Any ideas on how to get a better handle on drunk driving?

Yet another tragic incident involving a drunk driver:



What can we do to curb drunk driving, or is it something we should get used to in order to protect drinking rights?

rate has dropped 8% in the last year. This state is (or used to be, I'm not sure how it ranks now) one of the worst for drunk driving. But in cities like Albuquerque, they've started free cab rides home year-round, not just around the holidays. They do the same thing in Norman, Oklahoma, for students of OU, and the university pays the bill. I think public transportation and access to affordable cab rides would help tremendously, esp. if bar owners will cooperate by allowing patrons to leave their vehicles until the next morning.

My family and I had a discussion about this a few years ago, and my conservative dad was initally opposed to such programs, saying he didn't want his tax dollars being spent to "haul around a bunch of irresponsible drunks." But I asked him, that whether or not one thinks it's something one SHOULD have to pay for (from a moral perspective), that if the goal is to PREVENT drunk driving, shouldn't we use at least part of the millions of dollars already going toward other things like road-blocks and other costs associated with enforcement to actually take some directly preventative measures? I don't know if he now supports such programs, but he at least acknowledged the merit of such a question.

...for people convicted of vehicular manslaughter while under the influence?

I forget which country(ies) execute drunk drivers, and they don't waste any time on formalities, it's a summary road-side execution.
I wonder what their policy on driving hung-over is? Hopefully just lots of volts!:D

Its ridiculous the way we have constructed our suburbs so that the only way to get to a bar or pub is to drive. What if there were pubs and convenience stores in the neighborhood? You might actually get to know the people that lived around you and get people away from the TV every night and socialize without having to drive somewhere.

I'd also go out a lot more if there were a local place I could go and not have to drive.

You know, when we still used horses, it wasn't a problem then either. Even if the rider was drunk, off his gourd, the horse still knew the way home and knew not to run into things.

It's the only way...and obviously where most of the poll choices lead, whether you intend for them to or not.

:eyes:

.

You can only get so far with punitive measures.

there is still a huge DUI problem. There are free rides home and free towing for your car available and yet, people drink and drive anyway. Last Saturday the local rag printed another insert of the pictures and names of convicted drunk drivers, they do that every couple of months and there seems to be NO shortage of mug shots for that.

That way it would only be drunks hurting each other. If a bar is open in the area, then no sober people should be allowed to drive.

Oh please say that there will!:P

But since I like to go out after work, Drunk drive should be from 4 pm until 4 am. Equal time.

If people do crash under the influence the damage won't be life threatening. Hard to get hurt in a 5mph crash.

half of your idea has been proven to suck and the other half hasn't really been tried. De-criminalizing mary jane doesn't mean it should be legal to toke behind the wheel. The penalty should be the same as an alcohol-related DWI.

The response always seems to be lowering of the legal limit. But when the BAL of the perpetrators of such accidents is revealed, it always seems to be WAY over the legal limit. I don't think lowering the limit, even to zero, will help.

..."Blow" into the sensor, your ass and theirs are headed to jail for a long time.

The part you blow into is a lead pipe, coated with rape drugs!:P

Lower the drinking age and raise the driving age to 18.

Immediately and permanently revoke someone's license if they cause an accident due to drunk driving.

All three of these things would help.

It has always troubled me how small markets aimed at motorists (i.e., gas station markets) not only sell beer and wine but hard liquor (behind the cash register), and these gas stations often advertise in banner letters for ridicuous amounts of cheap beer (24 cans for 11 dollars or whatever). Their target market is motorists, and sometimes I will see people lining up with tons of beer who are traveling in RVs or hitched up to ATVs, boats, etc.., who are obviously stopping in town on their way through to go camping/fishing, or just making long trips through the south-west.

I don't think the sale of alcohol should be banned, but should it be this easy to get it, particularly at locations targeting motorists?

More effort should be required to obtain alcohol.

and if it's a 24 hr. store, it can't be sold outside legal hours for alcohol sales. It would be unreal seeing JD or Wild Turkey for sale @ the gas station, that just seems wrong.

