Also consider that the legal limit in Arizona is 0.00 BAC. That is, you can be convicted for DUI in Arizona if you show the slightest impairment. Taking an over the counter cold medication can give you a DUI.

I'm not crazy about any shaming activities, yours included. But I certainly understand it more coming from Joe Average Citizen than I am from Big Brother and his Billboards.

Also bullshit is the "hollaback" sites that accept from anonymous sources photographs of people that are then often claimed, to be guilty of activities in public ranging from masturbation to sexual harassment. There's no evidence, these people do not have any way to rebut, and most likely do not even know their pics have been posted, and there is not even a known person associated with the attack.

Back to Big Brother, one only need look at the shaming of the so-called deadbeat dads whose crime is mainly being unemployed in a shitty economy and being pursued by faceless bureaucracies. The whole thing is rife for abuse and corruption.

Anyway, I think it's bogus.

(My billboard can be seen at the corner of 32nd Street and .... (Nah, just kidding about that last.))

Could be a great way to meet some partying chicks.

So lets see, maricopa county is so hard up for cash that schools are being forced shut. The sherrifs office has mesed up its funds so badly with all the lawsuits that it has had to close all but ONE of its processing centers.
This is forcing the police forces of other cites to take time away form less important things like LAW ENFORCMENT so they can do the sherriffs jobs for him as he is far too busy overseeing arrests at a lawful proest in a city where he has no jusrisdiction,

But somehow we got the cash to put mugshots of DUI felons on billboard.

Just one question, how is it embarassing to have you mugshot on a billboard if your in jail? Its not like you, or anyone around you can see it.
And given the fat that you;d be in jail with child molesters, tweakers and killers is a DUI really that emabrassing.

"Dude, your in here for a DUI? What a fucking loser you must be so embarresd you didnt kill 5 people and rape a dog like I did"

Give me a fucking brake

FYI Arpio has also been known to lock people in isolation long enough to die of a diebetic coma, and burn down houses while issuing traffic warrants

Against.

Drunk driving is a victimless crime. Before you all start screaming about it, think about it. If I drive drunk (and .08 is a ridiculously low level to begin with) and make it home OK with absolutely no incident, why is that instantaneously a criminal activity?

The crime is in the accident/damage caused/endangerment, which can come from a variety of situations (think rowdy children, talking on a cell phone, juggling lipstick and coffee). I don't know why we single out DUI for the new Scarlet Letter. I blame the nanny-staters and bedwetters at MADD.

loathe though I am to agree with lujlp, yeah, Arpaio is an asshole of the first degree. His office beat one inmate to death and broke the neck of a parapalegic. They also pretty much invaded a gated community, burned a house down, shot a dog and crunched a car with an APC. Whatta guy...hopefully the recall goes through.

I've never been a fan but I begin to appreciate their choice in a name -- Devo was right; we are devolving.

Ridiculous. I begin to wonder how long before they do go back to an actual scarlet letter or hanging someone for stealing a loaf of bread. There's a reason we (supposedly) evolved past these methods.

I know. How about we start a fundraiser to counter these with billboards of pics of those who self appoint themself God? We can start with these two fucks.

Man, am I damned glad I don't live there and I don't drink or drive. But, fuck's sake, I may breathe the wrong way or something. Hell, Arpaio is likely to find some excuse to lock me up given I'm an outspoken, opinated bitch!

Wow! And I'm actually agreeing with Ayn Randian. I've said from the get-go of drunk driving laws, that if they were charged with vehiclular homicide, so should the speeder or the guy who runs the red light who accidentally kills someone. Today, you would have to add the things AR lists. They no more set out to kill someone and were no more stupid and careless. Drinking just picked on because it's perceived as a vice. And 0.00? Jerry's right. Even though I don't drink, I could probably be found drunk there after something as lame as cold medicine.

0.00 percent? I had no idea. And I'm with you on charging drunk drivers who kill with vehicular homicide.

"Drunk driving is a victimless crime."

No, it's not. The odds of you getting into an accident involving an innocent person is so much larger when intoxicated that we have made it illegal.

"If I drive drunk...and make it home OK with absolutely no incident, why is that instantaneously a criminal activity?"

If you randomly fire a gun at a crowd of people and don't kill anyone, it is still a criminal activity. You KNOW firing a gun is dangerous, and you KNOW driving drunk is dangerous. Or at least you should.

"They no more set out to kill someone and were no more stupid and careless."

When you drink and get behind the wheel, you are more stupid and careless than a sober driver.

"Drinking just picked on because it's perceived as a vice."

We don't have to pick on drinking, or whether it is a vice. But if you drink and get behind the wheel, you are doing something so dangerous to other people that we have criminalized it. Or at least most of us have. Some evidently are happy with it.

A_R must be suffering from MPD - because I agree with him too.

My perfect DUI law:

No DUI checkpoints.
No cops waiting outside bars.

If you are driving in such a way as to present a hazard, and a cop stops you, he can test for intoxication. If you blow above 0.1 BAC, you lose your license - permanently. Drive without a license, 90 days, 1 year, 5 years (first, second, third offense).

If you are involved in an accident where there is only property damage, you will be charged under the appropriate statutes for willful destruction of private property.

