Are the DUI laws a joke? (1 Viewer)

[None_More_Black]

1st Illinois DUI Offense First Drunk Driving Conviction

• Jail – Up to 1 Year Possible
• Jail – Add Up to 6 Months - (If Child under 16 in Vehicle)
• Fine – Up to $2,500
• Fine – Add $500 Minimum (BAC above .16)
• Fine – Add $1,000 Minimum - (If Child under 16 in Vehicle)
• License Suspension – Minimum 1 Year
• Breath Alcohol Ignition Interlock Device (BAIID) Possible
• Vehicle Registration Suspension
• Community Service – 100 Hours Minimum - (BAC above .16)
• Community Service – 25 Days - (If Child under 16 in Vehicle)

More Information: First Offense DUI in Illinois

2nd Illinois DUI Offense Second Drunk Driving Conviction

• Jail – Up to 1 Year Possible, 5 Days Mandatory or 240 Hours of Community Service
• Jail – Add 2 Days - (BAC above .16)
• Jail – Up to 1-3 Years – Child under 16 in Vehicle (Felony Aggravated DUI)
• Fine – Up to $2,500
• Fine – Add $1,250 Minimum (BAC above .16)
• Fine – Add Up to $25,000 - Child under 16 in Vehicle (Felony Aggravated DUI)
• License Suspension – Minimum 5 Years (If Within 20 Years of Previous)
• Vehicle Registration Suspension
• Community Service: Minimum 25 Days if Child under 16 in Vehicle

3rd Illinois DUI Offense Third Drunk Driving Conviction

• Jail – From 3-7 Years Possible (Class 2 Felony)
• Jail – Add 90 Days Mandatory - (BAC above .16)
• Jail – Up to 1-3 Years – Child under 16 in Vehicle (Felony Aggravated DUI)
• Fine – Up to $2,500
• Fine – Add $2,500 Minimum (BAC above .16)
• Fine – Mandatory $25,000 - Child under 16 in Vehicle (Felony Aggravated DUI)
• License Suspension – Minimum 10 Years
• Community Service – Minimum 25 Days if Child under 16 in Vehicle
• Vehicle Registration Suspension

Of course, take this with a grain of salt, but a quick search turned up this.

Looks like the penalty for getting caught in the Land of Lincoln the second time will cost you a mandatory 5 days in jail. If you are double the legal limit........ 2 more DAYS! If you have a decent job, you certainly could schedule a vacation around that penalty.

BTW, you obviously were more mature than most during your younger years (including myself)

If your fil blew over a .15 he is looking at 6 months minimum prison time in Nebraska. I would say that is a law with teeth.

 

[KCitons]

1st Illinois DUI Offense First Drunk Driving Conviction

• Jail – Up to 1 Year Possible
• Jail – Add Up to 6 Months - (If Child under 16 in Vehicle)
• Fine – Up to $2,500
• Fine – Add $500 Minimum (BAC above .16)
• Fine – Add $1,000 Minimum - (If Child under 16 in Vehicle)
• License Suspension – Minimum 1 Year
• Breath Alcohol Ignition Interlock Device (BAIID) Possible
• Vehicle Registration Suspension
• Community Service – 100 Hours Minimum - (BAC above .16)
• Community Service – 25 Days - (If Child under 16 in Vehicle)

More Information: First Offense DUI in Illinois

2nd Illinois DUI Offense Second Drunk Driving Conviction

• Jail – Up to 1 Year Possible, 5 Days Mandatory or 240 Hours of Community Service
• Jail – Add 2 Days - (BAC above .16)
• Jail – Up to 1-3 Years – Child under 16 in Vehicle (Felony Aggravated DUI)
• Fine – Up to $2,500
• Fine – Add $1,250 Minimum (BAC above .16)
• Fine – Add Up to $25,000 - Child under 16 in Vehicle (Felony Aggravated DUI)
• License Suspension – Minimum 5 Years (If Within 20 Years of Previous)
• Vehicle Registration Suspension
• Community Service: Minimum 25 Days if Child under 16 in Vehicle

3rd Illinois DUI Offense Third Drunk Driving Conviction

• Jail – From 3-7 Years Possible (Class 2 Felony)
• Jail – Add 90 Days Mandatory - (BAC above .16)
• Jail – Up to 1-3 Years – Child under 16 in Vehicle (Felony Aggravated DUI)
• Fine – Up to $2,500
• Fine – Add $2,500 Minimum (BAC above .16)
• Fine – Mandatory $25,000 - Child under 16 in Vehicle (Felony Aggravated DUI)
• License Suspension – Minimum 10 Years
• Community Service – Minimum 25 Days if Child under 16 in Vehicle
• Vehicle Registration Suspension

Of course, take this with a grain of salt, but a quick search turned up this.

Looks like the penalty for getting caught in the Land of Lincoln the second time will cost you a mandatory 5 days in jail. If you are double the legal limit........ 2 more DAYS! If you have a decent job, you certainly could schedule a vacation around that penalty.

BTW, you obviously were more mature than most during your younger years (including myself)

If your fil blew over a .15 he is looking at 6 months minimum prison time in Nebraska. I would say that is a law with teeth.

