Angry Beavers
Footballguy
You can say DUI laws are too lenient, but what if it is your loved one that is hurt or worse as a result of someone driving impaired?
I wasn't aware the two issues were mutually exclusive.You can say DUI laws are too lenient, but what if it is your loved one that is hurt or worse as a result of someone driving impaired?
I think one year suspended license is not an unreasonable ask. These occur much too frequently for the current penalties to be considered an adequate deterrent.
So that makes it ok cause no one got hurt?I wasn't aware the two issues were mutually exclusive.
False dichotomies and strawmen. Any other tools in your bag?So that makes it ok cause no one got hurt?
Mandatory 6 month suspension(actually more like 9 because the clock doesn't start until you are processed) fine between $2000-$5000. If you blow a .16 you have to undergo psychological evaluations before having your license reinstated. ETA---If you fail you have to wait 3-6 months to retake and have to pay for mandatory counseling.What are the DUI penalties like in Germany?
I think you're mistaking what lenient means in this context. Are the laws too lenient, i.e., too accommodating of drunk drivers.So that makes it ok cause no one got hurt?
What about the person who was hit and killed by them? Was their life ruined, their family, friends?Yeah im fairly certain we have all drank and drive at .08 and been perfectly fine. To ruin someone's life for that seems harsh.
When it gets to .05, that won't be enough. Eventually it'll get to the point where trace amounts are enough to get drilled. And until the tolerance is zero, someone will complain that the BAL is too high.Fine with the penalties, but not where the line in the sand has been drawn. Think .08 is a bit excessive and have heard that Utah was dropping it to .05, which is a joke.
A beer or two won't get you there. If you drink a whole bottle of wine by yourself, yeah, that would probably do it.eta* You'd be surprised just how quickly one gets to .08 at a restaurant, even if it's only a beer or two or a bottle of wine.
Depends how much you drank. You'd be surprised how long it stays in your system. And no, I've never gotten a DUI so there's no crusade here, I just think laws are too strict because of the level they're testing for. I think most people are competent at .12.What about the person who was hit and killed by them? Was their life ruined, their family, friends?
I drank yesterday from 12 until about 430. Then ate a huge meal, took a nap, then dessert and coffee. I didn’t get behind the wheel until 1045, pretty sure my BAC was 0 when I did, just not worth it.
& it wasn’t the penalties that deterred me, it was the moral obligation to my wife & kids... the penalties are a joke, imo.
Beer or three, depending on weight. California puts out a chart every year. I'm three beers. That seems awfully low, especially sinceA beer or two won't get you there. If you drink a whole bottle of wine by yourself, yeah, that would probably do it.
This. Why are DUI's lumped in one group? I'd really like to answer both for the poll. Too harsh if someone has a couple of drinks and gets pull over for something like a burnt out tail light and blows a .08. Yes it was stupid to drive but it's not worthy of jail time, long licenses suspension etc...If it's your first time. Still stupid and should be penalized but in that instance I'm not sure it's really worse than someone running a red light or driving 15 mph over the limit. I'm talking barely at .08 no noticeable impairment.According to the initial position of MADD, they lobbied for drunk driving laws to be .20 or above. Then the insurance companies got involved, MADD became zealots, its original founder left because of it and now we've got .08 across the country.
Too strict.
eta* You'd be surprised just how quickly one gets to .08 at a restaurant, even if it's only a beer or two or a bottle of wine.
I’m competent at .12, that doesn’t mean my reaction time and other abilities aren’t impaired.Depends how much you drank. You'd be surprised how long it stays in your system. And no, I've never gotten a DUI so there's no crusade here, I just think laws are too strict because of the level they're testing for. I think most people are competent at .12.
And it's good that you didn't drink with your wife and kids in the car. You do indeed have a moral/familial obligation to them.
Are there a bunch of fatal accidents involving people at .08? Not being facetious here it's just whenever I see in the news about a DUI fatality it's almost always someone well above the .08 limit. Almost always involves someone seriously impaired.What about the person who was hit and killed by them? Was their life ruined, their family, friends?
