[GeneV]

Is it an April Fools thing or I am actually 100% in agreement with my friend Gene?
Yes drunk driving is bad but so is a trooper parked across from the local Pub &Grub randomly pulling cars as they leave. The .08 limit is probably a little conservative too.

We should go have a beer.

---

Last edited by GeneV; 04-01-2011 at 09:37 AM.

[mikemike]

Is it an April Fools thing or I am actually 100% in agreement with my friend Gene?
Yes drunk driving is bad but so is a trooper parked across from the local Pub &Grub randomly pulling cars as they leave. The .08 limit is probably a little conservative too.

A cop was staking out a particularly rowdy bar for possible DUI violations. At closing time, he saw a fellow stumble out of the bar, trip on the curb and try his keys on five different cars before he found his. The man sat in the front seat fumbling around with his keys for several minutes.
Meanwhile, all the other patrons left the bar and drove off. Finally he started his engine and began to pull away. The cop was waiting for him. As soon as he pulled onto the street, the cop stopped him, read him his rights and administered the breathalyzer test to determine his blood-alcohol content.

The results showed a reading of 0.0.
The puzzled cop demanded to know how that could be. The driver replied, "Tonight I'm the designated drunk."

[GeneV]

It seems like this would be a more effective usage for license plate scanning cameras like they have for red lights and speeding. Catch anyone driving an uninsured vehicle, driving a vehicle owned by someone with a suspended license, or vehicles owned by DUI offenders. Cameras could even identify vehicles driving erratically. In some cases, like the uninsured vehicle I think they should send citations and eventually boot the vehicle in the person's driveway if they don't pay; in other cases like vehicles where the owner's license is suspended or is driving erratically it should notify the police in the area because that person could be an imminent threat to safety.

They are seldom driving their own cars.

Part of the problem out west is that you can't work, eat or live without a car. Human ingenuity will be at work from the moment you tell this person not to drive.

[GeneV]

A cop was staking out a particularly rowdy bar for possible DUI violations. At closing time, he saw a fellow stumble out of the bar, trip on the curb and try his keys on five different cars before he found his. The man sat in the front seat fumbling around with his keys for several minutes.
Meanwhile, all the other patrons left the bar and drove off. Finally he started his engine and began to pull away. The cop was waiting for him. As soon as he pulled onto the street, the cop stopped him, read him his rights and administered the breathalyzer test to determine his blood-alcohol content.

The results showed a reading of 0.0.
The puzzled cop demanded to know how that could be. The driver replied, "Tonight I'm the designated drunk."

The cases here that drive me nuts are the ones where they arrest someone for being drunk in their parked car--sleeping it off.

---

Last edited by GeneV; 04-01-2011 at 09:39 AM.

[GeneV]

Isn't working here, either.
I don't have a problem with repeat drunk drivers having their lives screwed up by a felony conviction.
I don't have a problem with them being prevented from driving drunk again and having a felony conviction.
I do have a problem with palliative (for the voter/public) measures that don't resolve the problem.

I would agree with what you added there, except that I don't think the felonies are preventing them from driving. Most of the get-tough measures are not affecting the heavy drinkers who are causing the deaths. They just make politicians and MADD feel like they have done something.

[Parallax]

I would agree with what you added there, except that I don't think the felonies are preventing them from driving. Most of the get-tough measures are not affecting the heavy drinkers who are causing the deaths. They just make politicians and MADD feel like they have done something.

Clearly, they aren't. I would like to find a solution, in addition to the punishment; but as with any other crime, the fact that the punishment isn't a deterrent doesn't per se mean shouldn't be given.

[eddie1960]

I would agree with what you added there, except that I don't think the felonies are preventing them from driving. Most of the get-tough measures are not affecting the heavy drinkers who are causing the deaths. They just make politicians and MADD feel like they have done something.

this is the real issue, most drunk driving accidents (causing death or not) are either habitual heavy drinkers/alchoholics or teens.
I'm fortunate to live in a city with decent transit so i can avoid driving if i have a drink,

In Ontario we now have a multi stage system

Impaired Driving

essentially under .05 with driving experience and over 21 you are ok. .05-.08 immediate suspension for varying time
Over .08 or refused test, impounded vehicle and suspension and charges for later
fines of $5000-50,000

not sure how it is dealt with in rural areas without transit and frequently without even a local cab. I was pulled over a few times as a teen up north, usually the cop just made sure i got home, never charged me, but made me leave the car and dropped me off at the house

those times of course are long gone (drinking driving was nuts at that point up north I remember when we first moved up there being astounded by how many people drove around with an open case of beer in the car)

[eddie1960]

BTW I know of a couple of alcoholic twits from my youth up north who no longer have licences or cars but they have still managed to be pulled over and caught, spent time in jail for it, no deterrence for them, the first day out of jail you'll find them back at the bar and outside smoking a joint. Addicts don't change that easy

[seacapt]

The cases here that drive me nuts are the ones where they arrest someone for being drunk in their parked car--sleeping it off.