This was actually for Kool Aid Larry. I live in Nebraska and the penalties look like this:

1st Nebraska DUI First Drunk Driving Conviction

• Jail – Minimum of 7 Days up to 60 Days
• Fine – Up to $500
• License Suspension – Up to 6 Months
• License Suspension – 1 Year (If Blood Alcohol Level .15 or Above)
• Alcohol Assessment / Alcohol Treatment - Possible

More Information: First Offense DUI in Nebraska

2nd Nebraska DUI Second Drunk Driving Conviction

• Jail – Minimum of 30 Days up to 90 Days
• Jail – Minimum of 90 Days up to 1 Year (If Blood Alcohol Level .15 or above)
• Fine – Up to $500
• Fine – Up to $1,000 (If Blood Alcohol Level .15 or above)
• License Suspension – 1 Year
• License Suspension – From 1 to 15 Years (If Blood Alcohol Level .15 or above)
• Vehicle Immobilization – From 5 Days to 8 Months
• Vehicle Impoundment - Possible
• Ignition Interlock Device - Possible
• Alcohol Assessment / Alcohol Treatment - Possible

3rd Nebraska DUI Third Drunk Driving Conviction

• Jail – Minimum of 90 Days up to 1 Year
• Jail – Minimum of 180 Days up to 5 Years (If Blood Alcohol Level .15 or above)
• Fine – Up to $600
• Fine – Up to $10,000 (If Blood Alcohol Level .15 or above)
• License Suspension – From 2 to 15 Years
• License Suspension – From 5 to 15 Years (If Blood Alcohol Level .15 or above)
• Vehicle Immobilization – From 5 Days to 8 Months
• Ignition Interlock Device - Possible
• Alcohol Assessment / Alcohol Treatment - Possible

More Information: Third Offense DUI in Nebraska

4th Nebraska DUI Fourth Drunk Driving Conviction

• Class III Felony
• Jail – Minimum of 180 Days up to 5 Years
• Jail – Minimum of 1 Year up to 20 Years (If Blood Alcohol Level .15 or above)
• Fine – Up to $10,000
• Fine – Up to $25,000 (If Blood Alcohol Level .15 or above)
• License Suspension – 15 Years
• Vehicle Immobilization – From 5 Days to 8 Months
• Ignition Interlock Device - Possible
• Alcohol Assessment / Alcohol Treatment – Possible

My FIL is looking at 90 days for a 3rd offense. It should have been 180, but I think since they bumped him back down to County Court he is going to be staying in County Jail, just like he did after his 2nd offense.

It bothers me that Alcohol Assessment and Ignition Lock is only listed as Possible. Things like this should be mandatory after a 2nd offense. Certainly after the 4th?? At that point, the person obviously has a problem.

Here is another story from last month. This guy is going back to jail after is 8th DUI here. Whatever they did the other 7 times ain't working. Try something else.

http://www.omaha.com/article/20130516/NEWS/705169892http://www.omaha.com/article/20130516/NEWS/705169892

 

[Christo]

Texas State laws of Boating under influence...

o First conviction carries a fine up to $2,000 and/or jail time up to 180 dayso Second conviction carries a fine up to $4,000 and/or jail time up to one yearo Third conviction carries a fine up to $10,000 and/or jail time of 2-10 years.

The most important words being "up to"

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Texas State laws of Boating under influence...

o First conviction carries a fine up to $2,000 and/or jail time up to 180 dayso Second conviction carries a fine up to $4,000 and/or jail time up to one yearo Third conviction carries a fine up to $10,000 and/or jail time of 2-10 years.

The most important words being "up to"

Sure, but you know when you drink and drive and put people at risk (regardless of any outcome) you are putting your self at serious risk as well. Standing before the judge you are crapping yourself.

 

[tonydead]

All the DUI laws quoted are far worse than some things that are equally as dangerous like texting while driving; a whopping $114 dollar fine in the state of Washington. It's a joke they are so punitive comparatively.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

All the DUI laws quoted are far worse than some things that are equally as dangerous like texting while driving; a whopping $114 dollar fine in the state of Washington. It's a joke they are so punitive comparatively.

There's pretty good evidence that laws prohibiting texting while driving increase the rate of accidents.

I know of no such evidence regarding laws prohibiting drinking and driving.

 

[Christo]

All the DUI laws quoted are far worse than some things that are equally as dangerous like texting while driving; a whopping $114 dollar fine in the state of Washington. It's a joke they are so punitive comparatively.

There's pretty good evidence that laws prohibiting texting while driving increase the rate of accidents.

I know of no such evidence regarding laws prohibiting drinking and driving.

What evidence are you talking about?

 

[Buckfast 1]

Texas State laws of Boating under influence... o First conviction carries a fine up to $2,000 and/or jail time up to 180 dayso Second conviction carries a fine up to $4,000 and/or jail time up to one yearo Third conviction carries a fine up to $10,000 and/or jail time of 2-10 years.

I would guess that it iis exceedingly rare that anyone gets anything close to the maximum sentence on those crimes. Cedric Benson got charged with a boating DUI in Texas, and I know he did not get any significant jail time for it.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Texas State laws of Boating under influence...

o First conviction carries a fine up to $2,000 and/or jail time up to 180 days

o Second conviction carries a fine up to $4,000 and/or jail time up to one year

o Third conviction carries a fine up to $10,000 and/or jail time of 2-10 years.

I would guess that it iis exceedingly rare that anyone gets anything close to the maximum sentence on those crimes. Cedric Benson got charged with a boating DUI in Texas, and I know he did not get any significant jail time for it.

Did you miss the "boating" reference?

 

[Christo]

Texas State laws of Boating under influence...

o First conviction carries a fine up to $2,000 and/or jail time up to 180 days

o Second conviction carries a fine up to $4,000 and/or jail time up to one year

o Third conviction carries a fine up to $10,000 and/or jail time of 2-10 years.

I would guess that it iis exceedingly rare that anyone gets anything close to the maximum sentence on those crimes. Cedric Benson got charged with a boating DUI in Texas, and I know he did not get any significant jail time for it.