I drank yesterday from 12 until about 430. Then ate a huge meal, took a nap, then dessert and coffee. I didn’t get behind the wheel until 1045, pretty sure my BAC was 0 when I did, just not worth it.
& it wasn’t the penalties that deterred me, it was the moral obligation to my wife & kids... the penalties are a joke, imo.
I’m sure of the thousands and thousands of people who are killed annually in a DUI accident, some have levels of .08-.1Are there a bunch of fatal accidents involving people at .08? Not being facetious here it's just whenever I see in the news about a DUI fatality it's almost always someone well above the .08 limit. Almost always involves someone seriously impaired.
This. Way too strict on the low end.Probably too strict on the low end and too lenient on the high end. I took the average.
Lots of things impair your driving ability Being tired is one that comes to mind.I’m competent at .12, that doesn’t mean my reaction time and other abilities aren’t impaired.
iMessages can’t be tracked by the carriers.I would think that they checked the cell records (or had other circumstantial evidence) for most of the cases involving fatalities.
Pulled this from a quick Google search.Doesn't this vary wildly by state?
Correlation does not equal causation. Certainly unlikely at .08-.1.I’m sure of the thousands and thousands of people who are killed annually in a DUI accident, some have levels of .08-.1
How many fatalities happen with people driving with no BAC? Correlation does not equal causation. .08 is asinine. At least the consequences are.27% of drunk driving fatalities involve a driver with a BAC of .10 or less. There are all type of statistics here if you wish to know more: https://www.responsibility.org/get-the-facts/research/statistics/drunk-driving-fatalities/
You're forgetting the mandatory minimum ~1500 fine as well. AZ is probably the harshest state in the country for DUI.My buddy got one not too long ago in AZ. I thought the penalty was pretty stiff for a first timer, but I also agree it should be stiff. His BAC was 0.11
30 days suspended license - no driving at all
90 days only driving to work
1 year interlock on car - reduced to 6 months after 16 hours of counseling and all-day defensive driving class
24 hours in jail
That’s a pretty good pirice to pay, IMO.
In terms of penalties, yes.Doesn't this vary wildly by state?
I'm calling B.S. on those made up numbers. Cops don't even care or look at if the driver of accidents/deaths were using their phones. They are only concerned if they use alcohol.No.
In 2016, there were 10,497 deaths from drunk driving, and 3450 deaths from "distracted driving" (which includes texting).
I don't doubt that the number of people who text-and-drive is larger than the number of people who drink-and-drive. But the texters cause far fewer deaths, and therefore texting should not be considered to be a bigger problem than drinking.
Yeah, it's usually the person driving texting/using their phone that cause the accident and then the person with the low B.A.C.gets busted for the DUI. Cops don't give a crap if they're using their phone.Are there a bunch of fatal accidents involving people at .08? Not being facetious here it's just whenever I see in the news about a DUI fatality it's almost always someone well above the .08 limit. Almost always involves someone seriously impaired.
Stay classy with those made up numbers!No.
In 2016, there were 10,497 deaths from drunk driving, and 3450 deaths from "distracted driving" (which includes texting).
I don't doubt that the number of people who text-and-drive is larger than the number of people who drink-and-drive. But the texters cause far fewer deaths, and therefore texting should not be considered to be a bigger problem than drinking.
If they killed somebody else they care. I imagine if it was a single vehicle crash where only the driver dies you are probably right.I'm calling B.S. on those made up numbers. Cops don't even care or look at if the driver of accidents/deaths were using their phones. They are only concerned if they use alcohol.
The National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration (NHTSA) has run some extensive tests on this issue.* Perhaps ironically (although it makes sense if you think about it), their study suggests that people drive better with a drink in their system and it's affect is pretty neutral up until the .08 range. I'd agree that a person likely isn't significantly impaired until he gets above a .10 or higher.Correlation does not equal causation. Certainly unlikely at .08-.1.
I'm not entirely sure where you're getting this sentiment from. It's not consistent with my experience.Yeah, it's usually the person driving texting/using their phone that cause the accident and then the person with the low B.A.C.gets busted for the DUI. Cops don't give a crap if they're using their phone.
