3141 needless deaths THIS YEAR

[blackangst1]

Thats THREE THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED FORTY ONE in less than 3 months. 38 per day. To put it in perspective, we've lost just over 4000 soldiers in Iraq since 2002. Over 110,000 needless deaths have happened since that same amount of time. All because some dumbass drinks and drives.

How many of us are in a position to affect someone's impaired decision to drink and drive? Waiters? Bar tenders? Out drinking with friends? What are some of the reasons YOU let your friends drink and drive? Or what alibi do you tell yourself?

Im not being dramatic, but I dont think DUI deaths get enough attention. These numbers dont even include alcohol related accidents. The reason I bring this up is to think about what we allow our clients, friends, family, and ourselves to do when it comes to alcohol. It's important to me as this month is the anniversary of a friend's death due to another drunk driver, so it's very near and dear to my heart.

I personally dont drink. If Im out with friends who have had too many and think they will drive, if I cant grab their keys, I will call 9/11 and reported them before they've even left. Twice Ive had friends pulled over and booked on DUI right when they started their car and drove out of the parking lot. Im not bashful about it...I just wont put up with it. Most of my friends let me drive them home or take a cab, so it's cool. How about you guys?

 

[jpeyton]

I drink and drive. I just make sure I don't drink so much that I'm legally impaired (0.08 BAL).

 

[nageov3t]

what can I do about it?

I don't drive and drive, my friends don't drink and drive.

 

[NoStateofMind]

I don't drink and drive. Don't even go to bars or put myself in the situation to be in the vicinity of someone inebriated. Most people and family I know do not drink so I guess you could say I'm somewhat of a party pooper I'm sorry to hear about your loss of a friend and it puts you in a unique situation when with friends that attempt to drink and drive. Some may see you as a snitch but you have good reason and I wouldn't fault you for that. You're a good friend and mean well, your friends may not like the actions you take but keeping them alive is worth more than any ticket or license.

In the end there will be times when you're not around and they will drink & drive and something may happen out of that ignorance. Just don't blame yourself for their choices because in reality, the only thing you can control is what you do.

 

[palehorse]

The paulbots around here probably don't think that drunk driving checkpoints are a good idea...

 

[Farang]

DUI laws are too strict. Make the BAC higher, lower the drinking age.

 

[newmachineoverlord]

The odds of being in an accident double at 0.03. DUI laws are far too lenient.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
The paulbots around here probably don't think that drunk driving checkpoints are a good idea...

DUI checkpoints are not constitutional.

(insert SCOTUS opinion here)

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: newmachineoverlord
The odds of being in an accident double at 0.03. DUI laws are far too lenient.

How could you possibly determine that? That's an absolutely ridiculous (and specious) statistic if ever there was one.

I have many family members and friends who have received DUIs (several of them have received multiple). None of them has spent more than a night in jail and none has received more than a $1000 fine. Only one had a license suspension, and it was only 90 days IIRC after the third DUI in a year. Part of the reason is that my home town has no taxi infrastructure. Another is that it has one of the highest alcohol use rates in the nation. Another is that the justice system there is very corrupt and favors are used to make deals. Bottom line: there is no punishment for these people and, therefore, no motivation to not drive drunk.

I would like to think that a big part of it is that people simply don't know when they're impaired. Bars should make a breathalizer available to their customers and call a cab for the people who can't drive home as a matter of policy (if not law). This doesn't help every situation, but it would help a lot of them. Another method that could help is to sell cheap breathalizers, even disposable ones. I have seen these, but they are too expensive for anyone to actually use, especially consistently.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Farang
DUI laws are too strict. Make the BAC higher, lower the drinking age.

No they aren't. In fact those who are convicted of driving under the influence should have their license suspended for 5 years for the first time and for life if convicted a second time.

Lowering the drinking age will not help.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: newmachineoverlord
The odds of being in an accident double at 0.03. DUI laws are far too lenient.

How could you possibly determine that? That's an absolutely ridiculous (and specious) statistic if ever there was one.