Did you miss the "boating" reference?

 

[BigSteelThrill]

[No message]

 

[Tremendous Upside]

I've also seen that some states are requiring offenders to check in daily or weekly for alcohol test. If they can't stay sober, then they go to jail.

Seems like a good idea.

I'm assuming you're kidding here. I have no problem with sending people to jail for repeat offenses of driving impaired.... but sending people to jail for simply consuming alcohol is a bit of a silly proposition. As long as they're not driving they are within their legal rights to consume alcohol.

Not necessarily

Staying 100% clear from alcohol (not even supposed to have it in your home/possession) is a pretty standard court mandated restriction for offenders

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Cedric Benson, The Chicago Bear's first round draft choice in 2005, has been ordered to install an alcohol ignition interlock device as a condition of his bail release on DUI charges.

Texas State laws of Boating under influence... o First conviction carries a fine up to $2,000 and/or jail time up to 180 dayso Second conviction carries a fine up to $4,000 and/or jail time up to one yearo Third conviction carries a fine up to $10,000 and/or jail time of 2-10 years.

I would guess that it iis exceedingly rare that anyone gets anything close to the maximum sentence on those crimes. Cedric Benson got charged with a boating DUI in Texas, and I know he did not get any significant jail time for it.

Chicago running back Cedric Benson has been cleared of alcohol-related charges in Texas that led to his release by the Bears.

 

[Buckfast 1]

Cedric Benson, The Chicago Bear's first round draft choice in 2005, has been ordered to install an alcohol ignition interlock device as a condition of his bail release on DUI charges.

Texas State laws of Boating under influence...

o First conviction carries a fine up to $2,000 and/or jail time up to 180 days

o Second conviction carries a fine up to $4,000 and/or jail time up to one year

o Third conviction carries a fine up to $10,000 and/or jail time of 2-10 years.

I would guess that it iis exceedingly rare that anyone gets anything close to the maximum sentence on those crimes. Cedric Benson got charged with a boating DUI in Texas, and I know he did not get any significant jail time for it.

Chicago running back Cedric Benson has been cleared of alcohol-related charges in Texas that led to his release by the Bears.

See, they don't even bother to prosecute you for driving a boat while intoxicated in Texas. My point is that just because the boating while intoxicated statute says that is the maximum penalty does not mean that people convicted of the crime are actually receiving the maximum punishment. I would be willing to bet that most of the people in Texas convicted of boating while intoxicated generally pay a fine and do some community service. There is a big difference between the maximum statutory penalty and what people actually serve.

 

[32 Counter Pass]

Yes, the laws are riduculous. As sited previously, the laws do not prevent people from driving under the influence, and do not discourage those who have previously been convicted. If law makers really wanted to address this issue, rather than excessive fines, jail time and lost driving privileges, they would would require a person found guilty of a DUI to install a breathlyzer in their car. PERMANANTLY.

And, honestly, if lawmakers were truely concerned about ending this problem they would require breathlyzers in ALL cars. Problem solved. Instead they would rather tax it and feed the prison-industrial complex.

 

[Nipsey]

honestly, if lawmakers were truely concerned about ending this problem they would require breathlyzers in ALL cars. Problem solved.

Crazy talk.

 

[Nipsey]

DUI penalties are far from a joke. How you feel about texting while driving? Can we lock those people up too? They want the lower the limit to .04 or .05 or something. Beyond ridiculous. I'm an ####### for having a pint out at dinner but I'm on the constant lookout for drivers checking their phones on the freeway which is about half of them. I'm with you that people blowing .27 on their 4th offense shouldn't be allowed near the wheel but this whole you can't go out, have a beer or two at a barbecue and drive is looney. Most of the ####ty drivers out there don't drink at all.

 

[Grady Wilson]

My wife's cousin has three DUIs as well. I doubt anything happens to him, but there should be something done. He's going to end up killing him and/or someone else. It's only a matter of time. It's frustrating, but very sad at the same time.

 

[dparker713]

DUI laws are draconian already. They're charging people more for their potential offenses than the offenses themselves. A drunk driver that gets home at night without an accident has likely harmed no one. Plus, using BAC is a poor indicator of actual impairment of an individual. Add in the fact that we've surrendered our Constitutional rights while driving and I'll state that DUI laws are most decidedly not a joke.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

A drunk driver

Shouldnt drive.

A drunk surgeon might not harm anyone, as well.

 

[johnnycakes]

I've also seen that some states are requiring offenders to check in daily or weekly for alcohol test. If they can't stay sober, then they go to jail.

Seems like a good idea.

I'm assuming you're kidding here. I have no problem with sending people to jail for repeat offenses of driving impaired.... but sending people to jail for simply consuming alcohol is a bit of a silly proposition. As long as they're not driving they are within their legal rights to consume alcohol.

Not necessarily Staying 100% clear from alcohol (not even supposed to have it in your home/possession) is a pretty standard court mandated restriction for offenders

those "up to" provisions with respect to jail time give judges plenty of latitude to dictate what you may do. "Up to 30 days on a first offense" or "up to a $5,000 fine" can be translated into a judge saying if you drink at all - and we'll be testing - for X amount of time, you'll do that time or pay that fine even if you were simply planted in the sofa at home having a few cold ones. Not uncommon at all to hear that kind of story in MA.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Cedric Benson, The Chicago Bear's first round draft choice in 2005, has been ordered to install an alcohol ignition interlock device as a condition of his bail release on DUI charges.

