DUI Thread

[jaxhawksfan]

But what if you stumble into the street and get hit by a guy obeying all traffic laws EXCEPT, that he had two beers after work?

Just food for thought. Even if you're barely over the limit and someone does something stupid, or even if a deer jumps in front of you it's you that would get a DUI (assuming someone calls the police).

Yeah, that was my scenario originally about people who are found to be "at fault" even though it was the other person who did something wrong.

 

[MassHavoc]

I think I am not sure if I want to touch this one but I will say that I don't like any law that is this varied and subjective. For some people it ruins them for life but for the right person it is nothing more than a fine.

 

[jaxhawksfan]

I think I am not sure if I want to touch this one but I will say that I don't like any law that is this varied and subjective. For some people it ruins them for life but for the right person it is nothing more than a fine.

Yeah, when I say "fucks your livelihood" I mean it from the perspective of my own life. I NEED a car to get to and from work. I don't live in a city that has adequate public transportation. I suppose it doesn't hurt someone as much if they don't need to drive (work from home, live close enough to walk, etc.).

 

[LordKOTL]

I see what you are saying, but there isn't a magical formula. 2 beers, 2 shots, 2 glasses of wine all affect people differently. Then you take into consideration food, medicines, fatigue, etc. and one never knows whether they will blow a .08 or not. The only safe way is to have nothing to drink if you are driving. When you have a bar right down the street, no problem you can walk. When the bar you frequent is a 20 minute drive away..........no fun. Keep in mind, again, I'm not saying we should all be able to drive drunk, just pointing out parts of the law that I think are bs and trying to start some conversation.

By the same token, one could say that age is not a good gauge of maturity and the ability to handle responsibility--some kids could handle the responsibility and control of a vehicle as young as 14, while some adults should not be driving into their thirties.



I think the law as written was based on some scientific data and averaged out (I can't prove this--it's just a theory) that the average person when their BAC was .08% will be impaired in driving enough to be a serious hazard to most people. I think the fact that it's not at exactly 0 is because some people have the nearest bar or other drinking venue so far away.



Personally, i go by the following: In your average drink (pint, glass of wine, shot), it takes the average human one hour to burn off the alcohol. As such, I time from my last drink in hours how many I've had, and then drive home only after that. So, if on a usual night drinking, I have a couple of pints, I'll wait two hours after I stop drinking before I head home. More, if the drink is a multi-shot cocktail, an extra large beer, or a beer with a higher alcohol content (a extra-large beer with a higher alcohol content I'll just count as 2). It makes life simpler to deal with.



That, or I simply won't drink.



I think the issue though is clouded by the precept that driving is a privilege, not a right. I think the law could care less if you can't get to work otherwise; their stance is that if you know it's your only route to work then you should be adult enough to know your limits and not put your livelihood in jeopardy by driving drunk.

 

[jaxhawksfan]

By the same token, one could say that age is not a good gauge of maturity and the ability to handle responsibility--some kids could handle the responsibility and control of a vehicle as young as 14, while some adults should not be driving into their thirties.



I think the law as written was based on some scientific data and averaged out (I can't prove this--it's just a theory) that the average person when their BAC was .08% will be impaired in driving enough to be a serious hazard to most people. I think the fact that it's not at exactly 0 is because some people have the nearest bar or other drinking venue so far away.



Personally, i go by the following: In your average drink (pint, glass of wine, shot), it takes the average human one hour to burn off the alcohol. As such, I time from my last drink in hours how many I've had, and then drive home only after that. So, if on a usual night drinking, I have a couple of pints, I'll wait two hours after I stop drinking before I head home. More, if the drink is a multi-shot cocktail, an extra large beer, or a beer with a higher alcohol content (a extra-large beer with a higher alcohol content I'll just count as 2). It makes life simpler to deal with.



That, or I simply won't drink.



I think the issue though is clouded by the precept that driving is a privilege, not a right. I think the law could care less if you can't get to work otherwise; their stance is that if you know it's your only route to work then you should be adult enough to know your limits and not put your livelihood in jeopardy by driving drunk.

All very good points.