I have many family members and friends who have received DUIs (several of them have received multiple). None of them has spent more than a night in jail and none has received more than a $1000 fine. Only one had a license suspension, and it was only 90 days IIRC after the third DUI in a year. Part of the reason is that my home town has no taxi infrastructure. Another is that it has one of the highest alcohol use rates in the nation. Another is that the justice system there is very corrupt and favors are used to make deals. Bottom line: there is no punishment for these people and, therefore, no motivation to not drive drunk.

I would like to think that a big part of it is that people simply don't know when they're impaired. Bars should make a breathalizer available to their customers and call a cab for the people who can't drive home as a matter of policy (if not law). This doesn't help every situation, but it would help a lot of them. Another method that could help is to sell cheap breathalizers, even disposable ones. I have seen these, but they are too expensive for anyone to actually use, especially consistently.

Yet another method would be to have the police station a patrol car outside of all the popular bars and nightspots and randomly station one at the neighborhood bars. The cost of doing that would be paid for by all the fines from the drunk convicted of driving while under the influence. If a person knew that the odds were that they would get arrested for driving drunk they wouldn't dare take the chance and those who were stupid enough to try are better off not having a license, well at least society would be better off.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
I don't drink and drive. Don't even go to bars or put myself in the situation to be in the vicinity of someone inebriated. Most people and family I know do not drink so I guess you could say I'm somewhat of a party pooper I'm sorry to hear about your loss of a friend and it puts you in a unique situation when with friends that attempt to drink and drive. Some may see you as a snitch but you have good reason and I wouldn't fault you for that. You're a good friend and mean well, your friends may not like the actions you take but keeping them alive is worth more than any ticket or license.

In the end there will be times when you're not around and they will drink & drive and something may happen out of that ignorance. Just don't blame yourself for their choices because in reality, the only thing you can control is what you do.

Thank you for your responsibility And I dont blame myself at all

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: newmachineoverlord
The odds of being in an accident double at 0.03. DUI laws are far too lenient.

How could you possibly determine that? That's an absolutely ridiculous (and specious) statistic if ever there was one.

I have many family members and friends who have received DUIs (several of them have received multiple). None of them has spent more than a night in jail and none has received more than a $1000 fine. Only one had a license suspension, and it was only 90 days IIRC after the third DUI in a year. Part of the reason is that my home town has no taxi infrastructure. Another is that it has one of the highest alcohol use rates in the nation. Another is that the justice system there is very corrupt and favors are used to make deals. Bottom line: there is no punishment for these people and, therefore, no motivation to not drive drunk.

I would like to think that a big part of it is that people simply don't know when they're impaired. Bars should make a breathalizer available to their customers and call a cab for the people who can't drive home as a matter of policy (if not law). This doesn't help every situation, but it would help a lot of them. Another method that could help is to sell cheap breathalizers, even disposable ones. I have seen these, but they are too expensive for anyone to actually use, especially consistently.

More and more DUI laws are tightening up. I live in AZ which has the strictist laws in the country, and I think they arent strict enough. A guy I work with just got his license back after his 2nd DUI. It was a felony (over .08 but under .15 while suspended), 90 days in jail mandatory, car impounded, license suspended for a year, and now is required to have an interlock on his car. I wish more states would do this.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Farang
DUI laws are too strict. Make the BAC higher, lower the drinking age.

No they aren't. In fact those who are convicted of driving under the influence should have their license suspended for 5 years for the first time and for life if convicted a second time.

Lowering the drinking age will not help.

And what would that accomplish other then creating alot more unlicensed drivers. There is no public transportation in the US outside of 3 or 4 cites. You have a law in which it is impossible to know if you have broken it.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Farang
DUI laws are too strict. Make the BAC higher, lower the drinking age.

No they aren't. In fact those who are convicted of driving under the influence should have their license suspended for 5 years for the first time and for life if convicted a second time.

Lowering the drinking age will not help.

And what would that accomplish other then creating alot more unlicensed drivers. There is no public transportation in the US outside of 3 or 4 cites. You have a law in which it is impossible to know if you have broken it.

