Any wiggle room (car stopped on side of freeway)

[fagettaboutit]

fagettaboutit, I don't care if a drunk believes they are not impaired, and I don't care if they kill themselves. Drinking and driving is a choice, and it is one that kills innocent people. There is no NEED for anyone to drive after drinking.

Ohbullship, the discussion had nothing to do with the dangers of drunk drivers. It had to to with the testing methods and people being charged with drunk driving when they're not drunk.

As for drunks killing themselves and innoncent people, you'll be glad to know that 75% of all alcohol-related fatalities involved the drunk driver killing themselves only (single car accident). The actually number of innoncent people killed by a drunk driver is less than 3,000 per year.

Driving is a privilege, not a right.

Not entirely true. The US Supreme Court acknowledges that the right to drive is a privilege. However, once the state has given someone a license, that person has a property right to it. He has a RIGHT to not have it taken away without giving him due process first. Due process means a fair procedure by which he can contest the confiscation of his property.

It might be that people using phones are a danger on the roadways, but that has nothing to do with drinking and driving.

It might be? You seem to have no problem comprehending the given concept that a driver with .08 BAC is a danger to our roadways. Well a driver on the cell phone is the same as a driver with a .10 BAC. Who is more dangerous now?

A drunk driver is still a danger, no matter how many other dangers exist. One impairment has nothing to do with the other. Making it a crime to talk on the phone while driving is NOT going to make it safe to drive drunk. One danger is not related to the other.

A drunk isn't going to drive more safely because a sober person with a cell phone is a danger.

No, but when you want to use BAC to consider whether a driver is dangerous, both are dangerous. What's so wrong with giving both the same extent of the law?

Driving drunk is wrong AND so is driving while talking on the cell phone. If you're willing to put someone in jail for driving drunk, do the same for the cell phone user. If roadway safety is you're goal, you shouldn't have a problem with that.

Are you aware that many of the people who have a "high tolerance" for alcohol are only capable of controlling SOME of the appearance of being drunk?

Some people can handle a drink or two, some can't. Does that have to with controlling the appearance? No it has to do with some can handle alcohol, some can't.

While one might be able to talk without a slur, or walk a straight line, they might not be able to react quickly enough.

There are MANY aspects besides alcohol or drugs that affects one's ability to react quick enough. It's just that alcohol and drugs have been put in the forefront. If only alcohol and drugs were the problem, 75% of all roadway fatalites wouldn't be caused by sober drivers.

The dangers in driving drunk are not associated with the ability to talk, or walk a line. Neither of those things are relevant to driving, yet those are the things the hard core drinker can most easily control.

Really? Tell the NHTSA that the ability to walk a line isn't relevant to driving. That's one of the FSTs that's used to charge you with the crime - can you walk a straight line among other things.

It is simple to avoid a DUI, if you must go out to drink, then take along a driver. I have been the driver for friends of mine, and I have been the one drinking. Neither of those positions are terribly taxing to a person who has friends.

I agree, having a designated driver is the best way to go. But what happens if you haven't been drinking and you still get charged with DUI? Think it can't happen to you? Sober drivers are not immune of being accused of DUI.

Your buddies may party up a storm while you drink water, but do you think the officer that pulls you over and smells the alcohol from your drunk buddies is going to let you just drive away without testing you first?

You're coordination better be REALLY good, the machine better be right on cue and you better HOPE the officer believes your designated driver story. If any of those are off, you're taking a trip in the squad car. Think it'll all go away with an apology? No, you'll still need to get an attorney because after all, you were arrested and that stays on your record.

The laws are in place because drunk driving is a danger that can be made less. If only one child dies because of the carelessness of an *******, that is one child too many.

That's right, drunk driving is a danger. But what amazes me is the same people who talk of the importance of saving one life put the blinders on when it comes to cell phone while driving.

MANY children are killed at the hands of a cell phone user. Don't you believe those lives are important too?

How do you know if someone was talking on the cell phone? Call their cell phone provider and get their cell phone record.