 

[BiscuitintheBasket]

By the same token, one could say that age is not a good gauge of maturity and the ability to handle responsibility--some kids could handle the responsibility and control of a vehicle as young as 14, while some adults should not be driving into their thirties.

Plenty of studies to show the contrary. It is the whole risk vs reward effect and there is a high tendency for those under the age of 25 to take much higher risks for lesser rewards....but this is not to say that some that are 30+ never mentally get beyond that

, however the majority tends to.

Personally, i go by the following: In your average drink (pint, glass of wine, shot), it takes the average human one hour to burn off the alcohol. As such, I time from my last drink in hours how many I've had, and then drive home only after that. So, if on a usual night drinking, I have a couple of pints, I'll wait two hours after I stop drinking before I head home. More, if the drink is a multi-shot cocktail, an extra large beer, or a beer with a higher alcohol content (a extra-large beer with a higher alcohol content I'll just count as 2). It makes life simpler to deal with.



That, or I simply won't drink.



I think the issue though is clouded by the precept that driving is a privilege, not a right. I think the law could care less if you can't get to work otherwise; their stance is that if you know it's your only route to work then you should be adult enough to know your limits and not put your livelihood in jeopardy by driving drunk.

I follow the same form if I am going to drink and know I will drive later on. From personal experience this works very well for me and I never feel "buzzed" when I am getting ready to hop into the car. It also helps with the pocket book.





Spot on with the privilege vs right. Driving is strictly a privilege and should always be treated as such.

 

[BiscuitintheBasket]

On another note, way back in my ING days my unit had a lawyer who specialized in prosecuting DUI's in DuPage. From time to time he would talk about cases he lost or were thrown out. Couple of common advices he gave were:

• Never blow in the field. Take the chance that by the time you are at the station and being processed that you will blow below there.
  
• Windows cracked or down. The first thing the officers will catch is the smell of booze and make them suspicious.
  
• You, in fact, can get a DUI while passed out in your car.
  
• If you decide you need a break and are going to snooze off some of the buzz in your car, make sure the car keys are no where near the car. Say that you had an arguement with wife or girlfriend (who was driving), and she took off with the keys. Otherwise you can get a DUI in Illinois if you have the capability to drive the vehicle, even if it is off.
  
• Piss the officer off and the proablity of them showing up for the court date is greatly increased.
  

 

[LordKOTL]

Plenty of studies to show the contrary. It is the whole risk vs reward effect and there is a high tendency for those under the age of 25 to take much higher risks for lesser rewards....but this is not to say that some that are 30+ never mentally get beyond that

, however the majority tends to.

...

I'm not disagreeing with you, but my point still stands. There are some young teens that *do* have the maturity and the sense of responsibility to handle driving (not very many, but there are), and yet there are a good amount in their 30's or older (or more apt, those beyond the age of 16) that should never step behind the wheel of a vehicle.



Any way you slice it, when they have to pull a "magic age" or a "magic number" to determine the threshold of something, it's going to be arbitrary. It's not like every human magically becomes able to better tolerate cigarette smoke the moment they turn 18. It's not like there's some magical biochmical change that happens when a person turns 21 that makes them able to handle alcohol (and somehow Canada's population goes through said change a full 2 years earlier). Until the laws change, those humbers are going to be there, as pointless and arbitrary as they are.

 

[TSD]

I'm not disagreeing with you, but my point still stands. There are some young teens that *do* have the maturity and the sense of responsibility to handle driving (not very many, but there are), and yet there are a good amount in their 30's or older (or more apt, those beyond the age of 16) that should never step behind the wheel of a vehicle.



Any way you slice it, when they have to pull a "magic age" or a "magic number" to determine the threshold of something, it's going to be arbitrary. It's not like every human magically becomes able to better tolerate cigarette smoke the moment they turn 18. It's not like there's some magical biochmical change that happens when a person turns 21 that makes them able to handle alcohol (and somehow Canada's population goes through said change a full 2 years earlier). Until the laws change, those humbers are going to be there, as pointless and arbitrary as they are.