If you are involved in an accident where there are injuries, you will be charged under the appropriate statutes for assault with a deadly weapon.

If you are involved in an accident where there is a death, you will be charged with manslaughter, second degree (or whatever your state's equivalent is for criminally negligent homicide).

Simply: operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated shall be taken to imply intent to harm.

I'm FOR the billboards. Public shaming has some effectiveness: we should put it to use.

Donna - we're of one mind...how interesting is that? So, in the words of Rush's followers "Ditto".

I want to add, though, that excessively pushing the DUI agenda to the point of nonsense is going to do nothing but backfire on the Nannies. If one-half of one beer is enough to get you branded for life, pretty soon everybody's going to have a DUI and it's not going to be the embarrassment they want it to be.

Also, the Government is duplicitous in its tallying of "alcohol-related crahses":

From Wikipedia: NHTSA defines fatal collisions as "alcohol-related" if they believe the driver, a passenger, or a nonoccupant of the vehicle (such as a pedestrian or pedalcyclist) had a blood alcohol content (BAC) of 0.01 or greater.

So, yes, if government believes (not knows) that your passenger spouse was on cough syrup when that idiot ran the red light, collides with you, and said idiot dies, that fatality is officially classified as "alcohol related".

Yes. Ponder that insanity for a moment.

Checkpoints near me are stupid. When my boyfriend sees them when he's on his way to my house (to have a glass of wine and dinner) he just turns off onto a sidestreet so he won't be inconvenienced.

But, I'm with doombuggy. I think the BAC of 0.0 is ridiculous, but drunk driving (like driving while texting) kills others. You just want to kill yourself, stay parked in your garage with the motor running, thanks.

doombuggy scince you are for the billboards would you be so kind as to pay for them so we can keep schools open were kinda strapped for cash out here

Alos only those convicted of FELONY DUI will have photos up, and a felony DUI conviction carries jail time out here
What is the use in publically shaming someone who has been removed from the public?

If you randomly fire a gun at a crowd of people and don't kill anyone, it is still a criminal activity. You KNOW firing a gun is dangerous, and you KNOW driving drunk is dangerous.

How did I know some sophist was going to drag out this old canard?

So, if I have a .09 BAC and I am driving down a relatively empty highway, obeying all laws and speed limits, that's the same as firing a gun into a crowd? Yeah, you're peddling some shit I'm not buying.

No, it's not. The odds of you getting into an accident involving an innocent person is so much larger when intoxicated that we have made it illegal.

Bwa ha ha...I didn't know that government was designed to engineer the "odds" in our favor. I thought it existed to protect rights. Also, plz link to these so-called increased "odds"...and if you link to MADD or the NHSTA's bogus numbers and "studies", -10 for pseudointellectualism. And, btw, an act that increases "odds" of some Very Bad Thing occuring is still a victimless crime, because there's still no victim until there is one.

But, I'm with doombuggy. I think the BAC of 0.0 is ridiculous, but drunk driving (like driving while texting) kills others

No, Amy, bad driving CAN kill others. I don't understand why a particular state of mind or body can be banned without showing that it leads to a victim every time.

Also, what is "drunk driving" to you anyway? Is it a certain BAC? A certain "way" that people drive? It's a meaningless term, because the state of "drunkenness" is different from person to person and even varies within the same person from one day to another. So the term "drunk driving" has no philosophical value.

Against.

The problem is that public shaming, or harsher laws and stiffer penalties have no intent of actually solving the problem, only benefitting the politicians who get to claim to be tough on crime. The only way of actually SOLVING the problem is technological. For example, creating a device that actually goes in all cars - like having to type in a seven digit number from random number generator (drunks, really tired people, very angry people probably wouldn't be able to do it and thus the car wouldn't start) with an emergency override that flashes lights and horns.

Something along those lines would actually PREVENT people from driving drunk. The billboards don't work to STOP drunk driving because people commit crimes assuming they won't get caught and usually they don't the first couple of times. Of course preventing drunk driving would actually take political skill and know how, which most politicians sadly lack.

A_R - The proper term is now "impaired". And any time you enter the vehicle while impaired, you know it. At 0.8 BAC, there is a noticable and significant drop in responsiveness to stimuli. There's also a drop in fine motor control. This is the rationale for determining a state interest in removing impaired drivers.

The present DUI legal structure is born from the MADD-induced tendency toward prohibition. It got traction because of the (liberal) belief that government exists to protect civilians from each other. Given Warren, if a cop is not Constitutionally required to give assistance to someone in the process of being raped, then they are certainly not required to prevent a drunk from running someone over.

But I suspect that the first person to get 20-life for killing someone whilst impaired will cause a massive drop in DUI.

"So the term "drunk driving" has no philosophical value."

Will you admit to any practical value?

"I don't understand why a particular state of mind or body can be banned without showing that it leads to a victim every time."

We can't offer you perfection. If you are going to demand perfection before enforcing any law, then I guess you will never be satisfied.

"I didn't know that government was designed to engineer the "odds" in our favor."

