To draft a better DUI law

And you call yourself Government SHRINKer??? LOL

I've come to a point where I simply will cease trading posts with you, one I should have arrived at some posts ago, but I thought perhaps that someone actually answered you might make you consider that you're simply advocating another nailclipper-banning move. However, since it's obvious you actually LIKE the nailclipper bans, and based on the 'responses' you posted here, I am no longer willing to waste my time with you. So I'll go waste my time some other way, and bid you good luck with your simple, ineffective plans to rid the world of 'drunk' drivers and nailclipper-toting 'terrorists.' I assure you they are much more likely to have government support than anything effective, anyway, so I'm certain you'll have the allies you need to get 'solutions' like these passed. Be proud of your 'success.'

"One drink does not make one drunk... BLUENOSE... evidently you should feel right at home in your blue state."

I never said one drink did make you drunk OR that you shouldn't have a drink and drive. Maybe you should read the thread in its entirety. Had you done so you would already know where I stand and would not have made the statement you did.

OH and if you wanna call me names some more, expect me not to post anymore to you.

"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.

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.

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.

Thank you for taking the time to read them.

It is important that you pass it on. Tell your friends, family.

Your mission was accomplished.

Don't forget the lurkers. One or 1,000 of those were moved.

Never give up.

The carnage, both on the roads and in domestic violence, that stems directly from drinking alcohol, is way out of proportion to any benefits it provides. Anyone who can't have a good time without drinking alcohol has a serious problem IMO.

I cannot dispute that.

I hate drunks and druggies. There is no difference.

Hey, all you have to do is just tell the cops at that checkpoint you never drink and drive... during the day...

(sorry I got some quotes pasted out-of-order above)

It does seem like there are some areas where we are talking past each other. Perhaps you could answer a few questions, if you don't mind:

I have offered you a source for some statistical information on the subject. Among other things, the 1992 statistics show that in the majority of fatal crashes where the driver's BAC was non-zero, it was 0.15 or over. Do you accept or not accept this statistic? If you do not accept it, can you offer any rebuttal?
How much money do you think the state can expect to receive from the prosecution of a motorist who has already been busted six times for >0.15 DUI, gotten into three accidents, and killed twice? How much money do you think the state can expect to receive from the prosecution of a motorist who has a nice car and a steady job, has never gotten in an accident, and blows a 0.09?
Do you think that police would effectively reduce alcohol-related crashes by stopping, e.g. 10% of motorists at random (letting even grossly drunk drivers slip through whenever the cop is busy checking out a sober driver), or by stopping only those motorists who show signs of impairment (thus ensuring that the cop would not usually be too busy to catch them unless two such motorists passed within a few minutes of each other)?

There is a huge difference between someone who drives at 0.15 versus 0.08. Do you acknowledge this? Should the law not acknowledge this distinction?

One technique of dishonest people is to identify that some uncommon behavior is bad, and then try to equate that with some other, much more common, "superset" behavior when the two behaviors are qualitatively different.

For example, I would suggest that there is a qualitative rather than quantitative difference between entering a busy intersection 10 milliseconds after the signal turns red and entering a busy intersection ten seconds after the signal turns red. The former behavior will not cause a crash (or any other meaningful harm) if other drivers are even remotely alert; the latter behavior is extremely likely to cause a crash even if other drivers are highly alert. Nonetheless, some localities regard the two behaviors as identical. Can you think why?

"Sounds like a perfectly good idea."

Exactly, it Sounds like a good idea. It simply isn't doable logistically. How would go about doing such a thing for all people when we have issues like 15 million illegals here?

If you only do it with people that crash, then you are sending the message that if you don't get caught(ie crash) you didn't break any law.

"the way I would have the law written"

I would offer that the way you would see the law written ignores the over 3000 killed at levels between .08 and .10.
Do you really want to do that?

"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'?"

Ill start with this, How could they determine that without checking? That would lead to you saying innocent until proven guilty, I would counter statistics kept show many many are not innocent at all. Lets take child safety seats for instance, LOTS AND LOTS AND LOTS of people have their kids in them improperly or not at all. This is something that safety checks look for and find.

Some people take the warrant issue as it pertains to search and siezure to a level I find unreasonable. Many take it to a level that requires evidence in order to investigate for evidence. I would argue that the few minutes spent going thru a safety check is far from unreasonable. I do not think an officer talking to you is unreasonable. That is their job.

