Drinking laws

[BlancoNino]

What's everyones opinions on this? I think we're using way too much police resources.

 

[Tab]

Wasn't there some national movement to make legal limit .08? I know in some states you can blow .10 and still be allowed to drive. I wish there was much stonger empahsis on teenagers to drive safely.

 

[Strk]

Mind providing a little bit more information? (I.e. only 20% or what?)

And I don't care what you register on the sobriety test. You drink, you don't drive. Too many people are injured or killed because of morons who drink and drive.

 

[ntdz]

Drinking and Driving should absolutely be enforced like it is. Thousands of people die each year because of drunk drivers, and it can all be avoided by just not drinking drunk.

 

[BlancoNino]

Turn on a police radio. MOST of what you hear is "I think this guy's been drinkin'". My block got robbed 8 times in the last 2 months, but most of the police are sitting in front of the bars at night pulling over everybody.

I know a guy who got a DUI, payed thousands of dollars in legal fees and it was dropped in court because the breathalizers weren't calibrated correctly...but he's still out thousands of dollars.

The other day I heard a study on the radio saying that only 20% of the people who blow a .08 are actually impaired. That means 80% of the people getting DUI's at a .08 are perfectly safe drivers.

Lots of people CAN drive while under the influence (not flat-out wasted), it's the people who probably aren't very good drivers to begin with that ruin it for everyone else.

It shouldn't be legal to be drunk and driving, but come on... NOBODY is drunk at .08

 

[Tab]

Nobody is drunk at .08 but you're driving is impaired, trust me. There is a reason many states have gone form .1 to .08.

 

[Agnostos Insania]

Drunk drivers deserve to have their cars taken away with no chance of getting them back. They've already proven they care nothing about human life and will endanger everyone on the road.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: Tab
Nobody is drunk at .08 but you're driving is impaired, trust me. There is a reason many states have gone form .1 to .08.

Yes there is. It's called Mothers Against Drunk Driving.

It's not based on any kind of science. I read an article a few weeks ago that made an interesting observation. After the national limit was set at .10 drunk driving accidents and deaths went down. They dropped every year until the limit in most states was set at .08. Once .08 became the norm DUI deaths started increasing again.

The theory generated from this data was this: If you can have one or two beers and not get a DUI you are more likely to stop before you've had too many and go home. When you lower the limit such that two beers will get you a DUI... well... why not have a few more? After all a DUI is a DUI whether you're at .08 or .12.

 

[BlancoNino]

Again are we talking about drunk drivers or "buzzed" drivers?

My point is that it seems like that's all the police care about anymore. They'd rather give DUI's because it's big profit and because fighting REAL crime is dangerous.

The only accidents I've ever heard about are people who are driving at about .18 or higher.

I've drank and drive many times, but I know my limit. I'm not going to hit the road after I stumble to my car and I'm on the verge of passing out. 4 beers is not going to impair my driving more than marginally. And I'm a great a driver too, so if it's impaired a little bit by the alcohol then it will put me down to an average sober driver. So what's the deal here?

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Tab
Nobody is drunk at .08 but you're driving is impaired, trust me. There is a reason many states have gone form .1 to .08.

Yes there is. It's called Mothers Against Drunk Driving.

It's not based on any kind of science. I read an article a few weeks ago that made an interesting observation. After the national limit was set at .10 drunk driving accidents and deaths went down. They dropped every year until the limit in most states was set at .08. Once .08 became the norm DUI deaths started increasing again.

The theory generated from this data was this: If you can have one or two beers and not get a DUI you are more likely to stop before you've had too many and go home. When you lower the limit such that two beers will get you a DUI... well... why not have a few more? After all a DUI is a DUI whether you're at .08 or .12.

I'd like to see this. It sounds too much like a bunch of BS.

 

[GoPackGo]

Drunk driving penalties are way too severe. They are trying to punish someone for something they haven't done yet. Lets say you are speeding at five miles over at 1 am. In fact you always drive 5 miles over. You get pulled over. The officer smells beer and asks you to blow into the breathalyzer...you blow .09. It is the only sign you show of impairement. All of a sudden you are faced with all sorts of charges, fees and penalites when in fact you were no greater danger than if you hadn't been drinking.

 

[BlancoNino]

Oh and there was a big wreck near where I live involving a very drunk driver and very drunk passengers. The car went over a hill and killed two of the passengers. The guy was one of the most irresponsible drivers (sober) with a terrible record to begin with.

I think MADD (driven by power and emotions clouding good judgement), the Police (driven by money and the ability to steer away from fighting real crime by making drinking and driving seem like the worst possible thing in the world), and the state government (the collector of DUI fines) has brainwashed the general public into thinking that drinking and driving is a much much worse problem than it actually really is (it is a problem and there should be limits).

It's good to see that I'm finally getting some support here! Remember, I'm not support drinking and driving, just a lot of reform on the penalties.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Again are we talking about drunk drivers or "buzzed" drivers?

My point is that it seems like that's all the police care about anymore. They'd rather give DUI's because it's big profit and because fighting REAL crime is dangerous.

The only accidents I've ever heard about are people who are driving at about .18 or higher.

I've drank and drive many times, but I know my limit. I'm not going to hit the road after I stumble to my car and I'm on the verge of passing out. 4 beers is not going to impair my driving more than marginally. And I'm a great a driver too, so if it's impaired a little bit by the alcohol then it will put me down to an average sober driver. So what's the deal here?

