Drunk Driving Penalities, Too Strict/Lenient/Just Right (2 Viewers)

[[scooter]]

Your completely wrong.

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? 

I think this is the point where you ask, "Sir, have you had anything to drink tonight?"

 

[IC FBGCav]

On Christmas eve at around noon the mini van in front of me drove off the road 2 twice and was constantly crossing the yellow line.  Happens all the time.  I laid on my horn a bunch but didn't help.  Not once did I think they were drunk.

 

[Ketamine Dreams]

I'm labeling it ALL inattentive driving;.....If one engages in an non-spontaneous/planned* (i.e. texting, talking on a phone, DUI, getting oral while behind the wheel) activity behind the wheel....the punishment should be across the board.....regardless of the reason.  

* As opposed to spontaneous/unplanned....like a seizure.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, let's not be too hasty here.

 

[Pipes]

On Christmas eve at around noon the mini van in front of me drove off the road 2 twice and was constantly crossing the yellow line.  Happens all the time.  I laid on my horn a bunch but didn't help.  Not once did I think they were drunk.

Yeah at that time of day every bit as likely to have been on their phone or just someone who's a crappy driver.

 

[Zow]

With Uber, Lyft, and inexpensive breathalyzers it is now easier than ever to avoid driving drunk. Someone who still makes this mistake may have a serious problem and that is why the harsh penalties are there. I think a good way to gauge effectiveness would be to compare repeat offender rates in the states with most lenient and harshest 1st offense penalties.

Can’t disagree with anything here. Uber/Lyft have really made it so there just aren’t excuses even in smaller towns. 

 

[Slapdash]

With Uber, Lyft, and inexpensive breathalyzers it is now easier than ever to avoid driving drunk. Someone who still makes this mistake may have a serious problem and that is why the harsh penalties are there. I think a good way to gauge effectiveness would be to compare repeat offender rates in the states with most lenient and harshest 1st offense penalties.

Can’t disagree with anything here. Uber/Lyft have really made it so there just aren’t excuses even in smaller towns. 

It will be interesting to see how the law adapts to self-driving cars where the person is legally over the .08

 

[NutterButter]

Can’t disagree with anything here. Uber/Lyft have really made it so there just aren’t excuses even in smaller towns. 

Sure, if its local and you've clearly had too much, but if you're going to a restaurant 40 minutes away and you're just having some wine with your meal, not as clear cut an option.   

 

[rockaction]

It will be interesting to see how the law adapts to self-driving cars where the person is legally over the .08

Then we'll get to see exactly what they're trying to achieve.  

 

[Vanilla Guerrilla]

** However, I recall a study at some seminar suggesting that a person gets arrested for a DUI every 200 or so times he drives drunk.  So, maybe I shouldn't be so sympathetic since plausibly the person probably has ton it several dozens to a couple hundred times. 

I had a buddy that got two DUIs in his 20s.  He went out to the bars every weekend.  Him and his buddies never had a designated driver.  When he got his first, he was adamant that it was pure BS.  Me, being the worst sympathetic shoulder to cry on in the world, pointed out every time he said that, that he literally was over the limit at least twice a week, and that the odds of him going 10 years without getting pulled over was pretty close to zero.  He didn't even tell me right away when he got his second.

 

[kutta]

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.  

The fundamental issue posed by this thread is a challenging one.  I'm pretty convinced that just about anybody who has socially drank at a point in his or her life has driven while impaired at least once.  I consider myself a very law-abiding person but I can remember at least twice where I shouldn't have driven.  I've also seen hundreds of cases now where people's lives are substantially impacted because of DUI convictions as my jurisdiction has very strict penalties and the statutes really limit plea bargaining. So, it seems pretty harsh for an aberrant mistake. That said, I've seen firsthand the lives it has lost. 

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? 

I've had this discussion at DUI seminars with other lawyers who work prominently in this field.  The general sentiment, which I agree with, is that the laws are probably too strict for first-timers but may not strict enough for repeat offenders.  Personally, I have a ton of sympathy for a first-timer** who made a genuine mistake versus somebody who, for whatever reasons, keeps drinking and drinking.  

*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.