It's kinda something we get for our tax money. We set the drinking age at 21, because the odds are people that age and older can drink responsibly. I'm sure you could find a case where a 1 year old drank alcohol responsibly, and this would be enough evidence for you to lift any restrictions. Not all of us agree.

"So, if I have a .09 BAC and I am driving down a relatively empty highway, obeying all laws and speed limits, that's the same as firing a gun into a crowd?"

No, if you were driving drunk on a crowded highway, maybe the analogy would apply for illustrative purposes. Try to understand.

"doombuggy scince you are for the billboards would you be so kind as to pay for them so we can keep schools open were kinda strapped for cash out here"

The checks in the mail. Just kidding.

The money and the principle are sometimes two different things. I would guess you pay enough taxes to get both this and education done.

"What is the use in publically shaming someone who has been removed from the public?"

Word gets around.

I would guess you pay enough taxes to get both this and education done.

Ordinarilly yes,

But with the sherriff killing people and destroying property all the lawsuits are taking their toll,

Plus the jackass CA Thomas, in addition to wasting hunndereds of thousands in taxpayer money in an effort to disqualify EVERY jusdge in maricopa county from hearing criminal cases, is using this as a plublicity stunt to bolster his image for a run at govoner

At 0.8 BAC, there is a noticable and significant drop in responsiveness to stimuli. There's also a drop in fine motor control. This is the rationale for determining a state interest in removing impaired drivers.

Bullshit. .08 was MADD-induced and crammed down the states' throats by the federal government via threats to withold infrastructure (spec. highway) dollars. There's no scientific rationale behind .08. None.

(And no, brian, I am not yelling at you, I am just angry that this myth has such a pervasive reach).

Additionally, flighty's post is very insightful. These craven politicians appeal to the bloodlust in us by scapegoating and (like I said earlier) pulling a bait-and-switch between legitmate drunk-driving fatalities and 'alcohol-induced' ones. Lowered limits, fascist checkpoints, tougher penalites, and still, the rate isn't going down. This is about Puritanism, grandstanding and controlling the populace, not about solving anything.

doombuggy - you have a whole lot of cute fluff and nothing substantiative.

We can't offer you perfection. If you are going to demand perfection before enforcing any law, then I guess you will never be satisfied.

Oh, well, then that's that, isn't it? I guess all those innocent folks who are railroaded into life-destroying court cases and sentences can take heart.

I'll ask you again: If I am driving down an empty road ata BAC of .09 or .10 and breaking no traffic laws...where's the danger? Who's the victim? I'll chalk the rest of your cutesy crap up as "non-responsive".

What is a check point exactly? Do all drivers have to pull over and have to pass a Breathalyzer?!? I've never seen them around here so I'm not sure what they entail.

"So, yes, if government believes (not knows) that your passenger spouse was on cough syrup when that idiot ran the red light, collides with you, and said idiot dies, that fatality is officially classified as "alcohol related"."

Wow. Just wow. Is that where MADD gets their stats...? Talk about skewed data. I've never understood why a diver gets in trouble if a passenger is drinking from an open container...If the driver is sober why is it a problem? For the record: I support drunk driving laws in theory, but in practice many of the laws are crap and I base my standards on reasonable BAC levels. So, I don't support labeling someone as a drunkie, social pariah for driving w/ a BAC that is a smidgen over 0.00.

The billboard idea isn't bad - but the laws prosecuting people are bad. A person who used cough syrup isn't the same as a person who had 8 drinks and killed someone and they shouldn't be treated the same.

Those ladies at MADD had a point, at one time. You have to admit they did a good job of drawing public attention to drunk driving. It became a source of shame, and stricter laws were passed. At that point, they should have recognized their goals had been accomplished and quit while they were ahead, instead of turning into a modern-day prohibition movement. Even the founder of the organization feels that way.

But instead the legal limit just kept dropping and dropping - often due to bribery of the states by the federal government in the form of highway funds. What an abuse of power! The people of a state pay taxes to their state governments to get things the way they want them, only to pay taxes to the federal government to have things turned around and made the way they DON'T want them.

The effect? People tend to feel sorry for those who get DUIs now. You had two glasses of wine with a dinner that lasted three hours, and had the misfortune of being pulled over by a dickhead on the way home? Bummer of a traffic ticket, man. If the legal limit was set at something reasonably approaching intoxication that would be one thing. But at .08 (or even less) it's nothing but harassment. You might as well give people a DUI if they are trying to eat something while driving, talk on a cell phone, yell at their kids, or try to pick out a new CD from the rack.

You can agree or disagree with the law as it stands, but you can't deny that public opinion is being swayed to sympathize with DUI recipients, even to the point of viewing them as victims. Which completely undermines what MADD set out to do in the first place. Of course these laws work great as fundraisers for the system, so we're not likely to see them change any time soon.

Pirate Jo's post is too full of win for everyone else (myself thankfully excepted). Kudos.

What is a check point exactly? Do all drivers have to pull over and have to pass a Breathalyzer?!? I've never seen them around here so I'm not sure what they entail.

Almost. They block the road, and check every car for minor violations (registration, cracked windshield, seat belt). They ask questions, and if they decide that you are potentially intoxicated, they demand a breathalyzer test.

And if you turn down a side street to avoid one, they will follow you.

