jwarner

::looking around:: ::forum still here:: ::horsemen of the apocalypse not riding over the horizon -- damn, I really want one of those horses::

sounds like a good plan, and looks like it worked

FBinNY 

Thank you for your honesty, openness and perspective. I hope you continue with a successful recovery, or at least continue to manage alcohol as well as you seem to have so far.

With regard to breathalizer interlocks, the devices exist and work decently, though not 100% reliably. I don't think it makes sense to put them in every car because they're not cheap, and the reality is that the vast majority of car owners and drivers are already responsible regarding alcohol. NYS law allows judges to require those convicted of DUI to install the devices at their own expense as a condition of retaining their drivers license. This is a reasonable, balanced approach which can effectively filter a decent percentage of potential repeat offenders.

jwarner

@surreal I think that was quite well said.

surreal

Thanks for the encouragement...

I've seen the interlocks, at least in movies/TV....so I know they exist, but they're not ubiquitous by any stretch. You're probably right about the expense of the device precluding them from being standard equipment, but we are talking about ppl's safety/lives here... Still, I think that disabling or otherwise over-riding the device would be a popular "mod" if new cars were equipped with'm, anyway...

surreal

ModeratedUser150120149

Actually interlocks are only marginally useful. Committed drunks often borrow someone else's vehicle. Of course that one doesn't have an interlock installed.

Vehicle confiscation works. But, many governing bodies are reluctant to allow that to the extent that would be effective out of concern that the actual vehicle owner would be left without transportation to job and for the family.

Current laws, as compared to those 20 years ago, have made a significant dent in impaired driving. However, any specific community gets what it deserves. Demand stringent enforcement and you get it. Fail to do that and you won't.

B. Carfree

A few years back, a DA in one of the Dakotas realized that drunks will continue to drive no matter what he did. So, he forced them to give up drinking or go to jail. When prosecuted for drunk driving, the guilty had to agree to wear a device around their ankle that detects alcohol. Whenever it is in range of wifi it sends its data home. Any positive causes a unit to roll out and arrest the drunk. I guess the addiction to alcohol is easier to break than the addiction to driving.

This combined with what the DA in Orange County, CA is doing would likely work wonders at reducing drunk driving, assuming we can get some enforcement. In my experience, cops are much more likely to participate if they think what they are doing will make a difference.

rydabent

The point of this thread is absolutely true. I think that anyone caught drunk driving should be sentenced to 6 months of house arrest at their own home. Then each time after that the sentence would be doubled. I dont want them in jail so taxpayers have to support them. I want house arrest at home so their families have to support them.

Mvcrash

Neither one belongs on the road. Same rule applies to cyclists. I've seen many a drunk cyclist get killed as well.

no motor?

Having grown up in the late 70's and lived in Texas in the mid 80's, I'd say there is less drunk driving now than there used to be, but there is still way too much here in Chicagoland. Combine the people that drink and drive now with the ones so distracted by their cell phone/GPS/kids/eating etc... and I don't feel any safer on the road now than I used to.

ModeratedUser150120149

Wow! And just how do you propose getting this from your fantasy to actual law?

If the offender has a family or other dependents how do you plan on seeing to their health and welfare while the offender has no income?

You make the false assumption that while they are in jail they are not being supported by the taxpayers. Who do you think pays for their subsistence during that time?

Also, jails are not free. Actually, if you did even a modicum of research you would find that confinement facilities like jails and prisons are very expensive. In fact they are so expensive that taxpayers are reluctant to build enough of them resulting on periodic early prisoner early release.

On the other hand encouraging people to take positive action to prevent a drunk from driving could work. It is rare for a person to get drunk and drive in isolation. Campaigns to take away keys, give free cab rides and such are effective. Keeping emphasis on alcoholic beverage server training and responsibility works. After all, one of the very early consequences of becoming intoxicated in losing the ability to say "No". Bars take advantage of this to make more money, if they are permitted to do so. There isn't a profit motive at home parties. But, unless encouraged by law people will avoid confrontation and pour drunks on to the street.

We have come so far. But, there is much to be done. Frankly, I hope automated vehicles come fast.

