To draft a better DUI law

The Boston Herald ^ | 11/5/05 | Randy S. Chapman

[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.

[BlueStateDepression]

"There was no warning that I was aware of,"

That you were aware of is the Key here.

"Planners should remember to select a site that allows officers to pull vehicles out of the traffic stream without causing significant subjective intrusion (fright) to the drivers (United States v. Ortiz 422 U.S. 891 (1975)) and/or creating a safety hazard, e.g., by creating a traffic backup."

"To obtain maximum benefit in terms of its general deterrent effect, sobriety checkpoints should be publicized aggressively."

"Public reaction - This can be measured by immediate feedback received by officers at the site of the sobriety checkpoint. Also, a short questionnaire which includes an explanation of why the checkpoint is conducted, given to drivers stopped at the checkpoint, can provide data. It may ask of the driver such questions as; Does the driver believe the checkpoint is fair? Did the driver mind being stopped briefly? Did the driver feel checkpoints help deter driving while impaired? The response can be completed later and mailed back to the agency. "

You might like to read this :
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/alcohol/Checkpt.html

I would offer to you that whomever conducted the roadside saftey check you went thru would find your information valuable in setting up future checkpoints.

[BlueStateDepression]

"It just isn't worth it."

Cindy sheehan says that too.

[supercat]

I would offer to you that whomever conducted the roadside saftey check you went thru would find your information valuable in setting up future checkpoints.

Are you trying to be funny? I would consider the fact that the roadside checkpoint caused a major traffic backup to be prima facie evidence that the people conducting it had no respect whatsoever for the people they inconvenienced; I thus see no reason to believe that any useful purpose would be served by Hardastarboard telling those people what he thought of their actions.

[thoughtomator]

The right of travel is a basic human liberty, without which a person is not a free man. If someone is not impaired, having had a beer should not be an absolute obstacle to driving.

[antceecee]

It truly amazes me that we have completely abandoned the concept of responsible adult behaviour. Consuming an adult beverage with dinner while out on a special occasion will now likely land you in the hoosegow.
While we are busy persecuting social drinkers, how many others are on the road impaired with the physician prescribed meds for colds, flu, heart, arthritis...???
What happened to holding someone to account after they have caused someone harm or committed a crime? Now we just say 'don't have that beer with your pizza tonight or we'll have to arrest you when you drive home!' It's completely ridiculous.

[antceecee]

...it doesn't.

[supercat]

Cindy sheehan says that too.

Another person who, like you, is so overcome by the need to blame someone for personal loss that they fail to consider any counterbalancing factors. No matter what we may accomplish in Iraq, Ms. Sheehan would still claim it wasn't worth the loss of her son.

[BlueStateDepression]

"FARMINGTON, N.M. -- People can be prosecuted on drunken driving charges with a blood-alcohol content below the state's presumed level of intoxication of 0.08 percent.
(((((((((That's the word from Farmington police and District Attorney Lyndy Bennett))))))))

((((((Bennett says)))))) people can be prosecuted if they're impaired to the point they can't drive.

(((((She says)))))) the blood-alcohol content is not an absolute.

Farmington attorney Victor Titus was arrested this week on a charge of drunken driving after registering a blood-alcohol level of 0.02.

The ((((((officer says))))) he arrested Titus because the results of a breath test were not consistent with what he described as "observed impairment."

I use (((( ))))) to 'explain' it with the little information provided here. Was this man on some medication that reacted with alcohol? Any more information? How was he driving? Was he convicted? What is New mexico's law?

You take issue with the VAST numbers you are shown from multiple sources..and you cite a po dunk town and an article that has less information than most people's profiles.

I am not saying it didn't happen or that it is proper, but you offer a one sided article that he is mostly He said She said.

[thoughtomator]

You think their time would be better put to use rooting out child molestors and other sex criminals. We have a War on Drugs but an appeasement policy towards violent crime.

[ActionNewsBill]

...I will advocate far a change in action that suits the equal observance of all peoples rights.

Not from what I have seen in your posts.

I would think you would want that also.

If your agenda is the same as MADD's...decreasing the BAC level standards for DWI's, unconstitutional sobriety checkpoints and laws that punish someone who drives after having a glass of wine with dinner, then no, I do not want that.

[Heyworth]

Note. Being that you said nothing , just a copy and paste, i responded the best I could to what you posted.

My only intention was to contradict what you said about a single glass of wine not getting anyone into trouble. And I think the larger point is that the BAC is a moving target. It used to be .1, now it's .08 and the precedent has been established in DC that it's basically anything detectible.

[BlueStateDepression]

I sent that station an E mail asking for further information pertaining to it. Ill be sure to let you know if I get a response.