The Supreme Court had to modify the interpretation of the 4th and 5th amendments to allow that shit. Since they're stopping everyone, then the presumption of innocence is gone, the right against self-incrimination is gone, and the right to be free from search absent a warrant is gone.

A_R - The level at which impairment occurs varies wildly. MADD is using this fact to push for a 0.01 BAC in law. Which would make it so that if you drink a beer at lunch, you can't drive home from work. Which is insane.

But the majority of people WILL be impaired at 0.10% BAC. 0.08 was just a way to increase ticket revenue. And MADD, being a good little liberal organization, will take any incremental steps toward their ultimate goal that they can get.

Keep in mind that to hit 0.08, Adam on Mythbusters (about 6'0", 190 lbs) had to drink three beers in about 15 minutes. And he was very impaired.

It actually takes a considerable amount of drinking to hit 0.08. Which is why places like DC have done the whole zero tolerance thing. 0.08 didn't bring in enough arrests and revenue.

I think it's a great idea. Drunk driving is often a crime of laziness. It's easier to get home than wait for a cab. The more the public is reminded of how serious the consequences are, and the greater the likelihood they will be held to account, the less likely that driver is to get behind the wheel.

The idea of drunk driving being a victimless crime if there is no accident is ludicrous to me.

Drunk driving is very much not a victimless crime. A drunk driver hit our car and we crashed head first into a pole. Luckily, I was 8 at the time so all I suffered was a compression fracture to my lower spine and a severe concussion. If I had been older, I would have probably been paralyzed. The drunk fool that hit us was a repeat offender who had several previous DUIs. Maybe if his picture had been on a billboard, it would have stopped him. Who knows?

As for Amy's question, I think anything is worth a try. Not knowing Arizona's financial situation as luljp does, I can't say if it is the best time for this, but I don't think it is a bad idea.

I do agree that 0.00 is ridiculous, but there should be a standard BAC limit on the books.

Almost. They block the road, and check every car for minor violations (registration, cracked windshield, seat belt). They ask questions, and if they decide that you are potentially intoxicated, they demand a breathalyzer test.

Not every car, brian. I've gone through a few myself, whether because I was lucky or because they had too many to handle already pulled over, and were letting other cars go by, whatever. But I saw one guy go right by a checkpoint, turn down a side street and promptly go up and over a small fountain on someone's lawn. Guy was drunker than hell, got out of his car, walked to the side of the house and had a piss for god's sake, as one of the checkpoint officers just happened to glance over when he heard the noise. I was stopped at a red light, and pulled over just to see what would happen, but then was waved on my way by one of the other checkpoint officers. Never did find out what happened to the guy.

Drunk driving is very much not a victimless crime. A drunk driver hit our car and we crashed head first into a pole.

Drunk driving wasn't the crime there; recklessness was. Someone talking on a cell phone could have done the same thing.

The idea of drunk driving being a victimless crime if there is no accident is ludicrous to me.

Why? Because it doesn't conform to your small-minded view of the world? The idea of there being a crime without a victim is ludicrous to me. So, eric, how is it not victimless when there's no victim? What is this, cognitive disassociation?

Using your logic I should be able to drive 90 miles an hour through a school zone. If I don't hit any kids, then hey, it was victimless, and not a crime? The potential for disaster is so great that society has deemed it prudent to limit our legal behavior to a safe standard. Now what the standard is, whether .10 or zero tolerance is up for discussion, but arguing that unless someone gets hurt there should be no consequences is absurd.

You are confusing your rights with your privileges, and nowhere in any law book will you find it is your right to drive. Ayn Rand's message was not anarchy, jackass.

A very similar and interesting discussion at /. today concerning this article:

Did Sex Offender Listing Lead To Murder?, The Skinny: Rapist Stabbed To Death, Allegedly By Neighbor Who May Have Seen His Name On List - CBS News

In this case, the Megan's Listing listing was incorrect, but it is another aspect of the problem of shaming vs. trying to somehow reasonably protect the public.

The slashdot discussion is here:

yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/12/11/1330257

I am hopeful posting it in this way will get through the spam filter....

And from that /. discussion was this terribly rude, insensitive, just downright offensive joke.

A Rabbi, a Priest, and a lawyer are on the Titanic having a lively discussion about God and the law when the boat hits an iceberg and starts sinking.

"Save the children!" the Rabbi exclaims.

"FUCK the children, the lawyer snarls.

"No time for that!" says the priest

I agree that a 0.00 BAC is too much. Also cops tend to not give you a breathalysers unless they smell it on you. If you reak of booze you have had too many. As far as level of impairment, try doing any complex task after 1,2 and 3 drinks. Time your self. I don't need a government study to tell me that after 2 drink I have a slower reaction time.

Is DUI with no accident a victim less crime. Yeah, no one was hurt so it's victimless. However that's like saying that idiot with drug resistant TB did nothing wrong when he flew home when told not to because no one caught it. So how do you discourage a habit that is dangerous to the rest of us. Just like the old smoking debate what should be done to stop you (drunk) from endangering my (DD) life. There is no reason to drink and drive.

"I'll ask you again: If I am driving down an empty road ata BAC of .09 or .10 and breaking no traffic laws...where's the danger? Who's the victim?"

