|
InitialDave posted:I'll take "DUI" with a pinch of salt unless I know all the details. Aren't there some proper bullshit laws that'll see you get hit with one in a situation that isn't even close to the "drunk driver endangering others" scenario that immediately comes to mind from the acronym? Define what you mean, but in some cases, yes. Also, a .08 is completely different than a .30.
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 21:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 06:31 |
|
|
Does the idea of treating the substance abuse not occur to you at any point?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 21:50
|
|
|
nm posted:Define what you mean, but in some cases, yes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 21:55
|
|
|
Cakefool posted:Does the idea of treating the substance abuse not occur to you at any point? No, my brain went straight to hand removal. Treating substance abuse might be worth pursuing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 22:07
|
|
|
InitialDave posted:I hear stuff about someone sleeping in their car, or in their driveway/garage working on stuff being technically "DUI". I don't know if it's true or just hyperbole, but I'm not in any way trusting enough of the law and its application to dismiss it out of hand. In many states, yes you can get a DUI if you are driving drunk and realize you shouldn't be driving, and pull over to sleep it off. You wouldn't get one for being in your own driveway or garage.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 22:22
|
|
|
BraveUlysses posted:In many states, yes you can get a DUI if you are driving drunk and realize you shouldn't be driving, and pull over to sleep it off. http://dui.drivinglaws.org/is-it-illegal-to-drive-drunk-on-private-property.htm You can get arrested for it, if keys are in the car and you are in it and over the legal limit for that state. Car doesnt even have to be on, just have keys in it somewhere. Depends on the laws in that state though, for some it might be legal.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 22:26
|
|
|
I can understand getting screwed over by the technical letter of the law once, perhaps even twice, but four goddamn times is too much and you should loving know better. Also, don't blame substance abuse. That's an excuse for being drunk all the time, not for driving drunk. Even if you are literally always above 0.08 BAC, getting behind the wheel is a choice.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 22:29
|
|
|
PT6A posted:I can understand getting screwed over by the technical letter of the law once, perhaps even twice, but four goddamn times is too much and you should loving know better. I agree in theory, but getting an alcoholic sober prevents DUIs for life while putting him in prison solves it for 3 years (and when he gets out he'll crave it even more). The first also probably costs less than the $100,000 3 years of prison will. The problem with the US is that we think way too much about punishing crime and not enough about preventing it. (Which is why here public transit closes an hour before last call, cars parked overnight get towed and ticketed if you choose to take a cab home, and police set up checkpoints to catch people driving home from last call instead.) nm fucked around with this message at 22:35 on Dec 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 22:32
|
|
|
I don't have a strong opinion on putting drunk drivers into jail. The punishment should fit the crime, and if there was no injury to anyone there's no sense in crowding the jails even more. That said, I don't loving want them on the road anymore. Suspend their license until they can get some help and are somehow certified as responsible enough to be allowed back behind a wheel.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 22:40
|
|
|
xzzy posted:That said, I don't loving want them on the road anymore. Suspend their license until they can get some help and are somehow certified as responsible enough to be allowed back behind a wheel. Yeah if they want to abuse substances that's their business, I just don't ever want anyone else put in danger because of it. And having a .08 doesn't mean you're some addict alcoholic, you're just too irresponsible while drinking to realize you shouldn't be driving on the roads, so it makes sense the punishment is you can't drive on the roads.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 22:44
|
|
|
I'm increasingly a fan of breathalyzer interlocks. They could be installed on cars, gun safes, and nasty people at bars.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 22:45
|
|
|
The trouble with suspending licenses is that it doesn't stop people from actually driving.nm posted:The problem with the US is that we think way too much about punishing crime and not enough about preventing it. (Which is why here public transit closes an hour before last call, cars parked overnight get towed and ticketed if you choose to take a cab home, and police set up checkpoints to catch people driving home from last call instead.) While I agree with your main point if you are going out to the pub then wouldn't it make a lot more sense to take a cab there in the first place?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 22:45
|
|
|
CharlieWhiskey posted:I'm increasingly a fan of breathalyzer interlocks. They could be installed on cars, gun safes, and nasty people at bars. Based on past discussion in this thread, the interlocks are almost as unsafe as driving drunk.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 22:49
|
|
|
dissss posted:The trouble with suspending licenses is that it doesn't stop people from actually driving.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 22:53
|
|
|
dissss posted:The trouble with suspending licenses is that it doesn't stop people from actually driving. Let's split the difference: if you're driving with a revoked license due to DUI, and you get caught, then you go to jail because we gave you a chance to not be a fuckup and you decided not to take it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 23:00
|
|
|