They don't. They only check for b.a.c. Many P.D. even have incentives for dui's.If they killed somebody else they care. I imagine if it was a single vehicle crash where only the driver dies you are probably right.
That's my point the person getting the dui isn't the one causing the accident it"s the idiots on the phone.I'm not entirely sure where you're getting this sentiment from. It's not consistent with my experience.
Additionally, it's irrelevant who causes the crash in regards to the decision to charge a DUI. At least in my jurisdiction, a DUI is a DUI regardless of how it was discovered the person drove impaired to the slightest degree and/or with a BAC or BrAC of >.08%.
It's not an element of the crime of DUI that the defendant cause any sort of damage or harm.That's my point the person getting the dui isn't the one causing the accident it"s the idiots on the phone.
They do. Even if they don't want to the insurance company will definitely be forcing their hands. If neither party has insurance or money then maybe they dont but how big of a sample size is that?They don't. They only check for b.a.c. Many P.D. even have incentives for dui's.
I work in a hospital, my experience is usually the dead person or the one caused the accident is clutching their phone. Police come and want bac drawn on the person who was in the accident but didn't cause it but because they were drinking. They get charged by the police even though it's the idiot in the next bed that caused the accident!I'm not entirely sure where you're getting this sentiment from. It's not consistent with my experience.
Additionally, it's irrelevant who causes the crash in regards to the decision to charge a DUI. At least in my jurisdiction, a DUI is a DUI regardless of how it was discovered the person drove impaired to the slightest degree and/or with a BAC or BrAC of >.08%.
Your completely wrong.It's not an element of the crime of DUI that the defendant cause any sort of damage or harm.
I genuinely don't know why you think police are trained to only look for DUIs in an accident. Most departments have an officer trained in accident reconstruction. In major crashes with injuries generally tox screens are run on both drivers and both cars are inventoried (for things like cell phones close by).
Do cops look for DUI factors in accidents? Absolutely -- as DUI is probably the leading cause for accidents. But I think you're inaccurately stating that other factors are completely ignored.
I'm not really sure how to respond to this. I made three separate statements that I'm pretty confident in making. Is this where I respond with a curriculum vitae?Your completely wrong.
Considering we're at .08, have you questioned exactly what it is they're trying to deter?The theoretical challenge to legislating DUI is that, when a person actually gets impaired he likely isn't acting rationally. Strict laws are usually designed to deter people from engaging in the action. However, a person not acting or thinking rationally is far less likely to be deterred because deterrence assumes the amount of rationality needed to at least perform a cost-benefit analysis. So, deterrence by the very nature of the crime is less likely to work. So, do the laws then need to be that strict?
The MADD stuff aside, I could see a good argument for making the legal limit .08 if we're trying to deter people from getting to the more dangerous levels. However, at least as it pertains to my jurisdiction, I wish the legislature didn't also tie the hands of the lawyers handling the cases from plea bargaining to more lenient counts/sentences/penalties while doing so.Considering we're at .08, have you questioned exactly what it is they're trying to deter?
Because it sounds to me like it's bringing you car out at all, never mind more sinister things that I think are up in the movement from hearing stories about MADD and the insurance companies that are responsible for this nonsense.
Fair enough. I was thinking they were trying to deter you from taking your car to go out at all, or, there seem to be prohibition elements within the more vocal members of lowering the legal limit.The MADD stuff aside, I could see a good argument for making the legal limit .08 if we're trying to deter people from getting to the more dangerous levels. However, at least as it pertains to my jurisdiction, I wish the legislature didn't also tie the hands of the lawyers handling the cases from plea bargaining to more lenient counts/sentences/penalties while doing so.
There was a study done in Australia in the 90s sometime that concluded stoned drivers were 30% less likely to be involved in an accident than sober drivers. (I think the study consisted of a driving course with unexpected hazards)*I'm really hoping some studies will be done soon in this same sense for THC so we can get away from strict liability laws for driving with THC or its metabolite in one's system.