Advocacy & Safety - Why in the hell was the ******* OWI driver even allowed on the roadways?

http://www.bikeiowa.com/asp/hotnews/newsdisplay.asp?NewsID=1773

http://www.bikeiowa.com/asp/hotnews/newsdisplay.asp?NewsID=1775

He never should have been allowed back on the roadways. Guess now they'll be tougher on him.

What is OWI?

operating while impaired.

I agree, OWI (DWI) laws are too lenient.

Any lawyer can get you back on the road in just a few days provided that you have the funds to pay them !!!

>> The legal system WORKS FOR DUI << !!!!

I knew a guy here that at last count (2003) had 8 dui's. Because he had a decent lawyer, he was STILL allowed to drive back and forth to work---the thing is, he is a plumbing GC and he was constantly driving (legal, under the terms). While on probation, he had a dui wreck--involving injury. He had to go to a halfway house (still going to work), and while he was living there he had another dui wreck. He went to jail for six months only.

I have no tolerance for that at all. If we took this homicidal behavior seriously, people would go to jail on first offense and lose their license for five years or life. Many people say this is too harsh but one life lost because of drunken driving is too much. My brother in law got nabbed for drunk driving and is still driving because it hasnt gone to court yet. I like the guy otherwise, but its a disgrace. He should lose his license and go to jail.

I know I've stated it before buit I have absolute ZERO tolerance for OWI, DUI, drunk driving or what ever it is called or refered to.

If I see someone drinking & driving, & I have in broad daylight no less, I call the police.

I have even been witness to the aftermath of a drunk driving related accident where a bunch of teenagers were pileing out of a car after hitting another one saying "hide the beer, hide the beer" as I was walking outside the front door to see if anyone needed help. When I called the police I advised it was a drunk driving related accident. As a result there were 2 fire trucks, 2 ambulances, 3 squad cars, the accident investigation van & 2 tow trucks on the scene. Thankfully no one was taken to the hospital, the damage & injuries were not that serious but EMS could not take the chance. Teh teenagers were arrested, the driver was charged as an adult & lost a full ride scholarship to a university, the others were charged as minors.

While I support strong criminal penalties for DUI as a deterrent against the general population, I interpret most of the available research on the subject as saying that punishment alone is an inadequate deterrent for alcoholics. (Sure, we could keep them in jail for life, but the public isn't willing to pay for that, so let's assume that they will get out of jail eventually.)

I believe the most effective programs to reduce repeat offenses by drunk drivers have involved a combination of intensive alcoholism treatment, family intervention/counseling, breath analysis ignition interlocks, and pragmatic limitations on driving.

I think we need to hit there pocket books. Charge, and fine the wazoo out of them lose their driving privelages, for 5 years if they cause no accident if they cause accident with injury 10 years accident with fetality 2-3 years in jail driver license suspended indefenintly and scarlet letter them as an undesirable same with the accident with injury they get a scarlett letter to

I think we need to hit there pocket books. Charge, and fine the wazoo out of them lose their driving privelages
Totally. I believe it's Finland (maybe other places too) that use traffic fines that are adjusted for income. For some folks a $200 ticket takes the food off the table and other folks won't miss it.
But the most important part, punishment aside, is insuring that they can't get back in the driver's seat.

I think we need to hit there pocket books. Charge, and fine the wazoo out of them lose their driving privelages, for 5 years if they cause no accident if they cause accident with injury 10 years accident with fetality 2-3 years in jail driver license suspended indefenintly and scarlet letter them as an undesirable same with the accident with injury they get a scarlett letter to

As far as I'm concerned the only legitimate punishment after they serve a prison sentance is never allow them to legally own, license or drive a motor vehicle again. If they kill someone while they are driving impaired they should get life with out the possibility of parole.

