Posted on 12/31/2008 2:53:07 PM PST by Ron Jeremy
Actually, the law is not "fair" at .08.
As part of some editor's plea bargain no doubt (my darkly suspicious supposition), Car & Driver ran a story about 15 years ago about drunk driving that keyed on an actual test of three male editors on a closed track (Chrysler Corporation's) administered by Michigan state police, who served as technicians, course observers, safety officers, and barkeepers.
If you read the article at the top of the thread, the author tells us that the old standard initially erected by the American Medical Association 60-odd years ago was 0.15% BAC, as a reasonable "approximate" mean or median (mean and median are NOT the same, btw) number LE could hang their hat on, in trying to frame a "fair" standard.
And lo and behold, the graphical data resulting from Car & Driver's drunken-driving skills test actually suggests that the AMA was right the first time.
Looking at driver responses at rising BAC levels over time, these three very experienced and knowledgable drivers seemed to me to have been essentially unimpaired up to about 0.16% BAC, and even arguably capable of safe navigation a little higher than that, although by 0.22% they were all clearly doing a bad job of driving, and I wouldn't trust myself to ride with even a Terry LaBonte or an Innes Ireland if he'd had that much to drink. (The case of Princess Diana and Dodi Fayed's late driver, Mr. Paul, comes to mind.)
The other points raised by the author are all likewise cautionary. The three C&D editors were all youngish guys of average build and weight. A woman editor standing 5'3" and neatly filling out a sightly size-4 business suit would display a radically different inebriation curve, as would a Green Bay lineman in Olympic-champion physical condition. (And if the lineman took his drinks while actually playing a game and huffing oxygen with big hits of Gatorade while sitting down, he might not even become inebriated at all, if you think about it.)
And in addition to that, there's the movement to turn huge areas of law into new arenas of admiralty law, esp. where automatic "machine convictions" are being obtained -- or rather imposed -- with no pretense of due process or even an original complaint by a citizen or peace officer.
The whole momentum of change in the law seems to be away from courts and trials by jury, and toward star chambers and jumped-up "administrative law" judges.
As regards the "DUI exception" to the Fifth Amendment (etc.), some articles I read years ago, as I seem to recall, pointed directly at former Chief Justice Warren Burger as the bad guy in this deliberate degradation of civil liberties. It was alleged that Burger was a big enemy of drinking and driving, and it showed in his opinions. Salus populi and all that: legal positivism, practiced by a hanging judge.
Very good question. They're a known and politically important demographic -- about 6% of the population -- known to be virulently hostile to, inter alia, firearms ownership and young black men (fear).
The ones in MADD are also supported by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS). The number's old -- 20 years at least -- but back then, IIHS was providing something like 80% of MADD's budget, while also driving the formation of other groups like SADD (Students Against Drunk Driving). GEICO also had a group of their own waging "astroturf" grass-roots political campaigns against radar detectors: GUARD was Group United Against Radar Detectors. (To this day you can't get a GEICO policy if you admit to owning a radar detector. And they ask. Lying about it, of course, is constructive fraud.)
MADD is therefore an "Astroturf" movement like GUARD and SADD.
When, two years ago last month, Houston City Council got ready to vote on red-light cameras (and admiralty law, no-trial "convictions" of thousands of drivers per day), a representative of MADD (a former chapter president) appeared and spoke in favor of the cameras in just such emotive terms. It was a very psychodramatic speech, an appeal and cri du coeur for justice against the evil .... red-light runners. The key being to understand that these people are evildoers.
My own city councilwoman gushed her thanks to this woman for coming down to "motivate" Council to do the right thing. I spoke against the measure as part of a spreading abrogation of civil rights and an otiose crony-capitalist, money-grubbing "remedy", citing material I dug up on former House Majority Leader Dick Armey's website (Armey has been a crusader against this trend toward "Robocop justice"). And the local ACLU gadfly spoke against them as well, speaking right after me, citing Fourth Amendment "privacy" issues (which nobody quite seemed to get). Then Council voted, and waved the thing through -- poof, no more jury trials for *this* offense. And of course MADD's former president was all for it.
