craigblitz said:
I am willing to bet as many if not more accidents are caused by people on cell phones and other "distractions" then DUI's.
I'd take that bet. In the 12 years I have been working with Municipal PDs (my 2 years with a Sheriff's Department didn't count because we did not take collision reports) and in the 500-odd collision reports I have taken, I cannot recall one where a cell phone was a cause for the distraction. They might be involved in dangerous actions like running lights or rolling stop signs, but they do not appear to be involved in all that many reported collisions.
As for other distractions, I can recall a couple of radio changing incidents, a guy getting a little "action" from his passenger, and even bouncing dogs and yelling kids, but not enough to even recall the last time I had one.
The most common primary collision factor is "unsafe speed."
I know my little cousing can thank a "MAAD" mother (as posted on her bumper) for running a red light and causing an accident that he will have to walk with a cane for the rest of his life.
Okay ... and we have dope dealers with DARE stickers on their car. And, I presume you meant to refer to "MADD".
I will find the link that will back my statement on this in some states we are talking upward in the millions. I will repost when I find it.
Okay. Like I said, I don't know how it is in other states. And I would wager to guess that your site does not have the costs related to DUIs. Costs for enforcement, for loss of productivity, injury, damage, loss of life, etc. The fines paid are minimal compared to all that.
And still, even if the fines WERE Draconian, people still drive impaired ... that doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Personally, I don't care HOW much the DUI driver has to pay. Since we arrest the same people for DUI all the flippin' time, whatever we're doing certainly is not harsh enough.
I have never seen that stas that most impared subjects won't use so I can not comment.
When given the option of driving themself or taking public transportation, the impaired subject will almost always opt to drive themself. One of the effects of alcohol is self-delusion ... "I'm fine!" Even friends have a difficult time getting sloshed pals to ride with them as opposed to driving.
If no public transportation is available, the designated driver concept is a good one. And to use the lack of public transportation as an excuse for drunk driving would be obscene (I know you aren't advocating that as an excuse ... at least I HOPE not). There is no "right" to go out drinking.
We will agree to disagree here. It is an easy way to blanket impairment. I will asusme that you have seen people that were totally unable to drive with a .08 and I am sure they have been people that you reasonable though were safe to get home at .08.
It's a medical fact - not just my opinion. So you can disagree all you want, but, sadly, you'd be wrong.
Once again the outward, objective signs of impairment are not always apprent to the casual observer. One can be impaired and not be slurring their speech, stumbling, or falling drown. But there is no way that you can overcome the effects of the CNS depressant on the system ... it DOES impair motor skills ... it DOES impair reaction and response time ... and it DOES impair perceptions.
Agreed but outward apperance does count for something. Since it is part of the CNS certain functions and motor skills will be affected and the FST should be able to determine that.
The standardized FSTs are designed to do just that - to look beyond the outward appearances. Since some chronic alcoholics can function just fine (on the outside) at even .20, and many career military people can do some of the FSTs just fine at the same BAC, the standardized FSTs are designed to mesh together to look at a bigger picture and for other clues than the obvious wobble and stumble.
Again, it should be a collection of evidence that determines impairment.
It is. And if you are .08 or higher, it's a medical fact.
FST's are not created to determine if the driver is sober, they are there to build evidence.
And to determine if the driver is impaired. I have done FSTs and found drivers victim of everything from a bad drug interaction to strokes and diabetic seizures.
A person can ace their FST's but with the light and eye test a cop can say he has just cause (funny how that is not recorded where you can see the results) to order a breath test.
You're oversimplifying the "light and eye" test. If done correctly, it (the Nystagmus test) is the single most accurate determinant of all the tests. If I had to do only ONE of the tests, it would be the HGN/VGN test. Taken in conjunction with he others, the battery has an astronomical accuracy rate.
If there is evidence the person is impared at the .02 level I am all for it as well. But again a magic number can not determine that.
But medical science has.
That is great but why not have the same punishments that a DUI has?
Because they are not (yet) the demonstrable threat to driving, that's why. And the distraction is not the same as an impairment.
Where I disagree is that the law has become not to help protect individuals but in cases of DUI it is to prosecute and that is where my problem lies.
The law is NOT about helping individuals, it is about protecting individuals and society from the ravages of a few misguided or plainly eveil people.
In my state most DUIs are subject to fines and counseling the first time around. The goal is to help the driver. Unfortunately, it seems that the majority of DUI drivers don't WANT that help. Either that, or they opt to ignore it because they come back again and again.
- Carl
In my state it sure as heck doesn't make the cities any money! At best, we can recoup our losses after conviction ... IF the defendant has the means to pay for the cost recovery, and IF the local government has established a cost recovery system.