Thank you TSM. My first encounter with DUI tragedy was the night of my high school junior prom. My boyfriend’s parents drove us to and from because neither of us were yet old enough for a drivers license. After taking me home they were t-boned by a drunk on a motorcycle estimated to have been going in excess of 60 mph in a 30 mph zone when he ran blew through the intersection and hit the car. Cyclist, who was a relative of three of our classmates, was killed, my boyfriend’s mom was seriously injured, and both his dad and he were injured. In college a friend and his girlfriend were seriously injured by a drunk driver. Two friends of one of my brothers were killed by a drunk driver. My cousin, as I previously mentioned, was one of four thus killed. A neighbor was killed a few years ago. And some years ago my mom escaped serious injury when a drunk with suspended license and no Insurance driving a stolen car ran a red light and t-boned the engine of her car. Had she been hit broadside of her driverside door she would have been dead. And all that happened to that drunk was a traffic ticket. So, yes, when my nephew drove drunk I grimly choose to leave him in jail as best for everyone, including him.
"all that happened to that drunk was a traffic ticket"
That makes my blood boil.
Me too.
In my state it is now pretty serious. First conviction is maximum at least 1 night in jail, bail, $5,000 fine, attorney fees, drivers license suspension of one year.
sgtrock21: I hope you mean minimum, not max.
BillRussell: That was maximum 10 years ago when a coworker was arrested for DUI. Upon conviction the standard sentence is maximum. My coworker with a previously clean driving/criminal record qualified for a conditional drivers license by enrolling in rehab at his expense. His driving was restricted to work, National Guard training, and rehab sessions for one year plus blowing in a tube to start his car.
I think that it’s bad idea to have traction and or stability control system that can’t be fully defeated. There will be a time where you get caught out in the snow or ice, and get stuck. In which case you used to be able to extricate yourself by “rocking” your car back and forth, going forwards and backwards, this will inevitably require some wheelspin. But if your government-mandated traction/stability control can’t be fully turned off, you’re not going to be accomplishing this as fuel/spark will be cut at the very hint of wheelspin, and or the stability control with throw a conniption fit and apply the brakes, thus killing whatever momentum you might’ve worked up.
I don’t know what the answer is but for generally responsible people that somehow end up with a DUI, it can be a real economic killer with insurance rates, any lawyer fees, and so on. But for someone already in the pits with no assets or don’t care, the whole financial thing really has little impact. They weren’t going to buy insurance anyway and didn’t care if their license was suspended or not. When they used to require proof of insurance for registration renewal, old cars with close to a year of time left on the plates were a hot commodity.
Big, you are absolutely correct, the only asset that those in the pits have left is time, and that is what is needed to be take away. They not only don’t care about insurance or the status of their license, they don’t bother paying the fines either. Long prison sentences are the only deterrent left.
But our prisons are already overcrowded, so what can you do?
We can do what the airlines do… reduce the amount of space we consider standard for each “passenger”. These are prisons, folks, not comfort stops.
Generally responsible people who somehow end up with a DUI are not responsible enough for my tastes. IMHO there is absolutely no excuse for driving drunk, and anyone who does deserves whatever he/she gets. My sympathy is with their victims, not with the drunk. drivers.
Back in 1971, I had a fellow graduate student that was not n the sams, doctoral degree program with me. After graduation, he stayed on at the university as a statistician on a program that was funded by a grant from the NHTSA and I took a teaching position at another university. However, we had a,joint project and I would drive back to work with him. My friend was on the grant to investigate the causes of auto accidents. He said,that a very high percentage of the accidents were due to drinking and his,research team believed.that the only,solution was,to impound, the car and have a way of preventing the drunk from purchasing another vehicle.
I certainly don’t condone it and the most I ever have is a single glass of wine over a couple hours, and avoid that if I can. However, with the lowered limits, I think it might be possible for a person to be over the limit and quite capable of driving and receive a DUI. Now everyone has driven tired, or with a headache, or a business issue on their mind that could cause the same level of distraction driving. So when I say “somehow end up with a DUI”, I’m not talking about a falling down alcoholic or repeat offender, but a normal, responsible person that ended up with one beer over the limit from a ball game, social occasion, or whatever.