[ERJCaptain] It’s not a toughy... either stay home or fork over money for a cab.
You let them win like that? Let them drive you out of the public space, for doing something they disapprove?
Most of the leadership in that organization are women who have lost family members to drunk drivers, which tends to add emotion over logic in their arguments.
Absolutely, and the insurance companies are leveraging their pecuniary interest (radically higher premiums from convicted drivers, and behavior mod -- stay home, stay off the streets, and you won't be filing any claims!) using that kind of emotionally-blinded energy and drive.
The reason why MADD has a voice is because unlike other issues like abortion, it’s hard to find an angle on this issue without sounding like you’re pro-drunk driving.
You still have to fight them, you have to take the hit and fight back with study data, and more data, and more data. As their argument becomes threadbare, they'll turn up the volume (like the Million Moms, NARAL, Code Pink, and all the other femlib groups) until they become shrill. Then you start winning, because nobody likes a shrill harpy screeching in his or her ear.
The rest of us say that DUI presents an unacceptable risk threat. If DUI is 'victimless', then firing a gun into a crowd is also victimless if the bullet happens to miss everyone.
MADD and PETA, hard to tell them apart.Add in the American Communist Party and the Cuban government and you will be even more correct.
These people start out "caring" about an issue (maybe) but in very short order become addicted to the acquisition of power.
I can understand the power-addicts of MADD trying to curtail all constitutional rights (that's what good socialists do), but how do you explain the actions of the Supreme Court, sworn to protect our constitution and failing miserably at it. There must be a special place in hell for them.
To make any attempt at forcing these issues into a Constitutional question however... you first have to negate the contract. Until you do it's not a Constitutional issue...If you're talking about suspension of driver's license you may be correct.
However once you put someone in jail or give them a fine then you are automatically talking about things that are in fact covered by the Constitution, whether the socialist nitwits on the Supreme Court choose to acknowledge that fact or not.
Look, the gist of this argument boils down to where the line should be drawn on drunk drivers. Nobody thinks that a clearly drunk lush should be behind the wheel of a car. But should we expand our net to include those folks who have only had a glass of wine with dinner?
I would suggest that every cop carry a camera and record when a driver displays signs of dangerous driving. When a driver, any driver, is found swerving or driving dangerously, they should be pulled over by an officer. If found incapable of driving safely, the driver should then be taken into custody. Let a judge/jury examine the tape if the driver feels he was falsely detained.
I never drive after even one drink.Neither do I. Until we stop this MADDness (which might be never), I look at the law as effectively saying: driving on the same day you had a drink is illegal.
Now, any lurking MADDsters are probably grinning ear-to-ear seeing my words, thinking they've done a great job. But then, Jihadists also grin when they see the chopped off head of a Western journalist. So there's no accounting for taste.
The bottom line is, MADD is focused on power, not on safety.
I have serious questions about the current IR5000 breath test machine and if I was to take one, I would demand to see ALL calibration and performance records from both before and after mine.But according to the article, in most states you can't make that demand in front of a jury and certainly most judges aren't going to give a damn.
In many cases the drunk was the kid driving their car who was as drunk as the family member killed. In some cases the drunk got drunk at the MADD mother's home and sometimes with their knowledge.Interesting. Thanks for pointing that out.
I nominate yours as best post of the thread!
The NYS director of MADD was charged with DWI - she blew a .24 or something on the NYS Thruway. IIRC, the story got spiked by the local press after intense pressure.
(Just noticed that apostrophes do not display correctly in taglines, and changed “didn’t” to “did not” in mine.)
There was one locally - the DD stopped along the road to “take a pee” - The cops stopped and checked the vehicle, and arrested the occupants (4 of them) for DWI. The DD had left the keys in the car, and that’s all it took. And yes, they were convicted.
If you’re having a party in the summer, and sucking on a beer in the driveway while leaning against your car, and the keys are in it... get ready to be arrested.
Actually, no it isn't. Depending on the jurisdiction it can be reckless endangerment, discharging a firearm in a populated area, but no matter, it's against the law and the law doesn't need changing because of the obvious risk. Same with DUI.
You said that DUI is a victimless crime. It's not.
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.