Texas State laws of Boating under influence...

o First conviction carries a fine up to $2,000 and/or jail time up to 180 days

o Second conviction carries a fine up to $4,000 and/or jail time up to one year

o Third conviction carries a fine up to $10,000 and/or jail time of 2-10 years.

I would guess that it iis exceedingly rare that anyone gets anything close to the maximum sentence on those crimes. Cedric Benson got charged with a boating DUI in Texas, and I know he did not get any significant jail time for it.

Chicago running back Cedric Benson has been cleared of alcohol-related charges in Texas that led to his release by the Bears.

See, they don't even bother to prosecute you for driving a boat while intoxicated in Texas.My point is that just because the boating while intoxicated statute says that is the maximum penalty does not mean that people convicted of the crime are actually receiving the maximum punishment. I would be willing to bet that most of the people in Texas convicted of boating while intoxicated generally pay a fine and do some community service. There is a big difference between the maximum statutory penalty and what people actually serve.

You notice I posted convictions, not charges.

But be that as it may....I clearly stated that the person standing in front of the judge is crapping their pants over the possible outcome, regardless of what the judge appoints.

Do you have anything to substantiate the sentencing of convicted BWI persons? Especially those with 2 infractions.

 

[KCitons]

The problem with the person standing in front of the judge crapping their pants about what the punishment "could" be, is part of the problem. He/She should be crapping their pants about what "could" have happened if they had gotten into a wreck or killed someone.

What ends up happening is the a drunk driver is able to drive at .07 and successfully get home without incident. Then he pushes it to .09, then .12, and so forth. Each time, he is getting positive reinforcement for achieving his goal of driving drunk. When he does finally get caught, the penalty is often much less than the stated laws. There are tons of lawyers in each state that do nothing but DUI's. They find loopholes and get charges or sentences reduced. This is another somewhat positive reinforcement.]

Yes, by the time the process is done, the person has spent a good chunk of money (maybe $10k) But, this only hurts the middle and lower class. What about a celebrity or a white collar worker that makes a good salary. The money becomes a non issue. I know my inlaws have very little money. The lawyer is willing to work with them on payments. So, ultimately it will end up being a car payment. (just no car)

The jail time is rarely mandatory. Or people are allowed to serve their 30 days on the weekends. Instead of consecutively.

When someone has a second offense DUI, I don't think you can hand down a severe enough penalty. The person got their one warning. Throw the book at them.

 

[SWC]

i think that the issue is that alcoholism is a sickness and when you are addicted you just can not put the bottle down it honestly owns you whether you like it or not  and you do things like drive or use a chainsaw or go to work or whatever when you are drunk long story short once an alky get sauced they are not thinking right and do not care about their actions or the consequences so dealing with that is a very tough question

 

[phrozen]

A drunk driver

Shouldnt drive.

A drunk surgeon might not harm anyone, as well.

pretty sure he spelled driver correctly there hoss

 

[Buckfast 1]

Cedric Benson, The Chicago Bear's first round draft choice in 2005, has been ordered to install an alcohol ignition interlock device as a condition of his bail release on DUI charges.

Texas State laws of Boating under influence...

o First conviction carries a fine up to $2,000 and/or jail time up to 180 days

o Second conviction carries a fine up to $4,000 and/or jail time up to one year

o Third conviction carries a fine up to $10,000 and/or jail time of 2-10 years.

I would guess that it iis exceedingly rare that anyone gets anything close to the maximum sentence on those crimes. Cedric Benson got charged with a boating DUI in Texas, and I know he did not get any significant jail time for it.

Chicago running back Cedric Benson has been cleared of alcohol-related charges in Texas that led to his release by the Bears.

See, they don't even bother to prosecute you for driving a boat while intoxicated in Texas.My point is that just because the boating while intoxicated statute says that is the maximum penalty does not mean that people convicted of the crime are actually receiving the maximum punishment. I would be willing to bet that most of the people in Texas convicted of boating while intoxicated generally pay a fine and do some community service. There is a big difference between the maximum statutory penalty and what people actually serve.

You notice I posted convictions, not charges.

But be that as it may....I clearly stated that the person standing in front of the judge is crapping their pants over the possible outcome, regardless of what the judge appoints.

Do you have anything to substantiate the sentencing of convicted BWI persons? Especially those with 2 infractions.

I'm really just guessing. It just seems like 180 days in jail is pretty excessive for a first time BWI offender, and I doubt Texas judges are sentencing people that harshly, absent some aggravating factors. I don't doubt that people with prior DUI convictions would likely get some jail time for a BWI.

 

[KCitons]

i think that the issue is that alcoholism is a sickness and when you are addicted you just can not put the bottle down it honestly owns you whether you like it or not  and you do things like drive or use a chainsaw or go to work or whatever when you are drunk long story short once an alky get sauced they are not thinking right and do not care about their actions or the consequences so dealing with that is a very tough question

Based on this, any jail time, fine, or license suspension is not going to fix the problem.

We continue to pay the courts and the lawyers, but fail to see results. At least in my state, Alcohol Treatement/Counseling is only a "possibility" after the 4th offense, not mandatory. Who are we helping by fining a person $10k?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

http://gcn.com/articles/2010/09/29/sl-texting-bans-increase-crashes.aspx?m=1

I'm on a tablet and for some reason can't paste a link after the quoted text, only before it.

All the DUI laws quoted are far worse than some things that are equally as dangerous like texting while driving; a whopping $114 dollar fine in the state of Washington. It's a joke they are so punitive comparatively.

There's pretty good evidence that laws prohibiting texting while driving increase the rate of accidents.

I know of no such evidence regarding laws prohibiting drinking and driving.

