Underage DWI

[simpleton1]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? NY

my gf went off the road while drunk a month ago didnt damage anything or her car if that matters. shes 20 and got the dwi, failure to stay right (she ended up on the right side of the road??) and operating a motor vehicle with bac .08 or higher

she had court today and got the other 2 tickets dismissed for a plea bargain on the dwi.

she got a 500.00 fine plus 400.00 surcharge and 1yr revocation of license and didnt mention anything about a probationary license to get to work and school.

im just wondering if you guys think she made out well at her trial and if this case would be considered a win for her lawyer and her or more of a loss? are cases with underage people more likely to be less harsh or does it not matter at all?

also, if the judge didnt say anything about a conditional license does that mean unless she appeals or something theres no way for her to get one? if thats so, would it be wise to appeal or what would be the best way to go about getting one for school? this is also the first offense.

 

[Mass_Shyster]

im just wondering if you guys think she made out well at her trial and if this case would be considered a win for her lawyer and her or more of a loss?

I think she made out extremely well. She's not in jail. I don't know enough about NY DUI laws to comment further.

 

[FlyingRon]

Those under 21 are not eligible for the conditional license. They can do the drinking driving program, but they must serve out the year revocation.
There's no "appeal" available. Such is the double wammy for drinking at all plus getting behind the wheel.

 

[simpleton1]

so theres no way for her to get a license to get to class and work? i mean i know she did a bad thing and all, but if she cant get to work, dont they realize she wont be able to make money to pay off the 2k+ shes in debt now?

also, for one damn dwi shes gonna have to drop out of school cause the nearest bus route is roughly 10 mi. away (she lives way out of the city), her mom works 8-8 every day and ive got class and work myself or id just bring her dumb ass. **** seems so harsh for one **** up her entire life.

do you think it would even be worth it for me to take her down and talk to the clerk about anything like that? also, can anyone please explain why there is no appeals available for dwi's?

thank you all for the replies

 

[cyjeff]

so theres no way for her to get a license to get to class and work? i mean i know she did a bad thing and all, but if she cant get to work, dont they realize she wont be able to make money to pay off the 2k+ shes in debt now?

That is what is meant by the phrase...

Those under 21 are not eligible for the conditional license.​

I guess she is lucky she has a nice boyfriend that will help her out. It is not the court's problem.

also, for one damn dwi shes gonna have to drop out of school cause the nearest bus route is roughly 10 mi. away (she lives way out of the city), her mom works 8-8 every day and ive got class and work myself or id just bring her dumb ass. **** seems so harsh for one **** up her entire life.

There is a reason that drunk driving is held to such strict penalties... because it deserves it.

If you like, I can arrange you to travel with any of the members of law enforcement on this board. You can help them shovel the brains of children off the pavement after a person didn't stop driving after drinking. How about waking up parents in the middle of the night so that you can tell them their children were ejected from a car driven by a drunk and thrown a hundred feet into a tree? How about dealing with a drunken idiot without a scratch that is complaining about his RIGHTS while the blood from the victims he t-boned drips onto the median he crossed.

That should readjust your thinking about what is overkill.

do you think it would even be worth it for me to take her down and talk to the clerk about anything like that? also, can anyone please explain why there is no appeals available for dwi's?

The clerk doesn't have the authority to overrule the judge.

There are appeals.... you appeal on matters of law. You can't just appeal because you don't like the verdict.

 

[FlyingRon]

The clerk doesn't have the authority to overrule the judge.

and the Judge can't act in a way inconsistent with the law.

 

[cyjeff]

and the Judge can't act in a way inconsistent with the law.

Yup...

But our OP was apparently hoping to go around the system by talking to the clerk outside of that meanie judge's hearing.

The system doesn't work like that.

 

[Master Moron]

There is a reason that drunk driving is held to such strict penalties... because it deserves it.

If you like, I can arrange you to travel with any of the members of law enforcement on this board. You can help them shovel the brains of children off the pavement after a person didn't stop driving after drinking. How about waking up parents in the middle of the night so that you can tell them their children were ejected from a car driven by a drunk and thrown a hundred feet into a tree? How about dealing with a drunken idiot without a scratch that is complaining about his RIGHTS while the blood from the victims he t-boned drips onto the median he crossed.

That should readjust your thinking about what is overkill.

And people don't get into horrific accidents due to using cell phones while driving? Or driving while sleepy? Hell, even simply speeding can be enough to cause death. If you're going to justify harsh laws based solely on the potential danger than nearly all traffic offenses should require jail time.

 

[cyjeff]

And people don't get into horrific accidents due to using cell phones while driving? Or driving while sleepy? Hell, even simply speeding can be enough to cause death. If you're going to justify harsh laws based solely on the potential danger than nearly all traffic offenses should require jail time.

Okay, I am with ya.

In the meantime, let's focus on fatal accidents... and the fact that somewhere between 25-50% (depending on the locality) are alcohol related.

Sounds like a compelling statistic to me.