So you get home safely, and no one gets hurt. Probably the same if you drove 120 mph down this empty road. These people aren't typically stopped by police, 'cause they aren't the ones for whom the law was written. If the innocent are getting nabbed under DUI laws, that not a reason to chuck the whole enterprise.

"Drunk driving wasn't the crime there; recklessness was."

And alcohol contributed to the recklessness in a way so significant, we have statutes devoted to it.

"I guess all those innocent folks who are railroaded into life-destroying court cases and sentences can take heart."

I like to think the innocent are spared. If not, I guess they are martyrs for the cause.

You are confusing your rights with your privileges, and nowhere in any law book will you find it is your right to drive.

That's because government doesn't grant rights, dude. It protects them, and the Constitution is a government-limiting one, not a rights-granting one.

I don't see the right to drink, the right to smoke, the right to have sex, the right to buy and sell property in ANY law book. I wonder why? Maybe because laws don't grant rights. So get your shit straight before you go calling people names, fuckface.

I also think it's really cute how the government forces you to pay taxes for the roads but then can turn around and tell you that only "certain people " use the stuff you paid for.

Using your logic I should be able to drive 90 miles an hour through a school zone.

You fail it. Try again.

And -10 for throwing "the children" in there.

That's a very specific example that has a lot of context to it. Simply declaring some arbitrary BAC (absent any context) "too dangerous" to drive a car is religion, not reason and science.

And alcohol contributed to the recklessness in a way so significant, we have statutes devoted to it.

Says you...he could have been changing the radio, talking on his cell phone or dealing with his rowdy kids. And since all of these have been shown to significantly increase the odds of having an accident, we should ban radios, cell phone use in cars and children.

"I also think it's really cute how the government forces you to pay taxes for the roads but then can turn around and tell you that only "certain people " use the stuff you paid for." So if someone is so tanked they can barely stand should be free to drive home no questions asked? Where are you getting the "certain people" crap from? People in certain conditions yes, like when you have seizures you can't drive unless they are fully controlled for at least 1 year. What about blind people, should they be allowed to drive until the actually hit some one?

Now if you are against just declaring a .08 limit with no evidence I agree. However at least one study I read (yes from the NHTSA, so go off on your government corruption rant) shows that any alcohol will cause some impairment. Having enjoyed my fair share of booze my experience matches what the study says. The question is how much impairment can be allowed on the road?
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/research
/pub/impaired_driving/BAC/technicalsum.html

"and children."

Agreed!

> .08 is a ridiculously low
> level to begin with

Says who?

> why is that instantaneously
> a criminal activity?

Because you're forcing other people to unwittingly take a mortal risk, dickweed.

At the very VERY least-- If you kill someone in an accident while carrying a BAC of .082, people will assume it's because you were drunk, even if the accident would have happened anyway. You're giving alcohol a bad name.

And I, your towering superior in drinking as in so many matters, resent you for it.

Seriously, dood, tell us the truth: How old are you? Where does all your pissy energy come from? We can tell it's not righteousness....

Actually many states ban the use of cell phones with out hands free equipment. There are practical reasons for radios, kids, and cell phones in the car. I'd love to hear your justification for drinking and driving. The response "cause I want to" will immediately prove that you are guilty of the logical errors you like to accuse other of.

A R's comments are kind of like a car crash, I know I shouldn't look but I have to ...

Someone talking on a cell phone could have done the same thing.

I for one can walk straight while talking on a cell phone. When I exceed 2 martini's I can not. When I can't operate myself (or my cell phone) properly I certainly don't think I should be operating a piece of machinery that weighs 2 tons that I am projecting at 60 mph.

The public has a right to expect safe roadways. Would you not want the police to stop the 14 year old driving down the highway even though he was obeying the traffic signs? Would you want the trucker driving tons of petro to not have to wear his glasses?

It might be a victimless crime, but so is speeding until you plow into someone. But hell, according to you we should remove the speed limit signs and let everybody do what the fuck they want.

"Seriously, dood, tell us the truth: How old are you? Where does all your pissy energy come from? We can tell it's not righteousness...."

I'm with Crid.

I for one can walk straight while talking on a cell phone. When I exceed 2 martini's I can not. When I can't operate myself (or my cell phone) properly I certainly don't think I should be operating a piece of machinery that weighs 2 tons that I am projecting at 60 mph.

Good for you! You know your limits and know how to operate safely within in them. Trying to figure out why you think your personal experience should suddenly become law.

Would you not want the police to stop the 14 year old driving down the highway even though he was obeying the traffic signs?

No, why would I? Because you believe that at 15 and 364 days, kids are a menace behind the wheel, but at 16, they're given the go-ahead? WTF?

It might be a victimless crime, but so is speeding until you plow into someone.

Did you know that 100% of shooting deaths involve guns? Holy shit! *rolls eyes*

"Good for you! You know your limits and know how to operate safely within in them"

So my life should be at risk because some fucking idiot (like you) doesn't know their own limits.

"No, why would I? Because you believe that at 15 and 364 days, kids are a menace behind the wheel, but at 16, they're given the go-ahead? WTF?"