That may be too harsh but DUI laws are a mother-f**king joke. How many people get MULTIPLE DUIs? License lost a bunch of times and they're still out there legally driving? This is a big damn deal. People die from drunk asshole drivers all the time and nobody seems to give a sh*t unless they just lost their wife in a crash. You get a single DUI maybe it's time to consider only drinking when at home on Christmas day. It's not like you'll die without it. The come-down should be exceedingly harsh for two DUIs. I think the thing blackangst mentioned about in Arizona is just fine. People suck enough at driving as it is and .08 has been shown to markedly affect driving ability. If anything it should be lowered. I would also consider some kind of a way to punish cops for giving warnings on DUI, like if they have somebody run a .08 on the breathalizer they better have a good excuse why that person didn't get thrown in the back.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Farang
DUI laws are too strict. Make the BAC higher, lower the drinking age.

No they aren't. In fact those who are convicted of driving under the influence should have their license suspended for 5 years for the first time and for life if convicted a second time.

Lowering the drinking age will not help.

And what would that accomplish other then creating alot more unlicensed drivers. There is no public transportation in the US outside of 3 or 4 cites. You have a law in which it is impossible to know if you have broken it.

That may be too harsh but DUI laws are a mother-f**king joke. How many people get MULTIPLE DUIs? License lost a bunch of times and they're still out there legally driving? This is a big damn deal. People die from drunk asshole drivers all the time and nobody seems to give a sh*t unless they just lost their wife in a crash. You get a single DUI maybe it's time to consider only drinking when at home on Christmas day. It's not like you'll die without it. The come-down should be exceedingly harsh for two DUIs. I think the thing blackangst mentioned about in Arizona is just fine. People suck enough at driving as it is and .08 has been shown to markedly affect driving ability. If anything it should be lowered. I would also consider some kind of a way to punish cops for giving warnings on DUI, like if they have somebody run a .08 on the breathalizer they better have a good excuse why that person didn't get thrown in the back.

Because breathalizer are not that accurate and if they don't have anything else to back it up the results will get tossed out of court.

Just about every activity you can do in your car has been shown to have about the same effect as have .08 BAC if not worse. Weather the limit is to high or to low really doesn't mater because people have no way of know if they are over the limit. It would be the same as trying to enforce a 60 MPH speed limit with out speedometers in the car.

As for people with multiple DUI and still driving. Unless you are going to pay for their food, housing, ect or provided public transportation then people will keep driving. we live in a society based around cars to expect people to stop driving is just stupid.

 

[reeserock]

How about driving while tired? How about driving while on anti-depressants? How about driving while eating a burger? DUI accidents are just easy to detect and make stats from. It's surely wrong to drive drunk, but a .08 in one person is not the same as a .08 in another. It's a flawed gauge. Accidents are going to happen regardless, and if there is ANY alcohol involved it will be blamed for the wreck by default.

 

[bamacre]

In four hours at Horseshoe Casino in Tunica, MS, yesterday, I had a total of three diet cokes before driving my brother and friends home.

I also lost $10.

 

[BarneyFife]

The only time I drink is at home and thats very rare.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
The paulbots around here probably don't think that drunk driving checkpoints are a good idea...

As a nutjob Paulbot, I support the wacky idea of legalizing marijuana, giving the alcohol industry a little competition.

 

[brandonb]

Let's stop the witchhunt. How many more kids do we need to see locked up and sent to detox when their blood alchohol is at 0.048? Maybe technically they don't get a DUI charge, but they get an "alchohol related reckless driving." Its the exact same penalty (from any perspective) as a DUI. In fact, if you get another DUI later, that reckless automatically turns into a DUI.

How likely is it someone will get into an acciden at 0.048? Its a legal limit for a reason. However, that line has been washed out, and now its a slipperly slope thanks to MADD and other nonsense.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
The paulbots around here probably don't think that drunk driving checkpoints are a good idea...

Not everyone is entirely comfortable with having a police state with the power to stop each and every law-abiding citizen for whatever reason they want all in the name of looking for "potential" criminals.

Silly Constitution and all, I guess.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Farang
DUI laws are too strict. Make the BAC higher, lower the drinking age.

No they aren't. In fact those who are convicted of driving under the influence should have their license suspended for 5 years for the first time and for life if convicted a second time.

Lowering the drinking age will not help.

And what would that accomplish other then creating alot more unlicensed drivers. There is no public transportation in the US outside of 3 or 4 cites. You have a law in which it is impossible to know if you have broken it.

