Drunk Driving--A Different Approach to Enforcement That Seems to Work

[samclem]

I wish we could have 'swift, certain and modest' penalties for all traffic violations. I think people would follow the rules more than they do now.

Wouldn't speeding/red light cameras come closest? Certainly "swift and certain" if the locations are posted. Modest? Well, in many locations you can get a fine based on these cameras, but often no points/impact on insurance rates.

They certainly change behavior when people know the cameras are present, but the devices aren't very popular with the public.

 

[haha]

If alcoholism is a disease, why do we throw people in jail for a medical condition?

Because jail is a light punishment for drunk driving, and although there are those like yourself that lean on the disease idea, there are other ways of looking at this. I've been in 3 "accidents" in my driving lifetime, each time due to a drunken sob who as far as I am concerned should have been locked up long ago and the key thrown away. I'd be happy to see sentences a lot harsher than those usually given for DUI. And plenty of these creeps just keep on drinking and driving after losing their licenses.

The South Dakota idea in the OP while perhaps not perfect, is demonstrably doing pretty well, and South Dakota is a state with it's share of drunk driving.

Western states all have high highway carnage due a lot of honky-tonk type drinking, long lonely roads, high speeds, relatively poor trauma response, etc.

Ha

 

[sengsational]

Wouldn't speeding/red light cameras come closest? Certainly "swift and certain" if the locations are posted. Modest? Well, in many locations you can get a fine based on these cameras, but often no points/impact on insurance rates.

They certainly change behavior when people know the cameras are present, but the devices aren't very popular with the public.

The perception of red light cameras around here was (yeah, they're no longer employed), that the purpose was more about revenue generation than safety. We lived a mile from the most accident-prone intersection in the city. It had no traffic signal. A crash a week, and sometimes a fatality. It stayed that way for years without any action. Yet they found time to implement red light cameras all over the place in intersections that had zero fatalities and very rare crashes.

Luckily the blow every day thing doesn't seem to have an ulterior motive.

 

[Leonidas]

I am not 100% sure if driving is a right, or a privilege. If you are driving on roads you paid for, you have a right to drive on them. Even if you so not pay taxes, you have the right of mobility, as determined by the US Supreme Court.

The SCOTUS has already ruled a "the free people have a right to travel on the roads which are provided by their servants for that purpose, using ordinary transportation of the day.". That would be automobiles. The concept of being required to have a driver's license in order to exercise a 'right' is also suspect. Any insurance requirement is also a violation of a person's rights.

"The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but a common right which he has under his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
Thompson v.Smith, 154 SE 579, 11 American Jurisprudence, Constitutional Law, section 329, page 1135

So this is not a quote from a U.S. Supreme Court ruling. It comes from a 1930 Virginia state Supreme Court ruling regarding a municipal ordinance requiring drivers to have a local permit to drive in that particular city, and whether the revocation of that permit applied to a particular driver who held a permit before the city amended the ordinance to allow the chief of police to revoke one.

This case is quoted all over the internet, always out of context, incorrectly attributed to the SCOTUS, and usually without the following two paragraphs:

The exercise of such a common right the city may, under its police power, regulate in the interest of the public safety and welfare; but it may not arbitrarily or unreasonably prohibit or restrict it, nor may it permit one to exercise it and refuse to permit another of like qualifications, under like conditions and circumstances, to exercise it.

The regulation of the exercise of the right to drive a private automobile on the streets of the city may be accomplished in part by the city by granting, refusing, and revoking, under rules of general application, permits to drive an automobile on its streets; but such permits may not be arbitrarily refused or revoked, or permitted to be held by some and refused to other of like qualifications, under like circumstances and conditions.

There are people who believe that there is some right to drive around on the public roads without paying road tax and without driver's licenses - and they rely on bad information to back up this idea. Occasionally they do meet up with the police and it always ends up poorly for the unlicensed driver. A friend of mine stopped a guy driving down the road one afternoon while displaying a homemade license plate labeled "private property". When asked for his driver's license he claimed to not have, nor need one, because he was a "free inhabitant" who had a right to drive his "personal property" wherever he wanted. It didn't go well, and he wound up serving time for resisting arrest and aggravated assault of a peace officer. His craziness didn't end there, he filed numerous handwritten writs from prison, one I saw was over 600 handwritten pages long, until a court finally labeled him a nuisance plaintiff and refused to accept any further litigation from him.

My current favorite example of what it looks like when two free inhabitants take up less free habitation in a jail cell: Caution NSFW and this girl's voice is annoying as heck.

[URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H24sLF3CkMo[/URL]

 

[Koolau]

Wouldn't speeding/red light cameras come closest? Certainly "swift and certain" if the locations are posted. Modest? Well, in many locations you can get a fine based on these cameras, but often no points/impact on insurance rates.