 

[Master Moron]

Okay, I am with ya.

In the meantime, let's focus on fatal accidents... and the fact that somewhere between 25-50% (depending on the locality) are alcohol related.

Sounds like a compelling statistic to me.

Not really, considering how greatly exaggerated those statistics are. Alcohol related fatalities include many deaths where the driver was not drinking.

 

[cyjeff]

Not really, considering how greatly exaggerated those statistics are. Alcohol related fatalities include many deaths where the driver was not drinking.

Name your source.

Thanks.

(Mine, by the way, can be found here....Drunk driving statistics.... from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)....

I can't get the headings to work out right...

It goes...
Year
Total Fatalities
Number Alcohol related
Percentage of fatalities that are alcohol related

1982 43,945 26,173 60
1983 42,589 24,635 58
1984 44,257 24,762 56
1985 43,825 23,167 53
1986 46,087 25,017 54
1987 46,390 24,094 52
1988 47,087 23,833 51
1989 45,582 22,424 49
1990 44,599 22,587 51
1991 41,508 20,159 49
1992 39,250 18,290 47
1993 40,150 17,908 45
1994 40,716 17,308 43
1995 41,817 17,732 42
1996 42,065 17,749 42
1997 42,013 16,711 40
1998 41,501 16,673 40
1999 41,717 16,572 40
2000 41,945 17,380 41
2001 42,196 17,400 41
2002 43,005 17,524 41
2003 42,643 17,013 40
2004 42,518 16,919 39
2005 43,443 16,885 39
2006 42,532 15,829 37
2007 41,059 15,387 37
2008 37,261 13,846 37

 

[CdwJava]

In 2008 in California, according to SWITRS (statewide integrated reporting system), some 22.1% of fatal collisions involved a drinking driver with only 1.4% of the total determined to be NOT impaired.

Some 6% of injury collisions involved drivers that had consumed alcohol with only 0.7% of those NOT impaired.

Some 32% of fatal collisions versus bicyclists or pedestrians involved drivers that had consumed alcohol, with only 1% of those NOT impaired.

And, some 7% of injury collisions versus bicyclists or pedestrians involved drivers that had consumed alcohol, with only 1% of those NOT impaired.

So, at least in my state, there is a high correlation between DUI and fatal collisions, less so with injury collisions. It is unknown how much a part it might play in NON-injury collisions as these are not recorded by SWITRS.

EDIT: Ooops!! I meant 2008 and NOT 1998 ... edited above!

 

[Master Moron]

Name your source.

Thanks.

(Mine, by the way, can be found here....Drunk driving statistics.... from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)....

I can't get the headings to work out right...

It goes...
Year
Total Fatalities
Number Alcohol related
Percentage of fatalities that are alcohol related

1982 43,945 26,173 60
1983 42,589 24,635 58
1984 44,257 24,762 56
1985 43,825 23,167 53
1986 46,087 25,017 54
1987 46,390 24,094 52
1988 47,087 23,833 51
1989 45,582 22,424 49
1990 44,599 22,587 51
1991 41,508 20,159 49
1992 39,250 18,290 47
1993 40,150 17,908 45
1994 40,716 17,308 43
1995 41,817 17,732 42
1996 42,065 17,749 42
1997 42,013 16,711 40
1998 41,501 16,673 40
1999 41,717 16,572 40
2000 41,945 17,380 41
2001 42,196 17,400 41
2002 43,005 17,524 41
2003 42,643 17,013 40
2004 42,518 16,919 39
2005 43,443 16,885 39
2006 42,532 15,829 37
2007 41,059 15,387 37
2008 37,261 13,846 37

Same source as you. Scroll down all the way on the site you linked to:

*According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), "A motor vehicle crash is considered to be alcohol-relatedif at least one driver or non-occupant (such as a pedestrian or pedalcyclist) involved in the crash is determined to have had a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of .01 gram per deciliter (g/dL) or higher. Thus, any fatality that occurs in an alcohol-related crash is considered an alcohol-related fatality. The term 'alcohol-related' does not indicate that a crash or fatality was caused by the presence of alcohol."

 

[cyjeff]

Same source as you. Scroll down all the way on the site you linked to:

Quote:
*According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), "A motor vehicle crash is considered to be alcohol-relatedif at least one driver or non-occupant (such as a pedestrian or pedalcyclist) involved in the crash is determined to have had a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of .01 gram per deciliter (g/dL) or higher. Thus, any fatality that occurs in an alcohol-related crash is considered an alcohol-related fatality. The term 'alcohol-related' does not indicate that a crash or fatality was caused by the presence of alcohol."

So you are saying that as long as ONE of the people involved was drunk then it was alcohol related?

I tell you what. Let's assume that half are wrong.

That still means around one in every five fatalities is alcohol related.

Still WAY too high.

 

[HighwayMan]

If the OP doesn't believe that no conditional license can be obtained he can contact the DMV for information about who is and is not eligible for a conditional license.