[quote]DBCooper wrote:
I don’t get what’s so funny about this article at all. Personally, I feel that if you get arrested for drunk driving it should be mandatory jail time, regardless of any damage you may have done, and your license should be permanently suspended, NO MATTER WHAT. I’ve had several friends killed by drunk drivers and I’ve had several kill themselves while driving drunk. It’s ugly and it should be eradicated from society.[/quote]
This needs to be shouted from the rooftops. Why are we letting people who are almost certain to repeat offend get right back on the road after a DUI?[/quote]
Because this world is fucked up…hardly anybody values life anymore with all the dumb and dangerous things being done.[/quote]
I think it’s much simpler than even that. Multiple offenders are virtually always alcoholics. I’ve had two DUIs and I am a recovering alcoholic. I meet people all the time in recovery who have literally dozens of them. I’ve even met a guy who got two DUIs within 24 hrs of each other.
The point is that most people who get DUIs are alcoholics, and nothing within the penal code (at least here in California) is a harsh enough punishment to deter someone with a serious drinking problem from getting on the road while drunk. The second DUI I got didn’t even really affect me all that much, aside from the massive fines and the fact that I couldn’t drive for a year even after I got my license back because I couldn’t find affordable insurance. And it’s never the first time someone is driving drunk when they get pulled over. I must have driven drunk a thousand times before my first DUI and I drove drunk on a suspended license all the time between my first and second one. What finally got me to sober up wasn’t the relative slap on the wrist I received either, and I drove drunk quite a bit even after the second one.
People like myself should be permanently removed from the road, but you can’t differentiate between people like myself and the person who maybe blew a .08 and rarely if ever drinks, from a legal standpoint, so I say throw the heaviest fucking book you can find at ALL drunk drivers because it’s the only way to even begin to get through to people like myself.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
I don’t get what’s so funny about this article at all. Personally, I feel that if you get arrested for drunk driving it should be mandatory jail time, regardless of any damage you may have done, and your license should be permanently suspended, NO MATTER WHAT. I’ve had several friends killed by drunk drivers and I’ve had several kill themselves while driving drunk. It’s ugly and it should be eradicated from society.[/quote]
This needs to be shouted from the rooftops. Why are we letting people who are almost certain to repeat offend get right back on the road after a DUI?[/quote]
Well, I did the jail time, fines, 2 years probation and a 4 year suspension, but also took it as a wake up call and got into recovery (8+ years and still sober) as a result of a DUI.
Should I never drive again?
I mean, really, when is it O.K. to say that a persons debt to society is paid in full and they can move on?
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
I don’t get what’s so funny about this article at all. Personally, I feel that if you get arrested for drunk driving it should be mandatory jail time, regardless of any damage you may have done, and your license should be permanently suspended, NO MATTER WHAT. I’ve had several friends killed by drunk drivers and I’ve had several kill themselves while driving drunk. It’s ugly and it should be eradicated from society.[/quote]
This needs to be shouted from the rooftops. Why are we letting people who are almost certain to repeat offend get right back on the road after a DUI?[/quote]
Because this world is fucked up…hardly anybody values life anymore with all the dumb and dangerous things being done.[/quote]
Correction: people value the lives of celebrities infinitely more than the average man. Ryan Dunn gets sauced up and kills himself driving 130 and it’s termed a “tragedy.”
[quote]Edevus wrote:
In Spain, drunken driving is considered “funny”, like, if you are in a party and you talk how you were driving drunk in the highway and seeing lights and shadows everywhere, people will laugh. Except some, but then they can consider themselves to be ostracized.
But I guess people don’t like to be told that they were potential murderers or that they could have lost their legs.[/quote]
Depending on the age group it’ll be the same in any country. I think that one aspect of drinking in some cities in Spain that’s far different from drinking in the US is the need to drive can be minimal so really you’ll only be compelled to walk home after drinking. With the rampant urban sprawl in America it’s far more tempting since you’ll most likely need to drive anyway.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
I don’t get what’s so funny about this article at all. Personally, I feel that if you get arrested for drunk driving it should be mandatory jail time, regardless of any damage you may have done, and your license should be permanently suspended, NO MATTER WHAT. I’ve had several friends killed by drunk drivers and I’ve had several kill themselves while driving drunk. It’s ugly and it should be eradicated from society.[/quote]
This needs to be shouted from the rooftops. Why are we letting people who are almost certain to repeat offend get right back on the road after a DUI?[/quote]
Because this world is fucked up…hardly anybody values life anymore with all the dumb and dangerous things being done.[/quote]
I think it’s much simpler than even that. Multiple offenders are virtually always alcoholics. I’ve had two DUIs and I am a recovering alcoholic. I meet people all the time in recovery who have literally dozens of them. I’ve even met a guy who got two DUIs within 24 hrs of each other.