[TexasTransplant]

You have no clue

Everyone is a Drunk Driver in your book and therefore must be scrutinized by the Nanny Cops

>>>"I want all people to be responsible for their own existance"<<<

We want the same thing!

>>>"You seem to think that people that make the choice to drink and drive should not be held to account"<<<

Show me anytime anywhere anyplace in this forum or anywhere else that I have even inferred that, you are a typical liberal liar!

>>>" I see peers as peers, don't you?"<<<

See my response directly above, let me help "you are a typical liberal liar!"
(your peers and mine don't mingle much)

>>>"GROWN ups that take personal responsibility do not drink and drive. They get a cab or a DD or they walk home or they call a friend with the truth that they have had to much to drink and should not drive. I offer that it is you that needs to grow up if you cannot yet see that very basic common sense"<<<

In your self centered world you are the only adult, no one that I have seen on this thread advocates drinking and driving, you accuse all of drinking and driving and wish that the law was such that we suspend the liberties of all to make you feel better about yourself, I am beginning to wonder if you are the guilty party and you are on some kind of guilt trip. I fear I am treading closer to the truth than you want me to.

>>>"That would be my personal LIBERTY RIGHT?"<<<

I spent 28 years in the Military hoping my small contribution would insure that you could voice your opinion anytime you wanted to, my opinion counts no more or less than yours.

>>>"I guess you really ARE against the rule of law.....how do you consider yourself an american when you oppose the rule of law by 90%??????"<<<

First get you head out of your ass, I said we could do away with 90% of the laws on the books and the only folks that would notice would be Politicians / Lawyers and Nanny cops like you. 90% of the laws on the books are idiotic, you have probably broken many laws just while reading this and just not known it.
The United States wasn't founded by Nanny Cops and the Rule of Law Starts with the Declaration of Independence then follows up with LIMITS ON THE GOVERNMENT, WHAT WHEN HOW and WHY and TO WHAT DEGREE that Government can infringe upon our Liberty.

As for the rest of your inane self centered rhetoric

(let me condense it for you)

Thelawshouldfacescrutinybutdrinkingand drivingshouldn't?Unreal.Seemsyoumissthestudyitrytopresentto youaboutMYlibertyinfringmentNotsurprisingreallyAsfochicken little......thatworksbothwayssirMichaelMooresays'thereisno terroristthreat"FactsshowotherwiseRIGHT?WhileYOU say'thereis nothreatfromdrinkinganddriving'..factsalsoshowotherwise.Ipresent somepersonalonestoyouandyoudismissthemasmuchasMooredismisses theonesaboutmilitantislamicpunks.

I like the way you worked Michael Moore in there, he must be quite the role model for you, he makes as much sense as you do, there I go dissing your peers again.


TT

[antceecee]

You are so right. Instead of rooting out child molesters, popular media continues to sexualize our children to make them that much more attractive.
Meanwhile, they go after average law abiding citizens as if they are the enemy. War on drugs fills prison spaces, now they're so overcrowded they have no room for rapists and murderers. Pretty soon the War on Booze will be filling the spaces left vacant by the paroled War on Drugs people.

[elkfersupper]

I sent that station an E mail asking for further information pertaining to it. Ill be sure to let you know if I get a response.

So did I. This is apparently as good as it gets:

Saturday, November 5, 2005 Lawyer Accused of DWI Was Below Legal Limit

The Associated Press

FARMINGTON— A Farmington attorney who told police he'd had one beer and was later tested with a blood alcohol level of 0.02 was arrested on a charge of drunken driving.

Victor Titus was arrested Monday night after a traffic stop and charged with driving while intoxicated and failure to obey a signal, Officer John Ahlms wrote in a statement of probable cause.

Police administered a breath test after he was stopped. Ahlms took Titus in for a blood alcohol test because he said the results of a breath test weren't consistent with "the observed impairment."

Police Capt. Bob Bussey said people mistakenly believe they cannot be arrested if their blood alcohol content is below 0.08, the state's presumed level of intoxication. He said the 0.08 level is a presumptive limit for court proceedings.

District Attorney Lyndy Bennett agreed.

"You could still be prosecuted if you are impaired to the point that you cannot drive a motor vehicle. It's not an absolute. There's wiggle room," Bennett said

. In his report, Ahlms said that he saw Titus' vehicle run a red light and that the man's eyes were bloodshot and watery and his speech was slightly slurred. The report said Titus had no trouble standing or walking when he was asked to take a field sobriety test, recited the alphabet properly and counted correctly on a finger dexterity test but was off center with his fingertips.

Titus' attorney, Dick Gerding, would not comment.

Police Chief Mike Burridge said arrests are on a case-by-case basis, taking all the circumstances into account, such as field sobriety tests and how the person was driving.