That seems crazy to me, as well, always has. WTF message is it sending? "Don't drink and drive -- but stop for a 24 oz single when you're fueling up. I don't have a problem with making the stuff more difficult to obtain, such as getting it out of truck stops and gas stations. But I have a serious problem with "zero tolerance." The fact is, many (most?) people can attend a family function, go to a business meeting, etc, have a beer, and drive home just fine, no threat to anyone. You're more likely to kill someone because you're tuning your radio or dialing your cell phone, or even unwrapping a Big Mac. Why destroy someone's career, life, family, just because the culprit happened to be a Bud instead of a Big Mac? It makes no sense. It's hysteria.

.

Zero Tolerance, let alone stated advocacy for anything similar. I thought all he said was it's kind of fucked up that it's legal to sell Mad Dog and Wild Turkey @ the gas station.:shrug:

whereas a group of drunken college kids in my hometown can, when they run out of alcohol on a Friday night, walk a block or two to the convenience store to restock, a group in the town I grew up in in Wyoming would have to drive to get alcohol (you could not buy even 3.2 beer in the grocery/convenience stores). But in Wyoming the rate of fatalities related to alcohol is around the national average (high 30s).

Then there are states like Texas, where some counties are completely dry and so people have to drive all the way to the next county to get alcohol of any kind. Rates in Texas are very high (and Texas leads the nation in drunk driving deaths, I think).

Those states aren't themselves conclusive, of course, but a comparison of the rates in all such states might be interesting ...

Texas is virtually it's own country, it's not surprising some counties insist on voting dry. I'd imagine those voters wouldn't look kindly on their cops not busting out-of-state-hippies smoking their bud barrelin' to the liquor store 50 miles away!
Those meddling kids!

I'm always concerned about spilling my drink.

:dunce:

There are some people who are going to drink to excess no matter what. The trick is keeping them off the road.

There's no reason a person should get 3, ,4, 5 DUIs and DL suspensions, only find a way to get back behind the wheel.

Having said that, that story doesn't say the driver of the pickup was drunk (probably, but s/he may also have had a medical emergency too.)

What's the legal limit in Alabama?

In NC is .08

I see this way more harshly then some because my mom was killed by a hit and run drunk driver. It's been 26 years, but with so many senseless deaths still happening even after the lowering of the legal limit, I think there needs to be a drastic solution. I'm not trying to rain on anyone's party here, but the way it works now is obviously flawed. If it was against the law to have even one beer and get behind the wheel and that there would be severe consequences for doing so, it would absolutely positively stop all these senseless deaths. I'm sure people will then find creative ways- like Taxi Cabs or buses-so that they could still go out to clubs etc and have fun.

Your "solution" is unworkable and makes no sense. I feel very badly for you and the loss of your mother. But, since it is clear prohibition will never work, and since there will always be weddings and parties and bars, zero-tolerance is simply not a viable option. Destroying a person's life for a non-impairing level of alcohol serves no purpose. I understand that your life, your mother's, was destroyed. That is horrible, and I hope the person responsible was dealt with harshly. But destroying another person's life just for having a beer is senseless.

.

It's been 26 years of hearing and seeing other people losing their loved ones in the same senseless way. It's probably why I identify as I do with the 911 & Katrina victims and families. I know what it feels like to have your life as you know it suddenly turned upside down and inside out and how you are NEVER EVER the same afterwards.


That being said, I know what I've proposed won't fly in this country because things never change unless and until people understand it at a visceral level.

I understand you've suffered a horrible loss, and I certainly understand your desire/need for a change in the way we deal with drunken driving. But it's more about the practicality of zero-tolerance. We're talking about a legal substance which is served virtually everywhere. Such a zero-tolerance approach would definitely ensnare "innocent" people who were no threat to anyone, and their lives would be also be ruined. Not in as such a severe manner as yours, of course, but still, to take away a person's job, home, family, because he consumed a legal beer at a wedding and some cop just happened to stop him for a busted tail light or something...I don't see that as "justice."

.

