The trouble with DUIs is that you can get nailed with one after just a couple beers. Hell, half of my friends have had a DUI. It's a great way for the cops to make money. It's gone the same route as sex offender registries - every 17-year-old kid with a 15-year-old girlfriend winds up on a registry the day he turns 18. Therefore, I tend to look at DUIs as a really expensive speeding or missing taillight ticket. I make no association between people who actually drive DRUNK and people who get DUIs.

Of course I think it sucks when people get shitfaced and then get behind the wheel. But going after someone after two glasses of wine, now you're just being a temperance-preaching, nanny statist in dire need of an actual hobby.

There's a good reason why the original founder of MADD has disassociated herself from the group.

I will disagree slightly--we've lost enough of innocent-until-proven-guilty already. Make it DUI convictions, and I'm on board.

Agreed with convictions... but also making it a bigger deal. After 2 convictions, you should be in JAIL. Obviously you have no control, and you will drive regardless of license... it isn't something where yo had a few to many, it's a pattern. IF you get pulled over for DUI for cause, THAT MEANS YOU ARE A DANGER. You were incapable of safely driving 4000# of steel. The potential for hurting someone is astonishingly high. I don't agree with sobriety checkpoints though... this shouldn't be random check but for cause. But when cause is established, you should get in trouble.

The big problem lies in what they have had to do to make this law work. Establishing an actual level of alky in your blood makes it easier to prosecute, but it masks the problem. Some people shouldn't be driving after 2 glasses of wine. They may not be good drivers to begin with, so that little edge off makes them dangerous. Other people might be able to handle more. But there is a problem. It's a judgement call if you don't have a standard. We have speed limits, because it is impossible to tell just by looking how good a driver is and everyone thinks they drive better than they actually do. There also needs to be an impairment standard to make the law work...

For this reason. If you are talking on a cell phone and not holding the lane, a cop can pull you over and ticket you for that. But that doesn't mean you can't go on from there with the phone off, and drive perfectly well. One would hope that yo would shut up and drive after such an incident.

If you are impaired, though, you have to be removed from driving. Your driving isn't suddenly going to get better, so it is a much bigger deal. For that incident you should be taken off the street.

But what happens when you do this all the time? When you CONSTANTLY make this same dicision, that you can do what you want, EVEN IF it means someone innocent will get killed. Why should you be allowed to make the dicision for someone else?

I agree that MADD is way out there at this point, but that doesn't change the problem. If you are impaired you are dangerous AND most people can't tell when they are impaired because they already think they drive better than they really do. Getting a DUI should be a wakeup call. "I could've killed somebody" But a lot of people don't seem to care.

I don't think the whole shaming on facebook thing will work regardless of conviction. People with multiple DUI's don't really think they have done anything wrong. It won't change their minds.

The only problem with making it convictions only is that few people are convicted. Tgey are arrested for it and then if they attend an alcohol education class or some other minimal thing the charges are dropped. The behavior doesn't change. Here in Oregon it's next to impossible to actually get a conviction for it unless you've been in an accident that hurts somebody or causes a lot of properyy damage, and even then you can go to a treatment program and they defer it and then dismiss in a lot of cases. I don't know how it works elsewhere but here it's been a joke. There's no real consequence for the irresponsibility and disregard for others displayed if driving while intoxicated.

I'm kind of addicted to reading the police blotter. One problem is that they always omit the crucial details that a person would need to know in order to pass judgment on their fellow citizens. So and so assaulted someone in a bar. Well, what did the fucker say to rile him up? With DUI I at least need to know BAC, and whether they were driving a modified lazyboy or an actual car.

Swiss, you ever been pulled over on bullshit pretext? Most DUI stops in the blotter are initiated for a 'Code violation'. With that kind of catch-all you really don't know their driving was dangerous at all. Most likely they were just downtown after midnight.

"The trouble with DUIs is that you can get nailed with one after just a couple beers. Hell, half of my friends have had a DUI."

That says a lot about your friends. There are plenty of youtube and other videos testing people's driving after 1, 2 and 3 beers. Look them up and see if you want to be on the road with them, and if you want your mom on the road wit them. No, you aren't special, no you aren't fine after just a couple, and yes alcohol does affect you like everyone else.

Yes, cops should need a reason to pull you over and test you-swerving, driving too slow/fast, driving the wrong way, etc etc. I'm not a huge fan of checkpoints. But I also think the book needs to be thrown at you the first time.

I disagree with making it convictions. Most of these are pled down.

Ooops, ON topic, I adore shaming as punishment. Facebook, websites, holding a sandwich sign at an intersection......all great ideas.

Heh, yes Smurfy, I've been pulled without probable numerous times... especially when I owned a rust-free '68 Coupe DeVille in Chicago in the late 80's OI! they were convinced I was up to no good.

The issue with cause is a whole 'nother thing... but I'd say if you were weaving/driving without lights on/blowing through stopsigns it's pretty clear...

Yeah, momof4, my friends are probably a lot different than yours. Our playdates don't revolve around Chuck-E-Cheese.

Sorry, but 1-3 beers is nothing. 6-8 beers is a different story.

Eating french fries while driving, ok. Eating a plate of spaghetti while driving, no.

Talking on a cell phone while driving, ok. Texting, no.

You have been watching too much anti-alcohol propaganda on Youtube. When someone makes a big deal out of a minor amount of alcohol, as opposed to any other driving distraction, I see someone who is an anti-booze (possibly recovering alcoholic?) church lady temperance preacher. These people should just be honest and admit that they don't think anyone should drink. They long for a return to Prohibition.

And just for the record, I do my drinking at home. But I'm completely repulsed by the willingness of law enforcement to glom onto people's irrational prejudices as a way to make money. Smurfy's right about the bullshit pretexts they use for pulling people over.

