Can we get serious about drunk driving already?

[Lewkowski]

http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/new...gnextrefresh=1

Though I will say sometimes being an idiot can be fatal. I feel bad for the person who wasn't acting illegal but allowing your friend to drive you while they are drunk is pretty idiotic and sadly she paid with it with her life.

Of course the little shit stain decides to actually fight the charges despite there being no doubt about her guilt.

Now can we get serious about drunk driving laws? How many chances should someone get before they get taken out of society? I'm not calling for the death penalty but I'm in favor of three strikes your out and you are legally never allowed to drive again. Choose to drive again and you are put in prison for life. Everyone is now safer since a menace to society is off the roads.

More aggressive police work is needed. Stake out bars. You see someone stumbling out at 1:00 AM let them get into the car and as soon as they pull out arrest them. This isn't complicated folks. Its just a matter of how much money and resources we should spend on getting selfish monsters that kill people. On a daily basis people die from a nearly 100% preventable cause. Yes I realize harsh penalties won't eliminate all deaths but it will eliminate a huge percentage of them.

Back to the original story - thank goodness Mr. Byrum didn't get killed as well. Frankly that was a matter of luck... I guess Smart cars do save lives sometimes.

[LittleFuzzy]

http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/new...gnextrefresh=1

Though I will say sometimes being an idiot can be fatal. I feel bad for the person who wasn't acting illegal but allowing your friend to drive you while they are drunk is pretty idiotic and sadly she paid with it with her life.

Of course the little shit stain decides to actually fight the charges despite there being no doubt about her guilt.

Now can we get serious about drunk driving laws? How many chances should someone get before they get taken out of society? I'm not calling for the death penalty but I'm in favor of three strikes your out and you are legally never allowed to drive again. Choose to drive again and you are put in prison for life. Everyone is now safer since a menace to society is off the roads.

Don't be a piker, Lewk. Driving drunk is dangerous for others, it should result in the death penalty. And I'm all for if you're the first to be prosecuted, since I will guarantee that you've been over the legal limit while behind the wheel at least once unless you're a teetotaler. But then I would guess that's why you don't advocate the death penalty here, because this is one of those legal infractions you know you've been guilty of (and may be guilty of again in the future).

[GGT]

...

Now can we get serious about drunk driving laws? How many chances should someone get before they get taken out of society? I'm not calling for the death penalty but I'm in favor of three strikes your out and you are legally never allowed to drive again. Choose to drive again and you are put in prison for life. Everyone is now safer since a menace to society is off the roads.

People can still (and do) drive without a valid driver's license, even if they've never had a DUI.

More aggressive police work is needed. Stake out bars. You see someone stumbling out at 1:00 AM let them get into the car and as soon as they pull out arrest them. This isn't complicated folks. Its just a matter of how much money and resources we should spend on getting selfish monsters that kill people. On a daily basis people die from a nearly 100% preventable cause. Yes I realize harsh penalties won't eliminate all deaths but it will eliminate a huge percentage of them.

You want to post a cop at every restaurant with a liquor license? You want to treat every individual coming out of those establishments as a potential criminal? You want to call that prudent use of public dollars and tax-payer funds?

On a daily basis, thousands of people die from "preventable causes" linked to lifestyle choices or accidents. Is your main goal reducing injuries or deaths....or insurance pay-outs?

[Lewkowski]

Don't be a piker, Lewk. Driving drunk is dangerous for others, it should result in the death penalty. And I'm all for if you're the first to be prosecuted, since I will guarantee that you've been over the legal limit while behind the wheel at least once unless you're a teetotaler. But then I would guess that's why you don't advocate the death penalty here, because this is one of those legal infractions you know you've been guilty of (and may be guilty of again in the future).

I don't drink and drive because I'm not a giant asshole who cares nothing about the people I could hurt by my negligence.

[Lewkowski]

Its not putting a cop at EVERY restaurant with a liquor license. They would want to grab a few from restaurants as well but you'll get most of your arrests from bars themselves. Heck increase the fines to pay for the additional police work. The only people who would be directly harmed would be drunk drivers. Granted it is a minor annoyance to be pulled over but I'd take some minor annoyance if I knew that thousands of people wouldn't be killed because drunk drivers.

[GGT]

Its not putting a cop at EVERY restaurant with a liquor license. They would want to grab a few from restaurants as well but you'll get most of your arrests from bars themselves. Heck increase the fines to pay for the additional police work. The only people who would be directly harmed would be drunk drivers. Granted it is a minor annoyance to be pulled over but I'd take some minor annoyance if I knew that thousands of people wouldn't be killed because drunk drivers.