Crid - he must be 15 ... or just not licensed to drive

They are not just "given the go-ahead". They are atleast semi-educated about the rules of the road. I would love to see how you'd react to a person who was not taught to fly/land to be the pilot of your next flight.

And this

"Did you know that 100% of shooting deaths involve guns? Holy shit! *rolls eyes*"

In english please. Are you trying to say that all car accidents involve cars? Wow ....

AR -

First rule of holes - when you find that you are in one, stop digging.

"No, why would I? Because you believe that at 15 and 364 days, kids are a menace behind the wheel, but at 16, they're given the go-ahead? WTF?" The gov has to set limits I think some are set more arbitrarily than other. I think most people at .08 bac have no business behind the wheel of a vehicle, not to mention over.

"Did you know that 100% of shooting deaths involve guns? Holy shit! *rolls eyes*" Nope, did we forget about cross bows and sling shots? Also since you bring up guns as an example. Should a 5 year old be allowed to buy a gun if he/she proves they are responsible? Should a trial be run to show at what age the average person will be mature enough to own a gun?

First rule of holes - when you find that you are in one, stop digging.

I don't consider holding my own on a blog argument a "hole". If I didn't want to be here, I wouldn't.

There are practical reasons for radios, kids, and cell phones in the car.

Wait, what's the practical reason for a radio?
What's the practical reason for eating in a car?
Actually, there's no reason you can't just pull over to make a call on your cell phone either.

Unless what you meant by "practical reasons" was "reasons I find convenient in MY life", in which case I wouldn't be surprised.

Unless what you meant by "practical reasons" was "reasons I find convenient in MY life", in which case I wouldn't be surprised.

A R, open mouth, insert foot. You're losing ground.

"reasons I find convenient in MY life" I don't have kids and I drive with a hand free set. The radio I have on presets that I can change without taking my eyes off the road. I don't eat behind the wheel. Try again.

It's your story, Flynne, you tell it how you like.

So, vlad, should we mandate hands-free phone sets? Radio presets? No kids? I mean, you just gave a bunch of stuff you happen to do; that doesn't really answer the policy questions, does it?

Thought experiment: if any of the above commonplace activities (i.e. eating in the car) were shown to increase the risk as much as DUI, would you advocate for laws against that activity?

I sense you wouldn't. And herein lies the hypocrisy.

"Thought experiment: if any of the above commonplace activities (i.e. eating in the car) were shown to increase the risk as much as DUI, would you advocate for laws against that activity?"

YES. And I'd also give you a hundred bucks if the studies proved beyond a doubt that any of those things actually 1) impaired a person's ability to respond to stimuli 2) impaired their judgment 3) increased their potential for an accident AS MUCH AS alcohol.

I am confident that I will keep my money.

With the exception of kids I would have no problem banning all of the other above listed stuff. I'd love to see them enforce it though. How can you prove that the cheese burger was his and not left by the passenger? I live in Mass and grew up in NY. Both states mandate hands free sets with a $100 fine in NY.

The reasons I'm against banning kids even if it shows that they are as dangerous as DUI are:
1) Then they would be walking every where, more kids on the street more chance of them getting hit. So it balances out
2) The shit storm which would occur would lock up the courts forever, some level of practicality must be viewed when imposing laws.
3) If the kids are kept out of sports and other activities they sit home and get fat and sick (economic drain) or they wonder the streets and cause problems (social and economic).

As someone who has been busted for a DUI, and got her car totalled by a drunk driver two weeks later, I am conflicted. To make a long story short, I was pulled over in the wee hours on a country road for my right tire touching the fog line and driving 45 in a 55 mph zone. Fair enough, right? Except that the works department had been painting the road and left pylons on my side of the center line of a two lane highway, so it was kinda unavoidable, (and conveniently left off the arrest report). After passing the pylons and driving (with the cop in tow) for 6 miles, I was "pulled over" after stopping at a gas station, and the reason that I was "pulled over" happened 6 miles back! After failing the roadside sobriety test because I physically wavered during the standing on one foot saying the ABCs backwards (try it sober!), I was breathylized. Result: 1.03.

So I got a lawyer to file a bad stop motion, but the DA wouldn't have any of it. My lawyer told me that it would cost 4 grand to go to trial, and he couldn't guarantee anything. So I pled no contest, eventually. I had no choice at that point, being young and broke. (No legal aid for misdemeanors.) Tant pis.

My lawyer was able to allow me to keep my license during all the pre-trial stuff. Two weeks after the arrest, I was driving on another country road (heh, I lived in Alaska at the time...lots of country roads) and was rearended by a drunk driver going about 50 mph. The truck was totalled, but luckily me and my passenger were not hurt. And boy howdy, was this woman wasted! After getting her driver's license number, she split the scene, (smart, huh?) and the next morning she was the front page headline: she had had three more hit and runs on her way home. And guess who the cop was that came to my scene? The same dude who busted me in the first place! Even better, I was priveledged enough to have his patronage in my bar a couple of weeks later. He had a great laugh telling me that the woman who hit me didn't have any insurance, and that I wasn't able to do shit about it as he swilled. Nice.