^^^^^^ We do that now in California, punish it worse than a DUI and people keep driving (because we don't have a functional public transit system and no one thinks they'll get caught.) 1st offense is 10 days, $2000 fine 2nd is 30d, etc dissss posted:The trouble with suspending licenses is that it doesn't stop people from actually driving. It would be if people thought they were getting drunk. Also, in many cities in the US, good luck getting a cab (though uber has made that easier). And yeah, suspending licenses doesn't do poo poo. Note that alcohol treatment should start with the second DUI. A first dUi is not a sign of alcoholism, but if you get a second in 10 years, you should seriously consider whether or not you have a problem. Really after your first DUI, you should give up any drinking (even 1 beer) combindd with driving. You've proven you can't ben trusted with that. The second shows that willpower didn't work to keep you from drinking and driving a second time, so you either need to give up drinking or driving entirely. If you can't stop drinking, you have a problem. 3rd DUI you should probably stop doing both for a while. Almost every multiple DUI I've seen involved an unhealthy relationship with substances.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 23:10
|
|
|
Actually, everyone should not combine any amount of drinking (even one beer) with driving. It's much better that way. As I see it, the DUI limit is less of a "it's okay to be a bit drunk" sort of thing, and more of a "you get to make exactly this much of a mistake before we drop the hammer" sort of thing. And I say this as someone who drinks almost every day, probably more than I should. I like drinking, I like driving, but holy gently caress they do not go together. If you need to drive, don't drink; if you want to drink, don't drive. I don't have to worry whether I'm "sober enough" because I require complete sobriety before I consider operating a motor vehicle.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 23:37
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Actually, everyone should not combine any amount of drinking (even one beer) with driving. It's much better that way. As I see it, the DUI limit is less of a "it's okay to be a bit drunk" sort of thing, and more of a "you get to make exactly this much of a mistake before we drop the hammer" sort of thing. Well every time you drink you're going to drive, it's just a matter of time. So it's fine to say don't drink AND drive, but when you say don't drink THEN drive, when is then? Do you really need to wait 24 hours to work off one beer, or if you have one at dinner at 6pm and the party ends at 11 you're fine? What abv was that beer you had? How much do you weigh? If someone can't safely operate a vehicle at 0.05 then they probably can't safely operate it at 0.00 either. There's a lot of judgement involved and that's why so many people make the wrong decision, but if we stopped letting anyone who had alcohol in the past 24 hours drive a car it'd probably just tank the economy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 23:48
|
|
|
dissss posted:While I agree with your main point if you are going out to the pub then wouldn't it make a lot more sense to take a cab there in the first place? As someone who's had his license suspended (not for anything driving related) and did take a cab to/from his favorite bar a few times, it starts to add up if you don't live in a cab-heavy area. I was paying more to the cab drivers than to the bar most nights, so I only did that for a few weeks before just resigning myself to not having their delicious wings for six months. Also you get some really funny looks when you show a "non-driver" ID card at the drive through liquor store (my work driving privileges gave me the ability to drive for personal reasons between 9 and noon on Saturdays). That experience definitely confirmed my position that unless we somehow were able to magically fix public transportation (which seems like a pipe dream given our sprawl even if we had the political will) suspending licenses will never be all that effective. It's just too easy to drive illegally. I had lenient enough work privileges and enough local friends to call after hours that I was always legit, but it never got checked. The city I live in has license plate readers on their cars and I'm the sole driver for both of my vehicles so I expected to get pulled over by them from time to time but it never happened. A friend of mine who had the same thing happen only got his docs checked once, when a trainee State Trooper managed to run in to his car.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 23:53
|
|
|
Well if you're going to take a cab home from the bar it's still make more sense to take on the way too - you still have to pick your car up somehow after all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 23:58
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Actually, everyone should not combine any amount of drinking (even one beer) with driving. It's much better that way. As I see it, the DUI limit is less of a "it's okay to be a bit drunk" sort of thing, and more of a "you get to make exactly this much of a mistake before we drop the hammer" sort of thing. Given that studies show that a normal person shows no impairment before 0.05, I disagree. Unless you are light, pretty much everyone can have one beer over an hour before driving (as opposed to "just one beer, officer") without endangering anyone. A large number of people are responsible enough to drink a small amount of alcohol and drive, and we shouldn't change the law because people are irresponsible.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 00:23
|
|
|
Cakefool posted:Does the idea of treating the substance abuse not occur to you at any point? That's a namby-pamby soft-headed liberal decision that does nothing to satiate the average American's lust for punitive justice. Better to just jail them for the next decade or so while doing nothing to treat the drunk-driving problem at its source.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 02:03
|
|
|
Cakefool posted:Does the idea of treating the substance abuse not occur to you at any point? no because this is America and everyone deserves to get raped daily for the slightest transgression. except drugs. suspicion of drugs is punishable by death.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 02:40
|
|
|