If you want to prevent thousands of deaths, then re-examine the role of legislation, and public funding....for services like health care or education.

[Aimless]

Interesting, does this mean you're advocating a 0% limit like done European countries?

[GGT]

Its not putting a cop at EVERY restaurant with a liquor license. They would want to grab a few from restaurants as well but you'll get most of your arrests from bars themselves. Heck increase the fines to pay for the additional police work. The only people who would be directly harmed would be drunk drivers. Granted it is a minor annoyance to be pulled over but I'd take some minor annoyance if I knew that thousands of people wouldn't be killed because drunk drivers.

Sounds like justifications made for random sweeps. And the kind of massive police actions that most people balk against. If you're against "impaired" driving, then you're probably willing to charge teen drivers a premium for inexperience, too. That's a problem within data analytics.

[Aimless]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleep-deprived_driving

Let's get those fuckers too

[RandBlade]

Don't be a piker, Lewk. Driving drunk is dangerous for others, it should result in the death penalty. And I'm all for if you're the first to be prosecuted, since I will guarantee that you've been over the legal limit while behind the wheel at least once unless you're a teetotaler.

WTF!?

I'm no teetotaller but I've never drank and drive. And no before you say it, I don't use public transport either so don't make it a UK v USA thing.

[GGT]

We need sarcasm tags.

[Aimless]

[sarcasm]We need sarcasm tags [/sarcasm]

[littlelolligagged]

Interesting, does this mean you're advocating a 0% limit like done European countries?

I will, and I am a drinker.

DON'T DRINK AND DRIVE, ASSHOLES.

Drink at home, make someone stay sober, or call a cab. It's not complicated.

[RandBlade]

I will, and I am a drinker.

DON'T DRINK AND DRIVE, ASSHOLES.

Drink at home, make someone stay sober, or call a cab. It's not complicated.

Or sleep on a friend's couch. It really isn't complicated.

Though I support a limit of just above zero as in case there's trace amounts the next day (or even from mouthwash).

[GGT]

I will, and I am a drinker.

DON'T DRINK AND DRIVE, ASSHOLES.

Drink at home, make someone stay sober, or call a cab. It's not complicated.

Actually, it IS complicated! If you're dining at a restaurant, and have a cocktail before the meal, or a liquor infused coffer after-dinner drink over several hours....or if you have a quick beer with your pizza after work.....a breathalyzer that detects any alcohol consumption can be considered an "impairment" under zero-tolerance policies.

For that matter, anyone who takes prescribed meds can be considered an "impaired" driver, too. But it's not like cops are posted at Chili's or Applebee's parking lots, or pharmacy drive-thrus.

[Aimless]

That's not complicated unless someone forced the drinks down your throat against your will it laced your blueberry juice without you noticing

[GGT]

What?

My point is that millions of people want to have some alcoholic drink as part of their consumer-driven experiences. And that it's lame to blame the partaker, and expect everyone to have a "designated driver" in places that don't have taxis or public transit options.

Don't get me wrong, I like to imbibe. But I do most of my drinking at home because I don't like drinking at bars or events, and don't want to plan ahead for a designated driver, and can't rely on public transit to get me home. I especially hate it when I go to a restaurant with other people, and the first question isn't what's the tastiest food, but who's going to avoid a great martini or mojito, because they're the "designated" driver.

In other words, zero tolerance policies just don't work.

[Timbuk2]

Different horses for different courses, Gee Gee.

[Lewkowski]

Actually, it IS complicated! If you're dining at a restaurant, and have a cocktail before the meal, or a liquor infused coffer after-dinner drink over several hours....or if you have a quick beer with your pizza after work.....a breathalyzer that detects any alcohol consumption can be considered an "impairment" under zero-tolerance policies.

For that matter, anyone who takes prescribed meds can be considered an "impaired" driver, too. But it's not like cops are posted at Chili's or Applebee's parking lots, or pharmacy drive-thrus.

I'm not in favor of requiring a 0% b/a level.

[littlelolligagged]

It is not lame to expect people who are drinking to be responsible about it. Hell, even the sellers of alcoholic beverages espouse that. Mr. Joe Blow who thinks he can have 3 beers and drive may be fine, or his lowered inhibitions may just make him think he is fine. Same with Ms. Fancy Pants, who just had one glass of wine.

I have no problems at all with not imbibing while out. If I were to do so, I have and will again in the future find a way home other than driving myself. I know I'm not impaired after a glass of wine, but why take the chance of my reaction time being off and a tragedy occurring.

[Aimless]

What?

