Posted on 11/09/2005 3:39:41 PM PST by elkfersupper
It is time to separate fact from fiction about our drunken driving laws. It is time to stop deluding ourselves into believing that stricter penalties are the solution. It is also time to start promulgating laws that attack the core problem, including creating a bright line that even an intoxicated person can walk.
Drunken driving is a problem in Massachusetts. It is also a problem in New York, Texas and every other state in the country. Statistically, Massachusetts’ roads are not the most dangerous in the country. There is also no proof that Massachusetts drivers are more likely to drive impaired.
-snip-
Perhaps it is time to make it illegal to drink any alcohol and drive a car.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.bostonherald.com ...
"that would suggest his BAC was probably around 0.20 at the time of the accident."
I would be interested where you came up with that. Can you hook me up?
He got off easy because punishments are to gravy in general.
The timeframe came as a result of city, county and state police arguing over who was supposed to write it all up. (Stat ended up doing it. When I went to get the report the officer filed I was at first told I could not have it, you know WHY? They claimed it was because he was a minor. I pushed for a supervisor and told that person there was no way they could keep my from the report that id for the crash I was in. I got the report.
Liberal "protect the minor" crap if you ask me.....that kinda goes to the punishment factor.....some seek to defer personal responsibility for actions taken as a result of choices made.
I think technology is such that each officer (or at least one that could arrive within 1/2 an hour)should be equiped to take BAC at the scene. Crash or no crash. With a caveat of no crash having failed field sobriety tests.
You do realize that when driving commercially if you crash for ANY reason you get tested right?
"there are many people whose lives are destroyed for "DUI" convictions with much lower BACs. "
They made that choice. They are responsible for it. Why do you wish to remove that from them?
Would you drink a six pack in an hour and then go drive?
I advocate for punishment above .08. For all people that make the choice to drive ator above that. You call it witchhunt, I call it the law.
I am starting to think you got a DUI and regret your choice, now trying to blame me for the repercussions of it.
"The right of travel is a basic human liberty"
It sure is and mine was seriously infringed upon.
I agree that having a beer should not infringe upon a right to travel but multiple beers should. I refer to it as a balance. My right with anothers. .08 is that balance and I think it is fair. One beer will not get you .08.
But, they are not, of course, because the real target is 'demon alcohol'.
"overcome by the need to blame someone for personal loss that they fail to consider any counterbalancing factors."
I blame the person that did this to me for what he did, I do not blame you or anyone else. When you will choose to do the same thing he did you are peers in action. How can you say you aren't?
I agree with you about Sheehan which is why I said that to whom I did. No matter what is accomplished in the way of drinking and driving as it perrtains to law ELK would oppose it.
MADD Mom lingo.
These things used to be called "accidents" or "wrecks"
Unfortunately, "accident" implies an air of unavoidability, thus eliminating any possibility of legislating against the reason(s) for a "crash".
Can't have that, now can we?
"Not from what I have seen in your posts."
Maybe you should reread them then. If you cite specific examples I would be glad to clarify or explain further.
"If your agenda is the same as MADD's...decreasing the BAC level standards for DWI's, "
I have stated clearly that I back .08, see you need to reread my posts.
"unconstitutional sobriety checkpoints"
They are not unconstitutional. show me otherwise (besides a claim by you).
"laws that punish someone who drives after having a glass of wine with dinner"
Again reread my posts, I advocate nothing of the kind.
Or whatever else is the demon of the day.
I hear ya.
"My only intention was to contradict what you said about a single glass of wine not getting anyone into trouble."
I would offer that it took more than a glass of wine to get that lady into the trouble she got into. 1) headlights were off...most people can see there lights are off at that hour...no dash lights. 2) a misommunication about the alphabet request 3) judgement of the officer on the line (which is the main reason I support BAC) I would offer to you that unusual circumstance contributed to her troubles.
I admit that is a new one on me. Be sure I will research it further, same as the one elk posted....
It used to be not even an arrest EVEN when someone DIED. I would say change is a good thing in that light.
It said she blew a .03, from a glass of wine at dinner. Now that implies she ate. There was a time frame between arrest and blow. I find it VERY hard to belive she had ONE glass of wine. I would offer there is more to that story.
If you are referring to me, it is common courtesy and the protocol on this site to respond to me directly.
Where do you see me trying to suggest anything? What did he dilute himself with in those three hours? How much alcohol lefts his blood stream in that time? Maybe it is you beihng "disingenuous'. I state not suggest.
