Bonneville America Forums Forums Off Topic Discussion Forums Lounge What is the point of drunk driving laws?

What exactly is the point of drunk driving laws? Is it to punish drinking or to keep drivers with diminished capacity off the road? Is it the drinking we punish or the irresponsibility of driving while impaired? How impaired is too impaired? We all know people who can hold their liquor and ones who can’t. Should motor skills, reaction times and driving judgment play a part, or just blood alcohol levels? If motor skills, reaction times and driving judgment are actually the concern shouldn’t a certain level of those things be required of all drivers? We’ve all seen drivers so deficient in them that they are a greater danger stone cold sober than other drivers with a six pack under their belt. Should naturally deficient drivers be legally allowed to endanger the rest of us while we throw drinking drivers in jail and ruin their lives despite the very real possibility that they might be safer on the road than the cell phone talker, the mom yelling at her kids, the aggressive A-hole, or the little old lady who can’t see over her steering wheel?

My point is not to diminish the danger of drunk driving but to point out that there are other dangers on the road that are at least as serious but nothing is being done to eliminate them. There are a lot of drivers out there who have no more business on the road than a seriously inebriated one. But since it’s considered “too hard” to do anything about them, and there is no serious demand that anything BE done about them, they will remain out there killing motorcyclists. We shouldn’t have to wait until they kill someone before we do anything. Actually, we do little or nothing to most of them even after they DO kill someone. Most impaired drivers involved in collisions express their remorse, get a ticket and then go right back out there to endanger others, unless of course the cause of the impairment is alcohol, then we hammer them with the full force of the law.

Quote:

---

We’ve all seen drivers so deficient in them that they are a greater danger stone cold sober than other drivers with a six pack under their belt. Should naturally deficient drivers be legally allowed to endanger the rest of us while we throw drinking drivers in jail and ruin their lives despite the very real possibility that they might be safer on the road than the cell phone talker, the mom yelling at her kids, the aggressive A-hole, or the little old lady who can’t see over her steering wheel?

---

I TOTALLY agree that all of these other things should be addressed (heck I would be happy to take a road and written test every 5 years to keep my licence), but I think a lot of people like to compare things to make a point and it's not really a valid argument. Know what I mean? In all of these examples you are making comparisons. Worse than, etc. But that doesn't make the thing you are comparing it to ok! I know that wasn't really your point, but I just thought I would add my two cents in support of your argument The point of the drunk driving laws is to have standards, and it's too bad we don't have higher standards for these other dangers.

Well Larry, to answer your initial question....To make money for the Courts AND the Lawyers. Don't get me wrong. I'm not bashin' THEM here....because....I view that they perform a valuable service to the multitudes of americans who can't figure out how to LIVE LIFE without screwin' up.

Case in point.....
Now, it's been a few years since I've sat in a courtroom to answer for a speeding ticket(richly deserved, BTW), but I DO remember sitting and watching two cases that were beening heard before my name was called by the bailiff.

And, from what I witnessed, the one drunk who retained an attorney, seemed to get juuuuuuuust a little better "break" from His Honor, than the "poor S.O.B."(read: Drunk) who showed up sans legal mouthpiece.

NOW...I COULD be wrong here, but I think "The Good Ole Boy Network" in our Criminal Justice System("Your Honor! My client here KNOWS he was a bad boy and is paying me 10 GRAND to say this to you..[wink, wink], So how's about reducing this infraction to a "Reckless Driving Offense", huh?! [wink, wink]...seems to be one healthy institution.

Now, it WOULD be nice if each States' finances would be sufficient enough in funding in order to "teach"(using either positive or negative reinforcement techniques) those clueless drivers out there who kill us every single day of the year, BUT I doubt THAT is ever going to happen.(NO NEW TAXES!!!)

SO, my best advice to you, AND everyone here, is...ALWAYS look out for people on the road who look like they'll NEED a lawyer some day.

Cheers,
Dwight
(trust me kid...I can spot 'em a MILE AWAY..and 47% of 'em ARE DRUNK)

Post deleted by Grump

Ah, a very relevant question and one who's answer is to my way of thinking very simple. But of course many would disagree. I see it like this. There are people on the road who sober cannot drive as safely as some others with X number of drinks in them. So the question is where do you draw the line. The simple answer is you can't. Just like all laws, drinking laws are "blanket" laws. That is to say, because theres no way to judge each case individually being that each individual is different, they have to go by what they feel is the max safe level.