I would also like to offer you tis tidbit. raodblock applies the law to everyone there at that time equally whereas a traffic stop when an officer picks you out of a pack of five cars going 90 on the highway does not. What is that officer to do? Ignore all 5?

"unless there is probable cause for the government to intrude"

The stats are the probable cause.The task they are to perform are probable cause. I do not find it unreasonable for an officer to speak to you, nor do I find it unconstitutional. Do you honestly think that a one or two minute conversation with a police officer at a roadside safety check is intrusive...and unconstitutional? If so I would ask you to apply that very same standard to what our troops do in bagdahd today. Would you offer that what they are doing is wrong and should be stopped? I would poseit is the very same thing. Practicing what are preaching.

"Why would it be impossible? I suspect MADD et al. might not like the results, but that shouldn't affect the practical feasibility."

Who will administer these tests? Who will pay for it? Who will keep it all straight? Who would oversee it? Let me offer you this, many argue that a national ID is unconstitutional and claim states rights would be adversely affected. Are you for a national ID...maybe with this information as part of it? It appears you would be.... Many argue that medical records are private and it is unconstitutional to intrude upon them. Aren't you asking to do that very thing?

I woulf think that may be opening up a can of gross of worms to seal one can of them. Not unlike causing a a traffic jam that sees a crash happen when doing a roadside safety check.

Exactly, it Sounds like a good idea. It simply isn't doable logistically. How would go about doing such a thing for all people when we have issues like 15 million illegals here?

I thought you meant all people accused of DUI (and I suggested adding those, sober or not, who caused accidents).

I would offer that the way you would see the law written ignores the over 3000 killed at levels between .08 and .10. Do you really want to do that?

How about the many tens of thousands killed below 0.01?

Further, bear in mind that some of those people who are listed as "between 0.08 and 0.10" would if I had my druthers be listed higher. The guy who smacked you, depending upon weight, should have been listed somewhere between 0.16 (if he was really heavy) to 0.21 (if he was a beanpole).

"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'?"

Ill start with this, How could they determine that without checking? That would lead to you saying innocent until proven guilty, I would counter statistics kept show many many are not innocent at all.

Watch a driver on an S-turn. If the driver takes the turn smoothly, the driver is not grossly intoxicated. If the driver takes the turn awkwardly and there is no obvious other reason for it (e.g. a big oil slick on the road) start following the driver. If the driver continues to have trouble following the path of the road, pull him over. Really not that hard.

Lets take child safety seats for instance, LOTS AND LOTS AND LOTS of people have their kids in them improperly or not at all. This is something that safety checks look for and find.

I'm sure there are many unsafe things in most people's homes. Should we have "random" safety checks for people's dwellings as well?

I would also like to offer you tis tidbit. raodblock applies the law to everyone there at that time equally whereas a traffic stop when an officer picks you out of a pack of five cars going 90 on the highway does not. What is that officer to do? Ignore all 5?

Speed limits are another instrument of the revenue state, whose enforcement is often driven more by revenue considerations than safety. One principle that used to be in place before it started interfering too much with revenue is the notion that (at least) 80% of drivers are reasonable, prudent, and safe. Therefore, if even 20% of drivers do something, that is prima facie evidence that it is not unreasonable, imprudent, or unsafe.

The stats are the probable cause.The task they are to perform are probable cause. I do not find it unreasonable for an officer to speak to you, nor do I find it unconstitutional. Do you honestly think that a one or two minute conversation with a police officer at a roadside safety check is intrusive...and unconstitutional? If so I would ask you to apply that very same standard to what our troops do in bagdahd today. Would you offer that what they are doing is wrong and should be stopped? I would poseit is the very same thing. Practicing what are preaching.

Iraq right now is an occupied police state. We're working on trying to convert it into a free country, but it's not there yet.

"Why would it be impossible? I suspect MADD et al. might not like the results, but that shouldn't affect the practical feasibility."

Who will administer these tests? Who will pay for it? Who will keep it all straight? Who would oversee it?

Make the test an option for those who blow a 0.08; have the subject consume a measured amount of alcohol before testing to get their BAC up to the level of their arrest. If they can perform the test at least as well as half the sober drivers out there, that means they weren't impaired. Even if the arrestee has to pay for the test themself that's still going to be cheaper for him than the costs associated with DUI conviction.