Advocating morons behind the wheel is a lost cause because many of us don't want to have to worry if that guy can handle that many drinks, or if it is only his speech that is not impaired.

I'm not advocating for morons behind the wheel. You are. I'm saying what's wrong with treating them all the same? Drunk driving, driving on drugs, using the cell phone while driving, driving while fatigued. Why do you want to stop with one type of moron? Remember, drunk morons kill less than 10%. Sober morons kill over 75%.

I like the idea of a machine deciding the fate of a drunk because a machine is impartial.

Impartial perhaps, but it's a machine. There's no guarantee that any machine will be 100% accurate. Would you buy a used car that hasn't been properly maintained? Oh sure, Carl's machine's are all properly maintained, but can you be sure that the police department in your town is properly maintaining their machines. You may like impartial, but that machine can be the deciding factor in your DUI conviction and there's no way to ever question the machine. If you haven't been drinking or taking drugs, do yourself a favor, skip the machine and go straight for the blood.

And if you're ever falsely accused of DUI, impartial is going to be REALLY difficult to come by.

We all know the legal limits, and how to avoid breaking these laws.

No people don't. People have been charged with DUI even while not being drunk. Again, you don't even have to being drinking to get a DUI. People know about drunk driving, but ask a mother who is taking meds for her postpartum depression if she knows those meds could make her DUI? Any drug that can cause impairment is illegal drive while

I would rather count on the machine than some rednecks idea of how many is too many for himself. Too many people become ten feet tall and bullet-proof when they drink. Their judgment is impaired, and they use that impaired judgment to decide if they have had too much to drink. I would rather not give the bullies charge of the playground.

Again, judgement impairment doesn't begin and end with drinking. It happens every second of the day and trust me, alcohol isn't the cause. I don't want some drunk redneck on the road any more than I want some redneck yuckin' it up with his buddy on the cell phone.

Lowering the BAC level more, counting on machines that are capable of given false positives and ignoring the other dangers to our roadways aren't going to make the roadways any safer.

If you're so interested in saving one life, tell your friends and family to do the easiest thing a driver could ever do. When getting into the car, turn the cell phone off. It may save a life.

 

[fagettaboutit]

yes, my car was in low, engine off - car actually broke down - wouldn't start

not sure why I didn't put into park

You would think that a DUI charge involves actually DRIVING, but people have been charged with DUI while sitting in an car that wasn't being driven. I would imagine the prosecutor would question how did your car get there if you weren't driving. They could try to claim before you broke down your BAC level was at least .13.

Excerpt written by Lawrence Taylor...

..."Well, it means driving. Engine on, moving, steering, shifting, braking... that kind of thing, right? Wrong.

Let’s take a look at a few examples of how law enforcement, prosecutors and courts have increasingly expanded that seemingly simple word to widen the DUI dragnet -- by doing violence to the clear language and intent of the law.

- Engine on, but vehicle parked....What if the car isn’t moving? What if the individual is just sitting behind the wheel of his car, parked but with the engine on, say, to keep the heater working? Many courts will require some movement of the vehicle, but others consider this "driving" or "operating".

- Engine on, but vehicle inoperable....An Ohio court had no trouble finding "driving" where the defendant was behind the wheel of her car, engine on -- but stuck in the mud with two blown tires. City of Columbus v. Seabolt (607 N.E.2d 61).

- Engine off, vehicle parked....How about if the engine is off? If you’re just sitting behind the wheel of a parked car? More disagreement among the courts. The Colorado Supreme Court found "driving" where the defendant was behind the wheel of a car in a private parking lot, engine off -- but the lights on. MVD vs.Warman (763 P.2d 558).

- Engine off, and vehicle inoperable....What if the car has a mechanical problem or is out of gas? If the car won’t start, how can it be driven? Not a problem, according to some courts anxious to sustain convictions."

source: http://www.duiblog.com/2004/11/12#a42

 

[Dash8Driver]

Actually your statement isn't entirely true. First off, if a pilot has two glass of wine and waits six hours, his BAC will .00. The FAA can't prove how much a pilot drank, they go by what the pilot's BAC is at the time of reporting to work or during flight. A pilot is not allowed to fly with a BAC over .01. Each airline has their own "rules" (IE firing, suspending), but the FAA rules for testing .02 - .039 is to remove the person from position duties for 8 hours or until retested below .02. Can you have over a .01 BAC after eight hours of sleeping? Sure. But it's not caused by a glass of merlot with dinner the night before.

