DUI, traffic deaths, and police indifference

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Here's another article, with footnotes:
http://www.alcoholfacts.org/CrashCourseOnMADD.html

Quote

A case in point. Research suggests that using a cell phone while driving may cause more traffic fatalities than driving drunk. But when a MADD official was asked how traffic fatality statistics involving cell phone use compared to those involving drunk drivers, he tellingly replied "I have absolutely no idea, nor do I care." 7 The issue for MADD is no longer preventing auto accidents but preventing drinking.

Cell phone use should be banned while driving too. I don't know why it's so hard for people to understand that driving requires their full time and attention.

Listening to a little music at a reasonable volume, fine. Drinking 3 or 4 beers, then talking on a cell phone while driving and listening to music blasting out of a 2000 watt stereo? Not a good idea!!!

-

[shropshire 0]

<> - They are here... but it's not what you call enforced.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[kallend 1,683]

Quote

The issue for MADD is no longer preventing auto accidents but preventing drinking.

Based on a conversation I had with a senior MADD guy, I was under the impression they wanted to prevent driving.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Balls 0]

Dude, we're from the same town. Who gave you the DUI?

----------------------------------------
....so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat."

[GQ_jumper 4]

When I worked at a night club a few months back it surprised me that they didn't always have a car or two out front, they did sometimes. The majority of the trouble did however happen about two streets over at a different club, and we also had a reputation for not allowing situations in our club to escalate to the point where the cops needed to be involved. When the did however have cars out front they would wait for the ones that would go screeching off swerving everywhere or hit another car in the parking lot, they overlooked quite a few tipsy people and I feel did a good job of picking the really bad ones to go after.

Either way though, breaking the law is breaking the law, and if they don't see anyone swerving everywhere and they happen to see someone who is only slightly over the limit, hey, they broke the law.

History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid.
--Dwight D. Eisenhower

[roscoep 0]

to the guy who started this thread: you sir, are a dick.
I can not fathom the twisted rational that sparked your feeble mind to even begin this thread. You seem to be all bent over cops being tied up for 2 hours handling a .08, so what's the answer??
We (yes, I am a cop and a skydiver) don't set the limits, our legislators do. We simply enforce what they set. I have arrested people as low as .08 and most recently a whopping .334. Yes, .334. The guy admitted to being a hardcore alcoholic and was driving as bad as some people at a .08.
Someone mentioned earlier getting people rides home. I, and every cop I know, has done this. For those people that get pulled over for a minor infraction and maybe smell of alcohol or admit to having one or two, this is at times the right thing to do. There are very few areas left where we are still allowed to have discretion, and when someone falls into this category, at times we can be nice guys.
Dickhead: You are still a fucking dickhead, but I truly hope you and yours are never hit by a guy trying to make a changing light who happens to be a .08, because you will regret the day you began this post.

[billvon 2,476]

Your one warning.

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

I truly hope you and yours are never hit by a guy trying to make a changing light who happens to be a .08, because you will regret the day you began this post.

What if the tables were turned?--if a .08 driver is in an accident caused by a sober driver (say, the .08 driver was tboned by the sober driver because the sober driver ran a red light) in which the sober driver is killed.

Do you, the .08 driver still deserve manslaughter/aggravated dui (class 4 felony in IL) charges even if you obeyed all non-dui traffic safety laws to the letter, and deserve to pay all related civil penalties? If you were the .08 driver you would surely regret the laws on our books, for it allows a truly criminal sober driver to drive recklessly, crash into you and transfer all the penalties and responsibility to you.

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[cloudseeker2001 0]

I think I can understand your point. I drive home at midnight and I have seen more obviously impaired drives in the last week than I have in the last year. And too, I have seen 2 or 3 cops cars on one driver, and thought they should be on the freeway where there are more people driving even worse........But I guess the cops cannot catch all the fish in the sea. I suspect one day we may all have breath testers on our cars as a standard..........