Thats one thing thats always pissed me off. If you are old enough to kill for your country and be exposed to life altering trauma or potential death, you are old enough to drink.

 

[LordKOTL]

Exactly. I take this a step further: If you're old enough to have the threat of being unwillingly drafted into a war to be shot dead for a political interest, the least they should do is give you a drink.

 

[the canadian dream]

You def have to lower the drinking age in the States. I am amazed that in most states it is still 21 (is it state by state in USA?). Hell B.C. needs to adopt the Alberta 18 year age limit as I think 19 is also too old.



When did the 21 year old statute come into play anyways? Sounds like a post prohibition law that one. And what was and is the reasoning for 21?



Always something I found interesting and I keep forgetting that the drinking age is 21 in the States until I see all the 19 year olds cross the boarder into Canada for the weekend to do some boozing. Stimulate our economy!!! Maybe you guys should raise the drinking age to 23? Works for us.

 

[sth]

You def have to lower the drinking age in the States. I am amazed that in most states it is still 21 (is it state by state in USA?). Hell B.C. needs to adopt the Alberta 18 year age limit as I think 19 is also too old.



When did the 21 year old statute come into play anyways? Sounds like a post prohibition law that one. And what was and is the reasoning for 21?



Always something I found interesting and I keep forgetting that the drinking age is 21 in the States until I see all the 19 year olds cross the boarder into Canada for the weekend to do some boozing. Stimulate our economy!!! Maybe you guys should raise the drinking age to 23? Works for us.

It is a nationwide standard in the US TCD. In fact if any state lowers the drinking age below 21 the Federal Government cuts off highway money to that state which states can't do without. In one of my college classes we actually read an article suggesting that the drinking age should go up to 26! The thought being that adolescent brains aren't fully developed until age 26. I think that is insanity I think 18 is appropriate to begin drinking. Mainly because most people start drinking when they turn 18 anyway.

 

[TSD]

It is a nationwide standard in the US TCD. In fact if any state lowers the drinking age below 21 the Federal Government cuts off highway money to that state which states can't do without. In one of my college classes we actually read an article suggesting that the drinking age should go up to 26! The thought being that adolescent brains aren't fully developed until age 26. I think that is insanity I think 18 is appropriate to begin drinking. Mainly because most people start drinking when they turn 18 anyway.

I know as of at least 1993 or 94 some states still had an 18 year old drinking age. I remember we went on vacation to kentucky when i was in 7th grade and some of my older cousins were hitting up the liquor store because the drinking age was lower.





But again I reiterate, they need to do something about the military service age, either raise it to 21 or lower the drinking age to 18. Id even compromise by saying must be 21 to serve in a combat zone.



Anywho its a fact, if kids arent drinking in highschool they are doing it once they go away to college. I went away to school at 19, it is simply way too easy to get booze. If you live in the dorms there is bound to be a 21 year old on your floor, or plenty of people that know one that can get booze, and beyond that just go to a house party and hit up the keg. Hell, its even easier to get weed and thats not legal for anyone, but I digress.

 

[jaxhawksfan]

MADD put pressure on states to raise the drinking age. Like TSD said, it is a relatively recent thing and not all states did it at the same time. I understand mothers not wanting their kids out killing each other because of drinking and driving, but why don't we have MATWD (Mothers against texting while driving), MABADBWD (Mothers against being a dumb ***** while driving) or even MAMKITCWD (Mothers against multiple kids in the car while driving)? Simple: It wasn't about drinking and driving, they were simply trying to stop people from drinking because it was something they didn't believe in.

 

[jaxhawksfan]

Also, I'm still reading on the topic of driving because I started thinking about it yesterday. We all usually say the cliche "Driving is a privilege, not a right." I am trying to find the origin of this. If anyone knows, please share because I am starting to re-think this.

 

[LordKOTL]

Interesting topic, Jax. In my mind I couldn't possibly fathom how driving could be a right. There's no overriding law like the right to bear arms. I think the only "right" involved it the concept that until you prove a danger to others and can prove you have the ability to do so, you're free to do so (much like the way gun laws are written, as controversial as they are).