They certainly change behavior when people know the cameras are present, but the devices aren't very popular with the public.

I think we've had THIS discussion before too. The "public" seems to have gotten this one right. In most cases the "authority" involved was using camera-viiolation as a money maker rather than a behavior modification. Typically, they turned it all over to a third party who then had a motive to "fudge" (demonstrably shorter yellow-to-red times, etc. were typical.) No, I think this is one area where a bit of officer discretion is in order.

Actually with CURRENT technology, it would not be difficult to place a device inside every car which monitors speed, GPS location and even visual (cameras front and rear - maybe even both sides as well as INSIDE the vehicle). With this system we would catch everyone breaking ANY traffic rule (do you ever inadvertently go 31 in a 30 or not make an absolute stop at a stop sign, "glance" at your cell phone when you receive a text or "weave" across your lane marker? I can see an average driver getting 15 or 20 citations in a months time without breaking a sweat. But, of course, YMMV.

Now returning you to our regular discussion - whatever that was.

 

[Big_Hitter]

Very interesting. I think that real key is the simple - " the penalties for noncompliance are swift, certain and modest. "

I couldn't agree with this more. What's "eye for an eye" justice when you blow a .09 on a lonely country road with no passengers?


I'm not sure the SD solution fits in this case.

 

[redduck]

I couldn't agree with this more. What's "eye for an eye" justice when you blow a .09 on a lonely country road with no passengers?

I'm not sure the SD solution fits in this case.

Apparently the road wasn't so lonely. There was at least one police vehicle on it .

 

[ERD50]

Originally Posted by ERD50 View Post
Very interesting. I think that real key is the simple - " the penalties for noncompliance are swift, certain and modest. "

I couldn't agree with this more. What's "eye for an eye" justice when you blow a .09 on a lonely country road with no passengers?


I'm not sure the SD solution fits in this case.

To be clear, I didn't mean 'modest' to say that drunk driving isn't a serious charge, and I don;t think it's OK on a lonely road (someone might be walking? Anything can happen, anywhere). I only meant that 'swift and certain' are more likely to be implemented if the the penalty (for first time offences) are on the modest side.

When the penalty is severe, it will lead to more delays and trial motions and other legal maneuvers to try to get around it. But submitting to checks isn't so burdensome, and if it helps get people sober, it seems like a relatively good approach.

And the person who isn't a 'drunk', but made a mistake one night has little to fear. Show up for the checks, and it will be over. But enough of a hassle to probably make an impression, and make you think and have a plan before going out for a few.

I don't want to derail too much on the red light camera analog, but yes, I think they are a good concept - but implementation and oversight is key. I'm good with them making money, let them collect money from the lead-foots rather than raise my taxes. I'm in favor of well-controlled, reviewed camera systems. Our cops have better things to do with their time than spend 15 minutes giving a traffic ticket, and then spend more time in court. Automate law enforcement where ever feasible.

I wish they'd use the auto-toll collectors to fine people who got from point A-B in less time than the speed limit would allow. Make it a sliding scale for each average mph over the limit.

-ERD50

 

[zinger1457]

I bought a "pro-grade" breathalyzer because I wondered if my beer or two when I go out to dinner puts me at risk of the huge financial penalty of high automobile insurance for years. The answer to my question was equivocal. I'm sure my reaction times are better at 0.08 than some older drivers I've ridden with (85-90 year olds) who were at 0.00.

Curious what your findings were? Are you saying that one or two beers (12 oz., not big blokes) during dinner sometimes put you near the .08 limit? The BAC chart seems to show that your average size male would be well under the limit with just two drinks.

 

[MooreBonds]

Curious what your findings were? Are you saying that one or two beers (12 oz., not big blokes) during dinner sometimes put you near the .08 limit? The BAC chart seems to show that your average size male would be well under the limit with just two drinks.

I'm not a medical professional, but I'm guessing there can be some variables that lead one to have a relatively higher "BAC" reading in your exhaled breath vs what actually might be in your bloodstream (including, but not limited to, if you consumed just alcohol for the last 15 minutes or so before you leave, versus finishing your beer before you finish eating)

 

[Leonidas]

I'm not a medical professional, but I'm guessing there can be some variables that lead one to have a relatively higher "BAC" reading in your exhaled breath vs what actually might be in your bloodstream (including, but not limited to, if you consumed just alcohol for the last 15 minutes or so before you leave, versus finishing your beer before you finish eating)

A lot of factors can cause a higher than accurate reading of bac in breathe tests, and that's why there is always a period of observation - often videotaped - before a breathe test is administered. But something as simple as a burp right before or during the test can cause a higher reading.

