Why do drunk drivers just get a slap on the wrist in this contry?
Seriously, it seems like if you're caught driving drunk, you're hardly punished. For example:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/04/10/cal … index.html

and there are numerous cases where drunk drivers smash and kill people while driving with a suspended license. In my opinion, if you're caught drunk driving, you should lose your car. That way, you'll no longer be able drive. Anyway, just thought I'd share my thoughts!

-avatar!

I hear you, but people come up with all sorts of excuses.

- "I need the car tomorrow morning"
- "Everyone else does it"
- "I drive better when drunk"
- "I only live a sort while away"

All of these are easily circumvented by planning and/or common sense, so there really is no excuse whatsoever.

We already know that education, punishment and prohibition are not effective means of solving alcohol related problems. By now, one of them would have worked. So that means we have to try something else.

Severe penalties for drunk driving seem to work in Japan - over there it seemed everyone was terrified of getting behind the wheel after a single drink.  It was kind of nice!

Let's allow goverment cut drunk driver's legs off. That should teach them a lesson.

But then, maybe car removal, some jail-time + mandatory AA-course or some other treatment would help.

Though, can't remember was it in here Finland or some other EU-country that they're doing somekind of breathing test thingy for cars. So if you're drunk and fail the test, motor won't start up.

Speaking of ignition interlocks, here is an article about that concept from 2006.  Of particular note, at the time, these devices cost about $1,000.  If these were made mandatory, as some legislators were considering, the cost of every car would go up by at least that much.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/200 … usat_x.htm

Don't know what you're talking about...I know quite a few people who've been convicted of DUIs, and they're not allowed to drive anymore...their lives are pretty much ruined.

I guess it depends on how much you bribe the law not to throw the book at you...

Ruined because they can't drive anymore? Public transportation, two feet or bicycle could help a bit, depending if they need to travel a lot to work.

And really, they caused their lives to be ruined by being idiots and drunk driving.

Sure please inform more about how their everyday life is ruined.

Ah sounds good. And probably car prices would rise a bit but then, if it will keep drunkards off the driveway and in the bars, it's good.

Sure, it would be an annoying hassle to keep blowing everytime you hop in, but then, maybe that could also save the enviroment a bit, people would be so pissed off because of the blowing that they would start walking on cycling.

But then, could there be an alternative to that breath analyzer? Probably not.

I don't know if I'm the only one, but I just stay the hell away from bars in general. If I want to drink I just go get the booze, bring it home and then drink it. Just cuts a lot of "what if's" and problems out of the way. If I get tanked my bed is right there for me to sleep it off - no worring about cops, fines, fights.

A no tolerance policy is required in terms of the law. I'd also like to see much more policing of traffic in general so that more people get caught. In my town at least, I knew a few boy racers and a girl racer who literally drove around suburban streets at 60-70 mph and never got caught. Most aren't drunk at the time, thank goodness, but ridiculously dangerous driving in general needs more policing. It's no good to just punish after an accident since it seems most adolescent drivers are arrogant enough to think that will never be them.

This kind of relates to my idea that a parent giving a fast/flashy car to an adolescent is a bad idea. My neighbor is a little speed demon in that Grand Prix GT of his (I wish someone other than me would tell him that car is nothing to be boastful of) and went through a stop sign and got smashed last year. What really, really ticked me off was before this his parents traded one of their cars in for a truck, and what do they do? They trade in the respectable town car that might not allow him buy into that edgy/cool persona thing and keep the damn GT! Thought that was freakin' brilliant, especially when you consider how much it costs to insure a teenage driver.

Also, speaking of adolescent drivers, has anyone else seen those new adds on TV: "With new and improved slow down you don't have to die!"

Exactly! I completely agree with Razakin. People who get drunk and drive and then caught, always seem to think they're the victim and that they're getting screwed... until they one day they kill someone. And then they're all weepy about how they never meant any harm... well screw them! Drunk driving is like randomly shooting bullets, and then when you do hit and hurt or kill someone "I didn't mean to" just doesn't cut it! Franky, if they ruin their lives, that's too bad, but their lives are in their control. I'm worried about them ruining other people's lives.