So, what is the moral of this story? I guess it is don't drink and drive, period. I feel that I got screwed on both counts (having a record has caused me so many problems, that, in retrospect, I should have fought the charge), but I don't really feel that I can ask for a whole hell of a lot of sympathy.

But, I will say, that despite all this MADD skewing of stats, the people who kill people drunk driving are more often than not surfing a 0.23 buzz, not 0.8. And city cops (at least where I come from), are more often than not dicks. So, yeah, I am leaning towards opposing this billboard deal. Unless we can put a picture of that bitch who hit me on it instead of me, ha ha. But, and I am not making excuses for my behavior, but there is a difference between so-called drunk drivers and really drunk drivers. I understand that you have to draw the line somewhere, but I guess that I wish there was a little more discretion involved. Of course, when cop shops are run as for profit enterprises, that is just a bit too much to ask.

Sorry, my above post is all wrong with numbers (getting French scales and American scales mixed up).

I was 0.103. And I wanted to say that, in my experience, people who are killers on the road are at around 0.2 - 0.3, not 0.08. I worked in a bar for several years, and am a decent judge of drinks to drunkeness.

Sorry for the errors!

Gretchen, see the issue lies in that I am not trying to base public policy on studies, because they can be debated until the cows come homes. My point is that people do awfully dangerous things on the road, but we single out DUI. My spidey-sense tells me it's because it's alcohol, dammit!

So, vlad, you're willing to make exceptions for dangerous drivers for a litany of lame reasons (and FOR THE CHILDREN!11!). I am not shocked.

liz, very insightful post. I'd like to highlight the best comment you made though:

Of course, when cop shops are run as for profit enterprises, that is just a bit too much to ask.

Excellent point. Drinkers are easy to marginalize, persecute, vilify and ultimately drain money from (akin to smokers, no?); soccer moms and dads, not so much.

Actually your DUI was a misdemenor, the crazy bitch who hit you would have been nailed on a felony. So under the statute she would be on the billboard and you wouldn't be.

"So, vlad, you're willing to make exceptions for dangerous drivers for a litany of lame reasons (and FOR THE CHILDREN!11!). I am not shocked." Um, no. Like I said above ban all you want except kids in the car because if you do a cost benefit analysis I really doubt you'd end up in the green. In truth if more lives would be saved in the end then yeah I all for it.

"My spidey-sense tells me it's because it's alcohol, dammit!" The physiological effects of alcohol are well documented and have been for years. So science shows that everyone with a sufficient amount of alcohol in their system will be a threat on the road. Not everyone drives like shit with kids in the car, eating, radio blasting etc. I know your not debating the permitted bac levels but all DUIs.

So should someone who knowingly drank a 750 of vodka get behind the wheel? Since as you define my reasons as lame I'd love to hear your wise deep and meaningful justification.

"I am not trying to base public policy on studies, because they can be debated until the cows come homes." So what should we use to define public policy?

Did you folks know that DWP (driving while phoning), has already taken over DWI as the leading cause of traffice deaths in many areas. The CHP says that is the case here in California. Californians tend to be poor drivers to begin with because they don't learn to drive in bad conditions very often and they take driving for granted way too much. I have see people shaving on the road out hear. I have come up behind a car doing 35 mph on a full speed freeway and looked over to see them yakking on a cel phone. Personally, I think cel phones are far more dangerous on the road than two or three beers. But there is no stigma involved with cel phones. When you get on the road and pull out your phone and start yakking, you are doing more in my mind to cause an accident than a drunk driver because drunk drivers are still paying attention to the road. I saw a woman just run over by a woman in a SUV on a BLVD a couple of years ago and then the worst happend. Right at the intersection of the 805 and the 52, I was looking out the window and saw all kinds of police and firetrucks, it was a single car accident that lost control and rolled on the transition ramp and hit the support. The young woman killed herself yakking on her cel phone, and it turned out to be my best friends daughter Colleen who I had know since she was real small.

If I had a choice between everybody on the road being .08 intoxicated or everybody on the road being a 19 year old girl in an SUV, late for work talking on a cel phone, I'll take the drunks everytime. Being a motorcycle rider, the later have already killed several friends of mine.

By the way, you might get a kick out of this. I was on a business trip and had to go to Albuqurque a couple of years ago and I rented a car at the airport. As I was leaving the rental car parking lot, there was a sign that was positioned above the lot exit. In large letters it read, "ATTENTION CALIFORNIANS: It is against the law to operate a motorvehicle and talk on a cel phone at the same time in the state of New Mexico." I usually don't anyway, but I got a great laugh out of it. Has anyone else hear ever seen that sign?

Wouldn't it be worse if that 19 year old girl in the SUV had a bac of .08?

Whether or not .08 is a "fair" measure of drunkeness for all drivers all the time under all conditions is up for debate. I can easily chime in that 0.00 would be ridiculous (because someone who had a dessert with rum in it could blow a .001 or something and get a DUI).

However, I do recognize the importance of having SOME measure to provide legal consequences for drunk drivers. And I do not think this is a case of "villifying" alcohol. I don't think any less of my friend who passed out in my car while I drove her home. I would have thought less of her, however, had she refused to hand over her keys to me. I think it is a case of villifying drunk driving, and I have NO problem with villifying drunk driving.