In the same way that using a BB gun in town can lead to a felony, I just think there might be a wide gray area between white and black is all. There are lots of laws that can result in a felony that we normally wouldn’t consider serious crime depending on the prosecutor involved. I’ve looked at the height/weight charts and other than two beers, it is pretty hard to know when you would be over a .08. I’m not talking about the guy driving north in the south lane or missing stop lights, even though I’ll bet most of us have ended up the wrong way on a one way street at some time and being fully alert.
Not in NH. In NH the limit is .08. Anyone who fails at that limit is too drunk to drive.
Frankly, IMHO it’s these kind of excuses that allow the problem to continue and innocent people to continue to have their lives ruined by drunk drivers.
“Normal, responsible” people don’t drive drunk. At least not in my social circles. And I absolutely do not buy the excuse that it’s hard to tell when you’ve had too much to drink.
"Normal, responsible" people don't drive drunk. At least not in my social circles. And I absolutely do not buy the excuse that it's hard to tell when you've had too much to drink.
if UNSURE…don’t drive…PERIOD. I’m not much of a drinker (never have been). 6’3…230…and about all I can handle before I get a buzz is a 32oz beer. According to the charts - I should easily handle 2 of those. But I NEVER have more then one.
This does bring up a point about the level of alcohol. It is a fact that 0.08 does lead to impairment, but I have had six friends that I know of that were killed by drunk drivers and in every case, the driver was at least twice the legal limit. I don’t know anyone who was killed by a driver that was only 0.08.
Maybe we need a two tier system, one that is a little lenient on a first time offender who is barely over (0.08-0.10) and a much stiffer penalty for those 0.11 or higher or multiple offenders.
I guess I’m just a gray area guy and if I were on the jury I’d have to take into consideration if he was at .09 or .2, driving on a deserted rural road or in heavy traffic, and so on. I don’t buy the magic of being OK at .07 but not at .09. Like who determined that?
I don’t think the guy riding a horse or lawn mower or motorized Lazy Boy should have their lives ruined from a DUI. Maybe they should just be given a ride home. Now those in the city may find it hard to believe that in some areas of the country there are no taxis or buses or even a motel to spend the night so getting home in the winter when everything else is closed is a matter of survival. There was a case in Minnesota where a guy didn’t want to drive so slept in the back seat of his car and ran the engine once in a while to keep from freezing to death. The guy was cited for DUI because he “could have driven” and had control of the car. I just think that’s ridiculous when someone is trying to do the right thing.
Fortunately, its up to the prosecutor to weigh the situation and determine the ultimate charge and some of these would be pleaded down, but that means you have the money to hire a lawyer and fight the charge. Not always the case in this land of the free.
Keith, I cannot support a recommendation to allow someone caught driving drunk to get a slap on the wrist because he/she didn’t kill anyone… yet. .08 is high enough to be impaired, and impaired drivers do not belong behind the wheel.
I cannot support a system that’s lenient on a drunk driver because he/she is barely over .08-.10 and it’s his/her first time. We should not wait until they kill or maim someone.
I have a right to be safe from drunk drivers. I have the right know that everything possible has been done to get drunk drivers off the road so my kids are less likely to get killed by one. This “kid glove” approach is exactly what allows drunks who have already been caught to continue driving… in some cases even AFTER they kill someone.
^
In light of some of the comments that have already been posted, I have to share my personal experiences in this realm.
When I go out to eat, I frequently order a glass of wine to enjoy with my meal.
Because restaurants (and their employees) want to maximize their profit margins, I am almost always urged/pressured to order a refill of that one glass of wine.
When I respond by saying, “No thanks, I’m driving”, I am usually greeted by puzzled stares.
Why should it be that, when a customer believes it is appropriate to stop after one glass of wine,
restaurant servers find this kind of self-discipline to be…unusual?
I suspect that those puzzled stares are well-practiced, designed to get you to have another glass. There’s money in them there glasses…
Thanks for your discipline, by the way. 
WE go out to eat a lot (at least once a week…most of the time twice a week). And I’ll have one beer…never 2. And I’ve NEVER EVER been pressured to have another drink…never even a hint of pressure.