WRONG! Sorry but you have no clue what your talking about. Heres the actual reg.

91.17 Alcohol or drugs.
(a) No person may act or attempt to act as a crewmember of a civil aircraft—

(1) Within 8 hours after the consumption of any alcoholic beverage;

(2) While under the influence of alcohol;

(3) While using any drug that affects the person's faculties in any way contrary to safety; or

(4) While having .04 percent by weight or more alcohol in the blood.

My mistake on the .02

Airlines don't have there own rules about this. If you get a DUI/DWI or get busted trying to flying intoxicated you LOOSE YOUR LICENSE. Even if you refuse to test, poof bye bye license. In the case of Captains (a lot of First Officers have this license also), they may loose their ATP (Airline Transport Pilot) license since one of the requirements is to be of good moral charachter and trying to fly people around drunk is obviously not very moral.

Well then I guess your theory could save the airlines millions. If it's so easy, you should tell them to remove the two co-pilots with each flight and fly with just one pilot. Since it's easier than operating a car, encourage that pilot to gab on a phone, change CDs (he should be able to operate a cd player) or fly after just four hours of sleep. Hey, it's what drivers do all the time and since flying is easier, why should pilots be any different?!

The only airplane in service today that has two co-pilots is the 727 and maybe some older 747, otherwise it's a Captain and First Officer.

Well actually the two pilot rule is for operation of the aircraft since the cockpits are so "large" it is hard to manipulate all the controls from one seat or the other.

Your comment about gabbing on the phone, YOU TWIT, we talk on the radio the whole time! Change radio frequencies, program the navigation/autopilot, manage power and engine controls, maintain altitude, airspeed, climb rates, decent rates, bank angles etc. It still is easier than driving a car in rush hour. Its called multi-tasking.

Fatigue is a huge issue and if the flying public had any clue as to what kind of duty times we pilots are subjected to, the train would rapidly become the most used form of mass transportation in the US.

D8D

 

[fagettaboutit]

WRONG! Sorry but you have no clue what your talking about. Heres the actual reg.

91.17 Alcohol or drugs.
(a) No person may act or attempt to act as a crewmember of a civil aircraft—

(1) Within 8 hours after the consumption of any alcoholic beverage;

(2) While under the influence of alcohol;

(3) While using any drug that affects the person's faculties in any way contrary to safety; or

(4) While having .04 percent by weight or more alcohol in the blood.

My mistake on the .02

Airlines don't have there own rules about this. If you get a DUI/DWI or get busted trying to flying intoxicated you LOOSE YOUR LICENSE. In the case of Captains, they may loose their ATP (Airline Transport Pilot) license since one of the requirements is to be of good moral charachter and trying to fly people around drunk is obviously not very moral.

My bad on the 8 hour rule. I can admit being wrong. But quite frankly I'm not sure what a pilot's restrictions with regards to DUI has to do with a motorist. Pilots are also forbidden to take zoloft, celexa and prozac. That doesn't seem to stop the mothers taking zoloft or celexa for their postpartum from driving about town with their baby in the backseat. It also doesn't stop those taking prozac for their depression.

Well actually the two pilot rule is for operation of the aircraft since the cockpits are so "large" it is hard to manipulate all the controls from one seat or the other.

Yes, so it requires more than one person to fly a plane. But it's so easy you would think they could do all the multi-tasking alone.

Your comment about gabbing on the phone, YOU TWIT, we talk on the radio the whole time! Change radio frequencies, program the navigation/autopilot, manage power and engine controls, maintain altitude, airspeed, climb rates, decent rates, bank angles etc. It still is easier than driving a car in rush hour. Its called multi-tasking.