-avatar!

edit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLRhSbuhVvc&NR=1

I just looked them up on youtube. Quite amusing,  and know what, they remind me of bioshock However, I'm not trying to derail the topic! I still hate drunk drivers with a passion.

cheers,

-avatar!

Wow... check out our stupid legal system. If you're a pro athlete, you get 30 days after killing someone!

Oh, but his driver's license was permanently revoked. Well, I'm sure now he'll never ever drive again. Yup, taking someone's driver's license is 100% guaranteed to keep them from driving ever again[/sarcasm]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/06/18/nfl … pstoryview

in IL they give you the MAX penalty for any violation within construction zones. even speeding starts at $375

That's all they have him? That's wrong...

Anyway, I know it's not much of a consolation to the family of the victim, but considering his NFL career is finished the gravy train is pretty much over for him. He'll probably end up playing for the CFL.

Are you kidding me? He's probably going to get some reality TV show...

But I tell you, if this had happened to you, there's no way you wouldn't be behind bars for years!

Right, until YOU are the one getting nailed.

I take it NONE of you consume alcohol around here?

I, myself, have never gotten nailed for a DUI, but then again, I don't drive while drunk, then again, I don't go out drinking: I stay home if I consume alcohol. And that pisses me off. I feel like I'm not allowed to consume alcohol in public. When I go out to dinner, I want to feel like I can have glass of wine without being punished for it. After all, restaurants often carry better wine than the stores do.

And even if I have a designated driver, if I'm drunk, or at least have consumed alcohol, that reflects badly on them, and a cop could easily just say that I was the one behind the wheel, even when I really wasn't, especially if my friend is an especially bad driver, even if he hasn't consumed alcohol. After all, a person can be nailed for just having consumed alcohol; they don't need to be DRUNK.

Never wish for more cops and regulation; YOU are subject to the law too, not just "EVERYONE ELSE." The law applies to YOU TOO.

...

There is no silver bullet for drunk driving. You can take away a person's license, hell, you can take away their car, but just because a person doesn't have license doesn't mean they can't start a car, it just means they go straight to jail BUT ONLY IF THEY'RE CAUGHT. And take away a person's car, but who's to say they can't break into YOUR car and steal it?

Trying to regulate drunk driving even more heavily may just result in MORE problems!

Well, he could have gotten that 15 years of prison, but from what I read from that article, not even the family of the dead person didn't want that to happen.

Sure, 30 days isn't enough, but seems that he's not gonna have easy eight years (nor rest of his life, pretty sure he will have some deep shit going in his head).

I wonder how the police could even prove that you would be the one driving? Especially if would have designated driver. Unless the laws are totally out of hands in America.

But really, how someone's life can be ruined if his/hers drivers license is gone for good? And why we should be sorry for him? Drunk driving is so bloody irresponsible think, that I can't symphatize at all with people who do it.

I too would like to know how the police could say you were drunk driving and your friend took over when

a)all police vehicles carry cameras which monitor exactly what happens
b)how could you quickly switch seats in a car in a matter of seconds?
c)you can NOT be arrested because your friends are drunk!
d)in fact, you can't even be pulled over unless they have probable reason (open container, speeding, crossing lanes, etc)

I have some good friends who always have a beer or two when we're in a restaurant, and an hour or two later they're off on the road going home. Never an incident, never a problem. Why? because one or two beers does not make a drunk. People drink in public all the time! You have to know your limits. Now, if someone wants to get wasted, go ahead. Just don't expect any sympathy if you're caught drunk driving. It's your own damn fault, no excuses, no blaming cops, the laws, society, whatever...

avatar!,

Ideally, that would be true.  But not every police officer acts this way.  I'm a regular reader of theagitator.com, and there are quite a few cops that are not interested in following the rules.  Some are on a total power trip, and view their badge as a license to do whatever they want.  Look at the Critical Mass incident in New York, where a cyclist was thrown to the ground by a cop.  The guy who was thrown to the ground was actually charged with a crime, and would still be in jail but for the fact that someone actually recorded the whole incident, and posted it on YouTube.