Yeah 2 years ago I sat on the jury for a guy who was sleeping in his car, he'd been there for 4 hours (because his car broke down), and cops woke him up and immediately DUI tested him. Because he was tired, he was borderline on all the field sobriety tests they gave him, so they charged him anyway. But he fought it in court and we acquitted him. He still lost his license because he refused the breathalyzer, which is the law here in Colorado.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 02:44
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Actually, everyone should not combine any amount of drinking (even one beer) with driving. It's much better that way. As I see it, the DUI limit is less of a "it's okay to be a bit drunk" sort of thing, and more of a "you get to make exactly this much of a mistake before we drop the hammer" sort of thing. In Ontario, the graduated license system has three levels. G1: Can't drive at night, can't drive on the highway, need to have a fully licensed driver with 4 years' experience sitting beside you, everyone in the car has to have a seat belt, you have to have a BAC of 0.0, and the other driver needs to have a BAC <0.05. (No driving your dad home from the bar.) G2: Everyone in the car has to have a seat belt and you have to have a BAC of 0.0. G: You are now permitted to cram as many people in the car as you want, as long as all the seat belts are in use, and you can have up to 0.05 BAC. Congratulations! Never really understood the reason for the second level. "Well, we want to make sure you've really got the basics down before we let you start drinking a little and letting your passengers endanger their lives." Also, Ontario has a weird situation where the actual criminal legal limit is 0.08, but if you blow between 0.05 and 0.08 you will still get your license suspended, have to go to school, get ignition interlocks installed, and pay smallish fines -- you just don't go to jail.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 03:40
|
|
|
Tubesock Holocaust posted:That's a namby-pamby soft-headed liberal decision that does nothing to satiate the average American's lust for punitive justice. Better to just jail them for the next decade or so while doing nothing to treat the drunk-driving problem at its source. We tried that too, prohibition didn't last. People just need to be less stupid. Seems like the only thing that works.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 03:55
|
|
|
davebo posted:Well every time you drink you're going to drive, it's just a matter of time. So it's fine to say don't drink AND drive, but when you say don't drink THEN drive, when is then? Do you really need to wait 24 hours to work off one beer, or if you have one at dinner at 6pm and the party ends at 11 you're fine? What abv was that beer you had? How much do you weigh? If someone can't safely operate a vehicle at 0.05 then they probably can't safely operate it at 0.00 either. There's a lot of judgement involved and that's why so many people make the wrong decision, but if we stopped letting anyone who had alcohol in the past 24 hours drive a car it'd probably just tank the economy. "No alcohol in your bloodstream" seems like a pretty good standard, and 0.05 is a high enough limit that, if you make a slight mistake on that, you won't lose your license. The rule for pilots, who have no allowable amount for alcohol in their blood, is 8 hours "bottle to throttle" or until there's no alcohol in your blood, so I think 24 hours is a bit much (and would never make it into law). My personal rule is 2 hours per standard drink, up to two drinks, or I sleep it off. nm posted:Given that studies show that a normal person shows no impairment before 0.05, I disagree. Unless you are light, pretty much everyone can have one beer over an hour before driving (as opposed to "just one beer, officer") without endangering anyone. I have my doubts about that, to be honest. At my size, that's 2-3 standard drinks spread out over a reasonable period, and I'm definitely feeling it at that point (and I drink quite frequently, so I imagine it would be worse for someone without a tolerance). I'm guessing that 99% of the time I could still drive safely at that level of intoxication, but I see no reason to risk it. If I have to drive, I don't drink, and if I want to drink, I walk, take transit, or take a cab. Why take unnecessary chances when you're piloting a large, fast-moving thing that can kill you and other people as well?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 04:05
|
|
|
nm posted:I agree in theory, but getting an alcoholic sober prevents DUIs for life while putting him in prison solves it for 3 years (and when he gets out he'll crave it even more). Jesus, if I lived there I would just stay home and drink. They're basically saying "Drunk at last call? Haha gently caress YOU." You could be an Uber driver at closing time and make a killing. Dodge caravan with the Applebees Appetizer fucked around with this message at 04:40 on Dec 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 04:37
|
|
|
dissss posted:Well if you're going to take a cab home from the bar it's still make more sense to take on the way too - you still have to pick your car up somehow after all. That's the question though, are you going to take a cab home? If I as a 200 pound male go out and, like usual, get two beers and a meal over the course of an hour and a half to two hours I'm not going to be needing a cab unless I ordered some high-ABV knockout beers. I'm not going to pay $15 each way on the off chance that something happens which results in me drinking a lot more than intended over the course of the night. It is certainly nice living outside of the "big city" where space is plentiful so parking isn't an issue, I can leave my car at pretty much any local bar and expect it'll still be there in the morning. As for picking the car up, it's a lot easier to call a friend for a ride at a reasonable time the next day rather than at 2 AM when the bar's closing so the second cab ride isn't usually required.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 05:03
|
|
|
Unrelated to DUI chat (or is it?!?!) I saw a car sideswipe a tractor trailer today. We were on the interstate, and a little silver something-or-another contacted a big truck, looked like it was rear fender to front wheel. Some plastic bits came flying off of the car, who then, weirdly, got off at the next exit like nothing happened. Last I saw, the tractor trailer was pulling over, ostensibly to check for damage (I didn't notice any).