What evidence are you talking about?

 

[dparker713]

http://gcn.com/articles/2010/09/29/sl-texting-bans-increase-crashes.aspx?m=1

I'm on a tablet and for some reason can't paste a link after the quoted text, only before it.

All the DUI laws quoted are far worse than some things that are equally as dangerous like texting while driving; a whopping $114 dollar fine in the state of Washington. It's a joke they are so punitive comparatively.

There's pretty good evidence that laws prohibiting texting while driving increase the rate of accidents.

I know of no such evidence regarding laws prohibiting drinking and driving.

What evidence are you talking about?

That's hardly "pretty good evidence".

 

[johnnycakes]

i think that the issue is that alcoholism is a sickness and when you are addicted you just can not put the bottle down it honestly owns you whether you like it or not  and you do things like drive or use a chainsaw or go to work or whatever when you are drunk long story short once an alky get sauced they are not thinking right and do not care about their actions or the consequences so dealing with that is a very tough question

Based on this, any jail time, fine, or license suspension is not going to fix the problem.

We continue to pay the courts and the lawyers, but fail to see results. At least in my state, Alcohol Treatement/Counseling is only a "possibility" after the 4th offense, not mandatory. Who are we helping by fining a person $10k?

That's exactly right. I drove drunk daily for years; luckily I never hurt anyone, though that may be due in large part because I rarely drove on the highway drunk and most trips were just a short trip back home from the local watering hole after work. But still.... those kinds of measures won't stop an alcoholic from driving while drunk if they do any barroom drinking and they don't live in a city where they can either walk home or take public transportation. My feeling is after the second offense (simple DUI, no injuries), a breath alcohol ignition interlock device should be mandatory for life. And disabling (or circumventing in any way) that device should carry a mandatory jail term, loss of license AND confisacation of the automobile.

 

[KCitons]

I think most people are in agreement that the world is full of second chances. It's understandable that a person can make a mistake and blow a .08 after a couple of beers with dinner. The first offense needs to send a message. There should be no doubt that you committed a serious violation. (unless an accident occurred)

Now, if you choose to have a couple of beers again with dinner, and then climb behind the wheel, you deserve everything you get.

I feel the same way about texting and driving. If you need to text, pull over. Bottom line, your putting your own convenience before the lives of others. You get your one warning. After that, start walking. You can texted all you want then.

 

[SWC]

i think that the interlocks are the way to go i know that the libertarian crowd will say that it is an interfernce with rights but hte right to drive is one that you not entitled to in the consttitution and if you blow it than tough crackerjacks ace you drink and drive then you get to blow on a car for a drive from then on and if you do not like it then get you tennies and start walking but that is just a fix to a symptom the real problem is the drinking and basically we need better resources to get people help who need it even if they do not realize that they need it and man that is a complicated situation right there brohans

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

I think most people are in agreement that the world is full of second chances. It's understandable that a person can make a mistake and blow a .08 after a couple of beers with dinner. The first offense needs to send a message. There should be no doubt that you committed a serious violation. (unless an accident occurred)

Now, if you choose to have a couple of beers again with dinner, and then climb behind the wheel, you deserve everything you get.

I feel the same way about texting and driving. If you need to text, pull over. Bottom line, your putting your own convenience before the lives of others. You get your one warning. After that, start walking. You can texted all you want then.

I'm still waiting for you to give up your license for 5 yrs for admittedly driving like an #######.

or are we just talking about punishments for everybody else?

 

[KCitons]

I think most people are in agreement that the world is full of second chances. It's understandable that a person can make a mistake and blow a .08 after a couple of beers with dinner. The first offense needs to send a message. There should be no doubt that you committed a serious violation. (unless an accident occurred)

Now, if you choose to have a couple of beers again with dinner, and then climb behind the wheel, you deserve everything you get.

I feel the same way about texting and driving. If you need to text, pull over. Bottom line, your putting your own convenience before the lives of others. You get your one warning. After that, start walking. You can texted all you want then.

I'm still waiting for you to give up your license for 5 yrs for admittedly driving like an #######.

Why? Because I learned the errors of my ways and no longer drive if I've had anything to drink?

Keep fishin' though someone will take you on.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

I think most people are in agreement that the world is full of second chances. It's understandable that a person can make a mistake and blow a .08 after a couple of beers with dinner. The first offense needs to send a message. There should be no doubt that you committed a serious violation. (unless an accident occurred)

Now, if you choose to have a couple of beers again with dinner, and then climb behind the wheel, you deserve everything you get.

I feel the same way about texting and driving. If you need to text, pull over. Bottom line, your putting your own convenience before the lives of others. You get your one warning. After that, start walking. You can texted all you want then.

I'm still waiting for you to give up your license for 5 yrs for admittedly driving like an #######.

Why? Because I learned the errors of my ways and no longer drive if I've had anything to drink?

Keep fishin' though someone will take you on.

I guess the rest of the world shouldn't get that same chance you had to learn from their mistakes.

 

[KCitons]

I think most people are in agreement that the world is full of second chances. It's understandable that a person can make a mistake and blow a .08 after a couple of beers with dinner. The first offense needs to send a message. There should be no doubt that you committed a serious violation. (unless an accident occurred)

Now, if you choose to have a couple of beers again with dinner, and then climb behind the wheel, you deserve everything you get.

I feel the same way about texting and driving. If you need to text, pull over. Bottom line, your putting your own convenience before the lives of others. You get your one warning. After that, start walking. You can texted all you want then.

I'm still waiting for you to give up your license for 5 yrs for admittedly driving like an #######.