Where i begin to get pissed is the fact that a person with 3 or 4 beers in him can be jailed and pay a couple grand in fines while a 90 year old who's incapable of driving safe can get a licence and do so. Not to mention the fact that people who drive while sleepy can crash into you and suffer little to no punishment. At 6 am there are people who drive to work 1/2 asleep. many are as or more dangerous as a drunk driver. But if they cause an accident they won't be spending any time in jail or paying a couple grand in fines.

But again, how do you determine who's driving in an unsafe condition or not? You can't give a breath test that determine your state of sleepiness or senility. But they CAN determine your state of drunkeness at least to a point. So therefore they have a measurement in that case and they use it to determine your ability to drive.

It's all very complicated, but it comes down to the fact that there are lobbyists like MADD who cannot be denied due to the times of political correctness we live in. And the fact that even if they COULD come up with a method to determine sleepiness or senility or whatever else, that would affect all people, not just those "bad" people who drive drunk. personally my feeling is that a few drinks should not be the crime it is at the moment. Fining people a couple grand and throwing them in jail for the nite for driving in a condition thats no worse than the 90 year old man in the car next to you or the truck driver with his eyes 1/2 open is unfair. I'm not sure what the answer is, but IMO the problem is aggrivated by the fact that the people who enforce the laws, the cops, don't use thier own disgression in determining whether or not the person is a danger. This comes back to what i said earlier about the problem of taking each case on an idividual basis. when stopped for suspicion of DUI, this is the only time when each individual case CAN be evaluated. But instead of using thier own disgression, most cops simply go by the letter of the law and cuff you if you fail a breath test. And a failed breath test is not a accurate way of determining whether you are safer or less safe than the 90 year old guy or the sleepy truck driver, both of which will pay no fine and won't go to jail.

I was popped years ago with just a few beers and i felt i was driving perfectly safe. Of course just saying that immediatly makes most people say yeah, right pal. But i have driven past the point at which i was dangerously impaired, and i knew it and admit it. I don't do that anymore thankfully. And the reason nis that i WAS arrested. Not when i was seriously impaired, but had i not been i would have done that again i'm sure. So looking at it from that perspective it's probably understandable. It still doesn't solve the problem of sober drivers who are a danger w/o ever taking a drink. And it is unfair. But once again, how can they take each case on an individual basis? so in the final anylisis, there is no perfect answer. But i think the real problem is not those who've had 4 or 5 beers and are use to that, but those who swerve all over the road. thats where the danger is, and those are the ones that kill people. Not the ones who had a few beers and got pulled over just because.

All that said, i never have and never would drive a motorcycle after drinking because i feel bikes are too easy to lay down even when sober. just my opinion, but i never have and never will.

I dont know... I strongly believe in drunk driving laws. at the ripe age of 22 I already have one under my belt. Its nota matter of how much booze you can hold, cuz i can drink beer with the best of um but when your drinking no matter who you are your thought process is imparred. You think you can ride/drive, and maybe you can or maybe you can kill someone.... I know personally I wouldednt play the card again.

Mark Donahue, former race car driver, did a simulator test with a bunch of normal citizens. They each ran on the simulator and then drank one ounce of alcohol and did it again. When they all were around .07 BAC, Mark had as many accidents and his reaction time was as diminished as all the others.

In short, noboby drives as well drunk or impaired as sober. Drunk driving laws were not meant for inforcement, they were meant to be feared. People consider the penalty if apprehended with the benefit of the crime. Fortunately many are affraid of the law and stay sober.

The absence of other laws and the existence of other types of bad drivers is not a premise to change the existing DWI laws. Naturally the hard core drunk will drink and drive anyway. Most laws, like locks on doors, keep the honest or responsible folks in line.

I would rather ride with a 90 year old guy than a drunk. My odds of getting home are better with the old guy.

On another note: Why are the buttons on the drive through ATM machines also in brail?????

Still comparing apples an oranges. It's not wether a drunk can drive better than a 90 year old, it's wether YOU can drive better drunk than YOU can sober.

I do agree that the 90 year old thing is still a problem!! But a different problem.

Quote:

---

On another note: Why are the buttons on the drive through ATM machines also in brail?????