Arresting an armed robber costs money...it doesn't generate revenue.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Again are we talking about drunk drivers or "buzzed" drivers?

My point is that it seems like that's all the police care about anymore. They'd rather give DUI's because it's big profit and because fighting REAL crime is dangerous.

The only accidents I've ever heard about are people who are driving at about .18 or higher.

I've drank and drive many times, but I know my limit. I'm not going to hit the road after I stumble to my car and I'm on the verge of passing out. 4 beers is not going to impair my driving more than marginally. And I'm a great a driver too, so if it's impaired a little bit by the alcohol then it will put me down to an average sober driver. So what's the deal here?

Arresting an armed robber costs money...it doesn't generate revenue.

And it's dangerous

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Drunk driving penalties are way too severe. They are trying to punish someone for something they haven't done yet. Lets say you are speeding at five miles over at 1 am. In fact you always drive 5 miles over. You get pulled over. The officer smells beer and asks you to blow into the breathalyzer...you blow .09. It is the only sign you show of impairement. All of a sudden you are faced with all sorts of charges, fees and penalites when in fact you were no greater danger than if you hadn't been drinking.

Drunk driving penalties need to be stronger. Luckly Melenie's Law was recently passed here in MA, but even then, it could still be much more severe. (It was finally approved with a little watering down )

When you're driving around 2+ tons of steal, you shouldn't be impaired. People are bad enough drivers already, they don't need more things to make them worse.

 

[Agnostos Insania]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

I've drank and drive many times, but I know my limit.

That's never been said before by drunk drivers that have killed innocent people before. Nope, never.

I'm not going to hit the road after I stumble to my car and I'm on the verge of passing out. 4 beers is not going to impair my driving more than marginally. And I'm a great a driver too,

Everyone's a good driver until they crash.

So what's the deal here?

Everyone's a good driver until they crash. Innocent people die. Period. You may not care, but their families sure do.


The only people that want to restrict DUI laws are those that have drunk driving in their past, if not present and future.

 

[BlancoNino]

And who's to say that alcohol is involved in the crash? There's been reports of sober people running red lights and hitting a drunk driver, and then the drunk driver is blamed for the wreck.

 

[Agnostos Insania]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Not by me.

Not yet. Young people think they're invincible until something bad happens. DUI laws try to prevent that from happening.

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
And who's to say that alcohol is involved in the crash? There's been reports of sober people running red lights and hitting a drunk driver, and then the drunk driver is blamed for the wreck.

That's unfortunate, both should be punished.

 

[azazyel]

Actually these laws should be relaxed or at least you should be able to do a field test before a breath test. I can easily have 4 beers and not be impaired (weighs 190).

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Tab
Nobody is drunk at .08 but you're driving is impaired, trust me. There is a reason many states have gone form .1 to .08.

Yes there is. It's called Mothers Against Drunk Driving.

It's not based on any kind of science. I read an article a few weeks ago that made an interesting observation. After the national limit was set at .10 drunk driving accidents and deaths went down. They dropped every year until the limit in most states was set at .08. Once .08 became the norm DUI deaths started increasing again.

The theory generated from this data was this: If you can have one or two beers and not get a DUI you are more likely to stop before you've had too many and go home. When you lower the limit such that two beers will get you a DUI... well... why not have a few more? After all a DUI is a DUI whether you're at .08 or .12.

I'd like to see this. It sounds too much like a bunch of BS.

That's not what I've heard but I'd like to see the article reguardless.

 

[azazyel]

Originally posted by: Agnostos Insania
The only people that want to restrict DUI laws are those that have drunk driving in their past, if not present and future.

farking kids..

 

[BlancoNino]

DUI laws try to prevent that from happening and in turn screw more responsible people who drink and drive (and yes you can drive while under the influence responsibly) and obey all traffic laws and do absolutley nothing wrong and steal everything away from them and make them go to jail and lose their job and their car.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
DUI laws try to prevent that from happening and in turn screw more responsible people who drink and drive (and yes you can drive while under the influence responsibly) and obey all traffic laws and do absolutley nothing wrong and steal everything away from them and make them go to jail and lose their job and their car.

If they were responsible they wouldn't drink and drive.

I feel no pitty for those who get pulled over, get arrested and have their licenses revoked. And if it was up to me, there would be zero tolerance for repeat offenders.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
Drunk driving penalties are way too severe. They are trying to punish someone for something they haven't done yet. Lets say you are speeding at five miles over at 1 am. In fact you always drive 5 miles over. You get pulled over. The officer smells beer and asks you to blow into the breathalyzer...you blow .09. It is the only sign you show of impairement. All of a sudden you are faced with all sorts of charges, fees and penalites when in fact you were no greater danger than if you hadn't been drinking.

Drunk driving penalties need to be stronger. Luckly Melenie's Law was recently passed here in MA, but even then, it could still be much more severe. (It was finally approved with a little watering down )

When you're driving around 2+ tons of steal, you shouldn't be impaired. People are bad enough drivers already, they don't need more things to make them worse.

If I am drunk and slam into a family of six and kill them all, then you can punish me. But if I have a few beers and my only crime is slight traffic infraction, then I shouldn't be charged with anything else.

 

[BlancoNino]

I feel pity especialy for those who are hard-working, had little to drink, weren't endangering anyone and just wanted to get their car home.