After how many DUIs should you lose the ability to drive forever?

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > After how many DUIs should you lose the ability to drive forever?

nm: Jan 28, 2008; "I saw Minos the Space Judge holding a golden sceptre and passing sentence upon the Martians. There he presided, and around him the noble Space Prosecutors sought the firm justice of space law."

Sir_Substance posted:

You're missing the point. The fratboys are going to compete for a high score, yes. But the people who walk out the door thinking "I'm fine, borderline at best" will get evidence that they aren't fine, and reconsider.

A big part of "just over the limit" drink driving is derived from the fact that people don't have built in breathalysers, and often can't tell the difference between "a bit buzzed" and "not capable of driving". They don't think drunk driving is ok, and wouldn't knowingly drunk drive, but they don't know they are drunk. Not all of us drink regularly enough to know our own impairment levels.

Give people an easy, free way to tell how drunk they are, wherever they are, and the sensible-but-oblivious demographic will be solved, and that's probably 20-25% of drunk drivers.

I think they will prevent some people from driving, but give false comfort to many others.
There are several problems with breath testers. One is that anything that a normal person would pay for is basically worthless. Further, the accurate ones are precision devices that need frequent calibration -- at least monthly, probably more depending on where they are kept. Note that the devices often fail in a way that causes them to read low.
The other problem is that just because you blow .04 when you leave the bar doesn't mean you're .04 when get home. Most people will have a drink within 15-20 minutes of leaving a bar. The problem is that that alcohol will take 45-90 minutes to absorb in the body. So you test 15 minutes after drinking, leave the bar and drive home, 30 minutes away. You could, especially if that drink is strong or your are small, blow .04 at the bar, then blow .08 (or more) when you are home.
The next problem is that some people are not safe to drive at .07. If they feel buzzed, but think "hey machine says I'm fine" they may drive when they otherwise would have called a cab or a friend.

As for the original question, it is kind of an interesting one. The problem is that .08 is at the same time too high and too low. It is too high in that some people are impaired below .08. Impairment starts for some people as soon as .05. However, for many people .08 is too low -- too impaired for driving may fall higher. The problem is that the "legal limit" is supposed to be a limit at which no one is safe to drive, which is why it is a quasi-strict liability law. For those impaired below that limit basically everywhere has a parallel law that prohibits driving impaired.
Drug DUIs are even weirder.
I would support a law that made a low level DUI, such as .05-.10 punishable as traffic infractions with a fine, no jail possibility, no license/insurance consequences, and a mandatory ride home by cab/friend. After 3 such offenses in 1 year, you might want to make the last one count as a "real" DUI. Above that BAC you would get a "real" DUI.
I think, I at least in CA, the 1st DUI punishment is fairly reasonable. 3 years probation, $2000 fine (can be done as community service), 2 days jail (which you probably got when arrested), 6 month license suspension (with exceptions from to/from work), and a ban from driving with >.01 for 3 years.
The fact is that the vast majority of 1st DUIs will never do it again. It is the 2nd and 3rd DUI people you need to worry about.

I would say if within 10 years you get:
1 DUI -- 6 month license suspension with exception for certain necessary driving and a 3 year ban from driving and driving at all
2 DUI -- 3 year suspension with a possibility to get a restricted license with an IID install and a 10 year drinking and driving ban.
3 DUI -- 5 year suspension with a possibility to get a restricted license with an IID install and proof of some on on-going treatment and a lifetime drinking and driving ban
4th DUI at any time -- ban. Ability to apply for a license after 5 years after a showing of treatment and a an extended period of sobriety. If you get another DUI, ever, ban with no ability to re-apply.

Kaal posted:

Drinking-related crashes are really just the tip of the iceberg, there are five other common (indeed MORE common) driving behaviors that cause unnecessary crashes and fatalities:

Problem with all these studies is that per mile driven in these conditions, the death rate is probably lower. Not that many miles are driven drunk -- we think (because no one knows) -- compared to speeding, in poor weather, etc.

# ¿ Oct 19, 2014 04:37

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 10, 2024 12:04

nm: Jan 28, 2008; "I saw Minos the Space Judge holding a golden sceptre and passing sentence upon the Martians. There he presided, and around him the noble Space Prosecutors sought the firm justice of space law."

Mirthless posted:

Which is exactly why DUI laws aren't strict enough to begin with, because they operate on an assumption that it's ever okay to drive at any level of intoxication. It would be like writing a gun control legislation that only counts after the third gun you buy, operating on the pure assumption that everyone owns the first two guns and knows how to use the first two guns and plans to use the first two guns the same way. I mean, those assumptions the law makes are awful dumb but what was the point of the law to begin with if it only kicks in when the stockpile starts? If it's illegal to drive while intoxicated, it should just be illegal. Don't put an arbitrary marker in for when you're "just intoxicated enough" to not be able to drive anymore.

We, and I assume every other state, have that law. It turns out it can be hard to prove -- ergo a line. If we're going to have a line in the sand, it needs to make sense.
Edit: I see you want to get rid of the line. At least in the US, this isn't going to work. There is already a tolerance for buzzed driving in the US because so many people do it. You get it down to a level where 90% of the drinking public is driving illegally and you'll see a wholesale rejection of DUI laws, probably even by the police.

I have watched countless stops of people with <.10 BACs and unless they also have drugs in their system, their driving has never been terrifying.

Mirthless posted:

But how do you measure impairment? Who decides what impaired is? And how impaired is too impaired? Wouldn't basing laws on impairment open the door to the "Well, I know my limits, officer, and I was not impaired." defense in court every time a drunk rams into an ambulance?

There's these things called scientific studies. They get people to a certain BAC and have them drive around closed courses. They may also make them do FSTs. poo poo, I've had a client convicted where the jury said, yeah, we believed she was under .08, but she was impaired. She didn't even hit anything.

Sir_Substance posted:

The whole argument was for them to be installed at a bar. You're right, purchasing a proper one and maintaining it once a month is totally impossible, what was I thinking?

Many bars barely clean their restrooms every month.
More importantly, installing at a bar promotes the rising problem. Also, if it malfunctions and there is an accident, it will probably cause even greater liability to the bar, depending on local dram shop laws.

nm fucked around with this message at 03:10 on Oct 20, 2014

# ¿ Oct 20, 2014 03:04

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > After how many DUIs should you lose the ability to drive forever?