Saving Hawaii

It's hard for me to imagine worse. In the past two years there have been three late night hit and run accidents within 100 feet of my house. I'm gonna guess those weren't all folks driving home from church at 2am. Shoot, one of our current city councilors drove her car into 7-11 a few years back, under the influence of prescription medications. Our former vice mayor got a DUI a couple years ago. Yes the city is trying to fix a serious image problem but there's an ugly truth to that image.

I suppose there's a lot of other locales that do have similar problems. That should be terrifying.

rydabent

Absolute fact--------------there is NO reason to drive drunk!!!!!!

kingston 

Universal agreement. now define drunk.

KD5NRH

Sure there is. There are tons of reasons. I've never heard a good one, but I've heard hundreds of reasons.

ModeratedUser150120149

No Reasons. Lots of Excuses.

ModeratedUser150120149

The term "drunk driving" is sloppy and has very little meaning. The proper term is "Impaired". Impaired applies to many actions, not just driving.

Depends what you are doing. In the case of driving a motor vehicle, including boats and other craft, in all 50 states it is one of two things. Either over the lawful blood alcohol limit, or showing signs of impairment by testing impairment. So, a person could be charged and convicted of DUI with as little as one drink, depending on their reaction to it. The latter also covers impairment by drugs, recreational or medicinal.

In short; impairment is well defined in the law.

By the way, as a host at a party you are responsible as well.

surreal

Sorry, do you know me?

Anyway, care to comment on the safety statistics of drunk driving versus bicycling?

kingston 

I think you have just identified the root of the problem. It is impossible to objectively measure impairment.

ModeratedUser150120149

Two Wrongs.
First, actually it is quite easy to objectively measure degree of impairment. It is done every day to the satisfaction of juries, insurance companies and concerned and informed citizens.

Second, driver(in this thread) impairment is not the root of the problem. The root of the problem is that people don't take responsibility for themselves, their families and their friends. Impairment laws that were introduced in the 80's and improved on subsequently have largely taken the casual drunk and the like off the highway. Sticking strictly to alcohol for this thread, even the most casual research shows blood alcohol levels for arrests at high levels that can only come from chronic alcoholism. Saw one this morning of .237; one the other morning of .3+. These people could have been prevented from driving by family or friends. But, those people let these dangerous people on the road, leaving it to someone else to stop them or clean up the mess.

Nope, helping, or should I say, not helping, your fellow human is the root of the problem.

KD5NRH

Then why can't it be done to elderly and other more-or-less-permanently impaired drivers at renewal time? To the victim, it really doesn't matter whether you were impaired by alcohol, senility, chronic illness or just plain stupidity, so why should it matter to the law?

kingston 

It's interesting how different people can reach different conclusions based on the same basic facts. It sounds like you are somehow involved in enforcement while I'm just a regular guy, so I guess our perspectives our pretty different. At least we agree that impaired driving is bad.

genec

It could be done... but until now there have been no provisions for such tests... in fact in many states the only provision for license renewal is sending in a check.

About the only time people are actually tested is for the first issue of the license... which doesn't involve anything like an impairment test, or even physiological test (to ensure you are mentally stable for driving a vehicle on public roads). The other time one is tested, is upon displaying evidence of potential impairment.

So generally speaking... your local DMV may never again be visited by a driver... for any form of further testing.

kingston 

I'm sure that would work with the same level of efficiency and effectiveness that currently charcterizes the DMV. I failed my written motorcyle test last year after over 20 years of riding motorcycles, so I'm really interested in seeing this objective impairment test you guys say exists. Should be great.

genec

You failed the written test... so either new laws got you, or they asked about stopping distances or the like... nothing having to do with your skills, but your knowledge.

ModeratedUser150120149

Your posts sound like a lot of noise without much substance. A bit like a male mosquito buzzing around a person's head, much ado about nothing. Sorry, if that is a bit strong.

But, every one of the points you write about are addressed in the law and practice. If you did even a modicum of research before putting fingerprints to keys you would know that.