B. Carfree

I don't know how this works in your state, but here in Oregon the same entity is responsible for handing out liquor licenses and promoting alcohol use as well as training licensees and enforcing the laws regarding serving intoxicated individuals. Predictably, they take their promotion mandate much more seriously than their conflicting enforcement obligations (more licenses equals more department revenue). As a result, there are essentially no prosecutions for bar tenders serving people until their wallet is empty and they literally stagger out of the bar/brewery. To make matters worse, the police are required to inquire as to where a drunk driver got intoxicated and report this information to the OLCC (Oregon Liquor Control Commission, the licensing entity). The OLCC then puts this information into the round file, arguing that they can't trust information that comes from a drunk.


+1, and then some. I'm sure we both remember when drunk driving was considered normal, which it no longer is, but we still have far too much of it. Autonomous vehicles show much promise if they can overcome the technical hurdles. I hope they're not like fusion power: always forty years away in the future.

ModeratedUser150120149

Well Carfree it seems more needs to be done to bend the government to the citizens' will. Keeping the government responsive to the citizens it is supposed to server is a never ending, but necessary, task.

Or, you can slink back into the corner and join the whiners.

Rollfast

Yup, figured it would make my head spin by now.

B. Carfree

The sad truth is that the dysfunctional OLCC is actually serving the majority of Oregonians to a Tee. Those of us who would like enforcement appear to be a vanishingly small minority.

Personally, I deal by limiting my cycling to times/places with lower levels of issues with drunks. Even when I choose to take a swim with the sharks, the odds are still pretty good that they will miss me; there's lots of space and a very tiny me to hit and I'm reasonably mobile.

Oh, and when I whine it's never from a corner. I'm front and center and a major pain in the hind quarters of some of my local elected officials. It can be fun when it gets results (as in, when I have hundreds of others join me). We've gotten a few things accomplished locally with just a wee bit of public outcry and the threat of more. Politicians just hate to be in the news with their constituents criticising them. We're also ready to praise good work when it happens (and it does).

Caliper

I like this. We do it with speeding violations where a small violation arguably is unlikely to cause an accident, but large violations do cause problems.

There is no requirement to have a drivers license to own a car, only to drive one on public roadways. Totally legal for a repeat drunk driver with a suspended license to drive a car all they want on private property.

B. Carfree

I'm aware of this. In fact, they can also drive motorized things that don't require a license to operate like ATVs on public land. I'm proposing to eliminate the ability of people who do not hold valid licenses from car ownership. Obviously, many would consider this to be an burdensome limit on people and it would require a very compelling state interest to even consider. Personally, 15,000 lives lost to drunk drivers and another million or so injured each and every year seems pretty compelling from where I sit. However, I fully recognize that others see this differently (until it's their loved one who gets whacked by a drunk, which is a lousy way to gain momentum in this sort of thing).

FarHorizon

Simple plan for drunk drivers:

1st offense = $1K fine + mandatory drunk driving classes + 1 year suspension of license.

2nd offense = the car you're driving becomes property of the state & you serve five years in prison.

3rd offense = your choice: Loss of citizenship (with revocation of all assets to the state) and immediate deportation to a country of the district judge's choice OR immediate execution. Penalties apply without benefit of appeal.

If you injure someone else while driving drunk, the next highest offense penalty applies. If you kill someone else while driving drunk the 3rd offense penalty automatically applies.

Simple, effective, and inexpensive to the taxpayers with absolutely no additional 4th + offenses.

JoeyBike

I would make it simpler:

1st offense = $1K fine + mandatory drunk driving classes + 1 year suspension of license.

2nd offense = the car you're driving becomes property of the state & your choice: Loss of citizenship (with revocation of all assets to the state) and immediate deportation to a country of the district judge's choice OR immediate execution. Penalties apply without benefit of appeal.

#1 is a wake up call. If hoofing it everywhere for a year doesn't do the trick then #2 just ship them to Siberia. If they kill someone I think two bullets in the head curbside should do the trick.

Rollfast

If you are on your bike late at night and deal with bar drivers, then I tend to agree, but where is the woodwork all these drunks come out of? I do not see this correlation in my area.

The fantasy murder ranting is getting out of hand as well. Get real, please.