In reality, the police or not here to protect, they are here to clean up and write a report so the DA knows who to blame and decided what they can be charged for. And if you are unlucky enough to get caught doing something unlawful, you are held responsible. As it should be.

"Some call it heavenly in it's brilliance,
others mean and rueful of the western dream"

[roscoep 0]

aaaaaaaaaah, deep breath. Apologies for the f'ing di*khead comment.
In reference to the drunk driver getting hit by a sober driver, responsibility isn't transferred. If you are at fault, you are at fault. If the victim, that is the person not at fault for causing the accident, happens to be drunk/impaired, they may get charged seperatley, but stll aren't at fault.

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

In reference to the drunk driver getting hit by a sober driver, responsibility isn't transferred.

In Illinois it is. On the books it says not whether you caused an accident while at .08, simply whether you are involved determines your culpability for aggravated charges and thus your responsibility for civil damages.

What you describe is the way it should be, justly and intuitively. The law is unjust, imo.

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[roscoep 0]

then that is screwed up. Obviously at times one person is the sole person at fault. Sometimes it's both with aggravating circumstance, but to transfer blame is messed up. Not to defend the drunk, they should still get charged though.

[Richards 0]

Quote

Quote

then that is screwed up. Obviously at times one person is the sole person at fault. Sometimes it's both with aggravating circumstance, but to transfer blame is messed up. Not to defend the drunk, they should still get charged though.

Obviously the person who caused the accident should not be let off the hook but the impaired driver still has to be held responsible. Recall right back to your driver school days when the issue of your obligation to drive defensively was taught. Yes the other driver was careless but your capacity to react was diminished if you were under the influence, and therefore you also shoulder the blame.

My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

the impaired driver still has to be held responsible...... your capacity to react was diminished if you were under the influence, and therefore you also shoulder the blame.

1 - the other driver is responsible for the accident (in that scenario). no need to share the blame

2 - but the drunk driver is responsible for being DUI and should be handled per that. 2 separate things - if the accident is why the DUI got caught, that's just too bad. If the states have culpability laws that add to the DUI, then that's the way it is. Don't drink and drive in that state or get the law changed.

The DUI complainers operate under the assumption that they are not dimished/impaired in any way by drinking. Just like alcoholics and kids.

Therefore your argument won't be listened to.

I had a relative go to one of the training classes for her DUI. She fessed up, paid attention and won't do it again. She was coherent and polite and intelligent and the judge appreciated it and was very polite and nice to her, so were the trainers. She still had the fines, probation period, and classes enforced as it should have been.

She spoke to about 15 others during the 'sensitivity class' - EVERY SINGLE ONE of them had an adolescent attitude, claimed innocence (or at least that they shouldn't have been caught), were rude or neglectful, pissed at the cops and the system. This was expected from the petulant teenagers and early 20 somethings, but it also came from the adults too. Knowing that her owning up to her mistake is a VERY RARE thing in the system, I think being in public service in the law would be a horrible job.

I saw a post where a poster noted that even if caught and obviously guilty, don't admit it. This is also scary and makes real law enforcement unnecessarily difficult.

Avoiding personal responsibility is at the heart of this debate. Nothing more insidious than that.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[TrophyHusband 0]

in washington it was expained to me that if you are involved in an accident while intoxicated you were responsible no matter who caused the accident because you shouldn't even have been there to have been hit in the first place.

"Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama
www.kjandmegan.com

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

in washington it was expained to me that if you are involved in an accident while intoxicated you were responsible no matter who caused the accident because you shouldn't even have been there to have been hit in the first place.

that also is some pretty wierd (il)logic

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Scoop 0]

Quote

in washington it was expained to me that if you are involved in an accident while intoxicated you were responsible no matter who caused the accident because you shouldn't even have been there to have been hit in the first place.

Same as UK law then.