More links regarding this tragedy:

http://www.bikeiowa.com/asp/hotnews/newsdisplay.asp?NewsID=1779

http://www.bikeiowa.com/asp/hotnews/newsdisplay.asp?NewsID=1778

http://www.bikeiowa.com/asp/hotnews/newsdisplay.asp?NewsID=1777

Do you think it is a good idea if the drunk drive should apologize to the family & see the sorrow he caused & how it affects the family left to pick up the pieces? some judges make the drunk driver do that. But I wonder if it actually gives the family closure. Or if the dd does it as a condition of his sentance & has no remores or even cares.

Totally. I believe it's Finland (maybe other places too) that use traffic fines that are adjusted for income. For some folks a $200 ticket takes the food off the table and other folks won't miss it.
But the most important part, punishment aside, is insuring that they can't get back in the driver's seat.

I don't know abotu Denmark, but I do know about Norway and I think it points out several issues. This is several years old, but I'm confident it is still true. In Norway DUI is jail time for the first offence. However the jail time is minimal, 1-2 weeks. The driver in question can also schedule their jail time. BUT the really interesting thing is that it is 'common' to take your yearly vacation to go to jail. People try to hide that they got busted, there is major social stigma associated with DUI. There is also pretty good public transportation so you can go out and get drunk and get home without getting in the car.

Remember Finland, Norway and all to other northern countiies have a lot of excessive drinking (at least in the winter). I think the keys are DUI being socially unacceptable and also having some other way to get from bar to home. Oh other things help, real (but not draconian0 consequences for the first offence and really nasty consequences for DUI or even driving when a license has been suspended for DUI make sense.

As far as I'm concerned the only legitimate punishment after they serve a prison sentence is never allow them to legally own, license or drive a motor vehicle again. (emphasis added)

Unfortunately, I doubt that the legality of owning or operating a motor vehicle will make much difference to the offender -- habitual drunk drivers will skirt such limitations....

They should ban parking facilities at places that serve alcohol.

Take away their license AND sell car at auction. If they're found driving another car, even if borrowed, take that and sell it at auction too. Eventually the word will get out and no one will loan their vehicle to someone known to drink or without a license. Someone who "needs" their vehicle for their job will either have to find a new career or hire a chaffeur -- that was their choice when they got behind a wheel boozed up.

These are NOT draconian measures. More than 16,000 people die every year (40% of the total traffic deaths) thanks to alcohol.

Or start riding a bike?

I think that locking them up in jail just clogs the courts, and the prision system. I think they need to go to jail for a short term because this gets them to realize what they did, and possibly get help if they have a drinking problem. Then when they get out of jail they still have to live with what they did. Everyone will be able to clearly see what they are who they are. They may not get a home loan because of what they did they may not get a job because of what they did.

Well, I could live with a minimum loss of license of 5 years to start for first offense but would prefer lifetime ban on driving. drunk driving isnt considered that serious by most of the population sadly, or atleast its not reported as if it is. I think the D.A. in rhode island was getting some positive and negative publicity recently because she wont plea bargain with drunk drivers. She goes after the maximum she can get and some seem to think its not fair of her to act in such a manner. Personally, I hope she kicks a lot of butts there and others take her as a positive example.

does anyone actually know the statistics on recidivism for drunk drivers?

Look at how unsuccessful the myopic war on drugs has been. Do you folks really think expanding that kind of aggressive encarceration to alcohol consumption is going to help?

I have no tolerance for that at all. If we took this homicidal behavior seriously, people would go to jail on first offense and lose their license for five years or life. Many people say this is too harsh but one life lost because of drunken driving is too much. My brother in law got nabbed for drunk driving and is still driving because it hasnt gone to court yet. I like the guy otherwise, but its a disgrace. He should lose his license and go to jail.
I advocate the Malkasian punishment for DUI. They put your wife in jail with you. How would you like to spend the next 1-5 years locked in a cell with your PO'd wife?:eek:

EDIT: Spelling

I advocate the Malkasian punishment for DUI. They put your wife in jail with you. How would you like to spend the next 1-5 years locked in a cell with your PO'd wife?:eek:

EDIT: Spelling

+1:roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:

Aaron:)

Well, I could live with a minimum loss of license of 5 years to start for first offense but would prefer lifetime ban on driving. drunk driving isnt considered that serious by most of the population sadly, or atleast its not reported as if it is. I think the D.A. in rhode island was getting some positive and negative publicity recently because she wont plea bargain with drunk drivers. She goes after the maximum she can get and some seem to think its not fair of her to act in such a manner. Personally, I hope she kicks a lot of butts there and others take her as a positive example.