Let me offer you this, many argue that a national ID is unconstitutional and claim states rights would be adversely affected. Are you for a national ID...maybe with this information as part of it? It appears you would be.... Many argue that medical records are private and it is unconstitutional to intrude upon them. Aren't you asking to do that very thing?

I had thought you were advocating the tests for those arrested for DUI. Though allowing people the option of taking prophylactic tests at their own expense might not be a bad idea. Actually, it might be a good thing for the state to encourage if the real goal was to reduce drunk driving crashes and deaths.

That way, those who are in fact capable of being safe drivers with a 0.09BAC would be freed from the risk of arrest, while those who were not as capable as they thought would discover that without learning it "the hard way".

As for the national ID, it is in significant measure already here. I personally don't like the concept, but the way things are set up now has all of the intrusiveness but little of the security. The most important issue is what information may be shared with whom.

I woulf think that may be opening up a can of gross of worms to seal one can of them. Not unlike causing a a traffic jam that sees a crash happen when doing a roadside safety check.

As above, the question is what information is shared with whom.

"Do you accept or not accept this statistic"

I accept they are from 1992.

Isn't it unconstitutional to ignore the minority?

Updated information can be found here :
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/TSF2003/809761.pdf

"Alcohol related' debate is noted and observed. They are still far too many at levels above .08.

The studies done show that dropping from .10 to .08 is at least contributing to the decline of alcohol related deaths on our nations highways.

http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/drive/a/blnhtsa031027.htm

"How much money do you think the state can expect to receive from the prosecution of a motorist who has already been busted six times for >0.15 DUI, gotten into three accidents, and killed twice?"

Killed once in Illinois means jail time. Note: that is post 2003. You defend the money gained from offenders and leave out the money taken from victims by the offenders that harm them. Maybe it is time to take note of both.

"How much money do you think the state can expect to receive from the prosecution of a motorist who has a nice car and a steady job, has never gotten in an accident, and blows a 0.09?"

Many times those nice cars are the ones that crash. Notice Paris Hiltons Bently. ;)

"Do you think that police would effectively reduce alcohol-related crashes by stopping, e.g. 10% of motorists at random (letting even grossly drunk drivers slip through whenever the cop is busy checking out a sober driver), "

Cmon now. I call straw man on that one. Got an example of how a grossly drunk driver got thru a roadside safety check while a sober one was detained? I don't think so. This is a what if kind of question. Raodside safety checks do deterr people from driving drunk on those roads....as they are announced prior to holding them, (caveat, atleast they are here)

"or by stopping only those motorists who show signs of impairment "

That is exactly what is done at roadside safety checks. I have been thru several and never had any type of trouble. A question or two and waved right on by. That happening cuz I wasn't drunk, I had on my seat belt, my kids were in their child seats and I held up my insurance card as I rolled on up. Seems pretty simple.

On that note do you feel that insurance laws are unconctituional and the checking of them ona traffic stop is intrusive?

"There is a huge difference between someone who drives at 0.15 versus 0.08."

Sure I do, the gap between .06 and .08 as it relates to the gap between .08 and .10 is substantial also. Would you agree? Hence .08 and not .06. liekwise why it is .08 and no longer .10.

"One technique of dishonest people is to identify that some uncommon behavior is bad, and then try to equate that with some other, much more common, "superset" behavior when the two behaviors are qualitatively different.

Another tactic of a dishonest person is to rely on 13 year old data when they know full well and good that newer data is available and chose not to take a good look at it because it leads a direction other than past information.

"I would suggest that there is a qualitative rather than quantitative difference between entering a busy intersection 10 milliseconds after the signal turns red and entering a busy intersection ten seconds after the signal turns red."

I would say that is what the Yellow light is for. After red is after red.....that means you would be busted and should be held responsible. If you enter an intersection After it is red no matter how long then you didn't head the yellow. If it turned yellow and you would have created a danger by stopping , thus putting you in the intersection during red, then you were either speeding or lacked attention and reaction to the traffic light when on yellow.

This is why they are identical.

"How about the many tens of thousands killed below 0.01?"

Far too many and I support curtailing them also. As I stated previously.

"Further, bear in mind that some of those people who are listed as "between 0.08 and 0.10" would if I had my druthers be listed higher. The guy who smacked you, depending upon weight, should have been listed somewhere between 0.16 (if he was really heavy) to 0.21 (if he was a beanpole)."