The point is that most people who get DUIs are alcoholics, and nothing within the penal code (at least here in California) is a harsh enough punishment to deter someone with a serious drinking problem from getting on the road while drunk. The second DUI I got didn’t even really affect me all that much, aside from the massive fines and the fact that I couldn’t drive for a year even after I got my license back because I couldn’t find affordable insurance. And it’s never the first time someone is driving drunk when they get pulled over. I must have driven drunk a thousand times before my first DUI and I drove drunk on a suspended license all the time between my first and second one. What finally got me to sober up wasn’t the relative slap on the wrist I received either, and I drove drunk quite a bit even after the second one.
People like myself should be permanently removed from the road, but you can’t differentiate between people like myself and the person who maybe blew a .08 and rarely if ever drinks, from a legal standpoint, so I say throw the heaviest fucking book you can find at ALL drunk drivers because it’s the only way to even begin to get through to people like myself.[/quote]
My uncle is an alcoholic and served 1 year of a two year sentence behind bars after an accident he caused (some people in the other car had minor injuries). He was a repeat offender, I felt at the time that he got a really tough break and didn’t deserve to be there but I guess in hindsight I can see that he was a real threat to the safty of others and gaol time was about the only thing that would stop him.
Personally thi article makes me think twice because I have driven many times after a few drinks as long as I thought I would be under the limit. I was once pulled over after about 4 drinks and blew under so maybe the legal limit is too high.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
People like myself should be permanently removed from the road, but you can’t differentiate between people like myself and the person who maybe blew a .08 and rarely if ever drinks, from a legal standpoint, so I say throw the heaviest fucking book you can find at ALL drunk drivers because it’s the only way to even begin to get through to people like myself.[/quote]
I understand that you feel strongly about it, but how strongly?
Do you still drive?
If this were truly the case, you could just mail your licence into the DMV and wait for it to expire. A friend of mine actually did this after a seizure disorder affected his ability to drive.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
People like myself should be permanently removed from the road, but you can’t differentiate between people like myself and the person who maybe blew a .08 and rarely if ever drinks, from a legal standpoint, so I say throw the heaviest fucking book you can find at ALL drunk drivers because it’s the only way to even begin to get through to people like myself.[/quote]
I understand that you feel strongly about it, but how strongly?
Do you still drive?
If this were truly the case, you could just mail your licence into the DMV and wait for it to expire. A friend of mine actually did this after a seizure disorder affected his ability to drive.
[/quote]
I got into a few car accidents at night, partly caused by poor night vision and bad driving. I let my license expire and haven’t driven in 3 or 4 years. Not sure when I’ll start again. If the road is less safe with me on it then I shouldn’t be there.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
I don’t get what’s so funny about this article at all. Personally, I feel that if you get arrested for drunk driving it should be mandatory jail time, regardless of any damage you may have done, and your license should be permanently suspended, NO MATTER WHAT. I’ve had several friends killed by drunk drivers and I’ve had several kill themselves while driving drunk. It’s ugly and it should be eradicated from society.[/quote]
This needs to be shouted from the rooftops. Why are we letting people who are almost certain to repeat offend get right back on the road after a DUI?[/quote]
Because this world is fucked up…hardly anybody values life anymore with all the dumb and dangerous things being done.[/quote]
Correction: people value the lives of celebrities infinitely more than the average man. Ryan Dunn gets sauced up and kills himself driving 130 and it’s termed a “tragedy.”[/quote]
It wasn’t a tragedy, it was what I call “Accelerated Darwinism”.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
People like myself should be permanently removed from the road, but you can’t differentiate between people like myself and the person who maybe blew a .08 and rarely if ever drinks, from a legal standpoint, so I say throw the heaviest fucking book you can find at ALL drunk drivers because it’s the only way to even begin to get through to people like myself.[/quote]
I understand that you feel strongly about it, but how strongly?
Do you still drive?
If this were truly the case, you could just mail your licence into the DMV and wait for it to expire. A friend of mine actually did this after a seizure disorder affected his ability to drive.
[/quote]
I still drive, legally now. I don’t drink anymore. I’d rather drive than drink I guess. I didn’t feel nearly as strong about all of this when I was a practicing alcoholic. Sobriety has that sort of effect, you know? Plus, last fall I had a very close friend who had been sober for three years. Then he went back out and died in a single vehicle car accident a couple months later. He hit a tree head-on at 70mph in 25mph residential area. That pretty much cemented my views on drunk driving.
I got popped for DUI in the parking lot of a country club where I was driving in circles while waiting to sober up after a wedding reception. Unbeknownst to me, someone was still in the building and called the cops. Failed the field sobriety test and blew 0.081. I managed to get my case thrown out, but I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t have deserved to have had my life ruined over it.