I think this idea misses the actuality of drunk driving. There are generally two kinds of drunk drivers. One is a normal social drinker who is careless and drives over the limit. One arrest and the subsequent fines / points / humiliation / community service will deter this person. Acutally, as awareness and penalties have increased over the last two decades I think that non-alcoholic drunk driving incedents are probably more rare.

Then there are the alcoholics (and I've known a few personally). Do what you want. Take away their liscence. Fine them. Publish their names. It does not matter. So long as they are alcoholics they will drink, and many of them will drive. This explains the people who get 3, 4, 5....12 arrests for DUI. If you want to stop them from driving drunk you can either treat the alcoholism or lock them up. Taking away a laminated card from their wallet does not do much.

I think that locking them up in jail just clogs the courts, and the prision system. I think they need to go to jail for a short term because this gets them to realize what they did, and possibly get help if they have a drinking problem. Then when they get out of jail they still have to live with what they did. Everyone will be able to clearly see what they are who they are. They may not get a home loan because of what they did they may not get a job because of what they did.

The only way everyone will know what they did is if they are required to register as a convicted drunk driver.

In certain states, Iowa is one of them, convicted sex offenders are required to register & can not live within a certain distance of any school, daycare or public place where childern congegrate. The ACLU is pissed about this but to ****ing bad, this is one law I agree with & support.

Maybe a convicted drunk driver, whether their actions killed someone or not should be required to register & can not live within so much distance of anywhere that sells or serves alcohol.

Then there are the alcoholics (and I've known a few personally). Do what you want. Take away their liscence. Fine them. Publish their names. It does not matter. So long as they are alcoholics they will drink, and many of them will drive. This explains the people who get 3, 4, 5....12 arrests for DUI. If you want to stop them from driving drunk you can either treat the alcoholism or lock them up. Taking away a laminated card from their wallet does not do much.


I agree... this is a terrible problem, I've know a few of these alcoholics too... but at a minimum, no one involved in a DUI should be given back their "laminated card" without some intervention... be it a breathalyzer ignition lockout or some other limitation. As for the repeat offenders, I cannot offer a solution... the problem thus far appears to be far deeper than anything medical science can currently deal with.

I agree... this is a terrible problem, I've know a few of these alcoholics too... but at a minimum, no one involved in a DUI should be given back their "laminated card" without some intervention... be it a breathalyzer ignition lockout or some other limitation. As for the repeat offenders, I cannot offer a solution... the problem thus far appears to be far deeper than anything medical science can currently deal with.


And to make it worse, these chronic alcoholics are always the ones pulled over with a 0.3% or better BAC. They're so blind drunk they can hardly stand, yet they are driving a car. I know here in Michigan your third DUI conviction is automatic prison time....but I also still read about people getting arrested for DUI with a record of more than 3 convictions. This means people puncuating DUI incidents with periodic incarceration. How are we going to stop these people?

I once asked an alcoholic friend about it in college. He freely acknowledged he was an alcoholic (no denial here). I asked him about treatment....but he was not interested. He could not picture life without drinking. He could not see any level of negative effects from drinking that would outweigh his (?) need to drink. He went on to a DUI (BAC > 0.35%) conviction some years later, lost his license and kept on driving so far as I know. He probably kept driving drunk too, though he lived 300 miles away and I have no direct knowledge.

And to make it worse, these chronic alcoholics are always the ones pulled over with a 0.3% or better BAC. They're so blind drunk they can hardly stand, yet they are driving a car. I know here in Michigan your third DUI conviction is automatic prison time....but I also still read about people getting arrested for DUI with a record of more than 3 convictions. This means people puncuating DUI incidents with periodic incarceration. How are we going to stop these people?