As for elderly drivers. Frankly they get a bad rap. Yes, they have diminishment of capability as they age. In many states now a person over 65 has to take a vision test before renewing a license. But, it doesn't take long analyzing data to see that truly aggressive and dangerous drivers are scattered in the younger demographic. If you are willing to pay for it every driver could be given a written and practical test on every license renewal. That would eliminate biases and would go a long way to addressing your, and other's issues.

If you are truly concerned about the things you write about become informed. Start an advocacy group. Get the laws changed. Many have done that before you, as witnessed by changes to impaired driving laws and others.

Lacking that anyone who just posts on this rather limited board is just like a male mosquito.

kingston 

I just provided that example as some anecdotal evidence of the government's inability to devise an instrument to assess something relatively easy like someone's ability to ride a motorcycle. Since objectively measuring impairment is impossible, any attempt to do so will fail as it does under our current system. Despite the dismissive tone and ad hominem attacks, I agree with hawkowl that the solution lies in helping our fellow humans.

FBinNY 

You touch on a key aspect that people who want simple answers fail to acknowledge. A decent percentage of accidents, maybe a majority (but I'm not claiming that) aren't caused by impairment of any kind that can be measured, be it from alcohol, age, physical, or even lack of skill.

These are caused by attitude, something that can't be measured or predicted in advance. This explains why younger, more fit drivers, with better reflexes have so many accidents. In simplest terms, these people overly trust their skills, and have a lower awareness of their own mortality.

The best evidence of this phenomenon is insurance rates. The people with nthe most experience at predict who's most likely to have an accident charge higher premiums for drivers below 25, while favoring older drivers with poor sight and reflexes with lower rates. part of this is that those older drivers tend to drive less, but the bigger part is that most of them know their limitations and work hard to stay within them.

Rollfast

Circle gets the square.

George

Just yesterday, they gave a lady drunk driver, 15 years for killing a cyclist in Houston.

KD5NRH

Last night, trooper stopped a guy on a major highway near here. Ended up making him get a ride home and another driver to take his truck home. Didn't specify the reason on the air other than "he needs to not be driving."

Local scanner news FB group was full of people complaining, not that a guy who was driving when he shouldn't have been got off without a night in jail, but that whoever posted the scanner audio was shaming this poor guy and "everybody makes mistakes, and shouldn't be put on display for it. Besides, sometimes you don't have a choice and have to drive." But the guy was able to find two people (one to drive his truck, one to bring that guy out to the scene) who were OK to drive and willing to help him after the cops wouldn't let him keep driving, so why couldn't he find a ride before he drove at least 15 miles (not many places to be coming from out there after about 9PM) in whatever condition he was in?

FarHorizon

Actually, there IS a device for measuring "impairment." It is used in the nuclear industry for anyone operating a crane during a critical lift. It uses a combination of voluntary and involuntary feedback to determine impairment, calculated against a set of baseline responses. You don't pass? You don't operate the crane...

Device works by having the person under test look into a dark box. A moving light is produced that the subject's eye must follow. Cameras record discrepancies in tracking. Additionally the light dilates the subject's pupil. If the dilation rate varies from baseline, or if the movement does, then the subject is "impaired." Note that this doesn't determine WHY the subject is impaired - only that their responses are different from their baseline. Causes may be a cold, lack of sleep, use of alcohol or drugs, etc. ALL change the voluntary & involuntary response times, and are therefore determinants of "impairment."

Could cars do this in advance of being started? Probably not. Therefore, the motivation to perfect the "self-driving car" grows. Until then, the number of impaired drivers on the road will grow (as the population ages). Bad news for bicyclists... After all, you're equally dead whether you're run over by a drunk or someone who couldn't see you through their trifocals... (and I say this as a "senior citizen" myself, who is aware that my vision and response times aren't what they used to be). I compensate by using my experience to anticipate situations and by awareness that I must drive more defensively. If I'm here with my reduced driving skills NOW, how bad will my driving be in another decade or two? Yet, living in a city with virtually NO public transportation, driving is not a choice, it is a necessity. THAT's why I'm so hoping to buy a self-driving car.

FH