Well this sucks.......

[Bullett]

It seems to me that we have an epidemic of irresponsible driving behavior in this country and that law enforcement lacks the tools for meaningful enforcement. I was just reading an article in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram about repeat DUI offenders on the road.

 

Sounds like they are offering probation with counseling as an option to cited drivers, but many choose jail time because they don't want to stop drinking and driving. So they keep doing it and end up killing other motorists on the road.

 

If we can't stop this behavior, we certainly can't expect law enforcement to effectively address the "otherwise impaired" drivers. I'm sure we all see some scary stuff everyday we take to the roads; aggressive tailgaters, texters, drunks, sudden lane changers, cell phone talkers, make up appliers, nail painters, you name it.

 

Sure, the legislature can "pass a law," but if its not reasonably enforceable, it won't make a difference. On the other hand, I doubt that any of us wants to live in a "police state."

 

As a society we seem to have lost the capacity to take personal responsibility to behave in a socially responsible manner and avoid unnecessarily placing others (strangers) to increased risk of injury or death. I think the goal should be to change behaviors and attitudes, but I have no idea how that can be accomplished.

 

 

[tallman]

Sharon,

I think you are correct.

I would support a visual identification on the vehicles of a driver convicted or DWI, w/out injury.

A nice big sign like a pizz delivery vehicle has and a special license plate.

Removal would result in automatic XXX consequences.

If there is injury, remove driving privilege.

Drive anyways and do not pass go.

Too much

not enough backbone to deal with these offenders.

And, please, let's not go down the road of alcohol is a disease again.

So is macular degeneration.

Would we excuse someone who had no vision for driving and running over riders?

I think not.

[Indy Dave]

"...Yea - all pretty minor violations, and most are are non-moving violations. Certainly nothing here to indicate the coming tragedy or that he was was an obviously irresponsible driver. ....."

 

I disagree. His citations demonstrate that he is NOT a responsible person. Perhaps his demonstrated irresponsibility it doesn't forecast that he'll go out and kill someone, but it clearly indicates he is not up to the responsibility of driving. We are too tolerant of that sort of behavior. Didn't this guy drive for a living?

 

 

I guess I'm not a mob lyncher. I'm not sure where most of you get your information, but I've not read enough about this guy to make many of the sweeping characteristics I've read here.

[AZKomet]

"...Yea - all pretty minor violations, and most are are non-moving violations. Certainly nothing here to indicate the coming tragedy or that he was was an obviously irresponsible driver. ....."

 

I disagree. His citations demonstrate that he is NOT a responsible person. Perhaps his demonstrated irresponsibility it doesn't forecast that he'll go out and kill someone, but it clearly indicates he is not up to the responsibility of driving. We are too tolerant of that sort of behavior. Didn't this guy drive for a living?

 

 

I guess I'm not a mob lyncher. I'm not sure where most of you get your information, but I've not read enough about this guy to make many of the sweeping characteristics I've read here.

 

It doesn't even have to be a irresponsible driver. Some are just crazy!!!!!!!

 

For example: I was at work on patrol one day. Came up along side of a semi and the driver throws a chicken carcass out the window. yep, a genuine BBQ chicken carcass.....you know, the finger lickin' good kind?

 

SPLAT! Right on my patrol car window! Right in my field of vision. So, I pull him over. He proceeded to lecture me on the biodegradable aspects of chicken meat and bone. Hmmmmmm? A scientist truck driver? Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.....

 

Anyway, we have a conversation. It gets worse.....he informs me that I have no authority on the freeway. Hmmmmm.....so I tell him that he is under arrrest for, littering and having and expired medical card for his CDL. Anyway...truck gets parked with all his goods. He gets tagged for said crimes. All b/c of a chicken carcass that he couldn't dispose of properly. My point is that if I (or anyone) was on a bike that could have been catastrophic. 70MPH and a chicken slapping you in the face is a wreck plain and simple.

 

So it is the crazies out there too!

[tallman]

So, how was the chicken?

[AZKomet]

So, how was the chicken?

 

[Deek]

"Deek, most states have vehicular manslaughter statutes that charges people even though they are sober at the time of the collision......"

 

Understood. My complaint is that often states overlook DUI or DWI occurrences if there is no accident. I'd be happier if a first time offense resulted in the lose of the DL for a minimum of 1 year with 30 days in jail.

[Indy Dave]

Jan,

Please feel free to start a web page:

"I'm willing to fly with a pilot who did meth a few days ago, or I'm willing to have surgery done by a doctor who used meth a few days ago, or I'm willing to let my child be driven by a bus driver who most likely only had a false positive on their drug test, or I'm willing to be arrested by a LEO who used meth a few days ago, and last but not least, I'm willing to bet my life in court by being defended by a lawyer who only uses meth outside the courtroom."

If he was using meth "on his own time" then I guarantee he was not 100% when "on company time".

 

The bigger point I think Jan was making is that the presence of "meth" in a test is not mutually inclusive of driving under the influence of it or is it necessarily illegal or is it necessarily indicative of illegal (present or prior) drug use.

 

I'm not advocating or condoning illegal drug use by anyone . . . just saying. Nor am I try to 'get this guy out of trouble' - I've never said that in any way. I'm just not willing to rush to judgment concerning some of the less flattering things that have been said based on the available information. I'm not defending distracted driving - but it is something we all do to a lesser or greater degree and here we can see the terrible consequences of it. Seems there's a lesson for any of us who can look in the mirror - LEO's in particular who have their computers fighting for attention along with everything else. [this is NOT a slam to LEO's - just pointing out the fact that they have plenty of distractions in the vehicle]

 

The previous charge of 'failure to control vehicle' we don't know anything about and any one of us could have been cited for the same thing at one time or another. It's been pointed out in other threads on this board how that can be a catch all citation. My point is that that previous infraction is in no way a tell-tale sign of what was to come or that this guy was a madman on wheels. The facts may bear out that he in fact was. Or they may not.

 

Either way, I think the take away is what are you and I going to do about the distracted riding and driving we do?

 

[AZKomet]

One more stunt driver in AZ. Maybe he and Mr. Jacksh*t can share a cell. Amazing. And he said he had no intentions of alerting police. Nice.......

 

 

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/04/26/20100426tempe-motorcycle-injury0426-abrk.html