I once asked an alcoholic friend about it in college. He freely acknowledged he was an alcoholic (no denial here). I asked him about treatment....but he was not interested. He could not picture life without drinking. He could not see any level of negative effects from drinking that would outweigh his (?) need to drink. He went on to a DUI (BAC > 0.35%) conviction some years later, lost his license and kept on driving so far as I know. He probably kept driving drunk too, though he lived 300 miles away and I have no direct knowledge.

Yeah I worked with an alcoholic that had at least 3 DUIs... he knew he was never going to drive again, so he moved close to a bar... that was his solution.

Last time I saw him he was well on his way to skid row... Was a smart guy too... but that didn't matter... alcohol is poison to some people.

The breath locks are becoming more of a standard in dui punishment now, but it's quite obvious how to get around those, too. Incarceration alone will never cut down on this problem (I say cut down 'cause it will never be eliminated). Like other people have said, all the fines, jail time, lack of license will not deter alot of people. I think for the 1st offense, a person should lose their license for 2 years. During the first year, they should spend 3 months in the county jail, then the remainder of the year in a closed treatment center (one in which they leave, they will be locked up again). And, the second year they should be subjected to random drug tests, anywhere, anytime, which means they could come to your work, or wake you up at 1 in the morning. But, all this costs money, and right now, your president has seen fit to put all the money for social projects into something else. All this means is what everyone says: something needs to be done. I speak from experience when I say the laws we have now simply don't work.

I am anti alcohol.
I wish there was a way to erase it from society.
I have heard of alcoholics drinking after shave when they couldnt get booze.
Most people would be shocked at how many drunk drivers never get caught driving drunk.
My father inlaw was one of the worst alcoholics I have ever seen, yet no DUI and no accidents in 50 years of driving, most people never realized he was drunk.

But I find inebriated people unpleasnt even when they are not driving.

I am anti alcohol.
I wish there was a way to erase it from society.
I have heard of alcoholics drinking after shave when they couldnt get booze.
Most people would be shocked at how many drunk drivers never get caught driving drunk.
My father inlaw was one of the worst alcoholics I have ever seen, yet no DUI and no accidents in 50 years of driving, most people never realized he was drunk.

But I find inebriated people unpleasnt even when they are not driving.I feel like that about people who talk too loud. My mother-in-law, she talks too loud all the time. Especially on her cell phone. The people on the other end often don't know how loud she is talking.

I guess it is good neither of us has absolute power.

I feel like that about people who talk too loud. My mother-in-law, she talks too loud all the time. Especially on her cell phone. The people on the other end often don't know how loud she is talking.

I guess it is good neither of us has absolute power.

Boy the world would be a totall disater if I had any power at all.

But I sympathize with you, a mother inlaw that talks to loud is a double whammy.

I think that locking them up in jail just clogs the courts, and the prision system. ... ... but at least they can't drive in jail.

I knew a guy here that at last count (2003) had 8 dui's. Because he had a decent lawyer, he was STILL allowed to drive back and forth to work---the thing is, he is a plumbing GC and he was constantly driving (legal, under the terms). While on probation, he had a dui wreck--involving injury. He had to go to a halfway house (still going to work), and while he was living there he had another dui wreck. He went to jail for six months only.

It is strange, because after couple of dui wrecks, although he may still be driving lgally, no insurance company will accept him and probably no employer will be willing to hire him (if his job involves driving).

If he is self employed, wrecking a couple of cars or trucks, a pile of legal fees and huge insurance premium, his business is not going to be very profitable.

He was already established in the "business". He inherited his dad's business. money talks.....

Taking away a drivers license does nothing. In the past year, 2 local TV stations have done hidden camera invetigations of people driving to court for their hearings on driving with a suspended licence! They film the people driving in, show them in court getting their suspension extended, then film them getting in their cars and driving away. In the one report, the cops then stopped them again. When the TV station ask them why they were driving, they all said "I got to get around." They had no care in the world about getting caught and suspended some more. Jail time is all that works.