** However, I recall a study at some seminar suggesting that a person gets arrested for a DUI every 200 or so times he drives drunk.  So, maybe I shouldn't be so sympathetic since plausibly the person probably has ton it several dozens to a couple hundred times. 

Great post.

It seems most people think the laws are too strict at the lower limits, but, the intent of that is try to “scare” people into not crossing that line where they lose their judgment and drive at the higher limits. In which case, the strict penalties for the lower limits makes pretty good sense.

 

[Kanil]

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.

I'm pretty sure that's mandatory in CO.  I've had two people that report to me get them and they were both suspended for a year.

 

[culdeus]

MADD's motivation is prohibition, not safety.  They haven't worked towards a public policy around safety in decades.  

.08 should only come into play if you actually hit something or get an actual violation (red light etc.).  That was the original intent, not to legislate 0.08 but rationalize that sometimes people are at different stages of metabolism and .08 is at least a marker to say there is at least one in there somewhere.  

The driving force behind that was some people were getting in horrific wrecks and taking hours and hours to get checked for BAC and by that time they were down to below the limit.  

This included a good friend of mine who got in a catastrophic drunk driving wreck and when they finally did the blood draw he was at like 0.06.   He still got charged with intoxication assault or whatever but beat the charge in large part because MADD stupidly setup the laws so they could be beaten in this manner.  

 

[Zow]

Sure, if its local and you've clearly had too much, but if you're going to a restaurant 40 minutes away and you're just having some wine with your meal, not as clear cut an option.   

If you just had one or even two glasses of wine* with your** meal and drove you very likely are not driving while impaired or under the influence. 

* Assumes a standard pour of a wine in the ~13% range. 

** Assuming you are an approximately average size adult within a standard deviation of the partition ratio associated with the average metabolic rate for processing alcohol (which, for the average male adult is about a drink per hour). 

 

[rockaction]

MADD's motivation is prohibition, not safety.  They haven't worked towards a public policy around safety in decades.  

.08 should only come into play if you actually hit something or get an actual violation (red light etc.).  That was the original intent, not to legislate 0.08 but rationalize that sometimes people are at different stages of metabolism and .08 is at least a marker to say there is at least one in there somewhere.  

The driving force behind that was some people were getting in horrific wrecks and taking hours and hours to get checked for BAC and by that time they were down to below the limit.  

This included a good friend of mine who got in a catastrophic drunk driving wreck and when they finally did the blood draw he was at like 0.06.   He still got charged with intoxication assault or whatever but beat the charge in large part because MADD stupidly setup the laws so they could be beaten in this manner.  

I was saying this in the thread. MADD, a very powerful lobbyist and PAC, is essentially prohibitionist in nature.They're zealots. No surprise considering they're based in Kansas, IIRC, which has a long prohibition past.  

eta* And they're helping them set policies that are dangerous to the economy and to freedom.  

 

[NutterButter]

If you just had one or even two glasses of wine* with your** meal and drove you very likely are not driving while impaired or under the influence. 

* Assumes a standard pour of a wine in the ~13% range. 

** Assuming you are an approximately average size adult within a standard deviation of the partition ratio associated with the average metabolic rate for processing alcohol (which, for the average male adult is about a drink per hour). 

Probably not.  But say I had a couple more glasses.   Now I venturing into that area where I still feel fine, but technically I could be slightly above the threshold.   I'm not at some bar getting hammered.   We're just having dinner and drinking wine with it.    At this point, its not so clear cut what my options would be.   Just saying that your statement that there's no excuses for driving technically over the limit isn't so clear cut.   I mean who in this state where they're clearly not intoxicated is going to call an uber for a 40 minute ride and then have to uber it back the next day assuming that your car doesn't get towed.   

 

[culdeus]

I was saying this in the thread. MADD, a very powerful lobbyist and PAC, is essentially prohibitionist in nature.They're zealots. No surprise considering they're based in Kansas, IIRC, which has a long prohibition past.  

eta* And they're helping them set policies that are dangerous to the economy and to freedom.  

Well, there are some different threads in here, but MADD used the slippery slope ramp to perfection and gave a blueprint to all sorts of advocacy groups on how to not seem extremist while actually being extremist.  