Robert C

My sister was a co owner in a Taxi company for several years. As such I heard about he regular clients. All put together, about ten years ago, a DUI would cost the offender about 5k-7k USD. Note that this was in a county where median income is still under 25k/year.

As far as Chico, Chico is extremely strict on student violations. The city reports all student LEO contacts. A DUI is likely to get a student removed from the college in addition to other criminal and civil costs. At one time Chico had a national reputation as the #1 party school. They have worked hard to get rid of that reputation.

I am no, by any stretch, going to say that there is no drunk driving in Chico; but, compared to other college towns with similar age demographics, it isn't the worst I have seen. Chico is unique in the overall percentage of students, both at CSUC and Butte, in the city. I am not saying there are no problems, but it is not uniquely bad.

dynodonn 

Along with drunk driving, my concern is also drugged driving.......as many here on BF know, the US is a pill popping nation, from the less affecting vitamins, all the way up to some powerful physician prescribed medication concoctions that adversely affects one's driving ability.

KD5NRH

Right: MADD really shot themselves in the foot when they pushed for a lower limit instead of staying at .10 or even going to .12 with much higher penalties. I personally prefer a graduated system anyway, with breathalyzer onsite, and a codified requirement on the ticket that the driver shall be taken to a medical facility for a blood draw to confirm the breathalyzer results, and they may waive that test on the condition that they will not be able to have the charge reduced without it. (You'd have to be a fool to waive it; unless you're right outside the most bored blood lab on the planet, or still absorbing alcohol you just drank, you're pretty much guaranteed to drop a couple hundredths during the paperwork and wait for someone to do the draw. I'm including the requirement just because I really don't trust cops to maintain their equipment and/or not find ways to fake a positive result, and because it might catch other intoxicants.)

IMO, the way to do it would be;

• .08-.12: Pricey ticket and no more driving for x hours. (Find a sober driver, a safe place to park, or walk home and have the car towed.
• .12-.18: Night/weekend in jail, (at least one business day so you have to tell the boss you're in jail/court for a DUI) license suspended 180 days, big enough fine/fee to really hurt before the license can be reinstated. Car impounded.
• >.18: serious jail time, license revocation, huge fines, public shaming, a couple weeks in the stocks. Car seized.
• Second offense goes up a level. Going beyond the last listed level, minimum of a year in jail and a felony on your record. No exceptions if your previous offense was before the law change, as this is a penalty for a new violation, not an ex-post-facto penalty for the prior offense.

You'd also want some added penalties for driving with a license suspended or revoked due to DUI, and maybe some civil law clarifications making the drunk 100% responsible for losses incurred if they drive drunk in someone else's car, resulting in it being held or seized. Possibly even a criminal clarification making it a reasonably presumed condition of loaning someone a car that they won't drive drunk, thus adding whatever the local equivalent of unauthorized use of a motor vehicle is to the charges.

Obviously, similar scales for other intoxicants would need to exist too.

KD5NRH

Sounds like an excellent reason to ban bicycles.

Oh yeah, life saving changes only apply when they're things that won't affect *you* much. Forgot that part.

Number400

It's scary...
I live in a high DUI area. So much so that they have DUI enforcement zones and "High DUI area" road signs. While I can tolerate someone having a beer and socializing for awhile before driving home, I think it is silly to impair yourself in any way and then make the choice to drive. Alcohol impairs judgement and the more one drinks the worse it gets. I have fought with members of my own family to get the car keys away from them. Have you ever tried to reason with a drunk person? No one thinks "Oh, am I a .08 or just .02 before making the decision to drive. With the .08 law, they were pretty much trying to make any drinking and driving difficult (illegal), and I don't disagree completely with that.

For fun, look at the police blotter: https://harrisburgpa.gov/file/2014/04...ecember7th.pdf Lots of public drunkenness and DUI's with one person charged with driving on the sidewalk!

I encourage everyone during the holidays (and every day), to intercept friends, co-workers and family who may not be sober and to help keep them and us safe by keeping them from driving under the influence.

If the police would spend some time and to just be a presence on the street talking to people leaving the bar and heading for the car, it would help to prevent an arrest and tragedies.