I am anti alcohol.
I wish there was a way to erase it from society.
I have heard of alcoholics drinking after shave when they couldnt get booze.
Most people would be shocked at how many drunk drivers never get caught driving drunk.
My father inlaw was one of the worst alcoholics I have ever seen, yet no DUI and no accidents in 50 years of driving, most people never realized he was drunk.

But I find inebriated people unpleasnt even when they are not driving.

Why are you anti alcohol? Let me guess you'd support another prohibition. That would be a bad idea.

I have hear the same thing about alcohols drinking after shave & things like cold medicines.

BTW, I like a good cold beer after a long hot bike ride or after a day of working in the yard. On special occasions my wife & I enjoy a nice glass of wine with dinner. Or if we are at a party we will enjoy a drink or 2. There is nothing wrong with that if it is consumed responsibly.

There is also nothing wrong with smoking a joint, or snorting some powder, or bumping some black up your arm, or taking non-scripted pills, as long as it's consumed responsibly. I guess acid or mushrooms would be way off the chart. Is there any way to alter the senses that IS actually responsible?

There is also nothing wrong with smoking a joint, or snorting some powder, or bumping some black up your arm, or taking non-scripted pills, as long as it's consumed responsibly. I guess acid or mushrooms would be way off the chart. Is there any way to alter the senses that IS actually responsible?

There is something wrong with using illegal substances. But whether a person is under the influence of legal or illegal substances if their driving ability is affected by it it is against the law to drive. The law does not specify what the substance has to be, it is pretty general in that respect. The only differance is with legal substances you can only be charged with the operating while under the influence, with illegal substances you can be charged with illegal use &/or posession & operating a vehicle under the influence.

There is also nothing wrong with smoking a joint, or snorting some powder, or bumping some black up your arm, or taking non-scripted pills, as long as it's consumed responsibly. I guess acid or mushrooms would be way off the chart. Is there any way to alter the senses that IS actually responsible?Are you saying everything we do in this "free" society has to pass a "responsibility test?"

No muscle cars, no SUVs, houses would be one or two bedrooms. No houses in the flood plains. Forget the right to bear arms; A woman's right to choose...

I don't know how it is elsewhere, but in Massachusetts, it's difficult to actually lose a license for drunk driving, operating to endanger, or pretty much anything else, and even if you do, an experienced lawyer will get it back for you. (already noted by other members) The Boston yellow pages contain page after page of ads from lawyers who guarantee that "you keep your license, or no fee!" It's quite the cottage industry.

The only way everyone will know what they did is if they are required to register as a convicted drunk driver.

In certain states, Iowa is one of them, convicted sex offenders are required to register & can not live within a certain distance of any school, daycare or public place where childern congegrate. The ACLU is pissed about this but to ****ing bad, this is one law I agree with & support.

Maybe a convicted drunk driver, whether their actions killed someone or not should be required to register & can not live within so much distance of anywhere that sells or serves alcohol.


This is a horrible idea. All it does is puts a scarlet letter on people. Even if they done wrong, people should be given second chances.

Even the sex offender lists are screwed up as is, putting stupid HS seniors who streaked at a school football game into the same category as a child molester.

That said, I am all for a law requiring ANY DUI driver to have their car confiscated, license suspended for 1 year (first offense) up to life (repeat offenders), and for those hwo get their license back...they should be required by law for the next 10 years to have any vehicle operated by this person to have a breathalyzer ignition lock installed. Optionally, rental car companies could provide cars with these installed for an additional fee.

We need to make it clear that we do not want drunks on the street, but at the same time we need to keep from becoming a police state...and making all kinds of registries for various crimes is going to lead to exactly that.

I do however believe a DUI ending in a fatality should be a minimum 5 year suspension, and a lifetime of having the breathalyzer ignition locks in that person's car.