Why? Because I learned the errors of my ways and no longer drive if I've had anything to drink?

Keep fishin' though someone will take you on.

I guess the rest of the world shouldn't get that same chance you had to learn from their mistakes.

That's right. People are better educated now. Learn from the past and those that have made mistakes before you.

What is your possible reason for NOT punishing a first offender. Or is this just a personal vendetta against Me?

 

[LittleLarry]

In Oregon a first-time arrest of DUI will allow a person to enter a diversion program where the DUI is wiped off the record.

However, the diversion program requires the use of an interlock device for one year.

Strangely enough, a first DUI conviction does not require the use of the device.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

I think most people are in agreement that the world is full of second chances. It's understandable that a person can make a mistake and blow a .08 after a couple of beers with dinner. The first offense needs to send a message. There should be no doubt that you committed a serious violation. (unless an accident occurred)

Now, if you choose to have a couple of beers again with dinner, and then climb behind the wheel, you deserve everything you get.

I feel the same way about texting and driving. If you need to text, pull over. Bottom line, your putting your own convenience before the lives of others. You get your one warning. After that, start walking. You can texted all you want then.

I'm still waiting for you to give up your license for 5 yrs for admittedly driving like an #######.

Why? Because I learned the errors of my ways and no longer drive if I've had anything to drink?

Keep fishin' though someone will take you on.

I guess the rest of the world shouldn't get that same chance you had to learn from their mistakes.

That's right. People are better educated now. Learn from the past and those that have made mistakes before you.

What is your possible reason for NOT punishing a first offender. Or is this just a personal vendetta against Me?

talk about a persecution complex........

dude, I said no offense in my very first reply.

the whole world didn't start turning when you were born, you know.

 

[Christo]

dude, I said no offense in my very first reply.

Well, then carry on offending.

 

[KCitons]

I think most people are in agreement that the world is full of second chances. It's understandable that a person can make a mistake and blow a .08 after a couple of beers with dinner. The first offense needs to send a message. There should be no doubt that you committed a serious violation. (unless an accident occurred)

Now, if you choose to have a couple of beers again with dinner, and then climb behind the wheel, you deserve everything you get.

I feel the same way about texting and driving. If you need to text, pull over. Bottom line, your putting your own convenience before the lives of others. You get your one warning. After that, start walking. You can texted all you want then.

I'm still waiting for you to give up your license for 5 yrs for admittedly driving like an #######.

Why? Because I learned the errors of my ways and no longer drive if I've had anything to drink?

Keep fishin' though someone will take you on.

I guess the rest of the world shouldn't get that same chance you had to learn from their mistakes.

That's right. People are better educated now. Learn from the past and those that have made mistakes before you.

What is your possible reason for NOT punishing a first offender. Or is this just a personal vendetta against Me?

talk about a persecution complex........

dude, I said no offense in my very first reply.

the whole world didn't start turning when you were born, you know.

the world doesn't turn around me. But your posts in this thread have.

Perhaps you should write a book on how to be perfect, we all need a manual to follow.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

I think most people are in agreement that the world is full of second chances. It's understandable that a person can make a mistake and blow a .08 after a couple of beers with dinner. The first offense needs to send a message. There should be no doubt that you committed a serious violation. (unless an accident occurred)

Now, if you choose to have a couple of beers again with dinner, and then climb behind the wheel, you deserve everything you get.

I feel the same way about texting and driving. If you need to text, pull over. Bottom line, your putting your own convenience before the lives of others. You get your one warning. After that, start walking. You can texted all you want then.

I'm still waiting for you to give up your license for 5 yrs for admittedly driving like an #######.

Why? Because I learned the errors of my ways and no longer drive if I've had anything to drink?

Keep fishin' though someone will take you on.

I guess the rest of the world shouldn't get that same chance you had to learn from their mistakes.

That's right. People are better educated now. Learn from the past and those that have made mistakes before you.

What is your possible reason for NOT punishing a first offender. Or is this just a personal vendetta against Me?

talk about a persecution complex........

dude, I said no offense in my very first reply.

the whole world didn't start turning when you were born, you know.

the world doesn't turn around me. But your posts in this thread have.

Perhaps you should write a book on how to be perfect, we all need a manual to follow.

well, you are the op, which is what most of the thread will be discussing, as well as the person badgering me for not sharing long enough opinions.

in the future, if you're going to get sensitive about people beating you up over your ####ty behavior, maybe don't start a thread beating people up over said ####ty behavior.

 

[KCitons]

I think most people are in agreement that the world is full of second chances. It's understandable that a person can make a mistake and blow a .08 after a couple of beers with dinner. The first offense needs to send a message. There should be no doubt that you committed a serious violation. (unless an accident occurred)

Now, if you choose to have a couple of beers again with dinner, and then climb behind the wheel, you deserve everything you get.

I feel the same way about texting and driving. If you need to text, pull over. Bottom line, your putting your own convenience before the lives of others. You get your one warning. After that, start walking. You can texted all you want then.

I'm still waiting for you to give up your license for 5 yrs for admittedly driving like an #######.

Why? Because I learned the errors of my ways and no longer drive if I've had anything to drink?

Keep fishin' though someone will take you on.

I guess the rest of the world shouldn't get that same chance you had to learn from their mistakes.

That's right. People are better educated now. Learn from the past and those that have made mistakes before you.

What is your possible reason for NOT punishing a first offender. Or is this just a personal vendetta against Me?

talk about a persecution complex........

dude, I said no offense in my very first reply.

the whole world didn't start turning when you were born, you know.

the world doesn't turn around me. But your posts in this thread have.

