MADD at one of their own

Growing up in New York DWI (Driving While Impaired) was over .10 BAC.

DWAI (Driving While Ability Impaired) was .05 - .10 BAC and they had different penalties.

But, thanks to MADD and others, DWI had been lowered to .08 BAC.

 

It would be interested to know how many people are killed by drunk drivers with a BAC below .10 vs. the number of people killed by distracted drivers (talking on cell phone, eating, putting on make-up, texting, etc.).

Probably pretty tough to prove distracted driving though.

 

I have to weigh in, because this talk about greater penalties for greater deterrence is amusing.

It's the same argument that Americans make about high crime rates in the U.S.: If only those liberal politicians and liberal judges would get tough on crime!

America is "tougher" on crime than place in the First World. America locks up, monitors and executes more of its citizens than any country save Byzantine Muslim nations.

And guess what? DUI laws here are also really, really tough. On top of that, if you're pulled over on suspicion of DUI, the folks at MADD and their politician friends have made it so that you have fewer Constitutional rights than an accused child molester.

No one is more passionate than me in urging people not to drink and drive. (Notice I didn't say anything about being drunk. If you have even one sip of alcohol, it is my firm legal advice from personal experience not to drive). But to suggest that DUI laws are weak is to ignore the last 20 years of zero-tolerance policing that has made even light social drinking dangerous (and in my opinion, very unwise).

 

A sudefed will probably impair you more than one drink.

 

And yet all of them involved drinking and then driving. My sympathy is limited to anyone who gets caught near the border of one area of punishment.

 

You have to draw ranges somewhere, and you have to take into account the margin of error in the tests.

Although I'm intrigued of using some sort of exponentially rising formula for the fine, based on your BAC. That wouldn't need ranges at all.

 

The drunk driving limit is never going below .08. Mr. Anheuser and Mr. Coors have highly paid lobbyists to make sure it doesn't.

Here's another thing: How many of us have ever been out drinking in a place where if you leave your car overnight, it gets clamped or towed? Now, sure, having your car towed pales in comparison to the potential consequences of driving drunk, both from a personal and, far more importantly, a safety perspective. But it's a pain in the ass nonetheless. And if someone's not quite sure whether they've had one too many, then those threats to tow or clamp might make the difference.

It's a little thing, but it's one of many. But of course, we can't tell bars not to do shit like that, because that would be meddling in the affairs of private business. (And the towing companies! Won't someone please think of the towing companies?!)

 

Read police blotters regularly and you will see quite a few DUIs charged against people below .08. And yet the vast majority of DUIs are people who are way, way over .10. The limit number used is not that relevant as a majority of those who get arrested are two or three times the legal limit. And I see people on the roads all the time who I have a good idea are intoxicated. I've called the highway patrol more than once in such situations -- life is too precious to look the other way when someone is operating unsafely, no matter what the reason.

I do agree, though, that police have an unbelievable amount of leeway when it comes to trying to ascertain a DUI. My sister was pulled over for suspected DUI for no good reason, passed the field tests, blew 0.00, and was made to do the tests again.

The only contention I will make on this issue is that the sort of person who drives when absolutely hammered isn't often the person with much to "lose" and isn't often the person who gives a crap about the law, or the penalties.