 

[culdeus]

True story- know a guy that's been having a lot of difficulty lately with everything, health, work, relationships. He drinks a lot. Probably 4-7 days a week and anywhere from 2-10+ drinks. I mentioned how much cutting out the booze helped me. He was adamant he is just a "social drinker". Well maybe but he is socializing almost every night. So just a couple weeks ago he tells me he got DUI months ago and hid it for about 2 months! Turns out I called him out shortly after he got the DUI and he never said anything. Now of course the DUI is just a "money grab". There's nothing I can tell him if he doesn't want to hear it. Hopefully it wakes him up because if he continued down the same path I could see him being even more of a danger on the roads. As of now he is still partying and drinking a lot so a lenient penalty is probably not going to deter him in the future (especially once he is under the influence).

Also when I got my Dui's there was 1 cab company in town and they took hours to show up if they came at all. Still no excuse on my part. If I wanted to go 40 minutes away and drink and couldn't afford the Uber I guess I would just go somewhere closer or stay home 

DUI enforcement can both be a money grab, and not push forward public safety.  

 

[General Malaise]

True story- know a guy that's been having a lot of difficulty lately with everything, health, work, relationships. He drinks a lot. Probably 4-7 days a week and anywhere from 2-10+ drinks. I mentioned how much cutting out the booze helped me. He was adamant he is just a "social drinker". Well maybe but he is socializing almost every night. So just a couple weeks ago he tells me he got DUI months ago and hid it for about 2 months! Turns out I called him out shortly after he got the DUI and he never said anything. Now of course the DUI is just a "money grab". There's nothing I can tell him if he doesn't want to hear it. Hopefully it wakes him up because if he continued down the same path I could see him being even more of a danger on the roads. As of now he is still partying and drinking a lot so a lenient penalty is probably not going to deter him in the future (especially once he is under the influence).

Also when I got my Dui's there was 1 cab company in town and they took hours to show up if they came at all. Still no excuse on my part. If I wanted to go 40 minutes away and drink and couldn't afford the Uber I guess I would just go somewhere closer or stay home 

I thought there were restrictions on drinking after you have a DUI?  Or is that if you opt to take diversion?

 

[tonydead]

Average DUI cost $10,000

Ticket for texting in my state $126.

Make them as severe or as lenient as you want, but, make them equal. 

 

[Short Corner]

This thread reminds me of DJAX going off because hitting a man is more socially acceptable than hitting a woman.

 

[Zow]

Probably not.  But say I had a couple more glasses.   Now I venturing into that area where I still feel fine, but technically I could be slightly above the threshold.   I'm not at some bar getting hammered.   We're just having dinner and drinking wine with it.    At this point, its not so clear cut what my options would be.   Just saying that your statement that there's no excuses for driving technically over the limit isn't so clear cut.   I mean who in this state where they're clearly not intoxicated is going to call an uber for a 40 minute ride and then have to uber it back the next day assuming that your car doesn't get towed.   

I myself love wine.  I love it even more so when my wife and I are sharing a bottle at a nice dinner away from my children for a few hours.  

But, I do think this situation is pretty clear cut and just simply not that difficult to manage. I know if I intend to drive home I can't get above a .08 so, to be safe, I shouldn't have more than two glasses (or 1/2 a bottle). If I want to have more I can plan for transportation ahead of time.  If I decide in the moment to have more I ensure my car is in a place to be parked overnight and I'll just own that $50 uber ride and get a ride back in the morning as that's still way cheaper than the several thousands in direct costs a DUI would get me.  All three options are reasonably attainable/easy for me.  And, I do understand that that the third option is a bit of a headache.  But, I just don't see it that way.  Maybe I'm unique in that sense that because 1) see the harsh impact a DUI has on somebody in my jurisdiction on a near daily basis; and 2) am fortunate enough where I have the expendable income to blow $50 bucks on an expensive uber ride just so I can keep the wine flowing. 

 

[Zow]

I thought there were restrictions on drinking after you have a DUI?  Or is that if you opt to take diversion?

I've heard that sometimes people don't always comply with their pre-trial release conditions. 