The most accurate test practical is from blood, but there can be issues there as well. Every dwi attorney I ever met says to never consent to any testing and he/she will get your license suspension overturned or modified.

Personally, it's dumb to drink and drive and I won't do it. I live in an urban area and on weekends when we go out we walk or take uber. The punishments are just too onerous to take the risk of catching a dwi case.


Sent from my iPhone using Early Retirement Forum

 

[kombat]

Curious what your findings were? Are you saying that one or two beers (12 oz., not big blokes) during dinner sometimes put you near the .08 limit? The BAC chart seems to show that your average size male would be well under the limit with just two drinks.

I agree with you, I think many people don't truly understand the level of intoxication one feels at 0.08% BAC. If you were pulled over and blew a 0.09%, that's not "barely over the limit" - that's pretty impaired. I have a personal breathalyzer unit I keep at home (more out of curiosity), and I can say from personal experience that blowing 0.06 (having not drank anything in several hours), I would not be comfortable driving. And I think I'm an excellent driver. I would be afraid to get behind the wheel at 0.06. Not because of the legal penalties, but because I now know just how much impairment that represents.

I used to think a level of 0.08 was arbitrary and low, but I now understand it's actually pretty generous (to drunk drivers). If you blow a 0.09%, you're seriously impaired, in my opinion. Of course, it varies by person, and other factors, but for an average male, it would take A LOT more than a couple of beers to get you anywhere near 0.08.

 

[aaronc879]

I used to think a level of 0.08 was arbitrary and low, but I now understand it's actually pretty generous (to drunk drivers). If you blow a 0.09%, you're seriously impaired, in my opinion. Of course, it varies by person, and other factors, but for an average male, it would take A LOT more than a couple of beers to get you anywhere near 0.08.

For the average adult male, your BAC goes up .02 with every drink and goes down .16 for every hour without a drink. It takes 4 drinks to get to the "drunk" level of .08. Many people aren't even buzzed after 4 drink let alone drunk. That's how they get busted for DUI. They truely don't think they're drunk at just .08

 

[HFWR]

Depends on whether the four drinks were one per hour, or all four in an hour...

 

[Big_Hitter]

Depends on whether the four drinks were one per hour, or all four in an hour...

also depends on the weight of the individual

 

[Walt34]

I used to think a level of 0.08 was arbitrary and low, but I now understand it's actually pretty generous (to drunk drivers). If you blow a 0.09%, you're seriously impaired, in my opinion. Of course, it varies by person, and other factors, but for an average male, it would take A LOT more than a couple of beers to get you anywhere near 0.08.

You are correct. Although I didn't normally put it on my resume, I am a professional drunk. That means that (once) I got paid to get drunk so that police officer candidates in the academy would have live drunks to practice on administering the roadside sobriety tests. A cruiser picked me up at home, drove me to the academy, and half a dozen of us then partied on the County's dime for a couple of hours before the class members got their practice. Then someone else drove me home. The downside of this exercise was that there I was at 3:00 PM and the day was shot and I couldn't go anywhere because I was drunk. So I didn't volunteer again.( And of course there are lots of funny stories about what other things the officers said and did while drunk at the academy....)

I got blitzed and I knew it but only blew a .09. So when someone blew .08 or higher and said they "only had two drinks" I knew they were either lying or had faulty memories. And I also knew they were very dangerous to other people driving.

 

[heeyy_joe]

I want a biotech company to develop a daily pill that turns a person's skin orange if they take a drink. Oh wait, I just saw John Boehner on the tv, so we'd have to pick a different color.

 

[Redbugdave]

I do hope the program in SD really does work. But I seriously have doubts about drunks having to show up every morning and evening, for an average of five months, to visit a police facility to take a breathalyzer test. I think most people with addictions have a life long pattern of being irresponsible. I find it hard to believe these drunks can change their habits so easily. I believe we need to have harsher punishments for drunk driving. And not just alcohol, either.

Around here, after the drunks have lost their license, (and assuming they did not kill or maim someone), they buy a moped. We call them, "Liquor Cycles". It does not require a license nor insurance and they can get back on the road to go to work or the liquor store. I used to believe that mopeds should be licensed and insured. But after talking to a lawyer friend, he changed my opinion.

This is what he says: "So what's the answer: give him (or her) the means for transportation that will not KILL YOU. No insurance?? You think the guy is going to buy insurance if they get another car (which will most likely be unregistered?). Let him, (or her) drive around on their mopeds. Hell, I'll run them down or let them hit me. I DON'T LOSE either way what that dumb drunk does. Unless we give these folks good public transportation, (which we don't have), they are going to get around some way. Keep them out of cars or trucks and let them ride their little scooters.