---

I walk thru drive thru ATM's all the time if they are all that is near by

We are on the same page Benny, I didn't type it well.

Larry, Most impaired drivers that express remorse in your last thought didn't do it intentionally. The deaf, blind, slow etc. thought they could handle it. Its different from driving to the bar sober (unimpaired), sitting at the bar getting impaired, they deciding to drive impaired.

We will always have the handicapped and the elderly slowly getting to the point where they have to not drive. That is a problem.

The larger problem is the good driver at the bar going from good driver to killer of his or her own free will.

Larry, I agree 100%. In fact, right now there is a push in Congress to make Electronic Stability Control mandatory on all new motor vehicles, which is great(I've experienced it in action in Germany, and it delivers!), but I would be even more interested in some type of jamming device in cars that interferes with any cellular transmission while the vehicle is in any gear except Neutral or Park. While that might take some time technologically (although we already have switches that prevent engaging the transmission if the brake pedal isn't pushed in), there should at least be SERIOUS fines for talking on a cellphone while a vehicle is in motion. Repeated studies have shown that talking on a cellphone (or even worse working on a laptop or something equally STUPID) reduces driver reaction times almost as significantly as being legally intoxicated, no one seems willing anywhere to enact legislation against it! WHY? Without exception (ok, one friend of my wife who scares the bejesus out of me whose attitude is "until they make it a law..."), every person I talk to anywhere thinks it should be illegal to talk on cells and drive, even hands free (even handsfree conversations require you to divert your attention from DRIVING), but no pending legislation...

1. Like most traffic laws, the DUI regulations are there to make it look like the politicians are doing something for "the good of the people" and generate revenue.

2. Idiots who can't/won't drive will be allowed on the streets as long as they continue to spend money on vehicles and oil, and it would require government to buy an effective public transportation system to take them off the road.

3. Drive through ATM's have the same buttons as the walkup kind because it is much cheaper to make them all the same.

4. Too impared is when there is a good possibility that you will crash and the cops will have to spend a lot of time filling out reports instead of hanging out at the donut shop.

Quote:

---

1. Like most traffic laws, the DUI regulations are there to make it look like the politicians are doing something for "the good of the people" and generate revenue.

---

You could take the word "traffic" out of that statement and still be accurate.

I'm exempt. Haven't had alcohol since 1987. I avoid riding around town Fri and Sat nights.

Quote:

---

On another note: Why are the buttons on the drive through ATM machines also in brail?????

---

That braille says "You are standing in a drive through lane".

Benny, no matter how carefully you explain it, some people will always insist on comparing apples to oranges. It is an argument that is unwinnable don't try.

Larry, I agree with you bud. Your post title was about DWI and its use. I say it has a use. There are a lot of folks that don't belong behind the wheel but I thought you wanted DWI taken off the books. Personally I don't want it off the books. Drunk drivers kill people. Simple as that.

Yes I would drive with the old lady over the drunk Mark Donahue by the way.

Probably right

Sorta funny (and scary) story. Back when my dad was clerking for the public defender in good ol Bennington VT, he got a call in the middle of the night from one of the usual suspects.
"MICHAEL! (said in classic drunken slurr) They arrested me for drunk driving."
"Ok sit tight and don;t talk to them yet"
"Ok I'll wait for you but I dunno why they pulled me over tonight, I'm not half as drunk as I usually am."
He didn't have a licence after that...

Obviously, an experienced drunk driver

Larry, when I was a kid, I got pulled over a few times while pretty drunk, the police followed me home and told me to watch my arse, or I'd get arrested. DUI laws have been on the books for a long time, but enforcement was lax.
Fast forward a few years and MADD shows up. The news starts reporting when an accident is caused by a drunk driver, soon laws are enacted making DUI an automatic arrest with large fines and jail time. Here, a DUI wreck resulting in fatality is 20 years in the joint.
Maybe once some organization starts pushing for reporting of when an accident is caused by an inattentive driver a.e., cell phone, laptop, breakfast, makeup, etc. or someone who shouldn't be driving because of some physical impairment that makes it impossible for them to safely operate a motor vehicle, the pressure for laws and enforcement and punishment may follow.

Post deleted by Grump

NEW Rules for Correcting Drunk Driving

a. 1st offense - loss of right foot from knee down (or right hand if on a bike)
b. 2nd offense - loss of both legs - complete (or both arms if on a bike)
c. 3rd offense - loss of head

'Nuff said.