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 05:13
|
|
|
CharlieWhiskey posted:I'm increasingly a fan of breathalyzer interlocks. They could be installed on cars, gun safes, and nasty people at bars. After I heard that story of the army guy squeezing a Raccoon to get the interlock working I cannot hear the word without busting a few guts. fake e: 
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 20:18
|
|
|
I posted that somewhere on SA not long ago and it was quickly debunked as coming from a The Onion-style military humor site. EDIT: Still funny, though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 20:38
|
|
|
Uthor posted:I posted that somewhere on SA not long ago and it was quickly debunked as coming from a The Onion-style military humor site. Yeah, I'm pretty sure it's from duffleblog (which is really funny if you haven't read it).
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 20:39
|
|
|
Real problem with zero tolerance drinking/driving is that it basically means you have to go out as a group and have a DD, so good luck if you pick up a date, etc. Japan has a daiko system where you call a cab and instead of an old guy in a Toyota with automatic doors showing up (a traditional taxi like you'd think of it), two guys in a tiny little econobox (like one of these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daihatsu_Mira ) show up and one drives your car home and the other follows. So what happens is 5 of you go get shitfaced and sing drunken karaoke all night long and then you're still shitfaced and have the front desk call for a daiko. 20 minutes later these two guys show up and you tell them where you live and you drive around to each person's house, dropping them off, and then finally you end up at the house of the guy who owns the car. And all told it was like, 5-6 bucks for each person and everyone's safe and happy. America needs that really, really badly. Also, drunk driving laws in Japan are kind of draconian and even being a passenger carries some (same, basically) risk when the driver is drunk, so people don't gently caress around with that poo poo. http://www.stripes.com/news/japan-s-tougher-drinking-driving-laws-take-effect-1.68979
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 21:13
|
|
|
totalnewbie posted:Real problem with zero tolerance drinking/driving is that it basically means you have to go out as a group and have a DD, so good luck if you pick up a date, etc. Oh no, someone can't get shitfaced tonight. Life is ruined. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 21:14
|
|
|
xzzy posted:Oh no, someone can't get shitfaced tonight. Life is ruined. Zero tolerance means one drink is a violation, not shitfaced.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 21:41
|
|
|
I don't ride my motorcycle if I've had any drinks at all in the preceding 8 hours. Doesn't seem too hard to apply that same rule to any motor vehicle.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 22:06
|
|
|
Safety Dance posted:No, my brain went straight to hand removal. Treating substance abuse might be worth pursuing. I think a good start would be first DUI, suspended license and mandatory 90 day minimum rehab/counseling for substance abuse. Complete the course, get a reduced fine and get your license back. gently caress up a second time and it's permanently revoked license, minimum 1 year house arrest/probation, and double the standard fines of the first infraction. Third time? No license, 5 years in jail, and every minute of every day of those 5 years spent in isolation watching gruesome, gory, real-life car accident footage until the thought of driving makes them panic uncontrollably and cry.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 23:03
|
|
|
Can't we devise some sort of ankle bracelet system that would register on any kind of public transportation and play a cheery tune of compliance? That can be the next expensive safety equipment that government mandates be put in all cars, a sensor on the driver side that deactivates the car if anyone with a dui ankle bracelet sits there. We already determined harsher punishments don't work well enough, let's force solutions on the manufacturers.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 23:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 06:31 |
|
|
Ozz81 posted:I think a good start would be first DUI, suspended license and mandatory 90 day minimum rehab/counseling for substance abuse. Complete the course, get a reduced fine and get your license back. gently caress up a second time and it's permanently revoked license, minimum 1 year house arrest/probation, and double the standard fines of the first infraction. Third time? No license, 5 years in jail, and every minute of every day of those 5 years spent in isolation watching gruesome, gory, real-life car accident footage until the thought of driving makes them panic uncontrollably and cry. Move to Ontario, it's pretty much exactly what you want. quote:
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2015 23:19
|
|