There have been several cases of cameras mysteriously not working when police have been accused of excessive force (or the videos exist, but the police refuse to let anyone else see them).  See, for example, the following:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … 04526.html
http://www.journalgazette.net/article/2 … 43/LOCAL07
http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archi … 09_4719351

On the topic at hand, DUI/DWI arrests have taken place when the person accused has had no alcohol in his or her system at all:

http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2008-05- … -alcohol/1

It's not that hard to switch drivers, without the cop seeing you do it, if you get pulled over. Which is why, in all of their cynicism, is why that's what they're going to assume.

Cops don't need to prove SHIT if they can have a judge who's willing to agree with them.

Common process of thought these days is that drinking in general is the devil, and if they can make an example of someone, nail them to wall, they're going to, whether that was actually the case or not; you just need a cop who's willing to nail someone, a jury who's going to believe the fear mongering that a prosecutor sets forth, and a judge who's willing to agree with all three.

How you gonna get to classes/work without a mode of transportation? Taxi cabs are more expensive than having your own car, and public transportation (buses and trains) aren't always reliable, and still leave you having to walk where you need to go some ways.

Because the same thing could happen to you. And most people aren't aware on the consequences of drunk driving because people are clueless. But if they were aware of the consequences, then even in all their stupidity, they would be less likely to do it.

A) Their camera may or may not be able to see inside your vehicle, especially at nighttime.

B) NOT THAT HARD TO SWITCH SEATS BEFORE THE COP COMES TO YOUR VEHICLE.

C) It's a little thing that cops like to call "Guilty by Association."

D) True, but if you're lousy driver SOBER, than you have a problem.

Even if you're not drunk, you can still be arrested if you get pulled over, even if you've only had one ot two beers; your BAC only has to be over 0.2 to get you arrested, and if you've had ANY alcohol, your BAC is DEFINITELY going to be over 0.2

...

Again, I don't condone drunk driving, but it's become more of a witch hunt, that the motives have gone from noble to fear. And fear makes people act irrationally.

How did this go from a thread about drunk driving to a thread about spreading propaganda filth about how authority is so terible blah blah blah.

Also:

lol you have got to be kidding me.

Oh yeah, I forgot that America seems to have lousy public transportation. Also, you could use bicycles also for travelling. But then, could be hard if the average distance to work is over 20km. Or more.

Sorry, the day when I'm gonna go do drunk driving is the day when hell freezes over. I might be stupid especially when drunk, but not that stupid.

Gotta check tomorrow if those ignition locks are starting to be closer and closer.

I can totally understand the whole "drinking at home is the only safe way to drink anymore" concept. Flat-out, in my mind it just isn't worth going to a bar and take any kind of risk in today's world. The signs are right - DUI: You Can't Afford it - and not just monetarily. Basically, just go out, get the booze, come home and drink it. Outside getting into a shouting/slapping match (and maybe shaving you neighbor's kitten), what's the worse that can happen? The potential for problems is just that much lower.

Crash, you make some excellent points. I agree that sometimes police abuse their powers. I don't think it happens as often as people think it does, but when it does happen clearly it's a big deal and makes the headlines. When police abuse their powers, they totally should be removed. However, the vast majority do their job and by removing drunks off the road they undoubtedly save lives. The system isn't perfect, but what is...

Bernhardt, I still have to disagree with most of your comments.
"It's not that hard to switch drivers, without the cop seeing you do it, if you get pulled over. Which is why, in all of their cynicism, is why that's what they're going to assume."

Have you tried this? I've never heard of anything like that ever happening! After a cop pulls you over you have a few seconds before he comes up to you, and in the meantime he can clearly see what's happening. It doesn't matter if it's night, the headlights from the police vehicle are strong enough.

"Cops don't need to prove SHIT if they can have a judge who's willing to agree with them."
I'm not going to get into the whole "everyone is corrupt" argument. When I was on jury duty, the judge read a statement that said that all jurors must NOT trust a police officer's word more than any other person's.

"Because the same thing could happen to you."
No, it really couldn't! Getting drunk only happens if you drink. It's not like being sick. You don't wake up one day with a large amount of alcohol in your system for no apparent reason!