Stan Db

NEW Rules for Correcting Drunk Driving

a. 1st offense - loss of right foot from knee down (or right hand if on a bike)
b. 2nd offense - loss of both legs - complete (or both arms if on a bike)
c. 3rd offense - loss of head

'Nuff said.

Stan Db

I'm not sure if any of you caught the mythbusters where they tested sober, drunk (they HAD to blow a .079 or less as Cal. Law prohibits .08 and they were being monitored by CA. State Police) and Cell Phone use, while behind the wheel...

They set them on a road course with an instructor/observer...
They ran the course sober, and were scored based upon performance...

then the ran it while talking on a cell phone and ansering questions that required various levels of thought...form simple ie. name, so on to more complex like math equasions...etc.

then they had them start drinking...each person took different amounts to reach the tatget of as close to .08(without actually reaching it...thereby staying within the legal requirements of NOT driving drunk)

the results were interesting...

the results while "not drunk" were dismal although they were NOT LEGALY drunk their ability to drive the course was greatly diminished...and according to the rules of the course they failed the exam with "flying" colors...

those same results while chating (non-hands free) were AS BAD IF NOT WORSE!!! than those who were "legaly sober"

it was surprizing to me the level of imparement from those who were "not drunk"

it was not surprizing to me the results from the cell phone chating (as I see this daily)

What got me off on this rant was almost being run down early Saturday afternoon. A young girl driver, with a car full of young girls, was busy talking on her cell phone while waiting to turn left across two lanes of traffic into a fast food restaurant. Luckily I spotted this potential murderess almost a block away. Needless to say, she pulled right (left) in front of me. The only reason I didn’t get creamed was that I anticipated her action and was prepared to go around behind her. I pulled into the McDonalds, next to her car in the drive thru, and proceeded to make her cry (I wish I could have spanked her). A cop who was in the lot walked over and asked me what I thought I was doing. I explained what had happened and he jumped me for making the poor little thing cry and then said “It’s not like she was driving drunk or anything.” I was then somewhat less than cordial to the cop and left.

If I get killed what difference does it make if the driver was drunk, senile, distracted or a mental defective? We treat drunk drivers like the scum of the Earth but if a 17 year old girl is incapable of driving without a cell phone pressed against her ear that’s OK? Is a person yakking on the phone and ignoring their driving acting more responsibly than a person who stops at the bar for a few shots on the way home? Diminished capacity is diminished capacity!

Thinking about this over the weekend has given me a few ideas. Outlaw cell phones while driving, at least require hands free phones (OK, not original). Require any driver to be at least 21 before allowing ANY use of a cell phone, hands free or not. If a driver is at fault in an accident and was talking on the phone, eating, screwing with the radio etc. give them the same sentence a drunk driver would get. With cell company records proving the phone use would be easy.

Good for you that you educated this person, as to where their priorities should be when driving; bad on the Cop for making an excuse for her driving. I'm sure it occurred to this Officer that if she'd mowed you down, he would have been the one to have start the whole process. Maybe she'll hold on to that lesson for about a month, or some other biker educates her.

Gee Larry, this girl must've been related to the complete arsehole surfer that almost took me out today. I was heading home for lunch, and there is a sideroad that joins into the main road in a fork. Well, Johnny Bravo just FLIES through his Stop sign with not even a brush of the brake pedal, at about 35-40mph!! Luckily, ONE of us was paying attention, so I saw him approaching (is preparing to blow through more apt here?) the sign with no sign of slowing, and grabbed some front brake and slowed way down. Had I been off thinking about something and not keeping my eye on my surroundings, you guys would have been seeing an announcement on here for some cheap Triumph parts, only wrecked once....(and maybe some donor organs!!!)

i often wondered why the guy/gal purposely speeding through a red light or stop sign is not as dangerous as a drunk driver, if not more so. the stop sign red light runner seems more malicious and despicable to me. the light runner should get his/her license yanked and the sob should be put in jail for a week.

as former drunk, i lost my license many times and never had a wreck nor was caught speeding. it's only us drunks out there most times at 2am...

but there were many times i should have been caught.

there is, finally, no justice, nor sanity. just wonder.