[BlueStateDepression]

"Are you trying to suggest that someone with a BAC of 0.123 three hours after a crash would not have had a BAC of over 0.15 before the crash? If not, it would seem that you are being disingenuous."

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.

What is your basis for .15?

"Can you show where a BAC of 0.08 causes impairment beyond the statistical noise level? "

Sure : "0.07-0.09 BAC: Slight impairment of balance, speech, vision, reaction time, and hearing. Euphoria. Judgment and self-control are reduced, and caution, reason and memory are impaired, .08 is legally impaired and it is illegal to drive at this level. You will probably believe that you are functioning better than you really are."

http://www.brad21.org/effects_at_specific_bac.html

"•.08 is legally impaired and it is illegal to drive at this level
• slight impairment of balance, speech, vision, reaction time, and hearing
• euphoria
• reduced judgment and self-control
• impaired caution, reason and memory
• belief that they are functioning better than they really are"

http://www.gdcada.org/statistics/alcohol/bac%20levels.htm

"Virtually all drivers are substantially impaired at .08 BAC. Laboratory and test track research shows that the vast majority of drivers, even experienced drinkers, are impaired at .08 with regard to critical driving tasks. There are significant decrements in performance in areas such as braking, steering, lane changing, judgment and divided attention at .08 BAC. Studies report that performance decrements in some of these tasks are as high as 60%-70% at .08 BAC."

http://www.drivers.com/article/147/

" study by the Traffic Injury Research Foundation found that, at BAC levels of .05 to .08, the risk of collision for drivers in the 20+ age group was about twice that of drivers with zero BAC. For young novice drivers (16- to 19 years of age) the crash risk at .05 to .08 was about eight times that of normal drivers"

http://www.drivers.com/article/145/

http://www.ncadd.com/08_impairment.cfm

http://www.dps.state.mn.us/ots/Laws_Legislation/Legislation/08_Legis/Impairment.pdf

"And if you wanted to pass a law that drivers caught with a BAC between 0.08 and 0.10 would be required to take a cab home and either have a tow or arrange for their vehicle to be moved within two hours, but would have no other punishment, I'd probably go along with that."

So you want a law that has no punishment? I bet you would go for that.

"But saying that someone who drives with a 0.08BAC deserves to have his life ruined is too much."

How about me riding with no BAC having his life ruined?

"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.
If a persons life is ruined by DUI convictions, I would offer to you they should have made better choices.

[BlueStateDepression]

"I would consider the fact that the roadside checkpoint caused a major traffic backup to be prima facie evidence that the people conducting it had no respect whatsoever for the people they inconvenienced;"

I would consider drinking and driving the same. ;)

"I thus see no reason to believe that any useful purpose would be served by Hardastarboard telling those people what he thought of their actions."

I agree, you don't see it.

[BlueStateDepression]

"This group of people rightfully deserves to be condemned."

Yes they do.

"this group of people does not have nearly the passenger-mile accident rate of the former group"
(ill agree with that stated that way but they still Crash.)

"Indeed, this group's passenger-mile accident rate is not significantly worse than that of the population as a whole"

Can you post a link for that?

"every year a prison cell is used to house a member of the second group is a year it isn't being used to house a member of the first?"

Expell all the illegal aliens and jail them all.

After all 1/3 of our federal jails have illegals taking up beds.

OH WAIT There is two groups there too. One group 'just wants to work' and the other comes here to commit crimes, punish one and not the other right? That is your logic.


"Why don't you instead try to have resources focused where they will do some good, like going after the 0.15+BAC drivers?"

I advocate going after those above .08.... .15 is included.

per my prior example.....spend the resources only going after the illegals that are criminals and leave the ones'that just want to work' alone eh?

You might buy that but I dont.

I will offer to you the difference in the comparison. What you ask for is already being done. Above .08 and below .08. People that are below .08 are allowed to legally drive. As they should be.

What you seek is simply to move the current scale.
I hope you never experience what I have.

Have you ever been convicted of a DUI?

[elkfersupper]

A short vocabulary lesson:

Obstinate:

Pronunciation: 'äb-st&-n&t

Function: adjective

Etymology: Middle English, from Latin obstinatus, past participle of obstinare to be resolved, from ob- in the way + -stinare (akin to stare to stand)

1 : perversely adhering to an opinion, purpose, or course in spite of reason, arguments, or persuasion

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

[supercat]

"I thus see no reason to believe that any useful purpose would be served by Hardastarboard telling those people what he thought of their actions."

I agree, you don't see it.

Well, then enlighten me. What could Hardstarboard tell them that they don't already know, and what useful purpose would be served by his telling them?