[quote]belligerent wrote:
I got popped for DUI in the parking lot of a country club where I was driving in circles while waiting to sober up after a wedding reception. Unbeknownst to me, someone was still in the building and called the cops. Failed the field sobriety test and blew 0.081. I managed to get my case thrown out, but I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t have deserved to have had my life ruined over it.[/quote]
You could have sit inside, outside, walk around, etc. instead of driving. Even if it was inside the parking lot, you’re using the car and you could hit someone.
[quote]DJHT wrote:
^ This is the level that has been tested to show impairment as in slowed reaction time in probably 90% of the population.[/quote]
txting and cell phone usage show similar impairment, but to we punish people with the same zeal?
As does getting old.
Does everyone have the same reaction time? I don’t think so.
DUI has been overblown by pussies and religious fanatics. Preventative laws are part of the pussification of america.
However, I believe in punishing people more severely than what the current law allows for drinking caused crashes that damage personal property or harm the well being of others.
A guy I went to school with killed a grandmother who was raising her granddaughter by herself. He was drunk as hell at 10am multiple DUI’s. He got a year. That is a disgusting miscarriage of justice.
0.08 is way too lenient a definition for drunk driving in my opinion - it should be 0.05 or even less. I have a pretty good pocket breathylizer which I sometimes play with while drinking…at 240 lbs it takes me about 4 beers an hour to get up to 0.08. This is not a state I should be driving in!
I think Sweden has the right idea about DUI laws. I have relatives there that tell me 0.01 or 0.02 is enough to lose you your license, and if you’re actually drunk while driving you’re looking at jail time. Their rates of alcohol-related motor fatalities are much lower than North America
[quote]DJHT wrote:
^ This is the level that has been tested to show impairment as in slowed reaction time in probably 90% of the population.[/quote]
txting and cell phone usage show similar impairment, but to we punish people with the same zeal?
As does getting old.
Does everyone have the same reaction time? I don’t think so.
DUI has been overblown by pussies and religious fanatics. Preventative laws are part of the pussification of america.
However, I believe in punishing people more severely than what the current law allows for drinking caused crashes that damage personal property or harm the well being of others.
A guy I went to school with killed a grandmother who was raising her granddaughter by herself. He was drunk as hell at 10am multiple DUI’s. He got a year. That is a disgusting miscarriage of justice. [/quote]
[quote]PimpBot5000 wrote:
0.08 is way too lenient a definition for drunk driving in my opinion - it should be 0.05 or even less. I have a pretty good pocket breathylizer which I sometimes play with while drinking…at 240 lbs it takes me about 4 beers an hour to get up to 0.08. This is not a state I should be driving in!
I think Sweden has the right idea about DUI laws. I have relatives there that tell me 0.01 or 0.02 is enough to lose you your license, and if you’re actually drunk while driving you’re looking at jail time. Their rates of alcohol-related motor fatalities are much lower than North America[/quote]
[quote]DJHT wrote:
^ This is the level that has been tested to show impairment as in slowed reaction time in probably 90% of the population.[/quote]
txting and cell phone usage show similar impairment, but to we punish people with the same zeal?
As does getting old.
Does everyone have the same reaction time? I don’t think so.
DUI has been overblown by pussies and religious fanatics. Preventative laws are part of the pussification of america.
However, I believe in punishing people more severely than what the current law allows for drinking caused crashes that damage personal property or harm the well being of others.
A guy I went to school with killed a grandmother who was raising her granddaughter by herself. He was drunk as hell at 10am multiple DUI’s. He got a year. That is a disgusting miscarriage of justice. [/quote]
[/quote]
Look at the penalty tho a small fine vs a huge fine, jail time, loss of driving privileges. This is a puritanical punishment.
Teenagers and the elderly are both high risk groups. Teens are probably higher.
Stop government mandated insurance. Problem solved.
Vicodin, hydrocodine, xanax are highly abused and I do agree its a problem. Especially if those are mixed with a couple drinks. Mommys little helper…lol I have no solution to the problem.
I had four teeth pulled once when I was 19 or so. I inquired about pain killers. My dentist basically told me take some ibuprofen and quit being a pussy. I thought that was pretty wise on his part in retrospect.
Lets face it people drive safely over .08 all the time. Booze cruising is a way of life in rural america. Certain people who drink too much or are just plain stupid are the problem.
^ There is no easy answer, only continued adjustment and yes harsher penalties.
Seems in this day and age of technology that we can have a car parallel park itself that we could incorporate some type of governor that would turn off engine if erratic driving was sensed.
[quote]DJHT wrote:
^ There is no easy answer, only continued adjustment and yes harsher penalties.
Seems in this day and age of technology that we can have a car parallel park itself that we could incorporate some type of governor that would turn off engine if erratic driving was sensed. [/quote]
lol, I have a feeling alot of driver would get shut down while talking on their cell phone. This might be a good thing! Have you ever watched people weave on the interstate while talking or txting? scary shit.