i agree with Larry 100 percent. cell phones are the new drug. they also cause people to be rude and late, which are 2 more peeves of mine that i think will bring the world down to its knees, if it isn't already.

dumbass cop.
cat

Cat,
I've always believed that drunks pay taxes too, and should have their own highway system built. But, on the other hand, I've lost several friends, including my high school sweetheart to accidents caused by drunk drivers. Drunk ran a redlight and broadsided her on the driver's side at 80mph. I remember the sunshine at her funeral, and the sudden downpour as we were leaving the gravesite. She had been on her way to UAB hospital to visit her best friend, who was hopitalized in ICU by a drunk driver.
So, besides the emotional torment, I have mixed feelings.
I am so afraid that someday, I'll see the face of someone I'm about to collide with, while a cell phone is glued to their head, and the last thought I will think is, "Is that conversation worth you killing me?". I guess distraction and impairment are one in the same.

A WAY too experienced drunk driver. I still don't understand why talking on the cell phone is way worse than talking to a person in the car?!? Funny thing for me, if I'm talking to someone in the car or on the hands free, I tend to get distracted from the conversation by the driving

Benny, good to hear you use hands free; most don't and they think because they are talking to someone familiar in their left ear(ie.a known person on their dimwitted left), that they don't have to look to the left and so pullout.Maybe a subconscios act for observant folks but put the reasoning ability of a lot of drivers who are less than gifted in that scene and they imagine they're at home,on the phone, watching TV instead of killing riders.

I guess yeah maybe since the person isn't right there it's easy for them to be sort of taken away from "the now". "Live in the now man!" as Garth Algar once said on Wayne's World. NY has a hands free law, and my girlfriend knows someone who has been ticked TWICE for an infraction, and I'm not about to get a ticket for doing something dumb!! I admit to sometimes using the speakerphone vs. earpiece, but I still have full range of head motion.

Quote:

---

if I'm talking to someone in the car or on the hands free, I tend to get distracted from the conversation by the driving

---

Hey Benny,
The idea I have is that "most people" on a cell, are holding an image of the person they're talking to in their mind, hands free or not. If you talking to someone in the car with you, that does not occur.
Staying in the "now" is good. Staying in the "here and now" is great.

Yeah I see what you mean, that's basically what I meant. That is one reason why I like having music on in the car, it keeps my brain occupied so I can concentrate

This morning, a guy on the commuter train was telling me about his recent adventure. Some idiot in a new Mustang, still had the paper license plates, rolled through a redlight at about 60 - 70 (maybe more) in a 35 zone. He hit 2 cars in the intersaction so hard that he pushed them both sideways completely across the intersection. Seems he was busy yacking on the phone and writing notes, and couldn't be bothered with looking outide the car. With any luck, maybe the airbag drove the pen up his nose far enough to make the future a little safer.

I know this post will be controversial but if we don't allow driving under the influence, why do we allow bars and restaurants to serve alcohol? If doesn't make any sense. Does is make sense for a cop to lie in wait outside a Bar & Grill, or does it make more sense to stop the problem at its source. Don't get me wrong. I usually have a beer at lunch when I'm out for a ride with the guys. I'm just posing a logic question.

The Police have gone from "serve & protect " to "Harass for profit"
Oh yea remember all those guys we used to pick on & beat up in school?... they all lawyers & politicians now.

They can't close the bars, where would the lawyers, politicians and cops hang out after hours? Besides, these establishments provide a lot of tax and *other* revenue.
For some reason, drinking is one of the few areas in which the gvt. still feels that an individual should take responsibility for his own actions. People are expected, for some silly reason, to either not drink themselves drunk or get a ride when they're done.
Besides, if they closed all the drinking establishments, where would the working people go to see their favorite sports team lose on big screen TV and get into a fight over it?

Quote:

---

For some reason, drinking is one of the few areas in which the gvt. still feels that an individual should take responsibility for his own actions. People are expected, for some silly reason, to either not drink themselves drunk or get a ride when they're done.

---

Crazy how they give us the freedom to be smart sometimes, isn't it?

I think the "cutting it off at the source" theory was proven wrong durring the prohibition, and it is sort of like the old argument that guns don't kill people, people kill people. Just because they are selling it doesn't mean we have to abuse it.

Quote:

---

I'm just posing a logic question.

---

You haven't been around here much lately, have you?