and driving was never that big of a deal. Nowadays, you're better off legally if you commit capital murder, vs. getting a DUI.

 

BTW I am one of those people that considers driving to be a right. If the MAN wants to pay me my current salary to stay within five miles of my home, then I'll concede my driving rights. Until then, the MAN can stay the f*** out of my garage.

[Nice n Easy Rider]

BTW I am one of those people that considers driving to be a right. If the MAN wants to pay me my current salary to stay within five miles of my home, then I'll concede my driving rights. Until then, the MAN can stay the f*** out of my garage.

So Mister_Tee, under what circumstances (if any) would you consider that the MAN has the "right" to restrict your "right to drive"? Are there any driving infractions so onerous that you would consider that this "right to drive" could be restricted or even eliminated in its entirety?

[Ken H.]

Trivia – If you have ever been convicted of a DUI, technically it is grounds for denial of immigration to Canada. Not that I know if anyone has ever been denied because of just this, but it is in the regulations.

[Whip]

I think some of you are getting,'Drinking while driving" confused with drunk driving. I personally feel the open container laws are another afront to my personal freedom. I understand that I must suffer because of a small minority. I also think the penalty for drunk driving is like most illegal acts not penal enough.

 

 

 

 

[Tank]

I think some of you are getting,'Drinking while driving" confused with drunk driving. I personally feel the open container laws are another afront to my personal freedom. I understand that I must suffer because of a small minority. I also think the penalty for drunk driving is like most illegal acts not penal enough.

 

 

 

 

 

Whip, that was always my opinion, just cus I had a bottle of gin open while driving, that shouldn't give a LEO cause to give me a test to see if I was sober, They always gave some knucklehead excuse like Your taillight is out when they pulled me over.hahahaha

 

You were right on the nail as far as penal not being enough, as far as i'm concerned I never served enough time for my crimes, one lawyer told me once ,just pay what you can and they will not put you in jail, Over the years, yes years, I paid.....an paid, an paid... not much and flonted it, alot. I'm happy to say that its been alot of years since that behavrure has been apart of my life. But, the THREAT of jail never stopped me, I wonder of the early jail time in large amounts would have worked, who knows.

One thing I do know, threating me with jail didn't.

[Mister Tee]

BTW I am one of those people that considers driving to be a right. If the MAN wants to pay me my current salary to stay within five miles of my home, then I'll concede my driving rights. Until then, the MAN can stay the f*** out of my garage.

So Mister_Tee, under what circumstances (if any) would you consider that the MAN has the "right" to restrict your "right to drive"? Are there any driving infractions so onerous that you would consider that this "right to drive" could be restricted or even eliminated in its entirety?

 

No right is absolute - we strip rights from murderers and rapists. I think there should be very stiff penalties for DANGEROUS driving, but not necessarily speeding in itself, or even drinking and driving in itself. If you are going to strip a person of their ability to earn a living (and in the U.S., the vast majority of us need to be able to drive to earn a living), it had better be for a very good reason.

 

Riding 100 mph on a straight, multi lane freeway with no traffic should not constitute a penalty. Riding 60 mph in the middle of a crowded school zone should be a VERY stiff penalty. Driving home on an empty road after a couple beers should not be a penalty.

 

In my system, there would be more personal responsibility for driving (and behaving) in a safe manner, vs. trying to cover all bases with draconian laws intended to prevent people from ever getting in a bad place to begin with.

[Bud]

Here is the problem in a nutshell.

 

In Illinois, you drink, you drive, you get a DUI and you get to continue to drink and drive. Repeatedly. Over and over.

 

Then you kill some innocent person and everyone is outraged because of your 7 previous DUI convictions.

 

Obviously these folks have a drinking problem that is not being treated.

 

The only way to keep them from killing others is to keep them off the street. Taking away their license doesn't work. Repeated convictions and fines doesn't work. Blow to go systems installed in their car doesn't work.

 

What works?

 

Well, if they are in jail, they can not drive.

 

Till the citizens of Illinois have had enough and demand their local judge and state attorney not plea bargain any DUI, it will continue. We put up with it. Wring our hands from time to time and go on. We as a society just don't give a damn enough to do anything.

 

Poker runs from tavern to tavern, drinking at each one and then getting back on the bike in the name of some charity is seen as a good thing in S. Illinois. After all, the money raised will help sick kids, etc.

 

I know BMW motorcycle owners who drink and drive. I avoid riding with them.

 

My personal rule is this: If I drink, I don't get on the bike. It has been a struggle for me, at times, to keep that rule. Just like my self imposed helmet and gear rule. We each have to decide, each time, what is the right thing to do.

 

I'm not trying to tell anyone else how they should act. I only know what works for me.

 

 

[SweetP]

... in France EVERYBODY seems to be on the phone all the time, compared to Holland or Germany.

 

 

At least it's getting better now that there is specific legislation against it. In any case, the Spanish and Italians are worse.

 

I was reading an article just today about drinking and driving. In France, the limit is .05. Statistically, it's not those near the limit who are the problem, it's the major hitters, people who are seriously out of control. People who have had a drink or two are aware of it and actually are often more cautious.

 

The police/gendarmes routinely set up checkpoints to do breath tests, mid-afternoon and late evening are prime times. They do random stops, no need for PC or a pretext.

 

The number of fatalities has dropped by three-quarters since the mid-70s. There are no doubt many reasons, safer vehicles, better roads, but recently the drop has been even more significant, chalked up to two thousand fixed radars and stricter enforcement of DUI, including the lower blood/alcohol threshhold. People are also simply drinking a lot less than they used to. Unfortunately, one consequence of this has been the disappearance of many bars, cafes and restaurants.

 

Personally, I'll have a glass or two with dinner if I'm in a cage, but not a drop if I'm riding.