Why?

[peanut44]

What is the name of your state? ga

Why is the DUI punishment so stiff compared to all other traffic offenses? I think the penalties are off the charts, and inconsistant with every other traffic penalty out there.

Surely, driving under the influence is not safe, but neither is driving in general. It's the number 1 killer for more than 1 age group, drunk OR sober. The last I heard, the human body is designed to take a blunt force to the head at roughly running speed. Anything over 20 mph could be a killer and if someone wants to remain SAFE, they should not travel very fast. I agree that DUI is RISKIER than driving sober, but by how much... I don't know. I've looked at data from both sides of the argument, and both seem to be full of crap. I've spent plenty of time working with statistics and I know what to look for when somebody is trying to influence the "results".

Lets say that on any given day your average odds for causing an accident are 1 in a million. Even if I was to concede (which I'm not) that your odds are 1,000 times greater by being DUI, the odds of an accident are still only 1/1000. I'd have to believe that running a red light would surely get you an impact with another vehicle WELL before you were able to run it 1,000 times. Running a red light gets you a ticket while dui gets you MANDATORY jail/comm service/treatment/education.

But everybody tells me that dui accidents are completely avoidable. Well, I'd agree that some, or even MOST are, but not all. In fact, most states will find a dui driver at fault even if the sober driver was the one that caused an accident. The TRUTH is that MOST accidents are avoidable even when the driver was sober. What causes accidents? speed and inattention.... It'd be really hard for me to think of an accident (except for an act of god) that couldn't be avoided by SLOWING DOWN AND PAYING ATTENTION. When a sober driver gets into an accident, it's becasue of speed, wet roads, faulty traffic devices, and an animal that ran out in the road, but when a dui accident occurs, it's simply because the driver was drunk. Could NONE of these mitigating factors been present for the drunk guy?

What's more dangerous? A drunk sleeping it off in his car in the bar parking lot, or somebody who's tired and running 120 up the interstate trying to get home at 5am after getting off his night shift. 120 will get you more than the average speeding ticket, but nowhere near the average dui penalty.

If the speed limit is 75, there aren't many cops that'll write a ticket for 76. The dui limit is .08, but you'll never get let go for being .081. In fact, they'll take you to jail being UNDER the limit. Go straight to jail, do not collect $200.

Alcohol is served legally on just about half of all the intersections in america, Why is DUI one of the only traffic offenses that will actually land you in JAIL?

Why does a murderer have the right to not give up his blood without a warrant, while an adult leaving TGI Fridays does not. Because driving is a privelege? Because he signed a contract with the DMV? Then sue him for breach of contract, impose all of the civil penalties you want, but don't hold him down and jab a vein. That just ain't American.

The point I'm trying to make is not that DUI is okey dokey, but that it is prosecuted and penalized much more than many other crimes. The laws are frequently updated so that it's EASIER for the state to get a conviction.

Why cant DUI penalties be similar to other offenses? Some kind of tiered system. Maybe a .09 would get less of a penalty than a .2? Don't you think a guy who got caught 4 times @ .05 is still safer than a guy who got caught 1 time @ .25.

I guess my main rant is about what happened when I went to court. There was a kid in there for get this... DUI, racing, evading, speeding, and hit and run. He had all of the charges merged into 1 DUI and got the same penalty as me. WTF? I was in my driveway without incident.


For those of you who believe ALL traffic issues should carry stiffer penalties, why do you think the rest of the people who vote don't agree with you?

/end rant

 

[fagettaboutit]

For those of you who believe ALL traffic issues should carry stiffer penalties, why do you think the rest of the people who vote don't agree with you?

Good question.

Even though it is a FACT that there are more dangerous driving actions beside drinking and driving, people refuse to believe there are any other dangerous driving actions besides drinking and driving.

Also, it's rather ironic that those who continue to call for harsher DUI penalties refuse to ask the same punishments for those who perform other dangerous driving actions. If harsher punishment is suppose to deter - why not also use it on all drivers who drive unsafe?

Roadway safety has now (some how) become defined by alcohol. And quite frankly, so obsessed with alcohol that we have MADD pleading we shouldn't pay attention to any other issues, besides those that involve alcohol.

When you figure that out, you'll have the answer to your question. But here's a hint; the issue goes a whole lot deeper than roadway safety.

 

[BigMistakeFl]

BigMistakeFl

Short answer is because DUI is not a simple traffic offense, it's a criminal arrest.

 

[comet3]

I don't even know where to begin with you....Obviously you have not had anything regarding drinking and driving happen in your life, well I have, so to let you in on a little secret...it sucks. My brother did it, ran into a house with his truck, killed a guy, and spent 3 weeks of his life in a hospital with 2 of those weeks being under chemical induced coma with a probe in his skull because his brain was swelling. Then spent the next two years in the state pen and still has memory problems. When you are drunk or under the influence your reflexes become slower and your judgement becomes poorer, that also explains why most are avoidable, because when someone is sober, STATISTICS show they are more likely to react to it faster and more appropriately. I'm not saying people that drive home tired are not also at risk, but that's being an adult. YOU are the one responsible! YOU are the one you has to make the CORRECT judgement. You should know if you're capable to drive if you're tired. If not, get a hotel, sleep in your car, stay at a friends. I've done it. It's definitely about making the best decision for you and others safety. If you drink and drive you're irresponsible just as driving when you're dog tired.

 

[fagettaboutit]

If you drink and drive you're irresponsible just as driving when you're dog tired.

So if someone is tired and continues to drive shouldn't they be punished the same as the drinking driver would be? Why should the tired driver receive no punishment when s/he is just as dangerous as the drinking driver?