Otherwise...The guy who hit you with the moped is not longer on a moped, he is driving drunk in a 1978 Cadillac that is uninsured and unregistered. He strikes your car, killing the passenger and rendering you hemiplegic; your car is totaled. He may go to jail, but who cares? YOU are screwed, to say the least. Same no insurance, no license, no nothing, and YOU lose."

So, my answer to the drunk driving problem is to make them use mopeds. Unless the South Dakota program really works for five months. What after the five months?

 

[samclem]

But I seriously have doubts about drunks having to show up every morning and evening, for an average of five months, to visit a police facility to take a breathalyzer test. I think most people with addictions have a life long pattern of being irresponsible. I find it hard to believe these drunks can change their habits so easily.

The article says 99% of the people are showing up for the tests. That's pretty good. And for those who don't show up? They can be easily identified and arrested. When a person has their license revoked, there's pretty much no way to follow up as effectively--they often just start driving again and enforcement only occurs when they get in an accident or get a ticket.

Around here, after the drunks have lost their license, (and assuming they did not kill or maim someone), they buy a moped.

I'm with your lawyer friend--that's great if they cause offenders to use a mode of transportation that poses little threat of killing somebody else, and it's a responsible move on the part of the offender. But you are in SC where the weather is fairly moderate all year. When it is 10F outside and the roads are slushy, I'll bet many of those offenders with revoked licenses are driving cars.

Unless the South Dakota program really works for five months. What after the five months?

We've got the same problem after a person has had a suspended license--what then? At least in the case of this Sobriety 24/7 program, the person has shown that they can live their life while keeping two appointments per day, and be sober at those times. That's more of a positive track record than we'd have to go on if we'd suspended their license.

 

[Redbugdave]

Good points SamClem. I have lived around drunks and am a bit skeptical and have a biased opinion. I admit that.

 

[redduck]

Depends on whether the four drinks were one per hour, or all four in an hour...

also depends on the weight of the individual

and the gender.

 

[sengsational]

Curious what your findings were? Are you saying that one or two beers (12 oz., not big blokes) during dinner sometimes put you near the .08 limit? The BAC chart seems to show that your average size male would be well under the limit with just two drinks.

Yes. And I followed the instructions (not eating or drinking anything for 20 minutes before the test). It sounds like my device (first device), which I sent back once to have calibrated, might have been set very conservatively. It was very consistent in the readings, but two beers with a meal often put me near .08. That device finally failed, and I got another one, a different brand, but not a cheapy either, which was showing much higher readings than my old device with the same alcohol consumption. That one still works, but I don't use it because it's just got to be way wrong.

and the gender.

Male, 165 lb.

.... Although I didn't normally put it on my resume, I am a professional drunk. ...

A buddy of mine walked into the police station and asked for a BAC test (so he could 'calibrate' his device). The cops refused. He'll have to enter the profession as you did.

 

[Big_Hitter]

^ this is why any good attorney can get a .09-.12 discredited in court.


Those devices are pretty twitchy.

 

[Koolau]

Good points SamClem. I have lived around drunks and am a bit skeptical and have a biased opinion. I admit that.

I agree and yet I know half a dozen alcoholics who have been sober for between 10 and 25 years. It all depends upon motivation. The figurative "gun to the head - don't you dare drink" varies from person to person. MOST quit to save their j*bs (after losing driving privileges, spouses, children, houses, cars, etc.) Still others realize that they are slowly (or maybe more rapidly) killing themselves. I know the statistics are bad for alcoholics, but it IS possible to escape if the motivation is right. I hope the breathalyzer-twice-a-day program is effective and spreads to other states.

 

[haha]

Drunks quit all the time. My Dad was a weekend binge drinker, always at parties, never alone and never during the week. I don't think he ever missed work, or was even late for work. He and his brother would from time to time "take the pledge". He was definitely a heavy drinker, but it didn't seem to mess up his work, or even our family life. Never any violence or loud yelling. I think going on the wagon had a religious backing. Finally in his early fifties he fell down in the snow walking home from the tavern-in the city, not on a country road. My teenage brother came home late that night and saw that Dad's coat was missing, and traced his pathway from our house to the tavern. There Dad was, out like a light but alive. Brother got a few guys from the bar to help get him home. He never again drank, and brother didn't ever drink much either. Dad lived over 30 years past this event.

I think drinking to excess is really fun, but also a very bad idea in so many ways. The last time I was drunk was in my late 20s, drove from Spokane to Airway Heights, drunk as a skunk. I have never even had a real buzz since then, and I sure have't even had a tot and got behind the wheel. My reason for quitting was I got tired of being a moron.

Ha