DUI Laws

[neverhadadui]

What is the name of your state? NC

I just wanted to make an observation. NC has the most archaic laws when it comes to DUI. Scott Peterson would get better treatment. Anyway, my question is this. If a man hits his wife, why isn't he penalized as "you could eventually murder your wife"? MADD is a very powerful lobby and I feel that those who drink (and who are not drunk) are treated as if they HAVE murdered somebody. Why don't people care about speeding, teenage drivers, idiots talking on their cell phones??? I do not for one minute agree that people should drive drunk, I just think they are often treated as if they commited a crime that they didn't. "You could have killed someone" So is it fair and just to issue a punishment that doesn't neccesarily fit the crime. I think teenagers should be banned from driving, they are more dangerous than anybody on the road.

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by neverhadadui

Anyway, my question is this. If a man hits his wife, why isn't he penalized as "you could eventually murder your wife"?

Because that is not how the law works.

MADD is a very powerful lobby and I feel that those who drink (and who are not drunk) are treated as if they HAVE murdered somebody.

Ridiculous. If that were the case, then DUI drivers would regularly go to prison ... they do not go to prison, and rarely serve time in jail.

Why don't people care about speeding, teenage drivers, idiots talking on their cell phones???

They do. There are laws restricting all sorts of activities while driving. If you have a pet peeve against cell phones or teen drivers, lobby your legislators to raise the driving age or ban cell phones.

I do not for one minute agree that people should drive drunk, I just think they are often treated as if they commited a crime that they didn't.

If they are found guilty of driving under the influence of alcohol, they will be treated as the law dictates. If they are found guilty of DUI they are found guilty of a crime ... ergo, they DID commit a crime.

I think teenagers should be banned from driving, they are more dangerous than anybody on the road.

Talk to your state legislator. The statistics DO support the fact that 16-19 year olds are the single most dangerous age group on the road, so maybe you can get a groundswell of support for this ... though don't count on getting support for such a thing from the 18-19 year old voters!

- Carl

[neverhadadui]

My point is: A person drives under the influence, they are convicted, they are treated as murderers or the like because they "could have" killed someone (and they didn't). Why is this mentality only applied to DUI cases? Why do you suppose that DUI became such a hot button. Speed kills a lot more people and causes many more accidents, you don't see people running around saying "YOU DON"T DESERVE TO DRIVE" to people who are convicted of multiple speeding offenses. Where is the logic?

[Blue Meanie]

Originally Posted by neverhadadui

My point is: A person drives under the influence, they are convicted, they are treated as murderers or the like because they "could have" killed someone (and they didn't). Why is this mentality only applied to DUI cases? Why do you suppose that DUI became such a hot button. Speed kills a lot more people and causes many more accidents, you don't see people running around saying "YOU DON"T DESERVE TO DRIVE" to people who are convicted of multiple speeding offenses. Where is the logic?

Please show me the statute for ANY state that backs up what you are saying....I'll wait for you to look it up....

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by neverhadadui

My point is: A person drives under the influence, they are convicted, they are treated as murderers or the like because they "could have" killed someone (and they didn't).

But they ARE NOT treated the same!

They are treated as if they drove impaired in violation of the law. They are not charged with a crime stating that they "MIGHT" do something, they are charged with a crime that says they "DID" something - DUI.

Why do you suppose that DUI became such a hot button. Speed kills a lot more people and causes many more accidents, you don't see people running around saying "YOU DON"T DESERVE TO DRIVE" to people who are convicted of multiple speeding offenses. Where is the logic?

The logic is that alcohol is an intentional act that can be identified and prevented. Speeding is also a crime. But DUI effects not only perceptions but reaction time as well. I can't test someone and predict if they are ging to speed or not ... but I CAN test someone and determien that they are impaired and thus a greater risk to safety on the roads. That impairment is the violation of the law not the likelihood that he or she will do some damage to someone.

As I said, if you don't like it, lobby your leglators. But, don't hold your breath on the "ease up on DUI" lobbying efforts bearing fruit.

- Carl

[AHA]

Originally Posted by neverhadadui

My point is: A person drives under the influence, they are convicted, they are treated as murderers or the like because they "could have" killed someone (and they didn't). Why is this mentality only applied to DUI cases? Why do you suppose that DUI became such a hot button. Speed kills a lot more people and causes many more accidents, you don't see people running around saying "YOU DON"T DESERVE TO DRIVE" to people who are convicted of multiple speeding offenses. Where is the logic?

Shouldn't you be grateful that something IS being done about getting criminals off the roads?? Do you WANT more drunks driving irresponsibly and not having the same reaction capacity as sober drivers?

[neverhadadui]

Ok, everyone seems to be missing my point. This is such an emotional issue and it is hard to apply logic. For arguments sake, speeding is intentional and if you suck at judging distance it will affect your reaction time. Insurance companies say that if you drive a red car you are more likely to speed. You are charged a higher premium for driving a corvette becuase you are considered a higher risk. Talking on a cell phone affects reaction time and perception. I don't want drunks driving the streets, I just want to know why people aren't as passionate about other driving habits that are just as deadly.

[CdwJava]

I think we are all against speeding idiots and oblivious idiots on their cell phones or fiddling with the radio. The problem here is a matter of perspective and limitations. In some states, all these folks can get cited. However, these activities are limited and can be shut off at any given moment ... unlike drug or alcohol impairment which remains.

CA began tracking cell phones in our traffic collision reporting about 5 or 6 years back, I believe, and so far it has not even made it on the radar screen - this means that it its influence is so miniscule as to be somewhere LESS than .029% (that is a little less than 1/33 of 1%) of all injury or fatal traffic collisions in CA.

Anectodally, I have to say that in my 15 years of law enforcement and with more than 500 traffic collision investigations behind me, I have NEVER come across a collision where a cell phone was even a contributing factor.

That may be why no one gets excited about it. Studies may show that people drive poorly on the phone (or with any other distraction), but they do not bear out that these folks are involved in a remotely significant proportion of collisions.

- Carl

[tranquility]

An excellent summary on the current thinking/statistics on cell phone use in vehicles can be found at:

[url]http://www.ncsl.org/programs/transportation/cellphoneupdate05.htm[/url]

One reason stated as to why there is not a big rush to legislate cell-phone use as compared to driving drunk or seat belt use is because of the utility of the phone. There is no legitimate reason to drive drunk or not use a seat belt, but there are many reaons one would want to use a cell phone.

[BigMistakeFl]

Penalties for murder and DUI are vastly different. I read and reread, but I don't see a connection. Here in Florida, elderly drivers are a big cause of accidents, confusing the brake with the accelerator. But so many people retire to Florida, and they all vote in every single election, so despite the danger they may pose there is no way any elected official is going to assist with licensing restrictions based on age. Statistically, you could carve out a specific age group and reduce accidents overall.

As for cell phones, many of us would agree with you and love to see some restrictions. There are entire nations which ban completely the use of cell phones (GSM's) while driving.

There is some grey area with DUI, as to whether a person has crossed the "legal limit" or not, is or is not too impaired to drive. It's hotly argued here constantly. Better bet is simply to make arrangements for alternate transportation when you want to drink at all. No wondering that way, no risk for all.