You suggested the fact that the driver who hit you had a BAC of 0.123 as a rebuttal to my claim that drivers over 0.15 BAC pose most of the danger. The fact that the driver who hit you in fact had a BAC of 0.17-0.21 would seem to make that rebuttal disingenuous.
What is your basis for .15?
It's a rough estimate of the point where 50% of truly-alcohol-caused crashes are with people whose BAC is below and 50% above. Actually, I suspect the real point is higher than that, but didn't feel like pushing it.
Note that I am defining "truly alcohol-related crashes" as being ((accident rate per passenger mile of people with a given BAC) minus (accident rate per PM of people with 0.00BAC)) times (passenger miles driven by people with a given BAC).
A very large portion of the accidents are caused by a very small number of bad drivers. Why don't you want to free up prison cells for those drivers? How about me riding with no BAC having his life ruined?
Your life was ruined by a driver with a 0.08-0.09BAC? I thought based on what you said before that he had a 0.17-0.21BAC?
"Especially given that someone whose life has been ruined by such a conviction has little to lose for repeat offenses."
That shows error in punishment doled out. Each offense should become stiffer and stiffer with the means of jail time. "little to lose" is exactly where three strikes laws came from.
you have a funny sense of ruined, Ill give you that.
Depending upon where they live and work, people convicted of DUI are likely to have no practical way of continuing to work at their present job or live in their present home. Depending upon the person's field of employment, it may be difficult or impossible for the person to find a suitable job that they could work at.
If a persons life is ruined by DUI convictions, I would offer to you they should have made better choices.
BTW, I recall reading articles similar to the ones you cited that used 0.10 as the threshhold for the effects you describe. Got any accident-rate data, categorized by location and time of day, and BAC level? The data I've shown suggests that 0.12 is where things really start to pick up and alcohol becomes a more significant factor than many of the other things that contribute to bad driving.
I will offer the following: We could "save" 40,000 lives per year if we just outlaw motorized travel altogether.
Or we could make the speed limit 15 mph. Who can object to that? Think of the lives we'd save. Is it really worth 40,000 or 20,000 or even 10,000 lives just to be able to get to work quicker?
I would be interested where you came up with that. Can you hook me up?
Sure. Find a blood-alcohol calculator. Guess the guy's weight (based on age, I guessed about 150). Set the "time drinking" to three hours, and keep adding liquor until a 0.12 is reached. Then set "time drinking" to zero and read the result.
Different calculators give somewhat different results, and I didn't know the guy's weight, but the 0.17-0.21 seemed a reasonable range.
Sounds to me like they thought he was stoned and abused the law to get him for Something. Will be interesting if they mail me with anything else.
I find it a bit odd that his lawyer refused to comment.
I could say the same thing to you right?
Obstinate
I would suggest that there is no particularly good reason why the threshhold should be 0.08 instead of some other number. I know that the congresscritters in DC have spoken, and thus so mote it be, but Congress does many things that are unreasonable. If Congress hadn't passed the 0.08 legislation, what basis would you have for arguing for that particular figure?
Now, let me guess. You are in favor of that as well, I suppose.
"What could Hardstarboard tell them that they don't already know"
Paper trails mean something.
"what useful purpose would be served by his telling them?"
A paper trail of complaints about an long wait, traffic back ups and the like would compell them to take those factors into account for the next one. When these complaints mount and they do not make changes, their use can be challenged with merit. So indeed it serves a great purpose.
I frequently drive with a BAC of probably about 0.02 or so. Since I seldom drink enough to get above 0.05, I have no personal fear of being arrested for DUI--at least not if the threshhold stays at 0.08. But I've seen no argument for 0.08 that could not just as well apply to 0.05, or 0.03, or 0.01. And those I would have a problem with.
Complain if you like that that's just a "slippery slope" arguments. This country has gone down so many such slopes I think it entirely justifiable to mix metaphors and refuse to let even the smallest nosewhisker of the camel into the tent.
Given that I've openly admitted that I often drive with a BAC of around 0.02, do you consider me a peer of the jerk who slammed into you with a BAC of 0.17-0.21?
"If they were really concerned about impaired drivers and highway accidents, injuries, and deaths, they'd be advocating stringent tests on reaction time (to get a license) and vision (to get a license)."
I support that fully. Blue hairs NEED tested! OH and I require Valid proof of ID too on that note ;)
"They'd also be vigorously lobbying for laws about cell phone usage"
Some places have seen those laws already, more need them. I support them too.
"might impair"
Are you saying that acohol is not proven to impair? Interesting useof the word "might".
"They'd be advocating that people with medical conditions that might interfere with their ability to drive should not get licenses. "
I do.
I still do not advocate prohibition of alcohol.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.