In Germany there are frequent roadblocks, especially on weekends, when
many accidents occur. More than one beer (something like that), and you
get a month's suspension for driving drunk. You actually have to turn in
your driver's license, and they give it back to you after the end. Drive
in that period without a license and you risk a lifetime ban. Get caught
twice within two years, and risk losing your license for many months. Get
caught a third time, and risk a lifetime ban and possibly jail. Of course,
many of the accidents here involve young people getting drunk at discos
in rural areas, driving at night at 190 kph (120 mph) down the autobahn,
and then turning off onto some rural small street, and not being able to
make the adjustment to the far lower speed. they then wrap their cars (and
their mortal remains) around the first tree at the next curve, and don't have
any licensing issues after that, as the only subsequent bureaucracy then concerns
who pays for their funerals. We have so many acquaintances who have had this occur
in their families, it's scary.

The cemetery in the town where my father in law is buried is in just such
an area, and surrounding his grave are literally dozens of locals who died between
the ages of 18 and 23. You better believe the local people support no-tolerance
laws on alcohol at the wheel--just as, tragically enough, there continue to be
almost as many violations as ever. There would be a lot of Darwin awards handed out
here.........

120mph? Are you fucking kidding me? You don't need to be drunk or even "tipsy" to kill your ass at 120mph. I find it kind of bizarre that you're willing to blame the drinking itself, not the fact that you're ALLOWED to drive at such insane, reckless speeds. Even at my drunkest (back when I drank), the speed limit was always the governor. Just stick to the speed limit, don't give the cops a reason to pull you over. That usually means 40-50 mph, not 120, where even the most sober among us would have to have lightening reflexes and laser focus.

Almost NONE of the fatal accidents that occur here do so on the Autobahn.
The roads here are maintained in impeccable shape, and the car inspections
are rigorous. Driver ed includes mandatory theory and Autobahn driving that
has to be passed before you ever get a license, and plenty of kids fail their
exam first time through. The trouble is, when you suddenly have to drive at 30
mph max on a rural road after zooming along at 120 on a well-maintained Autobahn,
it seems like standing still. That's what alcoholized people can't handle, and
that is what kills most of them here.

No one was in a mad rush, mostly small cars, little traffic. I think we could learn a lot from the Germans regarding transportation.

BTW, I really, really want a topless Smartie. My friend from Potsdam had one and was it ever fun and easy!

I was in Germany way back in the late 70s as an exchange student down by Weingarten-Ravensburg. There was plenty of drinking, but no mixing it w/ driving. Vorsicht! Fuehrerschein in Gefahr! A bike works well if you're hammered, but make sure all the lights work, the Polizei will enquire why not!

In Germany, if you're riding a bicycle at night and your light doesn't work,
or isn't turned on, they stop you just the same as they would stop you if your
caräs tunr signal or brake lights weren't working.

Considering that gasoline costs about US$8 a gallon, here, and the distances are
shorter, bicycle riding is a widely-used mode of transportation here, and the
safety of both bike riders and motorists depends on bike riders taking their safety
as seriously as any driver.

especially if having a few.:beer:
Prosit!

at all. Especially in light of your own experience.
Sorry to hear how you lost your Mom.
I agree w/ you that the penalty needs to be much more strict for the very first offense, in conjunction w/ extremely wide publicity like having PSAs broadcast until they're sickening so everyone will know that if you see flashing reds in your rear-view mirror and you're drunk, you just really fucked yourself over for a long time, all for no good reason.

Because this is the opportunity to scare the shit out of people without turning their lives upside down. The first offense, if no injury or loss of life is involved -- like a simple traffic stop -- should be an opportunity for the authorities to go all "scared straight" on your ass. Say, here's the deal...you've got a hefty fine, and you're on our radar for the next five years...but if you EVER get pulled over again, you're toast. If you HURT SOMEONE while drunk, you're more than toast.