 

[jaxhawksfan]

Interesting topic, Jax. In my mind I couldn't possibly fathom how driving could be a right. There's no overriding law like the right to bear arms. I think the only "right" involved it the concept that until you prove a danger to others and can prove you have the ability to do so, you're free to do so (much like the way gun laws are written, as controversial as they are).

So far all I have come up with is it probably started at the time of automobiles when only the affluent could afford that "privilege." Of course it must be regulated, so that isn't then angle I'm coming from.......just trying to figure the word privilege. Is breathing a privilege? or is it tied to the "right" of happiness? Does something explicitly have to be listed as a right in the Constitution of The United States?



As I stated, we all use this phrase, but maybe, just maybe it isn't correct at all. Maybe driving is a right, just like the right to keep and bear arms. Just because something is a right doesn't mean it goes unregulated, just as we are discussing in the voting thread. In the early 1900's people started complaining about accidents and the way others drive, so the states started adopting a license (most available at that time without a test).



Now we have states that are taking away a license for all sorts of non-driving related reasons: Dropouts, bad grades, nonpayment of child support, etc. The more I read, the more I think this "driving is a privilege" has gone way too far. Just another example of governments interfering in our lives.

 

[TSD]

Also, I'm still reading on the topic of driving because I started thinking about it yesterday. We all usually say the cliche "Driving is a privilege, not a right." I am trying to find the origin of this. If anyone knows, please share because I am starting to re-think this.

I would tend to say its a "necessity" not a privilege. Because frankly, I would love never to have to drive. When I was in college I never had to drive anywhere and it was great. Everything was in walking/biking distance. Temporarily I am currently 45 miles from my workplace with no public transportation available to me for it. I work from home twice a week usually, but still I need to go into the office sometimes, and if I didnt have my own transportation this would be impossible.



The thing is, not everyone can live within walking/public trans/bike of their workplace no matter how badly they want to. generally because of cost if they work in the city, or no public trans or housing near their workplace in the burbs. Our modern society requires "most" of us have our own transportation, period, this privilege business is bull.



I am a consultant on top of it, so if I move near my workplace now I could be working somewhere 30-40 miles away 4 months from then.



It bugs me when people act like its such a simple thing to reduce your dependence on driving, it isnt that easy for everyone.

 

[jaxhawksfan]

I would tend to say its a "necessity" not a privilege. Because frankly, I would love never to have to drive. When I was in college I never had to drive anywhere and it was great. Everything was in walking/biking distance. Temporarily I am currently 45 miles from my workplace with no public transportation available to me for it. I work from home twice a week usually, but still I need to go into the office sometimes, and if I didnt have my own transportation this would be impossible.



The thing is, not everyone can live within walking/public trans/bike of their workplace no matter how badly they want to. generally because of cost if they work in the city, or no public trans or housing near their workplace in the burbs. Our modern society requires "most" of us have our own transportation, period, this privilege business is bull.



I am a consultant on top of it, so if I move near my workplace now I could be working somewhere 30-40 miles away 4 months from then.



It bugs me when people act like its such a simple thing to reduce your dependence on driving, it isnt that easy for everyone.

That's what I'm getting at. For those who live in a thriving city with plenty of public transporation options (including walking) it really doesn't seem to matter. Hell, many in a city don't have a car in the first place. However, if you don't live in a city like this, or if you live in a rural area the scenario changes drastically. Maybe in a city driving is a "luxury" for the privileged, but like you say, for most of us it is a necessity. So states being able to take that license away for multiple reasons that have nothing to do with driving is really overstepping the boundaries of government IMO. (Not to mention how DUI checkpoints should be against the law and considered illegal search)

 

[supraman]

I'm all for that, and I think that was Ton's point as well. The law should be zero alcohol, zero drugs (prescribed or otherwise), zero phone usage.......not this grey "well you can have a couple and we'll measure up to a .08" before we **** you and your livelihood.

I'm going out the zero alcohol thing. I'm sorry I can drink one beer and get in my car and drive fine without impairment, I have 100% use of my faculties and my reaction time if diminished is not by any noticable amount.