Perhaps you should write a book on how to be perfect, we all need a manual to follow.

well, you are the op, which is what most of the thread will be discussing, as well as the person badgering me for not sharing long enough opinions.

in the future, if you're going to get sensitive about people beating you up over your ####ty behavior, maybe don't start a thread beating people up over said ####ty behavior.

Fair enough. But, other posters have echoed my opinions. You feel the need to badger me, as if I did something wrong to you personally. Maybe it has to do with my comments in another thread. Who knows.

Like I said, write a book for us. You obviously have lived a perfect life.

Most of us either learn by our own errors or we learn from the errors of others. Drinking and driving is one of those things we should be able to learn from the mistakes of others. Based on your opinion, every drunk driver needs to kill someone before they understand the seriousness of what they are doing.

This seems like an archaic way of thinking for someone so perfect.

 

[tonydead]

http://gcn.com/articles/2010/09/29/sl-texting-bans-increase-crashes.aspx?m=1

I'm on a tablet and for some reason can't paste a link after the quoted text, only before it.

All the DUI laws quoted are far worse than some things that are equally as dangerous like texting while driving; a whopping $114 dollar fine in the state of Washington. It's a joke they are so punitive comparatively.

There's pretty good evidence that laws prohibiting texting while driving increase the rate of accidents.

I know of no such evidence regarding laws prohibiting drinking and driving.

What evidence are you talking about?

From the article: "It's an indication that texting bans might even increase the risk of texting for drivers who continue to do so despite the laws." Continue to do so because of the whopping $114 fine on the off chance the get caught. Right? Let's let them spend $15K in lawyer's fees, spend 30 days home confinement and 2 years on probation and see how many people continue to do so. Or would that seem a little ridiculous?

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

Fair enough. But, other posters have echoed my opinions. You feel the need to badger me, as if I did something wrong to you personally. Maybe it has to do with my comments in another thread. Who knows.

Like I said, write a book for us. You obviously have lived a perfect life.

Most of us either learn by our own errors or we learn from the errors of others. Drinking and driving is one of those things we should be able to learn from the mistakes of others. Based on your opinion, every drunk driver needs to kill someone before they understand the seriousness of what they are doing.

This seems like an archaic way of thinking for someone so perfect.

dude, you are a very self involved person -- I really wouldn't have any idea what comments you've made in any other threads.

I'm posting my opinions, as people do on messageboards, about the subject you wanted to talk about -- it's possible they come off a little less friendly than some others, as maybe I find narcissism, hypocritical born again prosthelytizing, and drunk driving as more obnoxious behavior than some others do, but everybody's different.

you have offered your blunt opinions, judgements, and observations about your father in law(?) -- my observations about people in general are that they tend to use age, among other things, as a crutch to excuse their own ####ty behavior and attitude.

they start out as teenage 'kids', the kid umbrella then extending through their 20s, midlife crisis is to blame after that, then of course you have license to annoy the #### out of the entire old folks home as a senior.

despite the fact that there are a lot of senior citizens who aren't completely ####### annoying.

what I'm saying is that there are some people who just happen to be who they are throughout their lives, starting out as a youngster, annoying people as an adult, and just finishing up as an obnoxious senior.

it's true that some people start out self involved juvenile and obnoxious, grow out of that and mature as they get older, but it's true that some people don't, and they generally don't want to hear about it.

so, I'll just leave it at that -- nothing personal.

 

[Buckfast 1]

Fair enough. But, other posters have echoed my opinions. You feel the need to badger me, as if I did something wrong to you personally. Maybe it has to do with my comments in another thread. Who knows. Like I said, write a book for us. You obviously have lived a perfect life. Most of us either learn by our own errors or we learn from the errors of others. Drinking and driving is one of those things we should be able to learn from the mistakes of others. Based on your opinion, every drunk driver needs to kill someone before they understand the seriousness of what they are doing. This seems like an archaic way of thinking for someone so perfect.

dude, you are a very self involved person -- I really wouldn't have any idea what comments you've made in any other threads. I'm posting my opinions, as people do on messageboards, about the subject you wanted to talk about -- it's possible they come off a little less friendly than some others, as maybe I find narcissism, hypocritical born again prosthelytizing, and drunk driving as more obnoxious behavior than some others do, but everybody's different. you have offered your blunt opinions, judgements, and observations about your father in law(?) -- my observations about people in general are that they tend to use age, among other things, as a crutch to excuse their own ####ty behavior and attitude.they start out as teenage 'kids', the kid umbrella then extending through their 20s, midlife crisis is to blame after that, then of course you have license to annoy the #### out of the entire old folks home as a senior.despite the fact that there are a lot of senior citizens who aren't completely ####### annoying. what I'm saying is that there are some people who just happen to be who they are throughout their lives, starting out as a youngster, annoying people as an adult, and just finishing up as an obnoxious senior.it's true that some people start out self involved juvenile and obnoxious, grow out of that and mature as they get older, but it's true that some people don't, and they generally don't want to hear about it. so, I'll just leave it at that -- nothing personal.

Kool-Aid Man, no offense, but you're fat, you always have a stupid-looking grin on your face, and you have no respect for other people's walls -- nothing personal.

 

[StrikeS2k]

http://gcn.com/articles/2010/09/29/sl-texting-bans-increase-crashes.aspx?m=1

I'm on a tablet and for some reason can't paste a link after the quoted text, only before it.

All the DUI laws quoted are far worse than some things that are equally as dangerous like texting while driving; a whopping $114 dollar fine in the state of Washington. It's a joke they are so punitive comparatively.