But zero-tolerance for first offenders is bad (remember, I'm talking about non-injurious incidents), since so many factors can come into play, such as a simple burned out headlight, etc. Use the opportunity to scare the driver, who might well relay his experience to others. But why take the extreme approach of ruining lives and careers just to send a message to others? It doesn't work. It NEVER works, or else NO ONE would be driving drunk now.

.

I don't understand how softening the penalty on the first DUI would dissuade people from trying it again, perhaps w/ fatal results.
Everyone should be made aware that getting caught driving drunk, whether or not there's property damage/injuries/fatalities, is that the law should treat it as contempt for manslaughter laws, with a felony sentence immediately imposed.
No one's saying anyone can't drink, and no one's saying anyone can't drive, but there need to be severe penalties like prison, and furthermore, when you sign to get your DL, you agree to the provision as an enhanced proviso to an implied consent condition of being licensed to drive in that state.

and then avoid that lane.

So the drunks always end up in it and can't get out. It only exits to a police station parking lot.

I'm driving sober in the drunk lane! Suckers!B-)

West Germany had this law (lose DL for years on first DWI) way back in the late 70s. There's no drinking-age in Germany, and no speed-limit on the Autobahn, but lord help you if caught by the Polizei mixing the two. It's just common knowledge among everyone that the difficult/expensive-to-obtain DL is too important to risk by driving drunk despite the ample opportunity to do so.
It only works on people who care about the consequences, like me. I know friends who have had multiple DUIs, yet drive w/o a license. They're in and out of jail but luckily have harmed only themselves and their own family.
A very draconian penalty for DUI, the very first one, would probably be the most effective deterrent for those most likely to offend, the younger driver.

If they are caught driver after this the car they are driving, their car or someone else's, is impounded and sold.

If you let someone drive your car without a license, IMHO you are a fool.

If someone is convicted of a 3rd DUI, 10 years in prison.

let's kill the ant with a sledgehammer.

:sarcasm:

We overreact to everything in America.

The guy's just asking a question WADR, FFS.

Other than mandatory breathalyzer interlocks in all vehicles. As this article from the NY Times indicates, DUI enforcement has hit a wall. All that is left is the hard-core drunk driver that nothing will seem to stop.

Am I in favor of this? Absolutely not.

It doesn't work.

Taking it away by such Draconian measures simply makes people drive without a license. Of course, they COULD simply change their name to Gonzalez, claim they have no papers and get a new license, no questions asked...if some DUers had their way.

.

'Cos you can't drive drunk if you're not driving at all.

:thumbsup:

a lot!:thumbsup: :beer: :hide:

and what's a MILF?

Yeah, I know...we are not going there.

Tom does at least two hours of "call in if you are right now drinking and driving." There is no shortage of callers and the really shocking revelation is that many of the callers are driving 18-wheelers and they are not just drinking, they are DRUNK.

But he does it to illustrate one very important fact: the current prohibition against drunk driving and the enforcement techniques are largely ineffective.

Then you realize as you are rolling down the road listening to your fellow motorists tell their tales of freeway revelry that they are not only driving drunk with relative impunity but they are talking on the phone too!

And if bars were held more liable, you bet you'd see a reduction in DUIs.

A server will cut you off if you are too drunk and from my (albeit limited) experience most establishments are happy to kick down for the cab fare to get a plowed patron home safely.

I wonder if the bigger problem isn't the guy who gets really messed up at a private party or drinking at home and deciding to take the wagon for a spin.

If everyone did that, it might clear it up a bit.

Sometimes all you need is a little community involvement.

It really doesn't matter that some arbitrary level of whatever substance has been exceeded in one’s bodily fluids. Frankly the substance and quantity thereof I choose to ingest is none of the government’s business.

The only question a cop should have to answer is “can you safely operate your vehicle”? It doesn't matter what I happened to be impaired on, I shouldn't be driving. If I'm not impaired, then it doesn't matter what or how much I've been ingesting.

We all know the guy who can put away a twelver and not seem to notice and we all know the other guy who gets tipsy walking past a bar. The rest of us are somewhere in between.

One-size-fits-all-zero-tolerance-prior-restraint law enforcement not only does not work, it is unconstitutional.

edit: typo