Taking away a drivers license does nothing. In the past year, 2 local TV stations have done hidden camera invetigations of people driving to court for their hearings on driving with a suspended licence! They film the people driving in, show them in court getting their suspension extended, then film them getting in their cars and driving away. In the one report, the cops then stopped them again. When the TV station ask them why they were driving, they all said "I got to get around." They had no care in the world about getting caught and suspended some more. Jail time is all that works.


I was all for this, but after my experience last weekend (having to walk 7miles due to public transit shutting down at 6pm)...I realized something.

The reason these people drive drunk or on suspended licenses is that the options out there suck....in the US there are very few, if any 24-7 public transportation options. And in most places where the public transit sucks, so does the odds of getting a taxi in a timely manner.

This leaves just bikes....but even that cannot be done safely by an inebriated person.

We need to also provide options. Just jacking up the sentences will do nothing except create more court cases. There is a reason why these folks are being allowed to drive as soon as two weeks after....we need to fix public transit, and fix it now...so drunk drivers do NOT have an excuse to get their license back prematurely.

This is a horrible idea. All it does is puts a scarlet letter on people. Even if they done wrong, people should be given second chances.

Even the sex offender lists are screwed up as is, putting stupid HS seniors who streaked at a school football game into the same category as a child molester.

That said, I am all for a law requiring ANY DUI driver to have their car confiscated, license suspended for 1 year (first offense) up to life (repeat offenders), and for those hwo get their license back...they should be required by law for the next 10 years to have any vehicle operated by this person to have a breathalyzer ignition lock installed. Optionally, rental car companies could provide cars with these installed for an additional fee.

We need to make it clear that we do not want drunks on the street, but at the same time we need to keep from becoming a police state...and making all kinds of registries for various crimes is going to lead to exactly that.

I do however believe a DUI ending in a fatality should be a minimum 5 year suspension, and a lifetime of having the breathalyzer ignition locks in that person's car.

No it's not a horrible idea. If a person does not want to be shamed into having to be part of a group of people who are downcasts of society should have better control over themselves & be more responsible. Part of the problem the ACLU & other groups *****ing about the sex offender lists is the fact that it does shame the person & it is an embarrasment to them. Every time they apply for a job or apply for a place to rent they have to reveal that they are on the list of registered sex offenders. Making it very difficult for them to get a job or a place to live. Well to ****ing bad! They should have kept their hands to themselves & kept themselves dressed unlike the idiot kid at the football game if they did not want to be put on that kind of list.

I think the same should apply to drunk drivers. I think even after a first offense it should be a felony, not a misdimeanor, should go to prison, not just jail for at least 5 years, & should lose the privilige to drive & own a vehicle & should be put on a list of registered offenders for life. If they offend again it is life in prison.

No it's not a horrible idea. If a person does not want to be shamed into having to be part of a group of people who are downcasts of society should have better control over themselves & be more responsible. Part of the problem the ACLU & other groups *****ing about the sex offender lists is the fact that it does shame the person & it is an embarrasment to them. Every time they apply for a job or apply for a place to rent they have to reveal that they are on the list of registered sex offenders. Making it very difficult for them to get a job or a place to live. Well to ****ing bad! They should have kept their hands to themselves & kept themselves dressed unlike the idiot kid at the football game if they did not want to be put on that kind of list.

I think the same should apply to drunk drivers. I think even after a first offense it should be a felony, not a misdimeanor, should go to prison, not just jail for at least 5 years, & should lose the privilige to drive & own a vehicle & should be put on a list of registered offenders for life. If they offend again it is life in prison.

What you are saying is a person should be punished permanently for a single mistake, regardless of what happened as a result of it. So, where do we draw the line....how many lists shall we have? I don't think you get the larger picture, and that is not about these lists shaming people...it's about how these lists can be used to punish someone long after they learned their lesson. Is this crime severe enough to warrant this?

I'm all for being tough on those who refuse to learn from their mistakes, or have harmed others from it....however it needs to be done in a responsible fashion.