Road traffic collision enquiries are automatically written off if one party is found to be over the prescribed limit and they are dealt with accordingly. I suppose theoretically you could buy an old banger from the scrap yard and take out drink drivers for fun and get away with it

[willard 0]

Many places are like that. It's somewhat of a philosophical idea, that if the person breaking the law had instead obeyed the law then the accident would not have happened. Many area also share the blame in percentages, with a judge or jury deciding who carries how much of the blame. A common theme to this is if someone fails to yield the right of way. I know the other guy pulled out in front of you, but did you do everything within reason to not hit him? In this instance one is expected to make a reasonable attempt to avoid the collision, and if impaired then that person cannot react the same and therefore carries a higher share of the blame.
IMO, any time a person is driving under the influence and is involved in an accident, he/she should be held 100% liable regardless of who's fault it was. It's time to stop coddling these people and start treating them like the irresponsible threats to society that they are.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

IMO, any time a person is driving under the influence and is involved in an accident, he/she should be held 100% liable regardless of who's fault it was. It's time to stop coddling these people and start treating them like the irresponsible threats to society that they are.

Scenario - Mr. Oblivious runs a red light and smashes into Mr. Tipsy McDrunk

It seems you'd want to coddle Mr. O.... (I consider him to ALSO be a threat to society even if you'd let him off.)

IMO...

Mr O caused the accident and is also responsible for the violation of running a red light.

Tipsy is responsible for DUI and perhaps some additional share for the accident depending on the circumstance. Perhaps the DUI combined with the accident would even have a increased responsibility.

But in no way would I let Mr O off the hook.

it's not hard

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[roscoep 0]

as a cop, I for one cannot stand drunk drivers and am the furthest thing in the world from being a bleeding heart. I can't see the logic in automatically, no matter what, transfering all the blame to the intoxicated party. Key word being "automatically". I and others have said, if they are intoxicated and the accident is the reason they are caught, so be it. If they are at fault, so be it. If they are partially at fault, so be it.
Yes, the argument could be made, in most instances, that their impaired abilities caused the accident.
I can see the instance though where the drunk is stopped at a red light and slammed from behind. At least here in Ct, I would charge the drunk for being drunk and the person at fault for following to close or some other applicable charge.
I guess it is different all over. I'd never heard of the implied at fault thing before.

[willard 0]

Quote

Quote

IMO, any time a person is driving under the influence and is involved in an accident, he/she should be held 100% liable regardless of who's fault it was. It's time to stop coddling these people and start treating them like the irresponsible threats to society that they are.

Scenario - Mr. Oblivious runs a red light and smashes into Mr. Tipsy McDrunk

It seems you'd want to coddle Mr. O.... (I consider him to ALSO be a threat to society even if you'd let him off.)

IMO...

Mr O caused the accident and is also responsible for the violation of running a red light.

Tipsy is responsible for DUI and perhaps some additional share for the accident depending on the circumstance. Perhaps the DUI combined with the accident would even have a increased responsibility.

But in no way would I let Mr O off the hook.

it's not hard

No solution is perfect, but in your hypothetical case Tipsy gets cited for DUI and causing the accident, and Mr.O gets cited for running the light...the same thing he would have been cited for if Mr. Policeman saw him and Tipsy had stayed off the road.
As you can probably tell I have absolutely no sympathy towards people driving while under the influence.

[Airman1270 0]

Quote

it's interesting that the OP is upset at the cops instead of the DUI who chose to drive at 0.08 or higher....

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _


Wait a minute here - I thought the legal limit IS .08. That means the driver who blows a .08 is LEGAL. Why are we demanding that people who obey the law be arrested & otherwise hassled?

A few years back in my radio days I was checking out the reports at the city police department & came across a report of a guy arrested for drunk driving. He had blown something like a .03 or so. I asked the desk clerk why he had been arrested, given the fact that he had complied with the law. (The report did not indicate any other behavior that would have justified police action.) She gave me some line of crap about being "less safe" to drive.

Either 1) she was bullshitting me, 2) the cop did have a valid reason for the arrest but didn't think it necessary to write it in the report, or 3) this guy was being hassled for reasons only the cops will ever know about. Neither choice inspires confidence nor respect.