Over the years I've gotten to know a cop or two on a social level......
When I was attending college in NY a cop buddy explained that if your too drunk and you decide to sleep in the car make sure you don't have the keys in your pocket or the ignition. Don't sit in the car and listen to the radio either. there was a law on the books called "Attempt/intent to drive while intoxicated"
BTW if I remember correctly back then the limit was .18 %

[mikemike]

Over the years I've gotten to know a cop or two on a social level......
When I was attending college in NY a cop buddy explained that if your too drunk and you decide to sleep in the car make sure you don't have the keys in your pocket or the ignition. Don't sit in the car and listen to the radio either. there was a law on the books called "Attempt/intent to drive while intoxicated"
BTW if I remember correctly back then the limit was .18 %

I always thought it was best to either lay down in the back seat or in the passenger seat.

[GeneV]

Over the years I've gotten to know a cop or two on a social level......
When I was attending college in NY a cop buddy explained that if your too drunk and you decide to sleep in the car make sure you don't have the keys in your pocket or the ignition. Don't sit in the car and listen to the radio either. there was a law on the books called "Attempt/intent to drive while intoxicated"
BTW if I remember correctly back then the limit was .18 %

That is true here too, but to me, that is asking for a lot of thought from a drunk.

Having these fine points just encourages the guy to try to make it home.

[GeneV]

this is the real issue, most drunk driving accidents (causing death or not) are either habitual heavy drinkers/alchoholics or teens.
I'm fortunate to live in a city with decent transit so i can avoid driving if i have a drink,

In Ontario we now have a multi stage system

Impaired Driving

essentially under .05 with driving experience and over 21 you are ok. .05-.08 immediate suspension for varying time
Over .08 or refused test, impounded vehicle and suspension and charges for later
fines of $5000-50,000

not sure how it is dealt with in rural areas without transit and frequently without even a local cab. I was pulled over a few times as a teen up north, usually the cop just made sure i got home, never charged me, but made me leave the car and dropped me off at the house

those times of course are long gone (drinking driving was nuts at that point up north I remember when we first moved up there being astounded by how many people drove around with an open case of beer in the car)

That makes sense. If you are going to reduce the seriousness of the conduct, reduce the seriousness of the crime to match.

[GeneV]

Clearly, they aren't. I would like to find a solution, in addition to the punishment; but as with any other crime, the fact that the punishment isn't a deterrent doesn't per se mean shouldn't be given.

Normally, I would agree with that 100%. However, when it gets to crimes that are really regulatory in nature, where no one has been hurt, but the crime is designed to prevent dangers rather than punish for intentional bad acts, I'm not so sure. (Vehicular homicide is a very serious crime and should be harshly punished) If it isn't a deterrent, then one needs to evaluate whether it is or isn't making things safer. I don't know the answer to that.

[MRRiley]

Yes drunk driving is bad but so is a trooper parked across from the local Pub &Grub randomly pulling cars as they leave.

A cop was staking out a particularly rowdy bar for possible DUI violations. At closing time, he saw a fellow stumble out of the bar, trip on the curb and try his keys on five different cars before he found his. The man sat in the front seat fumbling around with his keys for several minutes.
Meanwhile, all the other patrons left the bar and drove off. Finally he started his engine and began to pull away. The cop was waiting for him. As soon as he pulled onto the street, the cop stopped him, read him his rights and administered the breathalyzer test to determine his blood-alcohol content.

The results showed a reading of 0.0.
The puzzled cop demanded to know how that could be. The driver replied, "Tonight I'm the designated drunk."

In Texas you don't even have to get in your car. If you appear the least bit intoxicated when you come out of the bar they can arrest you for Drunk in Public. We lived less than a hundred yards from the best C&W dance bar in Abilene, and naturally didn't drive there. But we still had to be careful when we came out not to make the 3-4 cops sitting in the parking lot think we were drunk.

However I cannot defend drunk driving in any degree. Gene mentions people speeding and running stop sign and red lights. Yes, sober people do one or the other of these things but any given person rarely routinely out and out runs red lights or blasts thru stop signs (not talking about a "rolling stop" here). Yet, when they do, they deserve sanctions. And while most people routinely speed, they generally have their vehicles under a fair degree of control. The same cannot be said for the average drunk driver. Even when driving at or under the speed limit they exhibit poor vehicle control and will routinely fail to even see, much less obey, things like stop sign or stop light.

Mike

[Parallax]

The reason, I thought, that actual blood alcohol level limits were established was to prevent the type of occurrences that Gene described. "Impaired", or even "Intoxicated" are highly subjective.
It seems New Mexico's approach is a huge step backward. One way to approach it would be a dual burden. Greater than x% BAC AND impaired. Still somewhat subjective, but people would still have some control. I think a better solution may be to develop a standardized definition of "impaired" and standardized, quantitative test to make the determination.