In my jurisdiction courts are getting away from bonds for a DUI but are requiring defendants on release pending trial to either be equipped with an alcohol monitor or randomly UA test.  I'm not a huge fan of the expense it imposes on a person presumed to be innocent but with the theoretical trade off of no bond I think I like it as it ensures that a person is complying with the no alcohol term of release. 

 

[Northern Voice]

Curious how many people in this thread have blown into a breathalyser?

I've done it a couple times at parties with cops. The first time, I'd had 6 341ml bottles of 5% beer and a boilermaker (beer + whiskey shot) over a couple hours.

The second time, I'd shared 6-8 very boozy beers with a friend, so probably equivalent of 3 x 500ml or so but 8-10% beers, again over maybe two hours at most.

Both times when I blew, I was in the .05 to .08 range (which up here is a "warning" - 72 hour suspension). Not over .08. 

Based on these experiences, when in both instances, I would never for a second have considered driving, my reaction is that if you're at .08, it was not "just a couple drinks", you're a ####### hazard to everyone on the road and you deserve whatever you get.

Just my  though.

 

[culdeus]

Curious how many people in this thread have blown into a breathalyser?

I've done it a couple times at parties with cops. The first time, I'd had 6 341ml bottles of 5% beer and a boilermaker (beer + whiskey shot) over a couple hours.

The second time, I'd shared 6-8 very boozy beers with a friend, so probably equivalent of 3 x 500ml or so but 8-10% beers, again over maybe two hours at most.

Both times when I blew, I was in the .05 to .08 range (which up here is a "warning" - 72 hour suspension). Not over .08. 

Based on these experiences, when in both instances, I would never for a second have considered driving, my reaction is that if you're at .08, it was not "just a couple drinks", you're a ####### hazard to everyone on the road and you deserve whatever you get.

Just my  though.

You possibly haven't had time to process it. I mean we drink beer we don't put it in an IV.  

 

[simey]

Tomorrow, Utah becomes the first state to have a BAC limit of .05 for noncommercial drivers.

 

[Da Guru]

Tomorrow, Utah becomes the first state to have a BAC limit of .05 for noncommercial drivers.

If it was up to the Mormons a  .01BAC would mean the death penalty

 

[Northern Voice]

You possibly haven't had time to process it. I mean we drink beer we don't put it in an IV.  

But that's the point right? Having a few beers and getting behind the wheel, you likely aren't blowing over. If you've had more in that time or you're drinking steadily over a longer period of time, yes you might. 

If the argument is, it hasn't been processed after a couple hours of strong drinking, then you're advocating for being able to drive after having the same or more amount of drinks over a longer period of time, so that it is "processed" which I also don't agree with. 

 

[culdeus]

But that's the point right? Having a few beers and getting behind the wheel, you likely aren't blowing over. If you've had more in that time or you're drinking steadily over a longer period of time, yes you might. 

If the argument is, it hasn't been processed after a couple hours of strong drinking, then you're advocating for being able to drive after having the same or more amount of drinks over a longer period of time, so that it is "processed" which I also don't agree with. 

You are also dealing with an indirect test for BAV. An actual draw would have yielded different results.  

 

[Zow]

Tomorrow, Utah becomes the first state to have a BAC limit of .05 for noncommercial drivers.

Whoa, really? 

I don’t even think NHTSA would get behind that. 

 

[Zow]

Curious how many people in this thread have blown into a breathalyser?

I've done it a couple times at parties with cops. The first time, I'd had 6 341ml bottles of 5% beer and a boilermaker (beer + whiskey shot) over a couple hours.

The second time, I'd shared 6-8 very boozy beers with a friend, so probably equivalent of 3 x 500ml or so but 8-10% beers, again over maybe two hours at most.

Both times when I blew, I was in the .05 to .08 range (which up here is a "warning" - 72 hour suspension). Not over .08. 

Based on these experiences, when in both instances, I would never for a second have considered driving, my reaction is that if you're at .08, it was not "just a couple drinks", you're a ####### hazard to everyone on the road and you deserve whatever you get.

Just my  though.

Depends on which testing device you used. 

If it was on scene by cops you very likely used a portable breath testing device (PBT). Those aren’t scientifically reliable and, at least in jurisdiction, only admissible as evidence to demonstrate the presence of alcohol.