"Such things can be pretty well estimated."
I would suggest to you that 'estimated' is something a trial lawyer (on either side of the bench) loves to exploit.
Removing things to exploit is a good thing, and yes I do apply that to both sides.
Officers judgement to make a traffic stop or while during a traffic stop is a large part. Like BAC, I would argue netiher could stand alone. I would offer that checks and balances are what make things as fair as they can possibly be.
.08 was made the limit here in this state, being stated that impairment was not the issue at hand but BAC level was. This was done to remove the exploitation factor used especially by defense attornies that will use the 'what if' strategy to get their clients off. This goes to your statement of it being used to get more dangerous drivers off the street.
In your example that fella could claim he was only a couple blocks from where he was going so that by the time his BAC would elevate he would no longer be driving. Thus he never actually drove above the legal limit. I think that it just leaves to many things wide open to attack in a courtroom.
I would agree there are more ways to address dangerous driving ( I also agree that applies to habits outside alcohol). I would offer though that they are in addition to, rather than instead of.
I think roadside safety checks are a great idea. When instances are documented to long waits or bonafide harrasment I would back persuing that issue to see it is dealt with. Causing a traffic jam can remove any safety gains made as a result of holding them to begin with. They require balance, like all other things, to be productive.
I think financial penalties are right and proper for offenders. I will offer that those monies collected should be targetted (earmarked even)for paying the costs of prosecution, incarceration, and other parts of punishments doled out. Using them to pay for new road building, or to offset other budget shortfalls, is out of bounds IMHO.
I disagree with increasing penalties just to add to general coffers. I would add to those penalties, especially for multiple offences, increased jail time and length of suspension or revokation of their ability to drive legally. Harsh sentences for driving on revoked/suspended would be welcomed by me also.
As for community service, the 100 hours that kid that hit me got SHOULD have been spent 'serving my community'. He should have been mowing my grass, painting my walls, fixing my cars, cleaning my toilet, washing my dishes. You know, things that I have a very hard time doing, if I can do them at all. Using his ability the he retains that match the abilities of mine that he took away.
I am not saying he should be my slave, (LOL, though the thought had occured to me) but the punishment he received was in no way germaine to the massive scope of damage he did to my life and that of those around me.( not to mention the other two people hurt in the same crash) My nuclear family, my extended family, my bosses,my coworkers and my friends all saw their lives affected negatively as a result of his choice of action.
Some will say, well, that is what Civil court is for. I would say, OK then find me a lawyer that will actually SUE and GO to trial persuing a 17 year old kid with no assets, no job an no money, just to get a meaningless judgment that the court doesn't enforce anyway. Civil court has become something that lawyers use to threaten insurance companies to gain settlements and unless deep pockets are to be had from the individual that is where the actions stop.
Here is an idea ( as abstract as it is).
Lets take the drivers that blow .08 or above and put them on a closed course and throw variables at them to test their reaction times alertness an general driving ability.. Test their individual ability as it pertains to driving 'impaired'. Record it all for use in court.
Now this is absolutely impossible to do for every person individually. It is just unrealistic to think it could be possible to do so(at least it is today). The next best thing we can do today is to do studies using this tool. Take the results of the studies and apply the them to general operational procedures for all people.
This way the law can be applied equally. After all that is a major complaint across the nation, why do some get off and some get nailed for the very same offense?
I think that is a fair argument to make. When .08 is the standard it removes that problem. Over you're busted and under you are not. I think that is a clear line that we can all follow together.
The two posts in this thread concerning the very low BAC levels that were charged is something I disagree with 100%.
I would offer that is an extremist view akin to one that would allow limitless alcohol consumption and retain legal driving status. One could say two peas at opposite ends of the same pod.
I would state that the more tools used to remove dangerous drivers of all types from the roads of our country would be a good thing. I would include those zoned out on prozac, vicodin, oxycontin etc etc etc . It would also apply to 'blue hairs' that cannot see beyond the hood of their car, and to those that have a cellphone glued to their ear.
(here is a little offsubject blurb about foolishness in my state: It is illegal to drive with a loud stereo,saying it is a danger....that they could not hear emergency vehicles approaching with sirens blaring......but at the same time
it is legal for deaf people to drive.)
I think many people take driving for granted and dismiss or attempt to defer the responsibility they hold when operating a motor vehicle. They are in control of a machine that can become a deadly instrument of destruction in an instant.
Sounds like a perfectly good idea. Perhaps apply it to all people who are found to be at fault for accidents.
In your example that fella could claim he was only a couple blocks from where he was going so that by the time his BAC would elevate he would no longer be driving. Thus he never actually drove above the legal limit. I think that it just leaves to many things wide open to attack in a courtroom.
Do you really think a jury would buy that? Besides, the way I would have the law written, that would not be a meaningful argument. If the person consumed enough alcohol to raise his BAC to be above 0.10 by more than the measurement uncertainty of the device used, the person would be legally forbidden from driving from the time of such consumption until the time that enough alcohol had been metabolized that--absent further alcohol consumption--the BAC not go above 0.10 by more than the measurement uncertainty of the device.
The way I would have the law written, it would catch some dangerous drivers who escape under the current law, while not going after the least dangerous of the drivers targetted under the current law. I would think that would be a more than reasonable 'trade'.
I think roadside safety checks are a great idea. When instances are documented to long waits or bonafide harrasment I would back persuing that issue to see it is dealt with. Causing a traffic jam can remove any safety gains made as a result of holding them to begin with. They require balance, like all other things, to be productive.
If a driver is going along and conducting his motor vehicle in safe and reasonable fashion, why should a cop have a right to pull him over for a 'random safety check'? The Supreme Court was totally out to lunch in allowing this grossly unconsitutional exercise of power. The Constitution provides that people are supposed to be secure in their person and effects (that would, by any reasonable interpretation include vehicles) unless there is probable cause for the government to intrude. The idea that a 'random check' constitutes probable cause is so absurd I cannot understand how any honest person could even suggest such a thing.
....Now this is absolutely impossible to do for every person individually. It is just unrealistic to think it could be possible to do so(at least it is today). The next best thing we can do today is to do studies using this tool. Take the results of the studies and apply the them to general operational procedures for all people.
Why would it be impossible? I suspect MADD et al. might not like the results, but that shouldn't affect the practical feasibility.