As for the sex offender list...that was intended to keep people aware of predators, not morons. Putting them together is apples to oranges. That list was made to keep track of threats to the people in the area that person lives in. Any employer worth their salt does a cirminal background check on applicants....they would quickly find out what crimes they have committed without such lists, since it would pop up on the background check.

That leads again to how far will this list be abused....will it get stretched to public intoxication? Underage drinking? Open container violation (outside of vehicles)? Will laws just be conveniently structured to put people into the list? At the end of the day, will this list actually make anyone safer, or is it just "feel good" legislation?


Seriously N_C, it's starting to sound like you are a little too angry and need to chill out a bit and look at the situation again once you calm down some. Your prison comment was evidence of this. If you asked for that in a bill, it would be shot down with a quickness. Prison is for people who cannot reform.

What you are saying is a person should be punished permanently for a single mistake, regardless of what happened as a result of it. So, where do we draw the line....how many lists shall we have? I don't think you get the larger picture, and that is not about these lists shaming people...it's about how these lists can be used to punish someone long after they learned their lesson. Is this crime severe enough to warrant this?

I'm all for being tough on those who refuse to learn from their mistakes, or have harmed others from it....however it needs to be done in a responsible fashion.

So here are two scenarios:

Man goes out, gets in his car, and driving past a school, deliberately drives off the road and mows down 12 people at a bus shelter, killing 4, putting 8 in hospital with life threatening injuries, and doing $25,000 in property damage.

Man goes out, has 14 beers, gets into his car, and driving past a school, runs off the road, and mows down 12 people at a bus shelter, killing 4, putting 8 in hospital with life threatening injuries, and doing $25,000 in property damage.

Both instances involve a deliberate act, in one case intentionally driving off the road, in the second, driving after consuming large amounts of alcohol, both involve the use of a car as a weapon of mass destruction, and both have the same result.

Why then is the one given 200 years in prison, and the other given a slap on the wrist? Drinking alcohol has, for a long time, legally absolved someone of the results of his/her actions. This needs to stop, and a lot of people would be unwilling to risk a DUI, if they were held legally accountable for the results of that DUI.

Here is a possible punishment, having .05 BAC, gets you a 1 year licence suspension, .06 gets you a 3 year licence suspension, .07 gets you a 5 year licence suspension, .08 means your licence is cancelled, and you are banned from attempting to acquire a licence for 5 years. If you are caught driving during your suspension, you must serve one year as a guest of the state, and your suspension clock starts all over again, when you are released.

However, if you involved in the injury/death of persons, or damage to property, then that should be considered a deliberate act, and you are held as accountable as if you had committed those acts, stone cold sober. You should be just as liable, whether you are driving a car, motorcycle, scooter or bicycle while Intoxicated.

Why are you anti alcohol? Let me guess you'd support another prohibition. That would be a bad idea.

I have hear the same thing about alcohols drinking after shave & things like cold medicines.

BTW, I like a good cold beer after a long hot bike ride or after a day of working in the yard. On special occasions my wife & I enjoy a nice glass of wine with dinner. Or if we are at a party we will enjoy a drink or 2. There is nothing wrong with that if it is consumed responsibly.


Why am I anti alcohol
My step mother ran a Alcohol rehab center for 20 years.
My Father in law died from alcohol related problems.
My Mother in law died in a alcohol related car crash
One of my younger brothers is an alcoholic.
Same younger brother was hit by a drunk when he was around 8.
Virtually every one who drinks says it is not a problem.
Virtually every one who drinks says they can quit anytime they want, yet they never do.
Vitually every one who drinks believes that drinking one or two drinks has no effect on them, yet can not explain why they drink only one or two if it has no effect.

No, I dont beleive prohibition would work. History has shown that drinkers cant do with out.
I believe alcohol like every other mind altering substance, is here to stay.
But I dont have to like it.

Curiosty, how does one get drunk responsably?

The only way everyone will know what they did is if they are required to register as a convicted drunk driver.