That may be too harsh but DUI laws are a mother-f**king joke. How many people get MULTIPLE DUIs? License lost a bunch of times and they're still out there legally driving? This is a big damn deal. People die from drunk asshole drivers all the time and nobody seems to give a sh*t unless they just lost their wife in a crash. You get a single DUI maybe it's time to consider only drinking when at home on Christmas day. It's not like you'll die without it. The come-down should be exceedingly harsh for two DUIs. I think the thing blackangst mentioned about in Arizona is just fine. People suck enough at driving as it is and .08 has been shown to markedly affect driving ability. If anything it should be lowered. I would also consider some kind of a way to punish cops for giving warnings on DUI, like if they have somebody run a .08 on the breathalizer they better have a good excuse why that person didn't get thrown in the back.

Because breathalizer are not that accurate and if they don't have anything else to back it up the results will get tossed out of court.

Just about every activity you can do in your car has been shown to have about the same effect as have .08 BAC if not worse. Weather the limit is to high or to low really doesn't mater because people have no way of know if they are over the limit. It would be the same as trying to enforce a 60 MPH speed limit with out speedometers in the car.

As for people with multiple DUI and still driving. Unless you are going to pay for their food, housing, ect or provided public transportation then people will keep driving. we live in a society based around cars to expect people to stop driving is just stupid.

Modern breathalizers ARE accurate. In almost every law enforcement district, if you are pulled over and blow a .08 or higher, you are arrested and IMMEDIATELY taken for a blood test. It is THAT that is used in court. The science behind impairment and BAC is pretty accurate.

Sure, lots of activities are dangerous while driving. But alcohol contributes to such a large number of accidents, it is given the harshest penalties. As far as people not knowing if they are drunk or not...are you kidding me? Thats your argument? First of all, if people actually CARED (which most people dont), they could buy a home tester to carry in their car. Many bars I go to actually have a breathalizer in them (for a quarter). And as the ad on TV says, driving buzzed is driving drunk. Naivity is no excuse.

Im not sure what you mean when you say "Unless you are going to pay for their food, housing, ect or provided public transportation"...are you suggesting that either 1. we dont punish DUI offenders, or 2. if we do, tax money should pay for their inconvenience? Can you clarify? How about if a person is convicted of child molestation and happens to live across the street from a school. He must therefore move. Do you think maybe tax payer money should be used to fund his inconvenience? Do you not believe in punishment for your actions? People arent going to starve if they cant drive.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: brandonb
Let's stop the witchhunt. How many more kids do we need to see locked up and sent to detox when their blood alchohol is at 0.048? Maybe technically they don't get a DUI charge, but they get an "alchohol related reckless driving." Its the exact same penalty (from any perspective) as a DUI. In fact, if you get another DUI later, that reckless automatically turns into a DUI.

How likely is it someone will get into an acciden at 0.048? Its a legal limit for a reason. However, that line has been washed out, and now its a slipperly slope thanks to MADD and other nonsense.

How many more kids do we need to see locked up and sent to detox when their blood alchohol is at 0.048

NO ONE gets locked up and sent to detox for .048.

but they get an "alchohol related reckless driving." Its the exact same penalty (from any perspective) as a DUI

No, it's not.

In fact, if you get another DUI later, that reckless automatically turns into a DUI.

Depends on the court's original decision. It's not automatic. And so what if it is? GOOD.

How likely is it someone will get into an acciden at 0.048

Why are you talking about legal limits? Thats not what the thread is about. Youre creating your own drama here.

However, that line has been washed out, and now its a slipperly slope

No, its not. .079 is legal, .08 isnt. Wheres the slope?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: palehorse74
The paulbots around here probably don't think that drunk driving checkpoints are a good idea...

Not everyone is entirely comfortable with having a police state with the power to stop each and every law-abiding citizen for whatever reason they want all in the name of looking for "potential" criminals.

Silly Constitution and all, I guess.

Yes, thank you. I agree, and I'm about as far from a "paulbot" as you can get. I think libertarians are barking up the wrong tree when it comes to economic policies, but they're on to something with that whole "civil rights" thing. Too many Americans are too eager to give up their rights in the name of fighting some evil.