I also have NO problem villifying people who use their cell phones w/o a headset or text while driving (my friend tried listening to her voice mail once while I was in the car, and I sat there saying "pull over pull over pull over" with increasing volume until she slammed her phone shut).

Yes, turning 180 degrees while screaming at your kids while driving should probably carry a hefty fine as well. But it cannot be measured, and unless we install video cameras in all cars, there's no way to prove it caused an accident. It sucks, but that's the way it is.

We can, however measure BAC. In an ideal world, people would be able to recognize their drunkenness and willingly surrender their keys. We do not live in an ideal world. And I feel better driving home from the bars on the nights when I'm DD knowing that, if the car in front of me is swerving in and out of its lane and screeching to a halt halfway through an intersection, I can call the cops, read off the license plate, and know that the driver is going to have to take a breathalizer and maybe pay a fine for endangering me. If there is a condition that increases risk for other drivers and it can be measured, I'm all for creating laws against it.

Same thing with speed limits (speeding is another dangerous behavior that can be measured). I'm just as pissed as the next person when I get pulled over for going 10 mph over the limit on an empty road (hey, I didn't hurt anyone and it was probably safe for me to do so). But if posted speed limits and the repercussions for surpassing them provide some motivation to people to look down at their speedometers every once and a while, I'll pay the $70 ticket without *too* much complaining.

While I agree there should be some rational punishment for DUI, I don't think that is the aim anymore. Now, they want to absolutely 'RUIN YOU LIFE' if they can. I think it has gone off the deep end. There are several jobs that will terminate you immediately if you get a DUI. And having it on your record is almost as stigmatizing as being an ex-child molestor. It's riduculous to punish people this much for a crime that is only a crime for 'what could have happened'.

a crime for what could have happened? a while ago i hemmed and hawed about where i live. well, i live in wisconsin, where a dui is not only a right, it's a rite of passage. practically a responsibility, you absolutely must have one. it's stupid. we have far less stringent punishments for dui's than anywhere else in the country, which, by the way, has lower punishments than most of the world. it's not working. ?KIj sorry, my kitten loves to jump on the keyboard and i thought it might give some comic relief to leave it on there.
anyway. 'a crime for what could have happened' - how do you propose we try to keep people from actually driving drunk and killing people? just punish them after the fact? kind of harsh punishment for the dead people. personally i think we need to wake people up to not drive drunk before that happens. if pictures on a billboard work better than the current non-solution, i'm all for it. pesonally i think drunk drivers should be arrested for attempted murder and anyone who actually does kill someone it should be first degree, since no one held them down and poured the beer down their throats and then held a gun to their head and said "drive", but i know i'm going to get in big trouble for that one.

yeah, kt, but none of it is working.

how do you propose we try to keep people from actually driving drunk and killing people? just punish them after the fact? kind of harsh punishment for the dead people

Yeah, you're right: life sucks. But you're certainly not proposing we have some kind of Minority Report society where people are punished for what they might do, are you? I mean, we don't punish murderers until they murder someone...same with rapists, thieves. Oh but DUI? That's different.

Yikes...give it a rest already.

Look, the whole DUI thing would be less offensive if the bac were reasonably set (to have it be something a nondrinker could be read as drunk is utterly ridiculous) and if other inattentive driving were treated on the same level. It's not. Run a red light? Ticket. Exceed the speed limit? Ticket. Talk on your cell phone? (And as a pedestrian, I can't tell you how many times I've just about been plowed down by some asshole doing just that when the light wasn't in their favor so I cheered NY's enacting a law.) The same. Kids not in seat belts and thereby restrained enough you can yell without turning around? The same (and the little darlings are put in danger which is why we have the seat belt laws.) But drunk driving? You are labelled as evil/bad as a child molester or a terrorist? Gimme a break. And, no, I'm not proposing these others be brought up to the same level.

This billboard thing is a really, really bad idea, as bad as a scarlet letter, frankly. And don't get me started (since it was mentioned) on the sex offenders list. I've never been for that and my daughter was molested. It amounts to nothing but witch hunting and does absolutely zero to protect kids. Can you tell your kids to avoid that house/person? Uh, yes, but, hello, why are you not teaching them to avoid strangers in the first place? Problem is, it doesn't tell you of the one that hasn't been caught yet and it's mere existence is making parents rest too damned easy that they know where the perverts are. They don't. Teach your kids to not take candy from a stranger God damn it. Let alone go into their house.

shame works in europe to discourage public drunkenness. and, by the way, drunk driving is ALREADY ILLEGAL, just like murder and rape. it's not like it's punishment for something they haven't done. get that straight. current punishment isn't working. try something else. what's the definition of insanity again? it's not well, this isn't working, so we'll just give up.

shame works in europe to discourage public drunkenness.

True. But I have never met a French person who was arrested for drunk driving. And it is not for lack of trying.

There are just not as many cops on the road, and driving after a bottle of wine at dinner is much more normal here than in the U.S.

I have no opinion on the matter, but since you brought up Europe, I just wanted to tell you that drinking and driving seems to be more socially, if not legally, inconsequential here.

hi
dio3j9vb8b11pmrx
good luck