 

[comet3]

I'm not saying someone that is tired shouldn't be punished. The only hard problem is that it would be hard for some to prove. With alcohol there are obvious impairments and multiple testing that can be done. But unless someone is EXTREMELY tired, unfortunately for police it would be hard to prove. That's why I say with either one it comes back to responsiblity. You have to be responsible to know when you shouldn't drive because you've been drinking or that you're too tired. I do believe/agree that some accidents would be avoided if a "test" could be developed for recognizing drivers "under the sandman"

 

[fagettaboutit]

I'm not saying someone that is tired shouldn't be punished. The only hard problem is that it would be hard for some to prove. With alcohol there are obvious impairments and multiple testing that can be done. But unless someone is EXTREMELY tired, unfortunately for police it would be hard to prove. That's why I say with either one it comes back to responsiblity. You have to be responsible to know when you shouldn't drive because you've been drinking or that you're too tired. I do believe/agree that some accidents would be avoided if a "test" could be developed for recognizing drivers "under the sandman"

Nonsense. When has a cop's observation not been used in court? A person can refuse the test - no evidence of alcohol - yet the cop can still testify. There's skid marks and accident reenactments. There are investigations to determine what happen. But more importantly, why the hell would someone roll or crash their car? Since when has rolling or crashing a car become safe?

Shouldn't everyone (even sober drivers) be responsible for their driving? The very action of crashing or flippin a car is dangerous. Why give those dangerous drivers a pass?

Give them the same courtesy you give someone accused of impaired driving. Arrest, take their licenses and let them have their day in court. They'll get a chance to prove their innocence.

If it's about roadway safety, treat all dangerous driving the same. Death is death and danger is danger.

Like DUI, a cop needs probable cause. Crashing a car should always be enough probable cause to question one's ability to safely drive.

 

[BigMistakeFl]

BigMistakeFl

If a cop observes a driver crossing the center line, for instance, that driver should be pulled over, even if it's only due to fatigue. Remove that driver from the road.

People get tired differently. One person may not sleep well, another might be recovering from cancer treatment and tires easily, while another might be able to stay up indefinitely without any problem.

Consuming alcohol and choosing to drive is another matter. You may not choose to become tired, but you can choose not to drink after you drive. While impairment is impairment, there is a difference when one chooses to self-inflict impairment with chemicals and drives.

 

[CdwJava]

Well, I can observe the objective symptoms of alcohol impairment and I can test for impairment through a battery of standardized tests. There is no such test for impairment prior to a collision such as fatigue, cell phone use, radio station changing, etc. With fatigue, we generally only find out that was a factor when the driver admits he nodded off. By the time we get to the crash, the driver is wide awake ... that adrenaline thing.

If someone gets into a crash, they might get cited for the Primary Collision Factor (or arrested if a misdemeanor or better can be proven) at the scene or later, but, at least in my state, most the PCF offenses that are involved in collisions are infractions for which no custodial arrest is possible.

If you want to advocate for stiffer penalties for the various inattentive driving offenses, go right ahead. I can only enforce those laws that the legislature has enacted. And in my state they have not yet outlawed cell phone use in a car (and I am doubtful that will ever happen) and I doubt that they will criminalize radio changing, either. And, currently, there is no specific offense here for driving tired ... though there probably should be - provided I could prove it if I stopped someone (again, once I make the stop, that adrenaline thing kicks in so proving fatigue becomes quite subjective).

- Carl

 

[peanut44]

With fatigue, we generally only find out that was a factor when the driver admits he nodded off.

- Carl

And when the driver ADMITS to falling asleep behind the wheel************** What would the charge be? What about the penalty?

 

[fagettaboutit]

If a cop observes a driver crossing the center line, for instance, that driver should be pulled over, even if it's only due to fatigue. Remove that driver from the road.

People get tired differently. One person may not sleep well, another might be recovering from cancer treatment and tires easily, while another might be able to stay up indefinitely without any problem.

Consuming alcohol and choosing to drive is another matter. You may not choose to become tired, but you can choose not to drink after you drive. While impairment is impairment, there is a difference when one chooses to self-inflict impairment with chemicals and drives.

Oh boy, I see some reaching here.

If a person knows they're tired (which every person knows what tired feels like), and they continue to drive, that means they are CHOOSING to drive while tired. It doesn't take "self-inflict impairment with chemicals" to make a person a danger to the roadways. A tired driver is just as capable of killing someone. It's just amazing the lengths people will go to inorder to define roadway safety by alcohol. A dangerous driver is a dangerous driver. Why make excuses for dangerous driving because no alcohol was involved?

 

[fagettaboutit]

And when the driver ADMITS to falling asleep behind the wheel************** What would the charge be? What about the penalty?

Either a ticket or a pat on the back followed by a glad you're okay .

In other words, nothing.

It takes a death for such a crash to be considered serious - unless there's alcohol. A sober driver has to kill someone before they're punished. The whole if it saves one life doesn't apply to anything except alcohol, of course.

 

[Shay-Pari'e]

Great! Another thread that will grow into the size of China. Hey peeps! Don't like the laws? Change them, instead of complaining about them.

 

[fagettaboutit]

Great! Another thread that will grow into the size of China. Hey peeps! Don't like the laws? Change them, instead of complaining about them.

Gee, thanks for your words of wisdom. Here some for you. When you see this thread grow, ignore it, unless you have something to add besides advice.

 

[Shay-Pari'e]

Gee, thanks for your words of wisdom. Here some for you. When you see this thread grow, ignore it, unless you have something to add besides advice.

And here I thought this was an ADVICE forum.