This is the same kind of hypocrisy we see regarding statutory rape laws. Whatever you may think the age of consent should be, the legislature should decide on an age and stand by it. If the law says 16, then people who mess with anyone after their 16th birthday should not have to worry about arrest & prosecution. (I don't give a damn how old the guy is, nor whether he holds a "position of authority," etc. "Age of consent" means the girl is supposedly responsible enough to make such decisions. Besides, I thought we weren't supposed to legislate morality, remember?)

How can we respect the law when people who obey the law end up in the back of a police car?

Cheers,
Jon

[GQ_jumper 4]

A few years back in my radio days I was checking out the reports at the city police department & came across a report of a guy arrested for drunk driving. He had blown something like a .03 or so. I asked the desk clerk why he had been arrested, given the fact that he had complied with the law. (The report did not indicate any other behavior that would have justified police action.) She gave me some line of crap about being "less safe" to drive.

Either 1) she was bullshitting me, 2) the cop did have a valid reason for the arrest but didn't think it necessary to write it in the report, or 3) this guy was being hassled for reasons only the cops will ever know about. Neither choice inspires confidence nor respect.

Quote

Doesn't that fall under a lesser charge, like driving while impared as opposed to driving under the influence? I thought if you were under the limit but still driving irresponsibly you can still be charged if the officer feels you aren't in a good enough condition to drive, I have seen people that lose it after one drink, they are under the limit but have no buisness being on the road.

History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid.
--Dwight D. Eisenhower

• Quote

[nathaniel 0]

Quote

start treating them like the irresponsible threats to society that they are

All drivers are threats to society. Just by putting your car on the road you risk things like mechanical breakdown and human error that can result in property damage, injury and death.

The tort system was created to resolve these issues, why do we need an additional layer of criminal enforcement against .08? BAC is an imprecise measure and it catches millions of people yearly who would not have hurt anyone, although a (small) proportion of the people caught would definitely have caused damage or injury or death to themselves or others.

It is a real instance of fining and imprisoning ten inculpable people so that one guilty person might not go free.

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

Wait a minute here - I thought the legal limit IS .08. That means the driver who blows a .08 is LEGAL. Why are we demanding that people who obey the law be arrested & otherwise hassled?

A few years back in my radio days I was checking out the reports at the city police department & came across a report of a guy arrested for drunk driving. He had blown something like a .03 or so. I asked the desk clerk why he had been arrested, given the fact that he had complied with the law. (The report did not indicate any other behavior that would have justified police action.) She gave me some line of crap about being "less safe" to drive.

Some states have allowances in the law that permit a DWI charge for those who don't surpass the .08 BAC mark. Its for those that are impared to the point of being a danger to themselves or others on the road.

Some cases in which this can be considered is when there is alcohol in their system, but they (the driver) blow under a .08, but when there are other factors involved including some sort of narcotic (be it prescription, over the counter or illegal) in the system. Typically a blood draw is used in that instance; however, it may not be 100% apparent to be requested, or submitting to a chemical test may have been refused by the driver. Just that the driver is obviously under the influence of something, that their driving was obviously impaired and the SFSTs were not passed or even close to being passed. Some argue the validity of the walk and turn and the one leg stand; however, those have both stood up in court. That and HGN, when applied properly, does not lie, assuming a few factors.

Obviously the law varies from state to state. The bickering I've observed in this thread are from people who have learned about laws from friends or by watching TV. It would be in everyone's best intrest for all of those who have posted or read any posts in this thread to consult your local and state laws. Read the laws that apply to DWI and DUI. Read the laws pertaining to general traffic laws. Read the governing code for law enforcement (it may be in your state's penal code or it might be an individual code such as the Code of Criminal Proceedure).

Without arming yourselves with knowledge, your can not be sure that your arguements are accurate or even close to being able to be applied. TV law is TV law. Law "facts" told to you by friends aren't always based in fact or anything else but urban legend. News reports are typically just as "accurate."

Educate yourself and if you wish, go do a ride along with your local department. You'll learn a lot about the process, but more importantly you'll learn what the law actually is.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."