Also, I have no idea where you get your BAC results from! A BAC value of 0.2 for an average person will have him/her vomiting and likely pass-out! Here is some information for you. Read it:

http://www.ou.edu/oupd/bac.htm

cheers,

avatar!

Ahh, I meant 0.02; so I was off by one decimal point...0.08 IS the legal limit, but with drunk driving so feared these days, they can persecute you for a 0.02 if they want.

But YES, if you drink any amount of alcohol before you go driving again, you CAN fall victim to some damn cop just wanting to nail someone for something; you don't have to be drunk off your ass.

Just because a law's written somewhere doesn't mean everyone observes it, or is willing to honor it. That's why you gotta know your rights.

I know, because one of my friends just this year had to deal with a DUI charge. He wasn't drunk, but he had drank two beers, and the cop only pulled him over because one of his tail lights was out, and then decided to investigate, off-hand, whether he had been drinking or not.

The law doesn't exist to protect; it exists to punish.

...

That all said, I think we can all agree cops don't f--- around when drunkenness is involved. But people are still going to drink and drive, and any further regulation on the subject would mean forfeiting certain liberties.

Wouldn't be surprised if, at one point, we ALL had to have breathilizers installed in our cars to start the engine. KEEP UNCLE SAM OUT OF MY CAR!!

I know! Complete and total anarchy is sooo much better

Everyone likes to wake up to a few stab wounds. it's like Foldgers in your cup.

But seriously, try saying the above to someone whose family has been killed by a drunk driver.

*sigh*

You really think that people, if law didn't exist, would really stoop to raping, killing, and stealing as much as they damn well wanted?

That kind of mentality is planted in the minds of the people by those in seats of authority...because they want to keep their seats.

Some of them would, and some of them is enough.

There needs to be a new drama called "Between Cops and Robbers."

The story, of your average citizen, coping with life in modern Middle America, and having to dealing with both ruthless criminals, and corrupt authorities!

...

*sigh*

I think I understand why those people who can afford to live in the countryside, do.

When it comes to criminals, I think it's important to note there is a difference between thieves and murderers despite the fact they can be one in the same.

Most thieves try to avoid confrontation; they'll scope out a place and hit it when no one is home. I think jumping from robbery to murder is a big step for a petty thief.

Despite the propaganda commercials for Brinks home security try to implant in the viewers mind I doubt a thief is going to be brazen enough to break in a house (smashing glass) with everyone home in broad daylight.

Bernhardt, it's true that cops can be corrupt, but you make it sound as if you're living in Nazi Germany! I lived in the Midwest, and had no lawful issues. Granted, I did not live in a big city, but I did live somewhat near Chicago. Never had a problem with cops, or any issues with them, but I did notice quite a few break-ins. I actually wish there were more police around to be honest.

Also, it's true that you can be arrested if your BAC is less than the legal limit for DUI. That's because people become impaired at different levels. I almost never drink, so just one or two beers and I would be impaired, which is simply why I never drink and drive! I really don't know why people have such a difficult time with this concept... is it really so hard to go out with a group of friends and have one person be the designated driver??

Lastly, as for a breathalyzer installed in a car... good idea. If someone is caught DUI, then perhaps they should be forced to have a breathalyzer installed in his or her car. I don't see what's wrong with that. And just for the record, I personally believe that the government should have as little impact on people's lives as possible. However, in the case of drunk driving, I have zero tolerance for drunks, and without lawful intervention most drunks will continue drunk driving until they end up killing someone.

cheers,

-avatar!

And without legal intervention, some people might continue to drive drunk even after injuring or killing another person. It sounds terrible, but it's definitely not improbable. Some people just don't have any concern for the wellbeing of others.

hypothetically,,, if 2 people (1 intoxicated) were in a car being pulled over,, and they thought "hmm lets try switching places.. then you'd hafta ask youself why the hell the sober person didnt take the keys in the first place...

c'mon captain bob,, you've landed this plane 10,000 times already,, let someone new have a turn...

bernhardt your claims are borderline paranoid. perhaps this may help:
http://www.amazon.com/Dangle-Adult-Cost … 65&sr=8-14