That is an argument that actually supports .05 or .06 being the law for at the time of driving. (if you admit the studies that show .08 is a level where impairment is evident.) As I said this is an unknowable variable setup and could not work when applied to all people equally.

"Watch a driver on an S-turn......"
That is done all the time as part of the approach. All cannot ride solely on officer to person direct contact with no other tools used. Simply said there is not enough police to do it only that way. While he is following he could miss a grossly drunk driver right?

"I'm sure there are many unsafe things in most people's homes. Should we have "random" safety checks for people's dwellings as well?"

Are the roads public or private? Is your house public or private? You mix apples and oranges on that note.

"Speed limits are another instrument of the revenue state, whose enforcement is often driven more by revenue considerations than safety. "

Are you then saying you oppose speed limits too? Or just where the fines go? OK while your kid is out in the front yard playing on your residential street I should be able to go 90...after all the speed limit is just about revenue generation right?
Hardly.

Iraq is not an occupied police state. We are there at the request of the soverign elected government that exists. The reason they ask for policing action aid is because of the decisions and actions of its populace. Meaning they are refusing to follow the rule of law.

"If they can perform the test at least as well as half the sober drivers out there, that means they weren't impaired."

Grading on a curve now? WOW.

"Even if the arrestee has to pay for the test themself that's still going to be cheaper for him than the costs associated with DUI conviction."

What is cheaper is adopting the law and don't drive when you are above .08. IF you are questioning yourself when drinking and driving then you could use these: http://www.alcotesters.com/breathalyzer.htm

Far cheaper than both and you can rely on your own information as a guide and protect your own medical records.Personal responsibility isn't that hard.

" the question is what information is shared with whom."

Those tasked with governing the roads you drive upon and enforcing the rules set out by that governing body should be allowed access to that information in order that they may do their job. That is the purpose for having it right?

If you have ten thousand regulations, you destroy all respect for the law. – Winston Churchill

It's already .01% in several states, including Alaska.

That's my point, "drunk" means what the law says it means, the behavior of individuals cannot be specifcaly modeled by calling them "drunk".

A significant portion of the population that abuses alcohol are practiced and skilled at being "drunk".

There is NO objective behavioral test that will capture any acceptable approximation of 100% of "drunks".

Which is why we have BACs, which are, by definition, ARBITRARY numbers.

This is where lawyers, and their fellow travelers, dwell, where innocent lives, and bodies, are being shattered, right now, in the name of "fairness".

"If you have ten thousand regulations, you destroy all respect for the law. – Winston Churchill"

Well said and I would say that supports a stand alone 'regulation' (that being .08 BAC) that applies to all people equally. Rather than ten thousand of them that do not do so. :)

(("It's already .01% in several states, including Alaska."))
Oh really?

"You are DWI in Alaska if your blood alcohol content (BAC) is .08% or higher."

"The court revocation may be concurrent with (at the same time as) or consecutive to (in addition to) the DMV revocation. If a driver fails a chemical test (has a test result of 0.08% or greater) or refuses to take a chemical test, the law enforcement officer will seize the driver’s license and give the driver a “Notice and Order of Revocation.”

http://www.dui.com/states/alaska/

"Your mission was accomplished. Don't forget the lurkers. One or 1,000 of those were moved. Never give up."

Thank you for your kind words. I won't give up--I just won't bang my head against a wall and call it progress, nor will I accept the same from government, though 'conservatives' like the person to whom I was addressing my prior post would prefer anything be done rather than nothing, even though having 'anything' done by government promotes the expanse of it at the expense of freedom and money, and most of the time fails to prevent the problem the desperate 'anything' is intended to address.

"The leniency of the sentence outraged Ms. Lightner who then organized Mothers Against Drunk Drivers (MADD), later changed to Mothers Against Drunk Driving. The object of her organization was to raise public awareness of the serious nature of drunken driving and to promote tough legislation against the crime."

<>

"As the organization grew over time temperance forces gained more and more power within the organization until MADD largely become anti-alcohol rather than anti-drunk driving."

<>

"Candy Lightner observes that “police ought to be concentrating their resources on arresting drunk drivers—not those drivers who happen to have been drinking. I worry that the movement I helped create has lost direction.” 4

Ms. Lightner has left MADD and is disgusted with the organization that she herself created because of its change in goals. "It has become far more neo-prohibitionist than I ever wanted or envisioned," she says. "I didn't start MADD to deal with alcohol. I started MADD to deal with the issue of drunk driving." 5"

Candy.