Twit huh? Nice. Do you need to call someone a demeaning name to try to get your point across? Multi-tasking, gee thanks, I didn't know what that word meant until now.

Fatigue is a huge issue and if the flying public had any clue as to what kind of duty times we pilots are subjected to, the train would rapidly become the most used form of mass transportation in the US.

I don't doubt it. I gave up flying before 9-11. If people realized the condition of the plane's equipment before flying, they'd give up flying for sure. My cousin was an mechanic with a major airline. He never got on any flight until he knew who was responsible for maintaining the plane for that flight. Seems the planes are always pushed to the brink. As he always said, miracles happened every day.[/QUOTE]

 

[OhBullship]

I think you have missed the point all along. You have attempted to muddy the water by placing issues that are unrelated together, and I suspect that is your only strategy, because you have not offered a legitimate reason for not enforcing DIU laws.

The plain and simple truth is that no one accidentally drinks and drives. People who have no drinks do not have problems with FSTs, or breathalyzers. I have never said that drinking was the only problem while driving, but it is the intended discussion in a DUI forum. Of course, you could pay for the webspace and open a forum to discuss other dangers while driving.

If you don't drink then get behind the wheel, you have nothing to worry about. I have been stopped for speeding, but the officer never suspected drinking or drugs. The police are not on some wild crusade to arrest sober people for DUI, they have better things to do.

In short, it doesn't matter how safe you believe drunks are on the road, most of society does not agree, and YOU are stuck complying with OUR laws. You aren't going to change that with your claims of cell-phone dangers. If you are upset by the use of phones on the roads, start a petition and change the laws. You have a much better chance of creating more driving laws in the name of public safety than you do changing the DUI laws. Too many of us do not agree, and will not agree.

Your circular arguments are unconvincing. Relaxing our standards for DUI arrests will NOT add to our safety, it would take away from our safety. No matter how many other dangers exist, drinking and driving is still not going to be safe, or tolerated.

 

[NORCALXXX]

It is "--PARIDISE--", I know the correct spelling is paradise.........

I do believe that him taking the course on his own, will help him out in court. I truly hope I have answered all of your *IMPORTANT* question's.

I had spoken briefly with a lawyer who told me to pleade no contest, and opined that I would get the standard Northern California misdemeanor penalty
of 1500 fine + 6 days work program + 30 hr course + 3 yr informal probabtion (+ 90 day restricted license, with the DMV penalty of 1 month hard suspension + 5 month restriction - not really too big)


and ..

I got exactly that - w/ 1 day served I do 5 days Weekend work program

I start DUI classes tomorrow - never bothered to mention I was already reg'd for those - in Cal with the DMV you need that anyway to get a full license back so ...

 

[fagettaboutit]

I think you have missed the point all along. You have attempted to muddy the water by placing issues that are unrelated together, and I suspect that is your only strategy, because you have not offered a legitimate reason for not enforcing DIU laws.

No, I haven't missed the point. You're just having a difficult time understanding that if you're going to criminalize one group in the name of roadway safety, then go after them all. What's so muddy about that?

You feel the need to ignore that because it's so easy not to drink and drive. And you want me to believe that if everyone did hat, we all be driving among safe drivers. Drunk driving isn't the biggest danger on our roadways. So because you don't want to receive the same treatment as a drunk driver for speeding, you're going to turn a blind eye.

Where did I write that DUI laws shouldn't be enforced? I've said that the testing methods need to be better and before someone is arrested for DRUNK driving, they better be drunk and they better be driving (hence "drunk driving"). Go back and read what I wrote from the beginning.

The plain and simple truth is that no one accidentally drinks and drives.

If someone is drunk, they should be arrested. But no one accidentally talks on a cell phone or drives 30 mph over the speed limit, tailgates and many other dangerous driving actions.

People who have no drinks do not have problems with FSTs, or breathalyzers.