In certain states, Iowa is one of them, convicted sex offenders are required to register & can not live within a certain distance of any school, daycare or public place where childern congegrate. The ACLU is pissed about this but to ****ing bad, this is one law I agree with & support.

Maybe a convicted drunk driver, whether their actions killed someone or not should be required to register & can not live within so much distance of anywhere that sells or serves alcohol.
The guy had 1 DUI. Do you favor lifetime driving bans for 1 DUI?

As to your broadside against critics of sex offender residency restrictions, it's not just the ACLU who thinks the laws are a bad idea, your own Iowa prosecutors (http://www.iowa-icaa.com/ICAA%20STATEMENTS/Sex%20Offender%20Residency%20Statement%20Feb%2014%2006%20for%20website.pdf#search=%22%22IOWA%20COUNT Y%20ATTORNEYS%20ASSOCIATION%22%20sex%20offenders%22) say that at best, the restrictions don't help, and they make things worse in some ways. The Iowa prosecutors' association urges the legislature to look for effective ways to protect the public.

(And if you don't live near a school, the residency restrictions just mean that sex offenders will be forced to move to your neighborhood. I live near a school, so that means that residency restrictions require sex offenders to move out of my neigborhood and into yours. Thank you for your support. )

Are your opinions about DUI as well thought through as your ideas about sex offenders?.

well for one i don't think the HS senior streaking at a football game should have been put on a sex offender list, thats silly, as long as, by "streaking" you mean he was running naked across the football field until someone had the guts to tackle him, i think those moments are hilarious, and his intent was just that, to be dumb/funny. if he were to stop in front of the cheerleaders and do something gross maybe he should be on the list. but just streaking should be more of a misdemeanor public nudity charge or something.

As far as drunk driving I think there should be a combination of improvements. public transit of course because i'd think if i were an alcoholic and i must go to the bar no matter what, and it was too far to bike/walk and the bus didn't go there, i'd be in a hard spot (personally i think bars are too expensive, if i drink alone i do it at home watching tv and do not leave the house except to perhaps walk the dog (puppies need walked every hour or 2 or the piddle themselves)) i generally only go to bars with friends, and there is usually a 100% sober designated driver. Though even if i were an alcoholic and the bar was within biking range, biking while drunk is even more accident prone than driving, think of riding at night with no headlight, bad balance etc.. but at least its only more dangerous to the rider, he's much less likely of killing 12 people and causing $25k of damage. but yeah, upgrade public transit so drunks have no excuse to drive (+1 to this as my father works in public transit). then make punishments harsher, but forgiving. like after a 1st offense - 1 yr suspension, $2500 fine if the driver wasn't reckless, if he was reckless but no injury then perhaps 1 yr prison or a huge amount of community service. and if there was injury, he gets the reckless penalty plus an assault charge, manslaughter, murder 3, or whatever. then if there's a second offense mandatory 5yrs in prison and a bigger fine. 3rd offense life in prison. but don't require a registration list, a criminal history already would make them a "repeat offender".
(in retrospect i wouldn't want a 2 time drunk driver living next to my kids or their school, or driving in the same parking lot as me at 7am if they stopped drinking at 5am - good point)

also, in high school a new a bunch of guys that would recreationally drive drunk. i mean they would plan on getting very drunk and then driving around because they thought it was fun. i never really understood that... a few years ago i played a driving video game called "need for speed 3" nice game, i was very good at it, i could get 1st place in every race without retrying any of them. i could leave skid marks in the exact same place on every lap so that it looked like only one set of skid marks. any way, i got a little drunk one night (barely drunk at all actually) and played the game, i was unsettled by how bad i was. i was hitting other racers, ramming walls, went backwards for half a lap before i realized it, etc...

as an added note, my wife and I were recently in court suing a lady that owed my wife money, and we showed up very early to see how everything worked. we observed 3 cases before us, every one of them was a driver that was driving drunk with no license or insurance. also strangely they were all young (less than 25) mexican males that didn't speak english.

this guy got 4 felony counts
http://bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=229117