There's pretty good evidence that laws prohibiting texting while driving increase the rate of accidents.

I know of no such evidence regarding laws prohibiting drinking and driving.

What evidence are you talking about?

So make the penalties more severe, like with DUI. Make someone pay 10k in fines/lawyer fees and attend TA meetings for a year and see if that has an effect. I bet more people would drive drunk if the penalty was a $100 ticket as with texting.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

Fair enough. But, other posters have echoed my opinions. You feel the need to badger me, as if I did something wrong to you personally. Maybe it has to do with my comments in another thread. Who knows. Like I said, write a book for us. You obviously have lived a perfect life. Most of us either learn by our own errors or we learn from the errors of others. Drinking and driving is one of those things we should be able to learn from the mistakes of others. Based on your opinion, every drunk driver needs to kill someone before they understand the seriousness of what they are doing. This seems like an archaic way of thinking for someone so perfect.

dude, you are a very self involved person -- I really wouldn't have any idea what comments you've made in any other threads. I'm posting my opinions, as people do on messageboards, about the subject you wanted to talk about -- it's possible they come off a little less friendly than some others, as maybe I find narcissism, hypocritical born again prosthelytizing, and drunk driving as more obnoxious behavior than some others do, but everybody's different. you have offered your blunt opinions, judgements, and observations about your father in law(?) -- my observations about people in general are that they tend to use age, among other things, as a crutch to excuse their own ####ty behavior and attitude.they start out as teenage 'kids', the kid umbrella then extending through their 20s, midlife crisis is to blame after that, then of course you have license to annoy the #### out of the entire old folks home as a senior.despite the fact that there are a lot of senior citizens who aren't completely ####### annoying. what I'm saying is that there are some people who just happen to be who they are throughout their lives, starting out as a youngster, annoying people as an adult, and just finishing up as an obnoxious senior.it's true that some people start out self involved juvenile and obnoxious, grow out of that and mature as they get older, but it's true that some people don't, and they generally don't want to hear about it. so, I'll just leave it at that -- nothing personal.

Kool-Aid Man, no offense, but you're fat, you always have a stupid-looking grin on your face, and you have no respect for other people's walls -- nothing personal.

hahaha,,,,,!!!

OH YEAHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

http://gcn.com/articles/2010/09/29/sl-texting-bans-increase-crashes.aspx?m=1

I'm on a tablet and for some reason can't paste a link after the quoted text, only before it.

All the DUI laws quoted are far worse than some things that are equally as dangerous like texting while driving; a whopping $114 dollar fine in the state of Washington. It's a joke they are so punitive comparatively.

There's pretty good evidence that laws prohibiting texting while driving increase the rate of accidents.

I know of no such evidence regarding laws prohibiting drinking and driving.

What evidence are you talking about?

So make the penalties more severe, like with DUI. Make someone pay 10k in fines/lawyer fees and attend TA meetings for a year and see if that has an effect. I bet more people would drive drunk if the penalty was a $100 ticket as with texting.

yeah, that's probably 100% true, but it's taken decades of crusading to get dui penalties to where they are today --- texting and outlawing cell usage is in it's infancy.

what they need is like a fathers against texting campaign, or something.

 

[Christo]

http://gcn.com/articles/2010/09/29/sl-texting-bans-increase-crashes.aspx?m=1

I'm on a tablet and for some reason can't paste a link after the quoted text, only before it.

All the DUI laws quoted are far worse than some things that are equally as dangerous like texting while driving; a whopping $114 dollar fine in the state of Washington. It's a joke they are so punitive comparatively.

There's pretty good evidence that laws prohibiting texting while driving increase the rate of accidents.

I know of no such evidence regarding laws prohibiting drinking and driving.

What evidence are you talking about?

So make the penalties more severe, like with DUI. Make someone pay 10k in fines/lawyer fees and attend TA meetings for a year and see if that has an effect. I bet more people would drive drunk if the penalty was a $100 ticket as with texting.

yeah, that's probably 100% true, but it's taken decades of crusading to get dui penalties to where they are today --- texting and outlawing cell usage is in it's infancy.

what they need is like a fathers against texting campaign, or something.

It's interesting how much crap you're giving KCitons but you turn around and can be so flippant about an activity that is just as dangerous. No offense, but that's pretty ####### stupid.

 

[KCitons]

http://gcn.com/articles/2010/09/29/sl-texting-bans-increase-crashes.aspx?m=1

I'm on a tablet and for some reason can't paste a link after the quoted text, only before it.

All the DUI laws quoted are far worse than some things that are equally as dangerous like texting while driving; a whopping $114 dollar fine in the state of Washington. It's a joke they are so punitive comparatively.

There's pretty good evidence that laws prohibiting texting while driving increase the rate of accidents.

I know of no such evidence regarding laws prohibiting drinking and driving.

What evidence are you talking about?

So make the penalties more severe, like with DUI. Make someone pay 10k in fines/lawyer fees and attend TA meetings for a year and see if that has an effect. I bet more people would drive drunk if the penalty was a $100 ticket as with texting.

yeah, that's probably 100% true, but it's taken decades of crusading to get dui penalties to where they are today --- texting and outlawing cell usage is in it's infancy.

what they need is like a fathers against texting campaign, or something.

But wait, you already said that you never drove after drinking, because of common sense. This just reiterates the title of this thread. While the DUI laws on the surface may seem severe, the penalties that are actually handed down (especially for 2nd, 3rd or 4th offenders) carries no real threat and does little to help the true problem. Why does it take such a long time if the answer to the problem is common sense?

At least I can admit that I've made mistakes in my life.