My point is that millions of people want to have some alcoholic drink as part of their consumer-driven experiences. And that it's lame to blame the partaker, and expect everyone to have a "designated driver" in places that don't have taxis or public transit options.

Don't get me wrong, I like to imbibe. But I do most of my drinking at home because I don't like drinking at bars or events, and don't want to plan ahead for a designated driver, and can't rely on public transit to get me home. I especially hate it when I go to a restaurant with other people, and the first question isn't what's the tastiest food, but who's going to avoid a great martini or mojito, because they're the "designated" driver.

In other words, zero tolerance policies just don't work.

It works pretty well in Sweden and a number of other European countries so I imagine even you guys could adjust if it were implemented over there. I like to drink too but I'm not going to drink and then go to work. Why should I drink and then drive? Obviously if people in the US think it's a great idea to allow people to drink and drive then that's up to them and they can sort it out amongst themselves and legislate accordingly, but to say that it's particularly complicated or difficult to not drink and drive is a little inaccurate, although I understand that it may be more inconvenient for a person who can't get a ride home for free or take public transportation etc.

[Lewkowski]

It is not lame to expect people who are drinking to be responsible about it. Hell, even the sellers of alcoholic beverages espouse that. Mr. Joe Blow who thinks he can have 3 beers and drive may be fine, or his lowered inhibitions may just make him think he is fine. Same with Ms. Fancy Pants, who just had one glass of wine.

I have no problems at all with not imbibing while out. If I were to do so, I have and will again in the future find a way home other than driving myself. I know I'm not impaired after a glass of wine, but why take the chance of my reaction time being off and a tragedy occurring.

Exactly - thank you for being a responsible person.

[Lewkowski]

Bull shit cases like this are why we should have mandatory sentencing guidelines for drunk drivers.

http://rt.com/usa/affluenza-drink-driving-prison-879/

[Being]

Bull shit cases like this are why we should have mandatory sentencing guidelines for drunk drivers.

http://rt.com/usa/affluenza-drink-driving-prison-879/

That's old. Where's the follow up story? Prosecutors can appeal a sentence can't they?

[Lewkowski]

That's old. Where's the follow up story? Prosecutors can appeal a sentence can't they?

Not a legal expert but I believe they can only do that under narrow criteria - ie some maleficence from the judge.

[EyeKhan]

Soon(er or later) none of this will matter - self driving cars really are just around the corner. First the rich folks won't have to drive themselves, then it will be reasonably priced for the rest of us, then it will be required safety technology on all new cars.

[GGT]

....Obviously if people in the US think it's a great idea to allow people to drink and drive then that's up to them and they can sort it out amongst themselves and legislate accordingly, but to say that it's particularly complicated or difficult to not drink and drive is a little inaccurate, although I understand that it may be more inconvenient for a person who can't get a ride home for free or take public transportation etc.

Right, what makes it 'complicated' in the US -- is that our legislation and policies don't work together. It doesn't make sense to serve alcohol until 2am if the public bus stops running at 11pm, especially when there's no train/subway or readily available taxi service (which is pretty typical even in suburban areas). And believing or hoping every single person who's drinking has a "designated driver" is either denial or delusional.

I'm complaining because of how it's expanded police powers, allowing them to conduct dragnet-style road block checks, with cops waiting in expectation of arrest even for other things not related to drunk driving. And if the goal is to reduce impaired driving accidents....then where's the same crack-down for talking on cell phones or texting while driving?

[Lewkowski]

From your post it sounds like you think drinking and driving is OK. That's kinda scary.

Designated driver is a thing. Taxi (or hey Uber!) is another option.

And your right it is delusional to think everyone is going to do that... so clearly we police to crack down on the behavior. Arrest people. Ruin their lives - they are worthless trash anyway since they don't give a shit about their own lives or the lives of the people they injure or kill with their selfish idiocy.

[GGT]

From your post it sounds like you think drinking and driving is OK. That's kinda scary.

Designated driver is a thing. Taxi (or hey Uber!) is another option.

Wrong. I'm saying that "let's get serious about drunk driving" is as vague and misguided as "the war on drugs" was. It's a political slogan that appeals to emotions about public safety....without really discussing/debating the particulars.

And your right it is delusional to think everyone is going to do that... so clearly we police to crack down on the behavior. Arrest people. Ruin their lives - they are worthless trash anyway since they don't give a shit about their own lives or the lives of the people they injure or kill with their selfish idiocy.

[Lewkowski]

I do have specific things called for...

The war on drugs isn't at all comparable. You use drugs and you might kill yourself (and that depends heavily on the type of drug). Drink and drive you can kill others. HUGE difference.