So you think people who don't have problems with FSTs or breathalyzers aren't being arrested for DUI. Stay in denial no more, go back and read KYSassy's posts on this forum.
And check out this story: http://www.abcactionnews.com/stories/2004/02/040219dui.shtml

Watch this video: http://kcnc.dayport.com/viewer/viewerpage.php?Art_ID=2409&NoAds=true&tf=investigatesviewer.tpl

If you don't drink then get behind the wheel, you have nothing to worry about.

Really? Be sure to read this case; Woman gets arrested for DUI while in her wheelchair - not car - a wheelchair in her front yard.
http://www.stpetersburgtimes.com/2004/01/10/Hernando/Wheelchair_DUI_case_f.shtml

Again, people do get arrested for DUI with no drug use or after drinking zilch. You're just having a difficult time wrapping your mind around that.

I have been stopped for speeding, but the officer never suspected drinking or drugs.

Speeding huh. Of course, that's no big deal right? What's a little speeding among sober drivers? How many drunk friends were in the car with you during that late night pull over?

The police are not on some wild crusade to arrest sober people for DUI, they have better things to do.

No, many on a wild crusade to arrest any driver that had a drink - not just drunk drivers.

In short, it doesn't matter how safe you believe drunks are on the road, most of society does not agree, and YOU are stuck complying with OUR laws.

Where did I ever say I believed drunk drivers are safe on the roads? Most of society, like yourself, doesn't know that drunk driving isn't the biggest danger to our roadways. But you, like most, don't want to lose your reckless driving options. You believe as long as you’re not drinking, your speeding isn't capable of killing someone. You want to yap on your cell phone without regards for anyone else's safety. You want to remain ignorant and hide behind strict laws for drinking, but you expect all the other unsafe driving to be ignored because it's inconvenient for you. Glass houses.

You aren't going to change that with your claims of cell-phone dangers. If you are upset by the use of phones on the roads, start a petition and change the laws. You have a much better chance of creating more driving laws in the name of public safety than you do changing the DUI laws. Too many of us do not agree, and will not agree.

You're having too difficult of time understanding the concept here. If you're going to criminalize one group in the name of roadway safety, why not go after them all?

Your circular arguments are unconvincing. Relaxing our standards for DUI arrests will NOT add to our safety, it would take away from our safety. No matter how many other dangers exist, drinking and driving is still not going to be safe, or tolerated.

If a person is drunk, they should be arrested (I've said this a million times). But if you put all your focus in drunk driving, you miss the opportunity to save the other 75%. In Utah last year, 20 fatalities involved a drunk driver. But 60 involved a sober drowsy driver and 102 involved a sober excessive speeder. How did YOUR laws protect those 162 people that were killed. Have a look for yourself: http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,595097476,00.html

You think it's not neccessary to treat ALL dangerous driving the same. No one makes a driver speed or talk on a cell phone. Those are choices like drinking and driving. It's just that sober irresponsible driving kills FOUR times more people. Funny what you're willing to tolerate.

 

[OhBullship]

You're correct about one thing, I did miss one point.....you know, the point about understanding that you aren't worth arguing with. Oh well, it doesn't matter how much you argue what the law SHOULD be, the law IS the way I want it to be on this matter, so too bad. Chances are that it will become more strict as time goes by, and that the penalties will become harsher for those who decide to drink and drive, not less.

If you want to actually make a point about sobriety, that's fine. If you want to discuss the dangers of driving with a phone, then go find a forum that is dedicated to phoning and driving, or start a lobby group and push for people with cell phone on their breath to go to jail. You aren't going to convince me, or anyone else that it should be okay to drink and drive, or that if every driving danger doesn't have the same penalties as DUI, that we should not enforce DUI.

 

[fagettaboutit]

You aren't going to convince me, or anyone else that it should be okay to drink and drive, or that if every driving danger doesn't have the same penalties as DUI, that we should not enforce DUI.

That's right, I'm not going to convince YOU. But don't put words in my mouth. I never said don't enforce DUI laws because the penalties aren't the same. I said the penalties should be the same. Something that you're apparently afraid of because that means your speeding will make you just as much as a criminal as a drunk driver. You don't give a hoot about roadway safety and the facts.

See ya.