If 1-3 beers impairs you, it ain't nothin'. If you're pulled over and over the limit on 1-3 beers, you deserve the DWI you get. No matter why you're pulled over. I only wish the penalty was such that it WOULD impede the social lives of those who get them. Your rights end where risking my life begins. I like beer. I don't like those who drink and drive.

Personally, I hate chuck e cheese, although why you thought that has squat to do with the point is beyond me. My friends drink. So do .I They don't drive and get DWI's. Neither do I. Responsibility's the thing, and all that.

I think DUI really needs to be on actual impairment and driving ability. That is, can you really not drive a car safely?

I am reminded of a couple of co-workers in the mid-west. Both heavy drinkers. One night the one gets really hammered and calls the other for a ride home. The second guy goes, drinks a few beers in like no time - just before the place closes. Clearly his blood level was beyond the legal limit. They get stopped at checkpoint, he tells the cop that he was picking up his friend so the friend wouldn't drive - he had finished the guys last beer. Cop says he will have to give him a field check - walk the line, touch your nose, etc. He does fine. Cop thanks him for being a good citizen.

I would certainly have failed the test if I had more than one...might even fail it stone cold sober.

The website wouldn't be shaming. I know several people (not friends, but acquaintances) that have multiple DUIs. If they want people to stop, they need to increase the fine and mandate jail. There are several industries that no longer care whether you have a DUI in hiring.

They can post, but I'm not sure it would change anything.

No one should be getting a DUI after 1-3 beers, because 1-3 beers doesn't affect ANYone. My beef is with the .08 limit, or whatever nonsense it's been lowered to. You can get nailed with that after having two glasses of wine with dinner, because it's on your breath. But you are not impaired on two glasses of wine with dinner, because you've been eating, and dinner takes awhile.

Reckless driving should be kicked in the ass for whatever reason. I don't care if it's booze, cell phone distraction of any nature, trying to apply makeup or eat while driving, or if you are just generally an asshole in traffic even with no distractions whatsoever. If you are on the road and endangering others you should have the book thrown at you.

But people get pulled over all the time for a taillight that's out, a little over the speed limit, and the cop decides to bring in a few extra bucks for the department by breathalyzing the person. Because it's dinner hour, and they might have had a couple beers at the restaurant. I don't care if that guy blows a .08. What pisses me off is the dingbat trying to apply mascara during morning rush hour. The risk to others is the key issue, so why single out booze as an 'evil' that's any more vile than the others?

I'd say we just publicize ALL reckless driving citations. And you could even put the cause on the website too, like 'Completely sloshed,' or 'Trying to read a book while driving,' or 'Attempting to microwave a burrito while changing lanes.'

No one should be getting a DUI after 1-3 beers, because 1-3 beers doesn't affect ANYone.

1-3 beers would make me a road menace with or without dinner. But hella fun at parties!

I can't get all that worked up over people getting nailed for DUI after a couple of beers. Nobody needs beer. If you're driving, don't drink. Also, don't microwave a burrito while changing lanes or do other asshole things.

You'd be surprised how many people are pulled over for DUI and charged who, after the blood test, turn out to be not legally drunk. Around here, courts will not accept the result of a field sobriety test or the police department's BAC machine without corroborating evidence. Field sobriety tests are subjective and there are various medical conditions that can cause one to fail walking-the-line but not be impeded driving. And breathlyzers are frequently out of calibration. Some years ago my brother got pulled over in, I think it was, Eagle Rock (or maybe Pasadena). He blew an .08 and they took him in. But the blood test came back at only .04. Charge dismissed.

Don't they have the ability to set a car up so that it won't let you drive without a breathalizer test? How about this, if they catch you driving drunk once, they make you pay for your own in-car breathalizer test on your car, and every time you drive for the next year, you have to breathe into it to be able to drive a car?

One thing sort of related, why do they give drivers written tests that usually have several trick questions that no one needs to know instead of giving a road test to find out if you're a decent driver? I guess it's cheaper. One question I didn't remember was the percentage of blood alchohol level a teenager has to have to be legally drunk. I'm not a teenager, I have no kids, and even if either were true, how likely is it that I'll have a tool available to check this level when it's needed?

I've seen DUI's done for "He has a loud muffler. Oh, you've had two beers...Lets do the roadside gymnastics next to the interstate in rush hour...." Of course the guy fails.

In most states if you have a CDL (Commercial Driver's License) if you blow a .04 you are over the limit. So you drive an 18 wheeler for ten days, come home, drop the rig, get in your little Geo Metro, go to the bar and have two beers. Then head home -- you are now a DUI.

I have no problem with the idea that after you have multiple DUI's you get special plates, public shaming etc. The problem is the DUI has gotten to the same usefulness as the sex offender list. I would love to see the numbers comparison of .08 offenders, let alone .10 (from older days), that have gotten in accidents that got them the DUI compared to the numbers that got caught in an "innocent" (turn signals out, tail lights, mufflers, checkpoints, etc.) that would be safely in their bed by time the cops finished the paper work.

I appreciate the comments on this thread more than the actual post. Reckless shaming is shameful.

A few comments on DUI'S:(in Orange county) most do not plead down, i.e., reckless driving instead of DUI. 2nd convictions are automatic jail time(typically 30 days). 3rd convictions(within 10 years) = 1 year minimum in county jail or state prison. Driving on a suspended license(from DUI conviction) = 10 days in jail. All offenders must attend Alcohol school, suspension of drivers license, fines and payments.

There are exceptions of course, Judges have leeway, expensive Lawyers, etc.

Talking on a cell phone without a hands-free device is IMO just as irresponsible as driving with a BAC of .08%, texting whilst driving is just being a self-centered asshole.